Tehelka:
New Delhi: Saturday, October 20, 2012.
SEVEN YEARS after
the Right to Information (RTI) Act was passed, the concerns raised by the prime
minister at the 7th Annual Convention of Information Commissioners on 12
October has left citizens and activists questioning the law’s future. RTI and
socio-political activist Aruna Roy, 66, speaks to Shonali Ghosal about what the
path-breaking law has achieved, how it faces the threat of dilution and how
citizens must stay alert to protect the Act.
EDITED
EXCERPTS FROM AN INTERVIEW
Seven
years on, what is the RTI Act’s significance for the common man?
Democracy was
being talked about only during elections. The RTI Act gave people a chance to
participate not just once in five years, but every day, and question any
decision. The RTI gives the common man a share in governance, alters the
imbalance in power relationships, provides a tool to oppose injustice, and
allows collectives to make democracy work for everyone.
Between
flawed appointment procedures, evasive public authorities, political pressure
and former bureaucrats being posted as Information Commissioners (ICs), what
could help and hurt RTI the most?
There are
three protagonists that need to come together to make RTI work the citizen,
the government and the ICs. The government has hardly shown any interest,
whereas it could have ensured that the bulk of the RTI queries were answered by
proactively placing most of the information in the public domain, without
anyone applying for it. They could easily have more transparent and
consultative appointment procedures for ICs. But, it has completely failed to
do so. Even the HCs and the SC have not shown the same enthusiasm for
transparency as they did prior to the RTI Act. There have been too many stay
orders, and when it came to their own transparency, the SC has even gone in
appeal to itself.
Chhattisgarh
hiked the application fee to Rs 500, Maharashtra restricted the length of
applications to 150 words. Considering such amendments, is RTI getting diluted?
The law
mandates a nominal fee. The rules should facilitate people’s access to
information rather than hamper it. These measures are part of the larger trend
of attacking RTI. The Namit Sharma case was an opportunity to solve problems in
the working of information commissions, but it seems the solution offered has
worsened the problem. It will increase delays and make commissions a less
citizen-friendly place.
What is
your stand on the government filing a review petition against the SC ruling
saying that courts cannot direct it or Parliament to amend RTI?
I hope the
content and arguments during the review ensure a set of orders making
appointment of ICs and functioning of the commissions transparent, accountable,
efficient and citizen-friendly.
The PM has
raised concerns about “vexatious and frivolous” RTI applications and the
possible infringement of personal privacy while providing information.
The phrase
“vexatious and frivolous” was used by the PM in last year’s convention too.
Since then, there have been attempts, primarily through amendments to rules, to
reject such applications. These phrases cannot be objectively defined, and
therefore, the amendments will result in numerous rejections, affecting mostly
the poor and marginalised. This issue has been repeatedly discussed and
resolved in many forums. Even the DoPT has dropped the amendments, so the
matter should be laid to rest. The RTI law has adequate exemptions under
Section 8 to reject applications that are not legitimate, including Section 8
(1)j to deal with privacy. If anything, rules should be made to make sure
institutions such as the CBI don’t get exemptions.
The PM
also talked about public-private partnerships (PPPS) and how a “blanket
extension of the Act to such bodies may discourage private enterprises to enter
into partnerships with the public sector entity”. What should be the ideal
level of accountability for PPPS under RTI?
The PM’s
statement is alarming. Firstly, we must examine why essential public services,
which are the State’s responsibility, are being outsourced to private
companies. Thanks to RTI, there is some accountability in government bodies and
some transparency in the use of public funds. By handing them over to private
bodies, hardwon steps are being rolled back. PPPs providing public services
must be covered under RTI and held to higher standards of transparency, as they
don’t have any intrinsic responsibility towards citizens.
The NCPRI
has been pushing for the Whistleblowers Protection Bill, but what progress can
one expect on the supporting laws if RTI itself faces dilution?
Good laws
will be under threat and face dilution. The RTI journey has shown us why
citizens must remain vigilant and how much can be achieved through
citizencentred institutions. This needs to be accompanied by reforms. That is
why the NCPRI has been advocating a basket of measures, such as the
Whistleblowers Protection Bill, the Grievance Redress Bill and the Lokpal Bill.
What gives
you the greatest sense of achievement on remembering the days when you were
fighting for the RTI Act?
Back then,
people would be puzzled and ask us what RTI had to do with the needs of
ordinary people. It is now used by ordinary people all over the country. The
greatest achievement is of the poorest people being able to wrest their rights
from a feudal and exploitative administration.
Are there
any RTI stories that inspire you?
The use of
RTI in conflict-ridden political conditions in the Northeast, Gujarat in the
post-riots period, in J&K, in Maoist-affected areas, gives us hope that as
a tool to demand information, it works under the most difficult circumstances.
For example, in J&K, where an ordinary villager asked for the records of
the CM’s helicopter usage. Basheer, a villager annoyed with the condition of
his village road, was shocked that the CM couldn’t travel the 30-odd km by
road, and asked for information about the use of the helicopter, fuel
consumption, etc; in Manipur, gun-widows are asking for documents about their
husbands’ deaths and entitlements for their families. The range of use by
millions of citizens asking questions on PDS, MGNREGS, health centres, Cabinet
notes and scams, to mention a few, have not only exposed the system, but in
many cases, shown possibilities of redress through other mechanisms. It would
not be an exaggeration to say that in most cases, the use of RTI has taken us a
step closer to real democracy.
Shailesh
Gandhi
Former
CIC
IMMEDIATE
DANGERS
The recent Supreme Court ruling and three other judgments pronounced last year, along with the PM’s statement pose a fairly threatening situation for RTI
LOOPHOLES
Nothing serious but information commissions could have better staff and appointments of information commissioners should be transparent
TRIUMPHS
It’s changing the power equations between the government and the individual; you don’t need a Kejriwal-like collective to be heard |
Wajahat
Habibullah Former
Chief CIC
IMMEDIATE
DANGERS
No major threat, it’s just part of evolution. We must ensure that changes will not weaken RTI but make it easier to access information
LOOPHOLES
There needs to be uniformity in rules. While high courts fix one application fee, governments at the state and Centre fix something else, which is confusing
TRIUMPHS
It has made the government not only accountable but also aware of its accountability. Earlier, the thinking was that you must not disclose unless you are forced to |
Shonali Ghosal is a Correspondent with Tehelka.
.JPG)
.JPG)
