Hindu
Business Line: New Delhi: Thursday, 25 September 2014.
When the RTI
Act was passed by Parliament in 2005, many expected it would ensure
transparency in governance. But things didn’t move that way.
Several
instances highlight the fact that the 30-day stipulation to reply to RTI
queries are not met and there have been several cases where RTI letters have
not even been acknowledged and, worse, been ignored.
Bad
response
RTI activists
say appeals sent to information commissioners often receive a lukewarm welcome
and require repeated reminders for the papers to move. Sometimes, the letters
sent by information commissioners to the appellate authorities of the
Government departments to respond to queries are themselves ignored.
The citizens
can take up the issues if RTI replies are not given adequately. But what can
one do if the queries are not acknowledged in spite of repeated reminders?
RTI activists
are of the view that there are no stipulated and transparent procedures such as
qualification and background for appointment of public information officers in
the Government departments or for the appointment of information commissioners.
For example,
in a technically-oriented organisation such as MMDA, a technically qualified
person can serve better as the public information officer since he can
understand the intricacies of the issues better.
Further,
public information officers are given the function only as an additional job
apart from their other duties.
When
information commissioners with unrelated background are appointed for the job,
their standard of performance may not be up to the desired level.
There were
instances of RTI activists facing personal security threats since the content
of the RTI letters are sometimes leaked out to the affected parties by
government departments. This has deterred several persons from filing RTI
applications.
Callous
approach
In some
cases, by way of an RTI reply, government departments refer simply to some URLs
without explaining appropriate details. This not only creates problems for
those who are not trained in the use of computers but also amount to inadequate
and evasive replies. The departments should answer the queries in full
according to the Act.
Sometimes,
the departments simply refuse to provide information, claiming it is
classified. That said, there is no clarity as to what is classified. It would
be appropriate for the Government to clarify that any information that can be
provided to Parliament and the legislative assemblies should also be made
available to the people under the RTI Act.
Many RTI
activists point out that when they approach the consumer courts when they do
not receive proper replies for RTI queries and when information commissioners
don’t take action, the courts refuse to entertain their applications.
In the normal
course, if rules were to be followed by government departments according to the
RTI Act, one should get replies to queries without hassles. Citizens often have
to strive hard to get reply for the queries by repeatedly following up with the
departments. Many people may not be able to devote the time and effort required
to constantly follow up.
While the
rules of the Act are, by and large, well-drafted, the lack of commitment of a
section of the bureaucracy maligns the genuine intentions behind the Act.
(The writer
is a trustee of Nandini Voice For The Deprived)
.JPG)
.JPG)
