Hindu
Business Line: New Delhi: Thursday, 02 October 2014.
Recent court
rulings pose a problem:
The Right to
Information was supposedly India’s version of glasnost. The law became the talk
of the town overnight. It made a quick impact in almost all walks of governance
from stock exchanges to science and technology, from discoms to defence, from
Padma awards to Prime Ministers’ foreign visits, and from file notings to
families of the President of India, and so on.
The journey
of the RTI followed the dictum of Hubert Humphrey, the bureaucrat in Yes
Minister: “Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and
debate”.
However, in
the last couple of years, several trends point to RTI losing its way.
Effects of
activism:
A handful of
RTI activists have had a pernicious effect on the system. They are flooding the
RTI functionaries with applications, reminders, appeals, submissions, request
for compliance and intent to file further appeals/complaints.
RTI
functionaries are caught up in correspondence work without releasing much
information. A miniscule minority is holding the majority to ransom.
The number of
pending appeals and complaints before the Commission is an area of concern. The
website of the Central Information Commission (CIC) indicates that the pending
cases as of September this year are 68 per cent up from September last year.
The
information seeker may have to wait for about 12-15 months for a decision. The
stakeholders are exasperated by such delays in RTI matters, since the
information sought by them is not an end in itself.
What’s worse,
the CIC is functioning without the Chief Information Commissioner (‘Chief IC’),
since August 23, when Rajeev Mathur demitted office.
This
lackadaisical attitude runs against the spirit of the law. The public
authorities concerned were supposed to get their suo moto disclosures audited
by a third party within six months, and were meant submit a compliance report
to both the Department of Personnel and Training and the CIC by April 2013. So
far, no such audit reports have been sent.
A recent
circular dated September 22 of the Department of Personnel and Training has
again insisted that the public authorities should ensure compliance with the
guidelines at the earliest.
The selection
of third party auditor however is left to the imagination of the public
authorities.
Judicial
error:
Meanwhile,
there have been certain questionable judicial interpretations.
The judgment
of the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Chief Information Commissioner
and another vs State of Manipur and another has interpreted that the procedures
for filing appeal and complaints before the Commission are independent and that
while dealing with the complaint the Commissions can only impose a penalty, and
cannot direct disclosure of information. In practice, this throws up various
challenges. In a serious blow to transparency, the Madras High Court has
recently said RTI applicants must give reasons for seeking information.
However, the
law itself does not require specifying any such reasons while seeking
information under RTI Act. This direction of the court has evoked debate.
If the
information seeker has to give reasons for seeking information it is likely
that the application will be opposed by the public institutions at the
admission level.
I am a
short-term pessimist and a long-term optimist for the future of RTI in India.
It would be a pity if a pathbreaking law such as this is rendered ineffective
so soon.
(The
writer is a civil servant pursuing his PhD)
.JPG)
.JPG)
