What has ten years of RTI achieved?

The Shillong Times: Shillong: Monday, 10 August 2015.

Ten years ago, Meghalaya was prompt to implement the Right to Information Act, 2005 after a series of protest from sponsors of pro-RTI movement in State, but there is cynicism now over the ultimate result of filing RTI queries as they end up in just providing information to public without resulting in any punitive action against those involved in scams and other mal-practices.

A look at the 10 years of implementation of RTI Act by The Shillong Times reveals that there were more applications from the people over the years, coupled with increase in the disposal of requests, but at the same time rejections of applications and penalties for not providing information were also on the rise.

As per the information provided by the Meghalaya State Information Commission, from 2006 till 2013, there were 6707 requests received from the RTI applicants and 6414 requests were disposed of. The number of rejections was 101. The number of penalty imposed on officials was 34. In 2006, there was no penalty imposed.

The Meghalaya State Information Commission was constituted by the State Government with effect from October 7, 2005. However, the Commission remained non-functional pending appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner who was finally appointed only in February 2006. In the following month, he assumed office.

The first Chief Information Commissioner DP Wahlang recalled that the beginning days were difficult, but later through awareness programmes, people have come forward to file applications.

While the present Commission maintained that there was enthusiasm on the part of the people to file applications in large numbers, the critics of RTI have pointed out that there were many rejections of applications on whimsical grounds by the Public Information Officers and Chief Information Commissioner.

Angela Rangad, RTI activist said that rather than spreading awareness and making the RTI more accessible, the Commission is today mired in bureaucracy that reeks of an attempt to make it difficult for citizens to ask for information.

“Hence it is imperative that there should also be transparency and peoples’ participation in the selection of those in the Information Commission”, she said.

According to Rangad, a decade since the RTI came into being, one cannot deny that it has helped in not only ensuring availability of information but also made citizens participate more effectively in deepening and making more transparent our democracy. “Because of its effectiveness and vast potential to challenge abuses of power, there has always been attempts to subvert the RTI as is currently happening with the Central Government at the moment and closer home it is obvious that the structures meant for furthering the RTI also indulges in subverting and derailing the RTI in Meghalaya”, Rangad said.

When the institution of SIC came about in 2005, it was an effective and people friendly one that upheld the RTI both in letter and spirit, she added.

Anti-corruption crusader Michael Syiem along with others had agitated for long for the implementation of RTI Act.  Syiem said that there is a need to strengthen RTI as transparency is the need of the hour.

A Public Information Officer (PIO), who does not want to be quoted, said that rejections should be minimum with valid ground and PIO should be able to decide by himself on  providing replies to the queries and there should not be any consultation with the higher ups which is against the rule.

Among the major 10 exemptions in section 8 in The Right To Information Act, 2005 is the information related to disclosure of anything which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or anything which leads to incitement of an offence.

Another exemption is the information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

However, some PIOs have resorted to rejection of applications blindly banking on the many exemption clauses in section 8 of the Act, a few RTI applicants said.

But the officials with the office of Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) said that there is always room for first and second appeal if the PIOs reject the RTI applications. Moreover, they said that the role of the CIC is to dispose of the applications impartially.

They also defended that there is no harm in appointing bureaucrats in the Commission as they know the rules and regulations. Moreover, they are familiar with the issues which the departments are handling, the officers added.