The Indian Express: New Delhi: Monday,
May 16, 2016.
The Right to
Information (RTI) Act has undoubtedly been a most empowering legislation for
citizens. The law has initiated the vital task of redistributing power in a
democratic framework. It is perhaps this paradigm shift in the locus of power
that has resulted in consistent efforts by the powerful to denigrate it. The
latest attack on the legislation was witnessed recently in the Rajya Sabha,
with several members of Parliament, across party lines, demanding amendments to
the act.
A key
allegation made on the floor of the House was that the RTI is being widely
misused, especially to blackmail public functionaries. It was also argued that
government servants are unable to take decisions objectively for fear of the
RTI. This is not the first time that the issue of misuse of the RTI Act has
been flagged. The previous prime minister alleged that a large number of
frivolous and vexatious RTI applications are being filed resulting in a
negative impact on the efficiency of the government.
These
assertions, however, are not backed by data or evidence a point which the
office of the previous PM had to publicly concede when the RTI was invoked to
ask for the basis of the PM’s views! Similarly, one of the MPs who raised these
issues in the Rajya Sabha has reportedly admitted that his statements were
based on anecdotal evidence drawn from some isolated cases.
On the
contrary, two national studies on the implementation of the RTI, carried out by
the RTI Assessment and Advocacy Group (RaaG) in collaboration with the National
Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRI), tell a completely different
story. As part of the assessments, 20,000 RTI applications filed to different
public authorities in the country were collected, of which detailed analysis of
a randomly selected sample of 5000 applications was undertaken. Less than 1 per
cent of the RTI applications analysed pointed towards the misuse of the law in
terms of frivolous or vexatious information requests. The majority of
applicants sought basic information about decisions and action taken by the
government, norms related to the functioning of public authorities and the use
of public resources. In fact, the studies showed that close to 70 per cent of
the RTI applications sought information that should either have been made public
proactively or communicated to the applicant without needing to file an RTI
application.
The analysis
also revealed that a little over 1 per cent applications were voluminous, in
terms of requiring a lot of information, which could divert time of public
servants. Again, a majority of the voluminous applications were asking for
information that should have been disclosed proactively. Clearly, the poor
compliance by public authorities with statutory provisions related to proactive
disclosure of information is forcing people to file applications for
information that should be publicly available to them. Even a
government-sponsored nation-wide study in 2009 did not find any evidence to
flag misuse.
In any case,
how can objective government information, obtained under the RTI, be used to
blackmail or harass anyone? On the other hand, if there is some wrongdoing, the
RTI applicant would be rendering a service to the society by exposing it.
Another claim
made by an MP was that anyone, even a “panwadi” (paan seller) and a “chaiwala”
(tea seller), without establishing their locus, can use the RTI to ask
questions on sensitive issues from the government such as national secrets
related to missile programs and international relations.
But the
assertion that the RTI can be used to compromise national security is totally
unfounded. Section 8 of the RTI Act spells out the restrictions to peoples’
right to information. It exempts disclosure of various categories of
information, including information, which would prejudicially affect the
security of India and its relations with a foreign state, and personal information,
which has no bearing on public activity or interest.
Finally, it
is unclear why the honourable MP took exception to the use of the RTI
legislation by citizens from a humble background, like a panwadi or a chaiwala.
After all, our MPs never seem to complain when they get votes and collect taxes
(the poorest of the poor pay indirect taxes) from these very people. Then why
the hesitation to be answerable to them? The RTI Act is premised on the idea
that democracy requires an informed citizenry. Members of Parliament would be
well advised to look at the evidence before mulling amendments to it.
.JPG)
.JPG)
