DailyO: National : Friday, January 20, 2017.
Recently,
information commissioner Madabhushi Sridhar Acharyulu overturned the decision
of the First Appellate Authority of Delhi University, which had refused to
divulge details of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s graduation degree in response
to an RTI application. Little did Acharyulu know that he would face
repercussions for upholding the democratic ideals of the Right to Information
Act on principle.
RTI applicant
Neeraj had sought to know from the DU the total number of students who appeared
in bachelor of arts, year 1978 (the same year that Prime Minister Narendra Modi
is said to have graduated), besides result of all students who appeared in the
examination along with their roll number, name of the students with father’s
name, marks and result pass or failed.
The public
information officer of the university (the first point of contact for
information applications as per the Right to Information Act, 2005) rejected
the information on grounds of privacy and confidentiality as per Section 8 (j)
of the RTI Act. Pursuant to this rejection, a first appeal was filed by Neeraj
with the first appellate officer of Delhi University. But that too resulted in
a rejection.
It was at
this stage that a second appeal was filed before the Central Information
Commission, and the matter came before information commissioner Acharyulu, who
was the authority in-charge of the HRD ministry. The department of higher
education and the University Grants Commission (UGC) both fall under the ambit
of the HRD for purposes of the RTI Act.
Acharyulu was
of the firm opinion that the Delhi University was not able to produce
satisfactory arguments or sufficient evidence to prove that the information
actually sought would violate privacy and confidentiality concerns. By doing
so, he ordered the public information officer of the university to release the
information sought by Neeraj.
In what seems
to be a classic retributive response of speaking truth to power, Acharyulu was
discharged of his duty from his HRD jurisdiction and the same was transferred
to his colleague in the Central Information Commission, Majula Parashar.
The right to information
was conceptualised as a fundamental right as per Article 19 (1) of the
Constitution. The Supreme Court has maintained this position since 1976,
through the case of Raj Narain vs State of Uttar Pradesh, when they pronounced
that people of a democracy cannot express or speak themselves unless they know.
It is not
only disappointing that earnest officers who uphold fundamental rights as
enshrined by the Constitution face backlash, but it also speaks volumes as to
what extent political immunity is implicitly sought by politicians when
legitimate questions are raised about their personal qualifications.
It is the
duty of candidates to mention truthfully and earnestly their educational
qualifications as prescribed by Form 26 of the Representation of Peoples Act,
1951. Last year, the Supreme Court of India has made use of this provision and
the constitutional right to information to explicitly hold that citizens have a
fundamental right to know the educational qualifications of every candidate/
minister and the same can be furnished to him/her without hesitation.
Given such an
enormous legal and constitutional arsenal that backs Neeraj’s RTI application
to seek the prime minister’s educational qualifications, the decision given by
Acharyulu is a welcome move and must be celebrated for upholding the principles
of the Constitution without any hesitation or reluctance, but with the firm and
sole objective of fulfilling his duty.
But what is
of curious concern is that if people like Amit Shah and Arun Jaitley can flaunt
the PM's degree on national television, why a citizen must be denied access to
inspect the said degree defeats reason.
Why an
officer who upholds the citizen’s right to information must be divested of his
HRD charge, coincidentally just two days after his decision, is all the more
surprising. In the world’s largest democracy, corruption and deceit has
overpowered the strong-armed ideals of good governance.
It is
certainly disappointing that bodies set up to instil a sense of transparency
and accountability, such as the Central Information Commission, would work
through bureaucracy to stifle diligent officers. Central information
commissioner R K Mathur refuses to give answers as to why Acharyulu has been
strangely and abruptly relieved of HRD ministry charge, just after the
decision.
Although it
is within the authority of the Central Information Commissioner to reassign
duties to information commissioners, it is also the duty of every citizen to
know why honest officers, who uphold constitutional rights of the citizens,
face the wrath of the political stronghold for performing their duty.
India, as a
country, has never been encouraging and supportive of RTI activists. The number
of murders of RTI activists and the extent to which activists have been hounded
and threatened stands testimony to this. But it is definitely the deepest of travesties
if uncalled for actions were to be taken within the body established to
facilitate the information to such activists. Thomas Jefferson once famously
proclaimed that information is the currency of a democracy.
It is only
ironic that in the world’s largest democracy, demands for information itself
acts as a gateway for treachery in an attempt to destabilise democracy by all
means. Then again, with the current regime such fascist underpinnings have
become the new currency as per the language of Jefferson.
Should one
feel upset with how Acharyulu has been treated? Or should one feel grateful
that he at least did not face institutional wrath that Gujarat officers Sanjiv
Bhat and Rahul Sharma faced for being whistleblowers exposing the state
government’s complicity in the 2002 riots?
Whatever be
the answer, one thing is clear, democracy in India has become a farce.
.JPG)
.JPG)
