YourStory.com: New Delhi: Friday, September 29, 2017.
The historic
Right to Information Act, passed in 2005, struggles to stand its ground today.
If the proposed rules are passed by DoPT, the celebrated act might be rendered
spineless.
A circular,
‘Framing RTI Rules, 2017 in supersession of RTI Rules, 2012’, was issued by the
Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the nodal department in charge of
implementing the RTI, that seeks to replace the 2012 RTI Rules. A 15-day
window, March 30 to April 15, was given to seek public comments on the same.
RTI activists
fear that these proposed changes not only shake the foundations on the basis of
which the act was formed but also put their lives at high risk.
Aruna Roy, a
celebrated activist who championed the RTI Act and a former member of the
National Advisory Committee (NAC) under the UPA government, says:
The
government has tried to undermine the RTI through a new set of rules. More than
60 information seekers have been killed so far because they have sought
information on important, controversial, sensitive issues. And now they are
saying that if an information seeker dies, that information will not be
released. We are saying that we have been fighting for every single
application. No one should think that by killing an individual you will stop
that information from coming out.
Incentivising
attacks on activists
One of the
key contentious changes proposed by the draft rules suggests that the Central
Information Commission (CIC) has the power to quash an RTI application in case
the seeker dies during the period in between. Draft Rule 12 (2) states, “The
proceedings pending before the Commission shall abate on the death of the
appellant.”
This
provision was present in the earlier 2007 regulations as well.
According to
the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative report, attacks on RTI activists had
been on the rise since its implementation. One incident was reported in 2006, seven
in 2007, 13 in 2008, 15 in 2009 and more than 47 cases were registered in 2010.
In 2011, 83 cases of abuse were reported.
In response
to this growing trend of rising attacks on RTI users and activists, the Delhi
High Court quashed the rule in 2011. The CIC in September 2011 stated,
If it (CIC)
receives a complaint regarding assault or murder of an information seeker, it
will examine the pending RTI applications of the victim and order the concerned
Department (s) to publish the requested information suo motu on their web site
as per the provisions of law.
Post this
intervention, following years saw a decrease in these incidents and the
reported cases were 36 in 2013, 26 in 2014 and 21 incidents in 2015.
Activists
fear that the proposed changes will trigger and incentivise attacks to quash
information.
Corruption
is a concern
Further draft
Rule 12 (1) as proposed by the DoPT, states, “The Commission may in its
discretion allow a prayer for withdrawal of an appeal if such a prayer is made
by the appellant on an application made in writing duly signed or during
hearing. However, no such prayer may be entertained by the Commission after the
matter has been finally heard or a decision or order has been pronounced by the
Commission.”
Proponents of
the RTI suggest that this move questions the entire foundation on which it was
conceptualised.
Calling it a
“dangerous” move, Aruna believes that withdrawal of application increases the
chances of an activist being bribed monetarily or otherwise.
It means I
can be bribed or pressurised to withdraw my application. The whole nature of it
(RTI) to fight corruption and arbitrary use of power will go away. It will
become a tool of corrupt practices. I think all of us need to fight. Many more
provisions and changes are coming in through the rules.
Bucking the
legislation
While the
proposed changes in the draft rules found mention in the Parliament, the
legislation has little power over the execution of the law.
Post the
passage of an act by both the houses of the Parliament, it becomes a law.
Rules, on the other hand, are guidelines and procedures passed directly, and
give power to the authorities.
Section 27 of
the RTI Act empowers the central government to implement the law, provide
guidelines for seeking and obtaining information through rules.
Venkatesh
Nayak, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative Programme Coordinator, says,
Executive
directions issued by the DoPT detailing RTI-related procedures from time to
time, strictly speaking, are not ‘law’ because they are never tabled in
Parliament. They do not undergo the mandatory exercise of parliamentary
scrutiny provided for under Section 29 (1) of the act.
Hence,
although parliamentarians can raise concerns about the proposed changes in the
draft rules, the house does not have power to vote for or against these
clauses.
.JPG)
.JPG)
