The Wire: New Delhi: Wednesday, December 20, 2017.
The Right to
Information Act has not been implemented in letter and spirit, which is why the
number of RTI appeals and complaints with the Central Information Commission is
growing.
The Narendra
Modi government has made an oft-repeated commitment to promote transparency and
participatory decision-making processes to contain the scourge of corruption in
public life. While the Right to Information (RTI) Act is used for promoting
free flow of information, the policy of ‘minimum government and maximum
governance’ has been pursued to ensure transparency and accountability in the
functioning of the government.
However, the
evidence presented in the 12th Annual Convention of the Central Information
Commission (CIC) on December 6, 2017, is contrary to the above claims made by
the government.
Responses to
RTI applications submitted to all the central ministries have revealed that
social media is aggressively used to popularise the performance of the
government. A huge amount of money is spent to hire consultants and put out
advertisements, which can be avoided. The mandatory disclosure of information
under Section 4 of the RTI Act is deliberately discouraged by almost all the
central ministries, which is why a large number of RTI appeals and complaints
are filed with the CIC, resulting in the increase in the number of pending
cases for disposal. By the time information is fully or partly disclosed as per
the CIC’s direction, it loses its relevance and utility.
All this was
revealed during the interface between major stakeholders, namely RTI activists,
public information officers of the government departments and the information
commissioners of the Centre and the states. These revelations pose a question:
Is the functioning of the Modi government duly transparent as it claims or it
is hiding more than what is revealed to the public through social media and
advertisements?
The
Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) directed inter alia all the
ministries, vide its order dated April 15, 2013, to: i) appoint a Nodal Officer
who should be responsible for overseeing the compliance voluntarily disclosures
under Section 4 of the Act; and, ii) ensure that every public authority gets
‘transparency audit’ done by a third party. In this context, the CIC was
mandated to randomly check and conduct ‘disclosure audit’. Neither have the
concerned public authorities complied with requirements as stipulated in the
said office order, nor have the DoPT and the CIC taken pains to promote
openness in the functioning of the government. As a result, the functioning of
the government is shrouded in secrecy, as observed by the Institute of
Secretariat Training and Management (ISTM), DoPT.
The ISTM
audit demonstrates that most government departments do not comply with Section
4 of the Act. In the digital age, neither are the websites properly constructed
nor are the information and data regularly revised and updated. Clearly, the
RTI Act has not been implemented in letter and spirit, which is why the number
of RTI appeals and complaints with the CIC is growing. Not only has the cost of
an RTI application been high and rising, but the people are also deprived of
the opportunity of making informed decisions in matters of person and national
development. Information that should be in the public domain is not, which
hints to the perpetuation of ‘the culture of secrecy’ by the bureaucracy and
the political leadership.
The study
done by the ISTM, presented at the conference, shows that a huge amount of
vital information is not displayed on the official websites of the different
ministries/government departments. The missing information fall in the
following categories:
- Decision making process, delegation of powers, duties and responsibilities of officials and the system of compensation paid to them;
- Minutes of meetings of various committees and boards, details of the relevant Acts, rules, instruments, manuals, office orders, custodians of various categories of documents held by the organisation;
- RTI applications and appeals received and their responses, details of Public Information Officers, FAA, Nodal Officer and other facilities available to citizens for obtaining information;
- Details of domestic and foreign visits undertaken by the senior officials;
- Details of mechanism to redress grievances of affected persons, mainly employees, clients and customers;
- Discretionary and Non-discretionary Grants and details of the beneficiaries of subsidy; and,
- Details about Public Private Partnerships and outcomes of such ventures.
It is not
surprising, therefore, that citizens have to file RTI applications for
information which should have been in the public domain. Consider the following
responses to RTI applications:
- The Reserve Bank of India recently disclosed that an amount of Rs 2.28 lakh crore has been written off as non-performing asset over the last decade. In the last six months, more than Rs 55,356 crore was written off by public sector undertakings (PSU) banks. The beneficiary institutions/individuals are however not identified. In the RTI regime, such a huge cost burden on the present generation should have been voluntarily disclosed to the public but the government did not reveal it till asked for.
- Railway Board refused to share the details of losses in the last five years.
- As many as 69 MPs of the Lok Sabha did not comply with the requirement of disclosing their assts and liabilities.
- Record of India’s complaints to the United Nations Security Council on Kashmir has been denied while the relevant documents are available in reports/books by the experts on India-Pakistan relations.
- N.N. Vohra Committee Report, 1983, on nexus between politicians and criminals have been disclosed but its annexures have been withheld as missing or untraceable.
- RTI query revealed that Modi government spent Rs 3755 crore on publicity. Besides, more than Rs 2 crore is spent every on Twitter and Facebook, which are handled by professionals.
This
demonstrates that the intention of the political leadership and bureaucracy is
not to voluntarily disclose information till it is asked for. In many cases,
information seekers have been harassed or information has been denied without
citing reasonable grounds.
The
information panel has also not been able to secure justice for the information
seekers.
Educational
qualifications are not secret documents as the degree/diploma awarding
institutions display the score of marks/grades on the notice boards and declare
them during annual convocations. Yet, a few institutions have chosen to
disallow access to education results of individuals in high places, including
the prime minister. Many people have acquired degrees through fraudulent
methods. Delhi law minister Jitender Singh Tomar, associated with the Aam Aadmi
Party, had to resign after being arrested for allegedly using fake degrees to
enrol as an advocate. Educational institutions must therefore function
transparently rather than encouraging malpractices in admissions and
examinations.
Furthermore,
a strong political will is a must for containing the scourge of corruption in
public life. The CIC declared that all political parties are a public authority
to be covered under the ambit of the RTI Act so that the sources and methods of
their funding could be duly identified and accounted for. However, political
parties have connived to evade disclosure of over 80% of collection of funds,
which in effect becomes a source of influencing political decision to favour
the donors at the costs of innocent majority of citizens and the national
interests. Elected members of parliament, as mentioned above, do not disclose
their assets and liability. Such a disclosure by the then transport minister of
Kerala, Thomas Chandy, had led to his resignation for accumulation of
disproportionate incomes.
While
government departments do not disclose mandatory information even when asked
for under the provisions of the RTI Act, political parties are reluctant to
reveal the sources of funds, which is the root cause of corruption. The purpose
of the RTI legislation is thus defeated. The CIC is unfortunately ineffective
in enforcing the implementation of various provisions of the Act, as it
hesitantly and reluctantly uses its powers to impose mandatory penalty of Rs
25,000 on the information provider and/or awards compensation to information
seekers under Sections 20(1) and 19(8)(b) of the Act, respectively.
Unfortunately, no one questions the lack of responsiveness of public
authorities to comply with the requirements of the RTI regime. Instead, the
information seekers are harassed, humiliated and even eliminated for alleged
vexatious applications for information.
Transparency
is a critical element of good governance and a vibrant democracy. Modi sarkar
may do well to salvage the RTI legislation from the clutches of bureaucracy
that hides more than what it reveals.
(M.M. Ansari
is a former chief information commissioner.)
.JPG)
.JPG)
