National Herald: New Delhi: Monday, May 14, 2018.
“We are in
the fifth month of 2018, and we are yet to start hearing cases filed in 2018.
I’m hearing cases of 2017 November,” says Professor M Sridhar Acharyulu, a
central Information Commissioner. A
Professor of Law at NALSAR University of Law at Hyderabad, he has authored four
books on Right to Information Act. Vacancies have slowed down the functioning
of even the CIC, he admitted when Ashlin Mathew caught up with him this week.
Excerpts from the conversation:
How would
you rate the implementation of the RTI Act ?
Today when
the Commission directs the Supreme Court, they give information; when we direct
the PMO’s office, they are giving information. In 90% of cases, they give information; in 10% of the
applications, there are disputes. But, that is a different issue. I would say
the RTI Act in this country is successful, but I’m apprehensive of the future.
Today there
is a problem with so many vacancies…leaving vacancies is a major crisis of the
administration. RTI is the only source through which people can question
working of Government departments. If this department suffers from a crisis of
manpower, how can people question governance issues in other departments?
There are
reports that the Government is planning to downgrade the rank of Central
Information Commissioners. What is your reaction?
If they
attempt to change the RTI Act, it has to be opposed. I don’t know if they are
doing it or not, but if they do it, people should oppose it. The law is very
clear; the law makers did not contemplate it. In case of them trying to reduce
the stature of the Commissioner, it is not acceptable. Information
Commissioners should be equal to Election Commissioners, who are equal in rank
to Supreme Court judges.
Suppose, I’m
a Secretary level Commissioner, then can I give an order to the office of the
Supreme Court, or order the senior most Cabinet Secretary to give information—I
cannot. Can I even order a University vice-chancellor to give information, I
cannot. So, any officer above the rank of a secretary would be beyond my reach;
that is why the law makers thought it fit to give the rank of a Supreme Court
judge to the Information Commissioner.
The RTI Act
is undoubtedly an intrinsic part of Article 19A, that is freedom of speech and
expression and it was stated by the Supreme Court before 2005 and after 2005
also. That means the right that is enforced by the CIC is a constitutional
right. When a Commission is constituted to implement a constitutional right, it
is a constitutional commission.
Any
institution which implements a constitutional right, it is a constitutional
institution. That is the definition. So, the Constitutional status must be
allowed to stay. It is illegal to reduce the stature of CIC office. I can go to
the extent of saying that it is unconstitutional.In fact, I want the Commission
to take a stand on this, but I don’t know if I can convince my Commission to do
it. I personally feel that the Commission should protect its Constitutional
status.
Minister
of State for Home Affairs, Kiren Rijiju, is on record as saying that people
should stop raising doubts and question authorities. How would you respond to
that?
How can
anyone say that? Accountability is the essence of a democracy. The Government
has to be questioned. We must be ready to take questions and answer them. The government is accountable to people and
they should be made to feel so. People should ask questions, not only under the
RTI Act, but otherwise too. People should also question and be vocal. That is
how democracy survives; otherwise, it is not a democracy.
What are
the major obstacles in the implementation of the RTI Act?
Vacancies in
the Information Commissions are one of the major problems. When vacancies rise,
pendency increases and because of the time lag people feel discouraged to file
second appeals. If there is vacancy of even one Information Commissioner, you
will miss 22 cases heard every day on an average. When a Commission cannot hear
22 cases daily, can you imagine, what will happen?There are supposed to be 11
Commissioners at the Centre, but now there are only seven of us. Soon,four of
us will retire and that will mean four more vacancies.
25,000 second
appeals were registered last year. How can we manage these cases? If there is
no possibility of the second appeal coming up in six months or one year, a
citizen will be definitely disappointed. There must be some information that he
requires in 30 days or 50 days at the most. The problem is that information
being sought is not being revealed. If applicants do not receive the
information in 30 days, they file a first appeal, which is a useless exercise.
Having to file a second appeal means they have to wait for six months and
depending on vacancies, they may have to wait for one year for the information.
How can one implement the RTI Act then?
Why are
Information Commissioners not being appointed?
Unlike the
judiciary the Central Information Commission cannot appoint itself. However, I
don’t think the CIC should be even allowed to do that. The present law is fine
as far as appointment of information commissioners is concerned. The problem is
that the Government is not appointing from all the fields that are mentioned in
Section 12 (4) of the Act.Section 12(4) says that Information Commissioners are
to be appointed from fields of law, science and technology, social service,
management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance.But
currently, most appointments are of government officers. I am not against
government officers, but there should not be more than two of them in a Commission.
From each of the other segment, there should at least be one representative and
probably from social service there could be three. Social service should be
given the top priority.If they don’t do that, non-IAS/IPS officers will be
isolated. Their voice will not prevail; in fact, their voice will be drowned.
People should understand this and demand that there be commissioners from
varied fields. People from only one or two walks of life are there in
Commissions and that is another major problem, along with vacancies.
There should
be 11 Commissioners working all the time. In none of the states are there 11
Commissioners.
The RTI Act
is a great legislation brought about by the people, but the Government is not
taking it seriously. What this government is doing or what the earlier
government is doing is not something I would comment on. I do not want to
politicise it. But keeping vacancies
pending in the Commissions is a strike at the roots of the RTI Act.
I’ll draw an
analogy with the judiciary. Today at least 30% of the posts in the judiciary
are vacant, that means 30% of justice is postponed. We don’t know how long it
will be postponed; nobody talks about this. This means 30% of criminals will get bail because prosecution
is getting delayed. When 30% of the criminals get bail, imagine the increase in
the rate of crime. Information
Commission’s posts are sanctioned posts, which means that the money to be spent
on this post is already available with the government. 30% of judicial
vacancies and some percentage of Information Commission vacancies. What is the
government doing with this money? Where is the money going?
What do
you think is the relevance of the Commission?
The
Commission is the only institution which can strengthen, support, increase and
build-up strong foundations for transparency and people’s right to ask for
information. The Commission alone can do it. According to the legal setup, the
Commission has enough power and enough scope and infrastructure to help people.
Except, of course, for the vacancies that are increasing.