The Hindu: New Delhi: Friday, July 27, 2018.
Nikhil Dey
The
amendments being proposed will structurally weaken and nullify the entire Act
The Right to
Information (RTI) Act of 2005 is being weakened absolutely and decisively.
Let’s understand how. For over a decade, citizens of India have tenaciously
protected and guarded this people’s legislation, preventing repeated attempts
to dilute the Act through amendments. Interestingly, no government has bothered
to propose amendments which would make the RTI Act more robust and effective.
The BJP-led
NDA government has diabolically planned and moved a set of targeted and
fashioned amendments to the RTI Act which will not only undermine one part of
the Act but structurally weaken the independence and authority of the only body
that gives it teeth, thereby nullifying the entire Act.
Access to
information
One unique
and attractive feature of the RTI Act was that it did not create a new
bureaucracy for implementing the law. The RTI Act tasked and mandated officials
in every office to change their attitude and duty from one of secrecy to one of
sharing and openness. Despite many officials having a vested interest in not
sharing information, the RTI statute carefully and deliberately empowered the
Information Commission to be the highest authority in the country with the
mandate to order any office in the country to provide information as per the
provisions of the Act. And it empowered the Commission to fine any official who
did not follow the mandate. This was enough of a strategic deterrence, and with
all its difficulties, information did begin to flow out of government files and
offices. In the stifling and dark atmosphere of governance that excluded
people, this was a blast of fresh air and sunshine.
It has led to
a situation where an estimated 70 lakh people apply for information every year.
So probing and effective are many of the questions that powerful vested
interests try to threaten, bribe, cajole, browbeat, and when all else fails,
kill the person seeking to expose their misdeeds. More than 70 people have been
murdered in this fashion. Applicants know that however much the official may
try to stonewall, there is an independent authority which can be approached,
which can extract the information for them, and which can even fine the
official. No other law in the country has set up a mechanism that can, at the
initiative and pursuit of an ordinary citizen, make officials pay a fine from
their salaries for not doing their duty. All this is sought to be diluted so
that the structural credibility of the RTI law crumbles.
Diluting
the Act
One needs to
ask why this is being done in the first place. A spurious excuse is trotted out
in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill. It states that equivalence
in salaries with the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) is not acceptable
because the CEC is a constitutional authority. The RTI Act does not seek to make
the Information Commission a constitutional body. As E.M. Sudarsana
Natchiappan, the Chairperson of the Parliamentary Standing Committee that
examined the law, said in the Rajya Sabha as the law was being discussed: “This
is the essence of the Bill… the mechanism of access to information will depend
on effectiveness of this system. It should therefore be ensured that the
Commission and its functionaries perform their duties independently and with
complete autonomy. For this, it is necessary to elevate their status to that of
the Election Commission of India... If this organisation (the Commission) is
not going to function properly, then what is the purpose of bringing this
enactment? We are not enacting this law just to become a part of the statute book.”
Unfortunately,
that is exactly what the BJP government wants to do to the RTI law.
(Nikhil
Dey is a founder member of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan and the National
Campaign for People’s Right to Information)
BHUPENDER
YADAV
The Bill does
not intend to make any fundamental changes to the Act
Has the Right
to Information Act been weakened?
The
government is committed to transparency and openness. The RTI Amendment Bill,
2018, is aimed at preserving and promoting administrative efficiency and
accountability throughout the country. However, the Opposition has raised some
objections regarding the proposed amendment to the RTI Act.
The RTI Act
was enacted to enable citizens to secure access to information under the
control of public authorities, to promote transparency and accountability in
the working of public authorities, and to constitute a Central Information
Commission and State Information Commissions.
Does not
weaken powers
The Amendment
Bill only intends to empower the Central government to decide the tenures,
salaries and allowances of the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information
Commissioners (IC) of the Central Information Commission and State Information
Commissions through delegated legislation. It neither takes away nor weakens
the powers of the CIC or ICs.
The Bill was
deemed necessary because the existing provisions of the Act do not have an
express provision regarding the salaries, allowances and other terms and
conditions of service of the CIC and ICs. Section 13(5) of the Act equates the
salaries, allowances and other terms and conditions of service of the CIC and ICs
to that of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners
(ECs), respectively.
Similarly,
Section 16(5) equates the salaries, allowances and other terms and conditions
of service of the State CIC to that of the EC.
The salaries,
allowances and other terms and conditions of service of the CEC and ECs are in
turn equal to a judge of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the CIC, ICs, and State
CIC become equivalent to a judge of the Supreme Court in terms of their
salaries, allowances and other terms and conditions of service.
The functions
being carried out by the Election Commission of India and the Central and State
Information Commissions are very different. The Election Commission is a
constitutional body established under Article 324 of the Constitution and is
responsible for the conduct of all elections to Parliament, State legislatures
and to the posts of President and Vice-President. On the other hand, the
Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions are statutory
bodies established under the RTI Act.
Making the
RTI stronger
Since the
mandate of the Election Commission of India and the Central and State
Information Commissions are different, their status and service conditions need
to be rationalised accordingly. The proposed amendment to the RTI Act is
limited to this extent. Further, the proposed amendment will not have any
adverse effect on the salaries, allowances and other conditions of service of
the present incumbents appointed before the commencement of the proposed
amendment. The proposed amendment will not make the office of the CIC and ICs
less attractive as the salaries and allowances will not be lowered.
The Bill does
not intend to make any fundamental changes to the RTI; instead, it will make
the RTI Act more transparent by way of providing express provision for
salaries, allowances and other conditions of service of the CIC and ICs.
(Bhupender
Yadav is a BJP Member of the Rajya Sabha)
BIMAL
JULKA
We need to
think about the pragmatic issues confronting implementation of the Act
Has the Right
to Information Act been weakened?
I respect the
views of all the stakeholders in the RTI ecosystem. However, there is a need to
distinguish between populism and realism. Instead of resorting to the populist
discourse surrounding the issue of likely amendments to the RTI Act, there is a
need to ponder over the pragmatic issues confronting its implementation.
The
meaning of information
It has been
observed that there is a paradigm shift in understanding the meaning of
‘information’ as contained in Section 2(f) and (j) of the Act. The applicants
are increasingly seeking redress of their personal grievances and adjudication
of disputes beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission. The Supreme Court in
CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011) decided that the RTI Act could only provide
information that was available. In Union of India v. Namit Sharma (2013), the
court held that “the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between
two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get
information in possession of a public authority”. Time and again several courts
have defined the jurisdictional powers of the Commission in this respect.
Nonetheless, the Commission encounters adjudication of several personal issues
related to service disputes, fixing of pay and pension, grant of promotion,
settlement of matrimonial disputes, requests for time-bound completions of tax
evasion petitions, accident-related claims and compensation, and so on. Whether
the mandate of the Commission should include such matters is an issue for
public discourse. Another aspect for consideration revolves around the power
and procedure for deciding cases of non-compliance of the Commission’s orders
and associated penal provisions. There is also a need to reassess the
understanding of the term public good or public interest in the broader context
of the ever-evolving nature of the RTI mechanism.
Discuss
substantive issues
The
Commission has an established institutionalised mechanism for examining and
analysing various aspects of the RTI Act and its implementation through weekly
meetings, conventions, seminars, and so on. The proposed amendments never featured
in the discussions of the Commission, and I am confident that the Commission
will take a balanced and considered view in this regard.
At the centre
of the discussion is the need to focus on reassessing the efficacy of the RTI
on the substantive issues of providing information and enforcing the provisions
of the Act, and the awareness of applicants and respondents through periodic
seminars, workshops, etc. Experience indicates that the stakeholders remain
oblivious to their rights and obligations under the RTI Act. On several
occasions, it has been found that the Public Information Officers pass
non-reasoned orders, do not adhere to the timelines prescribed under the Act,
or provide vague, incomplete and misleading information. The Commission also encounters
cases of numerous applications filed by a single applicant on the same subject
matter. This causes disproportionate diversion of resources of the public
authorities.
For an
informed citizenry, all stakeholders, including public-spirited individuals,
youth organisations and NGOs should create awareness about the provisions of
the Act so that the RTI mechanism can be strengthened to usher in a new era of
transparency, accountability and good governance.
(Bimal
Julka is an Information Commissioner. Views are personal)
.JPG)
.JPG)
