Newslaundry: New Delhi: Wednesday, July 25, 2018.
The current
prime minister came to power on the back of an evocative slogan: “Na Khaunga,
Na Khane Dunga [I will not engage in corruption, nor will I allow others to do
so]”. His government aimed to stand for accountability and transparency. One
only needs to look at its disinclination to operationalise the Lokpal, the
Whistleblowers Act, and the Grievance Redressal Law to understand that these
slogans and promises were empty words with little conviction. The Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP) government’s attitude towards the Right To Information Act
only bolsters this perception.
The current
prime minister came to power on the back of an evocative slogan: “Na Khaunga,
Na Khane Dunga [I will not engage in corruption, nor will I allow others to do
so]”. His government aimed to stand for accountability and transparency. One
only needs to look at its disinclination to operationalise the Lokpal, the
Whistleblowers Act, and the Grievance Redressal Law to understand that these
slogans and promises were empty words with little conviction. The Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP) government’s attitude towards the Right To Information Act
only bolsters this perception.
The RTI law
passed in 2005—a watershed moment in the Indian context—was meant to usher in
an era of greater transparency. The intent of the Act was to empower citizens
with the truth and make the government more accountable to the governed. Indeed
the RTI has brought the public’s focus on high-level corruption—over the past
10 years, it has brought to light several aspects of the Adarsh scam and the 2G
scam, to name a few. At the same time, that we know so little about the
demonetisation exercise is testament to the limits of the RTI Act. We are
regrettably steering towards an era of disclosure on a need-to-know basis, not
a right-to-know basis. This is precisely what the RTI was supposed to change.
The RTI
Amendment Bill, 2018, is another nail in the RTI coffin. It seeks to weaken the
independence of Information Commissioners. The Opposition got wind of this
proposed amendment only after the legislative agenda of the monsoon session of
Parliament was published, which listed the amendment Bill as an item in a
single line. Needless to say, the clandestine manner in which the government
wants to amend the RTI is in gross violation of the constitutional conventions
that mandate “pre-legislative consultations”.
It is ironic
that the proposed amendment—to a law aimed at bringing transparency—lacks
transparency itself. The Bill is being opposed by several Opposition parties
and RTI activists, who warn that the amendments will dilute the RTI law and
compromise the independence of the Information Commissions.
But this
isn’t the first time the government is attempting to do so. In 2017, it
proposed amendments to the RTI law that would have made the RTI law anything
but user-friendly. The then proposed amendments were in defiance of the Supreme
Court’s orders, and made the process of filing an appeal more cumbersome and
increased the scope of rejection on technical grounds. Perhaps the most
contentious provisions of the rules was the proposal to allow for the
withdrawal of appeals based on a written communication by the appellant, and automatic
closure of proceedings upon death of the appellant.
More
importantly, given the Indian scenario—where RTI applicants continue to be
threatened, occasionally assaulted and even killed—such provisions would have
provided vested interests the option to silence the information seeker through
coercion or physical harm. These concerns are substantiated by the “Hall of
Shame” curated by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, which documented
attacks on RTI activists—since 2007, 65 RTI activists have allegedly been
killed, 157 attacked and 168 threatened.
In the face
of Opposition and sharp criticism from civil society and the Central
Information Commission, the government shelved the proposed rules in June 2018,
offering a brief respite.
Who’s
afraid of RTI?
The
government of today is not alone. “Everybody in power hates the RTI,” said
Shailesh Gandhi, a former Central Information Commissioner, in 2017 to The
Hindu. Other parties, too, have tried to dilute the law though not as blatantly
and disrespectfully such as the BJP is trying to do. Democracy, in its true
sense, guarantees an inclusive atmosphere with plurality of thoughts and voices
coupled with checks and balances. This idea of democracy is adversative to the
Right-wing way of governance. Who benefits from fewer RTI applications and
disclosures? The answer is obvious.
A common
justification used as a defence against the proposed dilution of the RTI is the
misuse of the law and the large number of frivolous, vexatious complaints.
Citizens often resort to satirical queries, and the law serves as a gauge of
the population’s disposition. A few months after this government came into
power, an RTI applicant wanted to know the due date of the promised “achhe
din”. It may be argued that these questions are frivolous and make a strong
case for diluting the RTI, but scope for misuse of an Act can not be a ground
to invalidate it.
The RTI, as
we know, is far from perfect but it is often the only weapon available. The
arrogance of the BJP in introducing such secret amendments that could nullify
all the gains from the RTI stems from its numbers in Parliament and its
influence over public discourse. Any efforts at diluting the RTI must be
fervently opposed, with civil society and lawmakers uniting against the
amendments and rallying together under the banner: “Na Pass Karenge, Na Karne
Denge [will not pass the amendments, nor allow others to do so]”.