Moneylife: Pune: Thursday, November 29, 2018.
Earlier this month, Prof Dr M Sridhar
Acharayalu retired as Central Information Commissioner. Prof Acharayalu made
waves by issuing a show cause notices to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) just a
few days before his retirement. Here are excerpts from an interview with Prof
Acharyulu…
Moneylife (ML): How was your five year
tenure as Central Information Commissioner (CIC)?
Prof M Sridhar Acharyulu (Prof
Acharyulu): It was a very learning and satisfactory experience. Even before I
joined CIC, I was studying the Right to Information (RTI) Act all through. I
used to write about it, be critical about it and also give public talks on RTI.
Then, when I got into the job of its implementing and interpreting it, I found
that there is lot more than what I understood – that, RTI is a high potential
legislation which can address the needs of the people in democracy. With RTI we
can implement every other right. Or we can equip ourselves with the capacity to
implement other rights. With RTI, we are also equipped with necessary tools to
realise other fundamental rights, constitutional rights and other natural
rights. That is the most important aspect of the RTI Act. We are yet to
understand its complete potentiality.
Though I am a Professor of Law, I could
never imagine that RTI could be applicable and serve in criminal justice also.
I will give you an example. In Lucknow, a minor girl was kidnapped under the
camouflage of a love affair. It was so perceived by the people and so projected
by the alleged accused too. Then he bribed the police apparently for Rs.50,000
in order not to register any case. Then somebody raised an issue that she was a
minor and a PIL was filed in the court of law. Then the alleged accused, filed
an affidavit stating that if it is proved that she is a minor, he is ready to
go to jail. Then, Siddharth, an RTI activist who is also a lawyer, invoked RTI
in the victim’s school and obtained a copy of her Std X school leaving
certificate which is legally valid as birth certificate. It proved that she was
a minor. Immediately the accused was sent to jail and the bribe he gave to the
police proved useless for him. It was a crime of abduction and she was saved
from human trafficking.
ML: Didn’t you feel suffocated in the
bureaucratic atmosphere, considering that you have been eloquent and given bold
decisions?
Prof Acharyulu: I was all alone in the
CIC, representing the non-bureaucrats, but I also got support from
bureaucrat-turned-CICs, particularly from my colleague Yashovardhan Azad, who
was a former IPS officer and had good knowledge of ground reality. He comes
from a political family and therefore has an understanding of people's problem.
His father is Bhagvat Azad, one of the most honest CMs of Bihar. One of his
brothers is former cricketer, Kirti Azad, member of the 1983 World Cup winning
team and a fighter against corruption. Yashovardhan stood by me all through,
especially when there was a confrontation. We joined together and retired together.
Even today he is with me. He is a wonderful person. Also, in several cases, my
other colleagues supported me and chief information commissioner also supported
me in a couple of cases.
All bureaucrats are not bad, but most of
them are toeing the line of the government and that's the problem. I do not
doubt their integrity. They believe, they have to protect the information of
the government and administration requires a reasonable amount of secrecy.
That’s the problem. They need to understand some of the secret information is
anyway protected by RTI Act, so there's nothing to worry. What they have to
understand is that they should draw the line but they don’t know where exactly
to draw it. That is the conflict; it is not a major conflict but sometimes it
appears like a major conflict.
When a government appoints a person as
CIC who worked with it as an IAS officer in close liaison at a high level, he
has to work with the government, the latter feels it is his duty to work with
the government. I do not blame him for that because once he becomes CIC, the
appointing authority expects favours from him. It’s a practical point and what
kind of favour – don’t direct disclosures for embarrassing information. My
appeal to them is, you have been by God’s grace, appointed as a very important
person as CIC, and hence you must act independently. This is my appeal to all
CICs. I’m not aiming at present or past CICs; I’m generally making an appeal.
Once you become a CIC, you are on par with the Chief Justice of India, so
please behave like him and as independently as he does. Understand the potency
of RTI. Help the people know the government and let the government know about
the people.
ML: What according to you should be the
ratio of retired government officers becoming CIC and independent private
individuals...?
Prof Acharyulu: My suggestion is you just
act according to the law. What does the RTI Act say? Look up Section 12(5). It gives eight fields
of social life. Appoint one from each field and the remaining you may please
appoint as per your choice. There should not be more than one bureaucrat
whether it is central or state commission. I'm not opposing the appointment of
former government officers; they must be appointed as they are experienced and
they know how the administration runs. If they are committed to people then
they can do wonders; if they are committed to the government, then they will do
blunders. They have to choose, whether they want to create wonders or make
blunders. If the government appoints majority of information commissioners from
the field of the people which is the intention of the RTI Act, which is also
the intention of the people who wrote the draft and NGOs who struggled and
organized movements for that purpose; the government must implement it and see
the wonders of RTI. And so long as you do not do, you'll face blunders. That’s
what we are facing. That's the reason for my struggle. I also struggled to be a
known voice in the middle of the bureaucrat world. But when I raised my voice
for the right issues, my colleagues understood its reason, logic and law and
even the hardcore bureaucrats agreed with me.
ML: What would be the state of RTI Act if
these proposed amendments came by, of which you have been vocal about?
Prof Acharyulu: These amendments should
not be carried on and it should be totally opposed by the entire nation. It has
the serious potential of taking away the positive benefits of the RTI act.
These amendments will amount to the killing of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan
(MKSS) movement and democracy. Government has no authority to move this
amendment. It does not have the people's mandate. Today, RTI has to be treated
as the basic structure of democracy of the Constitution of India and it should
not be diluted. Every contesting political party in election should have in its
manifesto mentioning commitment to RTI Act. The governing party should do
something to strengthen the RTI but nothing to weaken it. If they weaken it,
they will be traitors of the nation.
ML: How did you feel when you were pulled
up by the Chief Central Information Commissioner up for your decision of
directing RBI to make information of willful defaulters, public?
Prof Acharyulu: As per the Law, RBI has
no choice but to disclose the list of willful defaulters. It comes under
Section 4.1 (b) of the RTI Act. They have to do it from time to time. Every
three months, whenever they get a report from the bank, about the willful
defaulters, it should be on the website of the banks, RBI, finance ministry and
PMO office.
As for the Chief Information
Commissioner, I felt that he was under pressure. On his own he is a very good
person. I do not want to say anything for which I do not have any proof, but I
feel he was made to speak those things to me. Personally, he does not agree on
all these things, I believe. He also said to me that he is simply communicating
to me the others side. I do not think he pulled me up. Then, my objection was
that when he raised those doubts, I orally cleared all of them.
But unfortunately, what he wrote to me,
appeared in one newspaper, which put the blame on me unnecessarily, without
taking my point of view. It published a one sided version. That really pained
me. Then I thought I should put it in writing to make the record straight. Then
I addressed my letter to the CCIC, stating that you have communicated certain
observations and I'm replying to each one of them. That letter made things
clear and much to the appreciation of the newspaper, it carried my letter in
its entirety.
ML: As per your experience, what are your
views on how individuals are using RTI in this country?
Prof Acharyulu: Approximately 90% of it
is being positively used and 90% of the PIOs are giving information. There
should be a comprehensive study by an objective organisation to assess the
positives of the RTI Act which has not been done for the last 13 years. I feel
critical reviews and criticism is also correct, but in the name of criticism we
shouldn't ignore the positive benefits that really arise out of the use of RTI.
Let the nation not get an impression that RTI is a failure, because it really
isn't true. RTI is not a failure. It’s a resounding and enormous success.
Non-disclosures are happening in 5-10% of
the cases only. They are high profile, and corruption-shielding exercises. The
corrupt fellows are united, big in number; they have huge money which is a
great power and also have power. Power plus money power- that's huge amount of
money power. Money power plus power plus non-disclosure is great power – Power
of 3! Why are they not disclosing that also goes in the favour of RTI? They
fear that the disclosure will destroy them. So you want disclosure but they
don’t want it. And that fear generated by them is a successful outcome of the
RTI Act.
ML: What are the main issues where RTI is
used for?
Prof Acharyulu: Mostly they are using it
for grievance. And most of the RTI users are government employees, even today.
Government employees know the governance, not the people, and that's why they
are questioning and asking for information. The governance is bad so it is
generating so many questions from the government employees. Governance is bad
and leading to the problems for the people, which is why there are so many
questions are raised and RTI applications filed by the people.
Though most of the RTI applications seem
problem based or personal issue based, they reflect governance issues. So, they
should not be considered as selfish RTI applications. If someone is asking
information on his pension, promotion or increment, it may seem as selfish but
he or she is actually questioning the government’s mechanism, they are
questioning your administrative deficiency and your useless governance.
Some RTI applications are about Bhagat
Singh's status in the Government of India. Is he a martyr or not, is he a
freedom fighter or not? Tell me is it
not an interesting and an important question? And if you don't have a policy, I
say it is policy bankrupt-ness. In my view such questions are also of great
importance.
ML: Do you think political parties will
ever come under RTI?
Prof Acharyulu: I must say, the
Commission has failed and I also failed in getting the complaints to be taken
to the logical end. The problem is the bench collapsed because of the recusal
of one CIC who was dealing with complaints against non-compliances of RTI
provisions by six major political parties which are declared as public parties
by CIC. Now once CIC has declared that six political parties are public authorities,
RTI should have been implemented by each one of the six political parties. So,
there is a collective and deliberate failure of the six political parties. And
failure of commission because the bench collapsed and though I wrote some
letters and tried to pursue the commission to constitute an alternative bench,
the situation was beyond my control. I couldn't do anything.
I wish all the political parties -
because they are taking huge favours from the government – should have
volunteered to come under the RTI Act. The single most favour they have is 30%
income tax relief. Suppose they have collected Rs100 crore donation, it is
income. The common man who is earning one lakh rupees per month, is paying Rs
30,000 as tax.
Why don't the political parties give 30%
of their income to the country? Okay, you have got this relaxation because you
are ruling us. Then shouldn't you be held accountable? And, this single most
concession is more than enough to make every political party to come under RTI.
It is atrocious and undemocratic for any political party to be out of the RTI
Act. I'm extremely upset the way the political parties are behaving. Why do you
want High Court or Supreme Court telling you that you should be under the RTI
Act? Don't you have the knowledge? Are you not democratic? Are you not taking
the highest benefits of the democracy? Are you not ruling the country? Don't
you have the responsibility of being accountable and answerable?
So, it is a collective failure of all
political parties, including CIC.
ML: What are your views on killing of RTI
activists?
Prof Acharyulu: There are two kinds of
attack on RTI seekers, seekers of information. One is physical attack which
includes murders, that is loss of life. Second is harassment. Suppose you are
an employee who is seeking information, you'll be dismissed or harassed. Now we
need to protect the information seekers from harassment, physical attacks and
murderous attacks. It is the duty of the democracy. It doesn't mean that they
should be given security for RTI activists. You should have a law like
Whistleblowers Protection Act. It should consider RTI information seeker as
Whistleblowers. Then he should be given all sorts of protections. And they
should be immune from harassment.
Like Security and President of Trade
Union shouldn't be transferred. The same way an RTI seeker should not be
harassed, whether he is a government employee or an outside person. This is the
first level of protection. Secondly, whenever there is an attack, immediate
action should be taken against the person. From a different angle, information
is very powerful and the powerful ones don't want it to come out and for that
they will kill also. I'm unhappy that it is resulting in the killing of people.
ML: Do you think CIC has put all the
information, which the RTI activist was looking for after his murder?
Prof Acharyulu: It should happen and if
it’s not happening- somebody should point it out. In the five years of my
tenure, I haven't received a single complaint from citizens. We made a system
that it should be uploaded. The government drafted a rule which says that after
the death of the appellant, appeal will be abated. I opposed it, activists also
opposed and the government withdrew it in the second draft. The second draft
couldn't be pursued because of RTI rules 2017 redrafted by the DoPT, which
needed further revision but which was not done. Then we pursued with the
commission to have a set of guidelines to deal with this issue and the CIC had
to agree with us. We made certain guidelines which are very conducive for RTI
appeals and appellants. One guideline that is very helpful I for the protection
of RTI activist is - death by any reason of the appellant, not only by
murderous attacks, will not stop the second appeal. Information shall be given,
whether it is in the public interest or not. It shall be given to the
dependents of the applicant or it will be posted to the address given by the
deceased appellant. And if it is of the public interest then it will be posted
on the website. I appreciate Radha Krishna Mathur for this pro-activeness.
ML: So you expect individuals should also
make a complaint …
Prof Acharyulu: Yes, if an appellant has
died for whatever reason, you must write to the CIC.
What I used to do as a commissioner and
this has to be pointed out for its importance...suppose the applicant files a
second appeal and he cannot appear for any reason, due to frustration or
because he was prevented from doing so, the commission has to decide the case
based on the content of the RTI application filed. Absence of the applicant
shall not result in dismissal of appeal. I have never dismissed any such cases.
In fact, most of my landmark orders are in the absence of the applicant. Because
the rule of the civil procedure court says the order must be passed even if
either of the parties is absent. The
judgment should be made, based on the material that is available. This is the
principle of civil procedure. If this happens in civil cases then why should it
not happen in RTI rulings? In all cases, I did not hold back hearings for
absence of the appellant. Nor did I ever punish if a single PIO because he was
absent.
ML: How many cases have you heard? Second
appeals?
Prof Acharyulu: More than 17,000; I
believe it is about 20,000 to 23,000 cases.
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of
Moneylife, an RTI activist and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She
is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting
which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain award for
outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She
co-authored the book “To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart
- Ashok Kamte” with Vinita Kamte and is the author of “The Mighty Fall”.)
.JPG)
.JPG)
