Bloomberg Quint: New Delhi: Wednesday, November
28, 2018.
A majority of India’s public authorities
have failed an information transparency audit of their websites. Be it
ministries, universities, banks or corporations, 35% of all the government
bodies audited got an ‘E’ grade, the lowest ranking possible. An ‘A’ grade is
over 90%, while the ‘E’ grade of below 60% means failure.
The audit, commissioned by the Central
Information Commission, relates to the proactive disclosure of information by
public authorities as mandated under section 4 of the RTI Act.
However, the report has revealed rampant
non-compliance in disclosing basic information about their functioning. What
this means is that our authorities are not disclosing the information that they
should be putting out in public.
But why so? What are they hiding?
The audit report lists information
regarding the transfer of officers, how authorities allocate and utilise their
funds, foreign trips by officials, and even minutes of meetings.
Among the worst offenders are bodies like
the Central Vigilance Commission, the Election Commission, a host of
ministries, as well as financial institutions like UCO Bank and Punjab National
Bank.
The report titled, ‘ Transparency Audit
of Disclosures u/s 4 of the Right to Information Act by the Public Authorities’
was undertaken by AN Tiwari, former chief information commissioner, and MM
Ansari, former information commissioner. Not just the findings of the report,
but even the audit process itself illustrates the current state of information
disclosure by authorities.
“We reached out to 2,092 public
authorities and only 830 responded to our proforma. This, despite four
reminders. And even among the responses we got, a lot of information was found
to be sketchy and exaggerated.”
MM Ansari, co-author of the audit report
told The Quint
No Info on Transfers or Foreign Tours
Ansari and Tiwari detail ‘vital
information’ that they have found to be missing from the authorities’ websites.
Some of the most important ones include:
- Policies on transfer and posting of senior officers deployed at important and sensitive places
- Decision-making process
- Minutes of meetings of various committees and boards
- RTI applications and appeals received and their responses
- Details of domestic and foreign visits undertaken by the senior officials
- Sources and methods of funding political parties or identification of donors
“This report reveals the utter lack of
commitment and seriousness of our public authorities and the government towards
information transparency,” said Anjali Bharadwaj, an RTI activist and founding
member of Satark Nagrik Sangathan, an NGO promoting transparency, told The
Quint.
Other types of information include
details of the grievance redressal mechanisms, consultation with the public on
the proposed major policy decisions, criteria/guidelines for allocation and
utilisation of CSR funds by the Public Sector Enterprises, and discretionary
and non-discretionary Grants.
“One
of the responses we got during our audit was that their websites were not
structured to carry all the necessary information. Following our proforma and
report, many have said that they will undertake a redesigning of their
websites,” said Ansari.
Why the Findings Matter
The publication of the report is itself
wrapped in irony. Anjali Bharadwaj, an RTI activist, told The Quint:
“The irony lies in the fact that we had
filed an RTI to access this report but were denied a copy of it. The
justification provided for the denial was that the report was too voluminous.
However, eventually the CIC agreed to make it public.”
Anjali Bharadwaj, RTI Activist
The 73-page report has ranked the 838
audited public authorities on a scale of A to E. Those whose have scored
between 90-100% were awarded an ‘A’ grade while those who got below 60 percent
got an ‘E’, the lowest grade. While 292 (35%) fell in the ‘E’ category, only
158 (19%) got an A.
So who are the ones who failed the audit
with an ‘E’ grade ?
Among the notable names are the Central
Vigilance Commission, Secretariat of the Election Commission of India, Ministry
of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Ministry of Power, Ministry of Mines, Ministry of
New and Renewable Energy, Ministry of Tourism, Ministry of AAYUSH.
“Without transparency, there cannot be
good governance and this commitment has to start at the top levels of governance,”
said Ansari.
An interesting insight from the report is
that when it comes to ‘information disclosed under own initiative’, 515 of the
838 respondents (61%) scored an E. Similarly, 60% got an E in the ‘information
as may be prescribed’ parameter.
The scoring was done on the basis of
information disclosed under six parameters:
- Organisation and Functions
- Budget and Programme
- Publicity and Public Interface
- E-Governance
- Information as may be Prescribe
- Information disclosed on own initiative
What About the Ones that Scored an ‘A’?
Nineteen percent of the audited bodies
did get an ‘A’. Does this mean that they have gone out of their way to be
transparent ?
No, not really.
Section 4 of the RTI Act pertains to
‘Obligations of public authorities’ and mandates the suo moto disclosure of
specific categories of information for public authorities.
Section 4(1)(b) specifies 17 categories
of information for which a public authority is obliged to put out information
‘duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the
right to information under this Act’ .
“It is important to remember that the
audit only looks at information put out on the websites,” said Bharadwaj.
“Section 4 talks about putting out information in an accessible way and
websites today are the most accessible form. However, there are many other
forms of putting out information and most have fared poorly on those fronts as
well,” she added.
Some Soul Searching for CIC?
The Central Information Commission itself
has been grappling with an acute shortage of information commissioners. While
the CIC is supposed to have a total 11 commissioners – one chief information
commissioner and ten information commissioners – it currently has seven
vacancies, including that of the chief information commissioner.
“The Information Commission has the power
to summon heads of departments of public authorities. This is their own report
and if they are genuinely serious about the report then they should follow up
with strict action,” said Bharadwaj.
.JPG)
.JPG)
