RTI Article=Sanjog

C1A-42 B M.I.G.FLATS,JANAKPURI,NEW DELHI-110058

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT-2005 DOES IT EMPOWER PEOPLE?

-SANJOG MAHESHWARI

Variously hailed as : “the best thing to happen since independence, “A vital instrument for cutting down corruption”, “the life and blood of democracy”, “ a very effective instrument in the hands of a common man to fight injustice and make governance transparent”,“harbinger of new order in which people would be freed from the curse and scourge of corruption and bribery” and so forth, the Right To Information Act-2005, when came into force from 12^th
October 2005, raised hopes and aspirations of the people sky-high. The corrupt bureaucracy in the flush of the Applications under the RTI law was so rattled that in their first move to blunt its effectiveness, persuaded the all too willing cabinet committee to approve an amendment to exempt file notings and cabinet papers from disclosure under the Act. The proposed Amendment to the Act brought about within less than a year of the main Act coming in the force, was opposed tooth and nail by almost every right minded citizen. On the expected lines it was vociferously advocated and espoused by the politico-bureaucratic entrenched vested interests and the foot-dragging officialdom within the government. Even Mr. O.P.Kejariwal, one of the five members of the Central Information Commission appointed under the Act wrote to the Prime Minister calling the decision ‘the last desperate attempt on the part of some vested interests within the Government to protect their identities from being exposed’. Under the tremendous pressure thus brought about, the Government had to abandon the proposed Amendment and the R.T.I. Act survived the first attempt to maim and cripple it.
The most powerful piece of legislation for people’s empowerment sounded so good on paper. But only on paper.How wrong we were in forgetting that we live in a society where more the things change, more they remain the same. The RTI Act 05 was dealt another blow to curb and crush its increasing use by the public. Simple trick: Render taking resort to it as cumbersome and costly as possible to discourage enthusiastic information-seekers.
The crippling blow came in theform of the dubious “Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007 which came into force with effect from 21-06-2007. It simply puts the Act well beyond the reach of a Common Man, the one for whom the Act was, in fact, intended by prescribing a very costly and cumbersome procedure for filing appeals and complaints to the 2^nd Appellate Authority- The Central Information Commission. The clever bureaucracy is so skilled in the art of dodging and has so many tricks up its dirty sleeves in giving the slip to inconvenient queries and disowning responsibility that they can easily get away without supplying the information they want to conceal or by supplying incomplete information and load you with information that you do not want, of course at your cost and expenses, and at the same time escape punishment with consummate dexterity that after a long waiting and all the toil and labour, you find yourself back to square one ; poorer by a few hundred rupees. Only an abysmally low number of them could be caught and penalized under the Act for either not giving or giving false or incomplete information.
Sample a few cases out of hundreds of such cases: (a) In complaint case No.S2-446 (C)/07 of 2007, the Public Information Officer and the 1^st Appellate Authority Ghaziabad Development Authority both got away without being slapped with any penalty or punishment even when the former supplied some unwanted and unsought-for information about three months after the date of the Application dated 11-04-2007 and the later the 1^st Appellate Authority Ghaziabad Development Authority had out rightly refused to receive the Memo of First Appeal. The aggrieved Complainant is still waiting for necessary orders against his 2^nd Appeal and Complaint in the case from the U.P. State Commission though the 1^st hearing in the case was held at State Commission’s office, Lucknow on 10^th July 07 in which the above Public Authorities were mildly admonished and only verbally directed to supply correct and complete information and requested documents by the Commission which they found too mild to be taken seriously and,as expected, ignored with impunity. The State Commission was again apprised of the facts vide Applicant’s Application dated 13^th July 2007 but action on it is still awaited. However, if past experience is any indication, the chances of any action on it are quite remote. (b) In case No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00574 the CIC vide their Order dated 19-07-07, inter-alia, observed, “The Information solicited herein is about policy matters for which no definite answer could have been given.” And there you are looking like an idiot with a highly stung and agonized public authority to contend with. Are policy matters the sacred cow not open to public scrutiny, debate and course correction even when they are blatantly discriminatory against one section of the Senior citizens and Pensioners vis-à-vis the similarly placed other and violate the Constitutional provisions that guarantee equality of opportunity and parity between the similarly placed citizens?(c) In yet another case no date of hearing has so far been intimated though the 2^nd
Appeal was filed with the CIC and the 2^nd Appellate Authority as early as on 4^th May 2007. A labyrinthine, long, complex and costly course has to be negotiated before the cases reach the 2^nd Appellate Authority where mostly disenchantment greets the hapless Information seeker. The offending Public Authorities seem to revel in the secured belief that the bureaucratic fraternity up there in the Information Commission will be acquiescent to fraternal considerations and will
not bring any harm to them. Thus in most of the cases the aggrieved Petitioners do not get justice even after spending a fortune and suffering acute mental torture, tension and harassment for various acts of omission and commission of the Public Authorities. All thisinvariably leads to undermining the common man’s faith in the infant Act.
Thanks Regulations 2007, to agitate Law under the provisions of the Act now involves so much complex and costly procedure that palm-greasing for getting the work done has once again become far more soft, sure, safe, easier, comfortable and, therefore, tempting option for the common man. So where are we now? Back to squire one.
-SANJOG MAHESHWARI

C1A-42 B M.I.G.FLATS,JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI-110058