RTI CASES GO NOWHERE

SANJOG MAHESHWRI

R.T.I. cases go nowhere

- SANJOG MAHESHWARI

That which is good enough for us is that which is not too bad. It is good enough for us that not so long ago, the Congress-led U.P.A. Government enacted and enshrined a theoretically good law called Right to Information Act 2005 in the statute book. Quite expectedly, the people lapped it up in the fond belief that now they are empowered to conduct social audit and make some contribution towards ushering in a corruption-free society and smashing India’s image as one of the five most corrupt countries of the world. People began asking questions under the RTI Act., not always comfortable to those in the authority. And that marked the beginning of the end of the short term euphoria of the people. The bureaucracy took it as an affront to their thus far unquestioned supremacy and authority. They are there by their own right to ask questions; not to give answers and offer explanations. When were they taught answering questions and queries?

The foot-dragging officialdom, already past-master in the art of dodging devised umpteen ways to evade giving correct and complete reply to the uncomfortable queries with total impunity. The initial fear, if at all was there, soon evaporated and vanished in thin air when they learnt that there had been no such political will to root out corruption through the RTI Act, in the first place. It was the political compulsion of the ruling Congress-led U.P.A. Government that gave birth to the Act. After-all, how could they tolerate their predecessor, the BJP-led NDA government legislating for the first time ever in free India a people-friendly and empowering law like Freedom of Information Act 2002 and get away with all the credit for it? That credit must necessarily be jacked and snatched from them. They decided to make some changes in the law to make it look more progressive, participatory and meaningful for the appearance sake only and to repeal the Freedom of Information Act-2002 and to enact another law under the title RTI Act-2005. So, the Act born out of the political-compulsions-as against political-will of the UPA government- is heavily laced with political overtones.

When the genesis of the new law became clear to the bureaucracy, they started cultivating their own bright ideas to subvert and circumvent its people-empowering provisions in so many ingenious ways, which were very easy for them to devise, but left quite a few information-seekers baffling and fuming at their complete and total helplessness in securing the information and documents even after spending a fortune for them and toiling hard for years on end in pursuit of the justice. Though most of the people have long seen through the game but they have been and still are totally helpless to do anything about it particularly because the clever bureaucracy has made it a point to provide any or every information or document, if asked for by some political heavyweight, N.G.O. or an otherwise bigwig.

However, nothing prevents the ruling class still to show-case it as one of its so-called “achievements” in the run-up of general elections.

While the Right to Information Act-2005 was thus brought on the Statute Book, professedly, for effectuating the right to information recognized under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and came into force with effect from 12^th October, 2005, the ground realties have an altogether different story to tell.

Pensioner Mr. R filed application seeking certified copies of his Service Book & Leave Account, P.P.O and some information regarding his leave encashment details retiral dues and arrears. About two years roll by NOT a scrap of relevant material, document and information has been made available to him by the Public Information Officer of the Public authority of a Central Government autonomous body- the custodian of the requested records and information.. The Central Information Commissioner in his order on the 2^nd Appeal of the information seeker advises the applicant to help locate the records and information, and (closes the appeal?) at the Commission’s end. The Public authority cleverly attempts to evade the responsibility by misinterpreting these orders to mean that the applicant information seeker must provide them copies of certain hypothetical documents of unspecified description which, he neither has nor is supposed to have for the simple reason that the custodian of all manner of such records and documents is also the same Public authority from which the information and the requested documents are being sought and not the information seeker himself. While there is no provision of any such quid pro quos in the Act, which simply mandates to provide all the requested information and documents, not otherwise specifically barred, on payment of the prescribed fees and charges, the authorities that be arrogate to themselves all powers to bully and harass the information seeker and deny him the sought information and documents with impunity in spite of the Law. Even after more than a year his application for special leave to review the order filed with the Chief Information Commissioner has not drawn any response from the Commission and there is no light for the information seeker at the end of the tunnel. The same is the case with his medical reimbursement bills amounting to about Rs.5000/-. While the two bills were sent under the Speed Post from two different Post Offices on two different dates within a period of one month and the Public Authority is feigning complete ignorance about them despite of providing all proves obtained from the Postal authorities confirming their delivery to the office of the public authority. The C.I.C with whom the Complaint u/s 18 of the Act was lodged in the case, has been looking the other way. As for the former case, the crowning irony is: Instead of providing the requested records and information as mandated under the Act, the custodian of the records and the information i.e. the concerned public authority it-self is asking for -not even vaguely specified- documents and information from the information seeker himself. For the reasons better known to him only, the Central Information commissioner finds nothing wrong in it, considers such a move “reasonable” and, in the ultimate show of justice-delivery, absolves the custodian from his bounden duty and responsibility of providing the requested documents and information and, slams, for good, the doors of justice for the poor information seeker. Poorer by a few hundred rupees and more frustrated than ever before he is back to square one, licking his wounds while an already hugely hostile and immensely infuriated mighty public authority gets still more hostile against the information seeker who is then punished for the sin of requesting for information and documents so very vital and important for him. He does not have deep pockets to follow it up in the courts of law.

Ours is the most difficult country for getting justice even if one has been wronged. Whether it is so because of or in spite of all those empowering Laws; only God knows. If you feel that you have been rubbed on the wrong side by an executive action, your best bet is to suffer in silence and never ever invite still more trouble by agitating the appropriate Law.

R’s is not an isolated case. Quite a few have walked along his path and suffered the similar fate. In fact, barring those filed by the N.G.Os, powerful and influential persons, politicians, activists and organizations, almost every other filed by some Nobody is condemned to a similar fate and has a similar sordid story to narrate.

Once the activist late H.D.Shourie of Common Cause invited victims who suffered injustice at the hands of consumer courts to narrate their stories to him and was astounded to find that there were so many who lost only because they could not observe a few trivial formalities and technicalities. Is there any other Sourie around to compile such a list of ill-fated information-seekers who strove hard to get justice from the Information Commissions only to be greeted by disappointment after a frustrating experience of treading a labyrinthine course in quest for justice under the much touted “ Right to Information Act- 2005? For Mr. Nobody invariably there is darkness at the end of the tunnel. And that will remain like that till the Act is thoroughly revamped and the officialdom sheds its colonial days mind-set and recognizes our system of governance as “democracy.”

Are the activists and those in the authority also listening?

-SANJOG MAHESHWARI