RTI-2005

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT-2005 DOES IT REALLY EMPOWER PEOPLE?

-SANJOG MAHESHWARI

While Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression to every citizen as his Fundamental Right, the fact remains that the people cannot effectively exercise this right unless they know. As early as in 1976, the Apex Court made an observation to this effect in the case of Raj Narain versus State of U.P. However, it took nearly three decades for successive governments at Centre to acknowledge that the people who pay taxes for running the government have a right to correct and complete information about how it is functioning and how their hard-earned money is being spent. In a democratic polity, it is the people who are the masters and as such must be in the know of various issues involved in the matter of governance and administration. In recognition of this fact, the Parliament enacted Right to Information Act-2005, which received the assent of the President of India on 15^th June,2005 and came into force with effect from 12^th October 2005- ( its earlier version- Freedom of Information Act-2002 having proved ineffective was soon repealed)

The new law has been invested with some important empowering provisions for the people, aimed at introducing elements of transparency and accountability in administration and to contain, if not completely eliminate, corruption. The all too gullible people of India soon started dreaming that now they will breathe in a corruption-free environment. However, the corrupt bureaucracy in the very first flush of Applications under the RTI law was so rattled that in their move to blunt its effectiveness, persuaded the 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. The malafide move was, however, foiled; thanks to the huge public outcry against the proposed amendment. Thus the Act survived the first blow “to take life out of it” as aptly observed by Sh.O.P. Kejariwal, Central Information Commissioner and the common man sighed in relief and celebrated the event.

However, the euphoria died too soon. How wrong we were in forgetting that we live in a society where more the things change, more they remain the same. Almost two decades back a similar piece of legislation was enacted under the title: “Consumer Protection Act-1986” to protect the interests of consumers. Its enactment was also greeted with the similar enthusiasm. “Now consumer is king,” they chanted joyously. Twenty years and three amending Acts later, the statute in its practical application is now so riddled with complexities and technicalities that as of now there is no protection under the Act unless a consumer is Somebody. The Amendments contain nothing which is consumer-friendly. In fact some of their provisions are patently consumer-hostile.

The RTI Act seems fated the same way. Because, if it is not the “killed” amendment then it is the dubious “Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007- passed on 13-06-2007 and hastily brought in force within a week i.e. from 21-06-2007- which is proving its un-doing. Ostensibly brought about “for better internal management of the affairs of the Central Information Commission so as to enable it to function effectively”, it actually puts the RTI Act-2005 way beyond the reach of a common man by rendering the process of seeking information under the Act an exorbitantly expensive, unduly complicated, complex, torturous and lengthy affair. Since 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 it easily gets away without supplying the information it wants to conceal or at best by supplying incomplete information and loading the information-seeker with the rubbish he does not want that in 90 out of hundred cases one has to file Complaint or 2^nd Appeal to the Central Information Commission and 2^nd Appellate Authority- the apex body under u/s 18 or 19 of the Act. While what required is to address to the crying need of the day i.e. to force the officialdom to act more responsibly and also standardize the fees and procedure structure in the Act- which differs from State to State- and make it identical throughout the country, the Regulations, 2007 go on to prescribe a very costly, complex and cumbersome procedure for filing the Second Appeal with the apex body i.e. the CIC. Even at this stage the art of dodging in which the bureaucracy is past-master comes handy to them. For example, in a very simple case where an applicant had requested for the information etc. regarding the action taken on and the status of a few representations made by him to a public authority, the Central Information Commission allowed the public authority to get off without supplying any of the requested information. In their order, they observed, “ The information solicited herein is about policy matters for which no definite answer could have been given…………..” They, inter-alia, went on to say, “Yet the respondents are agreeable to allow the appellant to inspect the files / records related to his RTI request…………” (Case No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00574 dated 19-0707). The order could be anything but a direction to the public authority to provide “ status report on the representations” as requested for by the appellant. A single stroke of pen scrubbed down all efforts made by the appellant and at the end of the day (or is it a year?) he was poorer by a few hundred rupees and as ignorant about the status of his representations as before filing the first and second appeals. In an identical case, on the request for information made to the CPIO NCDRC on 17/18-2-08 followed by the First Appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 31-03-08 in respect of a representation dated 05-12-07, the CPIO of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide his letter No. A-2001/NCDRC/2008 dated 22-04-08, inter-alia, informs that “ Section 4(1) (d) does not apply to a judicial proceedings conducted by a Court or Tribunal as it refers only to administrative and quasi judicial decisions of public authorities”. It is conveniently ignored that the appellant is simply interested in knowing the status of his representation dated 05-12-07: the date of its receipt in the Commission’s Registry, daily progress made on it with copies of the related file-notings etc.- a purely administrative matter which has nothing to do with the nitty-gritty of judicial proceedings. In yet another case public authority, Ghaziabad Development Authority, gets off-the hook by supplying grossly incomplete and mostly irrelevant information even after more than a year of the application under the RTI Act duly followed by the first and second appeals at the appropriate levels.(U.P. State Information Commission case No. S-245). These examples are only illustrative and by no means exhaustive. Of course, some success stories are also there but, considering the number of applications filed, they are abysmally few and far between. Thanks to the dubious Regulations 2007, the procedure has been rendered so complex and cumbersome that ultimately it burns you out and makes a deep hole in your pocket. At that stage while your cost and expenses mount, the culprit would, in most of the cases, escape punishment. No more do the foot-dragging and corrupt officials of public authorities feel like running for cover as the imposition of penalties on them under the RTI Act even for their acts of gross negligence and dereliction of duty is unthinkable. This, inter-alia, has undermined the faith of common man in the Act.

Moreover, some Government-funded autonomous bodies have not put in place a proper machinery to deal with RTI Applications. For example, CSIR Laboratories, by and large, have appointed the respective Controllers of Administration public information officers (PIOs). A senior scientist at the laboratory itself is the first appellate authority. All scientists in a C.S.I.R Laboratory, their seniority not withstanding, have to be dependent on Administrative and Accounts personnel for their official and office-related personal work. Even the senior-most among them has to toe the line of action taken by the Controller of Administration and to be acquiescent to everything the Controller of Administration does or does not do. None, except the director, is vested with the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against any of the delinquent staff under the Conduct Rules / Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules – C.C.S.(C.C.A) Rules The arrangement, for the obvious reasons, is not conducive to the result-oriented actions that are required to be taken so far as the proper implementation of the provisions of the R.T.I Act is concerned. In order to achieve the objectives of the RTI Act, it is, therefore, most urgently required that the respective Directors of the Laboratories should be appointed as public information officers (PIOs) and some high ranking officer at the C.S.I.R. Headquarters ( if not the Director General C.S.I.R himself) , the first appellate authority. As the top brass of the Indian bureaucracy adorns the high offices of Central Information Commissioners- the Second Appellate authority under the Act, it would make sense if the First Appellate authority is a disciplinary authority as well. Short of this, the Act, so far as the C.S.I.R. is concerned will continue to remain a lame duck. These are but a few among many such loopholes and lacunae which render the law ineffective. A thorough investigation backed up by prompt corrective measures is overdue.

One of the main objectives of the Act is to bring about systemic changes in governance and curb the devil-may-care attitude of foot-dragging and the corrupt officialdom. The rules of procedure should be simple, easy to follow and less expensive. CIC should see to it that mechanism is such that minimal number of applicants feel impelled to file 2^nd Appeal- all Information-seekers getting correct and complete information at the P.I.O. level itself. It would, therefore, be in the fitness of things if the Regulations 2007 is scraped forthwith. In its place, the government should frame rules to make the procedure and fee-structure uniform, hassle-free, easier and public-friendly throughout the country with a view to encourage people to resort to this method of seeking correct and complete information. By all means, the RTI movement should be reinforced by seeker- friendly law, rules and regulations.

-SANJOG MAHESHWARI