Open Forum
New
Delhi, 2 August 2018
Right to Information
GOVT BID TO WEAKEN ACT?
By Dr S.Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
A
Bill to amend the Right to Information Act 2005 seeks to vest the power of
fixing salary and allowances, and deciding postings, transfers and tenure of
Information Commissioners (IC) of the
Central and State Information Commissions including their chiefs (CIC and SCIC)
with the Central government. An impression has gained ground that this will
dilute the powers of the ICs and add to that of the government by vesting not
only the power of appointment but also fixing the terms of appointment.
The
hard earned right to information has, within a span of about a decade, helped
opening of many secrets hidden in official records inaccessible to the public
and hence away from public knowledge.
The
voice of dissent from within the Central Information Commission itself to the
proposed amendment deserves public attention and reaction and also government
response to ascertain its validity, so as to prevent both weakening of the
statutory rights and undue infringement on private area by providing open access to all
kinds of information.
The
argument that the Information Commissions are statutory bodies set up under an
Act of Parliament (2005) and not Constitutional bodies like the Election
Commission and that the Union Government has the power to introduce amendments
to its laws seems valid. The amendment involves a substantial change from the
position taken in the statute, which places the CIC and ICs and SCIC and SICs
as equal to Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (ECs),
who are equal in salary status to Supreme Court Judges.
The
Bill has introduced uncertainty in the status of the Information Commissioners
and the Commission, which in itself is a downward trend. The oft repeated argument
that the right to information stems from the right to freedom guaranteed under Article
19(1) of the Constitution as a fundamental right and cannot be changed is being
threatened.
This
move is in marked contrast to other moves simultaneously going on to bring more
and more departments and agencies of the government and even certain private
organisations under the RTI Act so as to promote transparency in transactions
and day-to-day functioning of institutions and thereby reduce the scope for
corruption and improve efficiency. Prolonged controversy is going on about
bringing political party funding under the RTI.
A
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by three organisations has revealed that
thousands of petitions are pending before the Commissions and many of these for
years, but several posts of ICs remain vacant. Four vacancies in the Central
Commission and in Maharashtra and over 23,500 and 40,000 pending petitions
respectively were reported. Not a single IC is appointed in Andhra Pradesh. There
is no CIC in Gujarat, Nagaland, and Maharashtra. All these are cited as
evidence of prevailing indifference to honour the right to information.
In
many States, the Commissions are not at all active. Voluntary disclosure of
information is rarely made. Common citizens rarely exercise the right except a
few lawyers, social activists, and civil society organisations. Many are not
aware of the right. Still, it has made a huge impact in view of certain big
disclosures concerning misuse of official power and positions and corruption in
high places.
President
Clinton once remarked that, “Government information is a public asset. The
government will promote the timely and equitable access to government
information via a diverse array of sources, both public and private, including State
and local governments and libraries…”
The
kind of information that contributes to knowledge is different from the kind of
information hidden in official files guarded under official secrecy. In both cases, the maxim that knowledge is
power works and information is a window to knowledge and provokes a bid to
acquire it.
The
RTI Act has escaped many attempts at dilution of its provisions. In 2012, the
Supreme Court ruled that the competent authority should prefer a person who is
or has been a judge of the High Court for appointment as Information
Commissioner while the head of the Commissions at the Centre and States should
be drawn from Chief Justices of High Courts or from judges of the Supreme
Court. In appointing judicial members, the CJI and the Chief Justices of the
High Courts of respective States were to be consulted.
Information
Commissioners are not generally drawn from the judiciary in any country. There
were practical difficulties in adopting the Supreme Court’s ruling. The retirement
age of Supreme Court judges and of the Information Commissioner being 65, the
rule regarding appointment of retired judges could not be implemented.
But,
the suggestion of the government to exclude official notes in files except
those relating to development and social issues, and papers relating to
evaluation of candidates for appointments had to be dropped. Civil society organisations opposed
suggestions to exempt the CBI from the purview of the Act.
The
RTI Act is an effective instrument of empowerment of common citizens. It can be
as effective as Lokpal by its deterrent effect to prevent administrative
malpractices. It has been a boon to common people and a shield against cheating
in payment of wages, entitlements under public distribution system and welfare
schemes. It provides a constant watch over the functioning of public officials.
To reach the goal of good governance, transparency is a must which is what RTI
can promote.
Any
dilution of the Act will rob the citizens of what little they have gained in
making administration truly public, transparent, and accountable. The business
of government is people’s business and, therefore, people have a right to know
how it is going on.
The
definition of information as a positive force in a democratic society can be
traced back to American President James Madison who said in 1822 that, “A
popular government, without popular information or the means of acquiring it,
is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will
forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must
arm themselves with the power knowledge gives”.
Right
to Information is also part of Target 10 of Goal 16 of the Sustainable
Development Goals which requires States to ensure public access to information.
Seekers
of information have to keep in mind that the ICs are not bodies to resolve
disputes or conduct research to gather information. They can only furnish
available information not normally made public. This has been clarified by the
Supreme Court in some cases and the limits of jurisdiction of the ICs have also
been specified.
Right
to information is absolutely necessary for democratic participation. People
have to know how their government is functioning for governance should not be
isolated from the people. The tradition
of official secrecy, which provided a cover for maladministration, is broken by
this right. However, people also must learn to use information in the right
spirit and not to spread fallacious interpretations and partial information to
confuse the public.
Therefore,
choice of Information Commissioners at the Centre and States and their status
are important issues. Democratisation of access to information cannot indeed be
halted or weakened in view of proliferation of instruments for acquiring and
accessing information.---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|