ndia has had
a functional elective democracy for over five decades. However, an
egalitarian, fair and
honest governance structure has not evolved in spite of a reasonably fair
election process being in place. Conceptually, a democratic system should
ensure good governance and accountability. This by itself should ensure
that even the weakest get to lead a decent life. On this count, several
affluent countries have certainly delivered better. In India, an
egalitarian and fair ethos has not evolved – the truth may actually be
that there has been a decline on these counts. Civil society has not
enforced its rights for the common good and most power structures, in
government or outside it, become instruments to service the needs of
particular sections. In this scenario, organisations, whether
governmental, private or of the non-governmental sector, usually become
vehicles to serve the interests of their own sections. As a result, most
‘public interest’ action by the state as well as private organisations is
directed mainly for the benefit of advantaged sections.
What, then, is the way out? If we conclude that most
organisations, including political parties, will mimic each other and are
unlikely to work for better governance in the short term, is there no
hope?
The hope lies in using and reinforcing the majesty of the
individual citizen. If individual citizens are empowered to ensure greater
accountability and transparency in governance, this can bring about a
major change. Yet there has been no vehicle available for individual
citizens to impact the governance structure. In a system that reeks of
corruption and seems increasingly insensitive to the problems faced by its
disadvantaged peoples, the right to information promises the empowerment
of citizens by assuring them official accountability thus making them
enforcers of good governance.
The right to information is available to every citizen and
can be used by any one of us, even sitting at home. It is relatively
inexpensive to use and does not require getting together in groups. Since
citizens operate as individuals they do not have to make the compromises
required to maintain larger groups. Here ordinary citizens, independent of
any organisation, reinforce the sovereignty of the individual as the
centre of democracy. Empowered to act as monitor, a citizen has fairly
easy access to information concerning the workings of the government,
decisions taken, or absence thereof. You or I can obtain an answer within
30 days regarding policies based on which certain decisions were taken or
receive information about how arbitrariness and disregard for law may have
led to certain actions. And in major instances that expose a lack of
governance in terms of proper public policy or corruption, citizens can
come together on a particular issue. The strength of this common good can
build a stronger and more ethical civil society.
The right to information is implicit in our fundamental
right to freedom of expression under Article 19 (1) of India’s
Constitution. The Supreme Court first recognised this in the Raj Narain
case in 1977. Subsequently, in the SP Gupta case in 1982 and various other
judgements including the ADR and PUCL cases seeking the publication of
more information about electoral candidates, the Supreme Court has
reinforced this principle. Thus the right to information has existed since
the day the Constitution of India came into existence – January 26, 1950.
The Right to Information Act does not confer a new right upon citizens of
India, it only provides a codification on how to implement and
operationalise our fundamental right.
Nine Indian states had Right to Information Acts prior to
2004. In 2004 when the UPA was fighting the general election it promised a
good and effective Right to Information Act. After the new alliance formed
a government at the centre, a consultative process began between citizens’
groups on the one hand and bureaucrats and politicians on the other. Aruna
Roy, as member of the National Advisory Council and the National Campaign
for People’s Right to Information, played a significant role in these
discussions. After much deliberation, a broad agreement was reached on
December 12, 2004 about the main provisions of the proposed bill. The bill
was tabled in the Lok Sabha on December 22, 2004 but it had deviated
significantly from the original consensus. This was followed by a series
of protestations and consultations leading to the establishment of a
parliamentary committee. From January to April 2005 the committee met
several people from various perspectives and made a set of
recommendations. Keeping these in mind, the government drafted a final
bill and presented it to the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on May 11 and 12,
2005.
The central Right to Information Act was brought into
operation across the country from October 12, 2005. It provides for the
appointment of public information officers in all central and state
government and government-aided organisations. It specifies that any
citizen of India can obtain information under the Act within 30 days of
asking for it. If the information is not provided within 30 days, the
citizen can appeal to an officer higher than the public information
officer (PIO) within the same organisation. This appeal must be filed
within 30 days. If the first appellate authority does not provide
satisfactory disposal within 30 days, a second appeal can be filed before
an independent information commission set up for this. The teeth to this
Act come from the provision that if the PIO "refuses to receive an
application for information or has not furnished information within the
time specified under subsection (1) of Section 7 (30 days) or malafidely
denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect,
incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was
the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in
furnishing the information, it (the information commission) shall
impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till the
application is received or information is furnished"(quoting from the
Act).
This right empowers ordinary citizens to ask for
information from their government and has the potential of transforming
India into a true swaraj, genuine self-government. People have
already begun to use it in various ways. Sitting in their own houses or
shanties, people demand accountability from government officers about the
delays in issuing ration cards, pensions, passports or income tax refunds.
Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) muster rolls have been obtained in
Maharashtra and verified to reveal fraud and corruption. In Rajasthan an
old man received the free grains due to him under the Antyodaya scheme. In
Delhi water privatisation was stopped and in Mumbai the loss of over 600
crores in public revenue was stymied in the gifting away of Crawford
Market.
Across the nation in different states citizens have begun
to use this right and are beginning to realise the power and meaning of
swaraj. A major campaign was mounted in various states of India from
Lumding in Meghalaya to Mumbai, Delhi, Ahmedabad, Bangalore and elsewhere
– in a total of 42 cities. The campaign focused on using the right to
information to get citizens their legitimate rights without paying bribes.
In a national campaign that had no central leader or organisation more
than 20,000 RTI applications were filed. It has truly been an electrifying
citizens’ campaign.
As we celebrated this success and looked forward to a
greater use of this freedom, our rulers realised, perhaps, how this could
alter the balance of power in favour of the people – the legitimate rulers
of India. There had been some disquiet about this transfer of power
earlier and they now resolved to nip it in the bud. The cabinet decided
that they would amend the Act to curb a menace that could impact
administrative corruption or arbitrariness and nail the officers
responsible.
The amendments ensure that file notings, which contain the
reasons given by various officers explaining why they acted in a
particular manner, would not be made available to citizens. The disclosure
of file notings can reveal whether certain officers had, for very valid
reasons, wanted the government to act in accordance with the law. Not
revealing them would make it easy to persist in unlawful conduct. The
amendments also provide that the identity of officers/consultants/advisors
involved in various decisions would not be disclosed and they seek to bar
the disclosure of arbitrary selection of officers for specific posts. They
would also lead to a significant reduction in the powers of the
information commissions. In short, accountability will not be fixed and
officers and politicians need not fear arbitrary or corrupt practices
being exposed.
People all over the country have now joined in protest as
we demand that no one trifle with this authentic new found independence.
This is an issue on which our rulers cannot divide us. The government has
only demonstrated its arrogance by first claiming (in the prime minister’s
letter to social activist Anna Hazare) that the amendments ‘will lead to
even greater transparency and accountability’ in the decision making
process. Various groups have voiced their opposition to these retrograde
steps with the simple demand: "Don’t touch our RTI".
Recognising this as their chance to rid themselves of the
yoke of oppressive rulers, citizens refuse to surrender the freedom they
have won after decades. If the government is allowed to get away with this
mutilation of our right to information, it will reduce the effectiveness
of the proposed Act by about 20 per cent – we have made it clear to the
government that we will not tolerate such a move. We have to work to
ensure our freedom. If we can prevent the Act’s dilution, if we can
increase RTI usage over a period of three years, this will be a movement
that no government dares to touch. n