RTI Act is a deterrent
by
AJ Philip |
Treat it as a feather in the government’s cap
Nothing has empowered the citizen of India more than the Right to Information Act that came into force on October 12, 2005, since the Constitution conferred on him the right to vote in elections in 1950. Until then only members of Parliament and state legislatures had the power to ask questions about government functioning and elicit information. If any official refused to give information without valid reasons, it would be considered a punishable breach of parliamentary privileges.
Under the RTI Act, any citizen can ask for information about any government activity, report or letter on a nominal fee of 20 cents. The official concerned has to give an answer within a month in ordinary circumstances. If the question pertains to a life-threatening situation, the answer has to be given in 48 hours. A well-oiled, large machinery of information officers and appellate authorities have been set up to not only provide answers but also deal with officials who refuse to part with information.
The standard practice was to treat every government file as “secret” or “top secret”. Even such basic information as how much money has been allocated to widen a road or build a school could not be obtained, except by greasing the palms of the officials concerned. But the enactment of the RTI Act has transformed the whole situation. Officials are now scared of withholding information as it can invite disciplinary action.
Citizens have made full use of the Act. In fact, many of the scoops published by newspapers and aired by TV channels during the last six years could be traced to the questions asked under the Act. One such question was about the confidential letter Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee had written to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh about the billion-dollar scam relating to the allocation of 2G spectrum for telecommunication. It cast a shadow on Home Minister P Chidambaram giving the impression that there was a turf war going on in the government.
Though the issue has been sorted out by the two senior-most ministers, it has given rise to an opinion in the government that the RTI Act needs to be curtailed. Former law minister Veerappa Moily and law minister Salman Khursheed have articulated the viewpoint that the citizen’s unbridled power to ask questions has compromised governmental efficiency. How anyone can give a confidential opinion if it can land in the citizen’s hands, they ask rhetorically.
But the question is why a minister or official should have two opinions on the same subject, one to be disclosed in public and the other to be shared only with his boss. Last fortnight, Justice P N Bhagwati regretted a letter he had written as Chief Justice of India to then prime Minister Indira Gandhi praising her to the skies. It compromised the credibility of the institution he presided over. If the RTI had existed then, he would not have written that letter.
The point is that those in authority should stand up for truth and give their honest opinion during a Cabinet meeting or while clearing a file. Ministers and senior officials have the power to overrule the opinion of their subordinates but, more often than not, they want the subordinates to prepare the files in the fashion they want, because, if they are caught, they can blame their juniors. Little surprise, the corrupt elements criticise the Act on the specious plea that their time is wasted in providing frivolous information.
The Act has in-built safeguards. For example, questions that can impair national security or investigation of criminal cases are not allowed. Similarly, nonsensical and frivolous questions can be rejected. Yet, surprisingly, the prime minister has lent his weight to the plea that the law needed a “critical look”. While addressing information officers recently, he said, the “RTI shouldn’t adversely affect the deliberative processes in the government”.
The fact is that the Act has made the “deliberative process” more transparent. If the government is proactive and on its own makes information available in the public domain, many people may not even have to ask any questions. Six years after the Act was launched, if it needs a relook, it is to strengthen it and not to weaken it.
The United Progressive Alliance Government has every right to claim credit for enacting the path-breaking law that has brought about some measure of transparency in government functioning all over the country. Far from that, ministers like Veerappa Moily and Salman Khursheed behave as if they are apologetic about the Act, which has truly empowered the citizen. What an irony!
Oman Tribune |
Other comment for AJ Philip
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| NEWS UPDATES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
