Opinion - Editorials   

Dangers of bureaucratic sabotage

The Centre's decision to alter the rules relating to file notings under the Right to Information Act, 2005, runs the risk of restricting access to a vital category of information. The promotion of "transparency and accountability" in the working of public authorities — the stated object of this landmark legislation — does not stop merely with making the decisions of government public. It also lies — and critically — in making it possible for people to know on what grounds these decisions were taken. Access to file notings by officials is necessary to evaluate the process of decision-making, to understand such things as which options were considered, which were not, and why some were rejected. The Centre has now made a distinction between "substantive notings", which may be revealed, and other notings, which may not. In the former category are notings on "plans, programmes and projects of the Government related to development and social issues", while in the latter are those "relating to identifiable individuals, groups of individuals, organisations, appointments, matters relating to inquiries and departmental proceedings... " By drawing such a distinction, the Centre has put a variety of file notings — which are much too general and vaguely defined — outside the ambit of the RTI Act. For instance, it is not clear what constitutes notings relating to identifiable individuals, groups of individuals, and organisations.

The category, `file notings,' does not figure under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, which contains a long list of the types of information that the government is under "no obligation to give any citizen." Not surprisingly, rights activists — including Aruna Roy of the National Campaign for People's Right to Information — have viewed the Centre's decision as a "retrograde step" and "an attempt to limit the scope of the Right to Information Act." The argument that making file notings public will result in officials becoming too cautious and, as a result, slow down the work of government is a specious one. Those who peddle this argument, mainly bureaucrats, fail to see the flip side. In a system that is transparent, officials will be deterred from making notings that are unreasonable and against the public interest. Another and unrelated issue that has emerged is whether the armed forces should be kept out of the RTI Act as the Chief of Naval Staff, Arun Prakash, recently urged. Section 24(1) of the Act states that it will not apply to "intelligence and security organisations" specified in the Second Schedule, a list that includes such organisations as the Central Reserve Police Force, the Indo-Tibetan Border Police and the Assam Rifles. It is baffling why such para-military forces should be kept out of the ambit of the Act when the armed forces are not. This anomaly should be addressed in a manner that does not compromise security and at the same time serves the broad purpose of this groundbreaking legislation that seeks to secure for the citizens information under the control of public authorities.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

A new start for India & Russia
Dangers of bureaucratic sabotage
A case of peace talks through the press?
Coca farmer turned saviour of the Left
The other face of the evil that is Lashkar
Harold Pinter assaults U.S. foreign policy
India in ITER: all-round support helped
Why is there so much smoking in movies?
Drama indeed
Unfortunate
Politicians and people
BJP trouble
Autonomy the solution

Copyright © 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu