Bringing in `RTI' revolution
THE RULING Mizo National Front in Mizoram recently turned down and scuttled the moves made by a private member to pass a Right to Information Bill despite the fulsome promises by the political parties in their manifestos in the 2003 Assembly elections.
By contrast a couple of months earlier in January, Jammu & Kashmir passed a right to information law. India now has a Central Act — carefully kept in abeyance — and nine States have acceded to the demands for access to information by the public. Civil societies and grassroots activists have worked real hard to get this far. Notwithstanding the refusal of Mizoram to pass the Right to Information Bill and the imminent delay by the Centre in framing rules for the Central Freedom of Information Act, it is heartening to know that right to information as a matter of right is gaining recognition gradually even in far-flung areas of the country.
A guaranteed right to get hold of government held information puts power back where it belongs — with the people. People acquire a powerful tool in the fight for their rights only if they are duly `informed' about what the government is actually doing. Free flowing information from government to people about what they are doing, and how they are doing it, is the foundation on which the fundamental pillars of democracy — accountability, transparency, participation — hold up the house of good governance.
Unfortunately in India as elsewhere in the world, especially among underdeveloped societies, information is the prerogative of the rich and the powerful. There remains a great penchant for secrecy by governments or anybody who controls the reins of power at any level — be it local, State or national. A set of Acts such as the Official Secrets Act of 1923, the Central Civil Service Conduct Rules (1964), Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 militate against information being shared equally by all. Changing the mindsets and attitude of the people is itself a tedious task even where there are well established practices of information giving but creating the political will to overcome long standing cultures of government secrecy is the real sticking point.
Informed choice
If access laws attempt to provide information to the citizens whenever they ask for it, the voter's `right to know' about the credentials of the candidates has already become an important tool in the hands of the citizens during elections. The Supreme Court in 2002 laid down that all aspiring candidates must submit along with their nomination papers affidavits relating to their educational qualification, criminal past, a list of movable and immovable assets and dues owed to any public agency. The court felt that the Indian citizen must have the basis for making an informed choice and not just have to rely on caste and party affiliations.
This gives them an opportunity to know their candidates better so as to make an informed and judicious choice during polls. It gives them a chance to elect candidates who they think have the qualifications to work for their constituencies as well as a chance to follow their fortunes and so reduce the chances of unjust enrichment. The right to get information on demand from the government cannot be overemphasised in a country whose ranking is high on the corruption indexes and low on the development indices of the world.
In India, the movement for the right to information can best be described as a long protracted war waged by the citizens especially since the 1970s to curtail the powers of the state which it had accumulated over the years. Judicial activism and notable court cases such as Raj Narain vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1975) and S.P. Gupta vs Union of India (1982) spurred the movement to its zenith. The fourth estate also did not lag far behind. The Press Council, and the Consumer Education Research Council also fed the debate. Later the Shourie Committee's draft laid the basis of a weaker and watered down version that shaped the present law.
Nevertheless, often what is given with one hand is taken with the other. Bureaucrats who have been the lords of information and who eventually make the laws and shape implementation have tried hard and long to limit transparency by hedging the right with all sorts of exemptions from disclosure which would not oblige them to give information on demand. The Tamil Nadu legislation has more than 20 exemptions making it virtually toothless. Other rules try to sneak in clauses that require the inquirer to state his purpose. Others allow the usual discretions, lengthy procedures, fee structures, and built-in time delays which can easily defeat and destroy the effectiveness of the Act.
A survival need
Many of the exceptions built into these Acts would probably not stand scrutiny because the right to information is under Indian law a fundamental right — part of the right to free speech and inherent to democratic functioning — and as such can only be narrowly limited to no more than the extent allowed in the Constitution itself. The court has recognised the reality that for citizens information is not a luxury but a survival need.
More and more people are also recognising that when information is so closely held by the powerful and good people trying to get it out must risk life and limb to do so, a right to information guarantee should also be accompanied by a whistleblowers Act so that officials/employees who attempt to expose corruption in their departments or organisations are protected. Together, they would complement each other in eliminating corruption and malpractices. Two sides of the same coin, India's draft whistleblowers Bill has been gathering dust for some time as much as its Central Freedom of Information Act is.
The murder of Satyendra Dubey who complained of corruption in the Prime Minister's dream project in Bihar evoked widespread public outrage and had temporarily raised the hope that the Bill to protect whistleblowers would be taken up soon by Parliament. However in the absence of it, the Supreme Court stepped up its efforts to protect whistleblowers in the future and to that effect, the Centre agreed to making the Central Vigilance Commission the sole authority in protecting `brave men' like Dubey.
Despite stiff resistance, the movement for `right to information' revolution in the country is pitching in. India has had two revolutions — one was the green one and the other white. While these two were restricted to a few areas of the country, the third revolution encompasses all areas of the country. It may be most colourful of all bringing all hues of democracy deep down into the community. It remains to be seen how and when the government wakes up to realise its potential.
ADITI DATTA
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
