 |
| |
|
Last Updated : 18th March 09
|
|
|
| |
|
Quick Links
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Right
to Information - Revisiting the Act
|
 Round Table Discussion
on "Right to Information - Revisiting
the Act" by Mr. Prabodh Saxena - Director - Investment
& FIPB, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance,
Government of India; in Espire, A 41, MCIE, Mathura Road, New Delhi
- 44.
23rd AUGUST 08
HIGHLIGHTS
- If you look at the history of the RTI all over the world, the
first legislation is as old as more than 240 years. In 1776, Sweden
passed the first access law and really the spurt came when Russia
broke after the Cold War and many of these communist countries
then moved on to a new path of democracy, enacted this law primarily
as a revenge legislation against the previous communist rulers.
2005 is really the watershed year because the UK, which had enacted
this law in 2000, operationalised it in 2005, Germany, the biggest
economy in Europe also came up with this law, Uganda, a major
African country and then the one billion strong country, India.
- The uniqueness of this Act is that it covers the high and the
mighty. The President of India, the Prime Minister of India, the
Chief Minister, the Lieutenant Governor, the UPSC, everybody.
Though unfortunately, now the government has taken a stand before
the Delhi High Court, that constitutional authorities are not
covered.
- Another thing is that the Act provides very clearly that no
reasons are required for you to ask any questions.
- There is a penalty and this is only in India. And I think it
is very rightly here because the mindset, our way of working is
much different but nowhere in the world do they have the system
of penalty. This is a unique feature. Even if it is Rs25,000,
it is a unique feature because the penalty has to go from one’s
pocket and it does pinch you.
- It also has an institutional framework right from PIO to the
information commission and there are duties cast on each institutional
agency involved in the implementation of this Act. We have an
independent Information Commission.
- The Act nowhere restricts appointments to only bureaucrats.
There are a few distinguished members and quite a few others who
are not so. One has to ensure that the category of the distinguished
has to be really distinguished, because we have examples from
UP and many other places where party workers and brief-less journalists
have become Information Commission members.
- Unlike Western countries; the Information Commission here gives
decisions, which are binding. In developed countries like in Canada
and in many other countries this is not so, but this is again
a requirement of the Indian system. If you don’t give power
of contempt to tribunals, nobody would be bothered. If you don’t
make decisions binding, nobody will bother. But this is the strength
of the Indian legislation as compared to other legislations.
- All other Acts have been made subservient in so far as the conflict
with the Right to Information is concerned. In many countries
of the world it is very clearly written in their statutes that
this law will not override their official secret acts or legislations.
When there is a conflict between the Official Secrets Act
and the RTI Act, the RTI would prevail but in the Indian situation.
It is our strength that we have clearly provided that every other
legislation has to be in conformity with the Right to Information.
And all information has to be free after twenty years.
- This Act is a service available 24x7, you can ask anytime
you want. In Parliament, you can only ask when the Parliament
session is convened. Now nobody knows when the monsoon session
will be convened this year. A matter being sub - judice is no
ground of denying information. In the Parliament, in the legislature,
you can always say that the matter is sub judice and therefore
the house will not debate.
- Notings are as much part of the file as they were before and
you can have access to them, provided they are not excluded under
any of the provisions of the RTI Act. In developed countries,
whenever the notings are given, the name of the person who writes
the noting is excluded. It is not so in India.
- The worrying thing is that a large number of people, particularly
government employees, are on a fishing expedition. Ask as many
questions as you want. The only thing is your mind should be fertile
enough and there is no cap on your imagination.
- Negligible e-governance in record keeping, inadequate capacity
building, irresponsible citizens to some extent, no flexibility
on time and volume of information are the problems with this act
and its working are beset with. In a judicial system, if one is
not happy with the decision of the High Court, one can approach
the Supreme Court.
- People look upon these assignments as a job that everybody wants
to transfer from one to another. The public authority has to go
for maximum disclosures. The appellate authorities have to move
beyond their narrow departmental loyalties.
- We need an amendment of the Act because of so many drafting
errors. We should therefore grow out of this mindset that this
is a holy cow and we should not touch it. We should amend it and
the activists, the government and parliament have to be on board.
We cannot just put a full stop and say that we cannot amend the
RTI Act, when in fact; we have amended the Constitution so many
times.
- In the UK, they have come up with a charter known as the Request
to the Requestors. This is not happening in India. They have come
out with a charter, which says, “don’t harass, don’t
be offensive, be public-spirited, ask what is related to a policy,
don’t confine it to your personal domain.” A government
servant who is an information provider; may also become an information
seeker.
PHOTOGALLERY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
