The Right to Information was supposedly India’s version of glasnost . The law became the talk of the town overnight. It made a quick impact in almost all walks of governance — from stock exchanges to science and technology, from discoms to defence, from Padma awards to Prime Ministers’ foreign visits, and from file notings to families of the President of India, and so on.
The journey of the RTI followed the dictum of Hubert Humphrey, the bureaucrat in Yes Minister : “Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate”.
However, in the last couple of years, several trends point to RTI losing its way.
RTI functionaries are caught up in correspondence work without releasing much information. A miniscule minority is holding the majority to ransom.
The number of pending appeals and complaints before the Commission is an area of concern. The website of the Central Information Commission (CIC) indicates that the pending cases as of September this year are 68 per cent up from September last year.
The information seeker may have to wait for about 12-15 months for a decision. The stakeholders are exasperated by such delays in RTI matters, since the information sought by them is not an end in itself.
What’s worse, the CIC is functioning without the Chief Information Commissioner (‘Chief IC’), since August 23, when Rajeev Mathur demitted office.
This lackadaisical attitude runs against the spirit of the law. The public authorities concerned were supposed to get their suo moto disclosures audited by a third party within six months, and were meant submit a compliance report to both the Department of Personnel and Training and the CIC by April 2013. So far, no such audit reports have been sent.
A recent circular dated September 22 of the Department of Personnel and Training has again insisted that the public authorities should ensure compliance with the guidelines at the earliest.
The selection of third party auditor however is left to the imagination of the public authorities.
Judicial error
Meanwhile, there have been certain questionable judicial interpretations.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Chief Information Commissioner and another vs State of Manipurand another has interpreted that the procedures for filing appeal and complaints before the Commission are independent and that while dealing with the complaint the Commissions can only impose a penalty, and cannot direct disclosure of information. In practice, this throws up various challenges. In a serious blow to transparency, the Madras High Court has recently said RTI applicants must give reasons for seeking information.
However, the law itself does not require specifying any such reasons while seeking information under RTI Act. This direction of the court has evoked debate.
If the information seeker has to give reasons for seeking information it is likely that the application will be opposed by the public institutions at the admission level.
I am a short-term pessimist and a long-term optimist for the future of RTI in India. It would be a pity if a pathbreaking law such as this is rendered ineffective so soon.
(The writer is a civil servant pursuing his PhD)