When the RTI Act was passed by Parliament in 2005, many expected it would ensure transparency in governance. But things didn’t move that way.

Several instances highlight the fact that the 30-day stipulation to reply to RTI queries are not met and there have been several cases where RTI letters have not even been acknowledged and, worse, been ignored.

Bad response

RTI activists say appeals sent to information commissioners often receive a lukewarm welcome and require repeated reminders for the papers to move. Sometimes, the letters sent by information commissioners to the appellate authorities of the Government departments to respond to queries are themselves ignored.

The citizens can take up the issues if RTI replies are not given adequately. But what can one do if the queries are not acknowledged in spite of repeated reminders?

RTI activists are of the view that there are no stipulated and transparent procedures such as qualification and background for appointment of public information officers in the Government departments or for the appointment of information commissioners.

For example, in a technically-oriented organisation such as MMDA, a technically qualified person can serve better as the public information officer since he can understand the intricacies of the issues better.

Further, public information officers are given the function only as an additional job apart from their other duties.

When information commissioners with unrelated background are appointed for the job, their standard of performance may not be up to the desired level.

There were instances of RTI activists facing personal security threats since the content of the RTI letters are sometimes leaked out to the affected parties by government departments. This has deterred several persons from filing RTI applications.

Callous approach

In some cases, by way of an RTI reply, government departments refer simply to some URLs without explaining appropriate details. This not only creates problems for those who are not trained in the use of computers but also amount to inadequate and evasive replies. The departments should answer the queries in full according to the Act.

Sometimes, the departments simply refuse to provide information, claiming it is classified. That said, there is no clarity as to what is classified. It would be appropriate for the Government to clarify that any information that can be provided to Parliament and the legislative assemblies should also be made available to the people under the RTI Act.

Many RTI activists point out that when they approach the consumer courts when they do not receive proper replies for RTI queries and when information commissioners don’t take action, the courts refuse to entertain their applications.

In the normal course, if rules were to be followed by government departments according to the RTI Act, one should get replies to queries without hassles. Citizens often have to strive hard to get reply for the queries by repeatedly following up with the departments. Many people may not be able to devote the time and effort required to constantly follow up.

While the rules of the Act are, by and large, well-drafted, the lack of commitment of a section of the bureaucracy maligns the genuine intentions behind the Act.

The writer is a trustee of Nandini Voice For The Deprived

Related Topics