Governance deficit has been a major stumbling block in India’s march to becoming an economic superpower. Transparency in the functioning of the government, its various organs and public institutions, will go a long way in ensuring good governance. However, the powers that be seem to be working in exactly the opposite direction. Two events, which have been reported in the RT I feature in this issue, have been the trigger for this editorial.
The first is the action of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in refusing to entertain an application requesting for certain information, on the ground that instead of an Indian postal order of Rs.10, the applicant had attached court fee stamps of Rs.10. When the applicant filed an appeal, the administrative authorities of the NGT engaged an advocate paying him fees of Rs.31,000 to defend its order of refusal. It is tragic that a tribunal which is an institution for dispensing justice, should harbour such an attitude and refuse information. The second instance is the decision of the Maharashtra State Cabinet in June proposing an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code, whereby a magistrate cannot take cognisance of a complaint against a public servant without the permission of the competent authorities in the government. If this is the attitude of those who are responsible for dispensing justice and governance, then the situation is indeed grim.
While this attitude is indeed a cause for worry, should the educated sections of the public, only voice their concern, criticise or can and should they do something more? I believe that in situations like this, the intelligentsia has a great responsibility to shoulder. Today, the opinion makers in the Society belong to different professions. These professions are regulated by professional bodies, which are by and large autonomous. To illustrate, we have the profession of lawyers regulated by the Bar Councils, the medical profession by the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and our very own profession by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI).
If one examines the track record of many such institutions in regard to transparency in the conduct of their own affairs, the results would not be very encouraging. Most of the time the impression in the mind of the common man is that these institutions protect and further only the interests of their members. The impression that the public has is; lawyers go on strike for their own demands obstructing dispensation of justice, doctors in hospitals hold patients to ransom for an increase in remuneration. As far as our own Alma mater is concerned, the impression that the public has, is that we do very little to bring the black sheep among our profession to book.
If we as citizens clamour for transparency from those in authority, then it is the duty of those who run these institutions to set an example by a transparent conduct. The stakeholders in these institutions are primarily three, the members who belong to that particular profession, the users of their service and the government which looks at these institutions for regulation of the profession as well as for proactive participation in regard to the developments in their respective fields.
These bodies are generally run by members elected from among those who belong to the profession. They therefore understand the nuances in various issues that arise in their field. For example, if the medical profession would put in the public domain the problems that are faced by their members while rendering services in public hospitals, the public would be sympathetic to their agitations. The support of the public would then help in putting pressure on the government to resolve those problems. Even if that does not happen, such transparency would increase the faith of the public in these institutions.
In regard to our own profession, there are a number of decisions that the ICAI takes which affect members. In such a situation, the gist of the deliberations that take place or the thought process behind those decisions should be made known to the members. Possibly even prior to this, when the issue is on the agenda of the Council, suggestions from members or interactions with them should be encouraged. This would help acceptance of the decision by those who are affected by them. I am conscious that one needs to tread with care, in this area, as the disclosure of such information would have various implications. But with the collective wisdom of our representatives, modalities can be worked out.
In regard to the interactions of the ICAI with the government authorities, when these authorities take some action by way of enactment of legislation or otherwise, it would be advisable for a summary of those interactions to be made known to all stakeholders. It is quite possible that despite the best efforts by our representatives in putting forth their point of view, the authorities may not react favourably, for they may have their own compulsions and limitations. But once this information is in the public domain, members will be confident that their alma mater has discharged its obligation.
Over the last decade or so, our profession has been facing criticism from the public that the regulatory body tends to unduly protect its members from any disciplinary action. In this aspect as well, the limitations under which the regulatory body acts, the principles of natural justice, and rules of evidence result in processes getting delayed. The regret is that while this is true, by not being transparent enough, the image of the institution is unnecessarily sullied. Transparency, to the extent possible, will mitigate this problem.
Finally, when information is sought from any professional body, it would be appropriate that the information is willingly and expeditiously provided, rather than making an attempt to hide behind technicalities. One fully understands that there would be possibly severe administrative limitations for furnishing this information. The machinery may be inadequate and there may be other hurdles. Every authority that was brought under the RT I had the same argument initially. But with the arsenal of technology at hand, it is not impossible, though difficult. As they say – where there is a will, there is a way.
Once professional institutions set an example of the transparency, it is natural that the government and bureaucracy will follow suit. It is then that democracy will flourish and Peter Finn’s words “A basic tenet of healthy democracy is open dialogue and transparency”, will ring true.
