Threats to RTI

Those who wish to proclaim the great impact of Right to
Information say that it is responsible for creating the culture of transparency
in the government. The widespread usage of RTI is proof of this. This claim is
reasonable and is obvious in the empowerment of citizens and the scams it has
exposed. There is a strong feeling that corruption is unacceptable and there is
a great resolve to curb it. This is in line with the declaration in the
preamble of the constitution.

However, accountability and transparency have not yet
become embedded in the DNA of those with power, and this is a change that is
being resisted. There are signs that we may have reached a point of
stagnation, which could lead to RTI’s regression. This cannot be good for the
citizens and democracy. Many techniques have been developed by the officers to
stall RTI queries. At times, absurdly high charges in tens of thousands are
sought as costs for gathering the information. Another way is to offer piles of
files for inspection without indexing and pagination. I once asked a government
department about a list of transfers of senior officers in violation of Act 21
of 2006; they sent it to over 30 different offices. One more technique is to
transfer the application multiple times. All these are against the letter and
spirit of the law.

First let us analyse the reasons for RTI’s success and wide
proliferation. The main reason was the fact that it was reasonably well crafted
because of active civil society intervention and participation. There were
people’s movements like Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan which had championed
this law. The teeth of the act were the penalty provisions which for the
first time provided for a financial penalty up to Rs. 25000 to be paid by a
public information officer, if he/she did not provide information without
reasonable cause. This for the first time recognized the sovereignty of the
individual citizen.

Civil society organizations and individuals very
enthusiastically took upon themselves the job of educating people. Citizens
took ownership of this law. Government officials feared the Information
Commissions and felt they would have a difficult time if the matters went to
courts in writs. Among the first few cases which went to courts, various high
courts acknowledged that this was a fundamental right of citizens which had
been earlier defined in various Supreme Court judgements, such as those in Raj
Narain case, R. Rajagopal, SP Gupta, ADR-PUCL and others.

However, after the first few years of this honeymoon, the resistance
to RTI began building up within the establishment. The establishment soon
realized that it had unleashed a genie, which curbs its powers for
arbitrariness and corruption. In less than a year, the government decided to
amend the act to dilute its effectiveness. There were intense protests across
the country by citizens and the government had to retract. After that there
were at least two more efforts to dilute the Act but these too failed. The last
time was when the Central Information Commission ruled that six major political
parties were ‘public authorities’ as defined by the law and hence would have to
give information in RTI. The parties ganged up together so that they could
carry on with their opaque operations with black money, undemocratic working
and in contravention of their constitutions. Citizen opposition managed to
again stop this. But political parties have jointly decided to defy the
orders of the Commission to display their pompous arrogance. They have refused
to appoint Public Information Officers or give any information in RTI. They are
disregarding the orders of the Commission without even a fig leaf of getting a
stay from a Court.

Most state and central governments are showing great
reluctance to follow the RTI Act. They have developed techniques to wear out
the applicant. The lackadaisical ways of the Information Commissions have
helped and emboldened them. It has been noticed that most Information
Commissions impose penalties in the rarest of cases, as if they are imposing a
death penalty. Governments often do not appoint Commissioners.

Amongst the few times that the former PM spoke he had
mentioned his distress at what he called ‘frivolous and vexatious’ RTI
applications and the time taken up in these. A RTI query about this revealed
that it was a casual observation based on his perception and irritation with
pestering RTI queries by the powerless citizen. There was no evidence. The
present PMO refused to even provide information about the visitors to the PM!
Why should this be so? The PM works round the clock in the service of people
and such reluctance appears suspicious. Will revealing those names reveal
some dark secrets?

The governments appear to be institutionalizing mechanisms
whereby citizens know only what the government wants them to know. It is
absurd that citizens who are mature enough to elect those who should govern the
nation are not considered mature enough to be trusted about information on
those who represent them. This claim is made by those who are in power, and who
do not understand and subscribe to democratic working. After getting power,
people’s mindset undergoes a transformation. It is a matter of deep distress
that even the present CM of Delhi Arvind Kejriwal, who became nationally famous
for his work in the RTI campaign, has not brought about any significant change
in his government towards transparency.

Information Commissioners are mainly selected as an act of
political patronage. Many of them have no predilection for transparency,
though they may pay lip service to it. The lack of effective working,
accountability and transparency at most of the commissions is heart wrenching.
Many commissioners do not understand the law, nor the basic rationale for
transparency or democracy.  Apart from
this the lazy way in which many work has built up mounting pendencies, and it
appears that they will be largely responsible for frustrating RTI.

It is unfortunate that the last few years have seen decisions
by most quasi-judicial and judicial bodies expanding the interpretations of the
exemptions and constricting the citizen’s right. Former Supreme Court judge,
Justice Markandey Katju has said “I therefore submit that an amendment be made
to the RTI Act by providing that an RTI query should be first examined
carefully by the RTI officer, and only if he is prima facie satisfied on
merits, for reasons to be recorded in writing that the query has some substance
that he should call upon the authority concerned to reply. Frivolous and
vexatious queries should be rejected forthwith and heavy costs should be
imposed on the person making them.” A former Chief Justice of India said in
April 2012, “The RTI Act is a good law but there has to be a limit to it.”
At this rate and logic, we may be asked to justify why we wish to speak or express
ourselves! A study of all the Supreme Court judgements by this writer
appears to show that the Right to Information is being constructed by gross
misinterpretation. Government departments get stays from Courts to many
progressive orders of the Information Commissions. Citizens do not have the
wherewithal to fight protracted legal battles. While parliament’s attempts to
dilute the RTI Act were thwarted by the sovereign citizens, its emasculation by
adjudicators is happening at a brisk pace. Many decisions are blunting the law
of its power to curb corruption.

 One of the most
problematic statements by the Supreme Court in a RTI case is quoted in many
places: “Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act
for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and
accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of
corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the
efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged
down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The
Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct
the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquillity
and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of
oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The
nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities
spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants
instead of discharging their regular duties. “

This needs to be contested. The statement “should not be
allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national
development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquillity and harmony
among its citizens” would be appropriate for terrorists, not citizens using
their fundamental right to information. There is no evidence of RTI damaging
the nation. As for the accusation of RTI taking up 75% of time, I did the
following calculation: By all accounts, the total number of RTI applications in
India is less than 10 million annually. The total number of all government
employees is over 20 million. Assuming a 6-hour working day for all employees
for 250 working days, it would be seen that there are 30,000 million working
hours. Even if an average of 3 hours is spent per RTI application (the average
is likely to be less than two hours) 10 million applications would require 30
million hours, which is 0.1% of the total working hours. This means it would
require 3.2% staff working for 3.2% of their time in furnishing information to
citizens. This too could be reduced drastically if computerised working and
automatic updating of information was done as specified in section 4 of the RTI
Act. It is unfortunate that the apex court has not thought it fit to castigate
public authorities for their brazen flouting of their obligations u/s. 4, but
upbraided the sovereign citizens using their fundamental right.

I would submit that the powerful find RTI upsetting their
arrogance and hence try to discredit it by often talking about its misuse.
There are many eminent persons in the country, who berate RTI and say there
should be some limit to it. It is accepted widely that freedom of speech is
often used to abuse or defame people. It is also used by small papers to resort
to blackmail. The concept of paid news has been too well recorded. Despite all
these there is never a demand to constrict freedom of speech. But there is a
growing tendency from those with power to misinterpret the RTI Act almost to a
point where it does not really represent what the law says. There is widespread
acceptance of the idea that statements, books and works of literature and art
are covered by Article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution, and any attempt to curb
it meets with very stiff resistance. However, there is no murmur when users of
RTI are being labelled deprecatingly, though it is covered by the same article
of the constitution. Everyone with power appears to say: “I would risk my
life for your right to express your views, but damn you if you use RTI to seek
information which would expose my arbitrary or illegal actions.” An
information seeker can only seek information on records.