Need

• The real Swaraj will come not by the acquisition of authority by a few but by the
acquisition of capacity by all to resist authority when abused.
• Democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information, which are
vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold governments and their
instrumentalities accountable to the governed

Shortcomings
• The record keeping is in an abysmal condition in every government office. This law,
when made in 2005, mandatorily provided that every department must catalogue and
index its records and keep it in a manner that the retrieval of information is easy.
Unfortunately, very little has been done in this regard. In the absence of records, the
government will find it difficult to defend itself before civil society or the courts.
• Information officers being appointed are at a very subordinate level—section officer or
under-secretary. He would not command any respect within the department where the
information is kept.
• Some departments and ministries have cleverly appointed far too many information
officers.
• Making a law and implementing it are two different things. The implementation of the
law is dispersed over a huge bureaucracy, which begins in Delhi and goes right down to
the local panchayat level. There are people who are very transparent and believe they
must disclose information without much protest but by and large, officials have been not
very cooperative about implementing the law.
• There is a mandatory provision that within 120 days of the enactment of the law, every
government office would publish 16 varieties of information. Not even a single
government organisation can claim to have really complied with this. For the sake of
form they have published, but if you scrutinise what they have published with what was
expected of them, you will find that there is a very big difference. So, those in the field of
RTI, whether in the Commission or outside, think that if the disclosure under section 4(1)
(b), which was mandatory, had been done faithfully and truthfully, then a lot of the RTIs
would have become redundant because that information would have been in the public
domain.

Achievments/Brighter Side ​
• There is an RTI role in virtually every scam that has been exposed
• The RTI Act has sufficient safeguards, such as cabinet notes will be revealed only after
the decision is taken. Similarly many issues of public interest are exempt under Section 8.

Best/worst Practices
• Bihar has established a 24-hour phone line service in Patna. They take such calls, record
the request and then send it to the respective government department. They have
simplified it by saying that RTI request need not be accompanied by the application fee
but it could be paid separately.
• Section 8(1)(h) — ‘Information which would impede the process of investigation or
apprehension or prosecution of offenders’. While denying information, the government is
expected to respond with a well-reasoned reply including some details on the specific
investigation as well as how the information sought will impede the process of
investigation or prosecution of offenders. However, the DoT has not been providing any
such explanation in its replies. Rather, DoT officials routinely take the liberty of replacing
the words “would” with “may” and “investigation” with “examination” in order to turn
 apprehension or prosecution of offenders’. While denying information, the government is
expected to respond with a well-reasoned reply including some details on the specific
investigation as well as how the information sought will impede the process of
investigation or prosecution of offenders. However, the DoT has not been providing any
such explanation in its replies. Rather, DoT officials routinely take the liberty of replacing
the words “would” with “may” and “investigation” with “examination” in order to turn
down requests.

Issues
• Judicial Background for CIC: Satyananda Mishra, the present CIC, feels that there is
no such need. “I have been in the Commission for more than four years now, two as a
Commissioner, and two as CIC. I have dealt with a variety of cases and a wide variety of
government departments. I have never once felt that there was any particular question of
law which needed to be adjudicated on. RTI is more or less like the right to delivery of
services. Information is a piece of paper, which is the bottom line. The law defines
information as anything which is available in written form, on material record. So there is
no legal or judicial assessment to be done. “If the status of the commissions was altered
to that of a judicial tribunal and a court attached system of justice, this would only result
in a delay at various levels, especially at the second appellate level. Unnecessary steps,
such as engaging an advocate and other legal formalities associated with court procedures
will be added, causing unnecessary delay. If it takes 3-4 years for disposal of an appeal,
the entire mechanism would stop working effectively and the citizens would not be able
to get the desired information within time.
• 2 Commissioners bench: Supreme Court’s judgment in September, 2012 which requires
all Information Commissions to be two-member Benches, one of whom must be a retired
judge. At present, single Commissioners hear and decide cases, so activists fear that
compliance with the judgment will, apart from weakening the Act itself, inordinately
delay the hearing and disposal of the cases.
• Including NGOs: if we extend the remit of the RTI to NGOs, the number of cases
arriving in the Commission could double from the current 25,000-35,000 per year.
• Exempting CBI: Up to 95 per cent of requests made to CBI for information is for
allegations of corruption and Section 24 of the RTI Act has a provision which says that
any information which pertains to allegations of corruption or allegations of human rights
violation has to be given. so how are they out of RTI’s ambit?
• A point of view brought under public scrutiny and discussion in an isolated manner may
sometimes present a distorted or incomplete picture of what really happened in the
processes of making the final decisions.
• Constitutional authority of CIC: if you create more and more institutions which are
completely independent, and are, in a very nominal way (like impeachment for Judiciary
and CAG), accountable to the people of India, whatever that means, how do you establish
their accountability? When we demand constitutional status, we should also establish the
accountability for those institutions.
• Deluge of vexatious applications: Misuse of law does not provide rationale for not
having a law.
• Impede free discussion within government:
• Mode of fee payment: After seven years, the situation should have become clear,
unfortunately, though the instances have become less common, there are still information
officers who deny information because the fee hadn’t been paid in ‘A’ or ‘B’ way. There
is a total lack of training and knowledge about RTI. Many people in civil society have
suggested the government come out with an RTI stamp worth Rs 10. It would be so much
simpler to introduce a stamp which would be readily available and which is, irrespective
of the officer concerned, recognised as an application fee.
• File notings: Office procedure manuals state that all government officers involved in the
chain of decision-making on any matter should record their opinions, advice and words of
caution in the file concerned. These are called file notings; essentially, they are a record
of the consultation and discussions that must necessarily be held before any decision is
made or any action is planned by a public authority. File notings reveal the reasons for
official decisions. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) had declared on its
website after the RTI Act was passed in 2005 that file notings were not covered by it. In
December 2005, the Prime Minister instructed the DoPT to change the rules so that
disclosures pertaining to file notings could be revealed if they were related to social and
developmental issues. Meanwhile, the Central Information Commission held that file
 made or any action is planned by a public authority. File notings reveal the reasons for
official decisions. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) had declared on its
website after the RTI Act was passed in 2005 that file notings were not covered by it. In
December 2005, the Prime Minister instructed the DoPT to change the rules so that
disclosures pertaining to file notings could be revealed if they were related to social and
developmental issues. Meanwhile, the Central Information Commission held that file
notings clearly fell within the definition of the terms “information” and “record” and
issued a notice to the DoPT asking it to take its own interpretation off its website. On July
20, 2006, the Cabinet decided to amend the Act to put file notings outside its purview.
But the plan to amend has been dropped.
•

Central Information Commission (CIC)

• Central Information Commission (CIC), as the apex body under the RTI Act, has
several important responsibilities: It is an adjudicator of cases pertaining to the non-
disclosure of information; a “monitor” overseeing the compliance of public
authorities with the RTI Act; and a “reporter” to Parliament on the status of the
implementation of the act.
• There are several tell-tale signs of underachievement:
o The number of cases pending before the CIC crossed 28,000 in April. While
the CIC is not statutorily required to hear cases within a particular time period,
the underlying spirit of the act is speedy access to information.
o Citizens who receive favourable orders await compliance, and their requests
to the CIC for enforcement lie unattended. The CIC does not have contempt
powers and the only way in which it can ensure compliance is to use its power
to impose a penalty. Unfortunately, the CIC does not devote much time to
complaints alleging non-enforcement of orders.
o Nor is the CIC taking particularly vigorous measures to encourage proactive
disclosure of information by public authorities.
o Orders are often cryptic and devoid of any significant reasoning, or even the
basic factual background. This makes it difficult to monitor compliance and,
importantly, deprives such orders of precedential value. If its orders are
routinely struck down or stayed by courts for lack of reasoning, doubts may be
cast on its decision-making capabilities.
o Limited time spent by the CIC in its monitor avatar. According to the act, the
CIC can make assessments as to whether public authorities are performing
their duties in consonance with the letter and spirit of the act. If there is a
deviation, the CIC can make suitable recommendations to the public
authority.
o there are several external factors that affect the CIC. These include lack of
financial autonomy, non-appointment of new information commissioners,
dependence on contract staff rather than regular recruitment, and insufficient
office space.
• The CIC needs to recognise its central role in promoting transparency and
accountability, and undertake reform measures on a war footing. Its credibility and
strength is critical to the health of the RTI regime and to our larger aspiration for a
truly inclusive and meaningful democracy.

Abandoned Amendments
The government had dropped its 2006 proposal to amend the Right to Information Act (RTI),
2005, in deference to the protests by civil society activists, non-governmental organisations, and
Information Commissioners. The crux of these amendments, which had not been moved in
Parliament, was that the government wanted to restrict the disclosure of file notings to those
relating to social and developmental issues. Another change that was contemplated was
exemption of examination papers, selections to the Union Public Service Commission, and
information on ongoing executive decisions from the purview of the Act.

Electronic Indian Postal Order

The government of India took a major step forward in enabling Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) to
file applications under the Right to Information Act this week, announcing that it has launched a
exemption of examination papers, selections to the Union Public Service Commission, and
information on ongoing executive decisions from the purview of the Act.

Electronic Indian Postal Order

The government of India took a major step forward in enabling Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) to
file applications under the Right to Information Act this week, announcing that it has launched a
service called “elPO,” or Electronic Indian Postal Order. Using this, NRIs across the world may
now be in a position to file RTI applications conveniently via direct payment of fees.

Misc
• A/c to a judgement passed by CIC recently, office of AG is not a public office and hence
does not come under RTI. There exists a client-lawyer relationship rather than master-
servant.
 Right to information admittedly presents large challenges for public authorities,
but it is crucial for a complex nation like ours
WAJAHAT HABIBULLAH
AS the Right to Information Act (RTI) cele-
brated the sixth year of its coming, there has
been much heated discussion, often emo-
tional, of the benefits that it has brought and
also the challenges with which it has con-
fronted government. This debate came to a
head with the prime minister’s inaugural ad-
dress to the Annual Convention of the Cen-
tral Information Commission on October
14.
It is accepted
p in all circles that the
essence of government
g in a democracyy must
be transparency
p y with everyy organ
g of govern-
g sonable time and subject to availability of
ment — executive, judiciary
j y and legislature
g resources, computerised and connected
— being answerable to the citizen. Hence
the father of the nation, when describing his
vision of self governance for India, de-
scribed it as follows:
“The real Swarajj will come not byy the ac-
quisition of authorityy byy a few but byy the ac-
q “I believe that the passage
quisition of capacity
q p by all to resist authority
when
w hen abused”
India’s Right to Information Act, 2005
therefore, asserts that democracyy requires q off ggrowth fflow to all sections off our p
an informed citizenryy and transparency p y of
information, which are vital to its functioningg
and also to contain corruption p and to hold
ggovernments and their instrumentalities ac-
countable to the governed. This T is a universal
truth of particular relevance to us as a coun-
try, the government of which has, at least
since the ‘70s, remained committed to
“garibi hatao” . In the words of Kofi Annan,
the former UN secretary general:
“The great democratising power of in-
formation has given us all the chance to ef-
fect change and alleviate poverty in ways we
cannot even imagine today. Our task, your
task— is to make that change real for those
in need, wherever they may be. With infor-
mation on our side, with knowledge of a po-
tential for all, the path to poverty can be re-
versed.”
This thought found resonance in the
C R SASIKUMAR
prime minister’s speech introducing the bill
in Parliament on May 11, 2005:
p g off this bill will
see the dawn off a new era in our p processes off
ggovernance, an era off p performance
f and effi-
ff
ciency, y an era which will ensure that benefits
f han Singh in his address.
people,
p In this context, it is important to dwell on
an era which will eliminate the scourge g off
corruption,
p an era which will bringg the com-
mon man’s concern to the heart off all
processes off ggovernance, an era which will
p emails, opinions,
trulyy ffulfil
f the hopes of the founding fathers
of our republic.”
But for whom are the benefits intended?
We know that infrastructure in India is woe-
fully inadequate despite privatisation; em-
ployment growth of 2.1 per cent in 1983 had
in fact declined to 1.84 per cent in 2004; in
the health sector there are regional, socio-
economic, caste and gender-based dispari-
ties; Centre-state fiscal relations are a matter
of concern; an institutional framework for
public-private partnership is still to be de-
veloped; access to justice is not universal de-
spite
p the rise of p panchayati
y raj.j Finally,y be-
cause of the demands of national securityy
versus social security and individual free-
dom, the essence of democracy, y which re-
spects
p the sovereignty
g y of individual liberty,
y is
vague
g at best. Some of these challenges, g tion of self-government established or consti-
specifically
p y the need to address threat to
whistle-blowers, w were cited by Dr Manmo-
the definition of “information” in the Act.
Information means anyy material in anyy form
includingg records, documents, memos,
p press releases, cir-
advice, p
culars, orders, logbooks,
g contracts, reports,
p substantially financed, directly or indirectly
papers,
p p samples,
p models, data material held
in anyy electronic form and “information re-
latingg to anyy private
p bodyy which can be ac-
cessed byy a public
p authorityy under any other
law for the time being in force”. A As the PM
mentioned in his address, this will clearly
bring under the Act almost the entire scope
of the economic firmament, which, thanks
to the heritage of our “welfare state”, is an-
swerable to ggovernment in a wide host of
sectors. Keyy conceptsp under the rightg to in-
formation, then, include the following:
■ Transparency and accountability in the
working of every public authority.
■ The right of any citizen of India to re-
q
quest access to information and the cor-
responding
p g dutyy of the government to
meet the request, except the exempted in-
formation.
■ The duty of the government to proactively
make available key information to all.
Clearly then, this law places a responsi-
bility on all sections of the national fabric:
citizenry, NGOs and the media. The re-
sponsibility is not that of government
alone. This brings into context the PM’s
call, on October 14, to all participants in
the process to flag the challenges that gov-
ernment and the citizenry face in applying
the law. What must follow then is the oblig-
ation so clearly enunciated in Section 4 (1)
of the Act.
“ Every public authority shall — a) main-
tain all its records duly catalogued and in-
dexed in a manner and form which facili-
tates the right to information under this Act
and ensure that all records that are appro-
priate to be computerised are, within a rea-
through a network all over the country on
different systems so that access to such
records is facilitated”
And what then is a “public authority”?
This covers any authority or body or institu-
tuted —
■ by or under the Constitution;
■ by any other law made by Parliament;
■ by any other law made by state legislature;
■ by notification issued or order made by
the appropriate government, and includes
any body owned, controlled or substantially
financed; non-government organisation
by funds provided by the appropriate gov-
ernment.
The right
g to information includes the
g to inspect
right p works, documents, records,
take notes, extracts or certified copiesp off
documents or records, take certified sam-
ples of material, obtain information in form
p vide a unifying vision or be-
of printouts,
p diskettes, floppies,
pp p video
tapes,
cassettes or in anyy other electronic mode or
throughg pprintouts. It does not extend to in-
formation not held in material form.
To be continued
The writer was chief information
commissioner to the government of India
without heroes
The Arab Spring has been remarkable for
the lack of intellectual standard-bearers
ROBERT F. WORTH
IN mid-June, the Syrian
poet known as Adonis, one
of the Arab world’s most
renowned literary figures,
addressed an open letter to
Bashar al-Assad. The stage
was set for one of those mo-
ments, familiar from revo-
lutions past, in which an in-
tellectual hero confronts an
oppressive ruler and voices
the grievances of a nation.
Instead, Adonis — who
lives in exile in France —
bitterly disappointed many
Syrians. The incident has
come to illustrate the re-
markable gulf between the
Arab world’s established in-
tellectuals and the largely
anonymous young people
who have led the protests of
the Arab Spring.
More than 10 months af-
ter it started, the great wave
of insurrection across the
Arab world has toppled
three autocrats and led, in
Tunisia, to an election that
many hailed as the dawn of a
new era. It has not yielded
any clear political or eco-
nomic project, or any intel-
lectual standard-bearers of
the kind who shaped almost
every modern revolution
from 1776 onward. In those
revolts, thinkers or ideo-
logues — from Thomas
Paine to Lenin to Mao to
Vaclav Havel — helped pro-
came symbols of a people’s
aspirations.
The absence of such fig-
ures in the Arab Spring is
partly a measure of the pres-
sures Arab intellectuals
have lived under in recent
decades, trapped between
brutal state repression on
lectual silence of the current
uprising is a deliberate re-
sponse to the hollow revolu-
tionary rhetoric of previous
generations. The Arab na-
tionalist movement began in
the 1930s and ‘40s with ide-
alistic young men who
hoped to lead the region out
of its colonial past, back-
wardness and tribalism. The
Syrian political philosopher
Michel Aflaq and other
young writers found inspi-
ration in German theories
of nationalism, and envi-
sioned their Baath Party as
an instrument for moderni-
sation and economic justice.
But the party and its misty
ideas were soon hijacked by
military officers in Syria and
Iraq. In Egypt too, Arab so-
cialism soon became little
more than a pretext for dic-
tatorship. Arab nationalism
reached its zenith — or its
nadir — in Gaddafi, who
saw himself as a godlike in-
tellectual, imposing his
delusional Third Universal
Theory on Libya’s hapless
people.
TO SOME extent, the
intellectual silence of
the current uprising is
a response to the
hollow revolutionary
rhetoric of previous
generations.
Inevitably, and perhaps
unfairly, the current Arab
tumult has been compared
with the uprising against
communism in Eastern Eu-
rope in 1989, the last great
social upheaval of compara-
ble scale Intellectuals
Setting limits file:///R:/News/Magz/Frontline/8th Sept/20120921291809300.htm

Frontline
Volume 29 - Issue 18 :: Sep.
• Contents
08-21, 2012
INDIA'S NATIONAL MAGAZINE
from the publishers of THE HINDU

RTI

Setting limits
V.VENKATESAN
in New Delhi

The Central government notifies new RTI rules, which effectively

curb citizens’ right to obtain information.
A.M. FARUQUI

A resident of Bhopal, who was allegedly charged Rs.9,385 for

information demanded under the RTI, displaying his 'below poverty
line' card, a file photograph. Information under the Act, however, is
free for applicants belonging to BPL families.

ON July 31, the Central government notified new rules to implement the
Right to Information Act, 2005. The rules will come into force once the
Central government tables the notification in Parliament and both Houses
of Parliament agree to it. The Department of Personnel and Training
(DoPT) has not published these rules on its website as of August 22. The
media, however, have gained access to them.

RTI activists are unhappy that the government did not discuss these rules
with civil society. Worse, they allege that the government ignored many of
the suggestions forwarded by civil society even though it had invited civil
society’s participation in the framing of rules. As revealed in its reply to
RTI activist Lokesh Batra, the DoPT has lost the entire folder containing
the suggestions from civil society and other stakeholders, making a
mockery of the exercise.

1 of 4 16-Jan-13 7:42 PM
Setting limits file:///R:/News/Magz/Frontline/8th Sept/20120921291809300.htm

The new Rule 3 says that an application shall ordinarily not contain more
than 500 words, excluding annexures containing the addresses of the
Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) and the applicant. This section
has a proviso saying that no application shall be rejected only on the
grounds that it contains more than 500 words. Earlier, the government had
toyed with the idea of restricting the length of an RTI application to 250
words and to one subject. However, in view of the protests that greeted
the proposal, the government abandoned it. Yet, the restriction that the
application shall not contain more than 500 words loses its significance
because the proviso effectively makes it impossible to reject the
application on this ground. What weighed with the government in keeping
this restriction and the proviso together is not clear.

Venkatesh Naik of the National Campaign for People’s Right to

Information feels that the new rule could enable CPIOs to “return”, if not
reject, an application if it crosses the 500-word limit or ask the applicant
to resubmit the application after complying strictly with the word limit.
According to him, imposing a word-limit on the RTI application violates
the right to freedom of expression. Indeed, Justice A.P. Shah, whom the
National Advisory Council (NAC) consulted on the rules, was clear that
imposing a word limit on the application was unconstitutional.

The Bihar government imposes a 150-word limit on RTI applications, and

restricts applications to one subject matter. The implementation of this
rule appears to defeat the very objectives of the RTI Act.

Calling Section 3 half-baked, Naik suggests that the rules provide

guidance as to what the CPIOs should do if applications exceed a
prescribed word limit. He points to another way the rules can defeat the
very objective of the RTI Act. The Act permits a second appeal to the
State Information Commission or the Central Information Commission
(CIC), if the appellant is dissatisfied with the reply or order he received
from the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Second appeals are permitted
also if the FAA does not furnish a reply to the appellant within the
prescribed time limit. In Bihar, it is mandatory to enclose the reply of the
FAA while filing a second appeal.

Activists are also unhappy that Section 4 of the new rules requires that the
applicant bear postal charges (exceeding Rs.50) involved in the supply of
information. Rule 5 exempts applicants belonging to below poverty line
families from paying any fee, provided a copy of the certificate issued by
the appropriate government is submitted along with the application.

Activists are divided over the import of Rules 11 and 12. Rule 11 (v)
requires hearing of the third party (who is neither the appellant nor the
respondent, but has stakes in the outcome of the case before the CIC) by
the CIC. Some activists are concerned that this rule would further delay
the proceedings. Others believe that since the rule requires that the CIC
may hear the third party, the Information Commissioners can use their
discretion to decide whether hearing them is necessary or not.

Rule 12 requires that the appellant be present in person, or through his

duly authorised representative, or through videoconferencing at the time
of hearing of the appeal by the commission. The relevant previous rule

2 of 4 16-Jan-13 7:42 PM
Setting limits file:///R:/News/Magz/Frontline/8th Sept/20120921291809300.htm

gave an option to the appellant to absent himself during the hearing. Batra
believes that the new rule is a serious restriction as it pushes up the cost of
the second appeal. Naik cites Rule 12(3), which enables the CIC to afford
another opportunity to the appellant to be heard if it is satisfied that
circumstances exist due to which the appellant is unable to attend the
hearing. The commission can also take any other appropriate action that it
deems fit.

Rule 13 enables public authority to authorise any representative or any of

its officers to present its case. According to Batra, this dilutes Section
19(5) of the RTI Act. Under this provision, in any appeal proceedings, the
onus to prove that denial of a request was justified shall be on the CPIO or
the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the
request. It appears that the CIC, in one of its orders, has deprecated the
practice of officers favouring friendly lawyers by paying them high fees to
argue the cases before the CIC, even though they know very little of the
cases for which they are hired. The new rule appears to encourage this
practice.

The new rules are not the only concern. Both the CIC and the High Courts
have, through some of their recent decisions, appeared to defeat the very
objective of the Act.

The government recently amended the RTI Act to bring the Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the second schedule of Section 24 of
the Act, which lists the organisations exempted from making disclosures
under the Act. A proviso to this section denies exemption to information
relating to allegations of corruption or human rights violations.

In a recent order, the CIC held that the CBI need not reveal information
relating to allegations of corruption which are not levelled against its
employees. The CIC, Satyananad Mishra, held that since the CBI mainly
investigated corruption-related cases, the legislative intent in exempting it
from disclosing information could be defeated if it was directed to share
information about its corruption cases.

Activists, however, disagree. They point out that the CBI also investigates
cases of terrorism and security-related cases and that is the reason for the
legislative intent to exempt it.

The practice of the High Courts granting stay orders against the decisions
of the CIC has also come in for criticism from the Act’s well-wishers. It
has been observed that if the court grants a stay on the CIC’s order after
the order has been violated, it amounts to providing the fig leaf of legal
sanctity to an illegal action. It is pointed out that when granting such stays,
the High Court usually does not give any reasons for doing so.

Printer friendly page

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Subscribe | Contact Us | Archives | Contents

(Letters to the Editor should carry the full postal address)

3 of 4 16-Jan-13 7:42 PM
Setting limits file:///R:/News/Magz/Frontline/8th Sept/20120921291809300.htm

Home | The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar | Publications | eBooks | Images

Copyright © 2012, Frontline.

Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly

prohibited
without the written consent of Frontline

4 of 4 16-Jan-13 7:42 PM

RTI was designed to expand access to information, by training citizens and the government
WAJAHAT HABIBULLAH
PART 2
THE following are exempt from dis-
closure under Section 8 of the Right
to Information Act:
■ Information, disclosure of which
would prejudicially affect the sover-
eignty and integrity of India, the secu-
rity, strategic, scientific or economic
interests of the state, relation with
foreign state or lead to incitement of
an offence.
■ Information which has been ex-
pressly forbidden to be published by
any court of law or tribunal or the
disclosure of which may constitute
contempt of court.
■ Information, the disclosure of
which would cause a breach of privi-
lege of Parliament or the state legisla-
ture.
■ Information including commercial
confidence, trade secrets or intellec-
tual property, the disclosure of which
would harm the competitive position
of a third party, unless the compe-
tent authority is satisfied that larger
public interest warrants the disclo-
sure of such information.
■Information available to a person in
his fiduciary relationship, unless the
competent authority is satisfied that
the larger public interest warrants the
disclosure of such information.
■ Information received in confi-
dence from foreign governments.
Questions about answers
■ Information which would impede
the process of investigation or appre-
hension or prosecution of offenders.
■ Cabinet papers including records
of deliberations of the council of
ministers, secretaries and other offi-
cers.
■ Information which relates to per-
sonal information, the disclosure of
which has no relationship to any
public activity or interest, or which
would cause unwarranted invasion
of the privacy of the individual; in-
fringes copyright, except of the state.
■ Where practicable, part of record
can be released.
■ Intelligence and security agencies
are exempt — except cases of cor-
ruption and human rights violation.
■ Third-party information to be
EVERY DEPARTMENT was expected to organise educational programmes to advance the
understanding of the public, particularly the disadvantaged, on the RTI. Not having done
so, the government can hardly blame the public for misuse.
released after giving notice to third
party.
It needs, however, to be noted
that under the proviso contained in
Section 8(2), notwithstanding any of
these exemptions or indeed the Offi-
cial Secrets Act 1923, a public au-
thority may still allow access to infor-
mation, if public interest in
disclosure is deemed to outweigh the
harm to the protected interests. And
most exempt information is, at any
rate, to be released after 20 years,
with some exceptions, although also
provided that the information, which
cannot be denied to Parliament or a
state legislature shall not be denied
to any person. Unfortunately, on this
provision there has been no endeav-
our by government despite pro-
nouncements of the Central Infor-
mation Commission, thus making
more complicated for itself govern-
ment’s responsibility in keeping in-
formation secret.
What is noteworthy is that this
law specifically seeks universal ac-
cess, especially to the poor. It is, of
course, open only to citizens of In-
dia, as per Section 3, but the fee is
also required to be at a reasonable
level, although the quantum is speci-
fied only by rule, and there is no fee
for BPL persons. Assistant public in-
formation officers are required at
sub-district levels to facilitate the fil-
ing of applications and appeals.
Hence, heads of post offices have
been given this authority by the Cen-
tral government.
There is no need to specify a rea-
son for seeking information or to
provide any other personal details.
There is a provision that the PIO re-
duce oral requests into writing and
for the PIO to provide all required
assistance, including to disabled per-
sons. Information is to be provided
in local languages. There is provision
for damages.
This placed a host of responsibil-
ities on public authorities, who were
required to appoint PIOs/assistant
PIOs within 100 days of the RTI en-
actment and to begin maintaining,
cataloguing, and indexing, comput-
erising and networking records in ac-
cordance with Section 4(1) (a).
If this has not happened to the
extent required, the government,
which appoints CPIOs from officers
at a relatively junior level, has only
itself to blame. These authorities
were to publish, within 120 days of
enactment, a whole set of informa-
tion, and update it every year.
This was to include publishing
suo moto all relevant facts while for-
mulating important policies or an-
nouncing the decisions which affect
the public, and also providing rea-
sons for its administrative or quasi-
judicial decisions to all affected per-
sons. Authorities were made
primarily responsible for raising
awareness, educating and training
officials and the public. Every de-
partment was expected to develop
and organise educational pro-
grammes to advance the under-
standing of the public, particularly
the disadvantaged, to exercise the
right to information. Not having
done so, the government can hardly
blame the public for misuse.
Government was thus to encour-
age public authorities to participate
in programmes, promote timely and
effective dissemination of accurate
information, train PIOs and produce
relevant training materials. To
achieve this, government has devel-
oped a scheme for e-governance. It
is agreed that for the success of this
initiative, RTI is essential. Here
there has been progress, but only at
the level of the Centre.
Key to the effective functioning
of the Act is the Gram Panchayat,
which can be the repository for
scheme information, citizen surveys,
fiscal information, etc. But this will
happen only with the devolution of
functions, funds and functionaries.
This body can then become the
service provider for over-the-counter
services, certificates, taxation, billing,
licences, ration cards, and a host of
such services at the grassroots, work-
ing to keep the citizenry informed as a
group (Gram Sabhas) and as individ-
uals, whose concerns and questions
can also be appropriately addressed
by reference to the relevant author-
ity. This would ensure better feed-
back and accountability.
In reviewing the enforcement of
the RTI Act, it would be wise to bear
in mind the remarks of Justice
Mathew on behalf of the bench in
State of UP v Raj Narain (1975), oft-
quoted in judicial circles while debat-
ing the law:
“In a government of responsibility
like ours, where all agents of the
public must be responsible for their
conduct, there can be but few se-
crets. The people of this country
have a right to know every public act,
everything that is done in a public
way, by their public functionaries...
to cover with a veil of secrecy the
common routine business, is not in
the interest of the public.”
Concluded
The writer was chief
information commissioner to the
government of India
O g US p
I say they shouldn’t have blinked before the Re-
publican onslaught.
If leading from behind brings the success of the
Libyan intervention, and refusal to be “a nation of
followers” brings you Iraq and Afghanistan, the
choice seems clear enough. Lead me from behind,
Mr President.
The Republicans seem to think all Americans
want this nation back at the pinnacle of its power, in
the midst of an American century, so overwhelm-
ingly “No. 1” that it can speak and others will follow,
so inspiring in wealth and might that it has all human-
ity in its thrall.
The little hitch with these clarion calls is that they
ignore the facts. Iraq and Afghanistan have exacted a
toll on America — in lives, treasure and standing —
that it will take a generation to work through. Glob-
alisation and IT are sucking away jobs; the jobs that
remain demand levels of education that the country
is doing a poor job providing. Debt, national and per-
sonal, hangs like a giant cloud over the United States.
The country is beset by paralyzing political division.
Growing inequality has trampled on fairness to the
point that Americans are taking to the streets. Right
now America is neither morally compelling nor ma-
terially convincing.
In these circumstances it’s sensible to husband re-
sources, use the burden-sharing of military alliances
to the full, take out terrorists one by one rather than
go to war against them, and act in concert with like-
minded nations where possible — which is what I
take “leading from behind” to mean. It’s a doctrine
for a changed world. The Libyan intervention was a
conspicuous example of its capacity for good.
None of this means that I accept the inevitability of
American decline. On the contrary, I am a strong be-
liever in America’s unique gift for reinvention and re-
generation. The American century is over and not
coming back — this could be nobody’s century, as be-
fits a globalised world — but that does not make Amer-
ican power any less critical. It just has to be exercised in
ways consistent with the facts, as it was in Libya.
Where Obama has failed to lead — from in front,
atop, behind or anywhere — is on the domestic front,
where America’s regeneration capacity has stalled.
Great presidents lift the national mood. They are in
sync with, and can summon, the American spirit.
FDR and Reagan and Clinton had this quality.
Obama has not discovered it, which is why next year’s
election is no shoo-in.
The New York Times