Web Link: http://www.indianexpress.com/oldStory/74248/
(This article came in the editorial page of Indian Express on 12 July 2005)
The Right To Information (RTI) Act is still the focus of much debate, with agencies like the CBI and CVC demanding to be given immunity from being made to reveal information under it. How the government will respond to their request is not known yet, but exceptions of this kind could end up undermining its efficacy. There are, in fact, many lacunae in the new law that we need to know about.
The Central/State Information Commission (IC) is the appellate authority that is also responsible for encouraging the citizen’s right to know and enforcing various provisions of the act. Although it is seemingly an independent body, the process of the appointment of its office-bearers and its composition have shortcomings. The committee that recommends the names of the members of the IC will consist of the PM/CM, the leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha/legislative assembly and one cabinet minister. It does not include the chief justice of India (CJI)/CJ of the high court, as was originally recommended by the National Advisory Council.
The inclusion of the CJI would certainly have made the selection process more apolitical and fairer. As far as its composition goes, it should have been somewhat similar to that of the National Human Rights Commission, as this too is a high-powered rights commission. If not the retired chief justice, at least a retired judge of the SC (or HC, as the case may be) should have headed the Commission in order to make the institution more credible. Although the act has made the scope for choice fairly broad — it may include lawyers, judges, academics, journalists, bureaucrats — much however would depend on the subjective assessment of the selection committee which could end up appointing its hand-picked persons to the Commission.
The aggrieved citizen has no opportunity to directly approach the IC for appeal. The first appeal is to lie with the officer senior in rank to the public information officer (PIO) concerned, who will discharge the application within 30 days. The second appellate authority is the IC and the third is the High Court.
This provision has the inherent potential to not only delay the process of the disposal of the application but, more importantly, to discourage the applicant. It is necessary to study the psyche of any ordinary person of this country who is brought up in a culture where s/he has been made to accept the decisions of government officials without questioning them. Will s/he possibly think it appropriate to go for a second appeal challenging the wisdom of those who s/he considers as more knowledgeable? Nor will s/he like to make rounds in different offices to get the information.
There should have been some structural arrangement for periodic interaction between RTI activists and political executives, similar to the Delhi state council for right to information. Such a council could have the minister, department of administrative reforms, as its chairperson, and individuals from the field of social service and journalism, law, and so on, as its members. Such an arrangement would have made the government more sensitive to the issue and more accountable to the citizen under the new RTI regime.
Bringing the concept of third party under the purview of the law is a remarkable feature of the new RTI regime. Apart from others, the third party will cover private concerns, trusts and civil society organisations, and others, from whom the public cannot ask for information directly. Keeping in mind the right to privacy, the bill gives reasonable opportunity of representation to the third party before disclosing certain information concerning them to the public. Everything, in fact, lies in the court of the Public Information Officers (PIOs) and the ICs, who will take the decision to disclose or withhold the information asked for, keeping in view the representation submitted by the third party. Here the PIO should be guided by both the letter of the law that disclosure should be done “if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party by such disclosure”, and the spirit that the law aims for — to bring about openness and transparency to the system with the ultimate aim to protect and promote public interest.
There are certain issues which have not been addressed in the law and should not be overlooked during the formulation of rules. For instance, no time limit has been fixed for the ICs to dispose the appeal; the nature of the fees for obtaining the information should be made as clear as possible or else it will give PIOs scope for manipulating provisions that could result in discouraging and harassing applicants.
(The writer works with Parivartan, which is active on RTI issues)
(This article came in the editorial page of Indian Express on 12 July 2005)
Info law: fill in the blanks
Pradeep Baisakh Posted: Jul 12, 2005 at 0000 hrs IST
Pradeep Baisakh Posted: Jul 12, 2005 at 0000 hrs IST
The Right To Information (RTI) Act is still the focus of much debate, with agencies like the CBI and CVC demanding to be given immunity from being made to reveal information under it. How the government will respond to their request is not known yet, but exceptions of this kind could end up undermining its efficacy. There are, in fact, many lacunae in the new law that we need to know about.
The Central/State Information Commission (IC) is the appellate authority that is also responsible for encouraging the citizen’s right to know and enforcing various provisions of the act. Although it is seemingly an independent body, the process of the appointment of its office-bearers and its composition have shortcomings. The committee that recommends the names of the members of the IC will consist of the PM/CM, the leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha/legislative assembly and one cabinet minister. It does not include the chief justice of India (CJI)/CJ of the high court, as was originally recommended by the National Advisory Council.
The inclusion of the CJI would certainly have made the selection process more apolitical and fairer. As far as its composition goes, it should have been somewhat similar to that of the National Human Rights Commission, as this too is a high-powered rights commission. If not the retired chief justice, at least a retired judge of the SC (or HC, as the case may be) should have headed the Commission in order to make the institution more credible. Although the act has made the scope for choice fairly broad — it may include lawyers, judges, academics, journalists, bureaucrats — much however would depend on the subjective assessment of the selection committee which could end up appointing its hand-picked persons to the Commission.
The aggrieved citizen has no opportunity to directly approach the IC for appeal. The first appeal is to lie with the officer senior in rank to the public information officer (PIO) concerned, who will discharge the application within 30 days. The second appellate authority is the IC and the third is the High Court.
This provision has the inherent potential to not only delay the process of the disposal of the application but, more importantly, to discourage the applicant. It is necessary to study the psyche of any ordinary person of this country who is brought up in a culture where s/he has been made to accept the decisions of government officials without questioning them. Will s/he possibly think it appropriate to go for a second appeal challenging the wisdom of those who s/he considers as more knowledgeable? Nor will s/he like to make rounds in different offices to get the information.
There should have been some structural arrangement for periodic interaction between RTI activists and political executives, similar to the Delhi state council for right to information. Such a council could have the minister, department of administrative reforms, as its chairperson, and individuals from the field of social service and journalism, law, and so on, as its members. Such an arrangement would have made the government more sensitive to the issue and more accountable to the citizen under the new RTI regime.
Bringing the concept of third party under the purview of the law is a remarkable feature of the new RTI regime. Apart from others, the third party will cover private concerns, trusts and civil society organisations, and others, from whom the public cannot ask for information directly. Keeping in mind the right to privacy, the bill gives reasonable opportunity of representation to the third party before disclosing certain information concerning them to the public. Everything, in fact, lies in the court of the Public Information Officers (PIOs) and the ICs, who will take the decision to disclose or withhold the information asked for, keeping in view the representation submitted by the third party. Here the PIO should be guided by both the letter of the law that disclosure should be done “if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party by such disclosure”, and the spirit that the law aims for — to bring about openness and transparency to the system with the ultimate aim to protect and promote public interest.
There are certain issues which have not been addressed in the law and should not be overlooked during the formulation of rules. For instance, no time limit has been fixed for the ICs to dispose the appeal; the nature of the fees for obtaining the information should be made as clear as possible or else it will give PIOs scope for manipulating provisions that could result in discouraging and harassing applicants.
(The writer works with Parivartan, which is active on RTI issues)
No comments:
Post a Comment