Jump to content

Rights & Wrongs

Recommended Posts


An article by Priya Kanungo in The Financial Express(29.04.2007)


As citizenspeak goes, the Right to Information (RTI) Act means great ‘people power’. It’s the kind that India hasn’t ever had in the past. We’ve had several laws drafted for us which most of us don’t know of and can’t understand. But thanks to social activists and the media, the RTI Act is probably the only one the common man says is “mine”.While earlier, he was considered lucky if he got what was rightfully his, whether it was his passport or ration card, now, RTI is the key with which he gets most doors ope.


It’s been one and a half years now since its inception on October 12, 2005. The babus have, under the law, ceased to be guardians of “official secrets” and the hoi polloi is having its way like never before by asking a few smart questions.


Thousands of RTI applications have been sent to Public Information Officers (PIOs) of the appropriate government departments, information has been given within 30 days and people have gone back satisfied. As Magsaysay-award winner and Mazdoor Kisaan Shakti Sangathan representative, Aruna Roy says: “While stories of the use of RTI by people in urban areas occupy our newspapers, the extensive use of the RTI Act by ordinary people in thousands of villages across India is less known.” Whether it is to do with wages, employment, rations, health or land deeds, Roy feels it is RTI that has made the happy difference. One remarkable application of the RTI, she feels, has been in the social audit of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) works (See box). It has involved thousands of people in mass campaigns, applying for information, verifying records and ensuring the transparency of muster rolls. “While the urban critics of the NREGA point to the stories of frauds as evidence of its failure, what they fail to perceive and, therefore, acknowledge, is that it is the use and success of the RTI, through social audit in NREGA, that has brought this corruption to light,” she says with pride.



So that’s when information is asked for and given. But when information is not obtained and the appellate machinery is used, the story is a sad one to tell... In fact, it can be a pain in the neck.

Under the law, the PIO has to reply to an RTI application within 30 days. If the reply is not given within 30 days, the applicant can go on first appeal to the PIO’s senior, who is the appellate authority (AA). If the applicant draws a blank here too, he has the right to approach the final appellate authority, which is the Chief Information Commission (CIC). That’s where he could get stuck because of a hole in the Act—there is no deadline given to the CIC to get back to the information seeker. This is why cases keep hanging and Information Commissioners (there are five at the Centre right now, apart from those in the states, who form the State Information Commission) have an eight-month waiting period before they deign to hear a case. It’s a deficiency in the Act which commissioners are obviously making good use of.


Ask the Chief Information Commissioner and a former bureaucrat, Wajahat Habibullah about this, and he admits there is a long queue (which a click on the CIC website would reveal too), but defends it thus: “When we started the commission one and a half years ago, we were pretty much on virgin territory. This was a new Act and we needed time to understand it. We didn’t know whether we were to function as bureaucrats or judges. Our administrative systems had to be put in place. Today, we are far more systematic and our commission is accessible to the public. We are also looking at cases at a much faster rate.” Prof M M Ansari, an Information Commissioner with the CIC, adds: “Not only is there no stipulation as to by when we need to dispose of our cases, the fact is that the commission is currently working at half its strength. While the Act says there should be 10 commissioners, right now we are just five.”



Ask him whether people are truly making use of the Act, Habibullah says the awareness about the Act has grown, thanks to the intervention of social activists and the media. “Initially, neither the citizen nor the officers in government knew about the powers of the Act. But with growing awareness, PIOs are falling in line and information is being furnished.


But another Magsaysay-award winner and founder of Parivartan, Arvind Kejriwal begs to differ. He believes and so do most acknowledge, that the RTI Act is perhaps the only law in the country today which penalises a government officer for not doing his duty. Under the Act, for every day’s delay beyond the specified 30 days, a PIO is liable to be fined at the rate of Rs 250 per day, up to a maximum of Rs 25,000. So far, if the records of the CIC are examined, there have been a total of only 27 cases on which penalties have been imposed, out of the thousands that have come to the commission since October 2005. (This is apart from what happens in the state commissions, which have a different set of numbers to crunch). “When the Act came into being, most in the government were afraid of penalties being imposed for not furnishing information. But in the last one-and-a-half years, the word is spreading fast that the CIC isn’t interested in imposing penalties. PIOs go round saying to citizens: ‘you can go on appeal. Nothing is going to come of it.’ So the fear of being penalised isn’t there,” adds Kejriwal. And that’s where the Act gets defeated.


There is a further fall-out to this, says Kejriwal. “One of the causes for pendency (the long waiting list of cases) is that because the commissioners are not imposing penalties, people are coming back with fresh appeals. The cases are building up as a result.”


There are other issues too. Many times applicants have been fobbed off with answers like ‘We can’t find the file’ or ‘it has got lost’. There is another grievance. The Act states clearly that there isn’t any format for filing an application. This is to facilitate uneducated citizens who might not know the nitty-gritty of writing complicated applications. But often, their requests are rejected because they are not in the proper format. When these issues were raised, Habibullah said: “”Yes, cases of files getting lost have come to us. So now we are telling the officer concerned to show cause and that an FIR should be lodged for the disappearance of office property.” He goes a step further to say: “Sometimes a PIO tells us he asked the officer of the concerned department to furnish information that was sought by the applicant, but that he did not get it. So now, instead of penalising the PIO, we fine the officer concerned, who then becomes the deemed PIO.”


Then there are cases of dismissal of cases without a hearing. Both Ansari and Habibullah admit there have been such cases but they cite the following reason for it: “Sometimes applications come to us which state “Why have I not got my promotion?”; “When will so and so decision be taken?” or even absurd ones like “Has the British Raj come back to India?” Now for questions like this, we don’t really need a hearing, which will further delay matters. We just direct the concerned department to furnish the information which might be useful for the applicant. After all, we are an Information Commission. We can help people get information. We can’t settle their disputes,” says Habibullah.


There is yet another accusation against the commission—that it is soft on government officers. As yet another Magsaysay-award winner and social activist Anna Hazare, who is currently touring 110 tehsils in Maharashtra to spread awareness about RTI, says: “The commission, both at the Centre and in the states, has become a resting ground for ex-bureaucrats. All their lives they have been protecting their lot, so how do you expect them to be strict with officers now? We need people from the judiciary, military and independent professionals who have an expansive view of India to be commissioners. Not former bureaucrats.” But he is hopeful that as people all over the country are made aware of the Act, there will be a better tomorrow. “About 70 % of corruption in government can be reduced by exercising RTI. Sarkaar ki naak dabne se, mooh khul jayegi,” Hazare says emphatically.


So, adding to the potholes that plague the RTI journey is the government and its characteristically lackadaisical nature. As Kewal Semlani, who has fought several RTI cases in Maharashtra, points out: “According to Section 4 of the RTI Act, every public authority (read: government-funded organisation) must maintain a website and records which give details of its functioning. Unfortunately, most of these public authorities don’t. This goes against the ‘voluntary disclosure’ norm. So people have to apply to these public authorities for information, which they could have otherwise got freely had it been made available on the internet.”


But amidst this blame game, where the RTI Act sometimes becomes a casualty, there are innumerable victory stories of both individuals and organizations. There is a great deal of fine-tuning to be done though. After all, the RTI Act rests on four legs—civil society, government, social activism and the information commission. There is no use blaming any one of them. It could be a case of differing perceptions too. As Gujarat Information Commissioner, R N Das, says: “Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act talks about the spirit of the Act, which is tilted towards the citizen. Yes, evidence has to be evaluated neutrally. But when it comes to arguments, there could be a philosophical divide. It’s better to help the citizen, who might not know the intricacies of the law, rather than the representative of a public authority, who would know its finer nuances. That is an individual decision that every commissioner has to take.”


Perception or otherwise, it’s a great feeling to know there is a law today that has the power to remove the shroud of secrecy that has, for decades, surrounded most government activity.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a very Good Article Ganpat,

Thanx for sharing.


I believe the best way to implement this ACT from the Officers point of view is to put himself in the shoes of the information seeker as Citizen, Empathies with the problem and then provide information. If officers become Citizen in implementation of the Act, then Citizen is not required to use the Act.


I believe the attitude is changing and every change takes a point to reach to the critical mass. In case of RTI the critical mass is still to be reached.


I am sure our community is playing a right ful role in helping to reach this stage.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      There can be no faith in government if our highest offices are excused from scrutiny - they should be setting the example of transparency.
    • ashakantasharma
      By ashakantasharma
      International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention
      ISSN (Online): 2319 – 7722, ISSN (Print): 2319 – 7714
      www.ijhssi.org Volume 2 Issue 2 ǁ March. 2013ǁ PP.11-22
      Since came into force on 15th June, 2005 Right to Information act has been successfully working in most of the Indian states. The act is enacted by the state government of Tamilnadu (1997), Rajasthan (2000), Delhi (2001), Maharashtra (2002), Karnataka (2002), Assam (2002), Madhya Pradesh (2003), and Jammu & Kashmir (2004). Research studies shows that in their operation area the Right to Information act has been facing many severe challenges.
      These are as follows:-
      (a) Low level of awareness among people is the major challenge before successful implementation of Right to Information act. People, particularly in remote areas are not concerned with the Right to Information act. The research studies observe that the major sources of awareness are - (1) Mass media like- television channels, newspapers, magazines, journals etc. (2) Word of mouth. The nodal agency specifically the state government has not taken any potential step to promote Right to Information act.
      (b) Illiteracy and poverty is another major challenge before successful implementation of Right to Information act. Right to Information act has does not have any meaning for a Persons who does not have enough money to live, who is not educated and who does not have freedom. In fact, their first requirement is the right to live (right to eat, right to work and right to shelter) and then Right to Information.
      (c) Most of the uneducated even educated peoples do not have the proper knowledge about public Information officers, the procedure of paying fees and to get information.
      (d) Non-availability of user guide is another main challenge before successful RTI act implementation. Absence of user guide creates difficulty on the part of the Information seekers to gather knowledge about the process for submitting a RTI request.
      (e) Lack of commitment in efficient record management both state and central government instructions posing challenge before successful implementation of RTI act.
      (f) Due to the lack of efficient record management system, the public Information Officers face difficulty to get accurate and easy access of information from the concerned department, so that it can be provided to information seekers.
      (g) The non-cooperation from the part of bureaucracy is another major hurdle before RTI act implementation in India. The ―Babu type mentality (colonial mindset) makes them to use information as their own prerogative. Sometimes for their vested interest or to show their superiority, the bureaucrats do not want to disclose the basic information to citizens.
      (h) Bureaucracy also hides information for fear of criticism and to give a good image of them before public.
      (i) Lack of effective coordination and cooperation among state information commissioners and the non cooperation of departments with PIO hinder the process of smooth implementation of RTI act.
      (j) Lack of monitoring and review mechanism also hampers in successful implementation of RTI act in India.
      (k) The limited use of technology has hindered effective implementation of RTI act. Except in a few states no effective IT system have been establish to monitor and report on the disposal of application by public authorities.
      (l) The implementation of RTI act is uneven. It is not equally implemented to all the states. Therefore, awareness level also differs from state to state. In states like Arunachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Punjab the awareness level about RTI act is high, on the other hand awareness of people in Gujrat, Madhyapradesh, Jharkhand and UP is not high. Moreover different rules for different states especially on fees and costs make the RTI filing ineffective.
      (m) Generally, it is observed that retired bureaucrats are being appointed for the post of highest level of RTI officials i.e. the information commission at the central and state levels. These commissions are the independent of the government. Activists are of the opinion that these officials often show sympathetic attitude towards their fellow babus.
      (n) Non-availability of basic infrastructure is another serious hurdle before RTI implementation. The smooth implementation of RTI act requires the Public Information Officers (PIO) to provide information to the applicant through photocopies, soft copies etc. Though these facilities are easily accessible at districts level, but it is a challenge to get information form the block/Panchayat level. PIO claims that lack of infrastructure blockade RTI implementation at block level.
      Recommendations/Suggestions for effective implementation of RTI act-
      (a) As stated above due to ignorance, most of people have not heard about RTI act. To tackle this issue government should allocate huge fund for publicity budget of RTI act. However, this fund should be spent through central Information commission.
      (b) Publicity is very essential for RTI implementation. NGO‘s and civil society groups can take initiative to make massive awareness campaign to educate citizen about RTI act. This awareness programme may be at national, state and block level. Before making awareness programmes, the NGO‘s and CSC groups must identify the target i.e. vulnerable categories of citizens specifically- women, farmers and families, middle and working class. In this regard media and newspaper can play an effective role.
      (c) Children are considered resources for the future health of a nation. Therefore, RTI act should be added in the school syllabus to arouse curiosity of children about RTI at the grass-root level.
      (d) As the nodal administrative authority at the district level, every deputy commissioner and district collectors must be given responsibility of monitoring and implementation of RTI act by various departmental authorities within the respective district.
      (e) State Administrative Training institute can organize appropriate training intervention for the stakeholders.
      (f) There should be efficient and scientific record keeping agency so that applicants can get accurate information. Without modernizing and digitizing management of information and record providing information would take several days often exceeding the legal deadlines. 
      (g) Government departments should be entrusted responsibility to make the implementation of RTI easy for applicants seeking information rather than tough procedures.
      (h) Inculcation of political will is necessary for judicious working of RTI act. The Bureaucrats must come forward to help the aggrieved citizens.
      (i) It is the moral responsibility of the government to protect RTI activists and users and to take legal action against the attackers.
      (j) There is also need strong and robust monitoring and evaluation system. It will help periodically review implementation of the law and provide feedback to government agencies to address the shortcomings.
      (k) There should be proper coordination among state information commissioner and departments for the effective implementation of RTI act.
      (l) It is a recognized fact that for enabling and effective implementation of RTI act, the central and state information commissions need to strengthen their technical and IT capability.
      (m) Fast action to be taken to integrate different websites of all information commissions through a common IT gateway or national portal on RTI. This will prove to be grateful to common citizens.
      (n) Chief information commissioners should have frequent interaction with all information commissioners so that approach of all information commissioners may be similar in dealing with appeals/complaints before them.
      (o) According to the act it is mandatory to provide the information in the given time frame of 30 days. Since the information system is not integrated, therefore it becomes difficult to provide information in the given time. Moreover, many departments could not prepare themselves to respond according to the act.
      (p) Exemption provides under section 24 to the security and intelligence agencies are irrational and contrary to national interest. This exemption should be removed not by amendment of the act but by withdrawing the list of notified agencies in the 2nd schedule of the RTI act.
      (q) Training of officials of all departments and representatives of public authorities is essentially required so that they are made aware of their duties and obligations under the act.
      (r) Government of India should set up a National RTI council, which has members, people from various states, so that problems in implementation the RTI can be monitored regularly.
      (s) Last but not the least, political influence may anomalies in the functions of high level officials, so they have to maintain integrity by ignoring the vested interest.
      Thus it can be rightly mentioned that Right to Information act is an agent of good governance. It makes
      administration more accountable to the people. It makes people aware of administration and gives them an opportunity to take part in decision making process. It promoted democratic ideology by promoting openness and transparency in the administration. It reduces the chances of corruption and abuse of authority by public servants. Since the act is prepared for people‘s interest, hence it success also depends on how they exercise the act. Moreover, there is need active participation from people, NGO‘s, civil society groups, coordination among RTI officials, integrity among government departments and political will from government and elected leaders.


  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy