Govt gives clarification to RTI Act

 

Press Trust Of India

Posted Thursday , August 10, 2006 at 17:48

Email Print

http://www.ibnlive.com/news/govt-gives-clarification-to-rti-act/18193-3.html

New Delhi: Based on the experiences of working of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the government proposes to make certain amendments and clarification to the Act, Rajya Sabha was informed on Thursday.

Government proposes to specifically provide in the RTI Act, 2005, that substantive file notings on plans, schemes and programmes relating to development and social issues shall be liable for disclosure, Minister of state for Personnel Suresh Pachouri said in a written reply.

However, he made it clear that it would not make the RTI Act ineffective.

Replying to another question, Minister for Information and Broadcasting Priyaranjan Dasmunsi denied that the Government has drafted a comprehensive set of guidelines contemplating a series of “do’s” and “don’ts” for broadcast

media.

“No, sir”, was his reply to the question asked by C Ramchandraiah who wanted to know if the government has any such proposals following some sensational sting operations undertaken by the electronic media.

The information and broadcasting minister also denied that any broadcasting code / guidelines being drafted on ‘sting operations’ by the Government.

However, he said a Committee has been constituted to review the Programmes and Advertising Codes, which have held a number of sessions.

Right to `no`

Right to `no`

Business Standard / New Delhi August 10, 2006

http://www.business-standard.com/opinionanalysis/storypage.php?leftnm=4&subLeft=1&chklogin=N&autono=101026&tab=r

The test of a law is when it comes to the difficult cases. The test of the Right to Information Act is not when someone asks for the file notings on a minor municipal matter, but when someone seeks information on a political hot potato, such as the Bofors pay-offs of 1986. Over the last two decades, the scale of the pay-offs has been matched by the amount of newsprint and Parliament time that has been devoted to the scandal and the subsequent cover-up. Governments have both fallen as well as been elected on the strength of this controversy. But the case has now dragged on for so long that a certain sense of Bofors fatigue has also, inevitably, set in.

Still, it is worth noting the government’s response when the BJP MP, Arun Jaitley, sought information (under the RTI Act) on why the government had allowed the UK authorities to defreeze the bank accounts of the Italian businessman, Ottavio Quattrochhi, a friend of the Gandhis and one of those alleged to be involved. The CBI turned down his request, as did the Internal Appellate Authority within the CBI. Mr Jaitley then turned for help to the Central Information Commission. In one case, relating to the correspondence between the CBI and the UK authorities, the reply Mr Jaitley got was that “a large number of files relating to this case are housed in two large rooms in safe cupboards. Any attempt to compile voluminous information will disproportionately divert public resources”! He was further told that the matter was pending adjudication in various courts—but when the High Court ruled against the CBI, it did not appeal, so the case is closed and there is therefore no question of the information prejudicing further action that the government may wish to take.

This points to the fundamental flaw with the Prime Minister’s decision to amend the RTI Act and limit access to only selective file notings, specifically those relating to “development and social issues”. While it is true that the government has been besieged with RTI requests for information pertaining to officials’ transfers and postings, and some change in the law was therefore necessary, a near-blanket ban on file notings makes little sense. The RTI is most useful in matters that have given rise to controversy, and where there have been differences in opinion. Bofors therefore is a good case that makes the point clear. Since the RTI has not yet been amended and stands in its original form, Mr Jaitley would be well advised to press on with the issue and go in appeal to the courts.

What They Don’t Want You To Know

AP

OPINION

What They Don’t Want You To Know

The PM has not outgrown his bureaucratic background. The PMO is being brazen and disingenuous in suggesting that the amendments to the RTI Act would ‘for the first time empower the citizens to access file-notings’. They emasculate the Act, and are clearly unconstitutional.

PRASHANT BHUSHAN http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20060809&fname=prashant&sid=1&pn=1 The amendments proposed to the Right to Information [RTI] Act is a very substantial roll back of the Act. The persistent manner in which the government is pushing this roll-back, despite mounting public criticism, indicates that the PM has not outgrown his bureaucratic background. The disclosure of the text of the proposed amendments has given the lie to the statement put out by the Prime Minister’s Office [PMO] to the effect that the amendments actually for the first time empower the citizens to access file-notings, and that the restrictions relate only to notings on defence and personnel related matters. Apart from the fact that the Central Information Commission [CIC] had repeatedly ruled that the unamended Act did not restrict access to file notings, it can be seen that the text of the amendment restricts access to all file notings except “substantial file notings on plans schemes, programmes of the central government or a state government, as the case may be that relate to development and social issues”. This is done by amending the definition of records in the Act. This amendment will by itself take the life out of the Act. Afterall, it is the notings which deal with the reasons and rationale for any order or decision of the government. Very often, it is the noting by an honest officer which explains what is wrong with a proposed decision of the government. For instance, in the Panna-Mukta Oil deal, it was the noting of the then S.P. CBI, which gave the reasons and circumstances which explained why the decision to hand over ONGC’s developed oilfields to Enron and Reliance was a clear case of corruption, and against public interest . Moreover it the only the notings by various officers which will often reveal whether an officer’s role was above board or whether he was acting on extraneous considerations. The notings are thus critical for fixing accountability. In the absence of notings, it would often not be possible for people to fully appreciate the official rationale for a decision. Though the proposed amendment restricts notings on most subjects, it may be noted that even if it related to only defence and personnel related matters, it would still be objectionable. This is because information (including notings) on defence and security matters are already exempt under Sec 8(1) (a) of the Act, and there is no justification for exempting notings on personnel related matters. The transfers, postings, disciplinary proceedings, suspensions, and promotions of government servants play a critical role in governance.  It is well known that there is a lot of corruption and extraneous influence in such matters, which has a very deleterious effect on governance. Honest officers are often victimized by punishment postings. Corrupt officers are often rewarded with postings on crucial positions. It is well known that often bribes are fixed for postings and transfer of officers in “lucrative” departments like police, excise, Income Tax etc.  In Maharashtra, it was discovered in response to an application under the RTI Act, that the postings of most police officers were on the recommendations of MPs and ministers. By far, the most effective way of checking such arbitrariness in such personnel related matters is to have complete transparency in such matters, so that people can see not just the final decision (which is always said to be on exigencies of service), but also the rationale and the entire decision making process which led to the decision. It is often said that such disclosure of notings related to personnel matters would inhibit officers from expressing themselves freely and frankly. The truth however is, that no honest officer is likely to be inhibited from frankly expressing himself for fear that what he writes may become known. It is only the dishonest officer wanting to make a dishonest noting who is likely to be deterred by such transparency. In fact such transparency would act as a shield for honest officers who are less likely to be victimized if the entire transaction were open to public gaze. Apart from the amendment to exclude file notings, four amendments have been proposed to Section 8 dealing with exemptions, each of which widens the exemptions under the Act. Firstly, the amendment to the proviso to clause (i) of Section 8, now restricts access to Cabinet papers to only the actual decisions and reasons thereof, after the decision, rather than to all papers. This is absolutely unreasonable.In a democracy where the Cabinet is just the representative of the people, who are the real masters, there is no justification for excluding all Cabinet papers from public view, especially after the decision has been taken. If any papers are of a nature that their disclosure would adversely affect Defence or Security, those are already excluded under Section 8 (a). Similarly, any Cabinet paper whose disclosure would be injurious to public interest in any way is already exluded under the various other clauses in Section 8. Three new exemptions are sought to be inserted in Section 8. The first relates to the identity of officers who “made inspections, observations, recommendations, or gave legal advice or opinions …”. Thus this clause seeks to mask the identity of public officials who have played any role in the decision making, even on developmental and social issues. Again, the object seems to be to save officials from being held publicly accountable by withholding the precise role played by different officials in the decision making. This is totally anti democratic and without merit. Another exemption added by newly introduced clause (k) in Section 8 is to restrict “information pertaining to any process of any examination conducted by any public authority, or assessment or evaluation made by it for judging the suitability of any person for appointment or promotion to any post or admission to any course or any such other purpose”. Again, there is no justification for removing from public scrutiny the process of deciding selections, promotions etc. where there is rampant corruption. The opacity of such systems of recruitment and selection is what is allowing such corruption and arbitrariness to go on. The amendment is designed to allow these bodies to continue with such arbitrary and corrupt appointments and selections. Another exemption sought to be introduced is to exempt “copies of noting, or extracts from the document, manuscript and file so far as it relates to legal advice, opinion, observation or recommendation made by any officer during the decision making process, prior to the executive decision or policy formulation”. Such a blanket exemption for restricting all access to the entire decision making, before any decision is made would allow the officials to present every decision, however corrupt and against public interest, as a fait accompli. Take the Enron deal, for example. With such a clause, it would be impossible for people to know how the then Finance Secretary had effectively prevented the Central Electricity Authority from carrying out a financial evaluation of the project, by falsely minuting that the Finance Ministry had carried out such an evaluation. Thus the country came to be saddled with a liability of 10,000 crores which could have been prevented if the correspondence between the Finance Ministry, Power Ministry and the Central Electricity Authority had been accessible and known, before the contract with Enron had been signed.This clause seeks to prevent such examination. Similarly, many Genetically Modified [GM] foods are in the process of being cleared for release currently, without any transparency about the process of clearance and the various bio safety tests that they have or have not been subjected to. This amendment will prevent access to this process of clearance until after they have been cleared and irreparable damage to human health and environment has been done. It can be seen therefore that the amendments proposed are not just substantive, but very far reaching which will take the life out of the Act, which only seeks to give effect to the fundamental rights of citizens under Art 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. These amendments would be clearly unconstitutional as imposing an unreasonable restriction to the citizens right to know what is being done by their public servants. In any case, such far reaching amendments to such a critical statute must not be passed by Parliament without sending them to the Parliamentary Standing Committee. Prashant Bhushan is a senior Supreme Court lawyer.

Transparency

TOI had requested me to write an article on Transparency last week. They have published it on August 8  in the Mumbai edition on page 2. Wanted to share it with all of you:

I was meeting a close friend and activist of the Right To Information movement last December. The Right To Information Act had been implemented throughout India, and we were discussing how it would go forward. Our concerns were on various interpretation and implementation issues. We are both members of a very famous electronic board called Humjanenge. But as our discussion progressed we felt that there was a need for a small group of wise people who could discuss important matters though emails amongst themselves. We decided we would form a separate e-board where only a select few would be invited.

Two hours later I was thinking of the absurdity of the whole concept we had evolved. We, -who championed transparency in all transactions, – had decided to make a group of ‘wise’ people who would debate and discuss how to nurture Right To Information. We had also convinced ourselves that WE had the wisdom and maturity to decide who should comprise this group. Was this thought not an indication of a chink in our professed conviction and commitment to transparency? How absurd and inconsistent was our idea? A coterie would attempt to decide on the matters relating to the Right To Information movement, away from the gaze and questioning of others! My honesty and belief in the cause of transparency were appearing to hollow. Was I being a hypocrite who wanted others to be transparent, but saw the need and justification for secret confabulations for the ‘general good’? I realized that our thought went against the very grain of transparency and was a sign of weakness and arrogance. When I called up my friend, he declared he had also had similar thoughts, and hence we gave up the idea.

Does this mean that everything we say and do should be transparent for everyone to see? There certainly are completely private matters, but for anything to do with public activities, transparency is the best guarantee of delivering Public good. Even in interpersonal relationships a healthy and honest relationship is possible only when we are truthful and transparent. But will this not expose our mistakes and follies? We fear that this would invite ridicule, and loss of respect for us. I think the converse is true. When we are transparent in our actions, we are more careful and less likely to do anything we would be ashamed of.   Whenever we make mistakes, we would focus on correcting ourselves, rather than misusing the same resource and time in covering up. This is not very difficult and is beneficial for all of us. One of the measures of judging ourselves on the transparency scale is to count how often we have admitted to mistakes, – to ourselves, – and to others.

In matters of Governance it is still more important to have transparency, and also more difficult to achieve. Transparency in governance leads to a fairer, more efficient and people-friendly society. The propensity for corruption, arbitrariness and nepotism reduces. The Government can be more transparent only when it is acting in the interests of the people. However, it is more difficult to achieve, since arrogance stalks those who are in power. This arrogance of ‘we know what is best for people’ is coupled with the reluctance and absence of admission of mistakes. A case in point is the recent regressive move to dilute the Right To Information Act. The Government proclaims that file notings were never covered in the definition of ‘information’, but goes ahead and changes the definition of ‘Information’ under the guise of the amendments. It proclaims, ” The overall effort is to promote even greater transparency and accountability in our decision making process.”   But in the actual amendments to the exemptions, it expands the scope of three of the earlier ten exemptions and adds three more. This is supposed to be their contribution for the good of Citizens. A move to expand thirty percent of the present exemptions and add another thirty percent is explained as a move to strengthen the Citizen’s rights! Goebbels would envy this exercise.

But when I remember the incident I have given at the beginning, of two small RTI activists thinking that they had all the wisdom and would opaquely arrive at the best solutions for the Right to Information’, I can understand the Government’s state of mind. I am hoping the Government will also realize and acknowledge its folly in this as we did.

Honesty and transparency go hand in hand, since you can be transparent, only if you are committed to honesty.  If we practise Asatyamevajayate, we cannot be transparent. Right To Information is our tool for bringing about a true Swaraj.   Without transparency a true democracy, following the rule of law will remain a myth.

shailesh gandhi

022 32903776; 26001003
All my mails are in Public domain, and do share them if you wish.
http://www.satyamevajayate.info

CIC seeks correspondence between Vajpayee and Narayanan

CIC seeks correspondence between Vajpayee and Narayanan

Legal Correspondent

http://www.hindu.com/2006/08/10/stories/2006081007991200.htm

“Difficult to understand on what grounds information was denied”

 

 

---

Commission quotes several decisions of Supreme Court in its support Sensitivity of the matter has been admitted by all concerned   New Delhi: The Central Information Commission has directed the Centre to produce in a sealed cover the letters between the former President, K.R. Narayanan, and the former Prime Minister, A.B. Vajpayee, relating to the 2002 Gujarat riots, for perusal to decide whether or not to make them public. The Commission passed this interim order on an appeal filed by C. Ramesh of Vellore for a direction to the Government to disclose the contents of the correspondence exchanged between the two . The stand of the Government was that the entire correspondence between Narayanan and Mr. Vajpayee being fully protected under Article 74 (2) of the Constitution was exempted from disclosure under the Right to Information Act (RIA) and the Constitution. The decision not to disclose the information was taken with utmost responsibility. This correspondence was exchanged during a critical time in a State and any disclosure of the same would result in damage to the public interest. Rejecting this contention, the Commission quoting several decisions of the Supreme Court said: “It may be inferred that Article 74 (2), 78 and 361 of the Constitution do not per se entitle the public authorities to claim “privilege” from disclosure. Now since the RIA has come into force, whatever immunity from disclosure could have been claimed by the State under the law, stands virtually extinguished, except on the ground explicitly mentioned under Section 8 and in some cases under Section 11 of the RIA.” The Commission said: “It is difficult to understand as to on what grounds the information has been denied. It is also difficult to comprehend as to how the disclosure of the information is going to affect the strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State. It appears that the denial has been communicated in a mechanical manner.” “Prima facie, the correspondence involves a sensitive matter of public interest. The sensitivity of the matter and involvement of a larger public interest has also been admitted by all concerned including the appellant. We consider it appropriate, that, before taking a final decision on this appeal, we should personally examine the documents to decide whether larger public interest would require disclosure of the documents in question or not.” The Commission said after examining the documents it would consider whether it would be in public interest to order disclosure or not, and only then it would issue appropriate directions to the public authority. It directed the public authority to produce the impugned documents for Commission’s perusal in a sealed cover on August 22 through a senior officer, who would remain present during perusal and thereafter take them back after sealing the same.

Jurists: no justification for not disclosing file notings

Jurists: no justification for not disclosing file notings

Legal Correspondent

http://www.hindu.com/2006/08/10/stories/2006081004291300.htm

Amendments restrict people’s right to know what public servants are doing

 

 

---

Right to information is untrammelled constitutional guarantee Disclosure of all `file notings’ will not deter honest persons   NEW DELHI: Jurists V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.S. Verma and P.B. Sawant have strongly opposed the Centre’s move to introduce amendments not to disclose `file notings’ under the Right to Information Act (RIA), 2005. No justification In a statement, Mr. Justice Verma, former Chief Justice of India; Mr. Justice Krishna Iyer and Mr. Justice Sawant, former Supreme Court judges, said: “There is no justification for such amendments which unreasonably and unconstitutionally seek to restrict the people’s right to know what their public servants are doing on their behalf.” The statement referred to the recent Cabinet decision approving far-reaching amendments, which “seek to restrict access to `file notings’ and allow access to only substantial notings relating to social and developmental issues.” It said: “File notings are the recording of the views and reasons by various officials for or against any proposed decision. It is settled that the `right to information,’ implicit under Art. 19 (1) (a), is [an] untrammelled constitutional guarantee, subject only to the `reasonable restrictions’ validly imposed by legislation under Article 19 (2).” The scheme under Article 19 (2) did not permit an omnibus restriction. The jurists said all government decisions must be based on a discernible principle and cogent reasons. A reasoned order/decision was the assurance against nepotism, arbitrariness and corruption. Reasons provided an internal check against arbitrariness in the decision-making process. Mere information of the decision without disclosure of the reasons for it and the decision-making process was not enough to permit scrutiny of the decision made, which even otherwise might become known. “The very purpose of the `right to information’ would be frustrated without the knowledge of the `reasons’ for the decision, emerging from the `file notings.’ Except for information, which can, or needs to be withheld in the interests of the specified heads under Art. 19 (2), there is no reason or authority to permit exclusion of the remaining information in the form of `file notings’ or otherwise.” The stated apprehension that disclosure of all `file notings’ would deter honest persons involved in the process from expressing their candid opinion was misconceived. “The fact is the opposite.” The assurance of public scrutiny or transparency in government business would motivate the honest to be frank in the expression of their views in writing.

Hazare begins fast against changes in RTI Act

Hazare begins fast against changes in RTI Act

Pune, pti:

http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/aug102006/national201322200689.asp

Social activist Anna Hazare began his indefinite hunger strike on Wednesday at Alandi, a famous pilgrimage centre, near here, against proposed amendments by the Central Government to the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Hazare had to change his earlier plans to fast at the August Kranti Maidan in Mumbai as the state government refused him permission to use that venue.

Speaking to reporters at Alandi, Hazare said the amendments would “eliminate the very essence” of the Right to Information Act. If the proposed amendments which seek to exclude file notes relating to enquiries on departmental proceedings come through, the Act would “fail to serve any purpose”.

He alleged that a strong lobby of bureaucrats and others with vested interests were bent on keeping file notings out of the purview of the RTI, Act 2006.

Hazare also opposed the move by the Centre to make it necessary for the information commissioners after the proposed amendments to seek the government’s approval before making any important decision.

The noted social worker said a similar campaign against efforts to dilute the RTI Act was on in many states including Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Delhi, Bihar, Assam and Uttar Pradesh.

Protests against RTI amendment gain ground

Protests against RTI amendment gain ground

http://www.ndtv.com/template/template.asp?category=National&template=RTI&slug=

Protests+against+RTI+amendment+gain+ground&id=91221&callid=1

Anupama Ramachandaran/Imtiaz Jaleel/Anant Zanane/Sidharth Pandey

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 (Mumbai/Pune/Delhi):

Supreme court justices, students, ordinary Indians, and even members of Parliament came out against the government’s decision to amend the Right to Information act on Wednesday.

As the movement to put pressure on the government to withdraw the proposed amendments, the MPs say that on Thursday they will kick start a signature campaign to put pressure on the government.

Robert Kharshiing joined thousands of Indians determined to block attempts by the government to get Parliament to amend the RTI act which has been hailed for combating corruption.

Ironically Kharshiing is also the chief Whip of the NCP in Rajya Sabha. His party is part of the UPA alliance, the same government which now wants to amend the law.

Kharshiing says that he will vote with his conscience if the amendments are brought in Parliament.

“I feel that this amendment is wrong as in my state, the north east and in India where there is corruption, this has come as a breath of fresh air. Bureaucrats and politicians have started to feel the pressure,” he said.

Kharshiing was joined by Trinamool MP Dinesh Trivedi. Both MPs now plan to rally other MPs on board.

“We will start a signature campaign and go to MPs across party lines to get them to go against the amendment and make sure that it does not come to Parliament,” said Trivedi.

Other protests

In Delhi Magsasay awardee Sandeep Pandey has been on hunger strike to protest the government’s move to amend the law.

Gandhian Anna Hazare also started his hunger strike at Alandi near Pune on Wednesday. The veteran activist says that he will return his padma bhushan to the government if the law is amended.

“Crores of Indians will feel cheated. We want the government to stop the amendment,” said Hazare.

In Mumbai too citizens turned out at the August Kranti Maidan to protest changes.

RTI: An enormous power with the people

RTI: An enormous power with the people

INTERVIEW: ARVIND KEJRIWAL

http://www.indiatogether.com/2006/aug/ivw-arvind.htm#continue
In conversation with Vinita Deshmukh, Magsaysay award winner Arvind Kejriwal talks about India’s RTI movement, and worries that a formidable tool of empowerment might slip out of the hands of citizens if amendments proposed by the UPA government are enacted.

07 August 2006 – An IIT graduate and a former bureaucrat with the Indian Revenue Service, Arvind Kejriwal has created a silent social revolution in the Right To Information (RTI) movement in the country through his organization, ‘Parivartan’. Propelling common people to invoke the Act, he streamlined the Public Distribution System (PDS) in Delhi where information obtained under the RTI revealed that the shopkeepers and food grain officers siphoned off 87 percent of wheat and 94 percent of rice meant for the poor. He used Gandhiji’s favourite weapon of Satyagraha in cases where the government departments hesitated to appoint Public Information Officers (PIOs) or where they refused to adopt transparency, as required by the RTI Act. He has been guiding hundreds of faceless citizens to use the RTI for their right to have proper public utility services, since they are the taxpayers to whom the local and state governments are duty-bound to provide the information.

His passion and dedication to this movement in India have been aptly recognized with this year’s Ramon Magsaysay award for Emergent Leadership, recently bestowed upon him. In an exclusive interview to India Together, Kejriwal gives an insight into the RTI movement in India, and worries that this formidable tool of empowerment might slip out of the hands of citizens if amendments proposed by Manmohan Singh’s government are enacted. Vinita Deshmukh spoke with him.

How does it feel to receive the prestigious Ramon Magsasay Award, and what are its implications for the Right To Information movement in India?

Firstly, I would like to clarify that the award does not belong to me – it belongs to the entire RTI movement and every RTI activist in the country. I am happy that the world has responded so positively to the RTI movement in India. Though sadly, the Indian government is all set to kill it through amendments, which it proposes to pass shortly in the Parliament, with disastrous effects on transparency, which had just made its presence felt in the country. I have procured the copy of these amendments and if it is passed by the Parliament, then it will practically kill the RTI movement in our country.

If the amendment is passed by the Parliament, then it will practically kill the RTI movement in our country.  ·  Parivartan, on India Together  ·  2006 Award citation  ·  Magsaysay: Indian winners list

One of the crucial amendments is the deletion of ‘file notings’ by civil servants in administrative matters, which has created an uproar among RTI activists across the country. What are the implications of making file notings inaccessible to the common man? Also can you elaborate on other proposed amendments?

As for the file notings, the proposed amendment says that they will be provided only in case of ‘substantial’ social and development issues. The word ‘substantial’ has not been defined and it therefore has no meaning. What it implies though is that each time a citizen requests for file notings he or she will have to hire an advocate to argue his case of whether the particular social or development issue is ‘substantial’ enough to demand transparency. Secondly, for any information given, the name of the officer or reference to any individual will be obliterated, which means an end to transparency, as government officers and politicians, even if corrupt, will be shielded.

Also, no information on any development project will be given unless and until the project is completed. Which hypothetically means, if a river project is going to take 20 years to complete, the citizen will not be able to access any information about its contents or question its progress, never mind if it may happen to be environmentally disastrous. No one can question the progress of the Enron project until it is completed. In Delhi, we had successfully stopped water privatization after we invoked the RTI and found that it was flawed. Such privatisation would have made water more expensive for the citizens. At the ordinary level, people will not be able to find out the status of their passports until the passport has been issued to them. Sometimes, this may take two years, but the citizen will have no choice but to be at the mercy of the authorities. People will not able to demand as to why their ration cards are taking so much time to be issued. Otherwise, we have been invoking the RTI for these purposes and successfully speeding up the issuance of these vital documents of the common man.

Fourthly, now the Cabinet papers are never going to the disclosed until a Cabinet decision has been made. Until now, Cabinet papers were open to public scrutiny during the process of decision making, so that any decision that could adversely affect the good of the public could be questioned. These sometimes comprised notings of 10-15 files. Now, you can see them only after it’s too late – when the Cabinet decision has been finalised.

Now that you have won the prestigious award, people across the country would be looking up to you to spearhead a protest campaign against these proposed amendments, which aim at official secrecy instead of transparency. What is your action plan?

Of course, opposing the amendment is going to be my top priority and biggest challenge now. However, I want to tell everyone that nation-wide protests should not be confined to RTI activists only. Since these amendments are going to affect everyone’s life with disastrous consequences, the media as well as the people should wage a war. From this week onwards, up to August 25, a number of events are being organised in Delhi and large parts of the country to protest against the attempt of the government to strangulate the common man’s ‘right to know’ right. What’s distressing and scandalising is that, the government is extremely secretive about the proposed amendments and is not willing to even make the draft proposal public. Somehow, I have managed to procure a copy. It is also secretive about when it is going to pass these amendments. So, at a time when the country was successfully moving towards transparency, the government is hell bent on taking a retrograde step.

How successful do you think the RTI movement in India has been? Do you think there are some pockets where it has been particularly effective?

I would say that the movement has been more successful in those states where the Act existed even before the Central Act was implemented in October 2001. In union territories like Delhi and states like Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Goa, Tamilnadu, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh, people are well-versed with the Act and the government officers know what it means. Thus, the culture of RTI has set in firmly in these places. RTI has been invoked in innumerable cases across the length and breadth of the country with effective results. Thus proving that citizens can move the government if they are given a proper legislative and administrative set-up. However, this great power of transparency is slipping out of our hands.

Being a graduate from the elite IIT corridors of learning and having a cushy government job at the bureaucratic level, what drew you towards this people’s movement?

At a time when the country was successfully moving towards transparency, the government is hell bent on taking a retrograde step.  •  Making utilities accountable  •  Delhi’s ration system changing

It did not happen overnight, but took six to seven years to evolve. I was very happy with my government job but there was a lurking feeling of so much corruption, which existed at the level of the common man. He was asked to pay at every step for a work, which a government officer is duty bound to do by law. Thus, the common man was being forced into corruption, since he was asked to pay bribes at every stage. As a deputy commissioner of the Income Tax department, I helped people to get their jobs done without any middle men and without having to pay bribes to government personnel and also formed Parivartan as a platform to address people’s grievances.

However, when the RTI Act was implemented in Delhi in 2001, we realized its power accidentally. When a citizen, Ashok Gupta came with a grievance that he was not getting his electricity connection for two years because he refused to bribe the concerned Delhi Vidyut board officials, instead of taking up his complaint with the department, we asked him to file an application under the new found RTI. He wanted to know the names of the officials who have not taken action on his application, since, as per law, a consumer is supposed to receive his electricity connection within 30 days of applying for it. Immediately, he was provided with the connection. It was almost miraculous. How did this magic happen? In ordinary circumstances, such an application would have been consigned to the dustbin. This gave me the idea of the immense power of citizen empowerment. Thereafter, I went on a long leave and pursued the RTI campaign amongst common people, in full swing. In February this year, I finally resigned from the government.

Your success in streamlining the Public Distribution System (PDS) in Delhi is well known. What is its status today?

Streamlining the PDS in Delhi has been a long process. It also entailed attacks on women who were fighting for the cause. The Delhi government decided to systematise the areas and people have begun getting rations without hiccups. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) had been filed and we intervened. About two months back, the Supreme Court appointed the Wadhwa Commission to look into the distribution set-up in the PDS and make recommendations. The corrupt PDS officials, though, have yet to be booked.

You had formed the Delhi RTI Manch. Does it still exist now?

Yes, the Manch meets every second Sunday of the month. It is a platform for RTI activists to come and discuss any issue related to the right to know movement. In case of any urgent issue, we approach the relevant authorities. About 40-50 people generally congregate at every meeting.

What has been your moment of triumph in your RTI campaign?

My biggest moment of triumph was when a faceless woman, Triveni, filed an RTI application and followed it up. A resident of a slum colony, in East Delhi, she holds an Antyodaya card issued by the government for the poorest of the poor, by which she is entitled to food grains like wheat and rice at subsidised rates of two rupees and five rupees per kilogram respectively. However, Triveni used to buy wheat for Rs.5 per kg and rice for Rs.10 per kg. When she came to know of the actual rates from Parivartan in February 2003 she was shocked and with our guidance, she filed an RTI application. What she asked for was details of rations issued to her as per records and also copies of cash memos purported to have been issued to her. Cash memos are receipts, which a shopkeeper is supposed to issue for every transaction and take signature of the customer.

The reply stated that Triveni had been issued 25 kgs of wheat at Rs.2 per kg and 10kgs of Rice at Rs.3 per kg every month, in the last three months, when in actuality she had not received even a grain during that period. The cash memos showed thumb impressions in her name although she is literate and always signs. Shocked, she decided to confront the shopkeeper but having heard of the procurement of this information, the shopkeeper came to her house and pleaded to mend ways. Since then she has been getting the right amount of ration at the right price, thus proving that the tool of RTI places enormous power in the hands of the common people. Otherwise, no one would have listened to a poor woman like Triveni. This is a fine example of how the right to know redefines relationships between the people and the government in real terms.

And what has been your moment of agony?

Undoubtedly, the ongoing attempt by the government to dilute the Act. ⊕

Vinita Deshmukh
7 Aug 2006

Vinita Deshmukh is a freelance journalist and writes on environment, heritage, social and civic matters. She was formerly a senior editor at The Indian Express, Pune. She won the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting 2004 for her story on reverse migration to villages in Maharashtra.

 

Rock groups join NGOs in the RTI fight

Divya Iyer

CNN-IBN

Posted Monday , August 07, 2006 at 21:12Updated Monday , August 07, 2006 at 21:49

 

http://www.ibnlive.com/news/rock-groups-join-ngos-in-the-rti-fight/17929-3.html

New Delhi: The amendments to the RTI act are drawing protests from across the country.

 

A protest movement has started in New Delhi, where rock groups and citizens have come together.

 

Crooning to Congress President Sonia Gandhi, rock singer Palash Sen kick started an indefinite protest against amendments to the Right to Information act.

The NGOs Parivartan and Josh along with several organisations and college students joined in a protest march at Jantar Mantar on Monday evening.

“Rights are given to ourselves by us, we made the constitution, and they distorted it. So we are back demanding what is ours,” says social activist, Aruna Roy.

“Youth is here, there’s music, we are having fun and we are going to have fun till they listen to us. And if they don’t listen to us, there’s going to be a problem,” says singer Palash Sen.

Last month, the cabinet passed amendments to the act, which does not allow access to file notings or to information on any work in progress. Experts say it removes the teeth from the Act.

“Within eleven months they (the Government) want to withdraw it, it’s a backdoor attempt of the Government to remove this act. This clearly shows the power this act. The corrupts within the bureaucracy and politicians are running for cover now,” says Arvind Kejriwal, Founder of a NGO, Parivartan.

Signature campaigns, memorandum to local MPs, women banging utensils and talking puppets, the aim was simple: to wake up the Government and make them listen to their demands.

People from different sections of the society gathered together to voice their protests but the Government cut short not just the act but the rally too.

But that didn’t dampen the spirits of the crowd. They threw money – a symbolic way to tell parliamentarians, ‘if its money you’re after, we’ll donate it. But don’t take the right to know away.’