Bureaucrats who hid information head RTI commissions today – Employment exchange
Posted by rtiact2005 on July 23, 2006
|Bureaucrats who hid information head RTI commissions today|
On October 12, 2005, the Right to Information (rti) Act came into force. rti activists seemed to have won their battle to provide citizens with rights to information about the governmentâ€™s working. But little had they reckoned for what was in store. Barely two months after the rti act came in to force, the legislation has become a convenient tool for retired bureaucrats to garner cosy and secure sinecures as state information commissioners (sics).
Once appointed, these officials cannot be removed for five years, other than through an order of the Supreme Court.
The act actually states that â€œeach state will have an information commission headed by a sic, who will be a person of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in lawâ€¦ social serviceâ€¦and governanceâ€.
And some of the officials who have benefited from the act fit this requirement, quite splendidly. Sample this: K K Misra, who was appointed as sic of Karnataka within 24 hours of retiring as the stateâ€™s chief secretary on July 31, 2005 actually derives eminence from a Karnataka High Court (hc) dated May 3, 2005.
On that date, the hc had ordered the state government to prosecute Misra for â€œperjury and withholdingâ€ documents from the court in connection with the Bangalore-Mysore Expressway project. The ex-Karnataka chief secretary has appealed against the prosecution in the Supreme Court. The case awaits the apex courtâ€™s decision.
Misra is in illustrious company. His counterpart in Orissa, Dhirendra Nath Padhi was suspended as the stateâ€™s Special Relief Commissioner on November 27, 1999, for alleged irregularities in procurement of polythene sheets for families hit by the super cyclone of 1999. A Central Bureau of Investigation probe absolved him.
Padhi was 18 months short of retirement as special secretary in the Union power ministry when he retired voluntarily and assumed charge as Orissaâ€™s sic. O ther bureaucrats nearing retirement have also found easy pickings in an sic. A mong the other beneficiaries are B K Chakraborty in Tripura, Suresh Joshi in Mumbai and A K Vijayvargiya in Chhatisgarh (see table: Rest in peace).
The rti also provides that a state can appoint up to 10 information commissioners (ics ) besides the sic â€” the latter holds a rank equivalent to an election commissioner, while the former has a position equivalent to that of a state chief secretary. A maximum of 385 plum posts are up for grabs.
Are they necessary?
In fact, the draft rti act, submitted by members of ncpri to the Union government in December 21, 2004 had provisions for only one central information commissioner and a few regional commissioners. However, this was not palatable to the bureaucracy, which pressed for sics and ics, and finally in April 2004 succeeded in having their say.
This was not the first time they had matters their way. Back in 2002, the National Democratic Alliance had passed the Freedom of Information (foi) Act. This act did not set any time frame for the drafting of procedures necessary for the implementation of the act. There was also no time frame for issuing a notification, bringing the act into force.
This loophole was sufficient enough for the bureaucracy to ensure that foi was never implemented. The legislation was shuttled between the department of personnel and training, and the Union ministry of law and justice. Consequently, the rules for foi were never implemented.
The new rti act has plugged the loophole. Passed by the Parliament on June 15, it states that the act has to be implemented within 120 days. Drafting of rules to implement procedural matters, such as fees for application forms, has however, been left to the discretion of state governments.
This has given sufficient scope to state governments to exercise their artifice. Sample what clause six of Form d â€” one of the forms to be filled up by a person who requires some government related information â€” states: â€œThe information whichever is given to you as a member of a below poverty line family shall not be used for any other purpose.â€ â€œThis is completely against the spirit of the act,â€ says Sailesh Gandhi a Mumbai-based rti activist.
At a price
Information also comes at a cost. Mandarins in Orissa â€” among the poorest states in the country â€” charge an information seeker Rs 20 for an application form and Rs 5 per page of a photocopy â€” this when the act lays down that the form should be priced at Rs 10 and Rs 2 per page should be photocopy charge. There are other violations. The act does not stipulate any fee when a person appeals against an official who does not disclose information. But Orissa charges Rs 40 for the first appeal against such an errant official and Rs 50 for the second appeal. â€œIf we have to file a case for each such illegality, it will take us years,â€ says Gandhi. Singh rues that in retrospect, a single set of central rules should have been framed.
A recent order from the prime ministerâ€™s office has antagonised activists such as Singh. The order allows access to only those remarks in government files that relate to development and social issues. â€œThis definition of information is stipulated by the act. It cannot be amended by just changing one rule, for that the parliamentâ€™s sanction is required,â€ asserts Singh.
However, some activists remain optimistic. â€œThese are initial problems but the act is a strong weapon if used judiciously,â€ says Arvind Kejriwal of Parivartan, a non-governmental organisation working against corruption. Hopefully, public departments will learn that information is to be shared and not kept under a lock and key.
We prefer bureaucrats – Wajahat Habibullah, CCIC / http://www.downtoearth.org.in
Will making bureaucrats state information commissioners affect the actâ€™s implementation
I donâ€™t think it will affect the act. We prefer bureaucrats because we need officials well-versed with the administrationâ€™s functioning.
Your views on the prime ministerâ€™s officeâ€™s order to exempt certain kinds of file notings from RTI?
I have not seen the order, so canâ€™t comment on it.
How many information commissioners are being appointed for the Central Commission?
We can have 10, but we are appointing four, now. A N Tiwari, special secretary, department of personel and training will be the fourth commissioner. Itâ€™ll be good as he will continue with the ministry.