Moneylife Foundation hosted its sixth seminar on the Right to Information Act (RTI), with former chief information commissioner (CIC) Wajahat Habibullah as the speaker, on Saturday, 15th October at the Nehru Centre, Worli, Mumbai. Drawing from his experience, he explained the important facets of the Act and offered his views on several issues that have come up with regard to RTI in recent times.
The current Supreme Court-Central Information Commission tussle regarding a Central Information Commission directive has caused much anxiety to RTI activists. The Central Information Commission had directed the Supreme Court Registry to maintain records after it stated that it had no information on the number of cases in which verdict was reserved. The Supreme Court Registry filed a suit in the Delhi High Court, saying that the Central Information Commission cannot ask an organisation to ‘manufacture’ information if it doesn’t exist; “It is a strange case, and it results in a lot of ambiguities,” said Mr Habibullah. He talked about several cases where the Central Information Commission has locked horns with the Judiciary and, in most cases, a stay has been obtained on disclosure of information. “It is unfortunate that we, as a society, are not pro-transparency. Ideally, institutions should voluntarily provide information—that is what Transparency International’s guidelines say.” The other cause for concern is rumours about amendment to the RTI Act. Mr Habibullah said, “I don’t think the law needs to be changed—that will dilute its powers. The prime minister (PM) thinks that the present Act prevents officers from expressing their honest opinion. I think that a bureaucrat will never disclose information in the first place, if he has something to hide—forget (his) honest opinion. The PM’s fears are unfounded.”
Mr Habibullah said that efforts are being made by authorities to make information available online, as the department of administrative reforms & pension schemes is going to invest Rs23,000 crore for e-governance. When asked about why authorities do not disclose information as a matter of routine, he said that is because the Act doesn’t say how it should be enforced; and, in many cases, records don’t exist. “I came across a case where a freedom-fighter complained that he was not getting his allowance. Instead, an officer of the Raj, who had put him in jail, was getting a freedom-fighter’s allowance! When we questioned the authorities, we came to know that there was no list of freedom-fighters available with the government, and lakhs of rupees were being thrown away arbitrarily,” Mr Habibullah said.
While speaking about whether non-governmental organisations (NGOs) should be covered under the RTI Act, he said that NGOs substantially funded by the government must not be exempt. He cited a hearing about disclosure of some information about a racecourse. “I believe that if some institution is set up under a law, it is subject to RTI. Such organisations get many concessions as they are often indirectly funded by the public.” Mr Habibullah said that public authorities have taken advantage of the low compensation and penalties that have been levied on errant PIOs (public information officers). “They just file a case in order to get away with delays. The penalty must be more forcefully used,” he said. When asked about whether housing societies come under RTI, he said that if contradictory opinions exist on the issue, it reveals that the law needs clarity. In reply to a question, he also said that an RTI applicant can get compensation in case of harassment. “But I am sorry to say that only 22 cases of damages have been accepted by the Central Information Commission,” he said.
Mr Habibullah also talked about the Official Secrets Act which has come under public scrutiny. “A democracy has no place for secrets,” he said. He talked about a case where veteran journalist Kuldip Nayar had sought some documents about the interaction between Benazir Bhutto and Indian diplomats, from the 1960s. The ministry of external affairs said that a junior officer had reviewed the records and ruled that the information could not be disclosed. “The senior bureaucrats and ministers sided with him. I then ruled that a committee be set up to review secret documents that are more than 20 years old and make them available to the public. Unfortunately, that has not happened,” he said.
He also discussed the exemptions mentioned in the RTI Act. He said that first information reports (FIRs) can also be accessed under RTI and such disclosure cannot be said to impede investigation. However, the concept of ‘privacy’ needs to be discussed as Parliament is about to introduce a Bill on privacy in the next session. Also, there is a demand to cover public-private partnerships (PPPs). Mr Habibullah also said that keeping the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) out of the purview of the Act was ‘counterproductive’.
Mr Habibullah’s view on this issue was echoed by Anil Divan, senior advocate at the Supreme Court of India and current president of the Bar Association of India, his co-panellist at the Seminar. He said, “Persons who hold Constitutional positions are immune from Executive and political pressure, but the agencies which are in charge of investigating cases or vigilant bodies are governed by the Executive. Do you expect them to go against their bosses when a scam unfolds? This is where RTI comes in. An independent investigation agency, which will be on par with the Supreme Court or Election Commission, is necessary to act on the cases on corruption.”
Mr Divan shared his views on the current RTI-Judiciary tussle. He recounted many rulings and incidents that have come up in relation to disclosure of information by the Judiciary. He said, “(The) Judiciary is a powerful institution and it can check the powers of the government. It is thus expected that the judiciary itself should set an example and be pro-RTI.”
---
Quelle/Source: Moneylife Personal Finance site and magazine, 14.11.2011
Bitte besuchen Sie/Please visit:
