Right to information is a law today in over 85 countries across the World. The one in India is said to be one of the World's best for many reasons and has been hailed as a landmark in India's drive towards greater accountability. For one it was drafted by civil society and Arvind Kejriwal and Aruna Roy were instrumental in activating it. The law has taken inspiration from previous legislation from a few states (Tamil Nadu, Goa, Rajasthan , Karnataka, Delhi, Maharashtra, Assam and Jammu & Kashmir) that allowed the right to information to different extents to citizens about activities of various state government bodies.The premise for the right to information is based on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. It is only if you have the access to information can you exercise your right to freedom of speech and expression. However, the implementation of the law has had its own fair share of problems.
The Right To Information Act is a law that was enacted by the Parliament of India and allows public access to information. The law came into force in October 2005 and applies to all states and union territories in India, other than for Jammu & Kashmir (as per the Indian constitution, laws passed by Parliament are not automatically applicable to the state of Jammu & Kashmir unless endorsed by the state's legislature).
The act not only applies to all constitutional authorities (including the executive, legislature and judiciary) but also applies to all entities established by an act of Parliament or a state legislature, to entities that are owned, controlled or substantially financed by government (including NGOs) and even to information in private institutions that can be accessed by a public authority under any other law in force. Under this Act, all authorities covered need to appoint a Public Information Officer (PIO). The public may submit a request to this PIO in writing along with a nominal fee (those under the BPL need not pay this at all). From thereon it becomes the PIO's obligation to provide the information. If the request pertains to another public authority, it becomes the PIO's responsibility to transfer the concerned portions of the request to a PIO of the other within 5 days. In addition, Assistant Public Information Officers (APIOs) need to be designated by public authorities to receive RTI requests and appeals for forwarding to the PIOs of their public authority. There is a time limit of 30 days for replying to the request. However, if life or liberty of any person is involved, a reply within 48 hours from the PIO is mandated. Refusal with or without reasons (no reply is deemed as a refusal) may be ground for appeal or complaint and appropriate appellate authorities are to be nominated by the government wherein the appeal or complaint can be forwarded to.
This act is not restricted to seeking of information alone but also allows the public to inspect government work and seek photocopies of documents and samples of work. The limits to inspection per se are not defined and therefore this can be interpreted rather broadly by the public.
The RTI has been effective in dealing with bribery and especially if any legitimate work was pending in any government department and government officials were not doing it, either because they expected a bribe or simple because of bureaucratic lethargy. To counter this all the common man now has to do is ask the following: give me the names of the officials who were responsible for doing my work and who have not done it, why has my work not been done so far, when will my work be done now. Consequently, it becomes difficult for government departments to reply to one's queries as they now become more accountable and therefore they sometimes end up completing the work before even responding to the RTI.
However, there has been a problem with the lack of speedy appeal to non-compliance to requests. The appellate process, notably the information commissioners, barring a few exceptions, is perceived to be functioning against citizens rather than protecting their interests. Also, the lack of a central PIO makes it difficult to pin-point the correct PIO to approach for requests and therefore the request keeps getting pushed around. Also sometimes bureaucrats working in close proximity with the government are appointed in the RTI Commissions in a non-transparent manner and the PIO, being an officer of the relevant Government institution, may have a vested interest in not disclosing damaging information on activities of her/his institution creating a conflict of interest. In the state of Maharashtra, it was estimated that only 30% of the requests are actually realized under the Maharashtra Right to Information act and therefore the compliance still needs a lot of strengthening before it can before more effective as a law.
Good One!
ReplyDelete