Representative image of RTI
Credit: IStockImage
The Supreme Court has done well to act on a petition to revive the idea of Right to Information (RTI) which is almost dead in the country. It has criticised the delay on the part of the Central and state governments in appointing Information Commissioners and asked what was the use of creating the institution if there were no people to run it. The court noted that the Central Information Commission (CIC) has eight vacancies for the posts of Information Commissioners. There are about 23,000 appeals seeking information from government departments. Information Commissions are defunct in some states and some have stopped accepting petitions under the RTI Act. The court has directed the government to file an affidavit within two weeks specifying timelines for completion of the selection process and for the selection committee to finalise its recommendations. It also wants the appointments at the Central Information Commission to be made.
The RTI Act is set to complete 20 years this year. It was enacted by the Manmohan Singh government to ensure transparency in governance by making available on demand information about the actions and decisions of governments and local administrations. This was a measure to empower the citizens. But the Act has now lost much of its potency because governments have steadily undermined it and choked the institution to near death. Vacancies in the commissions are not filled, responses to queries are not sent in time and sometimes not sent at all. The penalty for not sending the replies in time is not enforced. In many places, those who seek information under the Act are attacked and harmed. There have even been murders of RTI activists. There is a nexus between politicians, officials and other vested interests to keep information inaccessible. Governments have facilitated such cover-ups and secrecy. The intent behind the RTI law is defeated in many ways.
Attempts to reduce the scope of the RTI law and to impose restrictions on its working started soon after the law came into force. It was only when it started getting implemented that governments realised what a potent tool it was in the hands of citizens. The terms of service of the Central Information Commission were changed and the post was stripped of its autonomy. From the very beginning, demands were made to appoint commissioners from all walks of life. The Supreme Court also highlighted this a few years ago but the governments always appointed retired bureaucrats to the job. The court should ensure that the governments do not dilly-dally on its orders and get away with their violations. Openness of governance is basic to democracy which becomes meaningful only when the citizen’s right to know is legally protected and enforced.