<div><em>With RTI Act completing a decade, it is time to take a </em><em>look back at a historic legislation which brought in new empowerment to the citizens of the </em><em>country. But then, during these 10 years, the country has </em><em>witnessed murders of over 40 RTI activists, attempts to constrict powers vested by the Act and refusal of several ministries and government agencies to </em><em>divulge information under the ruse of exemption. </em><br /><br />Nearly 10 years after it took shape in India, citizens have used the Right to Information (RTI) Act across the country to address a wide range of issues. From getting an electricity <br />connection to road repairs, the citizenry have used the law effectively. But its impact can best be felt in the arena of corruption, both while exposing and containing the vice.<br /><br />One simple yet powerful example of how effective RTI can be is reflected in this story of a slum-dweller who wanted a ration card. The protagonist was told that he would have to pay a bribe of Rs 2,000 to obtain a new ration card. But our friend, just went ahead and applied for the ration card without giving any bribe or grovelling in front of officials for pity. The slum-dweller, however, decided to become the enforcer of good governance. He found out in how many weeks people who paid bribes got their ration cards. He waited for an extra four weeks and then applied for information under RTI. <br /><br />Using the simple format and with a Rs 10 application fee he delivered it to the public information officer at the Food and Supply office. He asked up to which date applications for ration cards had been cleared and the details of the progress of his application. This shook up the corrupt officials, since this would be written confirmation that they had given ration cards to others who had applied after him, which would be conclusive evidence that they had no justification for delaying his card. <br /><br />The ration card was given to him immediately. No bribes, no endless visits and no begging before the corrupt. Our RTI-empowered citizen was able to enforce the supremacy of the citizen by using RTI. <br /><br />The law which came into effect on October 12, 2005, coinciding with Vijayadashami, for the first time empowered citizens and they took to it with great enthusiasm. They owned the law. It is my observation that the RTI movement does not work on any centralised organisation or leadership. An estimated 30 million applications have been filed over the years, and it is reasonable to assume that around 10 million citizens are likely to have used RTI. <br /><br />For the last decade, the law has been put to use across the nation by citizens acting individually or through groups or NGOs. The runaway success and popularity of RTI has started spawning stiff resistance. Within six months, those at the helm realised the extent of power they had transferred into the hands of the masters of democracy. <br /><br />With great arrogance, they decided to amend the law and dilute it. We the people had understood this tool as one which gave us a chance to change the paradigm of power and convert our defective elective democracy into a participatory one- the Swaraj we had dreamt of. <br /><br />Protests broke out across the nation and the government had to retract. Later on two other occasions, the government tried to amend the law, but was forced to drop the idea by an active citizenry. Whereas most people profess their commitment to transparency, they show great reluctance to being transparent themselves. Governments have sought to emasculate the Information Commissions by selecting commissioners who will beholden them, or at times by not appointing the required number of commissioners. <br /><br />This coupled with a lack of commitment by most commissioners has resulted in a waiting period in certain commissions of one to two years. A majority of them are retired bureaucrats, who are often not suitable to be information commissioners. Many non-bureaucrats also suffer from the same weakness. They are not comfortable with this transfer of power through right to information. <br /><br />The bureaucracy has started developing certain standard operating procedures for blocking information. This coupled with misinterpretation of the law is constricting this fundamental right. Several officers are taking a very wide meaning of the exemptions under the law and are not recognising that not disclosing information is a denial of a fundamental right. <br /><br />Promoting transparency<br /><br />The force of the law in meeting the objectives laid out in its preamble of promoting transparency and accountability and containing corruption is being subverted. It would not be wrong to state that the law is effectively being amended and its efficacy reduced by ensuring larger denial of information and wearing out the citizen by delays. <br /><br />Former prime minister Manmohan Singh complained about “frivolous and vexatious” RTI applications. A RTI application to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) showed that the statement was not based on any factual evidence. The present PMO is not even willing to disclose the names of visitors to the prime minister’s 7, Race Course Road, residence. <br />rio where 75 per cent of the staff of public authorities spends 75 per cent of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties.” This, too, is without any basis. <br /><br />It has been shown that not more than 3 per cent of the staff spend less than 3 per cent of their time on RTI related duties. <br /><br />Overall, the suo motu declarations by all public authorities is dismal. About 50 per cent of the information sought under RTI should be available suo motu as per Section 4 of the RTI Act, according to a survey conducted by RTI Assessment and Advocacy group (RaaG). <br />Adopting transparency requires humility and a real commitment to the principles of democracy. Unfortunately, most people in power suffer from hubris and take offence at the idea that they are servants of the people. <br /><br />Citizens using RTI will have to slowly bring this change in public servants, and for this there is no alternate to active citizenship. RTI has the potential to change the soul of governance if citizens use this tool relentlessly and defend their right passionately and diligently.<br /><br />RTI in India<br /><br />NCPRI and Press Council of India formulate initial draft of Right to Information law in 1996<br /><br />NDA govt, instead, brings in Freedom of Information bill drafted by HD Shourie panel<br /><br />Introduces Freedom of Information Bill in Lok Sabha on July 25, 2000<br /><br />Bill passed by Parliament in December 2002<br /><br />President gives assent on Jan 6, 2003<br /><br />Central legislation has seen only partial success as the Act had not been brought into force, as according to the government, the basic infrastructure required for its operationalisation had not been fully establishedn Activists, meanwhile, express concerns that the Act in many respects fell short of people’s aspirations n UPA, after coming to power, assigns National Advisory Council (NAC) to suggest constructive changes in the Act of 2002<br /><br />Following NAC suggestions, government repeals Freedom of Information Act and brings in RTI Act<br /><br />Activists demand file notings be given under RTI<br /><br />CIC holds 6 national political <br /><br />parties as public authorities and brings it under RTI in Aug 2013<br /><br />Bill removes political parties from the ambit of definition of public authorities but Bill lapses<br /><br />RTI Murders<br /><br />Around 40 RTI activists killed in last 10 years<br />Around 300 assaulted or harassed for filing uncomfortable RTIs<br /><br />Some murders for seeking info under RTI:<br /><br />Ram Vilas Singh in Lakhi Sarai in Bihar asked police why an accused in a murder case was not arrested<br />Niyamat Ansari sought information on MGNREGS in Jharkhand<br />Amit Jetwa on illegal mining in Gujarat's Gir forest<br />Satish Shetty for highlighting land grabbing in Pune<br />Shimbu Ram Bishnoi of Jodhpur sought access to information on MGNREGA and PDS<br />Nandi Singh of Bishnu of Assam for pursuing irregularities in PDS in his village<br /><br /><br /><br />The NDA government is brutally weakening the RTI Act and shielding itself.<br />Congress president Sonia Gandhi in Parliament on May 6<br /> <br />There is a need for the RTI Act to be directly applicable to corporate houses. That’s because with the liberalisation of the economy, private companies are closely working with the governments.(Then) Chief Information Commissioner of India Wajahat Habibullah on March 27, 2009<br /><br />Cases/Demands for bringing under RTI<br /><br />Political parties<br />Sporting bodies like BCCI<br />CBI<br />Corporate Houses<br /><br />IAS DOMINATIONon VACANCIES <br /><br />Over 15 post of posts of information commissioners lying vacant<br />Governments are increasingly preferring retired civil servants over candidates with other specialisations referred to in the twin RTI laws despite the Supreme Court advising the Governments to look beyond that pool <br />More than 3/4ths (76 pc) of the chief Information commissioners across the country are retired IAS officers. This proportion has gone up from 69 pc in 2014 and 74 pc in 2012 <br /><br /><em>(The writer, a former Chief Information Commissioner, is a Mumbai-based RTI activist)</em><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></div>
<div><em>With RTI Act completing a decade, it is time to take a </em><em>look back at a historic legislation which brought in new empowerment to the citizens of the </em><em>country. But then, during these 10 years, the country has </em><em>witnessed murders of over 40 RTI activists, attempts to constrict powers vested by the Act and refusal of several ministries and government agencies to </em><em>divulge information under the ruse of exemption. </em><br /><br />Nearly 10 years after it took shape in India, citizens have used the Right to Information (RTI) Act across the country to address a wide range of issues. From getting an electricity <br />connection to road repairs, the citizenry have used the law effectively. But its impact can best be felt in the arena of corruption, both while exposing and containing the vice.<br /><br />One simple yet powerful example of how effective RTI can be is reflected in this story of a slum-dweller who wanted a ration card. The protagonist was told that he would have to pay a bribe of Rs 2,000 to obtain a new ration card. But our friend, just went ahead and applied for the ration card without giving any bribe or grovelling in front of officials for pity. The slum-dweller, however, decided to become the enforcer of good governance. He found out in how many weeks people who paid bribes got their ration cards. He waited for an extra four weeks and then applied for information under RTI. <br /><br />Using the simple format and with a Rs 10 application fee he delivered it to the public information officer at the Food and Supply office. He asked up to which date applications for ration cards had been cleared and the details of the progress of his application. This shook up the corrupt officials, since this would be written confirmation that they had given ration cards to others who had applied after him, which would be conclusive evidence that they had no justification for delaying his card. <br /><br />The ration card was given to him immediately. No bribes, no endless visits and no begging before the corrupt. Our RTI-empowered citizen was able to enforce the supremacy of the citizen by using RTI. <br /><br />The law which came into effect on October 12, 2005, coinciding with Vijayadashami, for the first time empowered citizens and they took to it with great enthusiasm. They owned the law. It is my observation that the RTI movement does not work on any centralised organisation or leadership. An estimated 30 million applications have been filed over the years, and it is reasonable to assume that around 10 million citizens are likely to have used RTI. <br /><br />For the last decade, the law has been put to use across the nation by citizens acting individually or through groups or NGOs. The runaway success and popularity of RTI has started spawning stiff resistance. Within six months, those at the helm realised the extent of power they had transferred into the hands of the masters of democracy. <br /><br />With great arrogance, they decided to amend the law and dilute it. We the people had understood this tool as one which gave us a chance to change the paradigm of power and convert our defective elective democracy into a participatory one- the Swaraj we had dreamt of. <br /><br />Protests broke out across the nation and the government had to retract. Later on two other occasions, the government tried to amend the law, but was forced to drop the idea by an active citizenry. Whereas most people profess their commitment to transparency, they show great reluctance to being transparent themselves. Governments have sought to emasculate the Information Commissions by selecting commissioners who will beholden them, or at times by not appointing the required number of commissioners. <br /><br />This coupled with a lack of commitment by most commissioners has resulted in a waiting period in certain commissions of one to two years. A majority of them are retired bureaucrats, who are often not suitable to be information commissioners. Many non-bureaucrats also suffer from the same weakness. They are not comfortable with this transfer of power through right to information. <br /><br />The bureaucracy has started developing certain standard operating procedures for blocking information. This coupled with misinterpretation of the law is constricting this fundamental right. Several officers are taking a very wide meaning of the exemptions under the law and are not recognising that not disclosing information is a denial of a fundamental right. <br /><br />Promoting transparency<br /><br />The force of the law in meeting the objectives laid out in its preamble of promoting transparency and accountability and containing corruption is being subverted. It would not be wrong to state that the law is effectively being amended and its efficacy reduced by ensuring larger denial of information and wearing out the citizen by delays. <br /><br />Former prime minister Manmohan Singh complained about “frivolous and vexatious” RTI applications. A RTI application to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) showed that the statement was not based on any factual evidence. The present PMO is not even willing to disclose the names of visitors to the prime minister’s 7, Race Course Road, residence. <br />rio where 75 per cent of the staff of public authorities spends 75 per cent of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties.” This, too, is without any basis. <br /><br />It has been shown that not more than 3 per cent of the staff spend less than 3 per cent of their time on RTI related duties. <br /><br />Overall, the suo motu declarations by all public authorities is dismal. About 50 per cent of the information sought under RTI should be available suo motu as per Section 4 of the RTI Act, according to a survey conducted by RTI Assessment and Advocacy group (RaaG). <br />Adopting transparency requires humility and a real commitment to the principles of democracy. Unfortunately, most people in power suffer from hubris and take offence at the idea that they are servants of the people. <br /><br />Citizens using RTI will have to slowly bring this change in public servants, and for this there is no alternate to active citizenship. RTI has the potential to change the soul of governance if citizens use this tool relentlessly and defend their right passionately and diligently.<br /><br />RTI in India<br /><br />NCPRI and Press Council of India formulate initial draft of Right to Information law in 1996<br /><br />NDA govt, instead, brings in Freedom of Information bill drafted by HD Shourie panel<br /><br />Introduces Freedom of Information Bill in Lok Sabha on July 25, 2000<br /><br />Bill passed by Parliament in December 2002<br /><br />President gives assent on Jan 6, 2003<br /><br />Central legislation has seen only partial success as the Act had not been brought into force, as according to the government, the basic infrastructure required for its operationalisation had not been fully establishedn Activists, meanwhile, express concerns that the Act in many respects fell short of people’s aspirations n UPA, after coming to power, assigns National Advisory Council (NAC) to suggest constructive changes in the Act of 2002<br /><br />Following NAC suggestions, government repeals Freedom of Information Act and brings in RTI Act<br /><br />Activists demand file notings be given under RTI<br /><br />CIC holds 6 national political <br /><br />parties as public authorities and brings it under RTI in Aug 2013<br /><br />Bill removes political parties from the ambit of definition of public authorities but Bill lapses<br /><br />RTI Murders<br /><br />Around 40 RTI activists killed in last 10 years<br />Around 300 assaulted or harassed for filing uncomfortable RTIs<br /><br />Some murders for seeking info under RTI:<br /><br />Ram Vilas Singh in Lakhi Sarai in Bihar asked police why an accused in a murder case was not arrested<br />Niyamat Ansari sought information on MGNREGS in Jharkhand<br />Amit Jetwa on illegal mining in Gujarat's Gir forest<br />Satish Shetty for highlighting land grabbing in Pune<br />Shimbu Ram Bishnoi of Jodhpur sought access to information on MGNREGA and PDS<br />Nandi Singh of Bishnu of Assam for pursuing irregularities in PDS in his village<br /><br /><br /><br />The NDA government is brutally weakening the RTI Act and shielding itself.<br />Congress president Sonia Gandhi in Parliament on May 6<br /> <br />There is a need for the RTI Act to be directly applicable to corporate houses. That’s because with the liberalisation of the economy, private companies are closely working with the governments.(Then) Chief Information Commissioner of India Wajahat Habibullah on March 27, 2009<br /><br />Cases/Demands for bringing under RTI<br /><br />Political parties<br />Sporting bodies like BCCI<br />CBI<br />Corporate Houses<br /><br />IAS DOMINATIONon VACANCIES <br /><br />Over 15 post of posts of information commissioners lying vacant<br />Governments are increasingly preferring retired civil servants over candidates with other specialisations referred to in the twin RTI laws despite the Supreme Court advising the Governments to look beyond that pool <br />More than 3/4ths (76 pc) of the chief Information commissioners across the country are retired IAS officers. This proportion has gone up from 69 pc in 2014 and 74 pc in 2012 <br /><br /><em>(The writer, a former Chief Information Commissioner, is a Mumbai-based RTI activist)</em><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></div>
