Humbug move

The department of personnel and training’s proposal to restrict applications under the Right to Information Act to one topic and impose a 250-word  limit on them will not help strengthen and promote this right. The claimed justification for amending the rules is that, at present, they are misused to harass public authorities and to take out personal or professional grudge against people in power. There may be cases of misuse of the provisions but they do not provide sufficient grounds for changing the rules. Authorities complain that multiple applications, some of them running into many pages, will clog the system and make it difficult for the officials to respond effectively and promptly to genuine applicants. Even if vexatious and mischievous requests slip in, it is hard to believe that the authorities are flooded by requests running into tens of thousands of words which make departments’ work grind to a halt.

Since the RTI Act has greatly helped empower the citizens and has made the functioning of government more transparent, any changes in the rules should only expand the right of the people and not limit it. The word limit prescribed for the application is arbitrary and constraining. How did the department decide that the ideal word limit is 250 and everybody will be able to frame his query within that? The number of words depends on the kind of information sought and the applicant’s linguistic ability. And why only one question at a time? What is the difference if information on two topics is sought in one application or two applications? It should actually be more convenient for the applicant and the authorities if a single application is used to elicit information on more than one subject. Another proposal is to empower the applicant to withdraw his request for information. This can lead to forced withdrawal of requests.

The proposals, which have been widely criticised, should not be accepted. Those who wield political and official power are now wary of the RTI law. Attempts have been made in the past to restrict its scope. Last year, there was a move to provide for rejection of ‘frivolous and vexatious’ applications and to exempt cabinet papers from the Act’s purview. It was dropped after widespread opposition. It is unfortunate that the Chief Information Commissioner supported the latest move. He should have been the first to reject it.