<p>Chief Information Commissioner Vijay Sharma, a retired Uttar Pradesh cadre IAS officer of 1974 batch, describes RTI Act as “game-changer”, saying it has upgraded the transparency and accountability of system since its enactment in 2005. “Public Information Officers and appellate authorities, however, are required to be more sensitive towards the need of an information seeker. They should also be protective of the people seeking information under the RTI Act,” he told Deccan Herald in an interview to Prakash Kumar. Excerpts:<br /></p>.<p> <br />How do you look at the journey of RTI Act so far?<br />The journey has put us in a position where we now have a very wide experience of the RTI applications and reasons why applications are made to get information. It has brought us to a position where we can say we have been able to upgrade our transparency and accountability systems. Not only have we substantially upgraded our transparency and accountability systems, we have also enabled the use of technology for easily accessing information. We are today able to access information, much more easily than what we did in past. The biggest contribution of the RTI Act is that it has been a game changer in changing the attitudes.<br /> <br />What are the challenges?<br />The challenge comes how much of the information sought under the RTI Act has been usable from the point of view of the information seeker. The usability, relevance and timeliness of that information is also very important. Many of the RTI applications are coming from individuals who really want information. That information is vital to such individual as it may redress a grievance or upgrade a public service system. It could be filed for combating any kind of corruption, petty or otherwise. <br /><br />And, there are RTI applications, which are needlessly flippant or vexatious. Some RTI information seekers also file repetitive applications. Our concern today is how to ensure that the genuine RTI applications do not get crowded out because of such applications which could be repetitive, frivolous or complex.<br /> <br />So what is the solution you propose?<br />We need to have a mechanism which is efficient enough to be able to identify applications which are bottlenecking and clogging the system. It should be rule based objective system to filter flippant and repetitive RTI applications so that genuine RTI applications do not get crowded out. Such rules should be effective and legally tenable. The applicants should know that if they file repetitive or unnecessary RTI applications, the system would throw them out and subject them to a bit of scrutiny. Today, we don’t have such rule based filter. All the RTI applications are considered. Public authorities are under pressure.<br /> <br />But don’t you think such a system may be misused by the public authorities?<br />That’s why I said there has to be a rule based mechanism, which is objective and legally tenable. A lot of people are saying that there is a problem of repetitiveness of RTI applications. The problem has to be recognised and addressed. Most of the RTI applications are not complex. They need genuine information and the public authorities provide it. An application becomes complex when the applicant gets into interrogation mode and starts seeking clarifications from the public authority. There have been such complaints.<br /> <br />Many say getting information under the RTI Act is more difficult today than few years back. What is your view?<br />My assessment is that if the information is available, the public authority do not resist. They give information. Value systems have changed. I say this because I have been in the system. Ten years ago, there was resistance. The moods have changed. Annual confidential entries which were really confidential in past, is completely out in the open today.<br /> <br />If it is so, why do we have piles of appeals?<br />Those, who are involved in day to day handling and management of the RTI applications, need to be properly trained and sensitised. This is one of the areas where I would like to work on. The public information officers (PIOs) and at least the first appellate authorities, must be sensitive towards the needs of the information seeker, instead of being too technical. They need to be caring persons. Even if the department is little short of the documents, the needs of information seeker can be addressed. The PIOs should find the solution.<br /> <br />There are demands to bring CBI under the ambit of RTI. What is your view?<br />What essentially you are saying may be there is a need to revisit of what is on the exempted list. The RTI has induced a lot of openness and transparency. If there is a debate on whether there is scope for further rationalisation, it’s a good idea.<br /> <br />Safety of RTI activists is a big concern today. What measures should be taken to check such incidents? <br />So far as the incidents of attack on RTI activists are concerned, our criminal judicial system is taking care of such cases. Here again, however, the role of PIOs are significant. There should not be any tendency to deny information. It increases tension between an RTI applicant and the information provider. The department should not only be an information provider but be protective of the information seekers.<br /> <br />What is the future of RTI Act?<br />S far as the entitlement and rights of the information seeker is concern, the Act is bound to go stronger and stronger. Technology will play a major role in creation <br />of depositary of information and its sharing. The adversariality between the information seeker and provider is bound to get mitigated.</p>
<p>Chief Information Commissioner Vijay Sharma, a retired Uttar Pradesh cadre IAS officer of 1974 batch, describes RTI Act as “game-changer”, saying it has upgraded the transparency and accountability of system since its enactment in 2005. “Public Information Officers and appellate authorities, however, are required to be more sensitive towards the need of an information seeker. They should also be protective of the people seeking information under the RTI Act,” he told Deccan Herald in an interview to Prakash Kumar. Excerpts:<br /></p>.<p> <br />How do you look at the journey of RTI Act so far?<br />The journey has put us in a position where we now have a very wide experience of the RTI applications and reasons why applications are made to get information. It has brought us to a position where we can say we have been able to upgrade our transparency and accountability systems. Not only have we substantially upgraded our transparency and accountability systems, we have also enabled the use of technology for easily accessing information. We are today able to access information, much more easily than what we did in past. The biggest contribution of the RTI Act is that it has been a game changer in changing the attitudes.<br /> <br />What are the challenges?<br />The challenge comes how much of the information sought under the RTI Act has been usable from the point of view of the information seeker. The usability, relevance and timeliness of that information is also very important. Many of the RTI applications are coming from individuals who really want information. That information is vital to such individual as it may redress a grievance or upgrade a public service system. It could be filed for combating any kind of corruption, petty or otherwise. <br /><br />And, there are RTI applications, which are needlessly flippant or vexatious. Some RTI information seekers also file repetitive applications. Our concern today is how to ensure that the genuine RTI applications do not get crowded out because of such applications which could be repetitive, frivolous or complex.<br /> <br />So what is the solution you propose?<br />We need to have a mechanism which is efficient enough to be able to identify applications which are bottlenecking and clogging the system. It should be rule based objective system to filter flippant and repetitive RTI applications so that genuine RTI applications do not get crowded out. Such rules should be effective and legally tenable. The applicants should know that if they file repetitive or unnecessary RTI applications, the system would throw them out and subject them to a bit of scrutiny. Today, we don’t have such rule based filter. All the RTI applications are considered. Public authorities are under pressure.<br /> <br />But don’t you think such a system may be misused by the public authorities?<br />That’s why I said there has to be a rule based mechanism, which is objective and legally tenable. A lot of people are saying that there is a problem of repetitiveness of RTI applications. The problem has to be recognised and addressed. Most of the RTI applications are not complex. They need genuine information and the public authorities provide it. An application becomes complex when the applicant gets into interrogation mode and starts seeking clarifications from the public authority. There have been such complaints.<br /> <br />Many say getting information under the RTI Act is more difficult today than few years back. What is your view?<br />My assessment is that if the information is available, the public authority do not resist. They give information. Value systems have changed. I say this because I have been in the system. Ten years ago, there was resistance. The moods have changed. Annual confidential entries which were really confidential in past, is completely out in the open today.<br /> <br />If it is so, why do we have piles of appeals?<br />Those, who are involved in day to day handling and management of the RTI applications, need to be properly trained and sensitised. This is one of the areas where I would like to work on. The public information officers (PIOs) and at least the first appellate authorities, must be sensitive towards the needs of the information seeker, instead of being too technical. They need to be caring persons. Even if the department is little short of the documents, the needs of information seeker can be addressed. The PIOs should find the solution.<br /> <br />There are demands to bring CBI under the ambit of RTI. What is your view?<br />What essentially you are saying may be there is a need to revisit of what is on the exempted list. The RTI has induced a lot of openness and transparency. If there is a debate on whether there is scope for further rationalisation, it’s a good idea.<br /> <br />Safety of RTI activists is a big concern today. What measures should be taken to check such incidents? <br />So far as the incidents of attack on RTI activists are concerned, our criminal judicial system is taking care of such cases. Here again, however, the role of PIOs are significant. There should not be any tendency to deny information. It increases tension between an RTI applicant and the information provider. The department should not only be an information provider but be protective of the information seekers.<br /> <br />What is the future of RTI Act?<br />S far as the entitlement and rights of the information seeker is concern, the Act is bound to go stronger and stronger. Technology will play a major role in creation <br />of depositary of information and its sharing. The adversariality between the information seeker and provider is bound to get mitigated.</p>
