The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is a landmark historical legislation, recognized as a part of the fundamental right to freedom by the Supreme Court. It is the most empowering Act in post-independent India.
A common man can use the RTI to check red tapism and secure justice. The Act was not passed in a hurry. It was the result of a long drawn out movement by the social and civil rights activists.
Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, any citizen can seek information from public authorities, which include practically every agency that connects with the public service directly or indirectly, with regard to its decisions and actions.
And the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer (PIO) is required to provide the information sought within thirty days.
If the PIO rejects information or provides information which is incomplete or false, the applicant can appeal to Appellate Officer and if he is not satisfied he can make a second appeal to Central and Information Commission (CIC) or State Information Commission (SIC), as the case may be.
The CIC or SIC, under Section18 (3) of the RTI Act, has “the same powers as are vested in a civil court” to summon the concerned officials, inspect the documents and examine witnesses and records.
And under Section 20(1), both the CIC and SICs have the power to impose a penalty on the PIO of Rs.250/- per day till the applicant receives the information,
which may go up to Rs.25, 000/- if he has “malafidely denied the information, given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information.” It can recommend even disciplinary action against him as per the service conditions.
The RTI Act—a powerful legislation—is based on the cardinal principle that in a free democratic society, the people are sovereign—the ultimate masters—and the public authorities are answerable to them.
The Act is effective because CIC and SICs enjoy autonomy and independence, and function without fear or favor. The Information Commissioners have a fixed term of 5 years or retire at the age of 65 years. They are not eligible for reappointment.
The Chief Central Information Commissioners at the Centre and States and other Information Commissioners are on par with the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners.
They can be removed from office “only on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity after the Supreme Court, on inquiry, reported removal.”
This writer is a testimony to the power of the RTI Act. Before retirement, while in service, he had made more than 70 applications and appeals under the RTI Act to various public authorities that he was dealing with in his official capacity and to the State Information Commission with remarkable success.
He had exposed red-tapism and corrupt practices and secured justice without litigation. The public authorities had the fear of penalty and disciplinary action.
All this will change now. Minister of State in the PMO Jitendra Singh introduced the RTI (Amendment) Bill in Lok Sabha on Friday, July 19. The proposed Amendment will dilute and weaken the RTI Act substantially.
Shashi Tharoor, vehemently opposing the introduction of the Bill, called it ‘a Bill to eliminate the RTI.’ Jitendra Singh, in defense, said the amendment is an attempt to correct the anomalies in the Act and streamline the administrative set up.
He defended: “putting CIC and Information Commissioners on par with Election Commission is not justified.” He said the Election Commission is a Constitutional body, where as the Information Commission is a statutory authority.
He ignored the fact that the CVC, the CBI and even the Lokpal are statutory authorities. The spirit under which the RTI Act was enacted is not recognized. The RTI is an effective instrument to ensure openness, transparency and accountability in the functioning of public administrative machinery.
By replacing the fixed term of five years that ensures security of tenure of Information Commissioners, and determining their salaries and allowances “as may be prescribed by the Central Government,” the government is impinging on institutional autonomy and independence. There is no justification to undermine the spirit of the RTI Act or deny the quasi-parity with the EC.
In 2017-18, the number of RTI applications to various authorities of central government increased by 35% and the first appeals against denial of information rose to 22% from the preceding year.
The government should instead strengthen the Act by filling the vacant posts of Information Commissioners, which results in piling of appeals and inordinate delay in their disposal, defeating the very purpose of the Act to ensure transparent and good governance.
There are four vacancies of Central Information Commissioners, which the present government has not filled. Since the appointments and tenure will be at the mercy of political masters, the Information Commissioners shall not be able to act fearlessly and pass orders that may go against the government.
As Anjali Bhardwaj, an RTI activist says, “The amendment is aimed to ensure pliability of Information Commissioners towards central government.”
In great speed, the Amendment Bill was taken up for consideration by Lok Sabha on Monday July 22, after two holidays. The Bill was passed late evening setting aside the established parliamentary norms and ignoring the objections raised by the opposition parties.
The Bill was neither disclosed inviting the views of the public, nor was it referred to the Standing Committee of the Lok Sabha for scrutiny. This is arbitrary exercise of the power of brute majority.
The amendment will drastically alter the nature of the RTI Act and the manner in which PIOs and Information Commissioners functioned till now. It will weaken and make the RTI Act a toothless tiger. The citizen will lose the power to combat bureaucratic corruption and administrative malpractices.
is a professor of Political Science, retired principal and an independent author.
