Rti's Sweet Sixteen Moment

As India celebrates the 15th anniversary of the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005, few would deny that it has revolutionised the dynamics of the citizen-state relationship in India. By codifying the ordinary citizen’s right to information, it has made the concept of participatory democracy less elusive. More importantly, it has single-handedly taken on the culture of secrecy and opacity that plagues government bureaucracies and other instrumentalities of the state.

Transparency and accountability from a behemoth, which enjoys scant trust of the citizen, has become the new norm. Public authorities are mandated to furnish information, failing which they attract statutory penalties. As a result, the equation of power that traditionally defined the ‘janata-neta’ relationship is no longer tilted disproportionately in favour of the latter.

CUSTODIAN OF RIGHTS

The success of RTI is most apparent in the sheer number of applications filed every year. It is estimated to be around six million, effectively rendering the Act, the most extensively deployed transparency tool in the world. The demographic profile of the applicants is even more encouraging. As indicated by activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, a large proportion of applications are filed by the poor and marginalised, giving them a voice, however feeble, in issues that matter to them.

Indeed, the Act has emerged as the fulcrum in the citizen’s grievance redressal machine and is being increasingly relied upon to hold public authorities responsible for the delivery of basic rights and entitlements. Armed with crucial data extracted through the RTI process, a citizen can now take the state to court for misdemeanours/ omissions which were earlier brushed under the carpet.

For instance, in rural Karnataka, BPL consumers have demanded that rations under the Public Distribution System (PDS), be sold at the correct rates, quantity as well as quality. Similarly, grassroots movements in Gujarat have demystified the functioning of the PDS using RTI. Through their efforts, they have generated awareness about the responsibilities and duties of fair price shop (FPS) owners. There are many such comparable success stories all over the country.

WIELDING POWER

Access to information has also exposed financial irregularities and scams, enabling the average citizen to critique the conduct of officials concerned and hold power to account. For example, in 2007, an RTI request filed by an Assam-based NGO revealed anomalies in the distribution of food meant for people below the poverty line. An investigation was launched, and implicated officials were arrested.

By blowing the whistle on such scams, RTI also helps voters to make informed choices at the polling booth and vote out governments which they perceive to be corrupt or non-transparent. A prime example is the electoral losses suffered by the UPA government in 2014. This was partly attributed to the alleged 2G spectrum scam, brought to light by an RTI query. Top Ministers had been accused of colluding with mobile phone companies to undercharge the allocation of 2G frequencies, an issue which was later snapped up by Opposition parties in order to sway public sentiment.

Another way in which the RTI has afforded the layperson a taste of political power is by facilitating the scrutiny of policy-making processes. It has provided a window into the deliberative mechanisms adopted by governments and decision-makers. For instance, the outcome of an RTI query has enabled certain sections of the population to critique ‘bank-note demonetisation’, a policy announced by the BJP government in 2016. By relying on information furnished under the RTI Act, they were able to challenge the government’s apparent failure to consult the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) before implementing an important monetary policy.

NOT SO ROSY

It has not always been smooth sailing for the RTI Act. As with any law that challenges traditional power hierarchies, RTI too has had its fair share of troubles. As the legislation enters its ‘sweet sixteen’, it is important to identify and plug these gaps.

Over the years, public officials have sought to deny information under many false pretexts. For example, they arbitrarily invoke Section 8 of the Act, which lists exemptions to a citizen's right to information on the grounds of sovereignty, security, breach of privilege, privacy etc. The fact that such information can nevertheless be disclosed, if there is an overriding public interest, has been conveniently glossed over. Other methods employed to stymie requests for information include transferring the query from desk to desk, giving half-baked responses, claiming that the information is unavailable or asserting that it is a ‘third-party’ matter.

Very often, the outflow of information is also influenced by appointing former bureaucrats as information commissioners. It is expected that they will, as former government servants, prevent the general public from accessing information that embarrasses the government. Noticing this trend in 2019, the Supreme Court came down heavily against the selection committee for displaying “official bias in favour of its own class”.

A commonly disregarded provision is Section 4 of the Act, which requires public authorities to digitise and proactively disclose information on their websites. However, they rarely do so, making the applicant run from pillar to post when filing an RTI.

An overwhelming backlog of cases has also been created due to the poor functioning of Information Commissions in many places. Studies suggest that the appeals filed under RTI languish with Information Commissions for months on end. Although the Supreme Court has mandated the timely appointment of commissioners in both the Central and State Information Commissions (CIC and SIC), several posts continue to remain vacant. In fact, since 2014, not a single commissioner of the CIC has been appointed without the intervention of the court. It is important to cut through all this red-tape so that the RTI is not reduced to a paper tiger.

THE FALL GUY

Apart from having to navigate bureaucratic labyrinths, RTI applicants and activists are extremely vulnerable to threats or acts of violence from those who fear exposure. Public authorities, in some cases, not only deny information under the RTI Act but also surreptitiously divulge the particulars of applicants to those with vested interests.

Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative reports that nearly 87 RTI activists have been killed since 2008. Clearly, there is a pressing need to nip this in the bud by strengthening whistle-blower protection. Although the Whistle-blower Protection Act of 2014 (not yet notified) requires the identity of whistle-blowers to remain concealed, this is rarely implemented for RTI applicants. This has a chilling effect on those who wish to file RTI requests. Only when these institutional issues are addressed, can the RTI continue to provide succour for ordinary citizens.

Assessment