RTI Act needs a new lease of life

M Sridhar Acharyulu
Former Central Information Commissioner

WHILE the Congress has given a specific assurance to strengthen the RTI Act, the BJP has maintained stoic silence and offered no plan in its ‘Sankalp Patra’. The Congress manifesto promises to appoint “qualified persons from different sections of society as Information Commissioners, in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Act”. Credited with bringing the ‘good governance’ legislation, the Congress must legitimately commit to its existence, which is under threat now. The party says it would omit provisions that may have diluted the Act and make additions to strengthen it.

The UPA-II government attempted to amend the RTI Act to specifically exclude political parties from ‘public authorities’after the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) full bench declared six major political parties as answerable under the Act. 

Both the BJP and the Congress, the public authorities as per the 2013 CIC order, did not want to answer RTI requests. The CIC was prevented from hearing around 100 complaints against their RTI violations. Having declared political parties as public authorities, the CIC failed to allot the matter to Information Commissioners as a subject for hearing the complaints, which are pending for more than six years.

Compared to the NDA government, the UPA appointed a greater number of non-bureaucratic members in the CIC. Some of the retired officers laid a solid foundation for the implementation of the Act. For instance, the first Chief Information Commissioner, Wajahat Habibullah, fought with the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), the nodal agency for implementing the RTI law, on the issue of file notings. He ultimately won the battle, compelling the DoPT to remove guidelines/handbook/office memorandum from its website that prohibited the disclosure of file notings. Several Commissioners infused life into the Act by their orders to achieve objectives of the Act. But the major hurdle in the implementation of the Act was the attitude that non-disclosure was essential for governance. 

During the NDA rule, officers initiated several steps to dilute the Act. Vacancies were never filled until PILs were filed. Only bureaucrats were selected, ignoring persons from other fields prescribed by the Act. 

In 2017-18, the DoPT made a brazen attempt with draft RTI rules to control internal functioning of the CIC! The CIC was asked to offer its views not before but after the DoPT had placed the draft rules for consultation with the people. One of the mischievous rules gives enormous powers to the chief to remove or add subjects of the individual Commissioners. This author, with the support of another Commissioner, opposed it at several CIC meetings. Draft rules were resisted so strongly by the people and the media that the DoPT shelved these permanently.

The second attempt was the RTI (Amendment) Bill-2018, aimed at creating uncertainty over the Information Commissioners’ tenure. The original Act gave the Commissioners a fixed tenure of five years or up to the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier, and placed them on a par with the Election Commissioners, who in turn are on a par with Supreme Court Judges. The Bill makes the terms, status and salary of the Information Commissioners as prescribed by the Central Government. ‘As prescribed’ means that the government can change the status in every recruitment notification. They told resisting Commissioners that sitting Information Commissioners would not be affected; new rules were only for future Commissioners. Though the Bill is deferred, the threat continues.

The worst attempt was revealed in the first week of April — to set up two panels of top bureaucrats, one to receive complaints against the chief and the second against the Information Commissioners. The panel of the Cabinet Secretary, Secretary (DoPT), and former Chief Information Commissioner will consider complaints against the working Chief Information Commissioner, while the second panel — comprising the Secretary (Coordination) at the Cabinet Secretariat, Secretary (DoPT) and former Information Commissioner will probe complaints against Information Commissioners. The Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioner are above the rank of Cabinet Secretary. The Act enable Information Commissioners to issue directions to the Cabinet Secretary or the Secretary (DoPT), and to consider these officers as deemed PIOs (public information officers) if they obstructed disclosure to penalise them. How could the Cabinet Secretary and the Secretary (DoPT) be empowered to hear complaints against Information Commissioners, unless the RTI Act is further diluted? If that is done, it will reduce the CIC into a glorified clerk without any glory. If these panels come into existence, not just the independence, but also the existence of the CIC itself would be threatened, and the Information Commissioners would be waiting for instructions of those officers, instead of adjudicating complaints against them. 

The BJP, in its manifesto, has made no mention of transparency or RTI. The party president claimed that the NDA gave a transparent and strong decisive government. The manifesto proclaimed that every effort has been made to re-establish probity in public life, introduce transparency in policy- making and in the management of national assets as well as to bring offenders to book. Even in its 75 milestones, there is nothing on the RTI. Most of the BJP’s promises in 2014 and 2019 are the same. Every repeated promise means a written admission that they failed to implement it. 

There should be a law to penalise political parties who fail to implement their manifesto, which should be treated as a legally binding contract with voters. It should impose a legal duty on political parties to inform the people with proof as to which promise was implemented, to what extent, and if failed, the reasons for the same. Such failures should have deterrent legal consequences. The parties must file affidavits about their failure to implement their own manifesto, which should be accessible to all.