Source: Central Chronicle
http://www.centralchronicle.com/20060916/1609301.htm

The need for transparency in Government functioning is obviously a basic tenet of democratic governance. It is thus quite natural that the citizen should have the right to information, to know the details of how the Government functions and whether the decisions taken are in public interest. As early as 1948, the UNDHR had pointed out that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
The Right to Information (RTI) became a fundamental right much later in the day because we were obsessed with the British legacy. Several Articles of our Constitution indicate citizen's rights to know but each Article includes one or more Clauses which give an overwhelming authority to the state to abridge, distort and deny the right. The reasons for such denial include public order, public morality, incitement etc. It may be mentioned here that the Right to Information existed in Sweden as early as 1766.

There has been an allegation, and not without reason, that the politicians as also the bureaucracy were not interested in giving this right to the people. The efforts of the Central Vigilance Commission in this connection to make information a fundamental right has to be acknowledged. It, however, needs to be pointed out that there is nothing new in this right except that the provisions have been consolidated and the people given the opportunity (and right) to know everything they want, simply by writing to the Public Information Officer. The Official Secrets Act has been cut to size and except for specified areas, no information can be withheld from the public. The legislature cannot be denied any information and now the citizens have been bestowed with similar powers.

This development is, no doubt, healthy for ensuring good governance and curbing corruption. Each and every decision of the Government has now become available for public scrutiny and those in the decision-making process have to be very cautious as also judicious while exerting their powers. Though this right has not yet become quite popular and still is in its infancy, it is bound to have an effect once the contents of this Act reach the people in the remote areas of the country.

Lack of disclosure by notifying it as secret had earlier jeopardized the interests of the people in various ways. For example, Section 3 & 5 of the Official Secrets Act was used against the Narmada activists but notifying the entire valley as 'secret'. Again in A.K. Basu case the right to know reasons for arrest was accorded. The latest right to know the antecedents of candidates is another landmark decision.

Even though the RTI has come into force, this has yet to be utilized properly. Moreover people in the government are still afraid to question and even make disclosures which may be in public interest. A senior Government official of a Central Government Department regreted the fact that though he had data on the levels of water pollution and its effect on public health, he could not reveal the same to any non-governmental organization so that they could take up the issue and ensure that the life of the people are saved. In fact, the government offices still do not want to reveal much information to the media and want to keep most matters secret.

The attitude of the government has to change drastically and no information can be withheld except those mentioned in the RTI. The spate of public interest litigations (PLIs), which has increased in recent times, clearly indicate that people, at least in urban areas, have been asserting their right to information. Matters concerning pollution, environmental degradation, various forms of injustice, etc. have come up before the courts and very favourable decisions have been pronounced.

A vital aspect of our political system has been the increase of corruption that has obviously got accentuated because of lack of transparency in the system. People are steadily coming to know of their powers under the RTI and it will take some time before they come forward and question the Government on matters which appear detrimental to public interest. Social activists have a crucial role to play in this regard for they have to take up the onerous task of educating the people about the right to question authorities on any matter that they feel may jeopardize public interest.

Especially in the rural areas, the poor people are hoodwinked in the name of development and they till recently did not having any powers to challenge or question public authorities. But now the situation has changed. Issues such as absenteeism of teachers from schools, not providing mid-day meals in schools, non-functioning of health centers or non availability of clean and pure water for drinking could be put up before public authorities asking for reasons and what measures the government proposes to take and the required time span.

A question that comes up is that how far the government will reveal and whether the replies will be distorted. Take, for example, the work being carried out by the Central and state research organizations on arsenic or fluoride or nitrate contamination of drinking water, on the one hand and the continuing effects of such contamination on human health, specially in the rural areas, on the other.

Many such questions may come up regarding wastage and/or non-effective utilization of government money, especially by the bureaucracy and also by politicians. Realizing this, the government recently proposed to bring amendments to make file notings a category of information that can be concealed. Also, access to Cabinet notes even after the decision-making process is complete is proposed to be barred. The amendments will change the Act so that the process of decision-making cannot be revealed.

As rightly pointed out by Aruna Roy, who played a major role in framing the RTI: "From the slum dweller, who automatically knows of the decision to demolish his home and livelihood when the bulldozer arrives at his doorstep, to the contractor, who will seal his contract and approvals with the payment of his bribe, the final decision is only the consequence of the fairness of the decision-making process".

There is general dissidence to bar file notings as this amounts to barring information itself. This needs to be reviewed in the larger interests of society. One is constrained to mention here that the best protection against the excesses of freedom is more and better quality freedom. The right to information in its present form has been the result of popular and sustained struggle which has been formulated to ensure that governance whether at the Central, State or municipal or panchayat levels becomes more vigilant, so that they are in a position to justify their actions, if the situation so arises.

The proposed amendments may dilute or negate the objectives of RTI itself. At this juncture, a more professional approach in all government organizations is called for so that there is increasing transparency (every official can justify his or her action) which, in turn, will lead to reduction in favouritism and corruption.

Dhurjati Mukherjee, INFA