Is the RTI Act serving its purpose?

Is the RTI Act serving its purpose?

Anjali Bhardwaj: It has been one of the most empowering legislations for the people as it is a law that puts the onus on the government to respond to them in a time bound manner, to get them information to hold the government accountable. The law has in many ways tilted the balance of power in favor of the governed. That is, I think the people of the country have understood something like this. So when they are denied rights and entitlements like ration, pension, medicine in hospitals or education in schools, they go to government departments to file RTI applications, and very often they get information.

We have seen that most of the RTI applications are filed by people who ask about their basic rights and entitlements. So it has served its purpose to that extent. Secondly, people in high positions have used the RTI Act to know what is happening to taxpayers’ money. This has helped him to expose big scams like Adarsh, Commonwealth Games and Vyapam. They have also been able to expose human rights violations, and then in those cases also have been able to fix accountability

Sourav Das: To some extent, yes. The Act is still in effect, despite widespread efforts to reduce its effectiveness. This is because the law was born out of a continuous mass movement. Officials still think twice before responding to an RTI query, which shows the seriousness with which it is taken up. The major hurdle is the lack of awareness and widespread adoption of this law. By adoption, I mean that people actually accept the law as their own creation. The day both these things are achieved, the real mandate of the RTI Act will be realised.

Do you have to be an RTI expert to know how to file queries correctly?

Anjali Bhardwaj: What is remarkable about the RTI Act is that it came about as a result of a very strong grassroots movement, where people from all walks of life came together and said that a law was needed to ensure that they were given the right to access information. I went. Government. The law basically ensures that there is no prescribed format in which an RTI application is to be filed. It’s a pretty straight forward, simple process. The quality of information one receives depends on how the questions are formulated and formulated. Our research has shown that a very large percentage of RTI applications are filed by the poorest and most marginalized people, usually seeking information relating to their very basic rights and entitlements.

So someone asks for his ration card, whether the ration card has been made or not, it is a very simple question. And they are able to ask that question without much training. But when one asks for complex information, which pertains to cases of corruption, big scams or violations of law or human rights, then one needs to formulate the queries in a very detailed manner – that’s where expertise helps.

Sourav Das: The beauty of this act is its simplicity. But, for example, in the High Courts, if you are seeking information, they have special forms through which you can seek information. If you are filing the application in Odisha, they have a special format for filing. These types of rules create hurdles for the people.

Anjali Bhardwaj: There are some states where you can file an RTI application within 150 words only. Condensing the question becomes a challenge, especially for those who may not have had the benefit of formal education.

Is RTI ensuring transparency between the citizen and the government, as it was intended?

Sourav Das: Public Information Officers these days cleverly use such words as if this department does not have information at all. So now they are sort of putting the onus on the applicant to find out which officer and which office would have that information. This is not in line with the RTI Act as it is the duty of the officer to find out who has the information and transfer the RTI application.

Anjali Bhardwaj: They are expected to specifically mention the section which they are using to reject the information. Without mentioning one category, we are seeing a large number of denials where people are simply told that this information cannot be provided to you, which is an illegal denial.

Was this reluctance to share information always a problem?

Anjali Bhardwaj: When the law came in 2005, it brought a revolution in the field of information. This meant that anyone could demand information from any public authority, and there has been opposition from the beginning. The first attempt to amend the law took place within 10 months of its introduction. We are seeing that today there are problems at different levels. First, seeking information is not encouraged within the government. Second, maintaining the datasets and information, keeping the information in the public domain has also become a major problem. So during COVID-19, for example, when the government was asked about the number of migrant workers who lost their lives due to lack of oxygen, the government said, we don’t have any data. The 2021 census has not taken place, and the government is now saying that it has been postponed indefinitely. Now, this is a source of data. So if the government does not collect the data, or does not make it public, the right to information of the people is actually restricted. There is massive denial of information.

Several attempts have been made by governments to amend the law. And in every case, whether it was the proposed amendment that file notings would not be part of the Right to Information Act or saying that political parties would be kept out of the purview of the RTI Act, people protested and governments backtracked.

Of course, in 2019, he went ahead and amended (giving the government the power to set service conditions for information commissioners). But despite threats, attacks and killings of RTI users, people are still using the law on a large scale, which testifies to the fact that it is something they find very powerful.

If the law has been diluted, can you give us examples of the ways in which this has happened?

Sourav Das: Successive governments have tried to dilute this law, starting with the United Progressive Alliance itself, which created the law. State governments have tried and are still trying. But the two biggest and most successful efforts have been or are being made by the National Democratic Alliance government. Once in 2019, and another now, through the Data Protection Bill, which is likely to be passed.

Anjali Bhardwaj: We have a large number of vacancies in the Information Commissions, which means that appeals and complaints remain pending.

Other laws may affect the RTI Act such as the updated Data Protection Bill. Can you explain what kind of issues this is causing.

Anjali Bhardwaj: The Data Protection Bill will set out a mechanism to amend the RTI Act in such a way that all personal information will be exempt. In a community where people are not being given their rights or entitlements under the public distribution system, for example, detailed information is given saying that this is the person’s name, [these are] The address of the ration being given to them, so that a social audit can be done to put pressure on the government and hold them accountable. We now feel that the entire proactive disclosure scheme, which was provided under the RTI Act, is going to be completely diluted.
Anjali Bhardwaj is co-convenor of the National Campaign for the Right to Information; Sourav Das is a transparency activist