RTI: The first four years

Dear Mr Alasdair S. Roberts
This refers to the report click here
While the overall thrust of the report is correct I am writing to highlight two misplaced priorities.
The first reason you have given for the non-effective implementation of the RTI Act is the ignorance you have attributed to the majority of the citizens. But by your own admission a good 15 percent of the population is aware of the Act. And that is a pretty 150 million people! The number of applications filed under the Act in the first two and half years is also an impressive two million! The beauty of this country is that if something works people, irrespective of their literacy or lack of it, will surely line up to use it. Unfortunately, when things do not work, instead of making determined efforts to make it work they just give up. This is the problem with the implementation of the RTI Act in India. It has already been put on the ventilator by the two institutions that could have really helped to use this Act for ushering in real democracy in the country. The first is the office of the information commissioners (ICs) who have been given the tooth and nail to enforce the Act. But activists in this area believe that there is blatant misuse of office and corruption when the commissioners who are required to mandatorily impose penalties on public information officers (PIOs) for as much as not sticking to deadlines for providing information, fail to do so. It is easily argued that where the IC is required to impose a penalty of Rs 25,000/- he/she can 'fail' to do so by accepting, say Rs 15,000/- as grease money. And there may be PIOs who are willing to pay even the whole Rs 25,000/- or more as bribe than pay it as penalty! The second instituion that has contributed to the failure of the RTI Act is the judiciary. The claim of the Chief Justice of India that his office is out of purview of the transparency law speaks volumes by itself.
The second wrong premise I have noted in the report is the assertion that the lower level staff do not have the training, authority or the resources needed to respond to the requests properly. The fact is otherwise. What is appalling is the mindset of the people- starting with the lowest office attendant to the highest, who ever it is- in public authorities which is still to come to terms with the needs of a democratic society. Even here the best example is from the judiciary which has many orders to its credit asserting the right to information as part of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. But I can vouch from my own experience that the courts have even refused to give copies of even its earlier orders under the Right to Information Act! It has also refused to provide information on the facilites available to a citizen in a court when he/she is appearing as a litigant in person! The effort to deny information by the judiciary is also evident in the fact that it is only the judiciary that has exhorbitantly fixed the various fees/cost for seeking/providing information. Against the nominal Rs 10/- fixed as application fee by other public authorities the Delhi High Court had fixed the application fees as Rs 500/- but reduced it to Rs 50/- with the intervention of the Central Information Commission! The courts have also introduced a totally unwarranted fee of Rs 50/- for the first appeal which is just an opportunity given to the public authority to correct any mistakes/shortcomings in the response of its PIO. The cost of providing information is also similarly very high, if not exhorbitant. For example, Rs 5/- for an A4 size page of information against Rs 2/- for other public authorities!

The RTI Act is a very simple and unambiguous law that can be read and understood by even an upper primary school kid. But the way it has been wilfully misinterpreted and abused by the ICs and the judiciary has highlighted the need for certain amendments. The suggestions I had given to a parliamentary committee on the subject is attached. But today the activists in this area are so wary that their only demand is 'No amendments, implement it right!'. This is because they expect the law makers to bring in all amendments that would dilute the Act rather than strengthen it. For example, denying file notings and also making it necessary to disclose the reason for which the information is being sought etc. The only silver lining available now is the freedom and ability to communicate with like minded people and that is no mercy of those in offices of authority. The civil society does have a chance to make its presence felt. And they need to succeed if real democracy has to take roots here.
Your's truly,
Veteran Major P M Ravindran