- Rights
- Rule of law
- Niches
- Areas
- Courtroom
- In focus
- Multimedia
- Art, literature and more
- Special issues
- Rights
- Rule of law
- Niches
- Areas
- Courtroom
- In focus
- Multimedia
- Art, literature and more
- Special issues
Satark Nagrik Sangathan, known for its stellar work in the Right to Information, released its assessment report at a webinar that was co-organised by The Leaflet recently.
The report, titled "Report Card of Information Commissions in India, 2019-20", looks at the performance of all 29 information commissions in the country for 2019-20. It seeks to improve the functioning of commissions and strengthen the implementation of the Right to Information law (RTI), which is being used extensively by the vulnerable and marginalized to access their basic rights and entitlement.
“"People from rural areas to urban settlements participated in the movement to demand a strong law for them to be able to access information from the government to know what the government is doing on their behalf and from their (taxpayers) money," said Anjali Bharadwaj.
Justice AK Sikri, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising , former Chief Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu, and Toby Mendel, director of Centre for Law and Democracy, engaged in an enriching discussion on the burning issues surrounding RTI. The session was moderated by Anjali Bharadwaj, a founding member of Satark Nagrik Sangathan.
"People from rural areas to urban settlements participated in the movement to demand a strong law for them to be able to access information from the government to know what the government is doing on their behalf and from their (taxpayers) money," said Anjali Bharadwaj.
“Jaising also said that though the RTI Act is strong, the problem lies in its implementation and lack of political will.
Agreeing with Anjali, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising observed that the RTI Act in India is preceded by great events. Among them was the right to a fair wage and the right to know what wage is being earned by the poor people.
She highlighted the large scale vacancies in the Information Commission that must be filled regularly. She suggested that this can be done through a secretariat for the screening of potential applicants and prepare a shortlist so that the task of the appointing authority becomes easier. But this is not happening, she remarked.
“Jaising argued that the definition of "Whistleblowers" under the WhistleBlowers Protection Act, 2014 must be enlarged so as to include RTI Activists too.
Jaising also said that though the RTI Act is strong, the problem lies in its implementation and lack of political will.
"All retirements in the Information Commission are predictable and there are opportunities to make appointments well before retirements but this is hardly done. Therefore, we can only conclude that non-appointment appears to be an act of lack of political will," Jaising remarked.
Highlighting the recent targeting and killings of RTI Activists, she also emphasized the need for a 'whistle blow law' that would protect the RTI activists. Jaising argued that the definition of "Whistleblowers" under the WhistleBlowers Protection Act, 2014 must be enlarged so as to include RTI Activists too.
In India, whistleblowers are sought to be protected by the WhistleBlowers Protection Act, 2014. The law provides for the protection of their identity and also has norms to prevent their victimization. However, the Central Government has not yet framed Rules under the Act, and thus its implementation remains in abeyance.
"There have been tragic deaths of RTI Activists. I have come to the conclusion that without a concomitant whistleblower law, you can diminish the value of the RTI Act. In my opinion, both these laws go hand in hand and for the success of one, another is needed," Jaising said.
“ Highlighting the problem in the manner of appointments of Information Commissioners, Justice Sikri said that the trend of appointing only retired bureaucrats as Information Commissioners is disturbing and offers no diversity.
Jaising also placed the RTI Act in the context of Article 19 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and said, "The RTI Act based on the principle of Right to Know, which is a part of the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. But we are living in a time where the Right to Freedom of Speech itself is endangered as dissent has become a matter in which you can be prosecuted for sedition and unlawful activities."
She contended that accountability is the basic thread of democracy and RTI strengthens this very basic thread.
"The RTI Act is meant to give you facts and there can be no compromise with it. We live in a post-truth world; we live in a world where we are attacked on social media; we live in a world of fake news. The only way to live in such a world is to strengthen our approach to the RTI Act and deepen our understanding of it," she declared.
Justice AK Sikri continued the discussion and added that the RTI Act in many ways furthers the idea of constitutionalism.
Highlighting the problem in the manner of appointments of Information Commissioners, Justice Sikri said that the trend of appointing only retired bureaucrats as Information Commissioners is disturbing and offers no diversity.
He pointed out that in many states, executives do not appoint Information Commissioners to weaken the functioning of the act.
“Acharyalu further pointed out that when a commissioner retires, his files have to be transferred to the new commissioner. He suggested that instead of transferring them to the new commissioner, it should be assigned to the existing members so that even if there is a vacancy, work would continue to go on smoothly.
"The Executive can, according to the act, decide the strength of Information commissioners according to the workload. Even when the work is more and we need at least 7-8 Information commissioners, only 2-3 are sanctioned by the state. Even the sanctioned posts are not filled in a timely manner," Justice Sikri observed.
He highlighted the problem of delay in delivery of information and suggested that there should be "categorization of cases on the basis of priority." This would strengthen the implementation of the act, he said.
Sridhar Acharyalu, the former Chief Information Commissioner, pointed out that during the pandemic, 21 Information Commissions were not working and people's queries were not being redressed.
“"Unlike the rest of the world, RTI machinery in India holds hearings. It is not a documented process. Holding a hearing is an enormous procedural delay. It takes a lot of time. One can avoid that for smooth functioning. One can have hearing only for special circumstances," Mendel said.
Acharyalu pointed out:"Information about COVID treatment availability is real life-related information. It has to be given immediately. The Information Commission did not even consider this information as 'life-related information' and the same was not given in real-time. Many people died due to this. We should come up with specific guidelines for public health information disclosure conceiving under life and liberty."
Acharyalu further pointed out that when a commissioner retires, his files have to be transferred to the new commissioner. He suggested that instead of transferring them to the new commissioner, it should be assigned to the existing members so that even if there is a vacancy, work would continue to go on smoothly.
Toby Mendel, an expert on RTI Laws across the world and the director of Centre for Law and Democracy, revealed that in 2011 India ranked 2nd out of 89 countries in terms of how strong its RTI law was but this rank has now fallen to 7th out of 128 countries in 2019.
Highlighting the practical difficulties faced by Indian RTI machinery, he suggested that India could do away with the physical hearing of RTI Applicants.
"Unlike the rest of the world, RTI machinery in India holds hearings. It is not a documented process. Holding a hearing is an enormous procedural delay. It takes a lot of time. One can avoid that for smooth functioning. One can have hearing only for special circumstances," Mendel said.
Jaising concluded the webinar by saying, "Our democracy is not about voting once in five years. Our democracy is about our Rights including our Right to Information."
(Aman Garg is a student from Gujarat National Law University (GNLU) and an intern with The Leaflet.)
