RTI Activists

 

In a recent gathering of RTI Activists, I pointed out that the root cause of (i) Large number of RTI Applications and (ii) Contraversies arising from the reluctance of public authorities to part with copy of public documents,arise from their inaction on sections 4(1)(a), 4(2) and 25 of the RTI Act.

 

These provisions envisage pro-active measures by the public authorities to disseminate information of public interest. After section 4(1)(a) is faithfully implemented and computerised records are open to public access, a citizen need not file RTI application to get information from public records. Section 4(2) envisages suo moto disclosure of information by public authorities, so that citizens may not have to resort to RTI Act. Section 25 requires the Government and public authorities to frame educational programs, to enable the citizens to use RTI Act. RTI Act is two years old; enough tim was available to make systemic reforms that lead to citizen's access to pubic records.

 

In my humble opinion, current contraversies regarding RTI Act arise from the inaction of Public Authorities on the systemic reforms envisaged in the RTI Act. They do not have the option to ignore RTI Act. Therefore there seems to be a strong case for Public Interest Litigation, seeking directions from from Supreme Court regarding time bound implementation of RTI Act.

 

There was a very interesting counter-point in this RTI gathering from a famous legal expert. According to him, judiciary itself does not want transparency and public accountability. According to him, public interest litigation suggested by me may produce adverse results, if it gets rejected by the apex court. Accordingly, despite blatant non-implementation of the saliant systemic features of RTI Act by public authorities, citizens seem to be quite helpless.

 

If the legal reourse of P.I.L. is not kikely to succeed, RTI Activists have to explore other options for forcing the public authorities to implement RTI Act. By the way, Central /State Information Commissioers are also helpless unless some one makes complaint to them regarding non-implementation of RTI Act by specific public authority. They have no audit/inspection machinery at their disposal, to highlight non-implementation.

 

RTI Activists can submit RTI application to various public authorities demanding regarding implementation of RTI Act. Complaint can be lodged with CIC/SIC, if the reply is unsatisfactory. Considering the very large number of public authorities under the Central and State Governments, this is a mammoth task.

 

We can also hope that audit of public authorites by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India covers issues regarding non-implementation of RTI Act: Indian Audit and Accounts Department should be geared up for special focus on this task.