The narrative takes us back to 1986 where A.G. Noorani writes about the right to know and its potential to revolutionise the Indian democratic system. He referred to a law passed in 1872 under British Raj that had existed on Indian Statute Book conferring upon the citizens a unique right of access to public document during that chapter of the Indian history. Little did he know that time about its realization, and journey thereafter beginning in 2005.
As it says, “Necessity is the mother of all inventions” or necessity is the mother of reformations, in this case, it was in 1994, the Majdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) led by social activist Aruna Roy started a historic forty-day-long dharna to know about the works of development in the rural Rajasthan which finally led to a promise made by the then Rajasthan Chief Minister Shri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat to make xerox copies of all bills and muster rolls on development expenditure available to all citizens. The promise was a brave one.
At the country level, the Press Council of India (PCI) prepared a draft RTI bill. As Noorani said, this long due fundamental right was “not to confer any new right on the citizens but to provide a procedure for enforcement of existing fundamental right” which no one had right to curtail. A working group chaired by Shri H D Shourie, referred to as the Shourie Committee, was given the mandate to prepare draft legislation on freedom of information by the central government. The Shourie Committee draft law was reworked into the Freedom of Information Bill 2000 and was finally tabled in 2000 for deliberations in the houses but the law was yet far away.
The apex court of the country, in 2003, struck down an amendment – Section 33B of the Representation of People (Amendment) Act, 2002 citing the constitutional right of the citizens to know the antecedents of the electoral candidates. This accelerated the process.
On June 15, 2005, the law giving citizens the fundamental Right to Information was passed and the first ten years of its commencement saw over 1,75,00,000 applications filed. In that era, when the rest of the world was apprehensive of the culture of openness and taking actions to roll it back citing security and privacy concerns, the mature Indian democracy opted for greater transparency. “The Right to Information can provide immense relief to the people who feel they have been wronged”, said the then President Dr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam at Delhi’s Vigyan Bhawan as he saw the legislation as an empowering tool.
With all the critical views and justifications, ups and downs, loopholes and weaves & asks and answers, the journey of Mother India with the new RTI led to the development of both, the democracy and the RTI. But the process was turtle-paced. As India was a large country with the largest written constitution and second-largest population and a large number of politicians and bureaucrats, there were “natural delays” in the implementation and redressing RTI grievances. Even after three years, many government offices had reportedly not nominated a Public Information Officer (PIO) as required by the act according to a survey by Pragati Abhiyan in Nashik District in Maharastra. In Maharastra, Freedom of Information Act was passed in 2003 with a number of exemptions and exceptions under pressure from social activist Anna Hazare, who took up a “fast until death”.
The bubble finally burst on January 13, 2010, when one of the RTI activist, defending the law and blowing the whistle, was murdered during his morning walk. Satish Shetty was active in using RTI in exposing land scams. This was not the only murder that came to light. India also witnessed the murders of other RTI activists like Arun Sawant, Vitthal Gite, Dattatreya Patil and Ramdas Ghadegavkar. The country was paying a high cost due to a higher level of awareness and reportage.
In 2011, Shehla Masood became the ninth activist to be shot dead. She was using RTI to bring to light the alleged corruption in the drainage works. The higher the number of such cases was stronger the evidence for the fact that the life of an RTI activist was always at risk. Using RTI was like moving in front of a hungry lion who could anytime separate the flesh from the bones of the body to satisfy its needs. Who would enter into a venture when the payment has to be made by life? There was a serious need for assured and adequate protection which was finally provided by the enactment of Whistle Blowers Protection Act (2011) wherein RTI activists facing danger to life receive police protection. This was a great relief.
Many amendments and rulings came strengthening the RTI Act, the citizens and the democratic system expanding the act’s purview and making the system more and more transparent and accountable. In 2013, the Central Information Commission (CIC) held political parties as “public authorities” bringing them under the purview of RTI. This was seen as the opening of Pandora’s box for political parties by Anirudh Burman. This entailed for greater transparency in the activities of the political parties. It was a check to the system of political funding prevalent in Indian democracy. Supreme Court made Reserve Bank of India more accountable to the public saying that the central bank cannot withhold information citing fiduciary relationship in its ruling in 2017.
While we have come a long way from a movement “to know” about rural development by MKSS and Anna Hazare to Whistle Blowers Protection act and transparency in a political party, there is still a long way ahead.
A recent suit filed in Supreme Court seeking the cognition as to why PM CARES is not included under RTI and questioning its need when the nation already has PM NRF shows the relevance and importance of the act in the age of knowledge, curiosity and awareness. The youth of the nation is no longer ignorant and lax to use their rights and fulfil their responsibility towards the country. PM CARES, constituted by PM Shri Narendra Modi to counter crisis created by COVID-19, does not come under the purview of RTI and is subject to audit by independent contractor unlike PMNRF, constituted by Ex PM Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, which comes under RTI and is subject to CAG audit. Donations made to both the accounts can be claimed as a tax deduction under the section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The conscious country poses a question – why does PM CARES, being in the name of the PM and the PM being the guardian of the public, not a “public authority”? The supremacy and strength of the custodian of the constitution will ensure that the justice prevails and the information finds its rightful place.
We are in the age of information. Everything, from the generation of information to sharing it, is possible at a few clicks. India is aiming to explore its potential to grow as an IT hub and attract FDI through this sector. Hence, the policies adopted by the government will increase the information in stock and flow in the country. The primary aim, however, should be to uphold the values that India stands for and its democratic ideals. In the middle of looking inwards by the policy of Atmanirbhar Bharat and looking outwards by emerging as the new hub internationally in the light of ongoing “Boycott China” campaign and USA’s visa suspensions, India will have to make amendments to RTI in the near future expanding its purview to ensure its citizens’ interests, safety, well-being and security in all aspects and dimensions. On the other front, amidst growing border tensions, the twin threat posed by Beijing and Islamabad, and the changing geopolitics and power balance in the world, India will also have to ensure safety and security keeping the information confidential. It will be essential as well as difficult to define a fine line and optimal balance between transparency and opacity.
The dilemma posed by future will not only test the maturity of the second-largest democracy and the Right to Information but will also strengthen the right which is the sword with aware citizens who sharpen its blade to fight for their rights when need be. The process will lead to the establishment of a transparent and accountable system in the country which is covering 2.4% of the world which is drowning into the oceans of corruption. If so happens, this act will continue to set an example and be the guiding light for the rest of the world in the times to come.
Comments