Recent amendments effected in the Right to Information Act (RTI) 2005 by the Modi Government have not gone down well with RTI activists, several opposition parties and many ardent advocates of transparency and democracy.
The changes that have been made to the Act are as follows: The status of the Information Commissioners (ICs) that was equated with the Election Commissioners (ECs) has been downgraded; they will henceforth enjoy the rank of Secretary to the Government of India. The reason offered by the Government is that the ICs are statutory creatures born of the RTI Act and not constitutional offices under the Indian Constitution. The tenure, salaries, status, terms and conditions of both central and state ICs would be fixed by the Government and will not remain secure as earlier guaranteed by the RTI Act.
The Government’s refusal to allow the amendments to be considered by a Parliamentary Committee demonstrates its resolve to pass them through at any cost and at great speed.
The votaries of the original RTI enactment see this development as an attempt to destroy the independence of the ICs and make them handmaidens of the Government. According to the opponents, the right to information is not governmental largesse but a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right. This is being compromised by the Government’s move. The Government’s argument that a statutory creature cannot enjoy the same status as a constitutional office is a lame justification. After all, the Central Vigilance Commission and the Lokpal are also statutory creations but are treated at par with constitutional entities. Such a status was afforded to the ICs precisely to ensure their independence, which now stands abrogated by the Government. The opponents also underscore changes in tenure, salary etc. as further evidence of such abrogation. The Centre has extended its iron grip over state ICs, demonstrating its clear intent of diluting the federal nature of our polity. The Government’s refusal to allow the amendments to be considered by a Parliamentary Committee demonstrates its resolve to pass them through at any cost and at great speed.
Some of these arguments by the opponents seem to hold water. The ICs, henceforth, would be wary of the master under whom they function. The boss is no longer the Act but the Government. Independence, in these circumstances, is most likely to be a clear casualty. Every IC in the country, would now run the risk of removal for recalcitrance. This may not necessarily happen but there would always be a possibility that the Government would feel that an IC has overstepped the boundary and deserves to be removed. This may have negative fallouts in regard to the delivery of information. However, given the volume of applications that the ICs receive and are required to dispose, the overall functioning of the RTI Act may not be too adversely impacted, except for the instance in which the Government considers the matter as sensitive and needs to be handled differently.
While there is no doubt that transparency is a significant tool for good governance, it would be difficult to deny that the Act has had some adverse consequences.
The RTI Act also requires some censure. While there is no doubt that transparency is a significant tool for good governance, it would be difficult to deny that the Act has had some adverse consequences. While many genuine RTI activists have lost their lives in the dogged pursuit of information, several individuals have also misused the Act for ulterior purposes. Furthermore, a large bureaucracy has burgeoned around the Act. Even more worrisome is that in response to the force of the Act, the administration has become more careful with its remarks with regards to its files and its actions on the ground. Although, this could be interpreted as a partly positive outcome, the Act has also resulted in slowing down decision-making and led to avoidance of decisions that may hurt the decision-makers. Bureaucratic ingenuity and out of the box thinking have been quietly buried.
After fifteen years since the Act has been in operation, the following fundamental question must be asked — has the RTI Act achieved its prime objective of bringing about a qualitative change in the governance of this country? While the Act has assisted in unearthing several acts of omission and commission by governments and their functionaries, the quality of governance as a whole remains poor. While it is true that the governance malaise is much too deep and wide to be remedied by a single Act, it highlights the fact that piecemeal governance reforms do not cure a highly flawed system. Nevertheless, seen solely from the perspective of the RTI Act and the lens of transparency, there should be little doubt that the Act was a positive step towards good governance. This is despite the fact that the Act has not been helped by the new highly contentious amendments.
After fifteen years since the Act has been in operation, the following fundamental question must be asked — has the RTI Act achieved its prime objective of bringing about a qualitative change in the governance of this country?
However, instruments that deepen democracy have perforce begun to be seen in a larger context across the world. We are living in times where governments are privy to a great deal of information that is not common knowledge but have a huge bearing on the security and integrity of the nation. In an age of extremism, terror, global information flows and communication manipulation, subversive international forces seek subtle ways to undermine national strengths. Such attempts at subversion have put democracy in retreat, as the
Freedom in the World Report, published by
Freedom House, concludes. Liberal democracies in Europe, the United States and elsewhere, that have historically dominated politics, were unable to address their citizens’ anxieties entailed by the changing nature of their societies. This change followed an influx of immigrants, and the disruption and dislocation that was apparently caused by them. As a consequence, such democracies have ceded ground to anti-liberal politics that has successfully changed the terms of socio-eco-political debates. Many countries that were at the forefront of spreading democracy have had to step back and contain or even abrogate freedoms earlier afforded to their peoples.
While this does not bode well for true democratic values, it is only natural that countries will react to perceived threats and will take tough decisions that may not satisfy those wholly committed to liberalism, irrespective of the larger context. Just like war is not fought on democratic values, but via centralisation and a clear chain of command, unusual times force nations to tighten their belts and brace for national level impacts. It seems that we will see more of this in the days to come and not only in India, the largest democracy in the world. During such testing times, it is the maturity of
those who know when to retreat and when to assert themselves that will have to be relied upon.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
