RTI: The Story of its Making and Breaking

The Indian Parliament has recently passed the RTI (Amendment) Bill - 2019, a move that is likely to weaken the institution.

A brief history of the conception of RTI:

In 1987, with severe drought taking a toll on the rural economy in Rajasthan, labourers were heavily dependent on government PWD work for an earning. The wages from the government were also irregular and paltry, causing severe economic strain to the masses. This situation didn’t fail to catch the attention of a group of social activists who’d been camping in a village called Devdungri to understand the lives and livelihood of the downtrodden. These activists led by Ms Aruna Roy set out to understand the reasons for the irregular wage dole-outs by the government. That search couldn’t go long, as every information that was sought was being denied. Consequently, the activists piloted small protests demanding better transparency and minimum wages for all. 

Soon they realized that the problem was systemic and required a larger mobilization to effectively vouch for the cause. This culminated in the formation of the “Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan - MKSS” (Association for the Empowerment of Labourers and Farmers) in 1990. Over the years, MKSS grew into an influential social movement and grassroots organisation. It ushered in a culture of “Jan Sunwais” (people’s hearing), where detailed documents of local government’s expenditures (which were difficult to obtain before the RTI), were read out to village gatherings by volunteers. Such campaigns uncovered several cases of corruption and misuse of government funds. The sparks set-off by MKSS created a wave beyond Rajesthan’s polity and eventually culminated in the passing of the Right to Information Act (RTI) in the parliament in 2005.

Provisions of the RTI Act of 2005:

“Right to Information Act” was passed in the parliament as a statutory Act, and intended to carter to the demands for information from the citizens. It set up a district-wise apparatus of “central public information officers”, to whom people can write petitions requesting information regarding the finances and activities of all central government institutions and public institutions that receive substantial support from the central government. A similar set-up was also mandated for all states to cater to information regarding the state and local body institutions.

The Act also established the Central Information Commission headed by a Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and assisted by a few more Information Officers. A parallel structure at the state level was also commissioned. The task of these information commissioners is to take up appeals from RTI applicants who’ve either not got any response or are dissatisfied with the reply they’ve got from the concerned information officers. RTI applicants can also eventually seek a judicial remedy through writs if their query hasn’t met a satisfactory closure even on appeal. 

RTI has inbuilt penalty provisions for information officers who fail to furnish the required information within the stipulated time. Nonetheless, the government authorities may deny certain information by restoring to the exemption clause given to some domains defined in the ‘Official Secrets Act - 1923’. Also, a query that is unnecessarily intrusive into someone’s privacy shall not be entertained. 

RTI in Action:

The immediate aftermath of the passage of RTI in 2005 saw a plethora of activists taking its course and it was proving to be an effective tool to hold those in power accountable. Till date, over 14 crore RTI applications have been filed, which averages to over 90 lakh applications per year since inception. In fact, several high-profile corruption cases that plagued the UPA-II regime had its origins in RTI applications. Successive court rulings strengthened the act by declaring that NGOs receiving government funding and the recognized national political parties are public entities that are covered within the ambit of the RTI.  

This new normal had indeed strained the nefarious designs that were in operation for long, a fact that is perceptible from the backlash that RTI activists had been facing over the years. In the 13 years since 2005, at least 54 murders and 5 suicides have been directly linked to RTI applications, while the actual numbers could be much larger. In addition to this, there have been numerous reported cases of RTI activists facing harassment, assaults, and threats. Despite this being a critical issue, there was little movement on the policy front to deter such transgressions. 

Further, the UPA regime mooted an RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2013, to override the Supreme Court ruling that brought political parties under the ambit of the RTI. While the Supreme Court ruling was to ensure transparency in party funding, the government had cited concerns regarding likely 3rd party interference into the decision-making process of the election machinery. This got passed, as all national parties except the CPI(M) had backed it. 

The current amendments:

Recently, the BJP government has successfully got the RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2019 passed in both houses of the parliament, despite strong opposition. The RTI Act guarantees the 'Central Chief Information Commissioner' and ‘State Chief Information Commissioners’ fixed tenures of 5 years each and their salaries run in sync with that of the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court respectively. The current amendment bill seeks to change these service conditions. The rationale given by the government is that 'Information Commissions' are a statutory body and hence shouldn’t enjoy equal status as that of the Supreme Court, which is a constitutional body. This argument is frivolous, as there are multiple other statutory bodies that have the same privilege as constitutional bodies. Hence, it is blatantly clear that the government is citing a technicality to reduce the functionality of the act.

In effect, the amendment seeks to give the central government, the power to appoint and remove any information commissioner (both central and state) as and when it pleases. This will lead to the erosion of CIC’s authority to take independent decisions that stands contrary to the government’s position, as it would mean risking his seat. Further, as State Information Commissioner’s tenure and the appointment are also being tampered with, this is seen as a serious assault on the nation’s federal structure. Notably, this may lead the State Information Commission becoming another tool to intimidate antithetical state governments to comply with the centre's policies. 

The Future:

2018 was the first year that saw a lesser number of RTI applications being filed than the previous year. The threat that activists face and the bureaucratic bottlenecks are already throttling the noble legislation. Instead of working to rectify the aspects that strain the law, the current amendment is trying to weaken RTI as an institution.     

Nonetheless, it would be rudimentary to see the amendments to RTI as a singularity. It is actually, a part of the bigger mesh of actions that seek to systematically weaken our institutions and federal polity. The envisioned structure of the lateral entry provision for bureaucratic appointments, the intentions to centralize judicial recruitment, the interference with RBI’s functioning, are a few to name. While these political manoeuvring is indeed brewing into a dangerous cocktail, the polarization of the electorate and the opposition numbers in the parliament doesn’t seem to spell optimism anytime soon.