Governance and RTI

For BCAJ May, 2007

Uma Mohan

The present article is one more attempt to probe whether RTI would really give birth to a much-cherished dream of the citizens of India of a good governance in the country. The scope is enormous. In my endeavour, I shall touch upon a narrow field of how individual interest gets a safeguard under the RTI.

Governance in very simple terms is the use of society’s resources for society’s welfare. People are the masters and those to whom the work of governing them is entrusted are the servants in the true sense of the phrase. After all, the country is being governed by those whom the citizens delegated the power to do so. Masters must know what, why and how of the deeds of the servants. All deeds of the servants should be transparent to the masters and the servants should bear in mind that they are answerable to their masters for their works. That is, they are accountable. And when this does not happen, it is bad governance. Servants then tend to do what and how they want, without owning any responsibility for their deeds.

RTI came into existence at a time when the servants had the least respect for the sentiments and needs of the masters. People were dissatisfied, helpless and had no option but to accept the way it was. Not to talk of issues of interest to society and nation, even in one’s own matters one was running from pillar to post for years, but in vain. This is evident from the kind of applications being filed under RTI with various public authorities and the period to which they relate. Applications requesting information pertaining to 1970s and 1980s and even earlier have been filed and successfully contested at the Information Commissioner levels.

Shri G. R. Kalra filed an application with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and requested for gradation list (used for determining seniority for the purpose of promotions) of telegraphists for Delhi and Punjab Circle for the year of 1954 to 1960 and Circular No. 30 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, dated 22-6-1949 under the impression that this will facilitate in pursuing his seniority which he lost in the department on account of some of his juniors being promoted over and above him. [Appeal No. 257 of 2006 before Central Information Com-mission]

It reflects the grief in which our citizenry has lived year after year. Police officers wanting to know about service matters in respect of appointment and disciplinary action dating back to 1987 and 1991 are other glaring instances. Shri Bhajan Singh, SSO, Police Wireless, New Delhi requested information relating to the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) proceedings dated 14-3-1991. [Appeal No. 13 of 2007 before the Central Information Commission]. Shri M. S. Upadhye, Addl. Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Delhi Police Headquarters, requested to inspect the file relating to the Selection Committee Meeting (SCM) held in 1987 for selection of Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Police Service, Goa Police Service and Pondicherry Police Service officers to Indian Police Service U.T. Cadre. He desired access to the file notings in the file in which all these decisions were made. He succeeded in appeal before the Commission. [Ap-peal No. 8 of 2007 before the Central Information Commission]

Applications of the nature detailed above are causing tremors in the Government hierarchy. RTI is being used to settle insurance claims. Legal heirs are able to watch that their due share from inheritance is not misappropriated. A large number of applications revolve around service matters of Government servants, like appointments, promo-tions, enquiry, selection committee, departmental proceedings and suspension. Can there be a greater example of apathy of the public authorities to the needs of the common man that RTI has even been used to settle pension and gratuity claims after retirement ? The information seeker himself was on the other side of the table sometime back ! There is hardly any field which remains untouched — schools, colleges, universities, PMO, banks, development authorities, municipal corporations, railways, airways, medical, insurance, airports, police, LPG companies and so on. The list is endless. The range is wide from personal to official to social and to nation.

How will the RTI improve governance ? This is the question that bothers our minds today. The Right to Information Act, 2005 has provided a mechanism by setting up Information Commissions and providing hierarchy of Public Information Officers and Appellate Authorities to seek information. It is for the first time that we have a legitimate system in place for providing information with prescribed rules and procedures. Not only this, it is obligatory for the Public Information Officers to provide the required information within specified time of 30 days. To enforce provisions of RTI, Central and State Information Commissions have been vested with powers of a Civil Court and as Appellate Authority, hold quasi-judicial powers. The Act has provisions for deterrent penalties to ensure that Government offices and all public authorities give adequate priorities to request for information. The officials now cannot afford to sit on petitions any more. Their every action and every inaction is subject to public scrutiny, subject to disclosure under RTI. They dare not do bungling and manipulations in taking decisions. The sheer thought in the minds of officials that their decisions can be reviewed by public is enough to set things right. It may take some time to change the mindset of bureaucracy, but it is bound to happen. The instances cited in preceding paragraph are equally applicable to the present, the current time.

Shri Balbir Singh Patiyal, a resident of Rohini, Delhi was not getting his insurance claim against theft of his vehicle. He filed an application under RTI about processing of claim by the insurance company. After long delays and movement of his application from Delhi to Kolkata and then back to Delhi, when he approached the Central Information Com-mission, the Commission was informed, apart from the fact that requested information had been supplied, that his insurance claim had also been settled ! That is in current time frame. [Appeal No. 400 of 2006 before the Central Information Commission] In their decision, the Commission observed “This a classic case, wherein, the ap-plication under RTI has resulted in a positive action on the part of a public authority.”

Shri Devender Arora of New Delhi got a lifetime setback when he found that his internal assessment marks were not incorporated in the final year mark-sheet of B.Sc.(Hons) Maths Exam conducted by University of Delhi. Everything else fell on deaf ears. He resorted to RTI. The internal assessment is supposed to be made by the college concerned, which then passes on these marks to the University to be integrated in the final result. In this particular case, the college concerned did not send the internal assessment marks in time and therefore the results declared did not include these marks. On pursuing the RTI application, Devender found the University writing to the college concerned to rectify the result and also fix responsibility on the official who faulted by not sending the internal assessment marks in time. His revised result was notified in due course of time and revised marks sheet issued to him. [Appeal No. 636 of 2006 before the Central Information Commission]

Citizens only have to realise and take the initiative. Resort can be had to filing grievance petitions and complaints desiring to know the truth behind the issue. If the administration is in fault, they are most likely to rectify the fault before facing the Commission, thereby serving your purpose. Any lethargy, inaction and apathy of officials on your grievance or complaint can thereafter be taken care of under RTI. In another historic decision, the Central Information Commission has held that enquiry report on any complaints made by citizens is subject to disclosure. And, that too, by the Police Department. [Ms. Hema D’souza v. DCP (Vig), Delhi in appeal No. 464 of 2006 before the Central Information Commission.] The rest follows. The authorities can no longer afford to dilly-dally. In an important decision, the Central Information Commission ordered the public authority to compensate the appellant when its officials tried to delay the issue giving rise to unnecessary hearings causing monetary and mental harassment to the appellant and awarded II-Class AC fare from his place to Delhi and daily allowance to be paid to the applicant.

And not that there was no resistance from bureaucracy. Bureaucracy was hesitant for its past deeds and also about losing freedom in future. They wanted file notings to be kept out of purview of RTI. However, it did not succeed. The Government had to succumb to public pressure.

Governance without any checks, transparency and accountability; not accountable for deeds or misdeeds; not answerable to anyone for what has been done or not done and why; is bad governance. RTI dictates this transparency and accountability and converts bad into good governance. One can know what has been done. How the decision-making preceded, basis of actions taken, and anything one may desire to know about, all is now in public purview. Every decision of authorities is now subject to public scrutiny and review. Will the administration and governance ever be the same again ?

The RTI movement can bring a paradigm shift in the way people and administrators think. Time is not far when we, the citizens, shall taste the sense of being the masters and the administrators shall realise they are really servants of the masses. And, when that happens, when we start to think that way, that thinking evolving from our experiences of successes under RTI, will be the day of real success of RTI in India. Believe it, the day is not far.