More than three million RTI applicants got Information , Claims SIC Maharashtra

More than 96% of RTI applicants in Maharashtra got information in last seven years .This claim is made by state information commission (SIC) of Maharashtra in its seventh annual report placed before state legislative assembly. If this claim is to be believed then there is already "RAMRAJYA" (Goode Governance) in Maharashtra. The claim is based on information provided by various public authorities in the state. As per report in last seven years i.e. since inception of RTI act Public Authorities (PA) received total 31, 72,114  RTI applications,  out of which only 1,27,357  i.e. only 4% of the applicants filed second appeals , that means 96% i.e. 30, 71, 532 applicants got the desired information.

If this statistics is to believed there is no need of proactive disclosure or any other measures for implementation of RTI act in Maharashtra. However, Ground reality is far more different from this. Surprisingly in this report, it has stated that 80 % of the Public Information Officers (PIO) and First appellate authorities are unaware of procedure to be followed to address RTI queries as per the act. The act has not been propagated and reached to its beneficiaries in true sense. Many public authorities have not complied with section 4 of the act. Status of the documentation or record is not satisfactory in most of the public authorities. It is hard to believe that despite of all these odds 96% of the applicants got the desired information. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this situation is that, the data supplied by public authorities on whom this report is not trust worthy, and SIC cannot verify this data by any means.

Since last three four years SIC reports are just copy paste work. This year is also no exception. There were lot of expectations as state chief information commissioner was a former state chief secretary, has thorough knowledge of administration. When last two annual reports were submitted, he was in chair as a chief secretary. He was supposed to find the ways to tackle hurdles in compliance of suggestions of SIC and implementation of RTI act. However, nothing happened. He has same expectations from government that earlier commissions had.

Vacant posts of commissioners , vacant posts of employees , not supply of franking machines, non compliance of section 4 of the RTI act, non compliance of sic decisions, poor documentation and record keeping, Necessity of training to PIO's, FAA' and citizens all such demands are there since last seven years  but Government did not pay any heed. It was possible for Ratnakar Giakwad to do something for RTI act as a chief secretary, but he did not do anything. Now he expects that governments view must be positive towards supply of necessary facilities to SIC.

The only new suggestions from SIC this year are, syllabus related to  The RTI act , Maharashtra Public Records Act  and  Delay in Discharge of official duties  should be included in Departmental Qualification Examination of employees and scanned documents to RTI applicant should be provided to RTI applicant , it will save time and energy of public authority.

It is almost more than a year that Ratnakar Giakwad assumed charge of chief Information commissioner. There were lot of expectations from him. Getting approved "appeal procedure rules" from government was one of the major task before him, but he could not do so. The only positive thing he did was,  fast disposal of second appeals and bringing pendency his bench to almost zero.

Dear Members of Parliament, do not vote for any amendments to the RTI Act please.

Dear Member of Parliament,

I am writing this piece to you to voice my concern about a matter that is very important to me. There are reports in the media, that a bill is likely to be presented in Parliament to amend the RTI Act. The reasons being given publicly are that the CIC order declaring political parties as Public authorities, subject to RTI is bad in law. My understanding is that if an order, which is bad in law, is issued by any statutory authority, the correct process is to challenge it at an appropriate forum. The CIC order can be challenged in a writ in the High Court, and there are many instances of these orders having been quashed in Courts. None of the political parties has filed for a stay of this order, and now expects to amend the law in Parliament to justify and legitimize their defiance of a statutory order. With folded hands, I plead with you not to vote for this. Parliament makes the law. Once it is made, it has to be adjudicated by the appropriate statutory authorities. This is the Constitutional process. Defying a statutory order by anyone sets a wrong example, and leads to breakdown of the rule of law. After considerable discussion spread over months, and reference to a Parliamentary Committee this law was passed. It has been rated as the second best law in the World. Citizens cherish and value it immensely, since it codifies a very important fundamental right of ours.

The law has been used extensively and has uncovered certain arbitrariness and corruption. More importantly, it has empowered the individual sovereign citizen, who is today getting greater respect from many entities. The key principle in defining the bodies to be covered by the RTI Act was based on the movement’s slogan, “ Hamara Paisa, Hamara Hisab.” Hence all Government bodies were covered by the RTI Act and other Institutions which may be ‘substantially funded’ by Government were covered. This was the Act passed by Parliament, based on which the CIC has passed an order. I do concede that there is some reasonable scope for a different opinion on what constitutes ‘substantial funding’ and if the political parties feel that the CIC decision is flawed, they could challenge it in Court. Parties have said that they are being monitored by the Election Commission and the Income Tax department, and hence they need not provide information to Citizens. All Institutions including Parliament are legitimized to be intermediaries on behalf of ‘We the People’. None of these can replace the people of India.

Some worries have been voiced about how the political parties will be able to cope with the RTI queries. I might point out that many small NGOs and aided schools are complying with RTI without a major stress.

Subjecting themselves to Right to Information by citizens has not damaged any Institution in the Country. Some political representatives have claimed that they would not like to be questioned about their processes of decision-making. RTI only gives access to citizens to the records of a Public authority, and does not entitle the citizen to question the merits of the decisions. Besides there are ten exemptions in Section 8 (1) for information that need not be disclosed and these exemptions passed by Parliament have worked well, and not resulted in damaging any Institution since 2005. There is some recognition in most quarters that it is slowly leading to getting some corrections and improvements in Institutions and strengthening the hands of those who work in the spirit of Public service and probity.

It is true that there is a trust deficit between citizens and political leaders. RTI will overcome this, and lead to a better understanding of the working of various political parties. It will lead to citizens making a more informed choice of political parties during elections. Besides, it will promote better and systematic functioning of the political parties, once they subject themselves to monitoring by the people they seek to serve. I am sure you are concerned with the decline in the levels of probity in public service. This is an opportunity to reverse this and start the journey towards a more meaningful service of people. I am sure you are as concerned with the future of politics and your party in a decade from now, as I am. Let us work together for a better political democracy with a long-term vision for a better India. Please do not vote for any amendments to the RTI Act. If your party is not going to vote for amendments to the RTI Act, please state this publicly.

Regards

Vijay Kumbhar

Only 160 more years required for compliance of section 4 of RTI act?

A, B and C can do a particular piece of work in 2, 3 and 6 hours time respectively. If they do the same work together, in how much time they will finish it? Many of us must have faced such type of work, time, and speed problems in school days. Many of us may make mistake while answering such problems. We can understand if any person makes such mistake, but what if entire country makes a mistake?

Yes, as far as Right to Information is concerned, entire country has made such mistake. On 15 June 2005 parliament of India passed RTI act. On 15th June 2013, it completed eight years; to be precise it completed 2922 days. After 15th june parliament of India .i.e. entire country gave  120 days time  to all the public authorities , to disseminate  as much information suo motu , to the public at regular intervals , through various means of communications, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of RTI Act to obtain information. How this 120 days period for compliance was calculated? , Who was so sure about capabilities of public authorities in India? .No body knows the answers to these questions. However, ground reality is, there is very little, or no compliance at all of section 4 of RTI acts in India.

Exact figure of compliance of section 4 is not available, but for sure, it is not more than 2% to 5% in entire India. Now if we consider formula of time, work, speed, and if in 2922 days only 5% compliance is there, then how much time will they require for 100% compliance. Answer is simple 58, 440 days, i.e. only 160 years! As far as country is considered 160 years is not a big span, but if citizens of the country are considered this is very big span. As per this speed, our next few generations will not see compliance of section 4.

Now let us be some generous, show some faith on capabilities of our public authorities, and see what happens. if we consider 10% compliance of section 4 has been done then for full compliance  80 years will be required , if  we assume 20% compliance has been done then 40 years and if 40% compliance is done then next 20 years will be required for full compliance.

It is hard to believe that 40% compliance has been done or even it is impossible that somebody will claim so. It is pleasant scenario that in next 20 years 100 % compliance of section 4 will be done isn't it? But friends we are talking about compliance up to 15 June 2005 only , what about next years compliance? .For that we have to calculate vice versa . forget it , instead it is better to believe that in next 20% years 100 % compliance will be done.Thats why it is not even considered here that only 2% of compliance has been done till today. Positive thinking is always good. However, question remains the same, how did we made a mistake about capacity of our public authorities on such a huge scale?.

DoPT Guidelines, One-step ahead towards Transparency

Central governments Department of Personnel & Training has recently sent a office memorandum to all central Public Authorities regarding Implementation of suo motu disclosure under Section 4 of RTI Act. The DoPT has agreed that there is lot of information in public domain, but the quality and quantity of proactive disclosure is not up to the desired level. To find solution on this government had constituted a Task Force on suo motu disclosure under the RTI Act. Based on the report of the Task Force, the Government have decided to issue guidelines for suo motu disclosure.

As per these guidelines,
1) Information relating to procurement made by Public Authorities including publication of notice/tender enquiries, corrigenda thereon, and details of bid awards detailing the name of the supplier of goods/services being procured or the works contracts entered or any such combination of these and the rate and total amount at which such procurement or works contract is to be done should be disclosed.

2) If Public services are proposed to be provided through a Public Private Partnership (PPP), all information relating to the PPPs must be disclosed in the public domain by the Public Authority entering into the PPP contract/concession agreement.

3) Transfer policy for different grades/cadres of employees serving in Public Authority should be proactively disclosed.

4) All Public Authorities shall proactively disclose RTI applications and appeals received and their responses, on the websites maintained by Public Authorities with search facility based on key words.

5) Public Authorities may proactively disclose the CAG & PAC paras and the Action Taken Reports (ATRs) only after these have been laid on the table of both the houses of the Parliament.

6) Citizens Charter prepared by the Ministry/Department, as part of the Result Framework Document of the department/organization should be proactively disclosed and six monthly reports on the performance against the benchmarks set in Citizens Charter should be displayed on the website of public authorities.

7) All discretionary /non-discretionary grants/ allocations to state governments/ NGOs/Other institutions by Ministry/Department should be placed on the website of the Ministry/Department concerned.

8) Public Authorities may proactively disclose the details of foreign and domestic official tours undertaken by the Minister(s) and officials of the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India and above and Heads of Departments, since 1st January 2012. The disclosures may be updated once every quarter. . Information to be disclosed proactively may contain nature of the official tour, places visited, the period, number of people included in the official delegation and total cost of such travel undertaken.

No doubt, this is commendable step taken by the government. Still there is lot to do. Lot of another information covered under section 4 about which said office memorandum does not say anything. Venkatesh nayak of Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative has send a letter regarding that to DoPT .

As well as this office memorandum does not mention anything about the dissemination information related to section 4(1) (C) and (D) .As per these sections Public Authorities have to publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions that affect public; and provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.

Now with this office memorandum central government has moved one-step ahead towards transparency. However, big question is whether all the Public authorities will follow these guidelines? Now and again governments come with new amendments, acts, orders. Ordinances and office memorandums. However, we have largely seen unhealthy approach of babus towards them. Last seven years experience is not so good; however let us hope for the good.