Ever since
the Right to Information Act (RTIA) came into force there has been a
widespread debate about its usage and its benefits. It is argued that
the RTIA can be a tool for achieving what is called good governance.
The Act basically has two sides-supply and demand. Its efficacy depends
on how these two sides play their roles.
The recent
events reported from some parts of the country make one wonder whether
the supply side is doing justice to one of the best pieces of legislation
seen in post independent India.
There
are reports of the Public information Officers (PIOs) threatening information
seekers with dire consequences. In some cases RTI applicants are physically
assaulted. Take for instance the cast of J.M.Rajashekara, a local journalist
and RTI activist from Ranebennur in Haveri district of Karnataka. He
filed an application under the Act and sought very general information
from the Northeastern Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation.
The Corporation
instead of providing information or rejecting it issued a legal notice
through their advocate. The advocate threatened the applicant with dire
consequences and also demanded Rs.2,000 as legal fee for filing an application
under the RTIA.
In Chintamani
taluk of Kolar district, Manjunah Reddy is running a civil society organisation
called Jana Jagruthi Vedike, He found that the quality of roadwork was
poor and sought information and documents from the executing agency.
He also applied for inspecting the work. The quality inspector was brought
and it was proved that work amounting to Rs.2 lakh was not done but
paid for.
The contractors
lobby hired goondas and instigated the local people against Mr.Reddy
. They manhandled him right in front of the officer. Fortunately, the
officer was convinced of the poor work and ordered redoing of it. Mr.Reddy
has also been a victim of physical assault from contractors of the public
works department.
In yet another case, Mr. Paramshivamurthy of Mysore was physically abused
by the very PIO from whom the information was sought. The applicant
sought details of the work in the Varuna Canal Project in Mysore.
The case
of Ravindranath Guru, a consumer and RTI activist from Bangalore, is
much worse. He found that his neighbour had violated the building bylaws
and constructed a commercial complex on a site meant for residential
purposes. He obtained sufficient information by using RTIA. The next
day his house was ransacked. He suspects some politicians were behind
the violence.
The RTI
provides that the PIO shall not ask for the reason for seeking information.
Though the PIOs are not insisting on this in writing RTI applicants
are orally asked to divulge the reasons. In some cases the credentials
of the applicants are sought indirectly. Take the case of Ms. Savitha
Ranganath of the Mysore District Mahithi Vedike RTI forum). She sought
a copy of the movement register of a doctor of KR Hospital, Mysore.
Though a copy was given, the doctor insisted that the applicant be personally
present before him. She had to wait from afternoon to evening
to get the information.
Forget
about PIOs. Even advocates appearing on behalf of PIOs or public authorities
have started using their usual legal language to protect their clients.
Mr. Veeresh of the Anti Corruption Forum, Bangalore, has been using the
RTIA extensively in Bangalore. This is an eyesore to many officials.
In an
appeal filed against Mr. Veeresh in the Karnataka Information Commission
an advocate took exception to Mr. Veeresh’s practice of using RTIA.
He said that the RTI applicant should come before the Commission with
clean hands. After much persuasion and intervention of the Chief Commissioner,
the advocate’s petition was withdrawn.
While
the brutal murder of Satyendra Dubey and Manjunath gets wide coverage
the threats, abuses and physical assaults that many RTI activists are
subjected to go unnoticed. Most of these activists have to wage a lone
battle and be ready for any consequences. Can something be done to protect
them? May be an amendment to the RTIA?
RTI Act - Hindu 3.7.2007
This refers
to the article. “The hazards of using RTl Act” (Open Page,
July I). It is indeed shocking that the RTIA is violated and resisted
by the very same government officials who are expected to be agents
of good governance. It is obvious that individuals cannot be expected
to face the wrath of local mafias or groups whose interests are hurt
by information furnished under the Act. There is dire need for a helpline
for people who are threatened and harassed by vested interests.
The organisers
of the RTlA campaign should coordinate with local civil society groups
and the media to provide a contact name and number where the aggrieved
parties can give details of their adverse experience in the course of
using the Act. The media can also provide space to them to
recount their experience. This will help to overcome the isolation of
individual struggles. .
Jasveen Jairath.
Hyderabad
In view
of my experience in seeking information under the Act and the views
expressed in the article, I would like to point out that whenever people
have raised their voice against any form of injustice or sought to fight
the existing system, attempts have been made to suppress them. But they
can be suppressed or intimidated only up to a point. That a single application
can terrify the corrupt into becoming desperate shows how effective
democracy can be. If anyone fears for his safety, he or she can ask
his or her friend at a distant place to apply for the same information
so that targeting can become difficult for corrupt elements.
Sugandha Jaiswal,
Hisar
|