Several concerns regarding the government’s consistent failure to comply with the Right to Information (RTI) Act were raised at a gathering of citizens organised in the city on Saturday.
Shailesh Gandhi, former Central Information Commissioner, said that none of the national political parties in the country are paying heed to the RTI despite falling within the ambit of the Act. Mr. Gandhi said, “Political parties are under RTI as the law stands. Central Information Commission has given a clear decision which has not been challenged anywhere. Therefore the six political parties of this nation are flouting the law and defying the law.”
The remarks came after a member of the audience directed a question to former Maharashtra chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan asking him when his party would get in line with the RTI. Mr. Chavan said, “I think that’s a very important question. It doesn’t really pertain only to Congress, every political party should be brought into RTI. That will be one step to reduce corruption in the political process. There is a very strong case for bringing political parties under RTI.”
Mr. Chavan, who was part of a group of experts that formulated the first draft of the RTI, said the current government was trying to stifle RTI. Mr. Chavan said 32,000 appeals were pending, including questions on demonetisation, the Mumbai-Ahemdabad bullet train, and sugar imports. “Whatever information I seek from the Centre or State government, nothing is being given out,” he said.
Information vs. privacy
Madabhushi Acharyulu, the Central Information Commissioner, who launched his book RTI and misconduct of public servant: Is bribing a family affair? , criticised the Girish Deshpande case for being treated as a precedent.
Mr. Acharyulu said, “When you dismiss a special leave petition, you have rejected permission to take the issue in appeal. When it is not a full-fledged hearing and there is no judgement passed after it, then that order might bind those persons who are the parties to that litigation. But it can never operate as a binding precedent on the country.”
The Supreme Court had said that the copies of all memos, show-cause notices and orders of censure/punishment, assets, income tax returns, details of gifts received by a public servant are personal information, and hence exempted from the RTI. Mr. Acharyulu said, “The information held by you is not your information, you have not generated it. It is in public domain and everybody should have access to it. Today the government questions citizens, against the CIC’s order, for having access to information.”
Advocate Jamshed Mistry, who delved on the dynamic nature of the law, said, “There are Benches which pass contradictory orders every day. This is part of the system. All these issues are open to judicial review and the law is constantly changing.” He said attempts were being made to ask the court to provide live broadcasts and legal transcripts of hearings.
Anupam Saraph, activist and e-governance expert, said there is not much conflict between the need for privacy and information. He said, “Any information with a public authority is for public consumption. We have created the public authority through a mechanism for our governance and therefore it is supposed to give us the information it has. So if it has any of our personal information which doesn’t pertain to this governance, it should not be having it.”
