India’s right to information law is among the most significant official measures to reform governance and deepen democracy in the country since Independence. This radical statute empowers citizens to seek answers from the government necessary to evaluate the integrity and fairness of its decisions.
Nearly a decade has passed since the passage of this law by India’s Parliament. A recent study by the RTI Assessment and Advocacy Group and the Centre for Equity Studies investigates how this act has been used, by whom and to what effect. Its findings illuminate the health of both India’s democracy and governance.
In a country with such vast reservoirs of desperate poverty and illiteracy, many feared firstly that it would be redundant for the poor who need it most. The first surprise of the report is that every one of the rural users and more than half the urban users of the law, in its sample from five States, were poor people (officially identified as BPL). Indeed nine out of 10 rural users were officially identified as ‘Antyodaya’ or the poorest of the poor. This despite reports of intimidation, threats and even physical violence when they submit their RTI applications.
This confirms once more that — as with voter turnouts — impoverished people have the greatest stake and faith in Indian democracy, and the instruments it offers, ranging from the vote to the right to information. But as the study also demonstrates, the institutions responsible for implementing the Act let down India’s poor in many ways. In most States, there is less than four per cent chance of securing any information by filing a first appeal. Levels of pendency in second appeals are so high that the authors of the report — Anjali Bhardwaj, Amrita Johri and Shekhar Singh — calculate if current trends of disposal persist, it would take 80 years for a petition to be decided in Madhya Pradesh, and 17 years in West Bengal! They find further that even when Commissioners decide, in less than four per cent cases of default do they actually punish officials, therefore reducing the deterrence of fines envisaged by the law into a paper tiger.
Many claim that applications are burdening officials, but officials report in the study that the average time they devote to RTI applications is two hours a week. Another common criticism is that officials are harassed by vexatious applications. Taking the widest definition of this term, the authors after studying a sample of 1,000 applications, found not more than one per cent applications could be so classified.
What information then do people seek under this statute? Many applicants seek information about norms that should anyway be public. For instance, one person wants a list of old-age homes in Delhi, and the terms and conditions to get admission. Others seek reasons for delays in official decisions, sometimes years later. An applicant applied in 2013 to ask why he has not been given a copy of a property sale deed he registered in 1997. The report lists two examples in which anganwadi workers seek details about why they were rejected for the position, and others who were less qualified chosen.
The authors conclude that many such RTI applications are actually disguised applications for redress of grievances, and sometimes open calls for help. In this they see evidence of the ingenuity of the Indian public, who have perfected ways to use RTI not only to register complaints but also on occasion to actually get them acted upon, because this act is often more effective than all other available remedies for inaction and delay. One applicant not only seeks information about alcohol de-addiction centres to treat her alcoholic husband, but also ways in which a BPL card-holder can avail these services free. Another old person wants to know why his pension was stopped.
Occasionally, even amid the despair, frustration and helplessness that characterise most applications, they find instances of dark humour. In one, the applicant says his village is not being developed, and wants to know what he should do to get the work done, listing the options from which the officer must choose: dharna , hunger-strike or self-immolation. In another, a widow alleges that a woman officer who visited her asked for Rs.5,000 to release a grant to her for her daughter’s marriage under an official scheme. She asks — with make-believe innocence — if this is actually a fee that she needs to deposit to receive her grant!
The views expressed in this column are that of the author’s and do not represent those of the newspaper.
