It ain't broken

The move to amend the RTI law is misconceived

After strong protest from civil society organisations, the government has admitted that it is considering amending the Right to Information (RTI) Act. It has, however, assured activists that a transparent and consultative process will be adopted before any action is taken, and the amendments will not be persevered with if activist groups are able to convince the government that they are either unnecessary or counterproductive. These assurances notwithstanding, it is unfortunate that the government should again be contemplating changing a law that stands as one of the first UPA government’s main achievements.

Those in favour of a change cite two reasons: to exclude vexatious and frivolous applications, and to take out of the purview of the law file notings of discussions and consultations through which decisions are arrived at. Civil society organisations in turn have given a number of reasons why they consider amending the Act a retrogressive step. Two detailed studies, one of them at the behest of the government, have identified what prevents the law from working any better. Some of these are poor record management, lack of trained staff, and lack of awareness on the part of (and harassment of) applicants. Significantly, neither of the studies has identified vexatious and frivolous applications as the culprit clogging things up — a problem for which the existing law has a built-in safeguard. This position has, in fact, been endorsed by the government’s own information commissioners, who do not see any reason for amending the law at this stage.

The real bone of contention is file notings. Most ministers and bureaucrats remain opposed to their inclusion. Activists have pointed out that including them in the pale of the law has not brought the functioning of the government to a standstill. On the other hand, many officials have candidly admitted that opening up the deliberative process of the government has strengthened the hands of honest and sincere officials. Also, while the decisions of government are eventually known, what matters (and the additionality that this law enables) is knowing why particular decisions have been taken, on the basis of what facts and on what advice from whom. If file notings are taken away, only the official correspondence will be left under the purview of the Act, making it an ineffectual instrument. For a country that scores poorly in global surveys of corruption, and whose bane is the poor delivery of public services, openness in official functioning is of the highest importance. It is only by making the law work properly that some key administrative ills can be addressed. In fact, citizens are exercising this new right with such vigour that the machinery to handle it is getting clogged. Attention, therefore, should be focused on how to prevent the pipeline from getting jammed, and not on neutering the Act.