The RTI's working

PM must defend it, not water it down

In his address to the annual convention of information commissioners, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh delivered a speech which is widely being seen as part of an effort by his government to limit the scope and power of the right to information (RTI) legislation, which was one of its landmark achievements. He suggested to the information commissioners that they reflect on three questions. First, whether the RTI is being used, in some cases, for “frivolous or vexatious” reasons; second, if answers under the RTI can infringe upon personal privacy; and third, the degree to which public-private partnerships are answerable under the RTI Act. Dr Singh also said that “this important legislation should not be only about criticising, ridiculing and running down public authorities,” but about “promoting transparency and accountability”. In doing so, he seems to have overlooked the fact that greater transparency can reveal government decisions eminently deserving of criticism and sometimes even ridicule.

 

Taken in isolation, Dr Singh’s remarks are difficult to criticise. He does not say that his government intends to issue rules to water down the RTI in any way, for example, and merely urges the assembled commissioners to think through how it is being used. In the case of privacy and of public-private partnership (PPP), he laid out both sides of the question fairly. He did not pretend to know where to draw the line between one citizen’s right to know and another’s personal privacy. Dr Singh referred to a commission under Justice A P Shah, the celebrated judge who retired from the Delhi High Court in 2010 that was working on a privacy law for the Centre. Such a law would be welcome, but it must harmonise with the provisions of the RTI.

He also pointed out that “blanket inclusion” of PPPs would discourage private sector companies from entering into partnerships with the government, and a “blanket exclusion” would harm the cause of accountability of public officials. These are all good points. However, given that they come after a series of such statements, and a set of (non-binding) recommendations issued earlier this year that make RTI requests harder to fulfil, the concern that a government under attack is retreating on its commitment to transparency is well founded, and must be answered. This concern is of a piece with that arising from Dr Singh’s comments the previous day on corruption. He was certainly correct in indicating that the exemption of the private sector makes it difficult to control big-ticket corruption. But again, the uncharitable would discern an attempt to divert attention from the government’s internal functioning.

When it comes to the RTI, in particular, Dr Singh would be better served to focus on how to ensure that more of India’s citizens can take advantage of what has been an unprecedented increase in administrative transparency, rather than in trying to ensure that cases of misuse are minimised. The RTI set-up is more than capable of dealing with cases of misuse; the prime minister need not underline the problem.