Last week, following its passage in the Lok Sabha, the Rajya Sabha approved the amendment to the Right to Information Act. A determined attempt — a very legitimate parliamentary tactic — by the Opposition to refer the amendment to a Select Committee failed following a division. The NDA Government that doesn’t quite have a majority in the Upper House was bailed out by the Biju Janata Dal, YSR Congress and the Telangana Rashtriya Samity — parties that are in control of State Governments.
In my view, the amendment was very innocuous. The Information Commission is a statutory body — a status very different from the Supreme Court, Election Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General, which are bodies listed in the Constitution. However, the original Act, passed during the tenure of the UPA Government, had elevated the Information Commissioners to the level of judges of the Supreme Court. The Government sought to rectify this anomaly and, additionally, sought the right to modify the tenure of the Information Commissioners, if the situation warranted. There were also some modifications in the pay of those who will be appointed Information Commissioners.
Frankly, this was an amendment that interested only those in officialdom who attach great importance to the norms governing precedence. This in turn is a peculiarly British relic born out the profound sense of hierarchy that was once so widespread in that country’s Establishment. Anyone familiar with colonial history will recall the civilised fights that often broke out in districts over the seating plan during official dinners. Reams of correspondence were often devoted to ascertaining whether the Civil Engineer should get precedence over the Civil Surgeon.
The amendment to the RTI belonged in that league. In contemporary bureaucratic parlance that is well understood by the babus, it meant a housing downgrade for the Information Commissioners — both at the Centre and the States — from Type VIII House to Type VII. I mentioned this in a brief intervention during the debate in the Rajya Sabha and it drew sniggers all round. In private, even some Congress MPs agreed with this assessment, although their public stand was very different.
In public — and egged on by a community that has come to be described as activists — the Opposition contended that the amendments, while superficially innocuous, were actually quite sinister. In the view of their main speakers, it would complete destroy the autonomy and independence of the Information Commissioners and turn the institution into a Government department. Jairam Ramesh, a politician with close links to the NGOs, also proffered a conspiracy theory that was linked to the alleged irritation of Prime Minister Narendra Modi at some pieces of information that had been demanded from the Government. Other MPs too were quick to conclude that this was murder of democracy. The assurance of the Minister that the section dealing with the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission had not been touched fell on deaf ears.
Part of the reason why the Opposition persisted in making this an issue of democracy was due to the pressure of some NGOs whose views and perspectives are generously covered in the English language media. It was made out that the amendments were aimed at emasculating the entire RTI Act and make Government decision-making non-transparent. Normally, NGOs live on alarmism and this was a classic example of it.
It is, however, a pity that the occasion of a parliamentary debate didn’t prompt a larger debate on how the RTI Act has worked in reality. The positive side of holding officials accountable and ferreting out accurate information from the Government files have been adequately highlighted. There is also no doubt that the introduction of the RTI has made officials wary of taking arbitrary decisions that cannot be subsequently defended.
At the same time, the RTI has also generated some unfortunate aberrations. For a start, it has given birth to a community of RTI activists whose sole business in life is to proffer petitions on a wholesale basis. It is even more unfortunate that some of the RTI petitions — or even the threat to file an RTI petition — have become instruments of extortion and blackmail. When I mentioned this in Parliament, many MPs shook their heads in silent agreement. Their own experience would bear out charges of the misuse of a legislation that had a nobility of purpose.
The second distortion created by the RTI Act has been to make governance less efficient. Thanks to the fear of the RTI, many bureaucrats have more or less stopped taking decisions, especially in areas where existing norms are not a guide. In other words, RTI has become a great deterrent to babus risking a possible misjudgment. They would simply not take any decision at all since that is the safest course available. Consequently, governance has suffered.
The RTI Act has had a great effect on political power relations in the countryside. Its transformative effects must be lauded. However, acknowledging its positive effects is no reason for denying the unintended consequences. I believe the time has come when both the Central and State Governments should sponsor an exhaustive review of how RTI has worked since inception and what steps should be taken to plug any shortcomings. It is sad that the real issues of governance will get buried and be unattended if all critical examination is equated with the destruction of democracy.
Hyperbole didn’t pay the Opposition any dividends during the 2019 general election. Yet it seems intent on travelling down the same road after the election.
