Central Chronicle; March 30, 2011,
The Right to Information Bill tabled in Parliament raises expectations to new levels by proposing a dedicated Information Commission for enforcement. Except, the commission is crippled at conception, with no direct penalizing powers. Prakash Kardaley comments.
The Central Right to Information Act as tabled before the Parliament is flawed. The penalty clause as proposed by the Sonia Gandhi chaired National Advisory Council (NAC) has been mercilessly diluted. The provision to keep the cost of information at a reasonable and affordable level has been removed. While the NAC recommended that the central law should apply to offices and public bodies of state governments, the union law department intends applying it only to the central government offices and public bodies. Last year, the NAC had to sent its draft of amendments to remedy the original central Freedom of Information Act, 2002.
Still, the bill is superior to most of the prevailing state laws in the country. It is, therefore, very essential for right to information activists all over the country to forge a common front and have the flaws in the new bill removed and to see that this bill when converted into an Act applies to the entire country including state governments.
For the first time in the country, we see the possibility of a high-level commission of the level of the Secretary to the Government of India dedicated to the implementation of the right to know law.
The most outstanding provision of the central RTI bill is the provision for the appointment of an Information Commission. For the first time in the country, we see the possibility of a high-level commission at the level of the Secretary to the Government of India dedicated to its implementation. The bill envisages an Information Commissioner and up to 10 deputy commissioners appointed by the President of India on the recommendation of a panel comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India. The appointments would be made from among "persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience of administration and governance."
The decision of the proposed Commission will be binding; it will enjoy the powers of civil court while deciding a second appeal in (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compelling them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things, (b) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents, (c) receiving evidence on affidavit, (d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office and (e) issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents.
All the Commission "may" do is authorise any officer of the Central Government to file a complaint against a Public Information Officer (PIO) before a Judicial Magistrate of First Class if the Commission is of the opinion that the PIO "has persistently failed to provide information without any reasonable cause within the period specified". If the prosecution leads to conviction, the defaulting PIO will be liable to pay a fine up to Rs 25,000 or undergo imprisonment for a term up to five years, or both.
The NAC wanted the Information Commission to have powers to directly impose a penalty on a defaulting officer at a rate of Rs 250 for each day's delay and award a fine of not less than Rs 2000 and imprisonment of up to five years, or both, by a summary conviction. This, if the Commission found the designated or deemed PIO to have i) refused to receive an application for information; (ii) mala fide denied a request for information; (iii) knowingly given incorrect or misleading information, (iv) knowingly given wrong or incomplete information, (v) destroyed information subject to a request, or (vi) obstructed the activities of another PIO, the Commission itself or the courts.
But bureaucrats in the union law department have in their wisdom removed the provision authorising direct penalties. Instead, for a PIO found to have been prima facie guilty of defying the Act, they preferred that the Information Commission merely authorize another government officer to initiate the PIO's trial in a criminal court. At best, this is deliberately roundabout. Further, in knocking off a vital penalty measure, the bureaucrats have shown their contempt for the wise advice of a council presided over by the president of the ruling Congress party and comprising as members "persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience of administration and governance" (to borrow words from the Bill itself).
Despite this major handicap manipulated into the Bill, the central Bill still has several features which distinguish it from the state RTI laws. (Over half a dozen states in India have passed their own RTI laws.)
The Right to Information Bill tabled in Parliament raises expectations to new levels by proposing a dedicated Information Commission for enforcement. Except, the commission is crippled at conception, with no direct penalizing powers. Prakash Kardaley comments.
The Central Right to Information Act as tabled before the Parliament is flawed. The penalty clause as proposed by the Sonia Gandhi chaired National Advisory Council (NAC) has been mercilessly diluted. The provision to keep the cost of information at a reasonable and affordable level has been removed. While the NAC recommended that the central law should apply to offices and public bodies of state governments, the union law department intends applying it only to the central government offices and public bodies. Last year, the NAC had to sent its draft of amendments to remedy the original central Freedom of Information Act, 2002.
Still, the bill is superior to most of the prevailing state laws in the country. It is, therefore, very essential for right to information activists all over the country to forge a common front and have the flaws in the new bill removed and to see that this bill when converted into an Act applies to the entire country including state governments.
For the first time in the country, we see the possibility of a high-level commission of the level of the Secretary to the Government of India dedicated to the implementation of the right to know law.
The most outstanding provision of the central RTI bill is the provision for the appointment of an Information Commission. For the first time in the country, we see the possibility of a high-level commission at the level of the Secretary to the Government of India dedicated to its implementation. The bill envisages an Information Commissioner and up to 10 deputy commissioners appointed by the President of India on the recommendation of a panel comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India. The appointments would be made from among "persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience of administration and governance."
The decision of the proposed Commission will be binding; it will enjoy the powers of civil court while deciding a second appeal in (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compelling them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things, (b) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents, (c) receiving evidence on affidavit, (d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office and (e) issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents.
All the Commission "may" do is authorise any officer of the Central Government to file a complaint against a Public Information Officer (PIO) before a Judicial Magistrate of First Class if the Commission is of the opinion that the PIO "has persistently failed to provide information without any reasonable cause within the period specified". If the prosecution leads to conviction, the defaulting PIO will be liable to pay a fine up to Rs 25,000 or undergo imprisonment for a term up to five years, or both.
The NAC wanted the Information Commission to have powers to directly impose a penalty on a defaulting officer at a rate of Rs 250 for each day's delay and award a fine of not less than Rs 2000 and imprisonment of up to five years, or both, by a summary conviction. This, if the Commission found the designated or deemed PIO to have i) refused to receive an application for information; (ii) mala fide denied a request for information; (iii) knowingly given incorrect or misleading information, (iv) knowingly given wrong or incomplete information, (v) destroyed information subject to a request, or (vi) obstructed the activities of another PIO, the Commission itself or the courts.
But bureaucrats in the union law department have in their wisdom removed the provision authorising direct penalties. Instead, for a PIO found to have been prima facie guilty of defying the Act, they preferred that the Information Commission merely authorize another government officer to initiate the PIO's trial in a criminal court. At best, this is deliberately roundabout. Further, in knocking off a vital penalty measure, the bureaucrats have shown their contempt for the wise advice of a council presided over by the president of the ruling Congress party and comprising as members "persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience of administration and governance" (to borrow words from the Bill itself).
Despite this major handicap manipulated into the Bill, the central Bill still has several features which distinguish it from the state RTI laws. (Over half a dozen states in India have passed their own RTI laws.)
.JPG)
.JPG)
