One would think that a report on the right to
information by the Administrative Reforms
Commission (ARC), coming out about a year after
the Right to Information (RTI) Act was passed,
would make recommendations to streng-then the Act.
However, a close look at the report recently
submitted to the government reveals that at least
three of the recommendations threaten to
fundamentally undermine the RTI Act.
The first of these is the recommendation that a
public information officer (PIO) should be
allowed to refuse a request for information if
that is manifestly frivolous or vexatious.
The ARC states that certain instances have been
brought to their notice of requests that are mala
fide and intimidate, harass and even humiliate
officials.
However, the ARC neither gives any specific
examples, nor does it go on to explain how the
truth can be used for mala fide purposes
(what-ever that might mean), or for intimidating,
harassing or humiliating an officer.
The ARC lays down no criteria for determining
what is manifestly frivolous and/or vexatious,
perhaps because these terms are essentially
subjective.
For instance, an officer who deals with millions
of rupees, might find a dispute over Rs 10 of
wages to be frivolous, but to a poor, daily-wage
labourer these Rs 10 could represent two
kilograms of wheat and the difference between her
child living or dying.
The same is true of the term ’vexatious’. Any
request questioning the judgment, the efficiency,
the impartiality, the commitment or the integrity
of a bureaucrat could be considered vexa-tious.
The right to ask vexatious questions is the
essence of the RTI Act, and flows from the
fundamental right of the public to question the
public servant. If accepted, this recommended
clause would lead to most applications being
rejected as frivolous or vexatious.
The recommended automatic appeal to the
information commission is no solution, for it
would just add to the growing backlog of appeals
pending before these commissions.
In the absence of penalties, there would be
little incentive for PIOs to act responsibly.
Besides, even if information commissions
decentralise, as recommended by the ARC, the poor
and the illiterate would find it difficult to
attend hearings or send written submissions to
support their applications.
The ARC also recommends that information can be
denied if the work involved in processing the
request would substantially and unreasonably
divert the resources of the public body.
As justification, ARC states that there may be
cases where the efforts in compiling information
may not be commensurate with the results
achieved. Nowhere in the RTI Act is there any
obligation on a public authority to compile
information, or collect primary information.
The obligation is simply to provide information
that is collected, or should have been collected.
In fact, Section 7(9) of the RTI Act further
clarifies that "An information shall ordinarily
be provided in the form in which it is sought
unless it would disproportionately divert the
resources of the public authority".
ARC surprisingly recommends that armed forces
should be excluded from the purview of the RTI
Act, because most of their functioning is already
exempt on security grounds.
However, this is no reason why the rest of their
functioning should not be brought under public
scrutiny. Security agencies have many employees;
they make decisions which impact the lives of
people, affect the environment, spend public
money, award contracts and make purchases.
Why should citizens be denied access to
information about these matters? In fact, the
blanket exemptions for all agencies currently
listed under Schedule II should be withdrawn.
The exemptions provided in the RTI Act are
adequate to safeguard national interest. Perhaps
these faulty recommendations might never have
been made if the ARC had functioned in a
participatory and consultative manner.
Interestingly, the recommendations of the one
consultation that the ARC reportedly orga-nised
at Bhopal in December 2005 have been totally
ignored.
The Bhopal meet recommended that the RTI Act
should not be amended, and exemptions do not need
rationalisation. Nevertheless, the ARC went ahead
and did the contrary.