Throughout the Freedom Movement, our leaders were highly critical and, rightly so, of the Official Secrets Act, which had been in force in India for several decades. It was attacked as a device by which the Indian subjects were being exploited by their colonial rulers while not exposing the latter’s fiscal misdeeds and devious operations. One expected that on the dawn of Independence the Act would cease to exist, but such is the nature of power that any government, however democratic its pretensions, will not, in practice, tolerate complete openness, transparency and citizens’ easy access to information abot governmental operations.
It was only in 2002, when the BJP government was in power, that the Freedom of Information Act was passed by Parliament. It came into force early next year. It doubtless was a feather in the cap of the BJP government. I do not wish to dilute the compliments and gratitude which the BJP deserved from liberal democrats.
Unfortunately, when two years later the UPA government came to power, it decided to deprive the BJP of any credit, which was, in all honesty, due to it.
It is ridiculous to tell the people of India that giving them information about how their servants and representatives are discharging their fiduciary duties can make a government inefficient or significantly deplete its treasury or create gaping holes in the armour of desirable secrecy.
It was churlish and downright mean to repeal the Freedom of Information Act and substitute it with the Right to Information Act in June 2005. If they really wanted a better drafted law, they could have got it by amending the law, which is the usual behaviour expected of any successor government. The new Act is in substance a replica, word for word, of the BJP’s version. An innocuous group of about eight sections has been added dealing with the office of the Central Information Commission and its state counterpart.
The mischievous part was an added clause in the Preamble:
“And whereas revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the government, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information;
“And whereas it is necessary to harmonise these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal;
“Now therefore it is expedient to provide for furnishing certain information to citizens who desire to have it.”
It is ridiculous to tell the people of India that giving them information about how their servants and representatives are discharging their fiduciary duties can make a government inefficient or significantly deplete its treasury or create gaping holes in the armour of desirable secrecy. The earlier Act had itself put seven kinds of information out of the reach of citizens. The UPA version has raised it to ten, a walloping increase of prohibited information by 40%. One of the additional prohibitions is in Section 8(e): “Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information…”
Every transferee of property for a corrupt or criminal purpose, every executor, partner agent director of a company, legal advisor or guardian stands in a fiduciary relationship. See the list in Sections 84 and 88 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. No scam of the kind for which the UPA government has become notorious will ever be discovered by any investigative journalist.
The Freedom of Information Act was described by Parliament as, “An Act to provide for freedom to every citizen to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, consistent with public interest, in order to promote openness, transparency and accountability in administration and in relation to matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” By the 14th Section, the Act is to prevail over any inconsistent provision in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 or any other similar law. It must, however, be remembered that the Official Secrets Act has not yet been fully repealed. It should have been, at least to honour a pre-Independence promise. Its useful parts could have been inserted in the new Act.
The preamble of the Act recognises the right and duty of the public in a democracy to hold the government fully accountable for its actions and to assess the propriety and validity of all actions taken by it. Open government is a fashionable expression whose general intention is reasonably clear, but whose practical meaning awaits clear understanding by those who govern.
When the UPA government is almost on its way out, evidenced by its disastrous defeat in all the byelections last week, it is already tinkering with the idea of making some changes in their-fashioned RTI. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has called for a critical look at the Act saying, “It should not affect the deliberative processes in the government.” He then proceeded to advance another reason: the Act could end up discouraging honest, well meaning public servants from giving full expression to their views.
Corporate Affairs Minister Veerappa Moily was obviously not impressed with either reason. On the contrary, he declared that there was “need for capacity building within the bureaucracy”. To me, it was an unintelligible statement. Fortunately he added that bureaucrats should know how to act against the challenges of RTI.
He confessed, “I think in this respect there is deficiency in governance. If that is addressed and also the capacity building is done, things will be all right.”
Thank You, Mr Moily. I suspect the Prime Minister is trying to block the exposure of not yet publicised scams. This is the first of a two-part article on freedom of information.