AN RTI CHALLENGE TO THE PRESIDENT

P M Ravindran, raviforjustice@gmail.com

Mr President,

I am writing this letter to you to share a shock! I have gone through your address at the 13th
Annual Convention of the Central Information Commission. You have made three points: one,
there is no such thing as too much information; two, there is a need to look at declassification
protocols for government and archival documents and three, the CIC is doing a good job in
upholding the basic charter of RTI. I must inform you that you are right on the first score, partly
right on the second and totally wrong on the third. I hold the information commissioners
responsible for subverting the law lock, stock and barrel.

It is true that today, thanks to technology (and not to any grace from anybody in government in
the country) there is a flood of information available to those who need it, at the mere click of a
mouse. Unfortunately, this does not apply to information about what our public servants are
doing though the Right to Information Act was passed with much fan fare, 13 years ago, with
the avowed objective of ensuring transparency of information which are vital to its functioning
and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable
to the governed. The seeds of self destruction of the sunshine act are contained in the Act itself.
Precisely, in sections 13(5), 16(5) and 28 read with 2(e).

The RTI Act is a simple law which is clear and unambiguous. The procedure for its
implementation is even simpler. And that makes the job of an information commissioner much,
much simpler than that of a munsif in our courts, considering the variety and range of subjects
and the battle of wits of the parties/advocates involved in the courts. Thus the status, pay and
perks provided to information commissioners, including the Chief IC, is disproportional to the
job description. It has not only burdened the exchequer with avoidable expenses, but also
enabled bureaucrats, retiring from government service, to corner these jobs when, logically,
they should have been strictly barred on grounds of their vested interests. In fact sections
13(5), 16(5) tend to make one believe that they were intentionally provided to subvert the law
itself. In any case the law has been subverted to such an extent that it is as good as murdered
by the information commissioners.

The definition of competent authorities and the powers granted to them to make rules to
implement the law has also proved to be a bane. Shockingly it is the chief justices of the courts
who have used these powers to introduce exorbitant fees (Rs 500/- against Rs 10/- of Central
and state governments, along with the application) and even a fee with the first appeal which is
not there in the case of other public authorities. Worse, these judges have even excluded the
judicial side of their functions from the purview of the RTI Act, to the extent that even copies of
orders issued by them (in open courts!) are denied.
That the President of India or the Governors in the states have not used the powers given to
them under Sec 14(3)(d) and 17(3)(d) respectively to weed out information commissioners who
are found unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind, as evidenced by their
decisions, is also a matter of serious concern for the citizens demanding transparency and
accountability in the functions of public servants. I had personally invoked these sections to
demand removing Wajahat Habibullah, the first Chief Information Commissioner of the Central
Information Commission and Palat Mohandas, the first Chief Information Commissioner of
Kerala State Information Commission but had not even got an acknowledgement from the
respective offices. The complaints are posted as blogs at
http://raviforjustice.blogspot.com/2012/01/rti-old-application-to-president-to.html and
http://blogs.rediff.com/pmravindran/2007/11/27/sack-the-chief-information-commissioner/
respectively. Subsequent inquiries through RTI Act had revealed that they had been forwarded
to the concerned public authorities for disposal at their end! Interestingly, there is one case of a
state CIC having been removed, in UP during the tenure of Ms Mayavati as the CM. And this CIC
had been a judge of a high court too. It had also been reported that within about a year of his
having been removed, he had committed suicide. In contrast, there is the case of a former DIG
of Police who had been appointed as an information commissioner in Kerala. He was alleged to
have tried to influence an investigation in a land allotment case but was just kept suspended for
the rest of his tenure of almost 3 years, enjoying the pay and status without doing a penny
worth of job!

It is understood that a proposal is on to review the pay and status of information

commissioners. It remains to be seen if the citizen empowered political decision maker can
make any meaningful change after overcoming the manipulations of the unaccountable and self
seeking babus. Also, the DoPT had put out a draft proposal for new RTI Rules, seeking
suggestions from the public. It was an unabashed effort to blatantly subvert the law. Though
there was no point issuing a point by point argument against it the effort was made and these
suggestions are available at https://www.slideshare.net/raviforjustice/rti-rules-2017draftdopt-
circular1-52016ir31032017critique. However, for simplicity sake, a totally new set of rules were
suggested which is posted as a blog at https://www.slideshare.net/raviforjustice/rti-rules-
2017redrafted-by-rti-activist.

As far as declassifying documents are concerned this is what Dr A P J Abdul Kalam, one of the
most illustrious Presidents we have had till date, had said: It is my experience that
computerization of a large organization or mission is successful only if the process themselves
are re-engineered for realizing the full benefits of automation. I must add that the processors
also should be people of competence and of unquestionable integrity.

To conclude, here is a challenge you may take on: just check your website for compliance with Sec
4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and get at least one order from each information commission which is correct in
decision and the procedure followed. In this context you may like to go through the blog at
https://www.slideshare.net/raviforjustice/rtiexposingthetraitorsamoungpublicservantspt2glitches.

14 Oct 2018