The Right to Information and Administrative Reforms
Uncaring, callous, slow, unaccountable and corrupt. That is the perception the common people have about a Government servant. Is it true? If yes to what extent? It is obviously not true of all government servants. A lot of good work is done by the officials but that is considered as something he is expected to do any way. But with my long experience I can say that at the levels at which the people come in contact with the Government, the public perception is not too far from the reality.
There is no doubt about the sloth in the Government machinery. It only acts fast either in a crisis or under some kind of a pressure. But what of the common man who can exert no pressure at all ?
As for the uncaring attitude of the official the less said the better. Over the years he starts regarding every file as another job to be done at his convenience, forgetting that behind every file there is a decision to be taken which would vitally affect some body.
In Government it is known that saying no is the easier alternative and has no consequences for the official concerned. Almost any body at any level can block a decision. Refer a Law Deptt., refer to Finance Deptt., refer to GOI, set up a Committee anything is good enough to block it for some time.
Corruption today is much more widely prevalent than then fifteen years ago. And it is spreading. Even with all kinds of Investigation agencies, anti-corruption departments, audits and what have you the mechanism for fixing the responsibility on the Government servant is so protracted and it gives him so many loopholes to exploit that rarely does he end up being convicted. And even if he does he escapes with a caution or one or two increments stopped, surviving in the Government service to carry on with his game and perhaps with renewed vigour.
I know that these issues have come up for examination by several committees and commissions. If they are to be eliminated vast ranging administrative reforms will be needed. And they must be put in place quickly. I also know at first hand that it is not easy to push reforms in the monolith, called the
Government. But the Right to Information opens a new vista altogether This one single step can help to improve governance in all its parameters. Public exposure will necessarily lead to greater accountability and more efficiency. It is a fact that most of the corruption flourishes because of the secrecy that surround Government functioning. Once that in built secrecy is penetrated, a major strike would have been made against corruption.
But this provides no panacea for all evils in governance. I am however certain that with an honest implementation a great improvement can take place. In the beginning I also apprehend that the implementation will have to be some extent enforced.
In Delhi the Right to Information Act came into force with effect from 2nd October 2001. As you know the Central Act called the Freedom to Information Bill is in the final stages of enactment. I understand it is substantially different from the Delhi Act.
The Delhi Act is a simple, uncomplicated legislation. Its provisions are comprehensive. It has the distinctive feature of defining six exceptions in Section 6 of the Act under which information may not be disclosed. This provision is only optional, not mandatory.
In all other circumstances the information has to be furnished to the applicant. The Act provides that whatever cannot be denied to the Legislative Assembly of Delhi, shall not be denied to the public.
Another unique feature is the penalty prescribed for the defaulting Government servants.
The application fee of Rs. 50 has been deliberately pegged high to eliminate frivolous applications.
The Act has provided a new tool in the hands of the people but it has not yet been used widely enough
I think there are two reasons for this. One is the lack of awareness among the people and of the fact that it confers the right on them.
The other is the sense of cynicism that pervades the public mind about any steps taken by the Government. Perhaps they are not yet convinced of the Government’s sincerity in bringing forth this law.
But in some cases dramatic results have been achieved. I recall a case of the MCD where information was sought about the number of sweepers deployed in a particular locality and about the method of their attendance. Armed with this information, which was only furnished after an appellate order, the local residents started being present at the attendance time. The sanitation in the locality improved. Many more such instances can be cited.
The implementation of the Act has however left much to be desired.
From an analysis it was found that in nearly 50% of the cases the time limit prescribed was exceeded and in more than 85% cases the appeal was allowed.
Generally there is no scrutiny at higher levels of the information being furnished. In the MCD for example notes prepared by junior officials are initialed by the next few officers and also by the Competent authority and passed off as information.
The orders refusing information are passed routinely and although the Act provides that reasons would be given for such rejection, in most of the cases only the provision is quoted.
Many times to beat the time limit only part or vague information is given.
One excuse often used is that the papers are not traceable.
Another is to provide misleading information. Worth the mention is the case of an engineer of the MCD. An application was made asking whether any repairs were carried out on a particular stretch of a road and if so where. The applicant was informed that repairs were carried out at 10 places and some vague names were also given. The applicant filed an appeal and stated that incomplete information was given and the spots were not identifiable.
On being questioned during the hearing the engineer offered to show the spots to the applicant but he expressed his inability to give them in writing as no records were maintained about them.
The provision for penalties has not been invoked so far. I understand that this is because of some procedural difficulties.
This has resulted in a certain amount of complacency amongst the concerned officers.
It has to be underscored that the officials at the lower level are the most unwilling to part with information because it their unholy secrets that exposed.
The penalties provided in the Information Act must therefore be activated.
Another weakness in the implementation is that with the appointment of the Competent authorities, the Heads of Department feel they have no role to play. In fact theirs is the more important role, as a regular review at their level will speed things up and streamline the working in the Department with regard to the Information Act.
So far I find that only one NGO has been active in this field. The need to involve more NGOs, Market Associations, professional bodies etc cannot be over emphasized.
I believe the Delhi Government has already planned to carry out a publicity campaign to spread the awareness about the legislation amongst the people.
The concept of Bhagidari does not fit in anywhere else better than in the sphere of right to information. Knowledge they say is power. The people must be empowered to participate meaningfully in their own governance. More administrative reforms that enable the people to play that role effectively are required.
1