Context: 

Recently, the Chief Justice of India made a remark that political parties may have a fear that bringing them under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act may encroach their “internal decision-making”.

The Right to Information (RTI) Act:

• Right to Freedom of Speech & Expression: It was passed by the Parliament in 2005 to enable the citizens to exercise their freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of Indian Constitution. 
• Mandate: It provides the right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.
• Provision: Under the provisions of the Act, a citizen may request information from a “public authority” (a body of government) which is required to reply within thirty days.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

Salient provisions of the RTI Act, 2005: 

• Timely Disclosure of Information: The RTI Act provides for timely disclosure of information to citizens by Union and State Public Authorities. 
• Accountability & Transparency: It seeks to empower citizens and promote accountability and transparency. 
• Disclosure on Various Aspects: Under the Act, Public Authorities are required to make disclosures on various aspects of their structure and functioning. 
• This includes:
  • Disclosure on their organization
  • Functions and structure
  • Powers and duties of its officers and employees
  • Financial information
  • Procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability etc., among others. 
• Section 4 of the Act: It calls for proactive disclosure of information by all authorities so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information. 
• Section 8 of the Act: It provides exceptions to the disclosure of information, on that basis sharing of information can be denied. 

Exceptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act:

• The sharing of information can be denied if the disclosure of information can prejudicially affect: 
  • The sovereignty and integrity of India. 
  • Security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State. 
  • Relations with Foreign States. 
  • Lead to incitement of an offense. 
  • Information expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court. 
  • If the disclosure of information can cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature
  • Information including trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. 
  • Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers. (Material based on which decision was taken shall be made public if not exempted). 
  • Personal information, unless it serves a larger public interest. 
• Section 8 (2): It provides for disclosure of information exempted under Official Secrets Act, 1923 if larger public interest is served.

Public Information Officer (PIO):

• Definition: Under the Act, the public authorities have to designate some of its officers as Public Information Officer (PIO). 
• Responsibility: They are responsible to give information to a person who seeks information under the RTI Act. 
• Information Commissioners: The Act has established the Central Information Commission at the level of Central Government and State Information Commission in each State. 
  • The Commissions address public grievances against public authorities in case of non-fulfilment of obligations under the Act. 
• Time Frame: The Act requires that PlOs shall provide information within 30 days but applications requesting information regarding a citizen’s life and liberty must be granted or refused within  48 hours. 
• Appealing Body: An appeal can be made to a departmental Appellate Authority, who is an officer senior in rank to the PIO but in the same public authority.
  • The Appellate authority has to hear both the parties before giving a decision on the correctness of the order passed by the PIO. 
  • A second appeal can also be made to the Information Commission if the decision of the Appellate Authority is not satisfactory. 

Benefits of the RTI Act:

• Anti-corruption Tool: In the past 17 years, it has been instrumental in uncovering a list of major scams. 
  • Scams like Adarsh Society Scam, 2G scam, Commonwealth Games Scam, Indian Red Cross Society Scam are some noticeable achievements under RTI. 
• Empowering People’s Voice: It has given ordinary citizens the confidence and the right to ask questions of Government authorities. 
• Strengthened Democracy: Every citizen has the right to claim information  from public authorities under the Act. 
• Transparency and Accountability: A large amount of information has to be placed in the public domain by ways of manuals prescribed under the Act. 

Issues Associated with the Functioning of the RTI Act:

• Threats to RTI Activists: According to the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), across India, 99 RTI activists have lost their lives,180 assaulted and 187 were threatened since 2006. 
  • While RTI is lauded in public, it faces fierce opposition from many within the bureaucracy and the lawmakers, the two key stakeholders of the RTI regime. 
  • The latest incident happened in June 2022, when a contractor was murdered in Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh, for asking too many questions relating to the public works department. 
  • According to the local police, too many RTI queries over the quality of roads were upsetting several officials and interested parties. 
• Shortcomings of Information Commissioners: Barring some notable exceptions, the State Information Commissions have remained dysfunctional. 
  • There are a lot of vacancies and many Commissions are functioning without the Chiefs e.g., the Government of Andhra Pradesh took over a year to appoint three information commissioners, that too after the intervention of the Supreme Court, while the post of State Chief Information Commissioner had been vacant for over 2 years. 
• Rising Pendency: The pendency of cases under the Central Information Commission has been rising. 
  • The CIC takes up two kinds of cases:
    • Appeals on the information shared under the RTI Act by various government entities.
    • Complaints relating to the inability to file an RTI or refusal to give information.
  • In October 2017, the CIC had 24,287 appeals and complaints pending before it. In October 2020, this figure had increased by 52% to 36,894. Though the number came down to 32,000 in December 2021 and 26,500 in July 2022. 
• Judicial Bottlenecks: Several RTI cases are embroiled in judicial procedures as courts are quick to give stay orders on CICs’ decisions. 
  • However, the Act clearly states that the final appeal lies with the information commissions, so the appeals are masked as writs to obtain relief from the Judiciary. 
• Frivolous RTIs: An oft-repeated excuse by bureaucrats for their unprofessional attitude is the number of frivolous queries or those with perverse motives. The reality, however, is that such queries constitute only around 4% of the total appeals and can easily be managed. 

Steps Need to be Taken:

• Need For a Code of Conduct: A code of conduct must be evolved for the Central and State Information Commissioners.
  • It is imperative for the commissioners to keep a strict distance from government heads and officialdom. 
• Following of Judiciary’s Guidelines: The Supreme Court’s guidelines in DDA vs Skipper Construction (P) Ltd should be followed in letter and spirit. 
  • It said that the High Courts must resist the temptation to exercise their writ jurisdiction in order to correct errors made by the SICs/CICs.
  • If the High Court quashes a CIC/SIC order, it must categorically find that the order was without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous. 
• Maintaining Autonomy of the Information Commissions: It is imperative to ensure freedom of the press and democratic institutions, punish errant officials and maintain complete autonomy of the information commissions, in the interest of the people and the nation at large. 
• Awareness & Education about the Information Laws: The Indian information law, rated as one of the strongest in the world, needs to be bolstered by raising awareness amongst the people and organizing rigorous training of government officials. 
• Availability of Information in Vernacular Languages: All information associated with the RTI Act and its functioning must be made available in the local language considering the diverse nature of our country. 
• Availability of Information in Early Ages: Education about the right to information/ right to know should be made mandatory at the school level in our new education policy to develop a sense of responsibility and vigilant citizenship in the forthcoming generation. 

Reasons for Exclusion of Political Parties from the RTI Act:

• Autonomy and Privacy: Political parties claim that they need to maintain a level of autonomy and privacy in their internal  decision-making processes. 
  • Including them under the RTI Act could potentially lead to interference in their functioning, hampering their ability to strategize and communicate effectively. 
• Misalignment in Definitions: The RTI Act primarily aims at ensuring transparency in government operations. However, the existing definition of “public authority” under this Act does not encompass political parties. 
• Voluntary Nature of Parties: Political parties are voluntary associations  and not  statutory bodies. Their engagement with the public is based on their own choice rather than being mandated by law. 
• Risk to Internal Discussions: Bringing political parties under the RTI Act’s purview could expose sensitive internal discussions related to strategies and candidate selection. Such openness might compromise the competitive essence of the democratic process. 
• Availability of Information: Important financial information about major parties, including their accounts, donor lists, and candidate affidavits, is already accessible to the public through the Election Commission’s website.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Classes

Way Forward:

• Transparency: Addressing the issue of transparency concerning political parties and the Right to Information (RTI) Act requires a balanced approach that respects democratic principles while promoting accountability.
• Public Disclosures: Political parties should voluntarily increase their transparency by proactively disclosing their information such as their sources of funding, details of major donors, and financial statements. This could be done through their official  websites or other public platforms. 
• Strengthening Election Commission’s Role: The Election Commission or a relevant regulatory body can be empowered to oversee political parties’ financial  transactions and ensure compliance with disclosure norms. This would enhance accountability without necessarily subjecting parties to the RTI Act. 
• Redefining Anonymous Donations: The Election Commission proposes lowering the anonymous donation threshold from ₹20,000 to ₹2000. 
• Public Awareness and Advocacy: Raise public awareness about the importance of political processes and encourage advocacy efforts to push for greater accountability from political parties.
• Adoption of International Best Practices: Study and draw upon successful transparency practices from other countries to adapt and implement relevant measures in the local context.

Conclusion:

• Rightly observed by Thomas Jefferson “Information is the currency of democracy” and critical to the emergence and development of a vibrant civil society.
• In the present scenario, modern democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold the government accountable. 

News Source: The New Indian Express