NEW DELHI: The government’s move to amend the RTI Act has been facing stiff resistance from the Opposition parties as well as transparency campaigners who feel the proposed amendments will dilute the Act. India’s first Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah says the RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2018, if passed, will weaken the information commission and dilute its independence, promote patronage and increase lobbying for the posts. Expressing disappointment over the fact that the NDA, which came to power promising honesty and integrity, has moved such an amendment without public consultation, Habibullah tells Richa Sharma that this gives the impression that the government is trying to bring the Information Commissioners under its control.
What is your reaction to the proposed RTI amendment?
The direct effect will be to weaken the information commission and its indirect impact will be to intrude into the independence of the commission. The objective of such bodies is not giving it some status but to retain its independence, and this is in the government’s own interests. We all respect the Prime Minister for his integrity.
If somebody has a grievance, the person will go and ask for information and that will come to the notice of the department concerned and it will get into its record. Wouldn’t he (PM) prefer that? In this case (through the amendments proposed), you are promoting patronage. It is happening in the government already; they should strengthen the instrument rather than weaken it. Any changes (proposed) must be put in public domain and public opinion must be obtained. They are supposed to consult other departments but even sitting Information Commissioners were not consulted.
There have been attempts to dilute the RTI by previous governments…
There was an attempt to weaken it in 2006 and then, a file noting became a big issue. After that, the government withdrew it and did not press for it. Then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that in future, whenever we seek to make any amendment in the Bill, it will be made with the consultation of the public. That was the commitment from the Prime Minister of India and not a commitment from Dr Manmohan Singh. Surely, the Government of India should treat that as a policy decision.
Do you feel there has been an attempt by the Centre to interfere in constitutional authorities?
What is the intention: has the law not been functioning properly? has the information commission been irresponsible and can’t behave? What is the reason (for bringing the amendment)? You (the government) are giving a reason to feel that you want to bring the commission under your control and I don’t want to say yes to it without knowing it (the reason). I had been a quasi-judicial officer, so I don’t give opinions without a proper proof. Yes, there are so many possibilities since the government has not explained the need for this amendment.
There have also been demands for improving the functioning of Information Commissions..
You (government) should have taken steps to strengthen the commission rather than weaken it. Even during the UPA, many people used to criticise the government for not doing anything to support the implementation. In 2013, the Information Commission ruled that six national parties were all public authorities. This should have been implemented, but it has not.
The government tends to be wary of RTI for understandable reasons. But what I am very disappointed personally and as former CIC is that this government, after having won elections on the assurance of honesty and integrity — and that was the promise made to the country — has now brought this.
What are the issues plaguing the Act?
It is a very good law, but there is a need of improvement in certain areas. We are still operating a post-colonial system of governance. The present government has the right ideas, expressed no less than by the Prime Minister, who talked of “minimum government and maximum governance”. For that, it is necessary to bring reforms and they have even taken some steps, like lateral entry. But these are piecemeal efforts…you have to take a holistic view.
There have been efforts to hide information. Will this amendment strengthen that?
Well, whether there is such an attempt or not, I can’t say. But that will surely be the effect the amendment will have.
Do you think bringing salaries and tenures (of Information Commissioners) under Centre’s control will increase corruption?
Why has corruption arisen? Because you have opportunities. So, why create opportunities for corruption?
What are the areas in the Act that need urgent attention?
I think Section 4 of the Act, which says all the information will be put online, but there is no clause that enforces it. Section 4 is the principle clause of the Act and makes it unique. The government also needs to review its document for what still needs to be kept ‘secret’ and what is ‘confidential’.
Do you think due process was not followed in bringing the RTI amendment Act?
The government should have put it in the public domain well before Parliament started functioning. It should have invited comments and Information Commissioners should have been consulted as they are part of the government. If you are brining changes in the law that is directly affecting them (IC), then you should consult them first. You could have consulted them and dismissed their concerns if you did not find it valid — that is the prerogative of the government. It doesn’t have the prerogative to circumvent the consultation part.
The Whistleblowers Bill and Lokpal appointment is still pending…
The whole process starting from the Prevention of Corruption Act in 1988, the 73rdand 74th amendment of Panchayati Raj and the RTI Acts. All these were to decentralise authorities and prevent corruption. But they haven’t, and the tool through which you were to implement these is the old, post-colonial bureaucratic structure; you haven’t refined the tool.
There is a huge vacancy of Information Commissioners.
I can’t say (what is the reason) for the huge pendency (vacancy), it was there during the previous government, too. There could be too many contenders, lobbying from all sides. In fact, these proposed amendments will make it worse.