The Constitution of India guarantees some of the most important rights to the citizens which are fundamental in nature, meant essentially to uphold the dignity of the individual. The recent landmark judgment of the Supreme Court which reiterated the Right to Privacy has once again amplified the inner dynamism and resilience of our Constitution and its lofty idea of citizenship. Several laws have been enacted in the last 60 years of the Republic which in one way or the other made these fundamental rights operational.
The Right to Information is one such major legislation which spelt out the right of the citizen to seek information and the obligation of the government to share such information. A decade after the RTI Act, the ‘information’ made available by virtue of the Act has not made governance more accountable or service delivery more efficient.
The notion that a citizen armed with ‘information’ can counter government agencies and demand more accountability and greater efficiency has been substantially belied. Official statistics released recently show that 2.44 crore applications had been entertained in the country under the RTI Act since its enactment in 2005. There are several instances where media and activists have collected valuable information to bring out scams. It has definitely made matters a shade better but its effectiveness in bringing about perceptible changes in governance is rather minimal.
It cannot be denied that the RTI has become more of a nagging tool in the hands of compulsive litigants itching to settle scores with unfriendly colleagues or political enemies than a tool for change. In comparison with the high hopes this legislation once evoked, its achievement is modest. Our administration has become neither more responsive nor accountable; nor has governance become any more transparent. The existence of the Act has at best nudged the system to be more cautious with procedures but with no real impact in forcing it to act fast and act fair.
The major limitation of the RTI Act is that the citizen has to ask for ‘information’. Of course if the information is denied, delayed or distorted, there are provisions for appeal and revision. The crucial presumption here is that unless the citizen asks for information, it need not be shared. This indeed is a conceptual quicksand which the RTI Act seems to have meekly accepted. But is that presumption compatible with the spirit of the Constitution? Democracy presupposes that elected governments are accountable to the people.
This premise is made operational through the Legislature which symbolises the collective will of the people. By being accountable to the Legislature the Executive is in fact sharing the information with the people. However symbolically beautiful and prim this argument might be, in real terms the ordinary citizen is clueless of the details of developmental projects in his vicinity or the intent and operational details of the various schemes implemented. It is farfetched to imagine a concerned but ordinary citizen walking into a government office to gather more details about a scheme or a project or programme. A (rare) good samaritan might offer some help but ordinarily the pursuit will be futile. At best he will be advised ‘to apply under the RTI Act’. Again the presumption is validated; information has to be formally sought.
Take a small road work in a village. After the much publicised formal function where the work on the project commences with appropriate fanfare, the work limps along only to stop after a while owing to some (mysterious) natural or unnatural cause. None knows for sure why the work stopped halfway. After a while with the ‘active pursuit’ of the MLA or some local leader the work is resumed and finally the road is completed four years later and at a cost which is more than double the original amount.
Despite the websites, despite the PR blitz and despite information desks, public offices do not act with an open mind to share useful information with the public. Glossy leaflets on government programmes may be good PR but when it comes to helping, guiding and informing the citizen, they betray an underlying indifference to empowering the public or recognising their right to know.
The time has come to go beyond the Right to Information. What is needed is the Right to Know. The practice of having prominent display boards on construction sites which give out all technical and financial information of a project is common in many developed societies. The name of the contractor, period of contract, technical aspects of the work and all such information with the agreed date of completion (at every stage) should be in public domain. All information about the schemes sanctioned, assistance provided and the eligibility criteria should be visible and accessible to all.
E-governance is good but announcing a tribal welfare project on the website is a comedy of procedure! It is not confidential information that affects ‘the security, sovereignty and territorial integrity’ of the country. On the other hand, it is the prerogative of every citizen, to know in a manner he/she understands, how the tax money is being utilised. Not that a Right to Know act will be a panacea or address unacceptable delays that breed corruption but at least it will provoke and embolden people to ask, act and react. At least it will acknowledge the basic right of the citizen to know what the officer, engineer or contractor already knows.
After 70 years of Independence, an ordinary visitor (which means one with no privileges or connections) to any government office in India is as clueless as ever. Unless the citizens’ Right to Know is appreciated and made enforceable, the truth of our democracy can hardly be reclaimed.
K Jayakumar Former Chief Secretary of Kerala and currently the Vice-Chancellor of Malayalam University Email: k.jayakumar123@gmail.com