|
The successful struggle for getting the Right to Information Act in India
legislated is by now part of the global activist folklore. The small ripples of
civil society expressions resulted in a massive wave of assertion that forced a
notoriously reluctant polity to pass the legislation. Since then, the RTI Act
had a more or less smooth journey, barring the occasional attempts by some
die-hard official secrecy fans to blunt the sharp edges. A three year report
card on the implementation of the RTI Act points to much optimism and some major
disappointments. A recent national assessment by the Bangalore based Public
Affairs Center on the status of suo moto disclosures mandated under the Act
provides many dampeners to the prevailing zeitgeist.
Suo Moto Provisions
Suo moto (in some countries called sua sponte) means on its own motion or
proactive. The mandatory provisions pertaining to suo moto disclosures are
specified in section 4 of the RTI Act 2005. Accordingly, the publication of suo
moto, information should be in a manner that facilitates easy access and also
should be in different forms such as website, printed material, etc. More
importantly, the Act stipulated a period of 120 days from the date of its
enactment (October 2005) within which to publish such information followed by
periodic updates.
There are seventeen types of information pertaining to public authorities
specified as suo moto under section 4 (1) (b). These include organizational
structure, duties and functions, norms and procedures set for discharge of
duties, details of public information officers and appellate authority,
documents and records held by an authority and the ones to be catalogued and
maintained in electronic form, etc.
Against this background, PACs objective of the national assessment was to
assess the degree of compliance based on the information published on the
websites of following public authorities:
- Selected central government departments
- Selected departments of all twenty-eight state governments, except Jammu &
Kashmir.
- Selected departments of all union territories
- Central and state information commissions
Local government agencies such as municipal bodies and panchayats were
excluded from the assessment as the initial search revealed that many of the
city corporations of even state capitals did not have a website.
|
Disclosure of Information:
Snapshots |
- Reiterating the primacy of suo moto
dislosures: It is a matter of great concern that even after three years of
implementation, the RTI Act and the expiry of 120 days set by the Act for
public authorities to comply with suo moto provisions, the aggregate
national average degree of compliance is a mere 33%
- Failure to leverage technology: The
fancied e-governance story in India reveals many shortcomings when it
comes to citizen-centric measures like disclosing basic and essential
information. The gross under-utilization of websites as a means to publish
basic information to citizens is a major disappointment
- Only half the battle won: The pointers
emerging from this pioneering evaluation show that getting the RTI Act
legislated is only half the battle. The struggle for effective
implementation is long from over
- Learning from the leaders: There is much
to learn from the examples of Nagaland, Delhi and Bihar in making the RTI
provisions citizen centric. Be it the commitment of top political
leadership or conscious efforts to leverage ICTs to make the working of
the administration transparent, there is much to learn and implement
- Incentivizing proactive disclosure: The
abysmal compliance to the statutory provision of suo moto disclosures
raises a genuine need to penalize the laggards. Necessary policy
directives may be enforced to deter such non-compliances in the future.
|
The national assessment was carried out between December 2008 and January
2009 over a period of two months and involved scrutiny of 584 websites for suo
moto disclosures. This pertains to sixteen departments, each of the twenty-eight
state governments and the six union territories; twelve ministries/departments
of the central government; the central information commission; and the state
information commissions of twenty-seven state governments. The departments
chosen for assessment were those generally considered as more relevant for
day-to-day life of citizens such as education, health, agriculture, food and
civil supplies, rural development and panchayati raj, housing and urban
development, labor, etc.
The degree of compliance was assessed by giving a score of 1 for
compliance, or 0 for non-compliance, and 0.5 for partial compliance with
reference to each of the seventeen items under section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act
for each of the department/agency. Additional points were awarded for the
presence of RTI portal as well as for regular updates, while the absence of the
same was scored negatively.
Compliance Report Card
n States: The average compliance percentage score for state governments as a
whole is a mere 27%, with Nagaland (62%), Delhi (56%), Bihar (55%), Punjab (51%)
and Andhra Pradesh (49%) emerging as the top five compliant states. While Kerala
(6%), Uttarkhand (3%), Assam (-4%), Arunachal Pradesh (-4%) and Jharkhand (-5%)
ending up as the lowest five compliant states. In fact, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh
and Jharkhand have ended with negative scores. Karnataka, one of the leading
states in information technology industry is ranked fifteenth amongst the
twenty-eight states.
The degree of compliance seems to correlate positively with the recent
history of administrative reforms and particularly the e-governance initiatives.
Nagaland for instance, was one of the first states to introduce e-governance
reforms, whereas in Delhi, it is mandatory for every department to allocate 2%
of its total allocation for information technology initiatives within the
department. The most impressive performance is of Bihar which was recently
conferred with the national award for e-governance for its Jaankaari, call
center for providing information under RTI Act. This initiative was also
selected as a finalist for the 2008 Stockholm Challenge Award.
- Union Territories: With an average compliance percentage score of 17%, the
performance of the six union territories with regard to suo moto disclosures
appears to be far worse than the state governments. Puducherry at 46% and
Chandigarh at 41% are the top scorers, while Lakshadweep scored - 5% and
obtained the lowest percentage compliance score.
- Central Government Ministries/Departments: The average compliance
percentage score for the central government ministries/departments is 44%
which is the highest amongst all public authorities covered in the assessment.
Department of Commerce and Ministry of Panchayati Raj both notched the top
score with 87% degree of compliance followed by Department of Agriculture and
Cooperation, and Ministry of Urban Development both scoring 80% degree of
compliance. The lowest scorers amongst the central government ministries are
Ministry of Environment and Forests (11%) and Ministry of Housing and Urban
Poverty Alleviation (0%).
- Information Commissions: The combined average compliance percentage score
for SIC and CIC is 42%. Though it is the second highest amongst the public
authorities covered in the assessment, it is still an abysmal performance
considering that they are expected to be torch bearers in the implementation
of RTI Act. The top seven scorers are information commissions of Himachal
Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Bihar and the CIC.
While the poor performers include the SICs of Arunachal Pradesh and
Chattisgarh, all with negative scores.
The onus is now on the government to ensure that the letter and spirit of the
RTI Act is upheld. If not, we may very well end up with an uncalled for Right
to Ignorance.
Page(s) 1
| 
Print
Comment
Email
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Twitter
