‘The RTI Act has potential unknowns’……Akshat Kaushal
Q&A: Anugraha Narayan Tiwari, Chief Information Commissioner
Q&A: Anugraha Narayan Tiwari, Chief Information Commissioner
After a lifetime as a professional bureaucrat, Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Anugraha Narayan Tiwari spent five years trying to make the Right to Information (RTI) Act effective. In an interview with Akshat Kaushal, he describes the struggle to make RTI acceptable, its liberating effects and the dangers in its working. Excerpts:
You were appointed the information commissioner in December 2005 and now you are the chief information commissioner. You were a bureaucrat for more than 40 years. What has this experience been like?
It has been a truly uplifting experience. The RTI Act is brimming with potential unknowns even for the people who were associated with its making. At that time, the Act was only seen as a response to international pressure and a way by which the government could tweak something.
What kind of international pressures?
Whenever our representatives went to international conferences like United Nations conferences, the first question they were asked was, what was India doing about the Freedom of Information Act? So, in 2003 the government of India came out with the Freedom of Information Act. The Right to Information Act was just an amended version of that Act. But we found that there were so many amendments so we decided to group them together. Thats how RTI came into being.
Whenever our representatives went to international conferences like United Nations conferences, the first question they were asked was, what was India doing about the Freedom of Information Act? So, in 2003 the government of India came out with the Freedom of Information Act. The Right to Information Act was just an amended version of that Act. But we found that there were so many amendments so we decided to group them together. Thats how RTI came into being.
But frankly, nobody anticipated the groundswell it would create among people about: (a) their own rights, and (b) assaulting the citadels of government that they considered foreign to them. So, I would like to believe that this Act is reducing the foreignness of the rulers vis-a-vis their own people.
Was the bureaucracy sceptical about this Act?
Yes, and with good reason. There were certain people who believed that the bureaucracy would not be able to function under a searchlight. They demanded privacy in their functioning. Also, they believed that if the system became transparent, it would have repercussions on ministerial responsibility in Parliament. After all, the anonymity of the civil service was a factor that contributed to ministerial responsibility. A minister was responsible for every answer in Parliament because no bureaucrat ever told the world what he was proposing to the minister. That is no longer valid. Now, a civil servant is made to feel laterally responsible to the people because of the RTI Act. It is an accountability-enforcing Act.
Yes, and with good reason. There were certain people who believed that the bureaucracy would not be able to function under a searchlight. They demanded privacy in their functioning. Also, they believed that if the system became transparent, it would have repercussions on ministerial responsibility in Parliament. After all, the anonymity of the civil service was a factor that contributed to ministerial responsibility. A minister was responsible for every answer in Parliament because no bureaucrat ever told the world what he was proposing to the minister. That is no longer valid. Now, a civil servant is made to feel laterally responsible to the people because of the RTI Act. It is an accountability-enforcing Act.
As a bureaucrat you were taught to deny information. How does this change as CIC?
The assumption that a civil servant habitually holds on to information and doesnt reveal it is only partly true. It was true in 2006 when this Act was a year old and the civil servants tried all the tools to not let information get out.
The assumption that a civil servant habitually holds on to information and doesnt reveal it is only partly true. It was true in 2006 when this Act was a year old and the civil servants tried all the tools to not let information get out.
But all that is changing dramatically. I am using the word dramatically with full responsibility. Today, senior officers are worried that their juniors might part with the information they arent even authorised to part with. That is both good and bad. The good part is that information is getting out. The bad part is that there is a certain amount of loyalty within each department and that loyalty is now getting impacted.
We are trying to make officers understand that disclosure obligations must be responsibly exercised. I am not saying that you must defend confidentiality. All I am saying is, when you have to decide whether information should or should not be disclosed or can be disclosed or not, favour transparency over confidentiality.
It is so difficult to understand that in places where disclosure is so imperative there is no CIC. There is no information commissioner in Kashmir. Why?
That is because of the structure of federalism. It is for the Jammu and Kashmir government to establish it.
That is because of the structure of federalism. It is for the Jammu and Kashmir government to establish it.
But the idea of the information commissioner is to give information. Thats what the people need: information about themselves and their government.
The government has now appointed interlocutors and one of them is M M Ansari (Information Commissioner) and theyll probably ask the government to bring in the RTI. The state government doesnt realise the type of trust dividend one derives when an RTI Act is in place. This aspect of RTI hasnt been fully understood at the grassroots.
The government has now appointed interlocutors and one of them is M M Ansari (Information Commissioner) and theyll probably ask the government to bring in the RTI. The state government doesnt realise the type of trust dividend one derives when an RTI Act is in place. This aspect of RTI hasnt been fully understood at the grassroots.
But your own ruling in the case of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) over how much money was lying in Swiss Bank accounts was quite a qualified ruling.
It was indeed a qualified ruling because the question was framed like that. The applicant quoted a figure and asked the ED to verify whether the figure was right or wrong. How can the ED validate the figure when it doesnt even know? So, we said, rather than saying it didnt know anything, the ED should tell the people of India what it does know. Thats the rationale of the ruling. Though the ED falls under the exempted category, we told it to reveal whatever it knew because citizens were entitled to know how much money it was investigating.
It was indeed a qualified ruling because the question was framed like that. The applicant quoted a figure and asked the ED to verify whether the figure was right or wrong. How can the ED validate the figure when it doesnt even know? So, we said, rather than saying it didnt know anything, the ED should tell the people of India what it does know. Thats the rationale of the ruling. Though the ED falls under the exempted category, we told it to reveal whatever it knew because citizens were entitled to know how much money it was investigating.
So how much is being investigated? We still dont know that.
Thats because we didnt ask them to give the information to us. The information would be given to the applicant.
Thats because we didnt ask them to give the information to us. The information would be given to the applicant.
Is non-compliance of orders an area of concern for the CIC?
It would be much better to ask the people who are telling you this to cite an example of an order that hasnt been complied with and of someone approaching the commission to say so. Wherever an order hasnt been complied with, there is a petition filed for non-compliance. Weve found that when someone complains about non-compliance, it is usually a fake complaint.
It would be much better to ask the people who are telling you this to cite an example of an order that hasnt been complied with and of someone approaching the commission to say so. Wherever an order hasnt been complied with, there is a petition filed for non-compliance. Weve found that when someone complains about non-compliance, it is usually a fake complaint.
RTI activists have not just been threatened, some have been killed. You have said security must be given to such activists whose lives are in danger. How do you propose to go about it?
I have also said our ability to provide security is limited. We can put our weight behind the state government to do so. But, in the majority of the cases in which a man comes to us saying he is under threat, we dont know the credibility of the man, but we still ask the police, regardless of what they think of that man, to provide him security.
I have also said our ability to provide security is limited. We can put our weight behind the state government to do so. But, in the majority of the cases in which a man comes to us saying he is under threat, we dont know the credibility of the man, but we still ask the police, regardless of what they think of that man, to provide him security.
Today you provide security to a mafioso because he holds a certain position. So why cant you provide security to an activist? The state must come out and openly declare a policy of providing such people security and I plan to take it up with the government.
Your appointment as CIC was shrouded in controversy. Many asked why a bureaucrat should be made CIC.
I can ask a counter-question: why not?
I can ask a counter-question: why not?
The objection is not towards the bureaucracy because Habibullah, too, was a bureaucrat. The issue is that certain rules and procedures were not followed in your appointment.
I tried finding out about this from the activists who have been saying this and I havent received any direct answer. They went on saying bad things about me and because of that I couldnt become CIC the last time around. My question is: what is the basis of saying this? You may hate the bureaucrats but that doesnt make bureaucrats hateful. Just because civil society intuitively hates bureaucrats, is it logical that a bureaucrat should not become CIC?
I tried finding out about this from the activists who have been saying this and I havent received any direct answer. They went on saying bad things about me and because of that I couldnt become CIC the last time around. My question is: what is the basis of saying this? You may hate the bureaucrats but that doesnt make bureaucrats hateful. Just because civil society intuitively hates bureaucrats, is it logical that a bureaucrat should not become CIC?
You have a tenure of just three months. Do you think anything substantial can be done in three months?
I dont wish to answer this question. It is below my dignity.
I dont wish to answer this question. It is below my dignity.