The movement for Right to Information

Maharashtra Right to Information Act, 2002, has been enforced on August 11, 2003 with retrospective effect from September 23, 2002.

This legislation is a class apart from most others. It seeks to regulate not the actions of the citizens, as most other legislation do, but that of the people who govern. It fortifies citizens' fundamental right to know what the  government and dependent organizations are doing for them. 

Sweden, where the incidence of corruption is almost negligible now, has a right to information law for more than two centuries now - right since 1776.

People's right to have access to official information was asserted by the United Nations in its first session itself. Resolution 59 (1) of the UN General Assembly held in 1946 states: ``Freedom of information is a fundamental human right and. the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the UN is consecrated.''

It is during the last decade that a large number of countries have begun enforcing legislations to provide access to government information. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other international funding agencies are also pressing countries to adopt access to information laws to increase government transparency and reduce corruption. The process is being accelerated and strengthened by citizen activists through local, national and
international fora.

Citizen activists in USA and Japan have harnessed the respective right to information laws there to expose corruption in government departments and local bodies and elicit information on hazardous drug manufacture or environmental degradation. There has been a slight setback especially in the USA since the terrorist strike of September 11 and additional restrictions are being placed on disclosure of certain information.

Article 19 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR), signed among others by India, defines the parameters of people's right to information. It lays down that every citizen shall have the right to freedom of opinion and expression, which shall include ``freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art or through any other media of his choice.'' The covenant has at the same time placed `reasonable restrictions' on this right only to the extent of safeguarding `rights or reputation of others' and protecting national security or of public order, or of public health and morals.''

A series of Supreme Court verdicts have recognized that the right to know is inherent in Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees that `` all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression ''. A citizen has a fundamental right to information so as to formulate and express his or her views. Citizens' fundamental right to know is further strengthened by Article 21 while guarantees the right to life and personal liberty and by Article 14 which guarantees the right to equality, since all stakeholders must have an access to facts affective their lives. 

The Apex Court ruled in 1982: ``The concept of an open Government is the direct emanation from the right to know which seems implicit in the right of free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). Therefore, disclosures of information in regard to the functioning of Government must be the rule, and secrecy an exception.''

The demand for legally enforcing people's right to know was first raised by Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghatana (MKSS) in Rajasthan in the early 1990s. Led by social activist and former administrator Aruna Roy, MKSS exposed mind-boggling percolation of funds sanctioned on public works like roads, bridges, water tanks, wells, school buildings and so on by highlighting the entries in official records and the actual work done, or, in many cases, not done at all. 

``At the time of the framing of the constitution we had the right to freedom of expression, but no right to information,'' says Aruna Roy. ``We could not access a master roll, a bill, a voucher, a list of people below the poverty line, anything within the government. It was all a big secret.''

The MKSS succeeded in making the Government of Rajasthan concede a notification allowing citizens to inspect all records of a panchayat. The next victory was to make the government concede the citizens' right to receive a photocopy of panchayat documents. This was the first step to a giant leap forward in ensuring transparency in governance.

The first model draft of a legislation on the right to know was prepared by The Press Council of India (PCI), which emphasized that any information which could not be denied to the people's representatives in the Parliament and the state legislatures could not be denied to the citizens as well. 

The chief ministers conference in 1997 on responsive administration was unanimous that The Government of India and all states should have their own legislations of the right to know. 

At around the same time, a working group under the chairmanship veteran citizens' right activist H D Shourie, founder of `Common Cause' prepared another draft bill, which formed the basis for the Freedom of Information Bill, 2000, of the Government of India. 

Even before the Government of India drafted its bill, in a significant pro-active step, in 1999, Ram Jethmalani, the then Union Minister for Urban Development, issued an administrative order empowering citizens to inspect and receive photocopies of any file in his ministry. Though the jurist-turned-minister quoted the apex court rulings recognizing right to know as the fundamental right, he was restrained by the Cabinet Secretary from giving effect to the order.

This prompted the Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Common Cause to file a writ petition in the Supreme Court seeking effectively three reliefs: 1) that the Cabinet Secretary's restraint on Mr Jethmalani's order be declared unconstitutional and violative of the citizens right to information; 2) that section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, which makes it an offence for a public servant to disclose any information that has come to his knowledge in his official capacity, be declared unconstitutional; 3) that the government of India be directed to frame and issue suitable administrative instructions on the lines of the Press Council's Right to Information Bill, to effectuate the citizens right to information, pending suitable legislation on the subject. 

The Freedom of Information Bill was introduced in the Parliament a year later in 2000. Yet, as it remained to be adopted by the Parliament for more than two years, the Supreme Court in November 2002 the Supreme Court directed that if the legislation was not passed before the next date of hearing, the court would proceed with orders. The Bill was finally adopted by the Parliament on December 16, 2002 and cleared by the President on January 10, 2003. The central government is yet to frame rules and enforce the Act.

Citizen activists are far from being satisfied. It is a toothless legislation not adhering to the draft prepared by the Press Council. It does not provide for an independent appellate machinery and penalty for willful and mala fide refusal to disclose information or for incorrect disclosure. Besides, the choice of the title ``Freedom of Information'' and not ``Right to Information'' suggests that the fundamental right of the citizen has not been wholeheartedly acknowledged.

While the debate on the central government legislation goes on, a few states have since 1997 enforced their own laws on right to information, with varying degree of impeccability. Tamil Nadu and Goa were the pioneers in 1997, though the Tamil Nadu legislation woefully lacks in merit. Rajasthan and Maharashtra followed in 2000 and Delhi 2001. Madhya Pradesh enacted its legislation on January 31, 2003, significantly, after the President had given his assent to the central legislation.

Maharashtra's act of 2000 was modeled after the flawed act of Tamil Nadu. Veteran social activist Shri Anna Hazare, who has been spearheading a campaign for the past several years for a legislation with teeth demanded a fresh act, branding that of 2000 as a legislation not granting any right to citizens but instead, conferring a right to deny information on the government to deny information.

Acceding to his demand, the state government appointed in 2001 a committee, comprising senior serving and retired bureaucrats like former Union Home Secretary Dr Madhav Godbole, eminent jurists and Shri Hazare himself to prepare a new draft. The committee handed over one of the world's best drafts, but the Bill based on the draft couldn't get immediate approval of legislators. Came a renewed threat of agitation by Shri Hazare and an Ordinance was promptly promulgated to pacify him. It lapsed in barely four months.

The legislature finally adopted a Bill replacing the Ordinance, but it was, however, referred to the Government of India for its ratification, though, citizen activists argue, the central act on the matter had still not come in force then and there was no question of a state legislation clashing with a still non-existent one of the central government. Madhya Pradesh went ahead and notified its own act under similar circumstances, but the Maharashtra government thought otherwise. To aggravate the matter, Government of India did not bounce back the state bill, but kept it tossing from one desk to another in New Delhi.

Came a threat of fast-unto-death by Shri Hazare from August 9, and things moved at a break-neck speed both in New Delhi and back in Delhi. While Hazare's fast entered barely the third day, the Act was gazetted on August 11, 2003. 

The Act is identical to the Maharashtra Right to Information Ordinance, 2002, and has come in force with effect from the date the Ordinance was promulgated, that is, Septembere 23, 2002. Section 21 (2) of the Act makes it explicitly clear that all actions initiated under the Ordinance (but stuck at various stages) are now to reach their logical conclusion under the new Act.

------------------------