Information sharing and transparency in government and Right To Information act 2005
Transparency and Accountability in administration as the sine qua non of participatory Democracy, gained recognition as the new commitments of the state towards its citizens. It is considered imperative to enlist the support and participation of citizens in management of public Services. Traditionally, participation in political and economic processes and the ability to make informed choices has been restricted to a small elite in India. Consultation on important policy matters, even when they directly concern the people was rarely the practice. Information-sharing being limited, the consultative process was severely undermined.
There is no denying the fact that information is the currency that every citizen requires to participate in the life and governance of Society. The greater the access of the citizen to information, the greater would be the responsiveness of government to community needs. Alternatively, the greater the restrictions that are placed on ‘access’, the greater the feelings of ‘powerlessness’ and alienation. Without information, people cannot adequately exercise their rights and responsibilities as citizens or make informed choices.
Government information is a national resource. Neither the particular government of the day, nor public officials, creates information for their own benefit. This information is generated for the purposes related to the legitimate discharge of their duties of office, and for the service of public for whose benefit the institutions of government exist, and who ultimately (through one kind of import or another) fund the institutions of government and the salaries of officials. It follows that government and officials are ‘trustees’ of the information of the people.
Nonetheless, there are in theory at least, numerous ways in which information can be accessible to members of the public in a parliamentary system. The systemic devices promote the transfer of information from government to parliament and the legislatures, and from these to the people. Members of the public can seek information from their elected representatives. Annual reporting requirements, committee reports, publication of information and administrative law requirements also increase the flow of information from government to the citizen. Recent technological advances also help to reduce further the gap between the ‘information rich’ and the ‘information’.
However, in spite of India’s status as the world’s most populous democratic state, there was not until recently any obligation at village, district, state or national level to disclose information to the people – information was essentially protected by the colonial secrets Act 1923, which makes the disclosure of official information by public servants an offence. The colonial legacy of secrecy, distance and mystification.
of the Bureaucracy coupled with a long history of one party dominance proved to be a formidable challenge to transparency and effective government let alone an effective right to information secretive government is nearly always inefficient in that the free flow of information is essential if problems are to be identified and resolved.
Right to information has been seen as the key to strengthening participatory democracy and ushering in people centred governance. Access to information can empower the poor and the weaker sections of society to demand and get information about public policies and actions, thereby leading to their welfare. Without Good Governance, no amount of developmental schemes can bring improvements in the Quality Of Life of the citizens. Good governance has four Elements– transparency, accountability, predictability and participation. Transparency refers to availability of information to the general public and clarity about functioning of governmental institutions. Right to information opens up government’s records to public scrutiny, thereby arming citizens with a vital tool to inform them about what the government does and how effectively, thus making the government more accountable. Transparency in government organisations makes them function more objectively thereby enhancing predictability. Information about functioning of government also enables citizens to participate in the governance process effectively. In a fundamental sense, right to information is a basic necessity of good governance.
In recognition of the need for transparency in public affairs, the Indian Parliament enacted the Right to Information Act (hereinafter referred to as the RTI Act or the Act) in 2005. It is a path breaking legislation empowering people and promoting transparency. While right to information is implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, the Act sets out the practical regime for citizens to secure access to information on all matters of governance.
Right to information : Challenges
The most contentious issue in the implementation of the Right to Information Act relates to official secrets. In a democracy, people are sovereign and the elected government and its functionaries are public servants. Therefore by the very nature of things, transparency should be the norm in all matters of governance. However it is well recognised that public interest is best served if certain sensitive matters affecting national security are kept out of public gaze. Similarly, the Collective Responsibility of the Cabinet demands uninhibited debate on public issues in the Council of Ministers, free from the pulls and pressures of day-to-day politics. People should have the unhindered right to know the decisions of the Cabinet and the reasons for these, but not what actually transpires within the confines of the ‘Cabinet room’. The Act recognizes these confidentiality requirements in matters of State and Section 8 of the Act exempts all such matters from disclosure.
The Official Secrets Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as OSA), enacted during the colonial era, governs all matters of secrecy and confidentiality in governance. The law largely deals with matters of security and provides a framework for dealing with espionage, sedition and other assaults on the unity and Integrity of the nation. However, given the colonial Climate of mistrust of people and the primacy of public officials in dealing with the citizens, OSA created a culture of secrecy. Confidentiality became the norm and disclosure the exception. While Section 5 of OSA was obviously intended to deal with potential breaches of national security, the wording of the law and the colonial times in which it was implemented made it into a catch-all legal provision converting practically every issue of governance into a confidential matter. This tendency was buttressed by the Civil Service Conduct Rules, 1964 which prohibit Communication of an official document to anyone without authorization. Not surprisingly, Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, enacted in 1872, prohibits the giving of evidence from unpublished official records without the permission of the Head of the Department, who has abundant discretion in the matter. Needless to say even the instructions issued for Classification of documents for security purposes and the official procedures displayed this tendency of holding back information.
The Official Secrets Act, 1923 should be repealed, and substituted by a chapter in the National Security Act, containing provisions relating to official secrets.
Implementation of right to information act
In order to enforce the rights and fulfil the obligations under the Act, building of institutions, organization of information and creation of an enabling Environment are critical. Therefore, the Commission has as a first step reviewed the steps taken so far to implement the Act as follow:
Institutions
Information Commissions
Information Officers and Appellate Authorities.
Information and record keeping
Suo motu declaration under Section
Public Interest Disclosure.
Modernizing recordkeeping
Capacity building and awareness generation
Creation of monitoring mechanism
Capacity Building and Awareness Generation
Training programmes: The enactment of Right to Information Act is only the first step in promoting transparency in governance. The real challenge lies in ensuring that the information sought is provided expeditiously, and in an intelligible form. The mindset of the government functionaries, wherein secrecy is the norm and disclosure the exception, would require a revolutionary change. Such a change would also be required in the mindset of citizens who traditionaly have been reluctant to seek information. Bringing about this radical change would require sustained training and awareness generation programmes. The Commission’s own experience in seeking information from select public authorities reveals that even some PIOs are not conversant with the key provisions of the Act. The Information Commissioner’s Office in the United Kingdom has published an ‘Awareness Guidance’ series to assist public authorities and, in particular, staff who may not have access to specialist advice about some of the issues, especially exemption provisions. This practice may also be adopted in India.
Awareness generation: The enactment of the Right to Information Act has led to an intense debate in the media on various aspects of freedom of information. Despite this, enquiries reveal that level of awareness, particularly at the grass roots level, is surprisingly low. In order to achieve the objectives of the Act it would be necessary that citizens become aware of their entitlements and the processes required to use this right to improve the quality of governance. Awareness generation so far has been largely confined to government advertisement in print media. An effective awareness generation campaign should involve multi media efforts including street plays, television spots, radio jingles, and other mass communication techniques. These campaigns could be effectively implemented at low cost, once committed voluntary organizations and corporates with creativity, passion and professionalism are involved.
Issues in implementation
The implementation of the RTI Act is an administrative challenge which has thrown up various structural, procedural and logistical issues and problems, which need to be addressed.
Facilitating Access: For seeking information, a process as prescribed under the Act has to be set in motion. The trigger is filing of a request. Once the request is filed the onus of responding to it shifts to the government agency. Based on the experiences there are some issues arising in the implementation:
- Complicated system of accepting requests.
- Insistence on demand drafts.
- Difficulties in filing applications by post.
- Varying and often higher rates of application fee.
- Large number of PIOs.
Complicated system of accepting requests : While accepting applications, Departments insist that cash be paid at the accounts office. In Ministries, the accounts office and the PIOs office are different and at times in different locations. The Rules also prescribe that for each extra page of information, Rs. 2 has to be paid, for which the applicant has to go through the same process. The difficulty would get further pronounced in field offices, many of which do not have provision to collect cash. Moreover, getting a visitor’s pass to enter a government building results in unwarranted wait times (especially, when the PIO responsible might not be available owing to a number of other responsibilities which (s)he handles). Therefore, the process of filing requests for information needs to be simplified.
Insistence on demand drafts: Though there is a provision to pay fees through bank drafts, this poses another problem, as the bank charges Rs 35 to prepare a demand draft of Rs 10. Therefore the insistence by some departments to receive fees only through demand drafts and not in cash needs to be dispensed with.
Difficulties in filing applications by post: Under the existing dispensation, filing applications by post would necessarily involve payment of the application fee by way of demand draft or Banker’s cheque.
Varying and often higher rates of application fee: Different States have prescribed different fees in this regard. The Tamil Nadu Right to Information (Fees) Rules provides that an application fee of Rs 50 has to be paid for each request. During its public hearing in Chennai, the Commission was informed that this high rate of fees discouraged filing of applications under the Act. Therefore there is a need to harmonise the fee structure.
Suggestions
- In addition to the existing modes of payment, appropriate governments should amend the Rules to include payment through postal orders.
- States may be required to frame Rules regarding application fee which are in harmony with the Central Rules. It needs to be ensured that the fee itself does not become a disincentive.
- Appropriate governments may restructure the fees (including additional fees) in multiples of Rs 5. {e.g. instead of prescribing a fee of Rs. 2 per additional page it may be desirable to have a fee of Rs. 5 for every 3 pages or part thereof}.
- State Governments may issue appropriate stamps in suitable denominations as a mode of payment of fees. Such stamps would be used for making applications before public authorities coming within the purview of State Governments.
- As all the post offices in the country have already been authorized to function as APIOs on behalf of Union Ministries/Departments, they may also be authorized to collect the fees in cash and forward a receipt along with the application.
- At the Government of India level the Department of Personnel and Training has been identified as the nodal department for implementation of the RTI Act. This nodal department should have a complete list of all Union Ministries/ Departments which function as public authorities.
- Each Union Ministry/ Department should also have an exhaustive list of all public authorities, which come within its purview. The public authorities coming under each ministry/ department should be classified into (i) Constitutional Bodies, (ii) line agencies, (iii) Statutory Bodies, (iv) Public Sector Undertakings, (v) bodies created under executive orders, (vi) bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed, and (vii) NGOs substantially financed by government. Within each category an up-todate list of all public authorities has to be maintained.
- Each public authority should have the details of all public authorities subordinate to it at the immediately next level. This should continue till the last level is reached. All these details should be made available on the websites of the respective public authorities, in a hierarchical form.
- A similar system should also be adopted by the States.
Elections are the primary means for citizens to hold their country’s officials accountable for their actions in office, especially when they have behaved illegally, corruptly, or ineptly in carrying out the government’s work. For elections — and the people’s will — to be meaningful, basic rights must be protected and affirmed, as through the Bill of Rights in the United States. James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, believed that the very basis for government’s responsiveness was the assurance that citizens would have sufficient knowledge to direct it. If citizens are to govern their own affairs, either directly or through representative government, then they must be able to have access to the information needed in order to make informed choices about how best to determine their affairs. If citizens and their representatives are not well informed, they can neither act in their own self-interest, broadly speaking, nor can they have any serious choice in elections, much less offer themselves as candidates.,
Transparency and accountability are essential for good governance. They help to ensure that governments are responsive to the needs of their citizens and that they are using public Resources effectively. Transparency and accountability can be promoted through a variety of mechanisms, including access to information, Auditing, citizen engagement, complaint mechanisms, conflicts of interest, data protection, open government data, performance measurement, public participation, and whistleblowing.
Access to information
One of the most important mechanisms for promoting transparency is access to information. This means that citizens should have the right to access information about the government’s activities, including its budgets, contracts, and decisions. Access to information helps to ensure that the government is accountable to its citizens and that it is not hiding anything from them.
Auditing
Another important mechanism for promoting transparency is auditing. Auditing is the process of reviewing government records and activities to ensure that they are accurate and in compliance with laws and regulations. Auditing helps to identify problems and weaknesses in government operations and to ensure that they are corrected.
Citizen engagement
Citizen engagement is another important mechanism for promoting transparency and accountability. This means that citizens should have the opportunity to participate in government decision-making and to hold their elected officials accountable. Citizen engagement can take many forms, such as public hearings, town hall meetings, and online forums.
Complaint mechanisms
Complaint mechanisms are another important tool for promoting transparency and accountability. These are systems that allow citizens to report problems with government services or to file complaints about government officials. Complaint mechanisms help to ensure that problems are addressed and that government officials are held accountable for their actions.
Conflicts of interest
Conflicts of interest can arise when government officials have personal interests that could interfere with their ability to make impartial decisions. To prevent conflicts of interest, governments should have clear rules and regulations in place. These rules should require officials to disclose their financial interests and to recuse themselves from decisions where there is a conflict of interest.
Data protection
Data protection is another important issue for transparency and accountability. This means that governments should protect the personal information of their citizens. Governments should have clear rules and regulations in place to protect personal information from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure.
Open government data
Open government data is data that is made available to the public in a machine-readable format. This data can be used by citizens, businesses, and researchers to track government performance, identify problems, and develop solutions. Open government data can help to promote transparency and accountability by making it easier for people to access information about the government’s activities.
Performance measurement
Performance measurement is the process of setting goals and measuring progress towards those goals. This helps to ensure that the government is meeting its objectives and that it is using public resources effectively. Performance measurement can be used to track the progress of government programs, to identify areas where improvements are needed, and to hold government officials accountable for their performance.
Public participation
Public participation is the process of involving citizens in government decision-making. This can be done through a variety of mechanisms, such as public hearings, town hall meetings, and online forums. Public participation helps to ensure that the government is responsive to the needs of its citizens and that it is making decisions that are in the best interests of the public.
Whistleblowing
Whistleblowing is the act of reporting wrongdoing within an organization. Whistleblowers can play an important role in promoting transparency and accountability by exposing Corruption and other problems. Whistleblowers should be protected from retaliation by their employers.
Transparency and accountability are essential for good governance. By promoting these values, governments can build trust with their citizens and ensure that they are using public resources effectively.
What is transparency?
Transparency is the quality of being open and easy to understand. In the context of government, transparency refers to the openness of government decision-making and the availability of information about government activities.
What is accountability?
Accountability is the obligation to be responsible for one’s actions. In the context of government, accountability refers to the responsibility of government officials to answer for their actions to the public.
What are the benefits of transparency and accountability?
Transparency and accountability are essential for good governance. They promote efficiency, effectiveness, and responsiveness in government. They also help to prevent corruption and abuse of power.
What are some examples of transparency and accountability in government?
Some examples of transparency and accountability in government include:
- Freedom of information laws: These laws give the public the right to access government information.
- Open government data initiatives: These initiatives make government data available online, in a machine-readable format.
- Public participation in decision-making: This includes things like public hearings, online surveys, and citizen advisory boards.
- Independent oversight bodies: These bodies, such as ombudsmen and auditors, can investigate government actions and hold officials accountable.
What are some challenges to transparency and accountability in government?
Some challenges to transparency and accountability in government include:
- Secrecy: Governments often keep information secret, for reasons of national security, privacy, or commercial confidentiality.
- Corruption: Corruption can undermine transparency and accountability, as officials may be more interested in serving their own interests than the public interest.
- Lack of resources: Governments may not have the resources to implement effective transparency and accountability measures.
- Public apathy: The public may not be interested in or engaged in government activities, making it difficult to hold officials accountable.
What can be done to improve transparency and accountability in government?
There are a number of things that can be done to improve transparency and accountability in government, including:
- Strengthening freedom of information laws
- Making government data more accessible
- Promoting public participation in decision-making
- Creating independent oversight bodies
- Investing in transparency and accountability initiatives
- Raising public awareness of the importance of transparency and accountability
Sure, here are some multiple choice questions on the following topics:
The principle of transparency in government means that:
(A) The government should be open and accountable to the people.
(B) The government should be able to keep secrets from the people.
(C) The government should be able to do whatever it wants without the people knowing about it.The principle of accountability in government means that:
(A) The government should be responsible for its actions.
(B) The government should be able to do whatever it wants without being held accountable.
(C) The government should be able to keep secrets from the people.One way to promote transparency in government is to:
(A) Require government officials to disclose their financial information.
(B) Require government officials to meet with the public regularly.
(C) Require government officials to publish their decisions online.One way to promote accountability in government is to:
(A) Create an Independent Judiciary.
(B) Create an independent media.
(C) Create an independent watchdog agency.Which of the following is not a benefit of transparency in government?
(A) It can help to prevent corruption.
(B) It can help to build trust between the government and the people.
(C) It can help to make the government more efficient.Which of the following is not a benefit of accountability in government?
(A) It can help to prevent corruption.
(B) It can help to build trust between the government and the people.
(C) It can help to make the government more efficient.Which of the following is an example of a government agency that promotes transparency?
(A) The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
(B) The Office of Government Ethics (OGE)
(C) The Government Accountability Office (GAO)Which of the following is an example of a government agency that promotes accountability?
(A) The Department of Justice (DOJ)
(B) The Office of Inspector General (OIG)
(C) The Federal Election Commission (FEC)Which of the following is not a way to hold government officials accountable?
(A) Voting them out of office.
(B) Boycotting their businesses.
(C) Filing a lawsuit against them.Which of the following is not a way to promote transparency in government?
(A) Allowing the media to attend government meetings.
(B) Publishing government documents online.
(C) Requiring government officials to disclose their financial information.
I hope these questions were helpful!