Finance Minister Abdul Rahim Rather presented the annual report of the State Information Commission in the Legislative Assembly for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. The Report is a mixture of performances, shortcomings and suggestions of how implementation of the Right to Information Act can be made effective. The report refers to the administrative branches called First Appellate Authorities in the terminology of the Commission because it is they, who have to deal with the matters pertaining to the Right to Information in their respective Department. According to the Report the performance of the First Appellate Authorities have not be very encouraging and certainly need to be streamlined. The Commission believes that if the compliance level of FAA increases, it would result in less intervention of the Commission. The compliance of FAA is a matter of sensitivity of the concerned authority to their responsibility of providing the required information. Perhaps the old mindset becomes a hindrance for the FAA and that is why the Commission has made a cryptic remark that “old habits die hard”. According to Section 22 of the Act, each department is required to provide the Commission information about the number of requests made to each public authority and the number of decisions made. Many departments have not complied with this statutory provision.
Nevertheless, the picture is not that bleak. Among various suggestions made by the Commission to the Administrative Department one is that of digitalization of information meaning to provide websites and post information on it for the benefit of the public. Out of 36 Departments at present 26 have installed websites and are posting information on these that concern their functioning. But out of 211 subordinate departments/HoDs only 88 have opened websites so far. The report has made survey of rejections since 2009 and it shows gradual decrease from 9 % in 2009 to 1.37 % in 2011.
It has to be noted that the Act provide punitive punishment for dereliction of duty which is closely connected with accountability. Penalty has been imposed in five cases and the affected persons have the right to appeal. Some of them have appealed while in one case a writ petition has been filed.
Overall assessment of the report shows that the state administration is gradually responding to the concept of Right to Information and the ways and means of implementing the provisions governing this Act. Of course, it appears difficult for the old mindset to adapt to the new ways and means of administrative discipline but the imperatives of good governance and democratic rights of civil society imply that the Right to Information has to be provided without grudging. The Commission has done well by placing before the Assembly its achievements as well as shortcoming and also suggestions which, if taken into account, should help in proving the situation of dissemination of information. The suggestion of putting up latest information on the information boards is also a desirable step towards keeping general masses of people informed on what is happening in various departments. It is highly desirable that the Secretaries of Administrative Departments are desired to invite reports on the performance of the departments under their supervision and the consolidated reports would be sent to the Commission at the end of the year. Reiterating the aims and objectives of the RTI Act, the report says that it is to ensure accountability and transparency in the working of the public authorities and the provisions of the Act entail personal and individual liability. The Commission invites the attention of the Government towards the fact that the functionaries in public authorities more often than not authenticating their signatures by not mentioning their names in official correspondence. Since the Act hold the authorities responsible personally.
In final analysis, the departmental authorities have to understand that the RTI Act is not to curb their authority or to impose unnecessary restrictions on their functioning. It is a right which the people enjoy and they themselves enjoy because it is provided by the statutory law of the land. Good governance cannot be enforced unless the system of functioning and governance is changed for better.
Follow our WhatsApp channel