Information Bill key step but has freedom to keep a secret

The Bill, which will be introduced in the Rajya Sabha shortly, requires the PIO to provide the required information within 30 days on payment of a prescribed fee. And if the PIO chooses to refuse the request, he will have to give reasons in writing to the person concerned.

But problem is, the Bill exempts the PIOs from disclosing six vital and loosely defined categories of information ranging from something that ‘‘would prejudicially affect the strategic, scientific or economic interest of India’’ to ‘‘Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the council of ministers, secretaries and other officers.’’

Thus, the wide amplitude of Section 8 listing out the categories of information exempt from disclosure threatens to become an in-built hurdle to anybody seeking to avail himself of the law. Further, the Bill altogether exempts certain ‘‘intelligence and security organisations’’ from the purview of the proposed right to information. While the object of this exemption provided in Section 16 is understandable, the Government has already betrayed a tendency to use this loophole to cover as many as organisations as it can with a cloak of secrecy.

When the Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha in July 2000, it made the proposed law inapplicable to only six Central organisations, including IB and RAW. But the Bill passed yesterday listed out as many as 19 Central organisations. The new entrants include BSF, CRPF, ITBP, CISF and NSG. Besides, the Bill gives a similar discretion to the state governments to exempt their own intelligence and security organisations as well.Another likely area of abuse of the proposed law relates to the provision to appeal against any adverse decision taken by a PIO.

The Bill provides two tiers of appeal but, oddly enough, both will be very much within the government structure. It makes no pretense of trying to provide an independent appeal mechanism. On the contrary, Section 15 bars courts from entertaining any challenge to a PIO’s decision.

This despite a clear recommendation from the H.D. Shourie Committee, which provided the blueprint for the law, that there should also be ‘‘an external grievance redressal forum’’ available in other countries. Disregarding the suggestion of experts and activists, the government made no provision in the Bill to penalise a PIO or his superiors for giving incorrect, incomplete or misleading information.

Again, on the contrary, the Bill confers legal immunity to any person acting ‘‘in good faith’’ under the proposed law.

Though the right to information is being conferred on people in an age when the Government professes to be reducing its role, the Bill does not apply to the private sector at all. As a result, a private cellular company, for instance, will be exempt while its public sector competitor like MTNL will be very subject to the proposed law.

It is on account of this anomaly that the South African law enacted in 2000 specifically brought the private sector under its sweep.