Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Whatever the ideological differences, there is no denying the trend that governments around the world are ceding more and more territory to the private sector. It is also widely acknowledged that the turnover of some multinational companies is greater than even the GDP of several countries. Many of the old assumptions about governments as such are therefore being amended or discarded altogether. Take, for instance, the concept of human rights. It is no longer defined only in terms of the citizen and the state. The influence of the big corporations is being recognised as another crucial factor determining human rights, for better or for worse.
Yet, the much-awaited Freedom of Information Bill introduced in the current session of Parliament seems to take no account of this vastly changing scenario. It imposes an obligation alright on a "public authority" to provide information to any citizen. But the public authority is defined purely as a state-created or state-funded body. The proposed legislation is entirely government-centric as though the state machinery were still the onlyrepository of all the information that affects the people at large. Based as it is on an outdated notion, the Bill is likely to be of little use to all those who seek information from the private sector in their capacity as investors, consumers, environmental victims or journalists. Any information the citizen wants, even if it is something about the private sector, can be obtained under the proposed law only from the government.
Thus, rather than providing greater access to information, the Bill threatens to legitimise and reinforce the government’s existing control over information. In fact, this seems to be the unstated object of the Bill. Give the citizen an illusion that the Bill will help him access all sorts of information. But, in reality, the Bill specifically exempts many classes of government-held information (such as file notings of the ministers and bureaucrats) from its purview. Worse, the exclusion of the private sector is designed to ensure, for instance, that corrupt deals between administrators and businessmen stay under wraps. Since a journalist or activist probing such a deal is entitled to get information only from the government, the Bill will in no way help him dig out any embarrassing or contradictory details. In that old-fashioned manner, he will still have to depend on his confidential sources for the "real" information, especially about the government-business nexus.
That the omission of the private sector is deliberate is evident from the initial draft made in 1996 by the Press Council of India (PCI). It proposed that the public body obliged to give information under the law included not just the government and its undertakings but also "a company, corporation, society, trust, firm or a cooperative society, whether owned or controlled by the government or by private individuals and institutions whose activities affect the public interest". The provision was as clear as it could have been to subject the private sector to the freedom of information regime. But the Bill that was introduced in Parliament bore no trace of that provision, thanks to the "refinements" made on the PCI draft first by the H.D. Shourie committee and then by the ministerial group headed by L.K. Advani.
It is not that the PCI draft was unfairly loaded against the private sector.In a bid to balance competing interests, the draft clarified that the public body could withhold any "trade and commercial secrets protected by law." The government happily retained this restriction in its Bill, though otherwise itomitted the private sector from the jurisdiction of the proposed law.
Another major deviation made by the government was in dropping the provision to penalise the individual who failed to provide the requisite information within the stipulated time of 30 days. The draft sought to make him personally liable to pay a penalty of Rs 50 for each day of delay. Further, anybody who furnished wrong or misleading information was sought to befined up to Rs 5,000. Since the Bill seeking to promote "openness, transparency and accountability" does not contain any sanctions, one can’t be faulted for doubting whether the government really meant to usher in a new work culture.
Fortunately, there is still some hope of salvaging the situation. The Bill has been referred to a parliamentary committee to suggest improvements. The committee would do well to bear in mind that, in 1996, the very year in which the PCI came up with its draft, South Africa adopted its Constitution which laid down as follows: "Every one has the right of access to (a) any information held by the state and (b) any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights." The expression "another person" has a wide amplitude including, of course, the private sector.
The South African precedent will hopefully persuade our MPs to enact a Freedom of Information law which is alive to the growing intrusions of the private sector into the common people’s lives.
The Bill won’t help investors, consumers or journalists seeking information
