New Delhi:
For decades, Indians had little direct access to the decisions made by their Netas and Babus. That changed forever in 2005, when, after years of civil rights activism, the Right to Information (RTI) Act was delivered to the country. It was meant to serve as a bridge between decision-makers and the people who elect them.
The
aam admi grabbed the chance to scrutinize records, documents, files. The Right to Information Act may even change how the judiciary does business - the Delhi High court has recently ruled that the Chief justice of India is not exempt from RTI. That means he may have to share how judges are appointed, among other things.
But RTI is not without its share of critics. Many say it's being over-used. Subhash Agarwal has asked for so many documents with his 500 requests, that he's known, among activists, as a professional RTI applicant. It was Agarwal who asked just who was responsible for the controversial Sharm-el- Sheikh joint statement with Pakistan - one which had the Opposition attacking the Prime Minister because it included a reference to Balochistan -a reference that, critics said, allowed Pakistan to claim that India accepts some responsibility for the insurgency in the Pakistani province.
After months of fighting for his petition, the Central Information Commission has ordered the government to show Agarwal the files and the names of the officers who drafted the statement.
Agarwal denies that this is a self-promotion stunt. "This is not at all connected with any publicity. There have been cases where the information commissioners have called to say that I should withdraw the petition and that they will improve on their own. I have done this too"
Ironically, the bureaucracy that often publicly opposes the sharing of information with the public is finding RTI a convenient tool. According to one survey, 6 percent of RTIs in rural areas, and 11percent in cities, are filed by government officials, asking for details on issues like postings.
Last year, a million RTIs were filed in India. That has many officers complaining that they're overburdened with frivolous requests and that they should have the right to reject these applications. It's not a suggestion that's likely to find favour. After all, any form of gate-keeping could turn dangerous, allowing those in charge an exit route from the transfer of information that RTI stands for.