RTI Bill Passed Twice by the J&K Legislative Assembly is a Hatchet Job

RTI Bill antithesis of Central Act
Rakesh Kumar
Tribune News Service

Srinagar, October 22 If the idea behind the Central Right to Information Act, 2005, is to let the public have access to every possible information, then intention behind the J&K’s version of the Act, Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2007, seems to deny the common man every information inconvenient to the bureaucrats, its critics say. The debate over the use of ambiguous words, which are likely to be ready pretexts for officials in suppressing information, in the Bill and its limited purview has been reignited after the Governor, Lieut-Gen S.K. Sinha (retd), returned it to the government for reconsideration. A move much cheered by RTI activists.

Unlike Central, the RTI Act, which has the judiciary, including the Supreme Court, under its purview, the J-K Act leaves the judiciary outside its purview. So a state subject could obtain information on a relevant case in the apex court but he has no legal way to find details of a case going in a lower court or High Court of the state. However, what has made the activists of the organisations like the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) to doubt the state government’s motive most is that there is no provision in the Act that bars officers from asking applicants to disclose reasons for seeking information. The central RTI Act makes it clear that information officers would not ask applicants as to why they are seeking any information. And to top it all the state government has qualified the information to be given with the term “practicable”, leaving it to the mercy of information officers to decide what is practical and what not.

The information officer has been for all practical purposes vested with the power of a judge, undermining the very purpose of the Act, its critics say. The Act also seeks to appoint members of the information commission for a term of three years, unlike five years prevalent in other states.

The government’s indifferent attitude to transparency and empowering its citizens is also reflected in much-diluted punitive measures, compared to the Central Act, in the Act against officers not giving out information. The maximum penalty is Rs 5,000 and what disciplinary actions it would take against them have also not been explained, official sources said.

The CHRI says the government has shown undue haste in rushing through with the Bill, and it would be best if it is referred to a joint select committee of both Houses. The activists have also expressed their surprise as to what was the need for the government to amend the Central RTI Act when it has received people’s approval everywhere. The Raj Bhawan, sources say, has brought many of such concerns on the record before returning the Bill to the government.