Landmark RTI Act still has a long way to go in ensuring transparency

CHENNAI: A good 15  years have passed since the Right to Information Act came into effect. In the early years, the legislation was hailed for what it could do to improve transparency in government transactions. It was hailed as the magic pill to curb corruption, improve accountability, and remove the red tape.

Yet, after all these years, in an era when private data gets leaked online, public data remains as opaque as ever. A Ramakrishnan from Theni, who received the best RTI activist award from the government, says that most of the cases pending in the court will be solved if the departments are transparent. In most cases, Ramakrishnan says, the information commission ends up shielding the officials. 

Jayaram Venkatesan, a social worker, is hoping the government will make every department under it comply with Section 4 of the Act – which talks about proactive disclosures, wherein every government department posts details of its functioning on its website. “The main aim of the section is to reduce repeated queries, but implementation of it remains tardy,” he says.

“On the one hand, the Centre has brought in an Amendment that effectively reduces the independent powers of the Information Commission. On the other, since the Commissioners are appointed by the State government, there is a conflict of interest when queries are posed to them. They tend to be pro-government,” adds Jayaram.

“For instance, in one case an official was fined `25,000 by the Corporation. I asked for the document proving that the money was paid. A senior official of the Information Commission told me that I as the applicant cannot ask for such a document,” he says. “In most cases, the Commission refuses to bring the applicant and official concerned for a common meeting, stating this is not a court,” says Ravichandran of Iyyappanthangal.

Ravichandran claims to have filed an RTI about reflectors placed on the median between Butt Road and Porur being damaged the very next day after being installed. “Soon, I got a call from the contractor, offering me money to not rake up the issue.

When I informed this to the Information Commissioner, he said it was for my own good and that I should compromise.” Responding to these issues, State Information Commissioner ST Tamilkumar said: “There are several court directions on these matters, and yet some Public Information Officers (PIO) are not transparent. Usually, when the matter comes to us for a second appeal, we insist that the PIO provides details. The State commission is doing its best, and we disposed over 1,000 cases per month even during the lockdown – through phone or video calls.”