|
By Rashme Sehgal
The bureaucracy is an institution designed to maintain the status quo, says Wajahat Habibullah, recently appointed Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) for the Right to Information Act. But the government's insular approach will have to change now
Wajahat Habibullah was recently appointed Chief Information Commissioner (CIC). He has four commissioners working under him. Habibullah, who retired recently as Secretary, Government of India, has had a chequered career. He shot into the limelight when he was asked by former Jammu and Kashmir Governor Jagmohan to help rehabilitate Kashmiri Pandit families in 1992.
You have said that the Right to Information (RTI) Act will usher in a transparency revolution.
Yes, indeed it will. We've already witnessed a 'white (milk) revolution', followed by a 'green revolution'. It is time we had a 'transparency revolution'. The government's earlier insular approach will have to change in order to ensure greater accountability. There will be an initial degree of turbulence, but from now on, secrecy will be the exception rather than the rule. There will be a revolution in the whole functioning of the bureaucracy.
Will the RTI Act extend to defence deals as well?
Defence deals are like any other deal. After the deal is finalised it should move into the public domain. There are a number of exempt categories under the Act. These fall under commercial and defence security. I will have access to these files. But if a third party wants to look into a deal that has been negotiated, such a task can be undertaken.
The RTI Act also allows you to look into notings on files dealing with the social and development sectors.
File notings that do not impinge on national security can be made public. Initially, of course, the bureaucracy will be expected to offer some resistance; it is an institution designed to maintain the status quo. But there are already stirrings of change.
What kind of applications have you received since you came into existence almost eight months ago?
Most of the cases have been filed by government servants and deal with one kind of personal grievance or another. Other cases deal with jhuggi jhopris, the Delhi Development Authority, and problems relating to power.
There has been criticism that the CIC has been extremely slow in dealing with these cases. Your functioning has been compared with that of the Delhi Public Grievance Commission (DPGC), which has dealt with over 214 appeals during the same period of time.
We are a new organisation, unlike the DPGC which is five years old. We are having to establish precedents. But we have already dispensed with over 200 cases.
What kind of penalties have you imposed on the bureaucracy so far?
The minimum penalty that a bureaucrat will have to pay is Rs 250 per day, and it can go up to Rs 25,000. It will pinch a bureaucrat to have to fork out Rs 250 per day from his salary, whereas for a department such a sum of money is small feed. I know that as a government servant I would not like to pay Rs 250 on a daily basis.
Has any bureaucrat had to pay this penalty so far?
We have one case that is very advanced. He is being given one more chance to speak this week or else he will have to start paying up.
There was some criticism that you were giving bureaucrats too long to frame replies.
The response time has been brought down to 15 days. I admit we faced some teething problems but now we have begun to monitor every case. We no longer waste time asking for a file to be sent to us. We prefer to send the officer directly to the concerned office so he can examine the file there. We have the right even to study documents under the exempted list, but somebody has to approach us to read the particular document first.
To what extent is the new central RTI legislation being used by different sectors? Who is using it to best effect? Citizens? Campaigners? NGOs?
At the moment it is being best used by the bureaucrats themselves, because they are most aware of the rules.
That is precisely the point I am leading up to. Can a nation with such a large illiterate population use the RTI effectively? How can this law be made more broad-based, or is it, once again, going to place a much greater burden on NGOs?
If the public is not aware, then it is the government's job to create greater awareness. Basically, the success of this bill will be determined through maximum participation by the public. If the government cannot provide an outreach programme, then it is for the NGOs to do so. But they will need financing in order to reach the villages and the countryside. Here again, I believe it is the job of the government to provide these financial allocations so that the Act can work effectively at the ground level.
How can state governments facilitate use of this Act?
I only deal with central government offices"¦ the railways, the postal department, the defence ministry and the union territories. The state governments have their own commissions and it is for them to investigate all state-level cases.
The Maharashtra government has over 1,000 applications pending with it. Will these not come to you?
No, they will be dispensed with by the state information commissioner.
How are you going to make the Employment Guarantee Scheme more transparent?
The whole RTI initiative has come from this scheme. People in Rajasthan found that while their names were on the muster rolls, they were not being paid for the work that was being 'shown' to have been done. Nothing was happening on the ground. When they wanted access to these documents, they were told they were confidential and were denied access. Gradually, the movement spread to other states as well.
You talk about transparency, and yet the commission is stacked with retired bureaucrats"¦
Appointments to these posts are made by the prime minister, leader of the opposition and one other minister. The selection has to be unanimous. The chief justice of India is part of the appointment committee. At the state level, the appointments are made by the governor, chief minister and leader of the opposition. The commission is answerable to the president and to the governor.
Bureaucrats obfuscate when they are required to do so. When they are working outside the government they are no longer answerable to the government. I find this allegation extremely far-fetched, to say that a former bureaucrat will go out (of his way) to protect a bureaucrat in service. Everything depends on the person chosen for the job.
Can applications be made against the workings of the Supreme Court and the high court?
Obviously we cannot be expected to look into court verdicts. But we did recently receive a complaint against a high court judge. The matter had been referred to the Supreme Court but the application never reached the chief justice. We requested the chief justice to evolve procedures on this case. He looked into the matter and found the complaint had no merit. So the application was dismissed
Do you see the RTI Act as a sword of Damocles hanging over the bureaucracy?
I don't think we are going to be like the sword of Damocles. There is a mindset within the bureaucracy not to divulge information. This is going to change. An analogy would be that they will suffer teething problems, as they had gums but no teeth. Now that the teeth are coming out, the procedure is bound to be a little painful. Once they get used to it they will start eating and drinking normally. The RTI Act is about fostering a new mindset in the public and the bureaucracy.
InfoChange News & Features, May 2006
|
