RTI activists say the situation is ironic -- legislation meant to wrest accountability away from babudom to be judged by an agency handpicked by the babus themselves. They allege that the government could end up using the PwC study to cut back or restrain certain freedoms available under the Act

A government decision to conduct an audit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act by the international accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) has raised the hackles of RTI campaigners who have decided to carry out a parallel assessment of the “RTI regime” with support from a variety of institutions -- significant among them Google Foundation that has offered $ 250,000 as an initial grant.

The RTI Act, enacted after decades of civil society pressure, has been showcased by the government as one of its key achievements. The decision to rope in PwC, to prepare a report card of the Act as it marks its third anniversary on October 13, was taken by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the nodal agency for the RTI Act.

The DoPT hosted a seminar last week where PricewaterhouseCoopers presented its project progress report to members of the central information commission (CIC) and representatives from the state information commissions of Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Orissa.

RTI activists feel the situation is not a little ironic -– legislation meant to wrest accountability away from babudom to be judged by an agency handpicked by the babus themselves. Suspicious that the PwC study could end up helping the bureaucracy instead of citizens, Aruna Roy of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) and Shekhar Singh of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI), along with others, have launched RAAG (RTI Accountability and Assessment Group).

Besides Google Foundation, the RAAG initiative to examine the RTI regime will also involve the Centre for Studies of Developing Societies (CSDS) and the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS).

RTI activists are not worried about money from a foreign source; they are annoyed at the way “a foreign organisation with little or no expertise in the manner in which RTI works in India is being asked to assess the efficacy of the Act”. Their main concern is that the government, under pressure from bureaucrats, could end up using the PwC study to cut back or restrain certain freedoms available under the Act.

Aruna Roy, former member of the government’s National Advisory Council and among the earliest campaigners for the law, says: “The process itself adopted by the government to select such an agency for such a key audit, and the record so far of the DoPT makes us wary of the study. There is little point in just opposing it all, so we are doing our own study. All the material we collect in order to draw our conclusions will be available publicly, and then let us have a debate.”

Shekhar Singh says: “The government is only looking at the problems it faces because of the RTI making the bureaucracy answerable, and how they may have to amend the Act to ensure that applications are not too long, not vexatious, or filed for frivolous purposes. How we look at RTI is completely different.”

Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Wajahat Habibullah says he was consulted by PricewaterhouseCoopers when it was finalising the project report: “Their earlier proposal did have some weak points. It was too urban-centric, for instance. I have asked them to take into account the RTI’s immense impact on rural India.”

Asked about the parallel study, he adds: “Activists are welcome to do their own study… Why are they angry with the DoPT for getting active? Earlier, it was just the CIC and the activists, with the DoPT taking a passive role. At least now they are active and are taking interest in the functioning of the Act.”

The RTI Act was in the news recently when Chief Justice of the Supreme Court K G Balakrishnan reportedly sought exemption from its ambit. This was followed by Habibullah clarifying that “no constitutional authority -- including the Chief Justice of India -- is exempt from the Right to Information Act”.

On April 19, Balakrishnan is reported to have said, at a press briefing: “The Chief Justice is not a public servant. He is a constitutional authority. The RTI Act does not cover constitutional authorities.”

Activists insist that the RTI Act does cover important posts like the chief justice, president and prime minister, who are all constitutional authorities. The Supreme Court has in the past asked for immunity from the Act -- a demand rejected by the DoPT.

Nineteen government organisations are exempt from the RTI Act. These include intelligence agencies like the Intelligence Bureau, Research and Analysis Wing, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, and Central Economic Intelligence Bureau. Research bodies working with the country’s security apparatus are also immune to the law, as are paramilitary forces.

The Directorate of Enforcement, Narcotics Control Bureau, Special Service Bureau, special branch of the police in the Andaman and Nicobar, Lakshadweep and Dadra and Nagar Haveli complete the list of organisations excused from the Act.

These organisations are, however, required to provide information under the Act if the panel believes the appellant’s query relates to a case of corruption or abuse of human rights.

Source: The Indian Express, April 23, 2008
            The Telegraph, April 23, 2008
            PTI, April 23, 2008
            The Hindu, April 21, 2008