What, then, is the way out? If we conclude that most organisations, including political parties, will mimic each other and are unlikely to work for better governance in the short term, is there no hope?

The hope lies in using and reinforcing the majesty of the individual citizen. If individual citizens are empowered to ensure greater accountability and transparency in governance, this can bring about a major change. Yet there has been no vehicle available for individual citizens to impact the governance structure. In a system that reeks of corruption and seems increasingly insensitive to the problems faced by its disadvantaged peoples, the right to information promises the empowerment of citizens by assuring them official accountability thus making them enforcers of good governance.

The right to information is available to every citizen and can be used by any one of us, even sitting at home. It is relatively inexpensive to use and does not require getting together in groups. Since citizens operate as individuals they do not have to make the compromises required to maintain larger groups. Here ordinary citizens, independent of any organisation, reinforce the sovereignty of the individual as the centre of democracy. Empowered to act as monitor, a citizen has fairly easy access to information concerning the workings of the government, decisions taken, or absence thereof. You or I can obtain an answer within 30 days regarding policies based on which certain decisions were taken or receive information about how arbitrariness and disregard for law may have led to certain actions. And in major instances that expose a lack of governance in terms of proper public policy or corruption, citizens can come together on a particular issue. The strength of this common good can build a stronger and more ethical civil society.

The right to information is implicit in our fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 19 (1) of India’s Constitution. The Supreme Court first recognised this in the Raj Narain case in 1977. Subsequently, in the SP Gupta case in 1982 and various other judgements including the ADR and PUCL cases seeking the publication of more information about electoral candidates, the Supreme Court has reinforced this principle. Thus the right to information has existed since the day the Constitution of India came into existence – January 26, 1950. The Right to Information Act does not confer a new right upon citizens of India, it only provides a codification on how to implement and operationalise our fundamental right.

Nine Indian states had Right to Information Acts prior to 2004. In 2004 when the UPA was fighting the general election it promised a good and effective Right to Information Act. After the new alliance formed a government at the centre, a consultative process began between citizens’ groups on the one hand and bureaucrats and politicians on the other. Aruna Roy, as member of the National Advisory Council and the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, played a significant role in these discussions. After much deliberation, a broad agreement was reached on December 12, 2004 about the main provisions of the proposed bill. The bill was tabled in the Lok Sabha on December 22, 2004 but it had deviated significantly from the original consensus. This was followed by a series of protestations and consultations leading to the establishment of a parliamentary committee. From January to April 2005 the committee met several people from various perspectives and made a set of recommendations. Keeping these in mind, the government drafted a final bill and presented it to the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on May 11 and 12, 2005.

The central Right to Information Act was brought into operation across the country from October 12, 2005. It provides for the appointment of public information officers in all central and state government and government-aided organisations. It specifies that any citizen of India can obtain information under the Act within 30 days of asking for it. If the information is not provided within 30 days, the citizen can appeal to an officer higher than the public information officer (PIO) within the same organisation. This appeal must be filed within 30 days. If the first appellate authority does not provide satisfactory disposal within 30 days, a second appeal can be filed before an independent information commission set up for this. The teeth to this Act come from the provision that if the PIO "refuses to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under subsection (1) of Section 7 (30 days) or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it (the information commission) shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till the application is received or information is furnished"(quoting from the Act).

This right empowers ordinary citizens to ask for information from their government and has the potential of transforming India into a true swaraj, genuine self-government. People have already begun to use it in various ways. Sitting in their own houses or shanties, people demand accountability from government officers about the delays in issuing ration cards, pensions, passports or income tax refunds. Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) muster rolls have been obtained in Maharashtra and verified to reveal fraud and corruption. In Rajasthan an old man received the free grains due to him under the Antyodaya scheme. In Delhi water privatisation was stopped and in Mumbai the loss of over 600 crores in public revenue was stymied in the gifting away of Crawford Market.

Across the nation in different states citizens have begun to use this right and are beginning to realise the power and meaning of swaraj. A major campaign was mounted in various states of India from Lumding in Meghalaya to Mumbai, Delhi, Ahmedabad, Bangalore and elsewhere – in a total of 42 cities. The campaign focused on using the right to information to get citizens their legitimate rights without paying bribes. In a national campaign that had no central leader or organisation more than 20,000 RTI applications were filed. It has truly been an electrifying citizens’ campaign.

As we celebrated this success and looked forward to a greater use of this freedom, our rulers realised, perhaps, how this could alter the balance of power in favour of the people – the legitimate rulers of India. There had been some disquiet about this transfer of power earlier and they now resolved to nip it in the bud. The cabinet decided that they would amend the Act to curb a menace that could impact administrative corruption or arbitrariness and nail the officers responsible.

The amendments ensure that file notings, which contain the reasons given by various officers explaining why they acted in a particular manner, would not be made available to citizens. The disclosure of file notings can reveal whether certain officers had, for very valid reasons, wanted the government to act in accordance with the law. Not revealing them would make it easy to persist in unlawful conduct. The amendments also provide that the identity of officers/consultants/advisors involved in various decisions would not be disclosed and they seek to bar the disclosure of arbitrary selection of officers for specific posts. They would also lead to a significant reduction in the powers of the information commissions. In short, accountability will not be fixed and officers and politicians need not fear arbitrary or corrupt practices being exposed.

People all over the country have now joined in protest as we demand that no one trifle with this authentic new found independence. This is an issue on which our rulers cannot divide us. The government has only demonstrated its arrogance by first claiming (in the prime minister’s letter to social activist Anna Hazare) that the amendments ‘will lead to even greater transparency and accountability’ in the decision making process. Various groups have voiced their opposition to these retrograde steps with the simple demand: "Don’t touch our RTI".

Recognising this as their chance to rid themselves of the yoke of oppressive rulers, citizens refuse to surrender the freedom they have won after decades. If the government is allowed to get away with this mutilation of our right to information, it will reduce the effectiveness of the proposed Act by about 20 per cent – we have made it clear to the government that we will not tolerate such a move. We have to work to ensure our freedom. If we can prevent the Act’s dilution, if we can increase RTI usage over a period of three years, this will be a movement that no government dares to touch. n

(Shailesh Gandhi is convenor, National Campaign for People’s Right to Information; www.satyamevajayate.info.)