Are you concerned about corruption and how the government is acting against it? Many citizens want to know if laws aimed at curbing corruption and illegal property acquisition are being effectively implemented. This article explores how an RTI application can shed light on government actions regarding anti-corruption legislation, based on a significant case handled Central Information Commission (CIC).
Background: What Information Was Sought
An RTI applicant, deeply interested in the recommendations of the Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) regarding ‘Ethics in Governance’, sought specific information. The applicant referred to the ARC’s fourth report, which had recommended the enactment of a ‘Corrupt Public Servants (Forfeiture of Property) Bill’ and emphasized the implementation of the ‘Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988’. The RTI application specifically asked for details on the steps taken government towards enacting the Corrupt Public Servants (Forfeiture of Property) Bill. It also inquired about the measures undertaken for the implementation of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and requested access to all related files. The Public Information Officer (PIO) initially responded that the enactment of the proposed Bill was outside their division’s purview. Regarding the Benami Transactions Act, the PIO mentioned that it was under proposed revision. Crucially, the PIO denied access to the files, citing Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. This exemption was justified on the grounds that the matter was a sensitive legislative issue under process and its disclosure could prejudicially affect the strategic and economic interests of the sovereign.
How the Public Authority Responded
The initial response from the PIO was a partial denial of information and a refusal to provide file access. The PIO claimed that the legislative process was ongoing for both the proposed Bill and the revision of the Benami Transactions Act. The denial of file access was based on the sensitive nature of legislative matters and potential harm to national economic interests. This type of response, citing exemptions under Section 8(1), is common when the information sought pertains to policy formulation or sensitive government processes.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the applicant reiterated their request, emphasizing that the information sought pertained to the concrete measures taken government to implement the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, especially in light of the ARC’s recommendations. The PIO, in their submission, acknowledged that at the time the RTI was filed, they were unable to provide detailed information because a new Bill related to Benami Transactions was in the drafting stage. This new Bill had, in fact, been sent to Parliament in August 2011, indicating a significant legislative development.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The CIC, after hearing both sides, acknowledged the PIO’s submission that due to the ongoing legislative process at the time of the RTI filing, information about the draft Bill could not have been shared. However, the Commission agreed with the applicant that the PIO should have been able to provide information regarding the measures taken government to implement the existing Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, from the date of the ARC report submission up to the date of the RTI application. The CIC pointed to Section 4(1)(c) of the RTI Act, which mandates that every public authority must publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing decisions that affect the public. This section underscores the principle of transparency in governance. Consequently, the CIC directed the PIO to furnish the information requested appellant, subject to the provisions of Section 10 of the RTI Act (which deals with severability of information, meaning only exempt information can be withheld, not the entire document).
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Persistence on Policy Implementation: Even when legislation is in process, RTI can be used to inquire about the implementation of existing laws and the steps taken government based on policy recommendations. Don’t be deterred of ongoing legislative work; focus on what has already been done or should have been done.
- Lesson 2: Understanding Section 4(1)(c): This section is a powerful tool. It compels public authorities to be transparent about policy-making and decisions affecting the public. Remind PIOs of this obligation when they cite exemptions for policy-related information.
- Lesson 3: Focus on Facts, Not Just Drafts: While draft bills might be exempt, the actions taken to implement existing laws or the factual basis for policy decisions should generally be disclosable. Frame your questions to elicit factual information about past actions and policies.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Relevant Public Authority: Determine which government department or agency is responsible for the specific law or policy you are interested in (e.g., Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Law and Justice).
- Clearly State Your Objective: Refer to any relevant reports, acts, or policy documents that underpin your request. Mentioning the ARC report, as in the case above, adds weight to your application.
- Be Specific with Your Questions: Instead of asking for broad information, break down your request into specific questions about steps taken, implementation status, dates, and any related factual data.
- Be Prepared for Exemptions: Understand that some information might be exempt under Section 8 of the RTI Act. However, be ready to argue why the information is in the larger public interest or how it relates to transparency obligations under Section 4.
Sample RTI question you can use:
Please provide a detailed report on the steps taken government for the implementation of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, from [date of relevant report/policy] to [date of filing this application]. Also, please provide information on any policy decisions or actions taken in furtherance of the recommendations made in the Administrative Reforms Commission’s fourth report concerning the forfeiture of property of corrupt public servants.
Conclusion
This case beautifully illustrates how the RTI Act empowers citizens to hold the government accountable, even on complex issues like anti-corruption legislation. the nuances of the Act and framing requests strategically, citizens can gain valuable insights into governance and demand greater transparency. Don’t hesitate to use RTI to seek information that matters to you and the nation.
