NCPRI PRESS STATEMENT ON FILE NOTINGS
National Campaign for People's Right to information (NCPRI)
2 December 2005
PRESS STATEMENT
The National Campaign for People's Right to Information strongly
condemns the effort of the government to limit the scope of the Right
to Information Act by attempting to further restrict access to various
types of file notings. This is clearly a retrograde step, which, if it
succeeds, will encourage unscrupulous government functionaries to
continue dispensing patronage and exercising arbitrary power.
Without access to notings, there is no real transparency as the
decision that a government takes cannot be evaluated unless one knows
the basis on which that decision was taken and the options that were
considered and rejected. Surely, in a democracy, all decisions of the
government must be able to stand up to public scrutiny. Besides,
sensitive information, including file notings, that it is in public
interest to exempt from disclosure, are already protected under
section 8 of the Act.
The oft-repeated argument that public access to file notings would
pressurise officials against expressing their views frankly, is a
seriously flawed one. The pressure to give dishonest or wrong advice,
or advice that is not in keeping with public interest or the law,
comes not from the public but from bureaucratic and political bosses,
who already have access to file notings without needing the RTI act.
In fact, public accessibility of notings would help ensure that
officers are not pressurised into recording notes that are not in
public interest, and that decisions are based on reasonable grounds
and are not arbitrary or self serving. This would strengthen the hands
of the honest and conscientious officers and expose the dishonest and
self serving ones.
The exclusion of notings from the purview of the RTI Act would also be
contrary to the recommendation of the National Advisory Council, which
has clearly taken the position that file notings are an integral part
of a file and of the decision making process, and should therefore be
as much in the public domain as any other information covered by the
RTI law.
It any case, the government cannot restrict access to notings just by
suitably drafting rules for the RTI Act. As the definition of
information, which includes "any material in any form, including .…
advices, opinions…" is contained in the Act and not in any rule, it
cannot be amended through the rules. Similarly, as exemptions and
exclusions are also listed in the Act and not in any rule, they cannot
be added to through the rules.
The NCPRI is also distressed at the prevailing tendency of various
security agencies to seek to be excluded from the RTI Act. This is
despite that fact that all information the disclosure of which would
prejudicially affect the security of India has already been exempted
from disclosure in section 8(1) (a). We are firmly of the view that
making security agencies more accountable is essential to the
improvement of their functioning. We, therefore, strongly oppose the
inclusion of any other agencies under schedule two of the Act and, in
fact, believe that it will be in the interest of the country to remove
from the schedule some of the agencies that are currently listed
there.
We, therefore, urge the government to desist from any move that will
weaken the RTI law and be contrary to the resolve of the people of
India to move towards a transparent and accountable government and a
participatory democracy.
Aruna Roy Shekhar Singh
On behalf of the Working Committee of the NCPRI
National Campaign for People's Right to Information
C17A Munirka DDA Flats
New Delhi 110067
India
Tel: +91-11-2617 8048
Telefax: +91-11-2616 8759
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
National Campaign for People's Right to information (NCPRI)
2 December 2005
PRESS STATEMENT
The National Campaign for People's Right to Information strongly
condemns the effort of the government to limit the scope of the Right
to Information Act by attempting to further restrict access to various
types of file notings. This is clearly a retrograde step, which, if it
succeeds, will encourage unscrupulous government functionaries to
continue dispensing patronage and exercising arbitrary power.
Without access to notings, there is no real transparency as the
decision that a government takes cannot be evaluated unless one knows
the basis on which that decision was taken and the options that were
considered and rejected. Surely, in a democracy, all decisions of the
government must be able to stand up to public scrutiny. Besides,
sensitive information, including file notings, that it is in public
interest to exempt from disclosure, are already protected under
section 8 of the Act.
The oft-repeated argument that public access to file notings would
pressurise officials against expressing their views frankly, is a
seriously flawed one. The pressure to give dishonest or wrong advice,
or advice that is not in keeping with public interest or the law,
comes not from the public but from bureaucratic and political bosses,
who already have access to file notings without needing the RTI act.
In fact, public accessibility of notings would help ensure that
officers are not pressurised into recording notes that are not in
public interest, and that decisions are based on reasonable grounds
and are not arbitrary or self serving. This would strengthen the hands
of the honest and conscientious officers and expose the dishonest and
self serving ones.
The exclusion of notings from the purview of the RTI Act would also be
contrary to the recommendation of the National Advisory Council, which
has clearly taken the position that file notings are an integral part
of a file and of the decision making process, and should therefore be
as much in the public domain as any other information covered by the
RTI law.
It any case, the government cannot restrict access to notings just by
suitably drafting rules for the RTI Act. As the definition of
information, which includes "any material in any form, including .…
advices, opinions…" is contained in the Act and not in any rule, it
cannot be amended through the rules. Similarly, as exemptions and
exclusions are also listed in the Act and not in any rule, they cannot
be added to through the rules.
The NCPRI is also distressed at the prevailing tendency of various
security agencies to seek to be excluded from the RTI Act. This is
despite that fact that all information the disclosure of which would
prejudicially affect the security of India has already been exempted
from disclosure in section 8(1) (a). We are firmly of the view that
making security agencies more accountable is essential to the
improvement of their functioning. We, therefore, strongly oppose the
inclusion of any other agencies under schedule two of the Act and, in
fact, believe that it will be in the interest of the country to remove
from the schedule some of the agencies that are currently listed
there.
We, therefore, urge the government to desist from any move that will
weaken the RTI law and be contrary to the resolve of the people of
India to move towards a transparent and accountable government and a
participatory democracy.
Aruna Roy Shekhar Singh
On behalf of the Working Committee of the NCPRI
National Campaign for People's Right to Information
C17A Munirka DDA Flats
New Delhi 110067
India
Tel: +91-11-2617 8048
Telefax: +91-11-2616 8759
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If we fight, we may not always win, but if we don't fight, we will surely lose."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAVAD RAHMAN
subeditor,MADHYAMAM daily,
pooppalam, perinthalmanna,kerala,
india
cell:(91)-9846085873
