Babus, playing delaying tactics, make a mockery of the ambitious RTI act Three years after its promulgation, the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005 is yet to achieve its stated goal of transparency in public life. Going by the way the babus handle the law, there is little hope for the citizens here who seek information in vain. Managing trustee of Mahithi Hakku Adyanaa Kendra (MHAK) Vikram Simha said it took an average nine months to get information under RTI and the officials always found grounds to reject your application, if not to delay the information. At the end of 2008, Karnataka Information Commission had 4887 cases of appeals and complaints pending before its four commissioners. This paper experienced official apathy first hand, in response to more than 100 RTI applications. This could as well be read as a primer for officials on how to scuttle RTI. No public interest? The officials use Section 8 (j) of the RTI Act which says that if no public interest appears to be served by the disclosing of the information, the application can be turned down. When we sought copies of annual assets and liability statements filed by all the sub-inspectors and inspectors of police in Bangalore, the deputy commissioner (PRO) said there was no public interest in disclosing the information. Information on who were all issued with arms licences in the city met a similar fate. When asked to comment, commissioner of police Shankar Bidari said one could go in appeal against any reply that officials give. "RTI Act has appellate provision. So whatever public information officers hand out is not sacrosanct. You may challenge it before appellate authority," he said. But why is it that the financial details of lawmakers and ministers are available to public whereas those relating to police inspectors are not? "We are not public personalities," Bidari said. While his DCP-PRO has denied information, DCP-City Armed Reserve has consented to provide information on assets owned by sub-inspectors and inspectors under him. Voluminous? Another excuse used by officials is that the information in question is voluminous and, hence, cannot be given. Simha said the word 'voluminous' does not exist in RTI Act at all. This is a standard excuse used by Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). We sought information on notices issued to building owners for violating building bylaw. All the assistant executive engineers wrote saying that the information sought was bulky and we had to visit their offices personally and go through the records and decide what documents we were looking for.
http://bit.ly/CTXd ----------------------------- http://www.saveindianfamily.org/ http://www.societymirror.info/ http://www.crisp-india.org/ http://www.antidowry.org/ http://www.wethemen.us/ I also blog at: http://legalterror.wordpress.com Keep Fighting Legal Terrorism Keep Fighting Inequality in Justice http://www.pollsb.com/webdigr http://www.myntra.com/affiliate/329 If "con" is the opposite of "pro", then what is the opposite of progress? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
