What the judges wanted to know Published in The New Indian Express 18 Aug 2009
Right to information laws and rules are, in theory, subscribed to by all. Yet, we have made the point more than once in these columns that the spirit behind these laws is yet to be understood, let alone accepted, by those who are supposed to enforce it. In which context, wed like to touch on various oral remarks made by the Supreme Court the other day while ordering a stay on a high court order which had directed the Government of Maharashtra to place before it the Pradhan Committee report which probed the way the official machinery handled the 26/11 terrorist assault on Mumbai. The government had declined to make the contents public and the HC acted on various public interest suits in this regard, as also on what is the current plan to counter terrorism. What is the use of disclosing it to the public? asked the SC bench, chaired by the chief justice. It will only become a matter of discussion at many public forums. Will it be a good thing? And much more in this vein, acknowledging the too-secret-and-sensitive-to-disclose argument of the state counsel. It is an interim order; the case is still on. We offer no comment on whether or not the report and allied information are better kept secret or not. But we do on the eminent judges queries on what use there would be in disclosing to the public and on it becoming only a matter of discussion. The justification of the right to know isnt measured by the use that citizens put it to, or whether it just becomes an item for discussion or not. Citizens have a right to know what is done by the agency that says it has been acting on their behalf. Such a guaranteed right alters the very thinking behind such decisions and their efficacy. We do not have to justify this right by first giving empirical evidence that we need to know it and will also be using it in a satisfactory manner. The right to know is the rule; it is the exception that needs to be justified. What use will it serve? is not a permissible answer, and courts are supposed to stand vigilant against those making this plea, whether on 26/11 or any other matter of state functioning which affects our lives. And we do not have to justify this. http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=What+ the+judges+wanted+to+know&artid=GidJvdirpwM=&SectionID= RRQemgLywPI=&MainSectionID=RRQemgLywPI=&SectionName=XQcp6iFoWTvPHj2dDBzTNA== http://tinyurl.com/pkq27j Anand S. Anti Corruption Forum P.B. No. 8512 Bangalore 560 085 Cell No: +91-92410-12730 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[email protected] mailto:[email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
