http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/5758649.cms
As the five-year-old RTI continued to display precocity, these were two of the cases that pushed the envelope - for better or for worse: A query that sought information on the Prime Minister’s delegation responsible for the notoriously flawed drafting of the Sharm-el-Sheikh declaration An application that seeks to get to the bottom of the disaster that struck Delhi’s showpiece metro project when a pillar bracket collapsed on a busy street, killing six people The first case smacked of over-reach as the Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the Ministry of External Affairs to allow the RTI applicant, Subhash Chandra Agrawal, to inspect sensitive files that had information on India’s relations with Pakistan. The second application, filed by architect Sudhir Vohra, threatens to expose structural design defects that risk the travelling public's safety. The CIC ordered disclosure brushing aside a range of rather desperate objections raised by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC). The Sharm-el-Sheikh case was an opportunity for those who oppose transparency to clamour all over again for RTI to be diluted. But the fault lies less in the law and more in the way it was implemented in this case by the CIC, an independent appellate body, and the MEA, the public authority that had been approached for information. The RTI exempts the authorities from disclosing information that would “prejudicially affect ... relations with a foreign state”. This is one of the exempt categories of information listed in Section 8 of the RTI. This is what the central public information officer (CPIO) of the MEA, Debraj Pradhan (a diplomat of joint secretary rank) should have said when responding to Agrawal’s query in September 2009. He should have cited Section 8 of the RTI Act and refused to disclose the names of officers and the file notings behind the goof-up in the Indo-Pak declaration. Instead, Pradhan appeared to adopt a cavalier attitude to the ministry’s obligations under RTI. He gave Agrawal a list of the entire official delegation; he did not indicate who was responsible for the blunder; he offered no explanation for withholding their file notings. When the CIC took up the matter, the MEA merely said no file notings of the joint statement were available and it was therefore, impossible to identify the officials who drafted it. The then information commissioner Annapurna Dixit controversially directed the MEA in January to allow Agrawal “to inspect the relevant files to locate all information as sought by him”. That the CIC gave such an over-the-top order, with little regard for foreign relations repercussions, was because of the MEA’s error of omission. It took the MEA months to wake up to its statutory entitlement of claiming exemption under Section 8. It did so only when appealing in the Delhi high court last month against the CIC’s order. The high court passed a stay order, showing that the RTI-bashing that had followed the CIC’s order was misplaced. In the metro pillar case, on the other hand, the public authority concerned excessively invoked Section 8. This was part of its attempt to deny structural drawings and calculations to Vohra. The DMRC tried in vain to seek exemption under Section 8(1)(a) saying disclosure would compromise India's “security interests”. It also claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(h) saying disclosure would “impede the process of investigation”. However, the police told the CIC it had no objection to the divulging of structural information. The DMRC’s most serious argument was its invocation of Section 8(1)(d) to claim that the requested information was its “intellectual property” and the result of considerable money and time. But once it conceded that it was part of the state structure and claimed that it had copyright over the information in question, Vohra demolished the DMRC’s argument. The CIC upheld his counter this month that Section 9 of the RTI specifically barred the state from denying information on the ground of copyright infringement. Thus, a vigilant applicant helped expand the scope of information available under RTI. This is the way to go for RTI to fulfil its much-touted objective of deepening democracy in the country. Anilkumar BVN
