1. Earlier, I had the opportunity to participate in the Consultation Process on the Orissa Right to Information Act, 2002 (Draft Bill), organised by "Care, India" on 11.06.2002. I am glad that Basundhara has organised a similar exercise. Suggestions, as recorded hereunder, are a synopsis of my note furnished to "Care" on 11.06.2002.
   
   
2. Right to Information is a part of the 'Development Process'. It encourages orthogenetic growth and endogenous creativity.
   
   
3. The UN Declaration on Human Rights, 1948, Article 19 (a) of the Constitution of India reinforced by Judgements of Courts endorse the "Right to Information". But the Official Secrets Act, the Oath (or affirmation) of Secrecy (Article 99,188 of the Constitution, Third Schedule, Form II and VI) lay down certain prohibitions.
   
   
4. Most discussions on the "Right to Information" have dealt with the problems of the people only peripherally. Therefore, a pragmatic approach is necessary. But the Bill in its present form may not serve that end.
   
   
5. Verbal changes are necessary in several provisions of the Bill. The word "access' in the Preamble and in Sec.4 (a) and 8(a) need be changed appropriately. The definition of 'Information' in Sec 2 (c) should include "tribunal". The definition of "document" in Sec.2 (d) should include diskettes, floppies etc. referred to in Sec. 3 (c)
   The above and other provisions of the Bill should be reconciled with definition of "document" given in Sec 3 of the Evidence Act and of "Public Document" in Sec 74 thereof.
   Supply of information in Oriya should be mandatory [Sec.4 (c)], not optional unless otherwise impossible.
   There should be a definite time limit for withholding information (Sec. 5). "Public Interest" should be defined [5 (b)] Sec. 5 of the Bill and Sec. 124 of the Evidence Act should be reconciled. The expression "Protection of Public Interest' [Sec 5 (c)] should be clarified.
   
   
6. The structure of the Bill is very revealing and reflects its weakness. The time periods prescribed for different operations vary from 48 hours 4(b) to 3 days (Sec 6) to 21 days (Sec 6), to 30 days [Sec 4 (b), 6 ] to 45 days ( Sec 7) etc. The purpose is not to create/prolong cases but to get information. The procedure should be summary in nature. Provision for a second appeal is completely redundant.
   
   
7. Sec 9 is the most important Section.
   Verbal changes are necessary in Sec.8 (a) and 8 (b).
   The mechanism of notification of scheme should descend down to G.P.s, Grama Sabhas, R.I. Circles and to the level of all "cutting edges".

   The optional clause for disclosure about a scheme should be deleted.
   The number of schemes is legion. Every department has scores of schemes, each with varying territorial jurisdictions, functionaries and facilities. The total number would add up to hundreds. The common man would have to be rescued from this maze. The most convenient way would be to prepare 'websites' for each Department or a combination of Departments to be available at least at Sub-Divisional level.
   
   

8. The provision for Departmental proceedings in Sec.9 (2) will not solve the problem. Cases will multiply, so also the pendencies.

   Provisions of Sec. 167 and 217 of I.P.C. can be suitably tried.
   
   

9. The objects of "promotion" will have to be spelt and in detail (Sec.10).
   
   
10. The Overriding Effect of the Act may be in jeopardy, if it is repugnant to the provisions of any Central Act (such as I.P.C., Evidence Act etc.). Article 254 of the Constitution will interfere.
    
    
11. The existing Codes and Manuals very often contain provision for supply of information, etc. These include, the Orissa Records Manual, 1964 [Paras 333 to 430], The Nizarat Manual (for Revenue Cases), the Orissa Practice and Procedure Manual, etc.
    
    
12. In spite of imperfection, the beginning is the most important thing. The important thing is also to see it through.

Home|Back