I want to comment on the observations made by Ms. Biraj Swain of CARE and Ms. Sunita Patnaik of CYSD, who had organised Statelevel Consultations on Orissa Right to Information at Bhubaneswar in December and June last respectively. The proceedings they circulated did not reflect some important points of view expressed by different speakers. Some fundamental points were found to be missing from these proceedings. For instance, accountability of political parties and judiciary for giving information was raised in CYSD Consultation, though could not be debated at length. But their proceedings didn't mention this point at all. This very point was however emphatically put forth in the Consultation organised by CARE. But the Report by CARE mentioned it in a casual fashion.

I want to ask, whether it is an inadvertent omission or otherwise? Do we feel shaky to say boldly that judiciary and political parties need be held accountable just as other sorts of Government and non-Government Organisations should?

The point concerning the need for accountability of the three main organs of the State, the legislature, judiciary and executive before the citizens, that I made earlier in course of the CYSD and CARE Consultations is not a figment of my imagination. In fact, the Freedom of Information Bill 2002 tabled in Parliament in its Clause 2 (b) while defining the Competent Authority says clearly that the Speaker in case of the Legislature, the Chief Justice in case of Supreme Court or High Court, President of India or Governor of the State shall be deemed as Competent Authorities for the purpose of the Act.

Similarly, the Clause 2 ( c) of the Centre's Freedom of Information Bill 2000
says that 'the freedom of information means the right to obtain information from any public authority by means of 'inspection'...', the very expression around which so much heat was generated in the Care Consultation and in the present Consultation at Basundhara too. While the Central Bill grants the right to inspection, why we the citizens should have any hesitation in accepting it in Orissa's Draft Bill?

In a federal set-up like the one India is, the Centre shall prevail over the State in the ultimate analysis. Is it not correct to preemptively incorporate the salient provisions of the FOI Bill 2000 into Orissa Draft Bill, wherever those provisions are found citizen friendly?

Otherwise, if we are not clear about the very basic goals and objectives for which an RTI legislation is essentially required, then we shall be missing woods for trees, while debating its provisions or reporting the proceedings of a Consultation on the subject. As has been the case so far, we spent more time and energy after debating how a Sarpanch or a BDO would be held accountable, than discussing how the chief pillars of Governance, the political leaders, the heads of judiciary and the top executives of the State, who are otherwise immune from the public scrutiny can be made transparent in their conduct of business.

Moreover I would like to draw your attention to the recently submitted Report of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, who have categorically observed that every body, be he President of India, Chief Justice of Supreme Court, Speaker of the Legislature of High Command of a Political Party be made accountable before the people, who are their real masters. Again the National Commission has pointed out a serious retrograde provision in the Constitution, that is included in its 3rd Schedule, i.e. how a Minister takes his oath to keep everything secret from the people. Thus the Constitution itself commits our elected representative to a practice of secrecy in place of transparency.Unless we strive to cleanse such anomalies from the law of our land, we can't hope to bring about transparency in public life, only by legislating a Right to Information law in the State or at Centre.

I therefore hope that the making of the Report of the present Consultation on RTI should not suffer the lacunae which were noticed in case of the earlier ones.