I shall confine my discussion about the Clasue 2 in the context of the aims and object of the Act. But I am afraid that I may have to transgress to Clause 3 also, because 'right to information' occurs in both the Clauses.
Coming to the object of the Act, it speaks that every Governmental action should be transparent to the public and to achieve this object this law is going to be enacted.
In the Act ( Clause 2 b), the Government has been defined as the Government of Orissa. And while defining Information in Clause 2 c, it has been said that all sorts of organizations, whether public or private, whether Government or non-Government shall come into its fold for some purposes or the other. I think there is a discrepancy here, which has to be reconciled. Because, as you know, our Constitution defines what is State in Article 12. The State means the Government , its agencies and instrumentalities of the State. If we extend the definition further, there must be definite guidelines to say how it can be extended.
Suppose a Government grant is occasionally given to a School. It shall also come under the fold of this RTI Act. This is not desirable or practicable.
Coming to Clause 2 a., it says that Competent authority means any authority or officer notified by the Government/Organisation from time to time for the purpose of this Act. If every time the Government has to notify the list of all Governmental agencies along with non-Governmental Organisations as Competent Authorities under the Act, such a list would assume the size of a mini-Telephone Directory. It would also not be practicable for any person to find out who is the Competent Authority, that they should approach.
Despite this Act, there may also be situations, where getting the information on the basis of an application is not possible. I have come across such situations myself. For instance, a man asked the Railway Enquiry about the arrival time of a particular train. The Enquiry informed the man about a particular arrival time, but the train came half an hour before the arrival time specified. When the man complained that he was cheated by the Railway Enquiry, the Court said, 'Since you have not paid for the service of enquiry, you can't claim any compensation.'
Now I shall give another instance to say that how very, very important information can't be obtained by the provisions of this Act. Once I along with a friend of mine had been to the Railway Station to board a train, in which I had booked the reservation. We reached the station half an hour before the arrival of the train and noted down the bogey and seat number etc from the chart displayed. The train came, but unfortunately the notified bogey was not attached to the train at all. Somehow my friend got into another bogey forcefully. But I went to the Station Master to know, how was it that the bogey as notified was not attached. He was silent and sitting over the matter. He didn't respond even if I asked twice or thrice. When I asked the Station Master to give me a sheet of paper, so that I would lodge a complaint, he said, 'Why didn't you bring the paper yourself?' Then I asked for a piece of carbon paper, so that I would keep a copy of the complaint with myself? The Station Master said, 'No, why should we provide a carbon for your copy? You should have brought it'. Then I was astonished and said, 'I came to board a train, why should I come prepared with a carbon and paper so that I would have to write a complaint'. By that time probably he had seen my name, with which he might not be familiar. But my designation was frightening. Then in a disgusting voice, he said, 'Please prepare a copy and give me'.In such a situation, how can the proposed Right to Information Act help me get the information?. Shall I ever get the information at all?
Let's not be under any illusion that this Act would eradicate all our problems. But it may eradicate some. When I say 'some', it means what is stated in the Objects and Reasons i.e. it is necessary for transparency of governmental action. Then why should we keep private bodies and other organizations included under the Act? And it will be really uncontrollable, if NGOs and all sorts of organizations will be included under the Act? If you talk of transparency, yes, every body and every field in our society should have transparency. But we must be practical too. So, my suggestion would be that for the time being, the scope of the Act be limited to the Government, Governmental organizations, instrumentalities of the State or agencies of the State. Then we shall find out, how it works and how it can work further, if it is extended to other organizations also.
So far as Clause 2 (b) is concerned, it has some link with Clause 3 also. I would say that Right to Information should not include, by no stretch of imagination, the right to inspection of works, documents, records, taking notes and extracts etc. or taking samples of materials. It is absolutely thoughtless, according to me. It is sufficient that a person gets an information. But should he be allowed to inspect the records, take notes out of it and handle the records himself? How is it possible?
While I was in Bar, I found a young advocate from Kolkata coming here thrice or four times successively in connection with Companies Act cases. He was once sitting in the Bar Association, when some of our friends asked him, rather by way of compliment, 'How come, at this young age you have achieved a lot and are coming so often to Orissa from Kolkata'? Then he replied, 'It is not true that I know more law than what you know. But I know one trick, which you might not be knowing.' We asked, 'What is the trick?' In answer, he said, 'Whenever I am engaged in a case, I only seek for an opportunity to have access to records, so that I shall either take away a page or add something or at least, I shall put some ink here or there. And that is my success.'
So I can't support the provision that anybody should have access to the records. How many people are law-abiding citizens? We probably know the art of misusing the law more than use it. Law is meant for persons who abide by law and is not for persons who are deviants of law. Therefore the Sub-Clause on Right to Inspection under Clause 2 and 3 is to be completely scraped.Right to Information should mean only right to information, and nothing more.
Again let's see, what is the use of 'taking samples' ( Clause 2 d). When I was the President of the Consumer Commission, a gentleman came from Bhubaneswar and filed a case that the Contractor had used very low-grade material, for which the roof collapsed. We thought, might be the building was constructed out of his life-time savings and therefore felt sympathetic towards him. There is a provision under the Act that we can send samples for examination by experts or recognized agencies for the purpose. One such agency was Rourkela Regional Engineering College, whom we contacted. They said, 'We can examine the sample, provided you must bring the sample and give it to us. And our examination charges are Rs.7,000 to 8000/-' . Then we asked them, if they could take the sample with the help of their own staff. They said, 'Since we don't have machineries here to bring out the sample of your roof, we shall have to bring machines either from Andhra Pradesh or Bihar, which will cost Rs.60, 000 /- more.' That gentleman after hearing all this didn't turn up again or pursue the case at all.
So, we should be clear first of all about the purpose of taking a sample. Otherwise, if each of us go to the construction site and bring a piece of sample, the building or bridge itself will collapse. I remember another case. The dispute was whether there was a drain running by the side of a house. Some body said, there was a drain and another said, there was no drain. Commission after Commission were deputed to find out whether there was a drain or not. Each time the disputed site was dug up to see whether there was a drain. In this process a drain was ultimately dug out. Therefore taking out the samples of material is absolutely redundant and does not serve any purpose whatsoever. The concerned provision ( Clause 2 d) need be therefore completely scraped.
So far as right to obtain certified copies by individuals for personal purposes is concerned, it is already there in several Statutes, about which I have also mentioned in my note. Then what shall be the objectives of the proposed Act? Probably Mr. Das ( Raicharan Das, previous speaker) asked, 'Is the objective to pile up litigations and multiply controversies or to resolve them?.
The excerpts from the Report of Justice Venkatchalia dealing with several matters were read before us. Written in very good English and finely worded, the Report was nice to read, of course. A few days back, a Judgement on the decision of a case by the Supreme Court came to my notice. This decision of Supreme Court came16 years after it was filed. Who will follow the advice of those who themselves commit such mistakes or lapse? It is very easy to write a Report of 1,800, or 2,000 or even 5,000 pages but most difficult to implement it.
I had once gone to a Conference on Legal Aid held at Calcutta, where four Judges each from the High Courts of the Eastern Zone were invited and I was one of such Judges representing Orissa High Court. Long discussions were held for four days. Justice Chandrachud, the Chief Justice of India along with Justice P.N.Bhagabati. were present in that Conference. After four days of discussion, when Justice Chandrachud was going to conclude, the Chief Justice of Patna High Court stood up and said, 'I want to say something'. His first sentence was that this legal aid programme should be completely stopped. Justice Chandrachud said, 'All of us were discussing about this for last four days, while you sat quietly, and now you say that it should be stopped.' Then the Chief Justice Patna High Court said, 'I have good reasons for saying this. We have since the days of independence have not made any effort to make our people literate, legally literate or to make them conscious of their rights. Even then the number of litigations that piled up and are now pending in the Supreme Court, High Courts, and various other lower courts are very large. In such a situation, it is not worthwhile to give legal aid to the people and thereby ask them to come to Courts and again sit on the veranda for years.' I also felt for what was said by the Chief Justice of Patna High Court. He was correct.
Unless we find out how Right to Information can be implemented and unless we are practically able to dispose of information speedily, it is unnecessary to assure to the people that they would henceforth get all information once this Act is passed. As I know, the Act provides for a two stage appeal, first to the next higher authority and then to Lokpal. This procedure will consume at least three to four or even five years. Again the Act provides for a limitation of 30 days period within which the information shall be provided, a limitation of 45 days, within which the appeal to Lokpal shall be disposed of. Such limitation of 30 days, 40 days or 50 days is found in many Statutes. It is not a peculiar feature of this proposed RTI Act only. But I don't think, any authority goes by the time limit provided in the Statutes. Again, no action is ever taken against any authority for transgressing the time limit.
To make the Right to Information Act meaningful, only those informations which serve public purposes and public interests should therefore come under it's purview. For individuals seeking information for their personal interest, there are other avenues. As the existing laws provide, every body is entitled to get a certified copy of a Public Document. The new Act might be made to provide for the supply of such certified copies on the next day of the application. The provision for certified copies apart, some Acts do already provide for Right to Information, as in practice in some departments of the Government.
This right to Information, some body said, need to reach the doorstep of every citizen. But my point is, which Act doesn't require to reach the doorstep of every citizen? Even if you make it reach the doorstep of every citizen, what the citizen shall do? He does not know how to read, write, understand or talk. You may publicize the Act in newspapers, and fix placards and banners everywhere. But how can he know? As Mr. Das (Raicharan Das) has rightly pointed out, the common citizen won't be able to understand at all. While we make such laws, we don't really think of these people. We think of ourselves only. How sitting at home, we can get something just by sending a postcard?
So my suggestion would be that Right To Information need restrict its scope to informations in the nature of public interests only. It should not concern itself with the informations required for personal interest.
The next Clause ( Clause 3) also speaks about the right of a citizen to inspect records take notes, or extracts manually or by photo copying etc.( Clause 3). I am afraid, by applying this provision, one can run a parallel Government also. One can go to the Secretariat and ask an officer to supply photocopies of the informations available with him and go on updating the same every month. All this is alright but my approach is that this right should be confined to matters where public interest is involved, but not for individual interest.If we allow the individual interest to be served, then there won't be an end to the problems. There are more than 100 crore of people in India. If a Central law on Right To Information is made along with the State laws, then all the offices, and organizations of the country will be busy in giving information only, and do x nothing else. How can one do his office work?
So, my humble submission is that the Right To Information Act is, no doubt, a very progressive and welcome Act. It advances the Article 19.1 (a) of the Constitution. And it should be made purposeful, but not to create further litigations and disputes only.