Today's topic is a subject matter of country-wide discussion that has dragged on for last 10 years.

In my view, the Govt. proposed Draft bill has several inadequacies. It is also natural that, every Govt. Bill to start with contains so many mistakes, which later on get corrected while passing through different Departments involved in the processing of the Bill.

Clause-3 of the Draft Bill ( Right to Information): It describes some means through which, a citizen shall have right to access information from a Competent Authority, subject of course to the provisions of this Act. In my opinion the means described here are not sufficient. In my experience, a lot of decisions are taken and executed through oral orders or discussions. After the works are executed, the orders or decisions are recorded. So when a person shall make a written request for information on any matter, he is most likely to receive only back-dated information. Because the latest information, about which the citizen might be interested, is not yet documented or recorded in the concerned file. So practically speaking, the Act should provide for oral requests by the citizen and oral replies by the Competent authorities forth with.

Very often the updated information is not available with the higher officer but with the lower officers. So an applicant for information should be given liberty to approach any officer to get the information. The Draft Bill should therefore provide that any official who is involved with a public work at field level may be approached by the citizen for an interview to get the desired information.

Clause 4 ( Procedure of Supply of Information) in its Sub-Clause (a ) says that a Form shall be prescribed, in which a citizen shall apply for information to the Competent Authority. But the moot point is, who shall draft the form. In my opinion, one uniform form may not be prescribed. Each department should frame its own form of application. The form should not be a big one. It should be very brief and simple. The form should be notified on the notice board of the office, so that everybody can access it on his own without disturbing any body.

The Bill says, an applicant has to give a written request. But the point is, why should one go to the extent of making a written request. If the information can be made instantly available, there is no point for making a written application. The Draft Bill therefore should provide for instant and face-to-face delivery of information to the citizen.

The Bill says that the Competent Authority may take 30 days even to simply refuse to provide the information sought. One need not take so many days, only to refuse the request or information. A case of refusal can be decided and communicated to the citizen instantly, or at maximum within 24 hours. The Draft Bill should be amended accordingly.

I am happy that some friends have already critiqued the Draft Bill from a people's perspective (Referring to Mr.Chitta Behera's paper ' An intelligent Layman's Rereading of the Draft Bill for Orissa Right to Information Act 2002' circulated in the Consultation) and hope that they would consider the points just discussed.

Last but not the least, the people's representatives at all levels should be involved in the process of consultation before the Bill is passed, and also in the process of implementation after the Act is made.