A two-day state-level consultation on "Civil Society's Perspectives on a Right to Information" was held between December 18-19, 2001 at CYSD-DRTC, Bhubaneswar, It was organised by CYSD in collaboration with the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRl) based in New Delhi.

The Right to Information is an issue, which has gained considerable importance in recent years, More and more people are beginning to recognise the need for more access to information which has till now been in the exclusive possession of the people in power even though it relates to the well-being of the individual or the public at large, Control of information has led to marginalisation of the vast majorities of the population who have been left out of the processes of governance and democracy.

States like Goa, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh have already passed their own laws on access to information. But Orissa is yet to formulate even a draft bill. A Right to Information Act is more importantly required in Orissa because of its state of poverty that is mainly caused by ignorance. People's participation envisaged as a road to development is hindered by this very handicap of people--lack of accessibility to information.

Though a Right to Information has already been recognised as a Fundamental Right by the Supreme Court in several decisions, the need of the hour is to have a central law on the Right to Information for various reasons. By and large, elected representatives of the Parliament have been supportive of the issue and have made statements from time to time to the effect that a Right to Information Law is the need of the hour. However, a few core issues incorporated in the draft bill need to be reviewed and improved.

Lest democracy is reduced to mere vote-casting every few years and assuming that an informed debate will ensure a sound legislation, CHRI interacts with various groups across the country to generate invaluable suggestions, The present consultation aimed to invoke strong voices amongst the civil society actors to push and ensure for a pro-people's Legislation on a right to information.

1. Discuss the need for a legislation on Right to Information in the existing governance.
2. Share experiences of activists, organisations and individuals.
3. Discuss and analyse the proposed central legislation on Right to Information and few state legislations.
4. Deliberate on the role of the civil society in taking the issue forward through their own work in their region.

The workshop was held over two days. On Day One, the chairman of CYSD Shri P.K.Sahoo gave the welcome address. It was followed by two presentations made by the representatives of CHRI. The first presentation was facilitated by Deepika Mogilishetty who discussed the need for a sound central legislation on a Right to Information. She pointed out the limitations in the proposed central bill. The second presentation was conducted by Debashish who gave a comparative picture of tile existing state laws on a right to information.

This session was followed by a panel discussion in which Retd. Justice Shri Lingaraj Rath, Shri R. Balakrishnan, Commissioner & Secretary I&PR, Shri L.C.Amarnathan, Addl DG of Police and IG (Prisons) participated. On the same day, a draft bill on a right to information drafted by Chitta Behera, a social activist, was discussed and other civil society actors present on the occasion shared experiences, which demanded a right to information in those contexts.

On Day Two, representatives from Action-Aid, a donor agency, narrated a case study on Social Audit. It was the first of a country-wide series of pilot social audit selected to be conducted in Jharnipalli Gram Panchayat (GP) of Agalpur block in Bolangir district. In this project, people participated in governance by planning, monitoring and evaluating public works carried out in their GP. Later the participants were divided into two groups and discussion was held on two themes, one for each group. The first theme was suggestions for a pro-poor right to information legislation and the second one was ways and means of taking it to the grassroots. The groups then shared their views which was open to debate. Closing remarks were given by Shri Satkadi Hota, Editor of a leading Oriya daily Samay, Shri A.V.Swamy, Director of VISWAS and Shri Jagadananda, Member-Secretary, CYSD.

A number of issues were raised during the two-day event. The issues in brief are as follows.

1. Access to/Denial of Information:

   • People lack basic information about infrastructure projects being undertaken in their villages.

   • Welfare schemes/programmes for the poor are not properly informed which deprives them from benefits.

   • People have no idea regarding the usage of multipurpose shelters in cyclone-affected villages constructed at the cost of Rs 32 lakhs.

   • Farmers are provided with hybrid seeds but do not have the knowledge of sowing them.

   • In the non-farm sector, financials institutions do not follow a transparent method of disseminating information regarding their aims, objectives, activities etc.

   • Tribals are alienated/displaced but have no idea about land rights because they do not have access to land records.

   • MNCs and national-level corporates set up industries without consulting people which often poses threat to their life and livelihood.

   • People are ignorant about provisions in NTFP

2. Responsibility of Information seeker:

   • Information seeker and information provider should be responsible citizens.

   • Government functionaries or the information provider must respect people's right to information. Yet there should be debate if the information provider can or cannot ask about the eligibility/role/responsibility of the information seeker and the reasons for which information is sought.

   • Should the Intelligence wing of Police give away information to public if they demand so? However, the police must give a person a search memo before launching a search in anybody's house. The police must also give a registered return copy of a FIR so that the progress of investigation can be known.

   • For a proper and interactive planning and implementation process, the people should also be able to provide information to the government regarding their problems and perspectives.

3. Right to Information Bill in Orissa

   • Besides state government offices, local self-government bodies, statutory authorities, administrative offices of courts, tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies funded out of the state exchequer, private schools, colleges, hospitals and technical institutes should also be under the purview of the Law.

   • Alternative independent authorities accessible to poor people other than the Administrative Tribunal or munsif.

   • Penalties for denying information would serve no purpose other than increasing litigations and complications. Emphasis should be rather on societal pressure on government officials to part with information.

   • Should protect individual's privacy.

   • A time limit should be set between information demanded and information provided.

   • Appeals should be disposed off as early as in 15 days time.

4. Demanding a pro-people law

   • Discussion in Palli Sabha and Gram Sabha.

   • Using posters

   • Writing regularly in local newspapers

   • Organising workshops/consultations at district, block and panchayat levels

   • Launching campaigns

   • Setting up experience sharing meetings between people of Orissa and states where it has become a law with people's initiatives, in Rajasthan for instance

In his inaugural address Shri P.K Sahoo, Chairman of CYSD, said that the right to information was the basic entitlement for effective use of all other laws and rights. Denial of it paves the way for denial of all other rights enshrined in the constitution of India for her citizens. Information is a powerful weapon, which has always been used only by the powerful and the elite section to thwart any threat to their control over power. The majority of the population has always been deprived and their constitutional rights to know has continuously been denied by none other than the state itself. Hence, right to information, according to him, has been a long-standing demand with the following objectives:

• To have access to information about the policies, decisions of the government;

• To ensure transparency and accountability of the government and make democracy meaningful;

• To break away from the feudal system and to increase people's participation in bringing about good governance; and

• To empower people in order to minimize corruption and inefficiencies in the public offices.

He mentioned that states like Goa, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Maharastra, Karnataka, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh have already passed their own laws on people's access to information. But Orissa and Kerala have only passed piecemeal executive orders for giving access to information. A right to information Act is more importantly required in Orissa because of its state of poverty, which is mainly caused by ignorance. People's participation, which is pivotal to development, is yet to be realised fully due to this malady of inaccessibility to information. Though the Supreme Court of India in its several judgements has already recognised right to information as one of the fundamental rights, the need of the hour is to have a central law on the right to information for various reasons. However, a few core issues incorporated in the proposed central bill needs to be reviewed and improved. Simultaneously, like other states, a right to information bill for the state of Orissa needs to be drafted, which can influence the state government to come out with a pro- poor legislation.

• NEED & PERSPECTIVES OF A CENTRAL RIGHT TO INFORMATION LAW
• OVERVIEW OF STATE LAWS

In spite of huge governmental efforts towards alleviating poverty, people are not able to avail basic needs like food, water and health for sheer lack of information about the implementation programmes that provide them the facility of these services. Whether in urban or rural areas, literate or illiterate there is a strong feeling that a break must be made from the past culture and government must be made more open and accountable to public. Panchayatiraj institutions have helped people in realising the potential of people's power and a right to information could be used for mobilising this power in a constructive way through Gram Sabha. Although the issue has already pushed for a central legislation, people feel the need for wide discussion at all levels in order to have a law, which caters to their needs at different levels and addresses their problems effectively.

Proposed Central Law: Provisions and Gaps

States like Tamil Nadu, Goa, Rajasthan, Maharastra, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Delhi have passed their own laws on access to information while some have only passed piecemeal executive orders. This puts citizens in a disadvantageous position, as they do not enjoy the same rights in different parts of the country. One central law would remove this anomaly.

The proposed central law is called the "Freedom of Information Bill 2000". However, it has a number of loopholes. Following states the limitations and suggests alternatives.

• The Bill is termed "freedom of Information Bill 2000". But it should be titled 'Right to Information Bill 2000', as access to information is a right, not a favour.

• It contains an array of exceptions. The right to information law must not contain a long list of exceptions that denies all kinds of information with the help of the law.

• It does not specify an information provider. To uphold the principle of accountability it must state specifically as to who is responsible for providing the information so that penalties can be imposed on officials, who delay, without any just cause, in facilitating information or refusing on undue grounds.

• The law must envisage the suo moto disclosure of information without being asked for it. This kind of information would include rules, information on proposed projects and schemes, and other relevant information pertaining to life and livelihood of individuals, which need to be given out and updated routinely.

• It does not state the procedure for appeals on denial of information. The appellate forum should be an independent person or institution such as an Ombudsman.

• There must be provision for setting up specific systems for storing and disseminating information and upgrading the existing system for enabling easy access.

• The law must ensure that the fee levied for getting information is reasonable. Provision for waiver of fees for BPL class of people must be made.

• The law must contain the provision for timely disposal of information in order of urgency and importance. Information regarding a person's life and liberty should be made available forthwith or within 24 to 48 hours instead of 30 days.

• There should be specific directive for simplifying official language, which could be understood by the common people. Proper use of the electronic and print media as well as use of conventional methods of communication as per the target group should be facilitated.

• The law must make it binding on private bodies including NGOs, limited companies, charitable trusts etc. to disclose certain kinds of information affecting the public health, human life and liberty.

• It should take into account the protection of an individual's privacy.

• It should also give protection to public officials who give certain exempted information where it is necessary to do so in overwhelming public interest or to disclose some serious corrupt practices.

• The laws must contain provision for publicizing its contents for wide dissemination and also a strong aspect of training and orientation of public servants in order to bring about an effective change in the culture.

• In order to avoid the inertia in timely operationalisation of the right to information law there should be a specific allocation of funds.

State Legislations On Right To Information: A Comparison

• With regard to the exempted items of information, while the central bill keeps 7 exemptions with 4 grounds for refusal, Goa keeps 6, Tamil Nadu 24, Madhya Pradesh 11, Rajasthan 10, Maharastra 22, Karnataka 8 with 4 grounds for refusal and Delhi 8.

• With regard to suo moto disclosure of information, while the central bill bears the provision for disclosure of important decisions and policies at the initiation of any project, Madhya Pradesh bears provision for disclosure of information regarding health and safety only, Rajasthan bears discretion to disclose information, Kamataka bears limited obligation as to structure decisions, and Delhi bears obligation to disclose information and structures, powers, duties, facilities available to citizens and decision affecting public before initiating any project.

• Regarding fee, while the central bill holds the provision for additional fee, Goa prescribes for a reasonable processing fee, Rajasthan holds the provision for certain fee to be paid at the time of request of information, Maharastra, Karnataka and Delhi laws demand a reasonable fee for processing and supplying of information.

• In respect of time limit of making available or refusing information both the center and the states take 30 working days. But it is only Goa which takes 48 hours for giving or refusing any information relating to life and liberty of individuals.

• With regard to jurisdiction or appellate authority while the central bill prescribes for an internal appellate head within the government, Goa prescribes for the Administrative tribunal, Tamil Nadu prescribes for an internal appellate head, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan follow Tamil Nadu in making provision for an internal appeal, Karnataka and Maharastra prescribe for the State appellate tribunal, and it is only Delhi which prescribes for an independent body named Public Grievances Commission.

• Regarding information from private bodies it is only the state of Goa which makes some provision.

• Regarding means of communication it is only the Madhya Pradesh legislation which has the provision for suo moto information to be given wide publicity through print and electronic media and traditional means such as beat of drums.

• With regard to penalties for delaying, denying and distorting information while the state of Goa imposes Rs 100 per day fine for delay, Madhya Pradesh imposes not exceeding to Rs 2000 fine for delay, Karnataka imposes Rs 2000 fine with disciplinary action for delay and distortion, and Rajasthan and Delhi are on the verge of imposition of disciplinary action and penalties.

• Regarding the question of a regulatory body for overseeing implementation of the law while Goa and Delhi have the provision for the State Councils, Madhya Pradesh has prescribed for an Advisory Committee.

Thus, the citizens of the country arc apparently at a disadvantageous position, as they do not have the same rights in different parts of the country. Here comes the importance of a common central law, which could remove such anomaly.

Justice Lingaraj Rath (Retd.)

Initiating the panel discussion about the role of right to information in democratic governance, honourable Justice Shri Lingaraj Rath, retired judge of Orissa and Andhra Pradesh High Court, opined that in democracy, people not only cast intelligent and rational votes, but also exercise sound judgment on the conduct of government and the merits of public policies, so that democracy doesn't remain merely a sporadic exercise in voting, but becomes a continuous process of government -an attitude and habit of mind. But people can only fulfill this important role in a democratic set-up only if it is an open government where there is full access to information with regard to the functioning of the government.

He said that secrecy in government is a relic of a totalitarian government, but not of a pro-people civilized government. The Supreme Court of India in S.P Gupta's case in 1981 pointed out that Article -123 of the Constitution has to have a very restricted meaning as to providing information. Sensitive information related to defense, safety and economy of the country can be held back and are not permissible to be disclosed. But denial of information has become a part of governance in India, whereby human rights are violated. In order to bring about a change in the totalitarian mentality of executive, legislature and judiciary he called upon a mass movement in the country. Unless and until people's right to information is not incorporated in the constitution in clear terms as one of the fundamental rights, the Supreme Court cannot categorically uphold this, he added.

The United Nations' in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, declared, as embodied in Article 19, "everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression." This right includes freedom to hold opinions with out interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers". Similarly, International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 in Article 19 stipulates, "the right to freedom of expression comprises the freedom to seek, to receive and to communicate information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers either in oral, printed and artistic form or by any other means of the individual's choice." UNESCO declaration in 1978 reaffirmed that the exercise of freedom of opinion, expression and information was to be recognized as integral part of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Presently, almost the whole world in principle recognizes the right to information as the foundation stone for human rights and means to build up a vibrant and participatory democratic society.

Analysing the Freedom of Information Bill. 2000, Justice Rath pointed out the Section 4 of the bill, which, according to him, restricts itself to suo moto disclosure only of such information as is either structural or is to be given before initiating any project. The provision of suo moto disclosure should include regular disclosure of substantive information pertaining to working of the concerned authority as well as other notifications, orders etc. which either come to that body or are passed by it. Likewise, it ignores the growing trend of privatization and its impact on the common people. It is lacking in provision for disclosure from private parties either on their own or through government channels.

Section-8 and 9 are not designed to address the specific needs of the Indian masses, as these sections completely ignore important aspects of voluntary and mandatory disclosures by public authorities. While some clauses of both the sections are acceptable and necessary, ranging class exemptions can defeat the whole purpose of the Act. Besides, the bill is completely lacking in the aspect of fixing accountability for giving information. Unless public personnel and bodies are held responsible for delaying or refusing information, it will not affect any change in the culture or routinely refusing information.

According to him, section 12 is the weakest part of the bill. If it is enacted, the law will not provide for an independent forum of appeal on denial of information. Unless a forum for appeal is created outside the administrative ladder, the appeal mechanism for redressal of grievances under the control of the government cannot by its nature, ensure fairness in decisions. So, there should be provision for an independent Tribunal having the powers of a civil court for immediate redressal of grievances. Provision for constituting a central authority probably at the state head quarters, which may act as the state appellate authority and coupled with this provision for bar of the jurisdiction of court as also the appellate authority is a retrograde step. He expressed his doubts about the constitutionality of the provision.

The central bill, he said, is intended to put the common man to unnecessary hardship for accessing simple information. The information seeker, irrespective of the distance he comes from, has to file an application and deposit a certain amount of fee to get the information within a time period. Finally, if he is denied, he may approach the High Court and the honorable High Court under section 226 and 227 can direct the public officials to give the information. The entire process is a Herculean task for a common man who is seeking information in urgency. Apart from this, there is no provision for a central monitoring authority which would oversee the working of the Act and ensure its compliance. Answering a query whether judiciary should come under the purview of the Freedom of Information Act, he said that anyone could get certified copies of information if he/she was a party to the case. If someone not being a party to the case seeks information, then he/she has to seek prior permission of the concerned party.

Shri R. Balakrishnan, Comm & Secy, I&PR, Govt of Orissa

At the outset, Shri Balakrishnan informed that the state government has already constituted a task force for drafting a Right to Information Bill. According to him, "foundation head of democracy is the electoral system". But the tragic irony of fate of this largest democracy is that in order to nullify people's right to information, a number of states deliberately avoided panchayat elections for 40 years though it was strongly recommended by the Balawantarai Mehta committee and Ashok Mehta committee in the 1950s.

Right to information should be used as a tool for empowerment, so that the empowerment process would itself ensure that information seeking is people's right. He expressed concern over the fact that the people of one of the most conscious districts like Jajpur are yet to be well informed about Indira Awas Yojana, Annapurna Yojana, Swarna Jayanti Sworojgar Yojana and other welfare schemes of government. He cited an example of Bari Derabis block where people during the post-cyclone relief operation used to purchase BPL rice from the local retail shop at the rate of Rs 4.50 per kg when the rate fixed by the was Rs 4.00. People were under the impression that whatever they were paying in form of bribe was, in fact, essential for incurring transport or processing or administrative cost. Neither the so-called conscious people nor the panchayatiraj institutions raised such questions then and there.

For a pro-active information delivery system, a part of the project implementation fund should be earmarked for providing information about welfare or development programme. And this aspect should find proper place in the proposed right to information bill, he proposed.

The body language of administration speaks of denial of information. The attitude of refusing information, which has become a chronic malady, is not a fresh management issue; it has its roots in colonial past. The responsibility of bureaucrats to explain and justify their acts is the chief safeguard against refusal or denial of information and corruption. He gave the example of the super-cyclone and flood relief and rehabilitation programme during which the government maintained a smooth information dissemination system. The I&PR Department had kept its information system open for 24 hours a day. A press release was released everyday.

He also said that it is not only people's right to access information but also their duty to provide information to the government. While the government functionaries are asked for information about their own functioning, the people too are asked to provide proper information regarding their problems and perspectives. Thus, the flow of information from government to grassroots and from grassroots to government had mitigated the drinking water problem in drought stricken Mayurbhanj district when he was the District Collector there, he said.

Shri L. C. Amarnathan, Addl DG of Police & IG of Prisons:

Shri L. C. Amarnathan laid maximum emphasis on legal status of people's right to information as well as the role and responsibility of information seekers. People's right to access government's information attained legal recognition in Sweden in 1766, the first instance in the history of the modern world. In 1967 USA got it granted and was followed by almost all developed countries. In India it was introduced in the Parliament as a draft bill in the year 2000. He said India's Constitution was in the making when the Universal Declaration on Human Rights was made in 1948. But for a right to information as an independent fundamental right, it incorporated every other article in the Declaration.

Analysing the provisions for making information available as outlined in various sections of the Criminal Procedure Code he pointed out that throughout the country questions are raised about the roles and responsibilities of government functionaries in showing respect to people's right to information, but no questions are raised about the eligibility, role and responsibility of the information seeker. Instances where information have been distorted are not at all rare in the country. There should be a debate before finalisation of the draft bill on which ground the information provider should provide information to the information seeker. Should the provider not pose any question to the information seeker like who is he/she, how will he/she utilize the information etc.? It should also be debated whether the Intelligence wing of Police would give away information to public if the latter seeks it. Section 39 of Criminal Procedure Code provides for volunteering information. But does anybody volunteer any information to police, he asked.

Transparency in Home Department has been strengthened by various landmark judgments of the Supreme Court. For example, the individual who lodges FIR with any police station must be served with a registered return copy of it so that he/she can pursue and be informed about the progress of investigation by the concerned investigating officer. After the completion of investigation of a case if no crime is detected, then the police have to refer to section-l 73 of CrPC and state that there were no reasons on the basis of which the crime could be accorded. Even before launching a search in anybody's house the police has to give him/her a search memo.

With regard to sharing information with public, the Orissa police department is publishing a crime profile of five million registered criminals. Besides, the department has started editing the books containing the number of crimes, murders, suicides, custodial deaths, NHRC inquiries and reports etc. in every year. All this is the healthy tradition of transparency, he affirmed.

According to him, though there are some colonial laws like the Indian Official Secrets Act-1923. All India Service (Conduct) Rules-1968, Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules- 1964, Indian Evidence Act- 1872 etc. in the country, attempts are being made to eliminate them step by step.

He opined that in keeping pace with the changing society, the right to information law must be reviewed every ten years and it should contain provision for judicial intervention at the time of need.

Meera Dash, Senior Advocate, Orissa High Court

Meera Das stated that information and communication are powerful tools and have a potential value to shape and shake social political and economic development of a nation. After the republic was born and the constitution enacted, freedom of expression became a guaranteed fundamental right. The day the constitution of India came into light, right to information became an integral part of it. The U.N. Declaration on Human Rights in 1948 also included freedom of expression and free flow of information as a human right, which is essential for a country to maintain peace and progress. Article 19 (1 & 2) of the constitution indicates freedom of expression to seek, receive and impart information and tales of all kinds either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of act or through any office of choice. It means right to information is a fundamental right, she affirmed.

She said, right to know makes the public vigilant'. The more vigilant a society about public affair and infringement of their rights, the better. Where the people tend to be passive in setting information due to ignorance, democracy begins to fade away. According to her, without knowing about rights no body can be aware of his /her duties. And it is all through information.

It is the duty of NGOs and media to remain eternally vigilant and disseminate information about Dowry Prevention Act, Hindu Marriage Act, Women Atrocities Act Prevention of Corruption Act, Essential Commodities Act etc. among people. Press is the only reliable medium to create awareness about all this among people.

Social activist, Shri Chitta Behera presented a draft bill for the Orissa Right to Information Act-2002, which was prepared after a lot of consultations to state legislations of Goa, Tamilnadu, Rajasthan, Maharastra, Delhi and Karnataka, and a number of consultation meetings at places like Angul, Keonjhar, Bolangir etc. Before submitting to the state government he invited debate at various issues and loopholes in the proposed draft bill and asked for a consensus and recommendations of the house. Some of the debatable points in the bill are as follows (Draft Bill annexed):

• Regarding title, the Act may be called the Orissa Right to Information Act 2002.

• 'Public Authority' includes all offices of the state government, local self-government bodies, statutory authorities, administrative offices of courts, Tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies funded out of state exchequer, private bodies such as company, trust, society or organisation owned, funded or controlled by the state government or any individual or organisation executing any public work or service an behalf of or as authorised by them.

A small debate was held on inclusion of private bodies, which are not receiving funds from government into purview of the law. It was opined that all private schools, colleges, hospitals and technical institutes should come under the purview of the law.

• Competent Authority: An information officer to be declared by every public authority for the purpose of this Act, who shall receive, dispose of and remain accountable for all applications seeking information about the concerned office.

• Procedure for supply of information: Upon receipt of an application seeking information, the competent authority shall furnish it or refuse it giving reasons of such refusal within 15 working days of the application. Where the question is related to life and liberty of an individual it should be made cleared within next 24 hours.

• Exemption: All applications seeking information can be denied showing the ground of its concern to law and order problem, defense, subjudice matter, economic downfall etc. So excepting classified information, all information can be sought for. Regarding adjudication matter information may not be shared, with but information relating to judicial administration, which is run by state exchequer, should be provided to the information seeker.

• The Appellate Authority: Any person aggrieved by an order of the competent authority or his superior authority, or any person who hasn't received any order from the competent authority within 15 working days from he date of application, may appeal to the Slate Administrative Tribunal. Every appeal shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and in no case exceeding to 15 working days from the date of appeal.

• Obligations on Competent Authority :

  1. Every competent authority shall be under a duty suo-moto to maintain all their official records, duly catalogued and indexed so as to cater to the day-to-day information needs of the public.

  2. Every competent authority, before sanctioning or initiating any project, scheme or programme suo moto shall publish or communicate to the public general, and in particular to the persons affected, or likely to be affected by the said project, scheme or activity about all facts including the possible benefit or loss likely to emanate from the proposed project, scheme or programme of the government

  3. Every competent authority shall suo moto publish information relating to life, liberty and human rights in particular of persons in custodial institutions.

  4. Every competent authority shall suo moto publish and announce the information in all possible mass media for fore-warning in sufficient advance of the possible occurrence of a natural or man-made disaster, and the state of disaster preparedness at the state, district, block and municipal NAC levels.

• Penalties: The proposed central law doesn't have teeth to penalise a guilty official. Hence if it is enacted would be treated as not a law proper. When a competent authority fails or denies or delays to furnish the information sought for or intentionally furnish distorted information, he/she shall be liable, after such inquiry as may be necessary to be conducted by the state vigilance commission, for imposition of such penalties as may be determined by the disciplinary authority under the relevant public service conduct rules applicable to him/her in addition, the disciplinary authority may order him/her to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- per every day's delay following the deadline within which the information was required to be supplied.

  In the context of penalties R. Balakrishnan objected by saying that the purpose of the proposed Bill is not to punish somebody. The bill must be a pro-people initiative or pro-people enactment, not anti-establishment. Government officials are conscious of the changing society and media activism. Mere enactment of law does not work if mans mentality or intention does not change. If it is, then why a lot of corruptions in the country despite the enactment of anti-corruption laws. Hence, instead of more litigations and complications, there should be emphasis on societal or environmental pressure on government officials to part with information.

• State Council for Right to Information: Remaining free from administrative control of the state government the council shall directly report once half-yearly to the governor of Orissa and Orissa Legislative Assembly and remain accountable to them about its activities. The council may consist of the following members:

  1. The Minister-in-charge of the department of General Administration in the government.
  2. Official members not exceeding to four;
  3. Two MLA's to be nominated by the speaker;
  4. Non-official members not exceeding to four representing journalists, editors of newspapers and non-government organisations.

  The council shall advise the government for abolishing or amending, as the case may be the very pre-existing Acts or Rules, the provisions of which are inconsistent with the Orissa Right to Information Act.

Anticipating a brain-storming analysis and further recommendations of the esteemed participants, due to shortage of time in hand, the follow-up interaction on logistic contents of the proposed draft bill was postponed till the next day.

A discussion on issues affecting the state such as food security, livelihood, disaster etc. with reference to the importance of right to information therein took the form of experience-sharing among the participants. From among a number of issues discussed the major ones pertaining to food security, livelihood and disaster are as follows:

• The concerned area people must know about the uses of the multipurpose cyclone shelters constructed at the cost of Rs. 32 lakhs each. What is this 'multipurpose', if another cyclone does not hit Orissa, of what use would these shelters be, is yet to be explained to the public. The multi-purpose cyclone shelter maintenance committees formulated in the concerned villages are yet to be informed in detail about the master plan behind such a huge investment.

• Most of the citizens are not aware about the prescribed quantity and rate of rice they are entitled to get from their local retailers under various welfare schemes of the government. Information about the criteria of selection of beneficiaries for various welfare and developmental schemes are still beyond their easy access.

• The onslaught of MNCs and national companies without any information to the public poses threat to local people's right to life and livelihood and that is an obvious denial of right to information. The moment local people are informed about their fundamental rights, encounter takes place. For example, the violent agitation in the tribal pockets of Orissa.

• Land alienation problem in tribal areas is the result of the continuous denial of information to people since colonial past. Due to lack of land survey, proper demarcation, settlement and issue of patta in tribal hinterlands the question of right to information in the crude form of violence has been raised among the affected tribals.

• The question of common law for minor forest produces (MFP) is yet to be settled and enacted simultaneously throughout the state due to lack of definite policy and information for public. The so-called NTFP law doesn't cover total area and varieties of forest produces in the state.

• The Orissan farmers are now being provided with imported hybrid seeds, but they don't have any literature of sowing it, which is going to cause a man-made disaster in farm sector too.

• In non-farm sector too the grass roots level people are completely deprived of information. No financial institution in the state disseminates information regarding its aims, objectives, activities etc. among common public. The financial assistance in the forms of loan and subsidy are gradually wiped out for the poor section, but it is widened up for the elite section, which is the matter of contradiction in the state.

A Presentation by Action-Aid

According to Bijaya Mishra of Action Aid one of the systematic way for checking corruption in public life and ensuring transparency and accountability is to lay public records before the people for their scrutiny, which will enforce transparency and accountability in all spheres and in all levels of public life. Social audit is one of the processes that helps enforce transparency and accountability and ensures people the right to information.

Right to information is not a separate phenomenon other than good governance. In order to raise people's participation in governance like planning for themselves, implementation of planning, monitoring and evaluation of their own works, the concept of 'Lok Yojana' is practiced in 334 villages of drought affected Bolangir district. The social audit as a part of right to information movement gathered momentum in Rajasthan after Majdoor Kisan Shakti Sangha (MKSS) facilitated it allover Rajasthan. The movement is now recognized by the Ministry of Rural Development (MORD), GOI as an effective tool to combat corruption at grass roots level and ensure accountability and establish good governance. Subsequently, the MORD planned to launch a nationalized campaign of social audit and Action Aid was given the responsibility to launch a pilot social audit in 14 states it is actively present including Orissa. The first of the series of pilot social audit was selected to be conducted in Jharnipalli G.P. of Agalpur block in Bolangir district.

Jharnipalli GP in Bolangir district was selected as the sample where the pilot project of social audit would be experimented. Among various reasons of selecting Jharnipalli include the following:.

• There was already a strong and capable people's organisation in Jharnipalli G.P. itself headed by people's leaders like Jayaram Bariha and Kaladhar Bhoi who gave their strong commitment to organise social audit.

• For tile common man in Agalpur block Jharnipalli was one of the most corrupt G.P

• The Sarpanch and Naib Sarpanch of this G.P. were suspended suddenly, the reasons of which were not known to the people.

• Presence of a local CBO with a good track record of credibility and transparency that volunteered to facilitate the social audit process.

• A supportive and pro-active district administration

In order to launch the process of social audit in Jharnipalli G.P. the following experiments were undertaken in steps

• Through folk media like songs and street plays in every village, attempts were made to make the people understand the concept of social audit and enable them to understand as to how would help them.

• After winning over people's support, the CLC (Cluster level committee) started collecting information about all development works in the G.P. undertaken by both government and non-government agencies in the previous three years. Information was collected from block, panchayat, CDPO, DRDA and NGO's on being directed to part with information by the district collector.

• The volunteers segregated all information village-wise.

• The volunteers were divided into nine different groups to cover up nine villages with one team leader in each group who regularly took the information for their respective villages and shared it with the villagers in meetings. Each activity, bill, voucher and muster roll were verified and properly analysed with the villagers.

• An independent civil engineer was involved in the process to measure different construction works.

• Each record, signature, voucher and muster role were verified with the concerned individual contractor and village labourers to establish the authenticity. They were personally requested and motivated to be present on the social audit day and share the same in the meeting.

• The entire process was presented before a larger gathering of about 2500 people, mainly villagers of the same G.P. Besides the villagers, district and block officials, PRI members, press, NGOs and INGOs, the secretary and sarapanch of Jharnipalli G.P. were present on the occasion.

The findings of the social audit are as follows:

• Total amount sanctioned for the G.P. during the last 3 years was Rs. 20,73,865/- but expenses were not beyond Rs. 11,40,127/-

• The muster rolls were fake as they bore signature and thumb impression of the people not working at all, of those who had died three years ago or persons who were away from the village since long.

• Ghost works of around fifty percent of Rs. 1.9 lakhs used for road construction, and there was no sign of any road. The local people were not aware of such construction.

• The labourers were paid less than tile amount mentioned in the muster rolls, lower than even the minimum wage.

• In most of the activities there were false bills. For example a bill in the name of a tractor's number which was not practically existing in the G. P.

• The materials purchased for different purpose were not properly put in the bill. For example, one cement bill contained 335 bags whereas the people had recorded 225 bags.

• The Indira Awas Yojana in every village were found incomplete. The beneficiaries were not paid the amount entitled to them even after completion.

Lessons learnt from Social Audit

• It is an evolving concept to combat corruption and ensure good governance.
• It is a process of empowerment that helps the poorest of the poor to express freely.
• It is a public hearing to draw people's judgment
• It can create public pressure for transparency and accountability of public authorities.
• It is not a one-time event, but needs to be replicated in other GPs and followed up as a continuous process.

Suggestions that were made in the house are as follows:

• Such an innovative experiment should be disseminated among all the GPs of the state. Action Aid should take steps to expedite this.
• Media coverage should be on a sustained basis.
• Proper documentation of all this should not be delayed.
• Some honest government officials should be involved in the process of social audit.

In order to frame out an action agenda for ensuring right to information in the state, a group discussion was arranged dividing the participants into two groups. The recommendations of the groups were planned to be produced before the government for consideration. Group-A was allotted the topic titled 'Pro-people legislation on Right to Information' and instructed to vividly analyse and make comments and suggest recommendations on the draft bill for the Orissa Right to Information Act -2002 presented by Chitta Behera and his team of Project Swarajya. Group- B was instructed to find out and recommend strategies to spread awareness amongst people about the law and influence the policy makers for a pro-people legislation.

'Pro-people Legislation on Right to Information': Recommendations (Group-A) Supplementary specific suggestions for the law based on and in addition to the Draft Bill for the Orissa Right to Information Act-2002 presented by Chitta Behera and his team of Project Swarajya.

Members:

1. Chairperson -Retd. High Court Judge.

2. 3 RDCs

3. Secretary, 1& PR -convener.

4. 2 MLAs -nominated by Hon'ble Speaker.

5. 4 Non-official members.

   1. A senior citizen

   2. A senior accredited journalist

   3. A person from electronic media (TV / Radio)

   4. A person from a leading NGO.

Spread of Awareness among People about the Law and Influence the Policy Makers for a Pro-people Legislation: Strategies (Group-B)

Exercise for awareness generation:

• Discussion in Palli Sabha
• Fund allocation to PRIs for information dissemination.
• Hold village level meetings.
• Use of local medium for dissemination information.
• Use of posters and charts,
• NGOs should access information needs of people.
• Sharing experiences like Jairam Bariha's
• Involving people in planning and development
• Involving government functionaries and PRls in awareness programmes.
• Local media to write about the issue on a sustained basis.

Influence the policy makers:

• District level workshops
  1. Use existing networks like CYSD, Action Aid etc.
  2. Take initiative in your district and draw resources like CHRI, CYSD, Action Aid etc.
• Present recommendation to government.
• Involve government officials in programme.
• Spread awareness among MLAs from a lobbying group.
• Have a signature campaign.
• Need for a coordination committee with time limit.
• Include a right to information component in existing programmes.

Closing Remarks:

Summing up the recommendations and strategies presented by both the groups, Jagadananda, member secretary of CYSD, opined more consultations should be arranged for more recommendations before submitting it to government. Let Orissa be in news for enacting a pro-people legislation like this. The land where one has to pay for his/her birth certificate and pay for his/her birth certificate as well, there such a legislation might work as a double-edged sword, he added. He called upon the participants to work out a draft bill and if needed involve legislators, law experts, media personalities and activists in such a collective effort.

A V. Swamy of VISWAS reiterated people's right to life and livelihood are still denied in our tribal pockets. It is the duty of NGOs to disseminate proper information about right to life and livelihood among the tribals. Government fails to disseminate information, but why should we stand still and forget our ethics, he asked. Information arouses reaction among people and that is the best weapon to check corruption.

In his remark Satakadi Hota, editor of SAMAY quoted the President of Uganda: "The politicians will not want the people to be educated, conscious and aware". These words have relevance in the Indian context. If the politicians make the people conscious the day is not far away when they the latter will start claiming for equal wages for equal works, equal opportunities etc. "Equality in idea, in perception and in attitude can then be possible when the tribal boy will become a nuclear scientist in this country", he affirmed. The things are possible only through a sustainable mass movement for right to information. The land where actual literacy rate is below 50% and poverty rate is above 50% it is, in fact, a Herculean endeavor to sustain such a mass movement. Still it is not impossible for a noble mass cause.

LIST OF PARTICIPANT