I fully agree with the proposal that a separate Act for Freedom of Information need be legislated and implemented in the country. Such an Act would enable the citizens to lead a better life by virtue of their access to information of their choice, on one hand and to influence the process of governance that their elected representatives are spearheading for them, on the other.

However I have a few questions as regards what positive outcome such a new law on right to information could hold forth for the people. Justice Sri P.C. Mishra observed, how thousands of laws exist in our country but with little consequence for people's life. I do also share the same view.

It was told here by some speakers that the people are the masters of the State, but let me ask, who these people are? In my view, the term people signifies a nebulous entity, that defies any exact expression or definition. As you know, our society consists of people, who belong to very many castes, religions, communities etc. and are moreover, sharply divided among themselves along ideological lines too. There is visible clash of interest between different groups of people divided and subdivided along various lines. It is therefore very much improbable that a single law on any matter be it right to information or any other, would ever be able to regulate the motley heterogeneity of people.

The Crime Branch of Orissa Police had made a survey of all the primary and secondary legislations existing in Orissa. They found that there were a total of sixteen thousand laws, out of which as many as four thousand only existed on paper, having no relevance at all to the State or people. Similarly the Official Secrets Act, which was introduced by the British long ago is already a defunct law. I therefore support the views that seek to abolish the Official Secrets Act.

Here I am reminded of what John Beams, who was the Collector Cuttack around 1875 said about the Oriya people. He had observed that the Oriyas were very good at speculating on any problem. So much so that they would make hairsplitting analysis on any subject matter, but when the need for suggesting a concrete plan of action vis--vis a problem comes, they would simply keep mum and withdraw. Such characterization of Oriyas as made by John Beams more than a century ago holds true today too. If we are allowed to make a law, we shall deliberate on each of its aspects elaborately and finally formulate a law, which can't be implemented at all. Then we would remain casual to follow it up and when the law would prove to be visibly counterproductive, we would simply say that nothing would succeed in Orissa.

Now coming to the topic of today's Seminar, let us know what is Information? As you might know, this is an age when the State is progressively withdrawing from different spheres, and private bodies assuming the control over more and more aspects of our social and economic life. For instance, private companies, who are now regulating the supply of electricity, should inform the public about the details of their regulation,

As you know, the Government has become bankrupt now. Such a Government can't practically do anything for the reform of the administration. So it should be now the responsibility of the private bodies including companies and NGOs to serve necessary information to the public.

Now I would like to place my comments on the Draft Bill on Right to Information. Firstly, such questions need be settled as, how to document the information in a standard format of the regional language and how to serve it to the people, and how far the people shall benefit by such information in view of their typical low level of linguistic capability. Secondly, how many of our office staffs are trained and capable in documenting and disseminating information. Thirdly public authorities need to publish their information on the Internet, so that every person whosoever is interested can download it.

There is no system of documenting the information at government level. How can the information be given to the public? But it is true that India is the first country in the world, where any sort of information, even if it be a secure category of information, can be made available by employing underhand means. If you can pay a bribe of say, Rs.15/- or 20/- or 50/-, as the case may be, any information you want from any office, would be made available to you at your home.

Let me say a few words about how our government offices collect information. If we want crime statistics in the rural areas, we have to depend upon the information from Panchayats. But the way such information is collected and passed on, is of no use.

There is the possibility of misusing the Right to Information too. If 10 to15 persons visit an office and go on demanding this and that information, then the whole office would be paralyzed. Gross indiscipline might follow. But such a possibility can be avoided by an application of information technology. If the concerned authorities publicise the information on the Internet, there won't be a big crowed in the offices.

The Draft Bill can be further improved if we compare it with the Right to Information laws in USA and Britain, which are, in my opinion, very much practical and user-friendly. The present Draft Bill suffers from serious lacunae, which would enable major violators of law to escape punishment, whereas it would take to task the small fries. As regards the compensation to the aggrieved information seeker, the Draft Bill should mention, who shall decide it?

As regards the supervisory body for implementation of Right to Information, the one suggested here would be simply ineffective. The Government officials, who are not delivering any good at present, shall hardly do anything for the people's access to information. In my opinion, the State Council for Right to Information should be an independent Statuary Authority. There shouldn't be several members from among the government officials, lest it would turn into a bureaucratic body again. The bureaucracy has a culture of its own, centring round cadre, salary etc. There is every possibility of the whole body getting tagged on to the G.A. Department of the State. So I would suggest the body to be chaired by a Retired Judge. Moreover, one retired government servant would be enough to represent the government side. Two MLAs, one from ruling party and other from opposition should be there selected by the Speaker. From among the public NGOs, and media should have one member each. This body should have the powers of a civil court like National Human Rights Commission. They can summon parties and pass censures. They can inspect the offices. This body should submit six monthly report to the State Assembly for discussion.