Last week, the Maharashtra Information Commission's annual report on the working of the Right to Information Act was tabled in the legislative assembly. Statistics show that the Act is thriving - citizens filed 3.16 lakh information requests in 2007. Just the BMC received more applications (over 34,000) than all of Andhra Pradesh. The downside getting an appeal heard at the commission could mean a two-year wait, while suo moto disclosures necessary under the law are almost non-existent. The state's Chief Information Commissioner Suresh Joshi tell Chitraganda Choudhury how he will push the law this year to cut through the thicket of red tape and reform public life. Your commission, the watchdog for the sunshine law, received 17,000 appeals and complaints in 2007. Commissioners are currently hearing appeals filed back in 2006. Don't such delays kill the Act that was meant to end red tape?
The large number of appeals stems from the large number of applications. When over 3 lakh applications are being filed, 3 per cent end up as appeals with the five commissioners. They are currently disposing 100-120 each month, and so the big build-up. Do you take responsibility for the pendency. Aren't there ways to reduce it?
There are a couple of measures we will push. One is Lok Adalat-like sessions where about 50 appeals will be slated for resolution in a single day, with citizens and all the officers against whom appeals are filed brought together. One such session is slated for April 30 in Navi Mumbai, where a new commissioner has been appointed. All commissioners will meet in early May and put in place a programme to hold such sessions each month.
I have also written to the Chief Secretary (Johny Joseph) this week to get all secretaries to review the Information Officers and Appellate Authorities in their de partments, and have relatively senior officers occupy these posts. For example, if you file a RTI plea with a police station, and have to file an appeal, a senior officer like an Additional Commissioner of Police should hear the appeal. There are greater chances of justice being meted out at that point itself, and citizens won't need to come to us in a second appeal, and face a long wait. Don't the high number of applications reveal the government's failure to implement the Act's Section 4, that some believe encapsulates the law's spirit? (This lists several areas of government information, and says officials should disclose this voluntarily, so that citizens have to rarely resort to using the Act) Yes, the implementation is very bad despite 2 years of the act being in force - I would give the state government 3 on 10 for this. Goading the government constantly to make information available under Section 4 tops the commission's agenda this year. We also welcome non-governmental agencies evaluating the quality of Section 4 disclosures in government offices, and giving us feedback. We will take this up with the departments. You arbitrate between officials and citizens everyday. Stepping back a bit, how have you seen RTI recasting the relationship?
Because of RTI, the citizen's confidence in dealing with the bureaucracy has shot up. For decades, our government has essentially worked as a patronage, where the common man was most likely to feel intimidated. But today, a hearing at the commission may bring together, on an equal footing, a slum dweller and the head of the government's Slum Rehabilitation Authority And the thought in the for . mer's mind is, "It is my right to ask. Why should I be afraid?" It is a subtle but powerful change. The hope is that this questioning will evolve into a more meaningful dialogue that improves our policies and public discourse.
(This is an occasional interview that explores the work and motivations of people striving to make a difference to the city. Comments are welcome at editormumbai@hindustantimes.com)
Email this Page