No restrictions on RTI please!
The Union Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), which comes directly under the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), proposes to restrict applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to just one topic, with a 250-word limit. The department says that at present, RTI applications are misused to harass public authorities and settle personal or professional scores.
There must be cases of misuse of the RTI Act. The very fact that most RTI applications are from government servants, about service issues, suggests this. But does the DoPT have any scientific study to back its claim about misuse of RTI? Otherwise, there is insufficient ground for changing the rules.
The department’s officials say that multiple applications, some of which run into several pages, make it difficult for officials to respond to RTI requests effectively and promptly. It tends to clog the system and hurts genuine applicants. Vexatious and mischievous RTI applications are bound to be there. But are they in numbers large enough to cause a genuine problem? Do the authorities have any firm evidence to show that they are flooded by requests running into thousands of words, bringing the work of government departments to a grinding halt?
The RTI Act is the strongest weapon available to the ‘aam admi’ to fight corruption and enforce transparency. Properly implemented, it holds the promise of giving the ordinary citizen the power to fight this country’s greatest scourge – corruption. It has empowered the people and sent shivers down the spines of dishonest bureaucrats and politicians. Any changes in rules, therefore, should be in the direction of expanding RTI rights, not limiting them.
Any word limit prescribed for RTI application is arbitrary, capricious and illogical. Why 250 words; has the department done any studies to determine that most people will be able to frame their queries within that word limit? Why only one question at a time? Information can be sought and given very efficiently on several related topics, especially if one question follows logically from another. This will be more convenient for both, the applicant and the authorities.
These proposals have already drawn widespread criticism. All they do is to make it clear that those who wield political and official power are very wary of RTI. For, they have made constant attempts, ever since the RTI law was passed, to restrict its scope. Just last year, they tried to make a provision to reject ‘frivolous and vexatious’ applications. There was also a proposal to keep ‘file notings’ outside the Act’s purview. Both were dropped after widespread opposition. We have little doubt that if civil society stands up against this latest move, it too will pass away.
Forgery most foul
Goa prides itself on not fielding overage players in its state teams. It was the first state to introduce scientific bone density tests to weed out overage players in championships. Now, that boast is under threat, because Goa Cricket Association (GCA) stalwart Dr Shekhar Salkar has filed a case against his GCA President Dayanand Narvekar and others alleging forgery of the birth certificate of Mr Narvekar’s son Ganeshraj.
Dr Salkar says that under RTI, he has several birth certificates of Ganeshraj showing different dates of birth. This enabled him to play thrice in the Polly Umrigar cricket tournament, from 2005 to 2008, when, as per the rules a player can play only twice. Fraudulently changing his name enabled Ganeshraj to play a third time, says Dr Salkar.
If the charges are true, they must be pursued vigorously. Else, it could shatter the state’s reputation in the sports arena.
