Ever since its introduction, the RTI Act is showing promise in obliging the bureaucracy to give up its culture
of secrecy related to people�s rightful and well deserved need for information
RTI Act is making progress since its introduction
Mozzamel Haque
Civil society regarded the passing of the RTI (Right to Information) Act 2009 as a ground breaking decision of the current government. The rationale of this Act is : since all powers of the Republic belong to the people, it is necessary to ensure right to information for their empowerment. The aim of RTI is to empower the people, ensure transparency and accountability in the government, autonomous, non-government and foreign aided organizations.
However, it should be kept in mind that government information is a national resource. Neither the particular government of the day, nor public officials, creates information for their own benefit. The greater the access of the citizen to information, the greater would be the responsiveness of government to community needs. Alternatively, the greater the restrictions on access, the greater the feelings of powerlessness and alienation.
The RTI is a major legislative step in the Bangladeshi anti-corruption and transparency movement. It is believed that the citizens armed with information obtained through their exercises of right to know would be able to protect life and liberty as well secure equity and justice before the law.
IC (Information Commission) is a non-constitutional independent body; subject to the permission of the Act, shall by its own name sue and be sued. In addition, any organization constituted in accordance with the Constitution and under the Rules of Business made under Article 55 (6) of the Constitution is seen as a unit to provide information .Four parties are involved for providing information: applicants for information, DOs (Designated Officials) to provide information, Appellate Authority and IC.
RTI is about empowerment of citizens and building responsiveness of the state and its organs, the political parties, administration and other institutions to the citizens. The RTI Act (Section 4) says that every citizen has a right to Information from the Authority and the Authority shall on demand from a citizen be bound to provide information.
There are some clauses of different Acts like The Official Secrets Act 1923, Evidence Act 1872, Rules of Business 1996, Government Service (Conduct) Rules 1979, and the oath (affirmation) of secrecy under the constitution that act as an impediment and barrier to getting access to information. Certainly, government servants are still bound by both their oath and service rules to refrain from disclosing information. However, through the RTI Act section (3) while citizens would seek for information all these restrictions can be overriden; except in regard to exemptions listed in Article 7 of the RTI ACT.
Despite all these limitations, RTI has given people more opportunity to participate in public affairs and hold duty bearers accountable for their action. RTI has enabled people of all strata to seek information from various government and non-government offices. People who are failing to get information from DOs and Appellate Authority on time provided by the Act have started since 2010 to launch complaints to the IC.
In regard to article 9(2) of RTI Act the government and non-government DOs are required to provide the applicants information; if applicants are not given information or gets rejected aggrieved by the decision of the appeal units then under section 24 complaints for not receiving information can be filed to IC. In light of RTI Act (Section 25 [10] can take minimum 45 days and maximum 75 days to resolve complaints.
IC follows civil procedure (in accordance to 1908) to dispose the complaints. Most petitioners usually come from disadvantaged people who failed to get information on old age allowance, special safety net programme, regarding the free distribution of medicines by the community hospitals, rules and regulations to obtain agricultural cards, information about the location of khas land, allegations against cooperative officer, information in regard to the rules of medical practitioners, practice of minimum wage, bank related issues, and so forth. In addition adivasis are as well seeking justice from IC. Adivasi activist sought information on the quota provided for the adivasi students by various public universities and other educational institutions.
IC disposed the cases by providing the information through the DOs who previously did not attend or rejected the complainers prayers. The IC received since 2010 total 473 complaints till date and out of which 239 cases are being disposed of (almost 51%). 211 complaints were not accepted by IC to be contested. These complaints are usually sent back to the applicants with directives to reapply by following the RTI procedure duly.
However, the re-application rate seeking information properly is extremely low. This is where IC requires brain storming with RTI forum and other relevant organizations working to benefit people by providing information. Major causes for rejecting those cases are where the applicant directly complained without seeking the information from the DO and appellate authority; information seekers did not apply to the proper authority; only sent copy of the application to the IC where information was sought and not following RTI procedures and so forth. Nevertheless, IC constantly takes initiatives to rectify the incorrect applications by contacting with the applicant.
RTI is empowered by the provision that no authority shall conceal any information or limit its easy access (except 8 exempted security and intelligence
agencies, [see section 32] as is the case in other countries including India). However, according to Section 32 (2) of the RTI Act points that section 32 shall not apply
to such information that are pertaining to corruption and violation of human rights in regard to 8 exempted intelligence organizations.
For, instance Tahera Begum of Sayeedpur upazila sought information on tortured women who lodged complain in Sayeedpur police station from January to June 2011. The DO and respectively Appellate Authority refused her to provide desired information and later complaint was launched with the IC and on the hearing day Officer-in Charge brought all required information. One journalist sought information on the number of constables who got recruited in Dhamrai Upazila, Dhaka , in 2011, 2012 and 2013. After failing to obtain the information submitted a complain in IC and later summon was issued and the DO of that thana provided desired information to the journalist.
Most of the cases are actually questioning the governance matters of the government offices and NGOs. For instance, one information seeker sought information on voters list of Subornochar Upazilla of Noakhali District. After failing to get the information from the DO and
the Appellate Authority launched complaint with the IC. On hearing the DO pointed that according
to the rules of Election Commission voters list with photographs cannot be given. Upon hearing the IC instructed DO to provide the voter list without photographs and the complaint was disposed off.
One lady demanded information from Bangladesh Railway on commuter train, lease, tender documents, contract copies-etc. After not being successful to achieve full information from DO and the Appellate Authority launched complaint with IC and later on the IC instructed DO to produce complete information to the complainant and the cases was disposed off. Not only from mainstream but from CHT (Chittagong Hill Tracts) five applicants from Khagrachari launched complaints with IC for failing to get information on rules of electricity bills, number of meters allocated in 2012, price of meter, TR. Kabikha etc. Later IC on hearing instructed to provide information to respective applicants and cases were disposed off.
Recently Bodiul Alam Mojumder sought information from the Election Commission on income/expenditure of registered political parties with the commission. The DO refused to provide information on the ground that they require political parties nod to release there information. IC pointed out that once political parties have submitted there audit report to the election commission this could be treated as public Document and hence could be made public.
Another important case in point is with PSC (Public Service Commission) an applicant of 29 batch demanded to know his score obtained in viva-voce and also written and viva-voce numbers of police, foreign service, administration tax cadre of the same batch in order to compare his position. PSC refused and in IC hearing mentioned that PSCs higher authority did not empower them to disclose such information as well. PSC fears that if given then the number of applicant seeking such type of information would increase.
It could be argued that public institutions are yet to be RTI friendly and requires to incorporate the principles of RTI Act. RTI is as well getting used in public litigation organized by activists and NGOs.
The writer is a researcher on social and developmental issues
