Information Sharing and Transparency in Governance

“Information is the currency of democracy” – Thomas Jefferson “It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority” – Benjamin Franklin

Transparency in governance refers to the open and accessible sharing of information on decisions and actions taken by public officials and institutions. It is not only a bureaucratic obligation but a fundamental right that empowers individuals to hold their elected representatives, as well as the bureaucracy, accountable for their actions. It is crucial in ensuring a government that serves the best interests of its citizens. For example, villagers in Madhubani, Bihar, used RTI to expose a solar-light scam, leading to corruption charges against around 200 corrupt officials.

Openness vs. Transparency  

Openness of the system refers to where no aspect, whether related to information, principles, actions, rules, etc, is hidden from the stakeholders.

• Openness in governance holds that government authorities should openly provide information to citizens regarding their actions and decisions. 

On the other hand, transparency includes not only the availability of information but also the timeliness, reliability, and accessibility of the information.

• For Example, the RTI Act aims not only at the availability of information but also provides for proactive disclosure of documents, training of public officials on proper implementation of the act, strict timelines for responding to RTI applications, penalties on officials for failure to comply with the provisions of the act and such other measures. This way, the RTI act aims to bring about a qualitative change to realise the vision of a truly transparent governance.

Further, openness in its widest sense refers to having an accommodating attitude, such as being receptive to new ideas, behaviours, cultures, peoples, environments, experiences, etc. Similarly, openness in governance includes promoting the participation of citizens in various processes of governance by using various tools. Examples of openness in governance are holding open public hearings (Jansunwai), regular Social audits (as mandated in MNREGA), open access to government documents (RTI), participative budgeting, open tendering and procurement processes, taking views of all stakeholders before finalising laws, rules and regulations.

Relation between Transparency and Accountability

Transparency in governance refers to making decisions and performing actions in an open manner. On the other hand, accountability refers to being answerable for one’s decisions and actions to those affected by them. Accountability includes the requirement of taking responsibility and providing reasoning for one’s actions.

• Transparency is an essential prerequisite of accountability. To be able to evaluate an action or decision of the government, access should be provided to all necessary information. If access to necessary information is not provided, accountability cannot be maintained.
• For Example, in the model district of Mochha, Chhattisgarh, people extensively use RTI to ensure transparency. It helps them secure employment, scholarships, and other benefits provided by the government through various schemes. They have also successfully regularised the presence of government officials, doctors and school teachers. First transparency was set, and then accountability followed.

Accountability and transparency are two important foundations of good governance. Transparency, by establishing accountability of holders of public office, fosters trust, encourages citizen engagement, and deters corruption.

Important elements of Accountability:

• Answerability: It refers to the liability of the public office holder to give a rationale behind the action/decision taken. It is the responsibility of public officials/institutions to respond to inquiries and questions raised by citizens and different stakeholders. For example, a system of feedback is provided on the web portals of several government institutions so that citizens may provide feedback on the quality of public services tendered.
• Enforcement: it refers to the mechanisms to ensure compliance with laws, rules, and regulations. It includes the imposition of sanctions, penalties, or punishments for failure to meet expected norms and standards. For example, under the RTI Act, information commissioners can impose penalties on PIOs for failure to meet their duties mandated under the act.
• Grievance redressal: To ensure accountability, citizens should have easy access to the proper grievance redressal system. For example, CPGRAMS (Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System) is an online platform available 24×7 to citizens to lodge their grievances with public authorities on any issue related to service delivery.

Right to Information

RTI provides citizens the right to demand information from government agencies and functionaries. Thereby, it arms the poor and weaker sections of society to secure their rights in a better manner.

“RTI is the master key to good governance”- 2nd ARC.

Evolution of RTI

• As stated by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, everyone should have freedom of opinion and expression.
• Article 19 of the Indian constitution provides Freedom of Expression as one of the Fundamental Rights, which also includes the right to seek information.
• The Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan in Rajasthan, under the leadership of Aruna Roy, started the movement for RTI. They pressurised government authorities to provide information such as muster rolls and bills of materials related to government schemes.
• The information was then cross-checked at Jansunwai against the actual testimonies of workers. This was successful in exposing corruption and curbing leakages in government schemes.
• Finally, the Central Government passed the RTI Act in 2005. However, Tamil Nadu was the first state to enact the RTI Act in 1997. Rajasthan enacted the RTI Act in 2000.

Right to Information Act, 2005

The RTI Act aims to empower the citizens and promote transparency and accountability in the working of the Government.

• This act extends to the whole of India, including J&K.
• All bodies are constituted under the Constitution or any law or any Government notification.
• All bodies, including NGOs, which are owned, controlled or substantially financed by the Government, are covered.
• In addition, all private bodies that are owned, controlled or substantially financed by the Government are also covered.

In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that the office of the Chief Justice of India comes under the ambit of the RTI Act, as CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act.

However, certain intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule are exempted from the act, except when the information is related to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations.

Political parties are also not covered under the act.

Key Provisions of RTI Act

Under the Act, any citizen may request information from a ‘public authority’, which is required to respond to the request within 30 days.

1. Under Section 4 of the Act, every public authority has to computerise its records for easy accessibility by the citizens and to publish certain categories of information proactively.
2. Section 6 of the act entitles any citizen who wishes to obtain any information held by a government authority to make a request in writing to the Central or State Public Information Officer specifying the particulars of the information sought.
3. Under Section 7, the Public Information Officer may either provide the information or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in Sections 8 and 9 within 30 days of receipt of the request.
4. Under section 8 of the act, certain categories of information related to defence, national security, or any personal information (disclosure of which may hamper the right to privacy) are exempted from disclosure.
5. Section 8(2) of the act provides for the disclosure of information exempted under the Official Secrets Act 1923, when a larger public interest is involved.
6. Under Section 19 of the act, if the person does not receive information within 30 days or is aggrieved by the decision of the Public Information Officer, he may refer an appeal to a senior officer in that Government organisation.
7. Section 26 of the Act provides that the appropriate government may organize educational programmes to advance public awareness, especially in disadvantaged communities.
8. New institutions, such as the Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions, are established. These are headed by the Chief Information Commissioner and the State Chief Information Commissioner, respectively. Apart from that, Information officers and Appellate authorities like the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) are provided under the act.

Role of the Central Information Commission (CIC) under the RTI Act, 2005

All Central Public Authorities come under the jurisdiction of CIC. Under sections 18, 19, 20 and 25 of the RTI Act, CIC has the following powers:

• It is empowered to adjudicate a second appeal against the decision of the PIO.
• It can give direction to central government authorities on record keeping and Suo-moto disclosures.
• It has the authority to receive and enquire into the complaint about the inability to file an RTI application.
• It can Impose penalties on central government officers for non-compliance with the act.
• The decisions of the Central Information Commission are final and binding.

RTI Amendment Act, 2019

This amendment act has introduced certain changes in the terms and service conditions of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioner.

Provision	RTI Act, 2005	RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2019
Term	CIC and ICs (at the central and state level) will hold office for a term of five years.	The Bill removes this provision and states that the central government will notify the term of office for the CIC and the ICs.
Quantum of Salary	The salary of the CIC and ICs (at the central level) will be equivalent to the salary paid to the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, respectively.   Similarly, the salary of the CIC and ICs (at the state level) will be equivalent to the salary paid to the Election Commissioners and the Chief Secretary to the state government, respectively.	The Bill removes these provisions and states that the salaries, allowances, and other terms and conditions of service of the central and state CIC and ICs will be determined by the central government.
Deductions in Salary	At the time of the appointment of the CIC and ICs, if they are receiving pension or any other retirement benefits for previous government service, their salaries will be reduced by an amount equal to the pension.  It includes salaries from Statutory Corporations, and PSUs.	The Bill removes these provisions.

Concerns with the RTI Amendment Act of 2019

An Independent Information commission is necessary for bringing transparency in governance and holding the government accountable. These amendments increase the power of the central government to influence the autonomy of CICs and ICs. This may adversely affect the working of IC. Even the SC directed that CICs and ICs shall be appointed on the same terms and conditions as the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners.

Further, the amendments were passed without adequate consultation with different stakeholders, which raised the concerns.

Significance of the RTI Act

• Enable Transparency and Accountability: Information has to be placed in the public domain through manuals prescribed under the Act. Government bodies also receive substantial funding under the RTI.
• Citizen Empowerment: citizens can now question the secrecy and abuse of power or authority. Around six million applications are filed under the act every year.
• Tool to prevent corruption: Since its passage, it has become a powerful anti-corruption tool in the hands of citizens, NGOs and other stakeholders. For example, it has uncovered several major scams, such as the Adarsh Society scam, the 2G scam, the Commonwealth Games scam, the Indian Red Cross Society scam, etc.
• Democratic alignment of institutions: public authorities have an obligation to provide the information to the applicants. This has strengthened the participation of the public in governance.

Challenges with the RTI Act

As per a survey done by PWC, the following challenges in the implementation of the RTI act are observed:

Demand side challenges:

• Low Public Awareness: A survey by PWC revealed that only 15% of the respondents were aware of the RTI Act.

• Constraints faced in filing applications include the non-availability of user guides, lack of standard forms for RTI applications, etc.

• Inconvenient submission channels for RTI application: inadequate efforts have been made to receive RTI applications through electronic means, i.e., on email/ website, etc.
• Lack of assistance in filing the application: Under Section 5(3), the PIO shall assist citizens in drafting RTI applications. However, it was observed during the survey that more than 49% of the respondents did not receive any assistance.
• Threats to RTI Activists: According to a Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) study, since 2006, 99 RTI activists have lost their lives, 180 were assaulted, and 187 were threatened. For example, Nanji Bhai, an RTI activist who exposed corruption in a village road project, was clubbed to death.

Supply-side challenges:

• Poor record-keeping practices: Ineffective record management system and collection of information from field offices leads to delays in processing of RTI applications:
• Failure to provide information within 30 days: more than 50% of the information seekers mentioned that it took more than 30 days to receive the information from the PIO.
• Lack of infrastructure at PAs: PIOs need to provide information to the applicant through photocopies, soft copies, etc. While these facilities are easily available at a district level, they are a challenge at the Block/ Panchayat level.
• Ineffective implementation of Section 4(1): As per this, it is the responsibility of the Public Authorities to disseminate information on a Suo-moto basis.
• Poor quality or incomplete information provided: 75% per cent of the respondents were dissatisfied with the quality of information being provided.
• Inadequate trained PIOs and First Appellate Authorities: only 55% of surveyed PIOs had received RTI training.

Issues faced at Information Commissions:

• Lack of adequate staff and vacancies: It hampers the functioning of information commissions.
• Perception of being “lenient” towards PIOs: Information commissions are hesitant to impose penalties.
• Lack of Monitoring and Review Mechanisms by ICs: There are inadequate processes and records available from the Information Commission for regular monitoring.
• High level of pendency of Appeals: The number of RTI Appeals with the Information commissions is growing at a rapid pace year after year.
• Geographical spread of ICs: The majority of the Information Commissions are situated in the State capitals, which results in appellants undergoing an additional cost in order to attend the hearings.

Measures to Address Challenges with RTI

• • Supreme Court, in the DDA vs Skipper Construction Ltd case, have given detailed guidelines: 
    • High Courts should resist the temptation to exercise writ jurisdiction to correct errors made by SICs/CICs.
    • If the High Court quashes a CIC/SIC order, it must categorically find that the order was without jurisdiction or erroneous.
    • A code of conduct must be developed for the Central and State Information Commissioners.
    • It is imperative for the commissioners to keep a distance from government heads and officialdom.
  • Public Awareness: The RTI Act of 2005 is one of the strongest RTI laws in the world. However, it needs to be bolstered by extensive public awareness programmes. Also, it should be compulsorily included in the school curriculum to develop a sense of responsibility and vigilant citizenship. 
  • Training of Officers: Well-designed and regular training programmes for civil servants and other public officials so that smooth implementation of the act can be ensured.

• Improving infrastructure and staff of Information Commissions: Vacancies in information commissions should be filled in a timely manner, along with strengthening of infrastructure and budget.

• Providing Information in Vernacular Languages: Information regarding the provisions of the RTI Act should be made available in the local languages. Apart from that, government offices should proactively disclose information in vernaculars as well. This will help raise awareness of vulnerable sections.

Conclusion

The Importance of the RTI Act can be gauged from the fact that the Supreme Court, in several judgments, held that RTI is a fundamental right flowing from Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. However, The Right to Information Act could not achieve its objectives completely due to certain challenges in its implementation.

Therefore, more needs to be done to realise the potential of RTI to usher in accountability in governance. The steps should include the protection of RTI activists/whistleblowers and the decentralization of power.

UPSC Previous year questions:

“The Right to Information Act is not all about citizens’ empowerment alone; it essentially redefines the concept of accountability.” Discuss (2018) Examine the relevance of the following in the context of civil service: Transparency (2017) Some recent developments, such as the introduction of the RTI Act, media and judicial activism, etc., are proving helpful in bringing about greater transparency and accountability in the functioning of the government. However, it is also being observed that, at times, the mechanisms are misused. Another negative effect is that the officers are now afraid to make prompt decisions. Analyse this situation in detail and suggest how this dichotomy can be resolved. Suggest how these negative impacts can be minimized. (2015)

FAQs related to Information Sharing and Transparency in Governance