TALL ORDER: Public bodies like the CMC must pull up their socks to function in line with the diktats of the new Act

Just before the municipal elections were held in Calcutta this year, Aloke Kumar, a resident of Jodhpur Park, wanted to find out the kind of work the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (CMC) had done during the last five years. Section 41 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1990, makes it mandatory for the governing body of the CMC to bring out a report on its performance and make this available at its sale counter.

Kumar went to the CMC, only to find that no such report was available. After running from pillar to post, he was asked to visit the central library of the CMC and was assured that he would get a copy of the report there. “I went to the central library only to find that no such record had been filed for the last 10 years. Then, after I created a to-do, the authorities hurriedly sent me a copy of the record.”

There must be many like Kumar amongst us who have gone to a public authority like the CMC to get some information on its functioning, only to hear the oft-repeated line ? “It’s not our policy to give out such information.” But all that will soon become a thing of the past, thanks to the Right to Information Act, 2005, which was passed in June this year.

The Act has its origins in a people’s movement launched by Magsaysay award winner Aruna Roy and her Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in Rajasthan in the mid-Nineties. It all started with a demand for minimum wages. Government contractors, the MKSS found, would often deny labourers their earnings, saying that there was no record of their work. When the labourers wanted to see the records, they were denied access “because these were government files”.

The MKSS started its campaign for information with a series of meetings, informal courts and rallies. In 1997, after a three-year-long campaign, the people of Rajasthan won the right to obtain photocopies of all panchayati raj-related documents within four days of filing an application. On May 1, 2000, the state Assembly enacted a law giving people the right to information in all spheres of governance.

The fully-fledged Right to Information Act comes into force on October 12, 2005, (the 120th day of its enactment on June 15, 2005), giving citizens the right to get information about the functioning of public authorities. “There will now be a check and balance and public authorities will work better and become more efficient,” says Arijit Banerjee, barrister, Calcutta High Court.

As per the Act, information means “any material in any form relating to the administration, operations or decisions of a public authority”. And one can obtain such information from any public authority by means of “(i) inspection, taking extracts and notes, (ii) certified copies of any records of such public authority, (iii) diskettes, floppies or in any other electronic mode...”

Public officials, at least on the face of it, are welcoming the Act. Says Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Calcutta’s mayor, “The Act will lead to more transparency in the administration. We will definitely implement its provisions.”

Though the Act guarantees a citizen’s right to information, certain matters are exempt from disclosure as per Section 8 and 9 of the Act. These cater to such information that can affect the sovereignty and integrity of the country, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the state, or anything leading to the incitement of an offence.

The Act has also set down guidelines on how a citizen can get the informations he or she wants. Explains Ritzu Ghoshal, advocate, “He or she has to apply in writing to the designated public information officer, specifying the particulars of the information sought. The prescribed fee also needs to be paid. The information must be made available within 30 days from the date of application, and 48 hours, if the information concerns the life and liberty of a person. Failure to provide it within the specified period will be deemed a refusal on the part of the concerned public authority.”

Though most lawyers are upbeat about the Act, some are worried about its loopholes. Says Banerjee, “The Act gives the applicant the liberty to go before the State Information Commission or Central Information Commission (as formulated by this Act) and file a complaint if the information is not made available. But filing a complaint with the appropriate commission is only going to be part of the same system.”

Most developed countries, including the US, France, Canada and Australia, have passed similar laws. With India too ensuring this right to its citizens, accessing information regarding the activities of public bodies should not be such an uphill task any more.

With inputs from Bishakha De Sarkar in New Delhi