The Press Statement 3rd Aug 06

RESPONSE TO PMO’s PRESS STATEMENT The Press Statement (enclosed) isuued by the P.M.O. and sent by the P.M. to Shri V.P. Singh and Shri Anna Hazare, is not only full of inaccuracies, but also constitutes a blatant attempt to mislead the people about the implications of the amendments approved by the Union Cabinet. The Press Statement claims that the amendment “will make the Right to Information Act more a more powerful tool for more transparent and just governance, where the public will have increased access to information relating to not only the decisions taken, but also how and why they are taken.” It is necessary to read the press note and the amendments together to understand the degree to which the press statement misleads, and the amendments actually restrict peoples access to the deliberative process of decision making. In fact, if the cabinet note is based on a similar set of arguments, it becomes one more important reason to reconsider this entire decision. To examine the statement point by point: 1. The fact that the words “file notings” were not included in the definition of information under section 2 (f) of the act, is in fact of little relevance. What is important is that the definition included all information related to the deliberative process, by including “material in any form” including “advice and opinion”. The interpretation of the central information commission confirms this in several orders. The argument that the words ‘file notings’ should have been used would reduce the right to information act, or any act for that matter to an absurdity where broad categories and specific descriptions would be meaningless unless they are also individually named. In fact the standing committee did not even comment on section 2 (f) but simply stated the broad principle that the Act should follow the principle of “maximum disclosure and minimum exemptions consistent with constitutional provisions.” Needless to say, the constitutional provisions of 19 (1) (a) do not allow the exemption of “file notings” as a category of information from the peoples right to know. 2. It is true that both houses of Parliament passed the right to information act and the President signed assent. However to say that this was done while “excluding file notings from the definition of information that was accessible under the act” is a an imaginary conclusion which is not borne out by any of the parliamentary proceedings or the statements made at the time of passage of the Act. It is however true that the DOPT arbitrarily added the words “but does not include file notings” to section 2 (f) in its web site. This arbitrary overriding of the provision of the RTI Act continues even now despite many Information Commission directives to remove it. It is surprising the PMO endorses this flouting of the law by the DoPT. 3. The arguments that were reportedly placed before the government in favour of “non disclosure of file notings” themselves contain many inaccuracies. Infact it raises questions about how well he Government was informed before it took the decision. (a)It is true that the Freedom of Information Act 2002 passed during the NDA tenure, did not allow disclosure of file notings. However, the weakness of the lesgislation

was the justification for repealing the Act and replacing it with a stronger Right to Information Act. (b) The statement that “similar legislations enacted in the edevloped democratic countries like the USA, UK, Australia, France, Canada etc also exempted the deliberative process from disclosure”, is grossly incorrect. In fact, as the enclosure on the international situation go to show that approximately 25 countries, allow access to the deliberative process, with at least six of them allowing full access to notings. (c) The statement that “the State Information Acts in place at that time of the passage of the RTI Act also did not have any provisions for the disclosure of file notings” , is also untrue. The enclosed extracts from the Act show, that five out of the nine State Acts allowed access to differing degrees. (d)The fear that the disclosure of file notings “ may cast a reflection on the reputation of an officer” has been refuted by several retired reputed officers who have stated in their open letters that their reputation would get strengthened if file notings were made accessible. (e) “The fear that exposure to public glare, may inhibit the expression of frank views by officers”, would only inhibit those who d not work according to the law and ethical norms. (f) The need for confidentiality cannot extend beyond the principle of maximum disclosure with minimum exemptions according to Constitutional provisions. This is not necessary even for the alleged smooth functioning of government offices. 4. The RTI Act was in fact universally welcomed and the only protests came at points where the executive attempted to curtail access to file notings through web sites, office orders, or rules . The Union Cabinet has not in fact increased access through the amendment to section 2 (i) a of the Act as stated, but restricted it by saying “ but dos not include ……” It is clear therefore, that the proposed amendments would significantly curtail citizens access to the deliberative process. ( see the analysis of the amendments in the press note) This is a retrograde step, with enormous implications and it is simply not true that , “only a small portion of file notings now remain exempted form disclosure”.The fact that many citizens have accessed file notings under this Act belies the statement, that “ file notings on the most important and vast bulk of government activities has now become possible for the first time”. This press note makes it amply clear that the citizens access to cabinet notes at least after the decision is taken is important. If the government can be misled, in this manner, then we have a right to know whether the cabinet itself was fully informed before it makes any decision.