Where’s the information?

This year, a total of 21,303 RTIs were filed in the state of which only 12,664 were disposed of. Though this might seem like a good yield, there is a flipside to the disposition. Even if a file is rejected or incomplete information is furnished in the RTI query, it is still counted in the ‘disposed of’ category.

In a democracy, every person has the right to find out how government departments function and spend public finances. This is the premise under which the RTI Act was established on October 13, 2005. The act gives authority to any citizen of the country to demand answers from any government body. It also serves as a replacement to the Freedom of Information Act where information disclosure was restricted by the Official Secrets Act, 1923. But, after the RTI came into full force this Act was relaxed. Today, we observe the eighth anniversary of the RTI Act.

“Any public authority, subsidiary or organisation which receives a substantial amount of public finances to perform their duties comes under the RTI Act. Even a certain set of NGO’s come under this Act. In this Act, the people can put forth their queries regarding any public department and the so-called department has to reply within a stipulated time-frame (30 days). All the government bodies must have a PIO (Public Information Officer) elected from within the ranks who must put forth the requested information,” says M Padmanabha Reddy, IFS, Secretary, Forum For Good Governance.

This year, a total number of 21,303 RTIs were filed in the state of which only 12,664 were disposed. Though this might seem like a good yield, there is a flipside to the disposition. Even if a file is rejected or incomplete information is furnished in the RTI query, it is still counted in the ‘disposed of’ category. In the city, the GHMC, one of the largest civic bodies, had received 2484 RTI petitions till August 31, of which 1442 have been disposed. Considering the magnanimity of the GHMC, these do not portray significant results.

RTI activists in the city, who have been waging a war against opacity, confer to this claim. Rakesh Reddy Dubbudu who had filed close to ten RTIs with the GHMC says,

“Though the statistics say something else, the RTI replies that we get from the GHMC are either very evasive or non-responsive. There is never a straight answer to the petition. I filed petitions during the COP-11 when there were rumours of wide-spread corruption; all the replies by the civic body were completely unsatisfactory. The replies that we get are also delayed. Under the Act, even if we are sent a letter of rejection, the RTI is considered to be disposed.”

But, Rakesh quips that HMDA is a far better organisation than the GHMC when it comes to transparency and timeliness.

“HMDA is prompt in answering all RTIs. They also stick to the deadline and do not give evasive answers unlike the GHMC,” said Rakesh.

Even after eight years of establishing this ‘landmark’ act, activists still scorn over the unresponsive attitude of many government departments. Summing up the Act, an activist said, “The RTI was established with the motive of eradicating all discrepancies in the system. But, with officials finding new ways to dispose off the petitions, it seems to have created more ambiguity, which ironically, was the cause which the Act intended to eliminate.”