Role of RTI in Transparency and Accountability

RTI, 2005 has brought a paradigm shift in the transparency and accountability in India. This is evident from two clear indicators as follows:

• Every year, an estimated 5-8 million RTI queries are filed
• Around 45 RTI activists have been killed so far – not counting many attacked.

In over one decade of being it’s in force, ordinary citizens have used this law to question various acts of commission and omission on part of government. It played big role in exposing the Adarsh scam, irregularity in MGNREGA and other schemes. The largest role played by RTI has been in institutionalising social audits as an implicit part of governance. Indeed, RTI has been the weapon of the weak and set India’s accountability landscape in a ground-up manner.

However, over a period, the enthusiasm over RTI has waned. Political parties have resisted all efforts to bring them in RTI ambit. Appointments to several posts in Information Commissions have been delayed. There is a lack of proper implementation of law to protect the whistleblowers. Without protection, many are discouraged to expose the information.

This apart, RTI has been blatantly misused also. In the initial years, the act was used by the bureaucrats to know about transfers and postings. The government also started putting out less information on a suo motu basis. Similarly, the Madras High Court ruled {later recalled this ruling} that word ‘right’ is not defined in RTI, those seeking information under the law would need to state the object and purpose for which the information is sought.

Solving the Dichotomy

In current times, the RTI Act, media and judicial activism etc. are proving helpful in bringing about greater transparency and accountability in the functioning of the government. But at the same time, it is also observed that these mechanisms are misused. Further, the officers are now afraid of taking prompt and speedy decisions. Thus, this dichotomy between the need for transparency and accountability and protecting honest civil servants from undue harassment needs to be resolved. What can be done in this direction includes the following:

• Providing monitoring mechanisms for ensuring transparency in programme i
• Providing adequate safeguards to officers such autonomy and accountability can be balanced.
• Encouraging officers to take decisions by rewarding them for success.
• Defining standard operating procedure and Code of Conduct for
• Encouraging voluntary disclosure of information.
• Encouraging participation of people in governance through trust building measures.
• Penalty for those who use measures for personal inter
• Bringing media under regulations through propagating positive values.
• Judiciary can restrict itself in crossing the boundaries by coming out with norms for judicial activism.

These are some of the ways which might help in resolving the dichotomy and minimizing the impacts.