Right to Information and Public Accountability

---

One of the basic tenets of democracy is the ability of the people to determine how they should be governed. The modalities of self-government are many, but by and large most democratic countries in the world have adopted one form or another of representative democracy. This involves the people collectively, or in different groupings or geographical segments, electing representatives who are then expected to interact with their constituencies and represent their choices at the various levels of governance.

Unfortunately, almost from the start, representative democracies have deteriorated into “party democracies” where the loyalty of the elected representatives are , at best, divided between the dictums of their political party and their electorate. In India, with the enactment of the anti-defection law and other related regulations, even the semblance of a representative democracy have been replaced by what can be best called “elected dictatorship”, where all decisions are taken by the party high command and all elected representatives have to toe the line or lose their seats.

In such a reality, which transcends any specific political party, the people of India have to find other, innovative, methods of being heard and of influencing governance. But in order to do that they need, as a minimum, access to reliable and timely information regarding the decisions taken or being taken by the government, the basis for these decisions, the options available, and the safeguards and supervision being applied. Secondly, where they do not agree with, or have serious doubts, about decisions and practices of the government, they must have methods by which they can vocalise these disagreements and doubts, and publicise them.

The National Right to information act, enacted in 2005, was intended to fulfil the first of these needs and ensure public access to information related to governmental processes, decisions, actions and inactions. The Indian RTI act was widely hailed, and rightly so, as one of the strongest transparency laws in the world. It was also unique in that it was drafted by members of the public and lobbied for by various people’s organisations. The documents included here give a detailed account of the formulation of this law.

Unfortunately, its implementation has been compromised because of various problems, mainly unsympathetic information commissions and an unresponsive bureaucracy. There are at least three reports included here which document the problems with the implementation of the law.

A method developed by various people’s organisations to collectively access critical information and to publicly discuss it, actually preceded the enactment of the national law. The passing of the RTI act made this significantly more effective and it acquired the name of “social audits”. These social audits, as can be seen, were not only methods by which information was collected both from the government and from the affected people, especially at the local level, but also provided a forum where this collected information was publicly discussed in the presence, and with the participation, of concerned officials and others relevant functionaries.

Shekhar Singh

---

---

To be uploaded:

1. Detailed report of the 2008 assessment of the implementation of the RTI Act.
2. Report of the public hearing related to the Maheshwar Dam.