Institutionalizing a culture of transparency

Spirit of the RTI Law Easy access of citizens to all information Bureaucracy mandated by Law to provide information Independent Commissions to not be “neutral”, but play their mandated role of ensuring that all custodians of information provide it to people not just on demand but also proactively

Three pillars of a transparency regime Citizens Shown enthusiasm in demanding information (huge numbers of citizens filing RTIs- still don’t have a precise number) b. Pursued in accessing information (Huge number of appeals) c. Despite great personal costs they have persevered. Nearly 70 citizens killed for pursuing information through RTI and use it to expose corruption and arbitrary use of power

Government An ideal measurement of Government’s political commitment to transparency and accountability is to see how much the Government has used RTI not as a mere respondent to RTI applications filed by citizens, but as a means of ensuring transparency of governance and a culture of open government State of implementation of Section 4 is extremely poor and disappointing. Even where it has been symbolically completed, it is not in the true spirit of the Act As a First Appellate Authority, the Government could administratively have ensured that no PIO would delay or arbitrarily deny complete information without complete justification. This has not been done anywhere. First Appellate Authorities have been largely reduced to ‘rubber stamps’. Had this been done the load on Commissions would have been much less, and the Commission could have spent its time looking at issues of Law and jurisprudence Transparency is the first step to open Government and the Government could have seized the initiative by ensuring that the RTI and its tremendous use by citizens a tool of good governance so that information is promptly acted upon through measures such as social audits

d. Even with the Parliament passing a law on Whistleblower Protection, the Government has not initiated its implementation thereby leading to increased vulnerability, intimidations, violence and deaths of RTI applicants and users The Government is duty bound to use transparency for ensuring a participatory democracy. However, it has moved contrary to its mandate and is introducing amendments in the most opaque and non transparent manner that will seriously undermine the RTI Act.

Information Commissions Campaigns have fought for a strong Information Commission so that it can serve as a protector of the RTI Law. Commissions are not meant to be “neutral” b. Its mandate is to ensure transparency and open Government. Its mandate is to stand by people c. RTI users and activists have been very disappointed with pendencies, quality of decisions (barring a few notable exceptions), efficiency, and its ability to partner with other pro-transparency forces which include citizens d. There is a need for the IC to be much stronger on penalties and putting decisions out in the public domain for public comment e. Commission can pass decisions on Section 4 and pro-actively order Departments to follow without necessarily having to rely on penalties alone – by exercising its moral and legal authority as the highest authority on transparency in the country

f. It can itself serve as a model through its website, open decision making on administrative matters, participation and outreach norms and through organizing platforms of joint dialogue and review, and through developing quality reports that are to be submitted to the legislature g. need for a Commission enabled platform for a dialogue on a monthly or bi- monthly basis. Need for an open forum for discussion and feedback bring credible experts on transparency issues together Can serve as a platform to discuss amendments when proposed by Government are often not put out for public consultation. The Commission’s own suggested changes on rules and even the Commission’s lack of access to resources can also be discussed

Focus on pro-active disclosure Challenge posed to Section 4 of RTI Act and social audit by the concept of Privacy in the proposed data protection act – being discussed later Section 4 (1) (b) is not just its 17 points. It is actually the principles, processes, and the culture of transparency All of us need to think of how to make information available proactively- in a demystified way, what form and format, and citizen based platforms Proactive disclosure in a digital age- MIS to JIS Ensure principles like transaction based, real time, public MIS are developed Remove “administrative logins” Have connections with non digital forms such as wall paintings Using transparency for good governance. Use digital medium for auto inclusion of beneficiaries, producing exception reports

Jan Soochna Portal

Wall Paintings: From website to web wall

Public MIS for Silicosis

Automatic identification and sanction

Disclosure of PIO Register

Disclosure of Job Chart

Disclosure of asset wise expenditure