New Delhi, April 10: Congress president Sonia Gandhi may be pushing the Food Security Bill and various central schemes to project the ‘ social’ face of the UPA- II government.
But an earlier attempt by her to take up the cause of the Right to Information Act ( RTI) fell flat as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stuck to his guns.
The letters written by Sonia and the PM to each other on the issue were in response to a petition under the RTI Act by activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal. They throw fresh light on the divide between the PM and the party brass on the RTI issue as also the functioning of the government.
After the PM turned down her request not to consider the proposed changes in the Act, Sonia seems to have gone silent on the issue.
This lends credence to the Opposition’s criticism that the Congress president’s attempts to bolster the party’s image by projecting the social sector is just a ‘ deceptive ploy’. Sonia wrote to Singh on November 10, 2009, taking up the issue of proposed amendments to the Act that has been worrying activists. Taking the issue head- on, she wrote: “ In my opinion, there is no need for changes or amendments. The only exceptions permitted, such as national security, are already well taken care of in the legislation.
“ Two nation- wide studies, one by the government and one by NGOs, have indicated that the main constraints faced by the government are due to lack of training of government staff and inadequate record maintenance. There is also a problem of public lack of awareness of the RTI and the harassment of applicants. It is these problems that need to be addressed.” Sonia’s letters echoed, practically word for word, the issues raised by RTI activists, including Shekhar Singh of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, who gave the NGO
report that she cited. The government report was given by the Department of Personnel and Training ( DoPT).
The DoPT, however, has sought amendments to the Act that include four major ones: to allow RTI queries on the CRPF and the BSF, which till now were exempt from the purview of the legislation; an enabling clause for the Central Information Commission to set up branches in states; a clause to permit NRIs to pay fees for RTI information; and to exempt officials from answering “ vexatious and frivolous” queries.
It is the last proposal that is wor-
rying activists. They say the clause will subvert the very purpose of the RTI Act as an official could dub any query as “ vexatious or frivolous” and not answer it.
Sonia’s letter raised this concern with the PM. But in his reply, Singh firmly stated that amendments were necessary. His letter, dated December 24, 2009, said: “ As the implementation of the Act is still in its infancy, we are all learning as we go along. While we are taking steps to improve dissemination of information and training of personnel, there are some issues that cannot be dealt with, except by amending the Act.” The PM chose “ safe” elements in the proposed amendments to deflect Sonia’s letter. “ Just to cite a few, the Act does not provide for the constitution of branches of the Central Information Commission, though this is how the business of the Commission is being conducted. There is no provision about alternative arrangements in the event of a sudden vacancy in the office of the chief information commissioner,” he said.
He also touched the crucial and possibly the most controversial part of the proposed amendments: “ The Chief Justice of India has pointed out that the independence of the higher judiciary needs to be safeguarded in the implementation of the Act.
There are some issues relating to disclosure of cabinet papers and internal discussions.” With this, attempts by RTI activists to ensure that the Act is not diluted have been defeated.
And Sonia seems to have left it at that, with no further response to the PM’s letter. This is perhaps an indicator of how far she will go to push a social cause that empowers the aam admi .
—Agencies