B.N. Yugandhar is a member of the Planning Commission, and a retired IAS officer who has served as secretary to the prime minister, secretary, rural development, and director of the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration. In a stand sharply at variance with that taken by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), he holds that four of the amendments the government wants to push through to the Right to Information (RTI) Act are "totally unnecessary" and will cripple "an outstanding piece of legislation". | | | | 'By providing anonymity to officials in situations where it's not necessary, you are only cloaking partiality, irresponsibility and dishonesty.' | | | | |
|
Excerpts from an interview with Anjali Puri:On the government's move to restrict access to notings by officials on government files:The distinction between files and file notings is an artificial one. Notings are an integral part of a file, and access to them is crucial. For instance, to make the process of awarding contracts and procurement procedures in public departments and agencies transparent and accountable, the important questions are: Who are all the people who have applied in respect to a tender? On what basis was a tender awarded? How much time was taken? Who recommended what to whom in a file noting, who diluted it, who overruled it, why did a minister or bureaucrat hold on to a file for six months? Main files and records contain final decisions, they do not capture this process. Removing file notings is taking away the soul of the document.
On the PMO's point that the proposed changes exempt only a small portion of file notings from disclosure:That is not true. There is much that is excluded—regulatory issues, postings, transfers, contracts...the amendment first excludes file notings from the definition of what a document is, and then allows access to "substantial" file notings (whatever that means) on "development and social issues". It all depends on a very vague interpretation of "development and social issues".
On whether disclosing notings will put officials in an awkward position:In four decades in government, I have never felt that I have written anything in a file that I would not like scrutinised. I have made mistakes—honest mistakes—and I am prepared to own up: to say, "At that juncture, I felt it was the right thing to do." Why not others?
On the move to block information on personnel-related matters—appointments, promotions, transfers:More than one director general of police has told me that he has no control over who is posted as an
SHO anywhere. Field officers, BDOs, tehsildars, excise superintendents...their postings are all for sale. The frequency of postings, without proper tenure, and based on no principles, has reached a scale where governance is collapsing. Public scrutiny, which the Act provides for, is the greatest, the most effective check, on this appointments, transfers and postings industry.
On the government's proposal to protect the identity of officials who have made inspections, observations and recommendations:Why are you rewarding cowardice? Anonymity is appropriate for somebody on a secret mission, and that is covered by Section 8. But if you provide a cloak of anonymity to protect officials in situations where protection is not necessary, you are cloaking partiality, irresponsibility and dishonesty. If my name is known, I will take responsibility for my actions.
On withholding information on the decision-making process, prior to an executive decision:If, for instance, a decision is kept pending for ulterior motives, why shouldn't questions be asked? To say that contents of a file cannot be revealed until the decision is taken, or that legal advice should not be made public, is the very antithesis of participatory decision-making. There are 18 laws passed by Parliament that are yet to be notified. Should the public not know why they are not being notified?
On whether the Act lacks sufficient safeguards against misuse, as some of those backing the amendments say: The safeguards required, for national security, for avoidance of litigation, or threat to life, are already all there, in Section 8 of the Act.
On what he would say to former colleagues in the bureaucracy, many of whom are said to be hostile to the Act, and behind the amendments:I believe a large section of the bureaucracy does welcome the Act, only a small number of bureaucrats in important positions is possibly objecting. And what I have to say to them is, for heaven's sake, whatever position you are in, don't stand in the way of this. A mindset of secrecy and lack of transparency does not befit a bureaucrat in 21st century democratic India. This Act gives bureaucrats dignity, and the opportunity to safeguard public interest without fear and favour.