Information is birthright

The matter should rest there. One knows about the lengths to which certain Indian and foreign media mughals have gone to make the government change the policy. That it has withstood all pressures goes to its credit. The print media is one of the pillars of our democratic polity. The nation, buffeted by divisive and disruptive forces, cannot take a chance by opening the print media to those fanning the fire of separatism. Foreign companies are already an economic force in the country; the print media can give them a political clout which no outsider should wield.

As regards the Right to Information Bill, the government is bent upon making a mockery of it. Article 19 (a) already gives us "freedom of speech and expression." It includes the right to know. Since this has not been spelt out, the demand is for its legislation so that there is no room for any doubt. In the US constitution framed in 1779, it was understood that the nation had the freedom of press, including the right to know. It was all implicit. But it took the country 100 years to make the right explicit.

Accordingly, there was an amendment to the statute to say that no US Congress would abridge the freedom of the press. The US courts also interpreted it as people’s right to know.

Our Right to Information Bill should have made explicit what is implicit in Article 19 (a). But the draft Bill, made available at a workshop sponsored by the Press Council of India and others, indicates that it may whittle down even what the Article has assured in a general sense. This amounts to a violation of all undertakings given to the public. After the emergency of 1975-77, successive governments promised to bring a Bill to give people the right to know. But the very first Bill coming before Parliament during the current session, precludes the disclosure of any real information. The government takes away with one hand what it gives with the other.

The Bill provides for appointment of public officers to give information. But the list of official activities on which he can withhold information is so exhaustive that the right turns out to be unreal. For example, the government need not disclose anything which would "prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, strategic, scientific or economic interest of India or conduct of international relations, including information received in confidence from foreign government, their agencies or international organisations."

Again, the government can withhold information on the conduct of Centre-state relations, including information exchanged in confidence between the Central and state governments or any of their authorities or agencies. There is a blanket of secrecy thrown on Cabinet papers, including records relating to the deliberations of the committee of secretaries, the nature of advice, including legal advice, opinions, recommendations or minutes for the purpose of the deliberative processes in a public authority, contained in intra-departmental or inter-departmental papers. Trade or commercial `secrets’ are also protected on the ground that their disclosure may "affect the legitimate economic and commercial interests or the competitive position of a public authority."

People can appreciate the need for secrecy on defence or certain matters concerning the Home Ministry. All this was conceded by speakers at the workshop on the right to know. Regrettably, newspapers did not report the proceedings, probably since their owners did not relish the comments by the Press Council chairman. For their information, the conference on `Parliament and Media,’ held recently in Delhi, passed a resolution that parliamentarians should "ensure diversity with media ownership to prevent private monopoly and state control".

Understandably, certain organisations like the Intelligence Bureau, RAW and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence have to work under secrecy. But the fairness and objectivity with which the organisations function would, in the final analysis, depend upon the extent to which the higher executives of these organsiations are allowed to function freely, fearlessly and independently. It is an open secret that parties have used the agencies for their political ends. Even if any information on their working is barred, how does one ensure against their abuse?

The idea of the right to information has not been seriously understood by the government. It is not meant to have cosmetic changes, as the draft Bill suggests. What people want is transparency in governance. This does not mean that they want to look over the shoulders of ministers. But they are not to be hoodwinked in the name of security or public interest. They are not interested in the process of decision-making so long as they know why the government preferred one alternative to the other. The logic of the right to know is based on the principle that people are the real masters. Any member of a society or a company shareholder can raise a question on its management and he is entitled to an answer. The citizens of the country also have the same right to information from those to whom they have entrusted the country’s management.

Surprisingly, the Bill is silent on the right to know about the institutions which are going from government to private hands. Many private sector companies have been disinvested and many more are on the list. People’s right to information should extend to them as well. The criterion should not be who is the owner but who has information that affects public interest.