ANIRUDRA, NEUPANE
Informed citizenry is the prerequisite of a functional democracy. Timely access of citizens to government records is important for public oversight. Direct and indirect public participation in decision making process is possible only through easy access to information related to past performance and future plans of the government. The objective of open, transparent and accountable government can be attained only when citizens can conveniently access information of their concern from public agencies.
If the government acknowledges the essence of public access to information it should build legal and institutional mechanisms to facilitate timely access to meaningful government information. Prompt response to information requests and proactive disclosure of information of public interest are two sides of access to information. Both are equally important for creating informed citizenry.
Proactive disclosure is the ideal state of Right to Information (RTI) in which public agencies do not wait for RTI applications to provide information. Governments or public agencies regularly assess the information needs of people and try to address such needs on time. Some people may not even know their own information needs for participation in decision making and to exercise their rights, get the right opportunities and get justice.
Democratic government should promote awareness among people about their information needs and uses of government information for their benefit. Government should proactively disclose documents and records as and when they are ready. Timeliness of disclosure is essential because delayed disclosure makes information irrelevant.
Formal process of filing RTI application and addressing RTI requests involves huge amount of time and money. Proactive disclosure is important to save time and resources both of information seekers and public agencies. Public information officers need not deal with each information seeker; rather they can provide information to thousands of people at a time based on the medium they choose for disclosure.
Level of availability and accessibility of government records is an important indicator of transparency and accountability. Proactive disclosure helps in providing equal access of all citizens to information of their concern as those unable to get information by following legal requirements can also access the disclosed information. It thus helps image-building of public agencies.
Democratic government needs trust of its people. Suo motu disclosure is an instrument that facilitates government-people relations as it bridges the gap between the two sides. Section (5) of the RTI Act 2007 also has a provision of Suo motu disclosure which makes all public agencies mandatorily update and disclose 13 different types of information every three months. RTI Rule 2008 and its amendment in 2014 have added seven more types of information for proactive disclosure.
Principally, if protection of information has greater benefit to the state and the people than disclosure, such information should be protected for a specified period. If disclosure poses threat to sovereignty, national integrity, national security, communal harmony, international relations, individual privacy, and fair business competition and adversely affects investigation of criminal cases, that information should be protected.
Section 3(3) of RTI Act lists five categories of information not disseminated by public agencies. Information belonging to these categories might also not become part of proactive disclosure for some period. Moreover, some information should be provided only to concerned individuals as proactive disclosure of such information might infringe upon individual's privacy. In the rest of cases, public information officers or public agencies need not wait for RTI application to disclose information. All other information except protected ones should be disclosed in a way that no citizen is prevented from accessing them.
There are plenty of possibilities for better disclosure, either through amendment of RTI Act or through separate guidelines on proactive disclosure. Detailed information should be provided to public agencies under each of the 20 types of information provided by the Act and rule. This is necessary for imparting meaningful information to people without waiting for RTI application. For example, Section 5(3G) of RTI Act has a provision that information related to decision making and concerned official for that decision should be updated and proactively disclosed. This is an abstract provision that requires detailed explanation. Only then does proactive disclosure become meaningful.
The central government agencies have started to publish quarterly online bulletins as per Section (5) of the RTI Act. In most cases, these bulletins do not contain meaningful information. They just fulfill the formality of publishing abstract information every three months. On the other hand, some ministries are yet to start proactive disclosure even at this level. We are thus not in a position to expect objective disclosure of information from other government agencies, political parties, NGOs and public agencies.
A level of demand for information is reflected in RTI application forms but demand for proactive disclosure is not met. Public information officers and heads of agencies think that people are troubling them through their information requests. Public agencies have not even recognized the task of information dissemination as an important service. Thus, strong political commitment, greater investment on training public servants and basic infrastructure for disclosure of information are needed to build an enabling environment for Suo motu disclosure of information.
Published in Republica Daily of 1 September 2015
Informed citizenry is the prerequisite of a functional democracy. Timely access of citizens to government records is important for public oversight. Direct and indirect public participation in decision making process is possible only through easy access to information related to past performance and future plans of the government. The objective of open, transparent and accountable government can be attained only when citizens can conveniently access information of their concern from public agencies.
If the government acknowledges the essence of public access to information it should build legal and institutional mechanisms to facilitate timely access to meaningful government information. Prompt response to information requests and proactive disclosure of information of public interest are two sides of access to information. Both are equally important for creating informed citizenry.
Proactive disclosure is the ideal state of Right to Information (RTI) in which public agencies do not wait for RTI applications to provide information. Governments or public agencies regularly assess the information needs of people and try to address such needs on time. Some people may not even know their own information needs for participation in decision making and to exercise their rights, get the right opportunities and get justice.
Democratic government should promote awareness among people about their information needs and uses of government information for their benefit. Government should proactively disclose documents and records as and when they are ready. Timeliness of disclosure is essential because delayed disclosure makes information irrelevant.
Formal process of filing RTI application and addressing RTI requests involves huge amount of time and money. Proactive disclosure is important to save time and resources both of information seekers and public agencies. Public information officers need not deal with each information seeker; rather they can provide information to thousands of people at a time based on the medium they choose for disclosure.
Level of availability and accessibility of government records is an important indicator of transparency and accountability. Proactive disclosure helps in providing equal access of all citizens to information of their concern as those unable to get information by following legal requirements can also access the disclosed information. It thus helps image-building of public agencies.
Democratic government needs trust of its people. Suo motu disclosure is an instrument that facilitates government-people relations as it bridges the gap between the two sides. Section (5) of the RTI Act 2007 also has a provision of Suo motu disclosure which makes all public agencies mandatorily update and disclose 13 different types of information every three months. RTI Rule 2008 and its amendment in 2014 have added seven more types of information for proactive disclosure.
Principally, if protection of information has greater benefit to the state and the people than disclosure, such information should be protected for a specified period. If disclosure poses threat to sovereignty, national integrity, national security, communal harmony, international relations, individual privacy, and fair business competition and adversely affects investigation of criminal cases, that information should be protected.
Section 3(3) of RTI Act lists five categories of information not disseminated by public agencies. Information belonging to these categories might also not become part of proactive disclosure for some period. Moreover, some information should be provided only to concerned individuals as proactive disclosure of such information might infringe upon individual's privacy. In the rest of cases, public information officers or public agencies need not wait for RTI application to disclose information. All other information except protected ones should be disclosed in a way that no citizen is prevented from accessing them.
There are plenty of possibilities for better disclosure, either through amendment of RTI Act or through separate guidelines on proactive disclosure. Detailed information should be provided to public agencies under each of the 20 types of information provided by the Act and rule. This is necessary for imparting meaningful information to people without waiting for RTI application. For example, Section 5(3G) of RTI Act has a provision that information related to decision making and concerned official for that decision should be updated and proactively disclosed. This is an abstract provision that requires detailed explanation. Only then does proactive disclosure become meaningful.
The central government agencies have started to publish quarterly online bulletins as per Section (5) of the RTI Act. In most cases, these bulletins do not contain meaningful information. They just fulfill the formality of publishing abstract information every three months. On the other hand, some ministries are yet to start proactive disclosure even at this level. We are thus not in a position to expect objective disclosure of information from other government agencies, political parties, NGOs and public agencies.
A level of demand for information is reflected in RTI application forms but demand for proactive disclosure is not met. Public information officers and heads of agencies think that people are troubling them through their information requests. Public agencies have not even recognized the task of information dissemination as an important service. Thus, strong political commitment, greater investment on training public servants and basic infrastructure for disclosure of information are needed to build an enabling environment for Suo motu disclosure of information.
Published in Republica Daily of 1 September 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment