Right to Information

Draft RTI rules: Clause allowing appeals to be withdrawn puts applicants at risk, warn activists

Whistleblowers, who are already at threat, could face more violence.

After five years, the Union government has decided to update the rules for the implementation of the Right to Information Act, which was passed by the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance regime in 2005 to provide a transparent mechanism for citizens to access information.

The Department of Personnel and Training, the nodal department enforcing the Act, put up the draft rules on its website last week, seeking feedback from the public by April 15. The idea behind the revamp of the rules is to simplify the process of obtaining information. However, certain changes proposed in the new draft rules have not gone down well with transparency activists, who fear it may end up as a tool to intimidate them and discourage citizens from using the law.

In particular, two provisions have been flagged as problematic. The draft provides for the withdrawal of a right to information application, something that was consciously avoided in the 2012 rules. It also allows for the abatement of an application in the event of the applicant’s death, which activists described as an invitation to anti-social elements to unleash violence on right to information activists and whistleblowers.

New rules

Drafting rules are an essential part of implementing any law. They are what enable administrators to put the law to practice. Once Parliament passes a law, rules to subserve the objectives of the main law are framed, sent to the Law Ministry for vetting and then notified in the gazette. The rules for the Right to Information Act were last updated in 2012.

In the new draft rules, two key provisions added by the government could have a profound effect on the use of the law itself. Rule 12 in the draft provides for the withdrawal and abatement of right to information applications:

“12 (1) The Commission may in its discretion allow a prayer for withdrawal of an appeal if such a prayer is made by the appellant on an application made in writing duly signed or during hearing. However, no such prayer may be entertained by the Commission after the matter has been finally heard or a decision or order has been pronounced by the Commission.”

“12(2) The proceedings pending before the Commission shall abate on the death of the appellant.” 

According to right to information activists, the very idea of the transparency law was to help people hold public officials accountable. Since its enactment, the law has helped expose a number of corrupt officials and those in connivance with them across the country. But this has come at a price as right to information activists have often been the target of those working against transparency.

Target of attacks

Venkatesh Nayak, programme coordinator at the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, said that in the three months of 2017 so far, there have been more than 375 attacks against persons seeking information to expose corruption in public offices. Of these, 56 were murder cases.

Nayak said provisions to allow withdrawal and abatement of applications would encourage violence against those seeking information. “If you allow closure of the application after the applicant’s death, murder could become the tool to escape scrutiny,” he added. The same would apply to the provision of withdrawal. “A person could be intimidated with violence to withdraw an application,” he said.

Given the long time it usually takes for an appeal to be disposed of, there would be ample time to threaten the applicant, which is the other problem with the draft. Despite demands from activists, the Centre has not included a time limit for the Central Information Commission to act on appeals. Currently, an estimated 30,000 petitions are pending before the commission.

Furthermore, the new rules may also make the right to information process costlier. The draft says the postal charge, if above Rs 50, will have to be borne by the applicant.

The new provisions assume even more significance given the fact that the Centre has proposed sweeping amendments to the Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2011, which activists say would dilute the very purpose for which the law has been enacted.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Do you really need to use that plastic straw?

The hazards of single-use plastic items, and what to use instead.

In June 2018, a distressed whale in Thailand made headlines around the world. After an autopsy it’s cause of death was determined to be more than 80 plastic bags it had ingested. The pictures caused great concern and brought into focus the urgency of the fight against single-use plastic. This term refers to use-and-throw plastic products that are designed for one-time use, such as takeaway spoons and forks, polythene bags styrofoam cups etc. In its report on single-use plastics, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described how single-use plastics have a far-reaching impact in the environment.

Dense quantity of plastic litter means sights such as the distressed whale in Thailand aren’t uncommon. Plastic products have been found in the airways and stomachs of hundreds of marine and land species. Plastic bags, especially, confuse turtles who mistake them for jellyfish - their food. They can even exacerbate health crises, such as a malarial outbreak, by clogging sewers and creating ideal conditions for vector-borne diseases to thrive. In 1988, poor drainage made worse by plastic clogging contributed to the devastating Bangladesh floods in which two-thirds of the country was submerged.

Plastic litter can, moreover, cause physiological harm. Burning plastic waste for cooking fuel and in open air pits releases harmful gases in the air, contributing to poor air quality especially in poorer countries where these practices are common. But plastic needn’t even be burned to cause physiological harm. The toxic chemical additives in the manufacturing process of plastics remain in animal tissue, which is then consumed by humans. These highly toxic and carcinogenic substances (benzene, styrene etc.) can cause damage to nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

The European Commission recently released a list of top 10 single-use plastic items that it plans to ban in the near future. These items are ubiquitous as trash across the world’s beaches, even the pristine, seemingly untouched ones. Some of them, such as styrofoam cups, take up to a 1,000 years to photodegrade (the breakdown of substances by exposure to UV and infrared rays from sunlight), disintegrating into microplastics, another health hazard.

More than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to discourage the use of single-use plastics. Morocco and Rwanda have emerged as inspiring success stories of such policies. Rwanda, in fact, is now among the cleanest countries on Earth. In India, Maharashtra became the 18th state to effect a ban on disposable plastic items in March 2018. Now India plans to replicate the decision on a national level, aiming to eliminate single-use plastics entirely by 2022. While government efforts are important to encourage industries to redesign their production methods, individuals too can take steps to minimise their consumption, and littering, of single-use plastics. Most of these actions are low on effort, but can cause a significant reduction in plastic waste in the environment, if the return of Olive Ridley turtles to a Mumbai beach are anything to go by.

To know more about the single-use plastics problem, visit Planet or Plastic portal, National Geographic’s multi-year effort to raise awareness about the global plastic trash crisis. From microplastics in cosmetics to haunting art on plastic pollution, Planet or Plastic is a comprehensive resource on the problem. You can take the pledge to reduce your use of single-use plastics, here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic, and not by the Scroll editorial team.