Lame excuse

Much has been written about the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005 in this column. The RTI Act came into force with effect from October 12, 2005 with the objective to empower the citizens to question the government, promote transparency and accountability in the working of the government, and help contain corruption in the government and work for the people in a better way. However, it is difficult to say if the objectives of the RTI are being fulfilled in Nagaland or not. It is even more difficult to answer whether the RTI is serving its purpose in Mokokchung. The RTI is no doubt a potent tool to check corruption and ensure transparency in governance that has been handed over to the people. Unfortunately, it is only a tool. Its utility solely depends on how the people make use of it – or misuse it. It is only as effective as it is put to use. It may be a tool that is as potent as it can get but it remains useless so long as it is not put to good use.

In Mokokchung, we often come across a lot of people groaning and ranting about corruption but seldom do they take the trouble to write an RTI application to find out the truth. Meanwhile, there are reports of some people misusing the RTI Act. It can be argued that there is no way that someone can misuse the RTI if the respondent is corruption-free. If the respondent has nothing to hide, then the applicant has no room to misuse the RTI. Anyway, the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Nagaland, I Meyionen Jamir, has on several occasions stated in public that some people are misusing the RTI for personal gain. The CIC along with two State Information Commissioners made a courtesy call on the new Governor of Nagaland La. Ganesan earlier this month during which the issue of misuse of RTI by both the information seekers as well as public authorities was reportedly discussed. Although it is difficult to see how a public authority can be intimidated or even blackmailed by an RTI applicant if the former has nothing to hide, let us give the benefit of doubt to the CIC and assume that there are people who misuse the RTI as alleged. Still then, apart from the cumbersome paperwork likely involved in furnishing the information sought, there is very little or no room for an information seeker to misuse the RTI for his personal gain. Lack of proper documentation and bookkeeping on the part of the public authorities, for instance, must be the reason why some people get the opportunity to ‘misuse’ the RTI.

In fact, one of the provisions under RTI Act is the ‘suo moto disclosure’ (Section 4) or voluntary publication of the information at regular intervals and making that information available in the public domain by concerned public authority. If such voluntary disclosures are in place, the need for citizens to file RTI applications would not arise. In the final analysis, it is just that the public authorities in Nagaland are not adept at record keeping and, as such, struggle to furnish information when asked; or they are not clean. To claim that some people misuse the RTI Act is a lame excuse.