The Implementation of RTI Act is divided into four articles for the sake of convenience of the students in understanding it step by step. This is the second series. In this article we will take up the topic of Implementation of RTI Act information and record keeping.
The below are the Rights and Obligations under the RTI Act:
- Information Commissions
- Information Officers and Appellate Authorities.
II. INFORMATION AND RECORD-KEEPING: (We are here)
- Suo motu declaration.
- Public Interest Disclosure.
- Modernizing record keeping.
III. CAPACITY BUILDING AND AWARENESS GENERATION:
IV. CREATION OF MONITORING MECHANISMS.
RTI Act Information and Record Keeping:
Pro-active disclosure of important information by governmental agencies constitutes the essence of transparency in governance.
Act emphasizes suo motu disclosure {Section 4(1)}, and stipulates publication of prescribed information by all public authorities.
While the present practice of web publication should continue with regular up-dating, there are inherent limitations in electronic communication.
The vast majority of people will not have access to computers in the foreseeable future.
Also, a large number of small public offices and village panchayats are unlikely to be able to use this mode of communication.
Therefore, a printed priced publication in the local language, revised periodically (at least once a year) should be available in each public office and supplied on demand.
Such a publication should be available for reference, free of charge.
In respect of electronic disclosures, it is necessary to provide a single portal through which disclosures of all public authorities under appropriate governments could be accessed, to facilitate easy availability of information.
One important class of disclosures not covered under the Act is public interest disclosure.
Interestingly, it is recognised in many democracies that an honest and conscientious public servant who is privy to information relating to gross corruption, abuse of authority or grave injustice should be encouraged to disclose it in public interest without fear of retribution.
Therefore, confidentiality of the whistle blower in such cases if s(he) seeks it as well as protection from harassment by superiors should be integral to the transparency regime.
Law Commission, in its 179th report (2001) recommended enactment of Public Interest Disclosure (Protection) Law.
This Commission fully endorses the view and recommends a suitable legislation to protect whistle blowers.
The weakest link in our information system is the total neglect of record keeping.
The Tenth Finance Commission took note of it and recommended special grants to the States for improving record keeping.
Land records are probably the most important public documents in any governance system.
A vast number of people need them as a proof of title; dispute resolution relies heavily on records; access to credit is usually dependent on land ownership, and the whole administration hinges on the accuracy and reliability of land records.
Naturally, access to land records will constitute bulk of the requests for information under the Act at grass roots level.
Unfortunately, land records updating and maintenance has suffered great neglect after Independence.
In many states, significant proportions of land records no longer exist; they are often fragile when they exist; and comprehensive land surveys have not been carried out over the past 70 years anywhere in India.
Even in Union Ministries and Departments the status of recordkeeping is a problem area.
In many subordinate offices/ agencies of GOI and State Governments, record keeping procedures often do not exist.
Most significantly the practice of cataloguing, indexing and orderly storage is singularly absent.
Even when records are stored, retrieval of intelligible information is virtually impossible.
It is perhaps because of this situation that there is a tendency to give bulk unprocessed information rather than a relevant and intelligible summarization.
Right to Information would be honoured only if the information exists and when it exists, it is easily retrievable and intelligible.
A combination of measures is required to achieve this: record keeping procedures need to be developed, reviewed and revised; catalouging, indexing and orderly storage should be mandatory; all documents need to be converted into rational, intelligible, retrievable information modules.
A road map needs to be made for digitizing of records.
A permanent mechanism with sufficient authority, expertise and responsibility needs to be created in each government to coordinate and supervise proper record-keeping.
Therefore, an independent Public Records Office (PRO) should be established in GOI and in each State Government.
Several records keeping agencies already exist in GOI and most states have entrusted record keeping to State Archives, State Gazetteers and State Record Rooms.
These could be restructured and integrated to constitute the Public Records Office.
Public Records Office would have responsibility to oversee proper record keeping in all public offices including preparation and up-dating of manuals, modernization and digitization, monitoring, inspections and other relevant functions.
The Public Records Office should function under the overall guidance and supervision of CIC or SIC.
Public Records Office would be a repository of technical and professional expertise in management of public records.
As a one-time measure, the GOI may allocate one per cent (1%) of funds of the ‘Flagship Programmes’ for a period of five years for improving the infrastructure, creating manuals, providing technical support and establishing Public Records Offices. \
GOI may have to separately consider creating a special fund for survey and updating of land records.
Recommendations:
(i) Suo motu disclosures should also be available in the form of printed, priced publication in the official language, revised periodically (at least once a year). Such a publication should be available for reference, free of charge. In respect of electronic disclosures, NIC should provide a single portal through which disclosures of all public authorities under appropriate governments could be accessed, to facilitate easy availability of information.
(ii) Public Records Offices should be established as an independent authority in GOI and all States within 6 months by integrating and restructuring the multiple agencies currently involved in record keeping. This Office will be a repository of technical and professional expertise in management of public records. It will be responsible for supervision, monitoring, control and inspection of record keeping in all public offices.
(iii) Public Records Office would function under the overall supervision and guidance of CIC/SIC.
(iv) As a onetime measure, GOI should earmark 1% of the funds of all Flagship Programmes for a period of five years for updating records, improving infrastructure, creating manuals and establishing the Public Records Offices. (An amount not exceeding 25% of this should be utilized for awareness generation.)
(v) As a onetime measure, GOI may create a Land Records Modernisation Fund for survey and updation of all land records. The quantum of assistance for each State would be based on an assessment of the field situation.
(vi) All organizations, which have jurisdiction over an area equal to or exceeding a district, should be funded and required to complete the process of digitization by the end of 2009. All sub-district level organizations should complete this task by the end of 2011. The controlling Ministries/Departments at Union and State level should lay down a detailed road map for this purpose with well-defined milestones within 6 months, so that this could be implemented as a priority item in the Eleventh Five Year Plan.
References: