Indian Parliament approved Right to Information Bill

Right to Information Bill passed
K.V. Prasad
It will usher in a new era of governance, says Manmohan


NEW DELHI: The Lok Sabha on Wednesday passed the Right to Information Bill, in keeping with a promise the United Progressive Alliance had made in its Common Minimum Programme. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stated that it would usher in a new era in the process of governance, performance and efficiency.
146 amendments

The Bill, with 146 amendments, was adopted by voice vote. The Opposition benches remained empty owing to the boycott.
Intervening in the debate, Dr. Singh said the legislation would ensure that the benefits of growth would flow to all sections of the people, eliminate corruption and bring the concerns of the common man to the heart of all processes of governance.
The Government accepted an amendment proposed by the Congress chief whip, Pawan Bansal.
The architecture

The Bill, Dr. Singh said, lays down the architecture for accessing information, which is simple, easy, time-bound and inexpensive.
There will be stringent penalties for failing to provide information or affecting its flow. "In fact, it imposes obligations on agencies to disclose information
suo motu, thus reducing the cost of access."
The Prime Minister wanted civil servants to view the Bill in a positive spirit. They should not see it as a "draconian law for paralysing Government, but as an instrument for improving Government-citizen interfacing, resulting in a friendly, caring and effective functioning.''
Dr. Singh emphasised that the Bill was more far-reaching and effective than the existing Freedom of Information Act. He praised the role of the National Advisory Council headed by Sonia Gandhi in bringing into focus major drawbacks in the earlier legislation. He urged the State Governments to take the initiative and establish State Information Commissions.
Sonia's enthusiasm

Ms. Gandhi was among those who took an active part in the voice-vote exercise: she was seen thumping the desk with both hands.
She later walked up to the Speaker Somnath Chatterjee's chair to exchange greetings. She also had word with the Telugu Desam Party leader K. Yerran Naidu.
While supporting the legislation he had said that its "poor drafting'' showed up as the Government itself had brought forward nearly 150 amendments.
Moving the Bill, the Minister for Personnel, Suresh Pachauri, said some of the clauses would come into effect soon after it was passed by the Rajya Sabha and received presidential assent. Others would become operational within 120 days.
He said an Information Commissioner would be selected by a panel comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
Under the provisions of the Bill, there will be no fees for people below poverty line.
The exemptions list was the least among similar laws enacted by other countries, it was stated.

Nod for Information Bill
Special Correspondent
It is a pace-setting measure, says Manmohan Singh


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Historic legislation that will radically alter the administrative ethos, says Pachauri.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.hindu.com/2005/05/13/stories/2005051302431300.htm
NEW DELHI: The Right to Information Bill received parliamentary approval on Thursday with the Rajya Sabha passing it by voice vote, a day after the Lok Sabha passed the legislation.
Moving the Bill, Minister of State for Personnel Suresh Pachauri said the "historic legislation" would radically alter the administrative ethos and usher in a new era of openness, transparency and accountability.
Opposition benches remained vacant as the National Democratic Alliance is continuing its boycott of Parliament.
Public empowerment

Intervening in the debate, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said the Bill was a "pace-setting measure" and the intention was to enlarge interface between citizens and the Government and further empower the public. "People should be able to judge for themselves if governments are functioning in accordance with [the] public interest. All information can be misused also. A lot will depend on how information seekers approach it but the danger of its misuse is not that much. Access to information is not a monopoly of a few."
Dr. Singh assured the House that the Bill had adequate safeguards to prevent misuse and the penalties had given it teeth. "I think the Bill strikes a right balance. It is the not the intention to paralyse the public administration."

The Bill would see the "dawn of a new era", eliminate corruption and strengthen democracy.
Agreeing with P.C. Alexander (Independent), Dr. Singh said the next three-four years would be crucial for the operation of the Act. Security and intelligence agencies were not covered under the Bill, except in cases of allegations of human rights violations and corruption.
`Better than U.S. law'

Lauding the effort in bringing the Bill, Ram Jethmalani (Independent) said it was an improvement over the American law, which had 13 exceptions against seven in the Indian law. It would drive home the message among civil servants that they should treat the public as their masters.
He wanted an informal consultation held with the Leader of the Opposition when public information officers were appointed at the Centre and in States.
Winding up the debate, Mr. Pachauri allayed apprehensions that the bureaucracy would not be forthright in taking decisions because of the "stringent" penal provisions in the Bill.
The Minister disagreed with the contention of Bimal Jalan (nominated) that the Official Secrets Act (OSA) would have to be scrapped.
The Bill clearly defined the areas where information would be given to citizens. It had a provision to deal with situations where it came into conflict with the OSA.
Selection panel

Mr. Pachauri defended the dropping of the Chief Justice of India from the selection committee of public information officers on the ground that the judiciary was never involved in the selection of persons for executive functions.
This was the case with the Election Commission, the Central Vigilance Commission, the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the National Human Rights Commission.

The legislation differed from the one passed by the NDA Government. "The main change is in the nomenclature itself. Besides, the previous law did not have penal provisions."
Penalty

Responding to C. Ramachandraiah's (Telugu Desam Party) remark that the penalty for withholding information was inadequate, Mr. Pachauri said this was in line with what was specified in a similar Maharashtra law.
The other seven States and a Union Territory which enacted similar laws had lower penalties.