“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Sir John Dahlberg-Acton
Before looking into what the 2019 Amendment to RTI does, we should know the difference between laws made in Parliamentary Democracy and in a Totalitarian regime basically? When we look at Democracy, Parliament makes the law for the people as representatives of its people who elected them from each locality. Here, Law-making is nothing but discussing an issue and reasoning it out through debates and other forms of discussions where it could reach the public in general by opening a floor for debate, and also bringing stability to the society at large. Going back to Constituent assembly debates, there have been plenty of issues being discussed and debated among the representatives from different parts of the country at that time. Thus, stability, bringing forth the sustainability of any law, relies on how it is being reasoned out. Any law which is made expeditiously cannot sustain anywhere without stability at its core. But, when we look at the latter, which is totalitarianism, people have nothing to do with the law-making, which results in protests against the rule of totalitarianism. The problem arises here only because there is no space for discussions among the people, and laws are made expeditiously. Hence, it loses its stability and also sustainability as there is no room for the protests and riots as such. Therefore, the inference from the above is that Democratic nations should not frame laws that have no stability in them and in an expeditious way.
- HISTORICAL EVOLUTION:
India is the largest democracy in the world, and has the lengthiest written constitution, which ultimately provides Rights to its citizens, legally and politically. After becoming a Republic state, the first and foremost committed to the citizen’s Right to Information came up on the eve of the 1977 Lok sabha election. Morarji Desai led Janata Party, promised to run an open government, and would never misuse the authority and Intelligence services for personal needs and ends. Further, in 1986, the Supreme Court of India in Kulwal vs Jaipur Municipal Corporation held that freedom of speech and expression conferred under Article 19 of the Indian constitution includes and implies the Right to Information, since Article 19 cannot be fulfilled without perfect information to its citizens of the country.
But, despite such strong commitment, there was no such stability in the implementation of the same. After these, in 1996, NCPRI, which was one among the several civil society groups, had the objective of RTI being passed. Thus, in 1997, Tamil Nadu became the first state to pass the law on the Right to Information. In 2000, the Freedom of Information Bill was introduced in the parliament, and it got passed in 2004, which was enacted in some states earlier. Thus, fortunately, in 2005, the Right to Information bill was passed after heavy lobbying by NCPRI and other organizations with 150 amendments to it. This RTI act of 2005 empowers the citizen to question the secrecy and abuse of power practiced in governance. That information is through the information commissions, which are also constituted through the provisions of the act at the state and central levels to access such information is provided.
- AMENDMENT TO RTI ACT, 2005 AND ANALYSIS:
The RTI (Amendment) Bill 2019 was passed by the Lok Sabha on 22 July 2019 and the Rajya Sabha on 25 July 2019. RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2019 amended the provisions of sections 13, 15, and 27 of the previous act of 2005. The reasoning for those amendments is that it would empower the central government to prescribe through the rules, the tenure, salaries, allowances, and other terms of service of the chief and other information commissioners at the union level and also at the state level. Unfortunately, the amendment on the tenures and the allowances is controlled by the central government. If this is the case, then the primary purpose of enacting the law in 2005 would become invalid and would make the constitutional provisions null, which is Article 19, which forms the basis for the rights of the citizens under the act. It also brings forth the autonomy of the State and would make a Democratic nation into a totalitarian regime with absolute power in hand. The main point that arises here is that a democratically elected government tries to exclude the critical information to be accessed by the citizens of the country. Any cautious society would protest against those activities only because the RTI act allows them or provides a significant opportunity to contribute to a Healthy society. Thus, In India, the idea of democracy seems to be pivoted upon the assumption that Citizens are passive subjects.
Secondly, looking from the economic sense, Information asymmetry would be created, which also brings the problem of principle-agent. Under the Principal-Agent problem, since the agent knows more information than his principal in a company, he misuses it. This is because the agent knows more and has the upper hand regarding the company’s transactions and how to maximize his revenue by letting the profits of the company get reduced. Likewise, the early RTI act of 2005 helped fix the gap of information asymmetry, which would present between the State and the people of the State or country. However, the subsequent amendment to it completely erases the purpose of its enactment of it by ignoring the principle that it ought to maintain. Thus it is essential to know that early RTI plays a significant role in bridging the asymmetrical information since the decisions of the government on a budget or any other policies relating to the welfare of the State were to be informed to the public if the public thinks that the policies are not in consonant with the principles rendered in the constitution.
CONCLUSION:
“Limitations are essential to authority; a government is legitimate only if it is effectively limited”, said Lord Acton. A government should act as the agent to fulfill the legitimate needs and requirements of the people of its country. The French revolution is known for the revolt against the absolute power in the hands of the authority. The entire Marxism or communism would not be in practice without the fight for the working class revolting against the capitalist class, who own most of society’s wealth and means of production. These are the countries from which the human rights and liberty theory evolved. India had already fought against a rule by British colonies, which also infringed the rights of the people by not letting an easy way rule them and maintain their absolute power. It will be an odd event if it happens in a country like India if the right is infringed. Indian Constitution and the power of the people should always be supreme among other bodies. India follows constitutionalism not because of the mere presence of a constitution, but rather because of limitations that our framers have inserted into it.
