, the Federal Government has placed on hold its plan to amend the Right to Information Act (RTI). The Government was to amend the RTI to exclude so-called “file notings” of bureaucrats. Activists argue that a “noting” will be useful to trace corruption and correct wrong decisions.
The Federal Government, the President’s office, Service Chiefs, and the bureaucracy are opposed to disclosing “file notings” as it may also inadvertently expose sensitive state secrets. Cautioning Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, President Abdul Kalam wrote that the disclosure of the file noting process “is not a fair approach and will harm the process of decision making, as officials would be more cautious or even refrain from rendering objective, frank and written advice on file.” The reasoning is that writing frank advice may make bureaucrats prime targets to be used as pawns in political battles. There is also fear that the officialdom may invent a new extra-administrative mechanism that can circumvent the “file notings” process. Already there is mounting evidence that this new “information” tool is being used by some unscrupulous bureaucrats to settle internal feuds leading to false corruption charges, disciplinary proceedings, or misconduct investigations. Some others are demanding “file notings” for personal gain.
Responding to populist sentiments that are very skeptical of political and bureaucratic uprightness, various politicians have aligned themselves against the amendment without asking the right questions or doing the right thing by the nation. As Kalam rightly pointed out, there needs to be a separation of requirements to share “information on decisions taken” from sharing information “on how the decision is actually arrived at.” Singh seems to have agreed with Kalam and pointed out that neither the National Advisory Council nor the Group of Ministers had intended to include “file notings” as falling within the definition of “information.”
In our desire for a corruption-free Government, we should not rush to a full disclosure. Nowhere in the world is the Government expected to share all the information. For example, the US Government often touted as the best democracy in the world, blacks out sensitive information before delivering files to its citizens. If we need to ensure that there is accountability in governance, we have to demand that there be a process whereby some arbitration mechanism is set up that can adjudicate the level, kind, and depth of information that should be divulged on any subject.
