In
India, the implementation of the
RTI Act was quite uneven across
the states. In some states, information
was being provided to citizens on
time, while in a large number of
other states, implementation was
slow and tardy. PRIA took up the
initiative to assess the progress
of RTI in twelve states. The idea
was to bring out an all India picture
of RTI, so that experiences - good
as well as bad - are shared. Furthermore,
the effort was to make the RTI Act
simple and understandable to all
by analysing the most important
cases or landmark orders of Central
Information Commission.
PRIA's
probe revealed that the government
was taken aback by the mobilisation
of citizens on the RTI Act and began
to subvert the Act by proposing
amendments to it, charging high
application fees in some states
and denying information to citizens
on one pretext or another in other
states. The 12 states that PRIA
earmarked to track the progress
of the RTI Act are Andhra Pradesh,
Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Gujarat,
Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Uttarakhand,
Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar,
Kerala and Uttar Pradesh.
PRIA
designed five interventions to track
the Act's progress and make people
aware of its existence and functioning.
1.
Orientation
of Civil Society Organisations,
Community Based Organisations
and Voluntary Development
Organisations on Right to
Information;
2.
Mass awareness
generation drives
*
Among citizens at Gram
Sabha and Ward Sabha level;
*
Among
Citizen Leaders, Citizen
Collectives and elected
representatives of Panchayati
Raj Institutions and Urban
Local Bodies
*
Publication of IEC materials
on Right to Information
*
Among
university students
3.
Building
linkages and Advocacy for
effective implementation of
RTI through State level workshops,
District level workshops,
Signature campaigns, media
linkage and Jan Sunwais
4.
Enhancing
knowledge on Right to Information
5.
Model
building of Suo Motu
disclosure of information
under RTI in Panchayati Raj
Institutions and Urban Local
Bodies.
The
government was trying to make the
understanding of the Act a difficult
task. Workshops organised in each
of these states discussed the ways
it did so, including the high fee
structure, complicated mode of fee
payment, unavailability of the list
of Public Information Officers (PIO),
no pro active disclosure by public
authorities, lack of training of
PIOs and reluctance of the information
commissioners to penalise PIOs.
Participants were briefed on these
problems and provided tips on getting
past them and filing applications.
In addition to these, PRIA saw
interventions on RTI promotion
take place on a state-to-state
basis.
