An opening chapter

THE DECISION of the Central Information Commission to allow right to information activist Arvind Kejriwal to inspect all cabinet files and notings on foreign direct investment in brand retailing is a landmark decision. This is for the first time that cabinet papers have been accessed under the Right to Information Act, 2005. By over-ruling the objections raised by the central public information officer on the issue, the CIC has sent across the right signal to the public and to public servants. One of the many impediments before the implementation of the RTI – in spirit, and not just in letter – has been the attitude of the bureaucracy. While corrupt officials have a stake in trying to keep potentially damaging information secret, many honest officials also resent having to divulge information due to an ingrained culture of secrecy that views answering the public’s questions as an attack on their personal power and esteem.

The particular subject on which access to information has been allowed – brand retailing, which is part of the larger process of reform – is also significant. With newer and more far-reaching reforms being introduced rapidly, the public deserves to know why and how decisions are reached so that an informed debate can take place and the citizen can have a greater say. Countries with strong right to information traditions have a more active and effective civil society. The path-breaking class action suits against tobacco companies in the US could happen because members of the public could access critical information, both in the public and the private sector. In Europe, de-classified documents from the past are routinely used by the academia to re-visit and re-construct historical ‘truths’.

The latest ruling will give a fillip to the fledgling system that has been put in place since the right to information law came into effect in October 2005. The RTI 2005 has been hailed around the world as one of the best of its kind. While it is necessary to entrench the existing system, the authorities must not lose sight of the fact that more wide-reaching provisions are required in the long run. These include information from the private sector, de-classification of old documents, and de-classification of information of a non-critical nature included in Section 8 (information about the armed and paramilitary forces, for instance).