Babus, lies and Radia tapes

December 28, 2010 8:30:07 AM

by Joginder Singh

There is mounting concern over the tapping of telephone lines and leaking of taped conversations. How do we deal with the issue?

The leaked tapes of corporate lobbyist Niira Radia’s conversations with journalists, politicians and bureaucrats has ruffled many feathers. So much so, the Tata Group chairman, Mr Ratan Tata, has filed a petition in the Supreme Court, seeking restrictions on the tapes being leaked to the media as that violates his freedom and privacy.

Responding to the mounting concern, especially among corporates, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has sought to smoothen ruffled feathers, saying he was “aware of the nervousness in the corporate sector arising out of the powers conferred upon the Government authorities to tap telephones for protecting national security and preventing tax evasion and money laundering”. He added, “Legal mechanisms already in place should be stringent for more effective enforcement. I am asking the Cabinet Secretary to look into these issues and report back to the Cabinet within the next month.”

According to a Government affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, Ms Radia’s phone was initially tapped following a complaint that she was allegedly an agent of foreign intelligence agencies and had amassed `300 crore in a span of just nine years. Later, the scope and duration of the wiretap was extended when some conversations were found to be “sensitive” in the matter relating to awarding of airwaves to telecom companies, the affidavit said.

The entire issue has to be seen in the light of the Right to Information Act which came into force on October 12, 2005 and which is not applicable only to intelligence and security organisations. The objective of the law is to operationalise and augment the citizens’ right to information about Government policies and actions. However, this law has limited utility in the sense that the punishment for delay in providing information is only a fine and there is no fear of losing jobs. Unless the complainant pursues the matter vigorously, even the possibility of fine is diluted.

According to the Government, the law was needed to make access to information a reality for every citizen. It claims that the law will promote transparency and accountability and enable the people’s participation in governance and minimise corruption and inefficiency in public offices.

Therefore, it is worthwhile to examine the experience gained with a view to enumerate the problems faced with the Right to Information Act, popularly referred to as RTI. Section 22 of RTI provides that this law is to have overriding effect over inconsistent legislation or rules. Although this is a commendable provision, the practical application of the Act is often slanted by bureaucrats because they are influenced by several restrictive pieces of legislation in the law books.

The Official Secrets Act, 1923, a legacy of British rule in India, contains provisions prohibiting the flow of information from the Government to ordinary people. It was primarily enacted to prevent spying, but its provisions have proved to be far-reaching. They serve not only to restrict access to information, but also to punish the disclosure of certain kinds of information by any person. Drawing from my own experience, I can say even routine letters, including reminders, are classified as ‘Top Secret’.

Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 also impose restrictions on making available official information as evidence. Section 123 deals with evidence as to affairs of state. It provides that no one shall be permitted to give any evidence derived from unpublished official records relating to any affairs of state, except with the permission of the officer at the head of the department concerned, who shall give or withhold such permission as he thinks fit. Similarly, Section 124, which deals with official communications, states that no public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence when he feels that public interest will suffer on account of such disclosure. Further, the conduct rules applicable on civil servants are also anachronistic in prohibiting the disclosure of official information.

The Second Administrative Reforms Commission, headed by the present Union Law Minister, has submitted a report on the implementation of the Right to Information Act, suggesting key recommendations to improve the implementation of the law, including repealing of the Official Secrets Act of 1923.

What is significant to note is that almost all the State Chief Information Commissioners are former Chief Secretaries of the State, whose previous job was to cover up the deeds and misdeeds of the political bosses they served. This is clearly undoing the objectives of RTI.

The first Chief Information Commissioner, speaking about his experience of RTI, has said, “There is apathy towards the peoples’ problems in all Government departments. Government employees don’t work as a team — there is a total lack of cooperation. They will not help each other even where it is possible. This is sad. People come to the CIC after they have been turned away elsewhere. There is much bitterness and pain.”

Similar sentiments have been repeated by another former Central Vigilance Commissioner. He said, “Almost one-third of Indians are ‘utterly corrupt’ and half are ‘borderline’ and 20 per cent of Indians are ‘honest’, regardless of the temptations, because this is how they are. They have a conscience.” He went to add, “There would be around 30 per cent who would be utterly corrupt. But the rest are the people who are on the borderline, the corruption is ‘palpable’… If somebody has a lot of money, he is respectable. Nobody questions by what means he has got the money”.

The corruption scandals that have surfaced in recent months, involving the Commonwealth Games, Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society and the 2G Spectrum scam, have once again brought to the fore how little effect RTI has on the powers that be. At best, officials at panchayat or district level may feel scared that they will lose their face if their misdeeds were to come to light, but the big fish know that they will face neither shame nor punishment despite the much-touted Prevention of Corruption Act and the Right to Information Act.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court has declared that no public servant has the right to indulge in corruption as part of his or her job. If any tape reveals cheating and bribery, the Government, under the law, is duty-bound to expose and reveal it in an answer to a request filed under RTI. Right to privacy does not extend to committing corruption or bribing or influencing decision-makers.

The Prime Minister has often spoken out against the damaging effect of bribes, extortion and fraud. But nothing has changed. Having said that, the Right to Information Act is at least a good beginning.

source; dailypioneer