Power & Politics / Mail Today, August 23, 2010

ITS MANY achievements — and failures — notwithstanding, the Right to Information Act which came into effect during the early days of UPAI was truly a feather in the government’s cap. Yet, take a closer look now and you will see that just five years after the landmark legislation was enacted, the RTI is more a whimper and less the bang that the government promised.

The rot begins at the top. The provisions of the RTI Act are diluted or blatantly ignored to ensure that the political class doesn’t come under the scanner. The readiness of the government to reveal the assets of ministers seems to be inversely proportional to the public curiosity to know the same.

Here are the rules. The Code of Conduct for ministers says that a person, before taking office as a minister, shall “ disclose to the Prime Minister or the chief minister ( as the case may be) details of the assets and liabilities and business interests, of himself and members of his family”. Similar rules exist for MPs of both Houses. While contesting polls, candidates have to declare their assets before the Election Commission, the details of which are then made available on the commission’s website. Later, MPs file declarations to the presiding officers of the two Houses. These, too, can be accessed via the RTI route. But when it comes to ministers, the goalposts are shifted. I am told that most ministers regularly comply with the prime minister’s directive to file annual declarations, but for reasons unknown, the PMO doesn’t place these in Parliament.

Two weeks ago, as a result of an RTI query, the Lok Sabha secretariat wrote to the PMO to say that since ministers’ declarations are made directly to Prime Minister, “ it is felt that the instant reference is not required to be placed before the Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha”. A similar letter went to the PMO from the Rajya Sabha. Shorn of ‘ bureaucrat- ese’, what this means is that the presiding officers of the two houses are not privy to information about ministerial assets. It’s easy to guess why someone wants to hide something. The question is: Who?

Ask Wajahat Habibullah, who as the Central Information Commissioner is the custodian of RTI. He put the ball into Parliament’s court. There are more RTI applications on the subject of ministerial wealth than anything else, but RTI activists — the media, lawyers and public — spirited citizens are constantly being stonewalled by the PMO and the Cabinet Secretariat, both of which maintain that details of ministerial wealth are personal matters and therefore cannot be divulged. So much for transparency in government.

As if that weren’t bad enough, here is more proof to show that the RTI is as good as dead. Incredible as it may seem, the W. Habibullah R. PRASAD government has no idea of the number of people who enjoy the perks and comforts of ministerial office while not being ministers in the government. You’d think the CabSec will know, but ask and you will be told to knock on the doors of the Ministry of Home Affairs. India Today magazine filed an RTI in July 2009 seeking to know the number of such people and details of offices they held and their perks.

The CabSec forwarded the application to the ministry of home affairs ( MHA). The MHA in turn sent us a reply saying that “ the status of Union cabinet minister on a person, is processed by individual administrative ministries/ departments for approval of the Prime Minister directly. A centralised list is not maintained by this ministry. You may approach the individual ministries and departments in respect of organisations under their administrative control.”

Earlier this year, we tried our luck again. Once again, the Cab- Sec forwarded the application to MHA. Last month, the home ministry informed us: “... the status of union cabinet minister on a person, is processed by individual administrative ministries/ departments for approval of the Prime Minister directly. A centralised list is not maintained by this ministry.”

A year later, nothing changed, not even a comma. Well placed sources tell me that there are as many people enjoying ministerial perks as there are ministers in the Union council, which at last count was over 75. All of them are allotted bungalows in Lutyens Delhi, driven around town in official cars with a red beacon light and entitled to official staff of nine, whose salaries are paid by the government.

Considering that each MP costs the country nearly ` 40 lakh a year, the cost of these ministers- without- ministries can be imagined. That’s perhaps why the government exercises the Right to Conceal.

Snippets/ Mail Today, August 17, 2009

Half- baked information from the Act

I HAVE in the past written about the sham that is the Right to Information ( RTI) Act. I still stand by it and here’s why. India Today , the magazine where I am editor, had nearly two years ago used the RTI route to seek information from the PMO and the Cabinet Secretariat about the many Groups of Ministers ( GoMs) set up to look into various issues.

Roughly, I knew there were more than a 100 of them and had sought details about the names of the chairmen and members, the number of times each has met, original deadlines set and dates set for submission of reports for each of the GoMs. After about a month came the first reply from the Cabinet Secretariat which said, “ Issue of providing information of this nature is under consideration.” Later, we filed an appeal to the Appellate Authority. No reply. Three months later, we approached the Central Information Commission. Still no reply.

Then last November, we again wrote to the CIC Wajahat Habibullah who was kind enough to inform us that the matter was “ being looked into”. For the next three months, each reminder from us saw the ball being lobbed into yet another government court and we had almost given up hope when last week, we were surprised by an thick dossier from the director, Cabinet Secretariat which informed us that there were 141 GoMs in all and gave the names of their chairmen and members but provided no further details.

“ You may, if so desired, obtain the information with the concerned ministry/ department who is servicing the GoM.” The stipulated time to provide the information sought under RTI Act is 30 days, but when the Cabinet Secretariat itself takes 22 months to give a answers that are half- baked and incomplete, I am left with no option but to conclude that the UPA’s crowning achievement is sought to be undermined by highlevel bureaucrats. Last week, the government set up three more GoMs to look into the mess in the aviation sector, the sibling war over oil and the drought induced food situation. So I guess I will start all over again.

TODAY, state chief ministers will attend a conclave in Delhi to again talk about the many common threats they face from extremists and the many differences that keep them from evolving a unified policy to deal with them.

How many of us know that surrender policies for insurgents have varying yardsticks in different states? The money goes from secret funds but I am told that a terrorist surrendering in Kashmir is given a one- time payment of Rs 20,000 to Rs 50,000 and is eligible for a Rs 3- lakh payout if he abhors violence for three years. A Naxalite laying down arms in Jharkhand doesn’t get such bounty: he is entitled to Rs 1,500 to Rs 2,500 every month until he reaches the age of 45. Other states have their own varying policies.

Law and order is a state subject, but the Naxalite menace or fundamentalist violence are phenomenon that require a uniform policy across the country.
Today’s conclave is expected to conclude with a closed- door session where the CMs will be joined only by Manmohan Singh, P. Chidambaram, the director of the IB and the home secretary. Singh will lay bare the facts and seek some give and take from the chief ministers. Hopefully the latter are as aware of their responsibilities as much they are of their rights.

Rules are meant to be broken

A MONTH ago, the Department of Expenditure issued an extraordinary “ office memorandum” noting that henceforth “ the provisions of air- conditioned ( a/ c) cars may be extended to officers of the level of Joint Secretary and equivalent”, with a rider that “ as far as possible hiring of a/ c taxis may be resorted to”. It seemed a bit odd because I have seen junior officers of the level of directors or even under secretaries being driven for their morning round of golf in a/ c Ambassadors with red beacons.

My mind went back to 1985 when the police in Delhi busted an international spy ring and the kingpin of the espionage network spilled the names of several bureaucrats who were on the take. I did a story then in India Today magazine on the government’s pathetic wage structure that forced many bureaucrats to look for something on the side. A secretary’s salary then was Rs 3,500 a month ( it is Rs 80,000 now) Rs 500 less for an additional secretary and a joint secretary took home Rs 2,500.

The very people who had the power to sign files sanctioning crores of rupees were not given funds to offer coffee and biscuits to visitors in their offices. Today, under secretaries are driven around in official cars, but nearly a quarter century ago, even joint secretaries had to drive to work or use public transport.
Rajiv Gandhi, then prime minister, had set up a committee under K. P. Singh Deo, then minister for personnel to look into the issue. Before the year was through, based on the panel’s report, bureaucrats salaries were more than doubled.

The benign Rajiv seemed to have had a soft corner for the poor overworked babudom, for it was he who ushered in the five- day week for all central government employees. Which brings me back to last month’s “ office memorandum”: if only joint secretaries and above are entitled to a/ c cars, how is it that we see so many junior level officers going to work and to play golf in these? It’s because babus know that rules are meant to be broken.