& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Keep pvt bodies out of RTI act purview

MCCI urges govt

Staff Correspondent
The Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and Industry (MCCI) has called on the government to keep private organisations beyond the scope of the proposed Right to Information Ordinance 2008.
Citing the examples of several other countries where such laws require only public authorities and companies wholly owned by the state to disclose information.
FROM PAGE 1
MCCI President Latifur Rahman said the intent and purpose of such a law should be ensuring transparency and accountability of actions of public authorities by allowing access to information which is under their control and possession.
"No dilution of the focus on the right to information on the actions of public authorities should be permitted by inclusion of private bodies within the ambit of this law," the MCCI said in a statement on the draft Right to Information Ordinance 2008, signed by its president Latifur Rahman.
The MCCI sent a three-page observation on the draft ordinance to the joint secretary (development) of information ministry, Kamal Uddin Ahmed, who headed an eightmembercommittec that prepared it
The draft has 27 articles on the objective of the ordinance, methods of information dissemination, how to seek or disclose information, exemptions from disclosure, formation of the information commission and punishment for not disclosing information.
The MCCI observations
The draft Right to Information Ordinance 2008 (RTIO) aims to provide the right to information in the hands of public authorities as well as private bodies.
The definition of "Authority" in Section 2 (ga) (ii) of the draft RTIO includes any company, corporation, trust, firm, society, co-operative society, non governmental organisation, association which is registered under any law for the time being in force.
The accepted philosophy behind and demand for a right to information law stems from the need of members of the public to obtain information about how public authorities are carrying out their responsibilities, and hold them accountable for their activities.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 of the UK recognises that members of the public have the right to know how public services are organised and run, how much they cost and how the decisions are made. The only companies covered by this law are companies wholly owned by the state.
The US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a law ensuring public access to US government records. FOIA carries a presumption of disclosure; the burden is on the govern -
ment -- not the public - to substantiate why information may not be released. Upon written request, agencies of the United States government are required to disclose those records, unless they can be lawfully withheld from disclosure under one of nine specific exemptions in the FOIA. This right of access is ultimately enforceable in federal court.
The Right to Information Act 2005 of India states that it is an "Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority
The draft RTOI has not highlighted this fundamental aspect of a right to information law in its preamble, which leads us to believe that the basic purpose behind the demand of the citizens for this law has not been kept in focus while preparing this
draft.
The Constitution, in Article 7 states that "All powers in the Republic belong to the people, and their exercise on behalf of the people shall be effected only under, and by the authority of, this Constitution". Public authorities expend public funds and exercise over members of the public authority granted by or under Acts of Parliament. This is the fundamental difference between public authorities and private bodies.
While a series of laws exist requiring private bodies to comply with set standards and provide information to regulatory agencies and government departments, no such law exists to compel private bodies to disclose information about their activities, even when these have an immediate impact on the day to day lives of citizens.
An example may be that a citizen filing an application for a passport may have to wait for several months
for the application whether to be accepted or rejected, and in the meanwhile has no access to any information about the state of progress of his application, or what, if any, problems there might be with it. He goes from door to door, and most doors are closed to him.
Each of the laws, applicable to private bodies/enterprises, e.g. the Companies Act, 1994, Trust Act 1872, Societies Registration Act, 1860 etc. requires regular periodic disclosure of fundamental information about these organisations. Such information is publicly avail able from various public registries such as the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies and Firms, which also acts as the Registrar of Societies.
There are other regulatory and oversight bodies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Directorate ol Labour, the Department ol Environment, the Directorate ol Health and Safety, which are mandated by law to exercise oversight over and obtain relevant information from these private organisations.
It is often argued that these public bodies do not carry out their functions properly for various reasons. It is all the more reason to have a law wliich will require these public bodies to disclose how they are carrying out their oversight obligations, by being made to respond to information inquiries.
For example, if a factory is pollu (-ing the environment, the Factories Inspectorate and the Department of Environment should be held accountable, upon receipt of complaints, to exercise their oversight functions and provide information to the citizens concerned about how and what they are doing in this regard. The overwhelming public interest lies there.
An earlier draft prepared by the Manusher Jonno Foundation has a definition of the authorities which should fall under this law, and dial definition may be used as a starting point. Laws of other countries should also be looked at. It will become clear what the intent and purpose of such a law should be-transparcncy and accountability in the actions of public authorities, by obtaining access to information under the control and in possession of pubic authorities.