You are a Public Information Officer (PIO) in a government department. You are aware that the RTI Act 2005 envisages transparency and accountability in administration. The act has functioned as a check on the supposedly arbitrarily administrative behaviour and actions. However, as a PIO you have observed that there are citizens who filed RTI applications not for themselves but on behalf of such stakeholders who purportedly want to have access to information to further their own interests. At the same time there are these RTI activists who routinely file RTI applications and attempt to extort money from the decision makers. This type of RTI activism has affected the functioning of the administration adversely and also possibly jeopardises the genuineness of the applications which are essentially aimed at getting justice.

What measures would you suggest to separate genuine and non-genuine applications? Give merits and demerits of your suggestions.

Ethics

Ethics: Case Study

2017

20 Marks

Introduction The RTI Act 2005, promoting transparency and accountability, faces challenges from misuse by vested interests seeking personal gain rather than public welfare. The central ethical dilemma lies in balancing the right to information with preventing its misuse for extortion, mirroring the recent debates on regulating online anonymity to curb harassment while upholding free speech, highlighting the tension between rights approach and utilitarian approach.

Stakeholder Identification Genuine RTI applicants, Non-genuine RTI applicants/ Extortionists, Government officials/Decision-makers, Public at large, PIOs, Judiciary.

Answers

Strengthening Verification Mechanisms:

Enhanced scrutiny of applications: Implement a system for preliminary assessment of RTI applications based on specific criteria like clarity of information sought, relevance to the applicant, and past application history. This promotes due diligence and addresses potential misuse.
Merit: Helps filter frivolous or malicious applications, saving administrative resources and upholding the rule of law.
Demerit: May create bureaucratic hurdles for genuine applicants, potentially violating their right to information. Requires careful implementation to ensure transparency in the verification process.

Introducing a Nominal Fee for RTI Applications:

Imposing a reasonable fee: A small fee can deter frivolous applications filed for harassment or extortion. This fee can be waived for applicants below the poverty line, ensuring justice for all.
Merit: Discourages misuse while maintaining accessibility for genuine seekers of information. This aligns with the utilitarian approach, maximizing overall benefit.
Demerit: May disproportionately affect marginalized communities. Requires a mechanism to ensure transparency in fee waivers, addressing potential corruption.

Empowering PIOs with Greater Discretionary Powers:

Training and guidelines for PIOs: Equip PIOs to identify and reject applications filed with malicious intent or for extortion, ensuring accountability in decision-making.
Merit: Enables PIOs to act as gatekeepers against misuse, protecting administrative efficiency and upholding the rule of law.
Demerit: Potential for arbitrary decisions and bias. Requires robust oversight mechanisms to ensure fairness and prevent abuse of power.

Promoting Awareness and Education:

Public awareness campaigns: Educate citizens about the purpose and proper use of the RTI Act, emphasizing its role in promoting transparency and accountability, not personal gain.
Merit: Fosters a culture of responsible information seeking and discourages misuse, aligning with virtue ethics and promoting public morality.
Demerit: Requires sustained effort and resources. Impact may be gradual and difficult to measure.

Strengthening Legal Recourse:

Penalties for malicious RTI applications: Introduce stricter penalties for applicants found to be misusing the RTI Act for extortion or harassment, upholding justice and deterring future misuse.
Merit: Deters malicious actors and protects government officials from harassment, upholding the rule of law.
Demerit: Requires careful consideration to avoid stifling genuine whistleblowers. Needs a robust judicial process to ensure fair application of penalties.

Conclusion

The RTI Act 2005 is a crucial instrument for transparency and accountability, but its effectiveness is threatened by misuse. The 2019 amendments, while criticized for potentially weakening the act, reflect the ongoing struggle to balance access with responsible use. By implementing the suggested measures, focusing on a multi-pronged approach that combines stricter verification, education, and legal recourse, we can ensure that the RTI Act remains a powerful tool for promoting good governance and upholding the right to information while safeguarding against misuse and extortion. The success of initiatives like online RTI portals highlights the potential of technology to enhance transparency and accessibility while minimizing the scope for misuse. A robust framework that balances access, accountability, and ethical use is crucial for the continued effectiveness of the RTI Act in fostering a more transparent and just society.

Answer Length

Model answers may exceed the word limit for better clarity and depth. Use them as a guide, but always frame your final answer within the exam’s prescribed limit.

In just 60 sec