-: [rti4empowerment] RTI Implementation in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department

Friends,

Brief summary of my presentation in the Institute of Public Auditors of India (IPAI) is placed below. It was based on my scrutiny of relevant records of the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India ( C&AG), enabled by the RTI Act.

Like any other public authority, C&AG has not implemented RTI Act in letter and spirit. Instruction by Central Information Commission (CIC) about appointment of Transparency Officer have not been followed. As such there are no pro-active measures to implement section 4 of RTI Act. mThere has not been any visible improvement in record keeping under section 4(1)(a) of RTI Act, to make the records accessible to citizens. Disclosure under 4(1)(b) are required to be modified every year, so that citizens are able to get the information needed by them, without submitting RTI application.

C&AG is a constitutional authority and his oath under schedule III (iv) of the Constitution of India places upon him the onus to perform his duties to the best of his ability , knowledge and judgement, without fear or favor. Indian Audit and Accounts Department assists the C&AG in performing his duties. If there is rampant corruption and mis-governance, accounts figures are misleading. There is need for transparency in the the way accounts and audit reports are prepared.

Important issues have been raised in my presentation in IPAI, that need serious consideration by C&AG.

Dhirendra Krishna IA&AS (Retired)

....................................................................................................................................

Institute of Public Auditors of India, New Delhi

Summary of Discussions on 8th April 2013
Implementation of Provisions of RTI Act, 2005 in IA&AD

President IPAI welcomed the participants to the Lecture-cum-discussion on "Implementation of Provisions of RTI Act, 2005 in IA&AD" and briefly introduced the speaker, Shri Dhirendra Krishna, IA&AS(Retd.). Copy of RTI Act, 2005 was distributed to the Participants.

2. In his presentation, Shri Dhirendra Krishna briefly explained the background of Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding empowerment of citizens in effective public accountability. Salient provisions about right to information, records, obligations of public authorities, and exemption from disclosure of information were explained, in the context of implementation of RTI Act 2005 in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department. It was explained that voluntary disclosures by public authorities under section 4 of the RTI Act is the key element of law, that has not been fully implemented by the public authorities. It was explained that RTI Act 2005 was over seven year old, each year the disclosures under section 4 were expected to be updated, so that public gets information needed by them, without resorting to applications under RTI Act. Quality of disclosure needs to by improved, by sustained efforts by every public authority.

3. He explained that preamble of the RTI Act, itself envisaged that although revelation of information is likely to conflict with other public interest, paramount of democratic ideal should prevail. Democracy requires informed citizenry; transparency of information, which is vital to its functioning, to contain corruption and to hold the government and its instrumentalities accountable to the governed.

4. He pointed out that Central Information Commission (CIC) issued directions under section 19(8) (a) of the RTI Act to the public authorities on 15th November 2010, which are available on the web site of CIC http://www.cic.gov.in/ and all public authorities are expected to follow them. The salient features of these directions are:

• Transparency promotes good governance. Records, documents and files held by public authorities can be disclosed on request to the citizens, without any detriment to the interest of the public authority. This has not been done, largely because of an intuitive acceptance of secrecy as the general norm of the functioning of public authorities. This mental barrier needs to be crossed.

• Secrecy in the functioning of the public authority should be the exception and not the norm, as transparency of information is vital to a functioning democracy. First step towards promoting transparency is improvement in the record-management practices, to make the records readily accessible to public.

• CIC further directed that each public authority shall designate one of their senior officers as "TRANSPARENCY OFFICER" (with all necessary supporting personnel), whose task it will be:

a) to oversee the implementation of the Section 4 obligation by public authorities, and to apprise the top management of its progress.
b) to be the interface for the CIC regarding the progress of (a)
c) help promote congenial conditions for positive and timely response to RTI-requests by CPIOs, deemed CPIOs.
d) to be a contact point for the public in all RTI-related matters.

5. He further explained that it should be the constant endeavor of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-section 4 (1) to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.

6. He pointed out in his presentation that the Public authorities were to implement these obligations within 120 days of the coming into force of the RTI Act on 15th June, 2005. Since the action in this regard has been rather tardy, the CIC, therefore, directed the Public authorities to take necessary actions as stated above within a period of 120 days from the date of these dfirections.

7. He pointed out that he had invoked RTI Act to scrutinize the records of C&AG office about directions issued by C&AG about implementation of RTI Act in IA&AD. He summarized the main issues examined by him and his findings as detailed below:

• CIC had clarified the legal position on 10.01.2012 that C&AG cannot deny information invoking section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act, on the grounds of "breach of privilege of Parliament or State Legislature." Appeal to full bench of CIC by the CAG was rejected and C&AG filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi. High Court concluded, "issues raised in the petition are academic", as C&AG had already complied with the orders of CIC. Related files were examined and it was found that this issue has been examined in:
-- Orders passed by CIC on 10 June 2010;
-- Clarification dated 19 October 2010 by Secretary General Lok Sabha; and
-- High Court Judgment dated 10.1.2010.
-- Clarification given by Shri Salman Khurshid, Minister of Law and Justice on 19 June 2012, enclosing the opinion of the Attorney General of India.

• He explained that aforesaid documents have brought about clarity on what information is covered by exemption from disclosure under section 8(1)(c) of RTI Act 2005. All records of IA&AD are in public domain, according to the RTI Act., therefore, there is need for clear directions in IA&AD, on this subject.

• File relating to the action taken on the recommendations of the Task Group on Social Audit submitted in January 2010 was examined. This has culminated in directions by Director General (Audit) on 18.3.2010. Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan offices were directed to formulate action plan to operationalise the recommendations of the Task Group on Social Audit. There is need for further action, as Social Audit is a mandatory legal requirement in MGNREGA and there has been convergence of many programs in MGNREGA.

• Directions issued by C&AG for preventing "leakage" of audit reports at preparatory stages / work-in progress / intermediary documents of IA&AD / etc. were examined. He opined that as RTI Act 2005 envisages that public can access all records, the term " leakage" seems to be inappropriate.

• Section 24 of RTI Act enables Central Government to exempt intelligence and security organizations from RTI Act by Notification in gazette and several organisations have sought exemption from RTI Act. In the RTI quarry raised by Shri Krishna, it was asked whether C&AG office has requested Central Government for exemption of intermediate documents regarded as "work-in-progress". No such request has been made.

8. On the basis of scrutiny of records about implementation of RTI Act in IA&AD, following actions were suggested by him:

i. General directions by C&AG to field offices about RTI Act were issued in 2005. There is need for review, based on practical experience during last seven years.
ii. There is need for TRANSPARENCY OFFICER in the office of C&AG and all field offices, according to directions of CIC.
iii. General directions to TRANSPARENCY OFFICER are available in the web site of CIC. Nodal designated officer in C&AG office may issue specific directions relating to IA&AD.

9. While concluding the presentation, he placed the following issues before the Participants for further discussions:

• What role can be played by C&AG to ensure constructive use of RTI Act by the Executive, for improving governance processes by effective transparency and public accountability?
• Should IA&AD be pro-active, by setting an example in transparency? What are we hiding? Will independence of C&AG / IA&AD be impaired, if RTI Act is implemented in letter and spirit ?
• In practice, has there been "frivolous and vexatious use" of RTI Act, with adverse effect on functioning of IA&AD ? What has been gained and lost during last seven years ?
• How can IPAI help, in bringing conceptual clarity about the pros and cons ? Is there need for structured reconsideration?
After detailed discussion on these points, most of the participants including the President, IPAI felt that the CAG office may consider these aspects.

President, while concluding informed that next Lecture-cum-discussion will be held on 6th May 2013 on "Concept of Whistle Blower" by Shri Mukesh Arya, IA&AS(Retired). The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair.

List of Participants in the Lecture-cum- discussions on 8th April 2013 on "Implementation of Provisions of RTI Act, 2005 in IA&AD"
1. Shri A.K.Patnaik, IA&AS(Retd.) 2. Shri Awdesh Sharma, Sr.AO(Retd.)
3. Shri Bhajan Singh, IA&AS (Retd.) 4. Shri Dharam Vir, IA&AS (Retd.)
5. Shri Dhirendra Krsihna, IA&AS (Retd.) 6. Shri Harish Chander, Director, IPAI
7. Shri J.N.Gupta, President, IPAI 8. Shri J.P.Tripathi, Sr.AO, IPAI
9. Shri Jogender Nath, Sr.AO(Retd.) 10. Shri K.L.Arora, IA&AS(Retd.)
11. Shri K.L.Kapoor, Secretary, IPAI 12. Shri Krishan Lal, IA&AS(Retd.)
13. Shri M.M.Mathur, IA&AS(Retd.) 14. Shri Mukesh Arya, IA&AS(Retd.)
15. Shri P.N.Koul, IA&AS(Retd.) 16. Shri Rajeshwar Prasad, IA&AS(Retd.)
17. Shri Ramesh Chandra, IA&AS(Retd.) 18. Shri S.C.Anand, IA&AS(Retd.)
19. Shri S.N. Gupta, Sr.AO (Retd.) 20. Shri T.L.Gupta, Director, IPAI