If I was asked to typify myself as belonging to the category of Friday v/s weekend people, I definitely would claim to be in the former. That said, I have some camaraderie with the latter and see some merit in their particular positionality. Consequently when I’m asked to participate in a two day long consultation exercise over the weekend, there are some mixed feelings which arise. As it turned out, the consultation turned out to be an interesting experience, so much so that I was reassured of my status- I’m now a designated Friday person.

Before I get ahead of myself let me first begin by giving a little bit of a background on the theme of the consultation exercise. The consultation was organized by DoPT and Institute of Public Administration to discuss the recommendations for the effective implementation of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.  Section 4 of the RTI relates to proactive disclosure of information and covers all types of public authorities. In spite of explicit time-frame (120 days following the enactment of the Act) specified for the implementation of this important provision, the enactment thus far has largely been adhoc, varied, and parochially interpreted. Taking note of this inconsistency the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions constituted a Task Force consisting of representatives from the government and five NGO’s working in the field of RTI, to recommend measures that need to be undertaken to strengthen its enforcement. In this respect the Terms of Reference (TOR) of the Task Force were four fold;

1)     To examine the provisions of section 4(1)(b) and to recommend the guidelines for disclosure to be made at various levels; (see http://rti.gov.in/rti-act.pdf for details)

2)     To recommend other items which may be included for suo motu disclosure as provided in section 4(1)(b)(xvii);

3)     To explore the possibility of providing simple templates for disclosing specific categories of information in order to facilitate disclosure;

4)     To recommend mediums through which such disclosure is to be made at various levels, which would include disclosure through electronic means.

The mandate of the Task Force was thus fairly extensive. The consultation was part of an exercise to deliberate on these issues through plenaries and workshops. During the consultation the mandate was discussed separately by dividing the participants into four groups such that the division of the groups largely corresponded with the TOR of the Task Force with the exception that there was one group which focussed upon the issue of pre-legislative scrutiny (relates to the creation of spaces for the public to engage with new legislation), which can be broadly interpreted as part of section 4(1) (c) of the RTI act, 2005.

Over a period of two days the groups met and discussed these issues first in their small groups and then the recommendation of each were presented and discussed with the larger group. The entire process was iterative and there were extended debates on the concerns which were raised. Principal amongst these were;

• What is the critical amount of information that is required to be disclosed which would be informative without overburdening the citizens?
• What type of information should be displayed at various levels of government? Should information pertaining to the entitlements be displayed at the block and the district office?
• How should the information be displayed? Should it be displayed through information boards, or on Panchayat walls? Should it all be computerized or then should mobile technology be employed?
• What should be the framework for pre-legislative scrutiny? What are the types of legislation which should be subject for scrutiny by citizens? How should the feedback system be structured so that the government can respond to comments raised by citizens?
• Should there be a dedicated wing created for dealing with proactive disclosure of information? If yes should it be created as a part of the government department or should it be scheme related? How should it be funded?
• How can information be communicated so as to be accessible to those who are illiterate and disabled?
• How can the links be made between the measures of transparency and accountability? Can the information system be linked effectively to the grievance redressal system such that based on the information citizens can know of the avenues for filing complaints.

In the end there were some agreements which were reached and there were some issues on which it was decided that further insight and consideration was required. The one consensus however that emerged was that a variety of perspectives needed to be included to ensure that the measures suggested to the DoPT were comprehensive and relevant. Thus in the spirit of public disclosure I invite you all to share your suggestions and comments on the above mentioned concerns as well as on any other issues you believe need to be considered to strengthen the implementation of this extremely important Section of the RTI.