1. 18 INDIA TODAY N JUNE 30, 2008 JUNE 30, 2008 N INDIA TODAY 19
NARENDRA BISHT
I
nthethirdweekofMayatafunction
to release the ‘Report to the People
2008’ on the UPA Government’s com-
pletion of the fourth year in office,
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
waxed eloquent about the achieve-
mentsofhisregimewhilelayingspecial
emphasis on its record in open govern-
ment. “The UPA Government has set a
new standard for accountability and
transparency in governance,” he
announced. The prime minister was
only partially right since it was the UPA
GovernmentthathadenactedtheRight
to Information (RTI) Act, which gave
ordinary citizens the right to seek both
information and accountability from
their leaders. However, it is the actual
implementation of open governance
that remains a closely-guarded secret.
On November 6, 2007, INDIA TODAY
invoked the RTI, seeking information
from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO)
whether Union ministers had filed
details of their assets and liabilities.
This followed reports that the prime
minister was miffed after his ministers
repeatedly ignored reminders from the
Cabinet Secretariat to file these details.
The ministers who showed utter
disdain for the cabinet secretary’s
reminders were from the Congress as
well as from its alliance partners.
The practice of asking all Union
ministerstofiledetailsofassetsandtax
returns with the PMO every year was
initiated by Atal Bihari Vajpayee after
he took over as prime minister in 1999.
Though the move met with initial
resistance, especially from the BJP’s
alliance partners, eventually most
ministers fell in line. A system was also
put in place to ensure that the process
was adhered to. On taking the oath of
office, every minister is handed a copy
of the code of conduct. It says, among
other things, that ministers should dis-
close to the PMO details of their assets,
liabilities and business interests along
with those of their family members.
Manmohan, in the best interests of
transparency, kept up the tradition.
This magazine’s efforts to gather
information of the ministers’ assets,
Under the RTI Act it is mandatory to reply to all queries
within four weeks, but most go unanswered for months.[ ]
liabilitiesandtaxreturnsmadeitamply
evident that most of the UPA ministers
have scant regard for the prime minis-
ter’s lofty ideals. Our RTI application,
sent to both the PMO and the Cabinet
Secretariat, asked these specific ques-
tions: “Whether the prime minister has
asked his cabinet/state ministers to file
the details of their assets and liabilities
annually; the exact date of such advice;
reminderssenttothedefaultersandthe
namesofministerswhoexpressedtheir
inability to file such details.”
That is when we discovered that the
openness which Manmohan talked
about is mostly a farce and the bureau-
crats and politicians were doing what
I By Shyamlal Yadav
ABOVE SCRUTINY: Manmohan
Singh (right) with senior colleagues
they were best at—passing the buck.
On November 19, 2007, 10 days after
the RTI application was filed, the PMO
responded saying that the “Cabinet
Secretariat dealt with the matter and
you are advised to contact the Central
public information officer, Cabinet
Secretariat, for further information in
thematter.”Shockinglyenough,aweek
later, the secretariat responded to the
initial application stating that the
“information asked for pertains to the
Prime Minister’s Office and the Cabinet
Secretariat is not directly concerned
with the subject matter. This secre-
tariat…hastransferredyourrequestto
the Prime Minister’s Office, South
Block… for appropriate action.”
The two offices are situated just a
stone’s throw from each other. But for
any one trying to do business with
either, they couldn’t be further apart.
The replies that were received from
each office were sent to the other
following which the secretariat wrote
on December 24 that “the matter is
under consideration of the competent
authority and the information/reply
well. A second reminder was sent on
March 7. When that too went unan-
swered, a third reminder
was sent asking if
there was a “stipu-
lated time frame to
reply to such
requests”. Nearly four
months had elapsed,
though under the RTI
Act it is mandatory to
reply to queries within
a month.
The next door to be
knocked on was that of
the Central Information
Commission (CIC), which
oversees the implemen-
tation of the RTI Act. On
March 17, this
magazine wrote to the
CIC saying that both
the PMO and the Cabinet
Secretariat have been indul-
ging in buck-passing and not replying
to repeated queries raised under the
RTI. “Such an attitude will defeat the
very purpose of the RTI Act. When high
offices like the PMO and the Cabinet
Secretariat show such an approach, it
can only be deduced how the lower-
level offices will deal with requests to
RTI applications,” we wrote to the CIC.
There is no reply forthcoming from
the CIC either, which gives the feeling
that it would be foolish to expect the
queries to be answered during the
tenure of this government.
The prime minister’s brave words
about the declaration of assets by
ministers is just words and nothing
else. The Representation of the People
Act was amended in 2004 to make it
compulsory for all legislators to declare
their assets and liabilities within 90
days of being elected. Strangely, there
is no such provision for ministers. That
ministers treat with contempt
directives from the PMO—issued via the
Cabinet Secretariat seeking annual
declaration of assets—is indicative of
the sheer helplessness of the PMO in a
coalition setup where every partner,
even a minor one, is a major bully.
If this is the actual level of
transparency at the highest levels
where leaders are expected to be more
accountable, the less said the better
about politics and those who practise it
at the lower levels. I
The Cabinet
Secretary kept
tossing the ball
to the PMO,
which lobbed
it back.
The CIC, which
oversees the
implementation
of the RTI, is
yet to list our
appeal.
will be sent to you in due course.”
Nothing happened for nearly two
months. On February 1, we sent a re-
minder to the secretariat requesting it
to forward the information as soon as
possible. A copy of this letter was en-
dorsed to the appellate authority as
B U C K - PA S S I N G
K.M.CHANDRASHEKHAR, CAB SECY W.HABIBULL AH, CIC
>
I “You are advised to contact the
CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat for
further information in the matter.”
Response from PMO dated Nov 19, 2007
I “The information asked for per-
tains to the PMO and the Cabinet
Secretariat is not directly con-
nected with the subject matter.”
Response from Cab Sec dated Nov 26, 2007
I “The matter is under considera-
tion and information will be sent
to you in due course.”
Response from Cab Sec on Dec 24, 2007
Despite the prime minister’s
claim of transparency, efforts
to get information under the
RTI Act are often stonewalledOPENSECRET
nationRTI