Active citizens, keeping tabs on the government, will lead to improved governance
Moneylife Digital Team 21 December 2015

People can now cite the Supreme Court order and Central Information Commission (CIC) orders to demand information from the Reserve Bank, says Shailesh Gandhi

 

Mumbai’s activists, NGOs, lawyers and concerned citizens cutting across diverse areas of interest and specialization met on 20th September to felicitate Right to Information (RTI) activist and former central information commissioner (CIC) on a landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India. 
 
The Supreme Court (SC), hearing a set of 11 transferred cases, had said that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) cannot withhold information citing 'fiduciary relations' under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.  The apex court also said, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has considered elaborately the information sought for and passed orders which in its opinion do not suffer from any error of law, irrationality or arbitrariness. Significantly, as many as 10 of these 11 orders, were issued by Mr Shailesh Gandhi, in his capacity as CIC. He is one of the only two activists who had been appointed a central information commissioner. 
 
The SC Division Bench of Justice MY Eqbal and Justice C Nagappan also made some hard hitting observations about banks the RBI. It said, "From the past we have also come across financial institutions which have tried to defraud the public. These acts are neither in the best interests of the Country nor in the interests of citizens. To our surprise, the RBI as a Watch Dog should have been more dedicated towards disclosing information to the general public under the Right to Information Act. We also understand that the RBI cannot be put in a fix, by making it accountable to every action taken by it. However, in the instant case the RBI is accountable and as such it has to provide information to the information seekers under Section 10(1) of the RTI Act."
 

Speaking at the felicitation held at Moneylife Foundation’s knowledge centre on the significance of the order, Mr Gandhi said that RTI activists can, henceforth cite the CIC orders and the SC judgment in their appeals, if denied information by RBI and other central institutions. The SC, he pointed out had extensively dealt with the two major grounds on which request for information are denied under sec 8(1) (a) of the RTI act – fiduciary relationship and economic interest. A third ground for denial of information, especially by the RBI, has been that pending investigations could be impeded – under Sec. 8 (2). 
 
Mr Gandhi went on to outline some of the key issues that he is pursuing these days as a part of his activism. The first is computerisation of government records and putting them in the public domain. This is the simplest way to ensure transparency and reducing corruption in decision-making. The second is a book on RTI, the third is quicker delivery of justice through the legal system and the fourth is to reclaim open spaces for citizens. 
 
On the issue of Open Spaces, Mr Gandhi pointed out that the Mumbai municipal corporation has proposed an ‘adoption policy’ for the open spaces under its control, which will allow various bodies to take possession of open plots and maintain them. He pointed out that several spaces, which were given earlier under such a scheme, have been usurped by private parties. This leads to the creation of private interests on public lands.
 
According to Mr Gandhi, the municipal corporation seems to treat open spaces as orphan lands despite having the resources to maintain them. This corrupt idea to allow ‘adoption’ of land needs to be opposed. The Brihanmumbai municipal corporation with an annual budget of 32000 crores has a provision of 200 crores for maintaining various grounds and gardens, which is not being utilised. 
 
“Citizens must protest if they wish to retain control of these open spaces and should take a strong position by organizing meetings and interacting with the elected representatives”, said Mr Gandhi. He asked concerned citizens to meet at least three corporators/party leaders and asking why they support a policy to alienate our Open Spaces”. Mr Gandhi has put basic details on a website along with the names and contact detail of all Mumbai corporators, while urging citizens to join in large numbers to protect out scarce open spaces.  
 
Mr Gandhi said that only active citizens, keeping tabs on the government will lead to an improvement in governance. Mr Gandhi’s talk was followed by an open discussion on what the implications of the judgment and on RTI itself. Among those who spoke on the occasion were Mr Vishwas Utagi, office bearer, the All India Bank Employees Association (AIBEA) who strongly welcomed the SC orders and was emphatic that bad loans would reduce only when the top management of banks was made more accountable. Mr Utagi mentioned how the AIBEA had defied the banking secrecy laws and started to publish the list of bank defaulters. Now that the SC judgement had thrown out the RBI’s secrecy on the grounds of ‘fiduciary’ information, he urged people to come forward to file more RTI applications and keep up the pressure on banks to be more fair and transparent in their dealings. 
 
Comments
Mahesh Khanna
9 years ago
It is a landmark Judgment but we have to see how RBI tries to wriggle out of this situation to avoid giving information.
Bapoo Malcolm
9 years ago
Forthright, hard-hitting, honest. What we liked most was his appraisal of pending court cases. The system is Ok. Only needs to be tweaked.

Last week, at a seminar where the Chief Justice Of India spoke, the CJI also mentioned that people talk only of pending cases; not of the 2 crore cases disposed of in a year. Big country, many litigants. As an ex-CJI had said, it is heartening that people come to court to resolve disputes; not go to dons, no matter how over worked the system.

As for more judges, of course it will help. Yet, the calibre must not suffer. Another way of solving the issue is to also make lawyers responsible when frivolous litigation is filed. They need to advise clients correctly. especially for PILs and Writs. The low cost involved in meant to help the needy and poor. Not to be misused by the rich and powerful.

Heavy fines should be imposed on plaintiffs for uselessly rushing to court, especially when the case smacks of vendetta or for seeking judicial decisions to legitimise criminality.

That way half the burden will be removed. It is already being done in our Bombay High court.
nilesh prabhu
Replied to Bapoo Malcolm comment 9 years ago
Punish perjury. we lie in courts this must stop. This is bring down cases by 50 percent.


Bapoo Malcolm
Replied to nilesh prabhu comment 9 years ago
A client of mine wanted to lie in court. I told him that since we were in a winning position,things would be compromised. He said the other side was lying and so would he.

I warned him that I would report it to the magistrate. He countered by reminding him that I was HIS lawyer! When I explained to him that my duty was first to the court, he discharged me.

AND did not pay me.

The problem is that people think that they MUST lie in court. I agree, judges must be more strict. The law says that perjurers must be thrown out. It needs be implemented.
Bapoo Malcolm
Replied to nilesh prabhu comment 9 years ago
Have known of only one person, in recent times, jailed for perjury. A Muslim in Gujrat. Zahira Sheikh.
ArrayArray
Free Helpline
Legal Credit
Feedback