Millions of Indians from every corner of the country have stood in queues at banks and automatic teller machines (ATMs), and suffered enormous inconvenience since 8 November 2016 to withdraw their own money. There has probably never been a decision before (except during wars) which has directly affected every Indian, that too for such a long time.

The wide sweep of their decision itself demands complete transparency about the decision making process, its implementation, public consultations if any, and precise data about distribution of cash to various parts of the country, to each bank and ATM service provider and also whether it was distributed equitably or not.

Access to such information comes under Section 4 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. However, RTI activists find that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as well as Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) are refusing to part with information under cover of Section 8 of the RTI Act.

Section 4 (C) of the RTI Act makes it binding on the public authority to “publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public.” Under Section 4 (d) of the RTI Act, it is mandatory for the public authority to “provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.”

Hence, the RBI should have released information on demonetisation and its implementation on a suo moto basis, says Pune-based RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar. He says, “It is such a public issue of such magnitude that there should no ground for an applicant to file first or second appeal, as every aspect of such a far-reaching decision should be put in the public domain under Section 4, by the RBI, at least now, even if it was not done earlier.” But that is not happening.

Hemant Kumar, an Ambala-based RTI activist filed a RTI application with the RBI, seeking documents pertaining to the decision making process of Rs500 and Rs1,000 denomination notes, date wise; file notings and minutes of the meetings of Central Board of Directors of the RBI and their recommendation to the government.

Kumar has been denied information by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) stating that the information sought by him relates to sensitive matters and hence comes under exemption as per Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005.

This section states, “information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence.”

While Kumar has filed a first appeal, he wonders how this information can be rejected when it is over a month since demonetisation was announced.

Punjab-based RTI activist Parvinder Singh Kina has also filed an RTI application with the PMO. He requested information on the date of the decision, copies of letters issues to various authorities and to RBI regarding its implementation, minutes of the cabinet meeting, legal and financial opinion sought on the subject. His application was forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), which denied information, again under Section 8(i) (a) of the RTI Act.

Noted RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal says, “A recent media report quotes the Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) saying, there was no need to go into the process of decision-making regarding the 8th November (2016) demonetisation drive. If the report is true, this is a worrisome departure from the commitment to transparency and accountability voiced by the Prime Minister, time and again.”

In another example, Venkatesh Nayak, a noted RTI activist and research scholar has also been denied information. “On 14 November, within a week of the demonetisation drive, I filed an RTI application with the DEA seeking copies of the Cabinet Note that was approved by the Union Cabinet regarding the decision to demonetise currency notes of Rs1,000 and Rs500 denomination. I also sought to know whether the government had sought people's views on the issue of demonetisation prior to making the decision because the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) Government had taken steps to consult people on several other important policy issues in the past,” he says. Nayak has not received any reply.

In another RTI application that he filed with the RBI on this issue, Nayak sought copies of the minutes of all Board meetings of the central bank from the date on which the recommendation to demonetise the Rs1,000 and Rs500 currency notes, communication sent in this regard to the Government, representations received from any person or organisation suggesting demonetisation and all file notings on this subject. He says, “RBI rejected access to its Board meeting minutes and recommendations made to the Government and related file notings under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. As for representations received from the public, the CPIO has invoked Section 7(9) saying that the information cannot be provided in the form sought as it would lead to disproportionate diversion of resources of the organisation.”

Agrawal rightly says that “Selective raids on some limited bank-branches can never bring to book all wrong-doers in respect of malpractices involved in their effort to legalise old currency. The RBI should direct all banks to publish on their websites branch-wise details of the deposit of old currency and disbursal of new currency on each date after 8 November 2016, with link also available on RBI website.’’

(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife, an RTI activist and convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting, which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book “To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte” with Vinita Kamte and is the author of “The Mighty Fall”.)