Comparative analysis of RTI Act of Nepal and India Introduction: Right to Information: Access of each citizen to information of public importance held by public bodies, information on public activities and services entitled to him/her is basic norm of democracy and open governance. It is also recognized by United Nation as Civil and political Right of Human being. It strengthens governance of the country by adjoining accountability and transparency in own function. Implementation of this right empowers citizen and allows citizen to participate in the governance. At present, most of the countries have accepted it as the right of citizen orally or in writing. International trend: The right to Information, in another word freedom of inform is first of all enacted by Sweden in 1766, followed by USA, then by Norway in 1970. Nepal being the first country in South Asia, with formal constitutional recognition (The constitution of Nepal of 1990) implemented it in 2007. Pakistan enacted the RTI Act in 2002. Replacing its Freedom of Information Act 2002, India incorporates it as the fundamental right of the citizen through interpretation of the Supreme Court and brought it into implementation in 2005. In the emerging trend of open governance system, Information being the key factor to unmask corruption, to minimize the state misconduct, to guarantee the availability of entitlements of the citizens and to establish responsive government, 95 countries in the world has implemented RTI Act through legislation till 2013. On the basis of the provisions like Right, Scope, Requesting Procedures, Exemption, Refusal, Appeal, practice of the RTI Act, The RTI act of both Nepal and India is compared below. Comparison of RTI Legislation of India and Nepal Base of Nepal India comparison Recognition Constitutional Recognition Constitutional recognition by interpretation of Supreme court Legislation 2007 2005 Right granted Right to information and Right to information and inspection of observation of document documents Obligation of To keep information up to date To supply information, to publish and public body and publish, to provide disclose information information as per sought Jurisdiction All over Nepal equally. All over India except Jammu and Kashmir. States can implement their own act or
Scope Procedure
Guideline Exemption
Provision of Information Officer
Governmental bodies, Political Parties, corporations, NGOs /INGOS Submission of application with cause. Fee equivalent to cost of information sought like: rs.5 for the information in a letter size page to Rs. 50 for electronic copy. Rs. 200 will be charged to IO for being unable to disclose immediately. Immediate disclosure or with notice 15 days If related to life and security, should disclose with in 48 hr. Can deny supplying information with reason. No such provision. An application to study or observe the document, material or activity can be made. Provision of partial disclosure Online RTI filing is in practice but not mentioned in act. No guideline is published. 5 types of information are exempted. Exemption based on the types of information.
Organizational set up of Information Section and an Information officer. They perform delegated duty of Information commission.
central act. Public bodies fully or partially financed by the central or state government Submission of application, cause is not required. Rs. 10 through Postal order or demand draft or banker’s cheque but No fee for BPL .
s. 250 will be charged to PIO if failed to disclose within the time limit and no fee will be charged with applicant. Disclosure within 30 days If related to life and security, should disclose with in 48 hr. Can refuse to supply information with reason and procedure to appeal. Allow transfer of letter from previous body to the body related to information. Central RTI act only had provision to seek and obtain information, however the act of Madhya Pradesh also permit to inspect and observe certain records. Provision of partial disclosure Provision of online RTI application submission. Guidelines for people, public body, PIO and appellate authority are published. 10 types of information are exempted. 22 organizations are fully exempted from the legal ambit or RTI act. Organization wise exemption made. The govt. of India can change the list of the exempted organization by making a law. A mandatory provision of Public Information Officer and assistance public information officer in every Public body. Their duty is clearly mentioned in the act.
Support to citizen Appeal
Penalty
Statutory body Public interest disclosure function
No Such duty is aligned to IO. At 1st- complain to the chief within 7 days, against Information Officer. 1st Appellate authority is NIC against the decision of the chief. 2nd Appellate authority is Appellate court against the decision of NIC, within 35 days -Rs. 200 per day for being unable to disclose immediately. - Rs. 1000-25000 can be charged to IO for not supplying information. -IO will be liable for departmental action for non compliance of duty. -Compensation is there for the aggrieved person. -Rs. 500- 25000 for misuse of information. National Information Commission as quasi judicial body. No such provision. Protection of information Promotion of the right to Information. To guaranty the right is exercised well in the country. Classification of Information as per its importance. Whistle blower protection is provided.
To provide support to citizen to get the information sought is also duty of PIO. 1st appeal against the PIO to senior officer to him with in 2nd Appeal against the decision of the senior office to CIC.
-Rs. 250 per day for being unable to disclose with in time limit. -Rs. 250-25000 can be charged to IO for not supplying information. -PIO will be liable for departmental action.
Central Information Commission as a quasi judicial body. Information should be provided if public interest overrides the harms from the protection of information. Protection of information is included under “Data protection Act”, “Privacy Act” Promotion of the right is done by Civil Society Organizations. The core responsibility of monitoring of exercise of the provisions comes under CIC. No such provision found A separate Act for protection of whistle blower protection and provision of penalties for false complaint is formulated but still to be implemented. The resolution from the Government on PIDPI (Public
Proactive disclosure
Provision of third party disclosure
Monitoring and reporting
Proactive disclosure of *“Function, duty and power *structure,* Details of employees, * fee structure and time limit to get information, *Services rendered, *decision making process and authority,* Name of chief Information Officer,* Acts, rules, By laws,*Descriptions of Income, expenditure and financial transaction etc. No such provision is provided.
-Parliament reviews the implementation of the Act and activities of the IO for the year. -No organizational setup is found within the ministries and departments to monitor the functioning of the act. -Reporting annually to the parliament by CIC.
Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informer is issued. Proactive disclosure of *Functions,* decision making norms*document held*Details of employee with contacts info.*Regular discloser of information about subsidy scheme* Details of beneficiaries and recipients.
Provision of third party disclosure is there. Here third party means the person other than the one who seek information, including public authority. The third party is given the opportunity in deciding whether or not to disclose information. -Parliament reviews the implementation for the year. -Monitoring of implementation of the act under every public body is done by CIC. -Reporting annually to the parliament by CIC. -In some states (Goa, Maharashtra, Delhi), Right to information council established under Right to Information Law are given responsibility to oversee implementation.
Conclusion: The RTI act of both countries can be taken as the deliberate effort of the respective government to bring transparency in governance and both have tried to empower citizens with right of information on all entitlements to avail a particular service. Both can be taken as the deliberate effort of the respective government to bring transparency in governance and both have tried to empower all citizens with right of information on all entitlements avail to citizen. Still there are many clauses that hindrances citizen from getting information.
Both acts are drafted as per the governance system of that country. In both countries, bureaucratic resistance is still the main hindrance for proper implementation of the act. For effective implementation of RTI Act political will, active civil society, proactive RTI activist should blend their efforts together. Though they have guaranteed the right to be informed, they are failed to provide remedy and timely justice to the victims of corruption. However the act of India is more citizens friendly. Right to Information is more practiced in India. Lots of advocacy is done for its use. Some of the strong points that make the RTI act successful tool in India. Clear procedural guaranty Clear guidelines for each actor of the RTI Act published. Easy to seek information. No need to mention reason in application. Support to citizen to get information is guaranteed. Free and automatic flow of the petition of information sought to the related organization. Provision of PIO in each public body with duty clearly mentioned. Implementation of the act is properly monitored. Active Civil Society for the promotion of RTI Act and its use. Third party information can be sought. CIC is decentralized in each state. Aware and Educated people. Enough advocacies done. A way ahead to Nepal: The Act of Nepal was developed and launched as per to the political system and governance structure of that era. - The current RTI act of Nepal is in need of amendment according to the need of federal political system established in Nepal. For the convenience and less effort the act formulated in center can be implied in every state with some improvements. Or As per resources and the requirements each state may also address own requirement in their own through separate legislation but it will consume more time. - Now private sector being the partner of government carries out many public functions. They are no more only victim of corruption but acts like hand in glove with public officers. Amendments in the RTI Act of Nepal must be able to cover this issue. - Next are the issues of corrupt practices of private and public banks that finally deteriorate the economy of the country. To bring transparency and integrity in banking sector, RTI act can be a useful tool. While amending RTI act, this should also be taken into consideration.
Provision of Third Party disclosure in the RTI Act of the India is beautiful feature that can address the above problems. -
The act has made NIC as the central body and in charge of all duties including protection, promotion and Implementation where it is not backed up by resources. But in India, the CIC is charged by the function of proper implementation of RTI act. The civil societies are charged by the duty of its promotion. Due to its extensive promotion, this constitutional right is widely used by people.
However there are some beautiful provisions in the act of Nepal. - The protection of information and whistleblower protection is the beautiful feature of RTI act of Nepal. As per the RTI activist and board member of TII AK Jain, he has faced lots of threat for the cause. “Vyapum� scam of India is also the result of lack of protection for whistle blower protection. - There are many possibilities where Information sought can be misused for personal gain in India. - Scope of the act of Nepal is board, covering even the political parties. The RTI Act can be a useful to bring transparency in them in the context of the NICSA study of Nepal that showed political parties as the most corrupt pillar. - The discussion on to keep political parties under ambit of RTI Act is going on in India. Many information along with many organizations are exempted from the ambit of the RTI act In India At last in spite of having beautiful provisions, implementation of RTI Act in Nepal is not getting speed. Lack of political willingness, Procedural uncertainty, Lack of proper monitoring, impartiality of Information officer who performs delegated functions of NIC under the chief of the organization are raising question marks on the smooth implementation.
Things required for effective implementation if RTI act in Nepal. * Strong political will for implementation * Effective demand from the civil society *Active civil society. *Administrative reform in attitude of civil servants not only in words *Enough advocacies in support of RTI Act * Awareness building and strengthen people * Backing up NIC with financial and human resources. *Running promotion campaigns in every corner of the country.
Abbreviation used RTI = Right to Information BPL= Below Poverty Line IO = Information Officer PIO = Public Information Officer NIC = National Information Commission CIC = Central Information Commission TII = Transparency International India NICSA = National Integrity Systen Analysis.
References taken: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_information_laws_by_country) *National strategic plan of action on Right to Information in Nepal. 2013-18 http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/user_guide http://rti.india.gov.in/rtiact.php https://issuu.com/tinepal/docs/news_bulletin_____aug_2015 RTI ACT of Nepal from www.lawcommission.gov.np
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vyapam_scam Online news paper of Times of India