"people's right to information movement: lessons from ...€¦ · discussion paper series...

Discussion Paper Series - 4

People’s Right to InformationMovement:

Lessons from Rajasthan

United Nations Development Programme55, Lodi Estate

New Delhi - 110 003India2003

The analysis and policy recommendations of this Paper do not necessarily reflect the views of theUnited Nations Development Programme, its Executive Board or its Member States.

byNeelabh Mishra

Human Development Resource Centre (HDRC) of the India Country Office and South Asia Poverty Allevia-tion Programme (SAPAP) took the lead in having this paper prepared as a part of research and advocacy toRight to Information.

Current debates on effectiveness of development interventions focus increasingly on transparency and ac-countability of public expenditure. The Indian experience where community demands to know the details ofusage of public funds is instructive. The work of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) and the subse-quent enactment of legislations pertaining to Right to Information in number of Indian States is a good exam-ple of a vibrant grassroots democracy at work.

This paper is an independent account of the process of people’s demand to know how funds are expended andalso an evaluation of the legislative procedure across Indian states. We hope that this narrative, which is froman activist’s viewpoint, could be of interest to all development practitioners as we grapple with the complexi-ties of good governance in South Asia.

Mr.Neelabh Mishra is a renowned journalist and has been associated with Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan(MKSS) since its inception.

PROLOGUEPROLOGUE

v

CONTENTSCONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER I GENESIS 4

CHAPTER II THE STRUGGLE FOR ENTITLEMENT 8

Kot Kirana: The First Public Hearing 10

A Pattern Unfolds 11

Bhim: The Second Public Hearing 11

Vijaypura: The Third Jan Sunwai 12

Jawaja Jan Sunwai: Battle Lines for Right to Information 13

Populist But Catalytic Announcement 14

Thana Public Hearing: A Welcome Contrast 15

Follow-up of the Jan Sunwais and the Backlash 20

Stepping Up the Campaign for Right to Information 22

Beawar Dharna 22

Secrecy of the Report on Right to Information 25

Formation of NCPRI 26

Agitation Again and Jaipur Dharna 27

CHAPTER III MATURING METHODOLOGY 30

Surajpura Public Hearing: The Way Forward 32

Bori Public Hearing: Fighting A Feudal Grip 33

Bhim Jan Sunwai: Knocking at the System’s Gate 35

Janawad Jan Sunwai: A Long Road 36

Analysing the Growth 40

CHAPTER IV FALLOUT 42

The Question of Transparency in Civil Society 42

RTI Agitation Elsewhere in Rajasthan 42

Lateral Impact 43

vi

CHAPTER V GRANTING THE ENTITLEMENT 45

The Rajasthan Act: Through a Transparent Process 45

Towards RTI as Law: The States and the Nation 46

Campaign Criteria for Strong Legal Provisions 57

What Should a Strong Law Have? 62

CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION 64

A Need to Open Up 64

Looking Ahead 65

BIBLIOGRAPHY 72

1

Introduction

The human lie or falsehood was alien tothe wise race of horses, the Honhyhums,in Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels. Inthe absence of any word for lie or false-hood in their language that recognisedonly the truth, the Honhyhums called it‘The Thing Which is Not’. Had theymade a voyage of discovery through themazes of government paperwork in con-temporary India and seen them in thelight of the material reality around, theywould have been amazed by the mosttelling instance of what approximates‘The Thing Which is Not’ - the so called‘Development’.

The ordinary villagers of centralRajasthan afflicted nearly mortally by thegreat lie, could not like the Honhyhumsmerely afford to contemplate and beamazed by it from a distance. It is morethan eight years now, since late 1994,that they have been holding up to thelight of stark reality the manufacturedmyth of development and ‘poverty al-leviation’. Eight long years, since thepoor in the villages of central Rajasthanhave been taking on headlong the ques-tion of accountability and transparencyin development expenditure.

Account for our money, they haveasked, which we give as taxes for ourcollective material development. Or themoney that comes for us from all overthe world as aid. Show up in quality and

quantity the assets you have built for uson the ground, not on paper, they haveasked. They are angry, not amazed, atwhat they have found. And what havethey found?

Ghost entries in muster rolls of faminerelief or other rural development workgobbling up wages of real residents inthe village who are too poor to buy them-selves two square meals and are with-out any other job. School rooms non-existent in reality but entered in therecords as complete. Wells dug only indocuments while women fetch waterfrom miles away. Stones never suppliedto build a small path bridge, roads neverrepaired, sums never loaned out to thepoor for self-employment but embezzledby petty village officials and the ruralrich, and so on and so forth - all form-ing perfect entries in governmentrecords. The great lie of development iscertainly not harmless ‘Fiction’ as in lit-erature and art, to regale and enlighten(though it does that in an ironic sense),but a cover-up for the greed of a few atthe cost of the collective good.

How do the poor know what happenedto the minimum wage that would havemade them survive one more day? Bydemanding information contained inthe official documents. Only after ex-ercising their right to know can the poorstrive to get back the many minimum

It is more than eightyears now since thepoor in the villages ofcentral Rajasthanhave been taking onheadlong the questionof accountability andtransparency indevelopmentexpenditure

Introduction

2 PEOPLE’S RIGHT TO INFORMATION MOVEMENT: LESSONS FROM RAJASTHAN

wage days snatched from them. Themany days of their lives snatched fromthem, in fact.

By exercising their Right to Know - orthe Right to Information - collectivelythrough a long series of Jan Sunwais orPublic Hearings on development ex-penditure in their villages, the poor peas-ants and workers have taken a step to-wards shifting the local power balancein their favour. They have made corruptpeople return the embezzled money inmany cases and instilled a sense of fearin the permanent and elected local gov-ernment functionaries. Through thesePublic Hearings, the poor have soughtto fight corruption, demand account-ability from those who rule in theirname, reclaim development done in theirname and exercise their sovereignty overa government run in their name.

Apart from taking a step toward a shiftin the power balance in their favour, thepoor of central Rajasthan, helped by theMazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan(MKSS), an organisation of peasantsand workers active in that area - by theirPublic Hearings and a historic agitationin 1996-97 for a Right to InformationLegislation in the State of Rajasthan -also effected a significant shift in the dis-course on this subject in India. Hithertoin India, the middle class liberal opin-ion and the Courts too, in the wake ofthis country’s experience with pre-cen-sorship during the emergency of 1975-77, had defined the Right to Informa-tion as inherent in the fundamental rightto freedom of speech and expression.The Supreme Court of India bestsummed it up in the following pro-nouncement:

“Where a society has chosen to accept democ-racy as its creedal faith, it is elementary thatthe citizens ought to know what their govern-ment is doing.”

“The people of this country have a right toknow every public act, everything, that is donein a public way, by their functionaries. Theyare entitled to know the particulars of everypublic transaction in all its bearing.

“The concept of an open government is thedirect emanation from the right to know whichseems to be implicit in the right of free speechand expression guaranteed under article19(1)(a).

“It has, therefore, been held since long beforeConway v. Rimmer (1968 AC 910) (supra)was decided in England and since the deci-sion in Sodhi Sukhdev Singh’s case (AIR1961 SC 493) (supra) in India that a claimfor immunity against disclosure should bemade by the minister who is the political headof the department concerned or failing him,by the secretary of the department and theclaim should always be made in the form ofan affidavit.

“It is only under the severest compulsion ofthe requirement of public interest that thecourt may extend the immunity to any otherclass or classes of documents and in the con-text of our commitment to an open govern-ment with the concomitant right of the citi-zen to know what is happening in the gov-ernment, the court should be reluctant to ex-pand the classes of documents to which im-munity may be granted. The court must onthe contrary move in the direction of attenu-ating the protected class or classes of docu-ments, because by and large secrecy is thebadge of an authoritarian government”.

(SP Gupta vs. Union of India, 1981Supp. SCC 87).

By exercising theirRight to Know - or theRight to Information -collectively through along series of JanSunwais or PublicHearings ondevelopmentexpenditure in theirvillages, the poorpeasants and workershave taken a steptowards shifting thelocal power balance intheir favour

3

Beyond this, the MKSS experience hasbrought home the fact that the people’sRight to Information is essential to thebasic human right to survival and liveli-hood, which, the Supreme Court holds,is inherent in the Right to Life and Lib-erty contained in Article 21 of the Con-stitution. This is the essential linkagewe will explore in the course of this pa-per through the MKSS experience.

Triggered by this shift in the discourseand practice of the people’s Right toInformation by the Rajasthan move-ment, the National Campaign for Peo-ple’s Right to Information (NCPRI) wasformed in 1996 following the 40 daylong historic sit-in strike in Beawar,a small town in Ajmer District of

Rajasthan. The NCPRI intends to extendthe Rajasthan vision across the countryinto other areas of governance andpolicy, also all public spheres includingareas abdicated by governments in fa-vour of the Corporate Sector and NGOsin this era of economic liberalisation.

A campaign of advocacy by the NCPRIand other groups has effected the pas-sage of right to information laws in manystates and also a national law on thesubject - even though in nearly all cases,the powers that be have succeeded indiluting these enactments through de-liberately left loopholes and have evensought to restrict the Right to Freedomof Speech and Expression guaranteedin the Constitution.

The Mazdoor KisanShakti Sangathanexperience hasbrought home the factthat the people’s Rightto Information isessential to the basichuman right tosurvival andlivelihood

Introduction


Genesis

Formally constituted on May Day,1990, the Mazdoor Kisan ShaktiSangathan was born out of a land strug-gle against a feudal landowner of vil-lage Sohangarh in Deogarh Tehsil ofRajsamand District in central Rajasthan.Fought indomitably by the villagers, thestruggle made a close team of activistsout of a motley group of persons whohad recently come in contact with eachother. It was around this nucleus of ac-tivists that the Sangathan (meaning or-ganisation), owned by a large numberof people in the area, was formed. Ofthese, three, namely Aruna Roy, NikhilDey and Shankar Singh knew eachother for slightly longer. They had metin the Social Work and Research Cen-tre (SWRC), Tilonia in Ajmer Districtof central Rajasthan where Aruna Royand Shankar Singh worked.

Aruna Roy was a former officer of theelite Indian Administrative Service,1968 batch, who quit her job in 1975to work with SWRC, a voluntary or-ganisation founded three years earlierby her husband Sanjit Roy, better knownas Bunker Roy. Shankar Singh was alocal young man and SWRC’s ace home-spun communicator – barefoot, inSWRC terminology. In the mid 1980s

while they were looking for a path toSocial Change beyond the road of ruralDevelopment taken by SWRC – heav-ily subsidised by institutional donors,Nikhil Dey, a young man educated inAmerica came and met them. Bound bya common quest, they came to live inthe hamlet called Devdoongri, near thesmall highway town of Bhim inRajsamand District in 1987 on a smallfellowship grant of Rs. 30,000 from theUnion Government’s Ministry of Hu-man Resource Development, to studyissues related to the participation of thepoor in the government’s poverty alle-viation programmes. Shankar Singh’swife Anshi, along with the couple’s chil-dren, also joined them, living on a pieceof household land that belonged to arelative of Shankar’s.

This group of three soon establishedcontacts in the village and the areaaround Devdoongri. Among others, thecontacts included RN Mishra, an Eng-lish teacher at a government school inBhim and local peasants and rural la-bourers like Mot Singh, Chunni Bai, LalSingh, his mother Bhuriya, BhanwarSingh, Tej Singh, Chunni Singh and sev-eral others. It was through Lal Singh, aformer police constable dismissed for his

CHAPTER I

Genesis

Formally constitutedon May Day, 1990, theMazdoor Kisan ShaktiSangathan was bornout of a land struggleagainst a feudallandowner in centralRajasthan

This chapter describes the circumstances which led to the formation of theMazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, its early successes and how this led it to re-view the development package in rural India as a whole.

5

participation in a strike protesting againstthe practice of deploying constables asdomestic servants in the homes of theirofficers, that the opportunity of a com-mon struggle over land came their way.Lal Singh belonged to Sohangarh, a vil-lage nearly 12 kms from Bhim and acrossthe highway from Devdoongri.

Sohangarh lived in terror of Hari Singh,ex Jagirdar or feudal Lord of the villagewho, despite ceiling laws, still control-led over 1,500 acres of land. He levieda personal fine on the villagers for tres-passing if they grazed their cattle or col-lected firewood from the village com-mons illegally controlled by him. LalSingh, whose grandfather had suppliedmilk to Gandhi’s Ashram in Sabarmati,was no stranger to the idea and practiceof common struggle and organisation.He found kindred souls in Aruna, Nikhiland Shankar. The villagers were gradu-ally persuaded into challenging HariSingh’s sway.

Though the list of Hari Singh’s misde-meanours was long, it was decided to cor-ner him on a firm basis by identifying apiece of land in his illegal possession andgetting it out of his control. A windowof opportunity opened up in the winterof 1988 when news came that the SubDivisional Magistrate of the area wouldhold a court in the Panchayat of Tal aspart of the Prashashan Gaon Ki Ore (vil-lage oriented administration) programmeof the State government. A 25 hectarepatch of the village grazing land was iden-tified for the purpose. But they alsoneeded the Khasra, i.e. the plot number,and other relevant details of the land fromthe Patwari. This is not usually easy,but fortunately an exceptional Patwari

obliged and parted with the information.The theme of access to information con-tained in government records to help peo-ple attain other entitlements (or the rightto information enabling other entitle-ments) was thus innocuously set in mo-tion at Sohangarh for the group’s otherfuture struggles.

Equipped with relevant information re-garding this patch of the village com-mon and, probably, Aruna Roy’s famili-arity with administrative procedures,some people from Sohangarh petitionedthe SDM during his session at the TalPanchayat. The SDM ruled that the landdid not belong to Hari Singh. Thishelped in significantly breaching theformer Jagirdar’s hold on the village, butto bring the land directly under the pos-session of the local people and not ‘viathe state’, as Rajni Bakshi calls it in herbook Bapu Kutir, required another ma-noeuvre. There was also the need to takecare of the divide in Sohangarh betweenHari Singh loyalists and those vying toliberate themselves from his feudal grasp.Formation of a women’s cooperative inthe village and getting the land allottedto it for forestation took care of this.Of course, Hari Singh’s henchmen triedto intimidate the villagers with guns andswords, but they stood their ground andfinally got possession of the landthrough the cooperative. A small foreststands within an enclosure of barbedwire on that piece of cooperative landand another adjoining part of the vil-lage common under the possession of,and jointly managed by, the forest de-partment. The two adjoining forests to-gether bear testimony to the success ofthe Sohangarh struggle.

The theme of access toinformation containedin government recordsto help people attainother entitlements (orthe right to informationenabling otherentitlements) wasinnocuously set inmotion at Sohangarhfor the group’s otherfuture struggles

Genesis


The successful Sohangarh struggle andlater, a struggle for minimum wages atthe Dadi Rapat, formed the nucleus forthe formation of the MKSS on May1,1990 during a rally of around 1000 peo-ple gathered from 27 villages, aroundBhim, belonging to Pali, Rajsamand,Bhilwara and Ajmer Districts. TheSohangarh experience and the mass con-tact programme by the core group behindit had convinced people of the area ofthe need to organise their strugglesagainst injustice in a formal way.

With drought-prone, non-fertile smallholdings, agriculture is unable to sustainlivelihoods in the central Rajasthan Dis-tricts of Ajmer, Bhilwara, Pali andRajsamand and the population is mainlydependent for survival on the faminerelief works and other rural develop-ment works of the government, carriedout mainly by the Panchayats. Com-plaints of non-payment of stipulatedminimum wages on these works hadstarted reaching the Devdoongri groupeven while the Sohangarh struggle wasstill on. What happened was that whilethe labourers working these sites wereallotted work individually, wages werepaid to them collectively. The labour-ers on these sites would never get theirfull minimum wage for the day’s workeven though they spent the whole dayat the work sites. Against a minimumwage of Rs.11 per day in 1987-88, menusually got Rs.7 or 8 per day and womenRs.5 or 6.

One such wage complaint concernedDadi Rapat, a State irrigation depart-ment worksite, where most of the work-ers employed were from Sohangarh.

When the Devdoongri team started toinvestigate the matter, it seemed at firstthat there was a problem with the waythe work was measured, for which thejunior engineer was the sole authority.The labourers had no say in the matter.So it was decided that all 140 workersemployed on the site should work dili-gently, ensure completion of the workand also carry out their own measure-ments. Even though the Junior Engineeracknowledged the work was completedto measure, the wage offered was stillRs.6 per day and not Rs.11. In protest,all 140 workers initially refused to ac-cept this wage and two among them,Chunni Bai and Bhanwar Singh, stuckit out to the very end.

This non-cooperation and subsequentprotests and petitions by workers rattledthe local administration till the StateFamine Commissioner and an ExecutiveEngineer visited the Dadi Rapat site inApril, 1989. The Famine Commissioneracknowledged that the work had beendone to measure and assured the pay-ment of Rs.11. Yet, despite the FamineCommissioner’s directive, the IrrigationDepartment ordered a payment of onlyRs.9 per day. The link between corrup-tion (ghost entries in muster rolls) andnon-payment of minimum wages hasbeen explained later on in this paper. Itwas clear at that time itself that theworkers’ wage entitlement was an issuethat would not be resolved without acollective struggle. So a struggle forminimum wage and against corruptionwas uppermost in the mind of peoplewho gathered for the formation ofMKSS on May Day of 1990.

With drought-prone,non-fertile smallholdings, agricultureis unable to sustainlivelihoods in thecentral RajasthanDistricts and thepopulation is mainlydependent for survivalon the famine reliefworks and other ruraldevelopment works ofthe government,carried out mainly bythe Panchayats

7

A little later, the MKSS organised aDharna ( a sit in strike) followed by ahunger strike in front of the SDM’s of-fice. The number of hunger strikersswelled to 17 in six days. It was liftedonly after the District Collector assuredpayment of proper wages. When this re-mained a mere assurance on nearly allfamine work sites in the area, anotheragitation was launched the next year(1991). For this fight, the experience of12 labourers of Barar Panchayat wasused as a symbol. They diligently com-pleted the work and kept accurate meas-urement. Still denied appropriate wages,they submitted petitions through properchannels and sent notices.

When all else failed, an indefinite hun-ger strike was begun in front of the SubDivisional Magistrate’s office in Bhim,with five persons respectively repre-senting the five districts of Rajsamand,Pali, Ajmer, Jaipur and Baran. The po-lice cracked down on the hunger strikewith full force in the dead of night af-ter five days. The next day another hun-ger strike began against police repres-sion. The strikers finally won a victory

of sorts when the then Rural Develop-ment Secretary to the Union Govern-ment made it clear to the Rajasthangovernment that it would not get cen-tral assistance for the Jawahar RozgarYojana for violating the MinimumWages Act of 1948. The State govern-ment relented and ordered payment ofminimum wage to the 12 Barar work-ers. The victory had an impact on gov-ernment wages all around the area,which rose even though minimumwages continued to be denied.

It was clear to the MKSS from its strug-gle on minimum wages that the ques-tion of wage and employment entitle-ment could not be tackled sporadically.The lessons of the first two minimumwage struggles pointed to the need fora composite look at the whole rural de-velopment package on offer in rural In-dia. It also pointed out the necessity ofa novel approach to mass mobilisationwe witness in the form of Jan Sunwais orPublic Hearings. How this led to theRight to Information movement and afight against corruption, has been dealtwith in the next chapter.

The lessons of thefirst two minimumwage strugglespointed to the need fora composite look atthe whole ruraldevelopment packageon offer in rural India

Genesis


The Struggle for Entitlement

This chapter traces the growth of the RTI movement in Rajasthan between 1994,when the Public Hearings began, and 1997, when the entitlement was won inPanchayati Raj Act. It includes the historic dharnas at Beawar and Jaipur, andformation of the NCPRI.

The struggle for ensuring payment ofstatutory minimum wage on govern-ment employment works by theMazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan(MKSS) since its inception in 1990 leddirectly to the next higher stage in thestruggle of the poor in centralRajasthan. The task-based mode ofdetermining a rural worker’s wage hadnecessitated a peep by MKSS activistsinto officially maintained measurementbooks and muster rolls that respec-tively recorded the task performed byeach worker and the wage paid to her.The examination of these records re-vealed that corrupt local officials andSarpanches did not fully disburse to theworkers the amount they billed thegovernment as their wages. They pock-eted a neat portion of what they billedthe government as wages for the la-bourers. There were ghost entries in themuster rolls that meant total wage billof a particular rural development workwas to be divided among more headsthan were actually employed for thatwork. This in turn meant under meas-urement of each labourer’s work andhence under payment of her wage.

It was in this context that an underpaidvillager came to the MKSS in August

1994 complaining of manipulation ofmuster rolls and corruption in develop-ment works in Kot Kirana Panchayat ofRaipur Block in Pali District. The MKSSapproached the Block Development Of-ficer (BDO) Nirmal Wadhwani, a youngprobationer of the Indian Administra-tive Service with his complaint. TheBDO conducted an extensive enquiry.He went from village to village and gotpeople of the area to look into musterrolls. He crosschecked the vouchers ofthe construction work that had been un-dertaken in the Panchayat with them.The enquiry exposed the corruption ofthe Gram Sewak (Panchayat Secretary)and the Junior Engineer who had mis-appropriated the funds of the centrallysponsored Desert Development Pro-gramme. Some evidence of their cor-ruption he found was:

l In the construction of the PatwarBhawan (revenue building) at Kirana(of Kot Kirana Panchayat), no stoneswere bought. Instead, old stones wereused from a government building thathad been pulled down. Yet, bills show-ing the purchase of stones worth Rs.7,100 were submitted. Similarly, falsebills worth Rs. 26, 510 were shown inBagri village of Kalaliya Panchayat.

A peep by MKSSactivists into officiallymaintainedmeasurement booksand muster rollsrevealed that corruptlocal officials andSarpanches did notfully disburse to theworkers the amountthey billed thegovernment as theirwages. They pocketeda neat portion of whatthey billed thegovernment as wagesfor the labourers

CHAPTER II


9

l Several irregularities were committedin the payment of wages in the con-struction of Anicuts, Dharam Nadiat Bagri and Kharli Nadi at Kirana.Many persons against whom pay-ments were shown or collected by theGram Sewak and Junior Engineer ei-ther did not live in the village or wereemployed elsewhere. For instance, theAnganwadi worker, the owner of thePublic Distribution system shop andthe Roadways booking clerk wereshown as having worked as labourerson development works in the village.

l The muster roll for the Bagri anicutalso showed payment to workers foreight days while they had actuallybeen paid for five days only.

The BDO’s inquiry indicted Junior En-gineer Girdhari Singh and the GramSewak Sardar Singh of Kot Kirana forcorruption. The BDO filed a First In-formation Report (no. 1619/94-95) on28.9.94 against the two in Sendra Po-lice Station for forging false accountsworth fifty eight thousand rupees. Theaccused sought to cover up the case withthe help of the local MLA, Hira SinghChauhan, who was also a former DeputySpeaker of the State Assembly. Thesethree used money and force to silencesome of the people who had providedevidence. They also made some of themsign false affidavits backtracking ontheir earlier statements.

For instance, Kaluram Suthar was onesuch person who gave a false affidavitcontradicting his earlier statement.Seized by the BDO, his diary did notshow delivery of stones on his tractortrolley to the work sites. But later in the

affidavit, he said he had forgotten tomake entries in his diary as he had prob-ably made extra trips in the night to de-liver stones.

Then there were three women, Muli, Bajiand Dhau of village Kot, who were en-ticed with money to give an affidavit fal-sifying their earlier statement. They hadworked on Bagri anicut and were paidfor five days of work. They were prom-ised extra money to give affidavits say-ing they had worked for eight days. Thewomen were taken to Barar, a little dis-tance away place and brought back totheir village late in the night after sign-ing false affidavits. This angered the vil-lagers as they had left without the per-mission of their family members.

The people of Kot Kirana Panchayat be-came very angry at this campaign to sup-press evidence and cover up corruption.To take the steam out of their anger, thetwo accused, with the help of Hira SinghChauhan, approached the Jati Panchas(Caste Chieftains) of the villages in thePanchayat. The Jati Panchas called a JatiPanchayat (caste assembly) where the ac-cused confessed to the misuse of publicfunds and begged forgiveness. The JatiPanchas fined them a paltry sum of Rs.1100 as contribution for the repair of thevillage temple. This was an attempt by theaccused to escape lightly.

As far as official and legal proceedingsare concerned, the police did not takeany action against either the Junior En-gineer or the Gram Sewak. Though thedistrict administration suspended theGram Sewak, the Junior Engineer wasmerely transferred to the neighbouringJawaja Panchayat Samiti.

The people of KotKirana Panchayatbecame very angry atthis campaign tosuppress evidenceand cover upcorruption



It was to counter such blatant attemptsat cover-up that the MKSS and the peo-ple of the area thought of a Jan Sunwaior a Public Hearing as a mode of bring-ing the matter out into the open or pub-lic domain, so to speak. The Public hear-ing was visualised as a form of SocialAudit – the ‘best form’, as the MKSSpress note called it – and of public de-bate with and among the local villagerson the ‘development’ being carried outfor them. The following considerationswent into this visualisation of the Pub-lic Hearing:

l The Gram Sabha was non-functionaland in any case would relate to onlyone Gram Panchayat or Village Coun-cil. But the impact of developmentworks affected adjoining Panchayatstoo and relevant information couldonly be collected through collectivesharing across these adjoining villages.

l Most of the information pertaining todevelopment work in villages was zeal-ously guarded by government officialsat the Panchayat, Block and Districtlevels. The disclosure of even thesmallest amount of such informationto the villagers would result in layingbare the true detailed account ofmoney spent as shown by the MKSScampaign preceding the Jan Sunwai.Since people in a village have afirsthand knowledge and understand-ing of all development activities in thevillage, even a little information sharedwould generate a plethora of data.

Kot Kirana: The First PublicHearing

Held on the 2nd of Dec. 1994, the firstJan Sunwai looked at small development

works executed in 1993-94 in KotKirana and Bagdi Kalaliya GramPanchayats of Raipur Panchayat Samitiin Pali District. It was attended mainlyby people from Kot, Samel, Kirana,Rokabaria, Pipla Khera, Sirma andDhukulpura villages in Kirana GramPanchayat and Bagdi, Kalaliya,Khandabhaga and Belapana villagesand Road Havli, Bhundap, Nahi,Mulyakheda, Samli, Chaukhat, Bhja-thala, Banatiya and Bada hamlets inKalaliya Gram Panchayat. Presided overby Social Worker Renuka Pamecha, whoteaches political science at KanodiyaCollege in Jaipur, the Public Hearingwas attended by Bunker Roy of SocialWork and Research Centre, Tilonia andSawai Singh of Samagra Sewa Sangh,Jaipur. Unlike some later Jan Sunwais,no government official was present toput forward the official point of view.

The moment was electric as names of ahundred people on the muster roll (theofficial record of names, and paymentsmade to them, of those employed on aparticular site) were read out in publicbefore hundreds of people. As an MKSSwrite-up records, “...outraged peoplecame and testified that they had nevergone to those work sites, that false sig-natures had been used and that therewere names on the muster rolls of peo-ple dead and gone, and others unheardof. The finger was pointed at the retiredteacher Moti Singh who had entered thenames, the Gram Sewak who made thepayment and the Junior Engineer whohad certified that the work was done andpayments made in his presence. Thepeople fearlessly spoke against theformer Deputy Speaker of the Rajasthan

It was to counter suchblatant attempts atcover-up that theMKSS and the peopleof the area thought ofa Jan Sunwai or aPublic Hearing as amode of bringing thematter out into theopen or public domain

11

Vidhan Sabha, who had camped in thevillage prior to the hearings, intimidat-ing the villagers to change their state-ments against the accused. When billsand vouchers of the unfinished PatwarGhar were read out, the people learntthat they had a ‘complete’ Patwar Ghar–at least on paper. The bills of roofingmaterial, doors and windows, when readout elicited a great deal of laughter forthere was no roof and there were onlyholes for doors and windows. When thelaughter died down, there was conster-nation, anger and eventually an officialFirst Information Report (FIR).” Theexposure of the role of the retired schoolmaster’s son resulted in his losing theelection for the Sarpanch’s post a monthlater. He had earlier been considered astrong candidate.

A Pattern Unfolds

The corruption revealed in the first pub-lic hearing by juxtaposing governmentrecords and facts available with the peo-ple and actual work on the ground es-tablished itself as a firm pattern in thefour Jan Sunwais that followed soon af-ter. In fact, taken together, the five JanSunwais, especially the first four, formeda quick campaign of Social Audit in thefour Central Rajasthan districts of Pali,Rajsamand, Ajmer and Bhilwara. Thefirst four public hearings were held be-tween the short period of Dec. 1994-Jan.1995. The fifth one followed soonafter in April, 1995 and provided a wel-come contrast.

Bhim: The Second PublicHearing

The Bhim Jan Sunwai followed withina week of the first public hearing – on

Dec. 7, 1994 - and was presided overby a noted progressive poet ofRajasthan: Harish Bhadani. This JanSunwai too followed the same processof reading out details from governmentrecords, like bills, vouchers and musterrolls, relating to rural development workand getting people’s feedback on them.A lot of preparation went into the JanSunwai with MKSS activists, along withthe local people, inspecting work sites.

Among the cases of corruption discov-ered in the Bhim Jan Sunwai, one thattook the cake related to a fraudulentcompany that had taken payment forfalse bills. Owned by wives and familymembers of Block officials, the com-pany called Bhairunath and Sons wasformed purely for the purpose of graft.In one Block alone, it collected illegalpayments worth Rs. 36 lakh. Peoplespoke out freely in the Jan Sunwai, un-deterred by the fact that it was held infront of the Block Office. Like the KotKirana Jan Sunwai, the Collector andother government officials honouredtheir invitation by their absence, exceptfor the Tehsildar, who stayed for justan hour.

The Jan Sunwai examined developmentworks in Bhim and Kaladeh Panchayatsof Bhim Panchayat Samiti in Rajsa-mand District. These included worksunder Jawahar Rozgar Yojana, ApnaGaon Apna Kaam, Tees Zila TeesKaam, Untied Fund, Indira AwasYojana, Jeewan Dhara, Famine ReliefWorks and Training Rural Youth for SelfEmployment schemes. Though situatedclose to the Sub Divisional town ofBhim, the two Panchayats did not lagbehind in corruption. Apart from the

The corruptionrevealed in the firstpublic hearing byjuxtaposinggovernment recordsand facts availablewith the people andactual work on theground establisheditself as a firm patternin the four JanSunwais that followedsoon after



huge graft by the fraudulent company,some of the other cases of corruptionexposed in the Jan Sunwai were:

l In violation of rules, 15 works inKaladeh Panchayat were given outon contract. The contractors em-ployed their own kith and kin onthese works. Even amongst them,many were cheated of their wages.Muster rolls were fraudulently main-tained. Physical verification showedmany works to be incomplete andothers, even though complete, wereready to fall apart. An examination ofbills and material used in the worksrevealed them to be false and sub-standard respectively.

l In the Indira Awas Yojana, out of 52houses sanctioned for the BhimPanchayat Samiti, 45 went to just onePanchayat – Kaladeh. In this Pan-chayat, many relatively well-to-dovillagers managed to corner many ofthese houses and every poor alloteehad to pay a bribe for allotment. Aman called Ratna testified that he re-ceived only Rs. 1800 out of Rs. 7800shown as payment to him.

l Different muster rolls in Bhim andKaladeh showed the same names onsame days.

A First Information Report regarding theirregularities detected in the Jan Sunwaiwas lodged with the Bhim police.

Following an agitation launched by theMKSS in June, 1994 the RajasamandCollector had ordered an enquiry by theChief Executive Officer of the Districtinto the affairs of the fraudulent com-pany. The result of the CEO’s enquiry

formed the basis of an FIR against thefalse company with the Anti-Corruptiondepartment. But no action was taken onany of the other complaints of irregu-larities in the two Panchayats, nor wasany supervisory responsibility fixed onthe Assistant Engineer and the DistrictRural Development Authority. The Pub-lic Hearing was held with a view to ex-pose the fraud to the public.

Vijaypura: The Third JanSunwai

Nearly 500 villagers from the seven lo-cal Panchayats of Vijaypura, Tal,Lasani, Aldas Ka Guda, Swadari, Miyalaand Diwer were all attention as Ang-anwadi workers of the Integrated ChildDevelopment Scheme narrated a scaminvolving their two supervisors. Thesetwo, the Anganwadi workers said, hadtaken bribes, stolen rations, pilferedcotton, buckets, chairs, tables, dhurriesand even the paracetamol tablets meantfor the villagers. The villagers made aquick calculation and estimated thegraft to total around Rs. 14 lakhs dur-ing a four year period.

Held on Dec, 17, 1994, the third JanSunwai at Vijaypura in Deogarh Blockof Rajsamand District also exposed afraudulent public auction where thePanchayat pasture worth over Rs. 70lakhs had been auctioned off dirt cheap.The villagers testified that none of the800 people supposed to have attendedthe public auction had actually done soalthough many of their signatures hadbeen forged to show attendance. Noneof the government officials concernedwere present to offer their viewpoint al-though Aditi Mehta, a Rajasthan cadre

Physical verificationshowed many works tobe incomplete andothers, even thoughcomplete, were readyto fall apart

13

IAS officer attended in her personal ca-pacity. Lokayan Editor and socialist ac-tivist Vijay Pratap presided. Apart fromthe villagers of seven nearbyPanchayats, people from as far as Bhim,Raipur and Kukra in Rajsamand Districtand Jawaja and Silora from Ajmer Dis-trict also attended the Public Hearing.After the Jan Sunwai, an FIR was lodgedin the land auction scam. An adminis-trative inquiry into the Anganwadi ir-regularities was also conducted indict-ing the supervisors.

Jawaja Jan Sunwai: Battle Linesfor Right to Information

A qualitative change occurred betweenthe third Jan Sunwai on Dec.17, 1994at Vijaypura and the fourth Jan Sunwaiat Jawaja in Ajmer District on Jan. 7,1995. What had started out as a quickcampaign of Social Audit of Develop-ment Expenditure at the Panchayat levelthrough four planned Public hearings,began etching the battle lines for a pro-longed fight for people’s right to infor-mation during the run-up to the fourthJan Sunwai.

As MKSS activists, armed with the or-ders of the Ajmer District Collector tomake available to them copies of docu-ments relating to development expendi-ture, went around seeking records ofdevelopment works in the Panchayatsof the area, the Gram Sewaks orPanchayat Secretaries got alarmed. Theyhad already got wind of the three pre-ceding Jan Sunwais, the electric effectthey had on the people of the area andthe portent of this process for the fu-ture of a system of scams that rural de-velopment had become. As a key cog in

this system, the Gram Sewaks could notsimply let the things go the way theywere heading. When the Block Devel-opment Officer of Masuda issued a let-ter to make copies of Panchayat recordsavailable to MKSS activists on asking,the Gram Sewaks struck swiftly and re-fused to comply with it. The GramSewaks of Ajmer District organised adelegation to meet the Collector onDec. 22, within six days of the third JanSunwai. They gave him a memorandumdemanding to be exempted from shar-ing with the people information andrecords related to development worksand affairs of the Panchayat. Theypressed hard with this demand by astaging a Dharna or a sit-in strike in frontof the Ajmer District Collector’s officeon Jan. 2, 1995. Rather than share cop-ies of bills, vouchers and muster rollsmaintained by Panchayats of rural de-velopment works, the Gram Sewaks –keepers of these records – of Ajmer Dis-trict decided to go on strike. They saidthey were prepared only to submit theserecords for government audit.

As the Gram Sewaks hardened theirstand, people of the area began sayingthat by doing this the petty Panchayatofficials were merely confirming theircomplicity in corruption. Reading thesegrassroots signals, the Gram Sewaksbecame even more alarmed – not onlyin Ajmer District, but from one end ofthe State to the other. So much so, thata delegation of the Gram Sewak Sanghor the association of the Gram Sewaksin the State met the Development Com-missioner of Rajasthan to protestagainst being asked to share informa-tion, even though the Jawaja Public

What had started outas a quick campaignof Social Audit ofDevelopmentExpenditure at thePanchayat levelthrough four plannedPublic hearings,began etching thebattle lines for aprolonged fight forpeople’s right toinformation during therun-up to the fourthJan Sunwai



Hearing was meant to cover only sevenPanchayats of one Block. More than thepeople’s action, therefore, in holdinglocal Jan Sunwais in central Rajasthan,it was the reaction of Panchayat Secre-taries that transformed the demand fortransparency of development expendi-ture at the local level into a statewideissue of people’s Right to Information.

Even though people’s access to officialrecords relating to rural developmentexpenditure was effectively blocked, theJawaja Public Hearing did take placeon Jan. 7. The people from sevenPanchayats came up with a plethora ofinformation. The sheer authenticity ofthe people’s information proved sostrong that within two days of the hear-ing, pilfered money began to be returnedto individuals and the community whohad been cheated squarely by thePanchayat functionaries. For instance,five Dalit families of Jalia Peethawas,who had testified in the Jawaja PublicHearing that their Gram Sewak hadtaken a cut of Rs.1500 from each ofthem from their Indira Awas housinggrant of Rs.9800 each, got the amountback within 48 hours of the hearing. TheGram Sewak visited them at home toreturn the money.

Attended by a panel of three senior law-yers – Marudhar Mridul and Mahesh Borafrom Jodhpur and Ramesh Nandwanafrom Udaipur – and a theatre person,Tripurari Sharma from National Schoolof Drama in Delhi, the Jan Sunwai alsoresolved to launch a mass agitation foraccess to copies of bills, vouchers andmuster rolls of rural development ex-penditure as part of the people’s Rightto Information. Pressurised on one side

by the Gram Sewak Sangh and on theother by the MKSS, the Ajmer DistrictCollector referred the matter to the StateGovernment for a decision. By this act,he unwittingly brought to a head for theRajasthan Government the twin issuesof People’s Right to Information and theSocial Audit of development expendi-ture – something to be fought out anddebated between the people and thethree tiers of government at the local,State and national level in the nextfew years.

Populist But CatalyticAnnouncement

Soon after the Jawaja Jan Sunwai, theMKSS wrote to the government de-manding that information should beavailable to everyone. In its letter, theMKSS also threatened to launch astatewide agitation if the governmentsuccumbed to the pressure of the GramSewaks and accepted their demand ofbeing exempted from showing recordspertaining to rural development ex-penditure. The MKSS did not receivean official reply.

Yet, on April 6, 1995, a prominent re-gional daily of the State, DainikNavjyoti carried the report of the thenChief Minister Bhairon Singh Shekha-wat’s announcement in the State Assem-bly, made the previous day. The an-nouncement promised to give to thepeople of the State Right to Informa-tion with respect to all the affairs of thePanchayati Raj Institutions. The an-nouncement promised

l Transparency regarding developmentworks carried out by Panchayati RajInstitutions since 1990

On April 6, 1995, aprominent regionaldaily of the State,Dainik Navjyoti,carried the report ofthe then ChiefMinister BhaironSingh Shekhawat’sannouncement in theState Assembly,made the previousday, promising give tothe people of the StateRight to Informationwith respect to all theaffairs of thePanchayati RajInstitutions

15

l Access to photocopies of bills,vouchers and muster rolls and otherrecords related to rural developmentexpenditure on payment of photo-copying charges

l Instituting an enquiry wherever fraudwas detected.

l Punishment to the guilty and recov-ery of embezzled funds.

It was only a year later, on the eve oftheir 40 day sit-in strike in April, 1996that the MKSS could obtain a copy ofthe Chief Minister’s announcement. Infact, it was Shekhawat’s announce-ment in the State Assembly thatspurred the MKSS on to a campaignthat finally led to the Passage of theRight to Information Act in the Statenearly five years later. It started withthe MKSS submitting a host of peti-tions to the State government and itsdelegations meeting several secretar-ies of the Rajasthan government fortranslation of the Chief Minister’s an-nouncement into something concrete– a legislation or executive orders.Despite these efforts, though, the an-nouncement remained merely on pa-per. MKSS activists found governmentofficials and elected representativesstalling all their efforts. It remainedimpossible for citizens to obtain infor-mation at the District, Block and Vil-lage levels. For the MKSS, this resultedin the realisation that it was absolutelyessential to obtain the Right to Infor-mation for citizens rather than dependon favours from one or two well-inten-tioned officials if the peoplewanted to monitor and exercise con-trol over development expenditure in-curred in their name.

Thana Public Hearing: AWelcome Contrast

Not forming part of the quick campaignof four preceding Public Hearings, thecontext of the Jan Sunwai at Thana inMandel Block of Bhilwara District wasdifferent. Held on April 25, 1995, it wasseparated from the four preceding Pub-lic Hearings by the Panchayat electionsand the Chief Minister’s announcementon the Right to Information that tookplace in the meantime. In fact, ChiefMinister Shekhawat’s announcement tooprobably had a political motive: it wasaccompanied by a threat to the previ-ous Congress Sarpanchs that the gov-ernment would make all efforts to re-cover embezzled funds if charges of cor-ruption were proved against them. Theunsaid message seemed clear: play ballor face the music.

It was against this background that theThana Jan Sunwai became the first pub-lic hearing to be conducted with the ac-tive support of the elected Panchayatfunctionaries – in this case the newlyelected Sarpanch and the other electedPanchayat representatives. An activemember of the MKSS till then, the newlyelected Sarpanch of Thana, Ladu Singhconducted the Hearing. Despite theConstitutional mandate of the 73 r d

Amendment, the newly made Right toInformation announcement of theChief Minister and the order given, per-taining to this intent, by the Bhilwaracollector to the Mandel Block office,Ladu Singh still had difficulty in gettinghold of the records relating to develop-ment expenditure in his Panchayatduring the past five years. It was onlybecause of persistent pressure applied

It remainedimpossible for citizensto obtain informationat the District, Blockand Village levels.For the MKSS, thisresulted in therealisation that it wasabsolutely essentialto obtain the Right toInformation forcitizens



by the MKSS that the Mandel Block of-fice agreed to part with some informa-tion in its possession on the night be-fore the hearing.

The Public Hearing on April 25, 1995revealed the reasons for the administra-tion’s reluctance to share informationwith the people. For the first time thegovernment officials were present in aPublic Hearing. Some villagers presentin the Hearing, who were also benefici-aries of some development programme,asked the Junior Engineer and the GramSewak, who came on stage, pointedlyabout the bribes they had taken fromthem. In the records of various construc-tion works executed in the GramPanchayat in the previous years, peoplecaught false bills and vouchers of thematerial used. Without fearing the con-sequences, even government employeeslike the village school teacher, the dis-pensary peon and the Patwari spoke outopenly in the presence of the BlockDevelopment Officer to validate thefacts showing misuse and misappropria-tion of development funds.

An interesting debate relating to the socalled ‘adjustment’ in development ex-penditure records ensued in the ThanaPublic Hearing and became a dominanttheme in bureaucratic arguments at thehighest level in the State in the courseof the Right to Information Campaignin the next few years as the main argu-ment against complete transparency indevelopment expenditure. The Offi-cials present in the Jan Sunwai justi-fied the documented instances of cor-ruption on the ground that the norms

of labour-material ratio set by the gov-ernment (60:40) with regard to devel-opment works carried out under thevarious poverty alleviation programmeshad to be met, necessitating fudging ofrecords as these norms no longer re-mained practical. It took the peoplepresent in the Jan Sunwai only a singletestimony to expose the fallacy of theargument. As a speaker in the PublicHearing pointed out, the false bills inquestion related to material and notlabour which would have needed ‘ad-justment’. Inflated material bills, villag-ers pointed out, would only further de-stroy the government norms.

When cornered thus and in many otherways in the Thana Jan Sunwai, theGram Sewak admitted that the ‘adjust-ments’ were made to pilfer money. Healso admitted his own guilt in the mat-ter and offered to return whatever hehad taken. This aspect of the ThanaPublic Hearing also confirmed and es-tablished a theme witnessed in the ear-lier Jan Sunwais and to be found in thelater Jan Sunwais too: the popular de-mand for the return of the money sto-len from the village community or in-dividuals and the public shame thatsometimes forced public functionaries,elected or permanent, to bow to it. Buttime revealed an irony at Thana: theMKSS was forced to disown theSarpanch Ladu Singh later for his asso-ciation with some organisation work-ers who were found to have pilferedmoney from a shop that the MKSS ranunder the Public Distribution Systemof the government.

Without fearing theconsequences, evengovernmentemployees like thevillage school teacher,the dispensary peonand the Patwari spokeout openly in thepresence of the BlockDevelopment Officerto validate the factsshowing misuse andmisappropriation ofdevelopment funds

17

First Phase of Hearings: Pattern andPointers

The average attendance in each PublicHearing was between 500 and 800, ofwhich half were women. The MKSSmobilisation efforts for Public Hearingssucceeded to this extent possibly be-cause of two factors:

l Wages - their non-payment or under-payment - are vital issues for the vil-lage poor. Poverty Alleviation andDrought Relief Programmes of thegovernment are the main sources ofemployment in the villages of centralRajasthan. These programmes andPanchayati Raj Institutions did notprovide effective fora for the poor toseek redress of wage-related griev-ances, hence the idea of a public fo-rum for voicing complaints arousedtheir enthusiasm. Since women formthe major part of the work force inthese programmes and wage-relatedgrievances were as much theirs, theytoo were equally enthusiastic aboutthe hearings.

l The rural middle class, who are notdirect beneficiaries of governmentdelivery schemes, were able to seethe link between corruption in de-velopment works and the absence orlow quality of infrastructure in theirvillages. A little persuasion madethem acknowledge their responsibil-ity in ensuring that developmentfunds were properly spent and thatthere was need for them to play anactive role in the development oftheir village.

An important characteristic of thesehearings was that they derived their

power, legitimacy and sanctity fromthe villagers themselves and not thedistinction of the panel. The panel, con-sisting of lawyers, jurists, writers, intel-lectuals and other such people, merelyprovided a link, like the press, with theenlightened urban intelligentsia and lentseriousness to the Jan Sunwai proceed-ings - for the local community and theoutside world. Yet it is important to re-member that these Jan Sunwais were notCourts or Tribunals nor a public rally toagitate for a set of demands.

These events drew their name from thePublic Hearings held in other parts ofthe country in the recent past, but dif-fered from them in an important way.The other Public Hearings had mostlybeen held in urban settings and weremodeled on the parameters of a court.They drew their legitimacy and sanctityfrom the distinction of the panel andaimed at eliciting a cross-section of in-tellectual responses on a topic of com-mon concern.

The MKSS Public hearings expresslyaimed at a Social Audit of developmentresources and expenditure. They wereorganised around a cluster of four to fivePanchayats in this phase because devel-opment work in one Panchayat had animpact on others and a collective shar-ing of information in such a cluster wasrequired to reach fruitful conclusions.Certain aspects of mobilisation were in-herent in the nature of these Jan Sunwais.Since persons identified as pilferers wereoften neighbours or relatives of resi-dents in any village, it was important tohave each testimony collectively veri-fied. For this, it was necessary to havelarge groups of people attend from each

The MKSS Publichearings expresslyaimed at a SocialAudit of developmentresources andexpenditure



nearby village rather than a scatteredpopulation from a vast area.

In selecting villages for Public Hearings,the MKSS insisted that the initiativecame from a persistent group of peoplefrom the village. As a run-up to the Pub-lic Hearing, though, the MKSS madeextensive contacts in the villages con-cerned for collecting and sharing infor-mation, identifying issues, and motivat-ing people to come. Before each PublicHearing, the MKSS circulated a leafletexplaining the idea behind it and encap-sulating its key concerns.

A Social Audit requires details of infor-mation pertaining to the expenditure on,and use of, resources. The preparatorywork for a Public Hearing includes or-ganising this information and sharing itwith the village people. This process hasan electrifying effect on the community.As the MKSS activists went around vil-lages sharing copies of the bills, vouch-ers and muster rolls of constructionworks, people were seized with instantcuriosity and flocked around them. Wordof the fraud revealed through thesedocuments would spread quickly. Thelocal vested interests would movequickly to try and contain the damageand prevent the Hearing. Yet, as the in-formation spread, it would become in-creasingly clear that people from a cross-section of society were ready to attendthe Public Hearing, come what may, incertain cases even when some state levelpolitical leader was backing the grouphostile to the Hearing.

It was the same story in every PublicHearing: it “transferred meaningless fig-ures into actual reality,” says an MKSSdocument, “as two types of information

began to be compared. The records andthe reality.” The MKSS documentfurther says, “As the story of the gap be-tween the two unfolded at the hearing,the people began to understand the needand value of tools for increasing theircontrol over processes.”

The Public Hearing proceedings weremeticulously documented on video.This served the twin purposes ofundeniability and safety against mis-representation. The process of record-ing also put each speaker in the Hear-ings under a sort of oath as they knewthis material could be referred to later.The state of development works re-ferred to in the Hearing was recorded,verifying the personal testimonies ofthe people.

The local, regional and metropolitannewspapers widely reported these Hear-ings. This resulted in the advocacy ofthe issues concerned on a far wider scale.And it also gave the village people asense of being significant players in thestruggle for justice. Between the fourHearings, three meetings were held withconcerned citizens in Udaipur, Jaipurand Bhim respectively. By sharing ex-periences in these meetings, the MKSSnetworked to build a support group incities that would provide help in the caseof any problem. The question of trans-parency in administration and corrup-tion appealed to the urban intelligentsiaand helped establish issues of people’sRight to Information and Social Audit.As the results of the Public Hearingsconcerned the implementation of thegovernment poverty alleviation pro-grammes, the findings were presented tothe senior State and central government

As the MKSS activistswent around villagessharing copies of thebills, vouchers andmuster rolls ofconstruction works,people were seizedwith instant curiosityand flocked aroundthem. Word of thefraud revealedthrough thesedocuments wouldspread quickly

19

officials and action demanded in casesof fraud and other misdemeanour.

The Jan Sunwais gave shape to certaindemands relating to transparency in ru-ral development programmes:

l The administration should print docu-ments like the Below Poverty Line listsand make them available to the pub-lic at a price.

l The District Rural Development Au-thority should make available to thepublic computer print-outs of quar-terly, half yearly and annual sanctionsand expenditure related to Poverty Al-leviation programmes.

l Photocopies of bills, vouchers andmuster rolls of rural developmentworks should be made available ondemand to citizens on payment offees.

l Printed copies of allotment lists ofPanchayat and Revenue land shouldbe made available to citizens on pay-ment of a fee.

The Jan Sunwai showed that a GramSabha/Ward Sabha (statutory villageassembly) could be an ideal forum forSocial Audit of rural development ex-penditure and, through this, a tool offighting corruption at the grassrootslevel. For this Social Audit function ofa Gram Sabha or village assembly to beeffective, these initial Jan Sunwaisshowed that

l The accounts must be read out to theassembly in a detailed and systematicmanner,

l The procedure of the social auditshould be clearly laid down, including

who will present the accounts and whatfactors would be examined, and

l The Gram Sabha/Ward Sabha musthave the power to enforce correctiveaction in case of corruption and fraud.

If transparency was one important is-sue raised by these Public Hearings, ac-countability was another. In the con-text of accountability, the initial Pub-lic Hearings threw up certain importantrequirements:

l It should be clearly indicated whichofficial is accountable to provide thebeneficiaries of Poverty AlleviationProgrammes with their entitlements.

l There should be an appellate author-ity for complaints related to develop-ment works in villages.

l Recovery of funds must be a part ofthe punitive action against those re-sponsible for embezzlement.

l Grievances should be addressed anddisposed of in a specific time period.

l A grievance cell should be set up, con-sisting of eminent and concerned citi-zens of the area to oversee all suchcomplaints.

These initial Public Hearings were prem-ised on the formulation, and also suc-ceeded in establishing it, that any money,meant for development, taken away bygraft denied the village people their rightto development. In this way the hear-ings became an attempt to reclaim de-velopment. This was instrumental inforging a convergence of interests, whichgave a Public Hearing “a sense of powerbeyond its immediate attendance,” saysan MKSS document. The strong demand

These initial PublicHearings werepremised on theformulation, and alsosucceeded inestablishing it, thatany money, meant fordevelopment, takenaway by graft deniedthe village peopletheir right todevelopment



for ethics in public expenditure gener-ated a great deal of energy in an other-wise cynical environment.

The idea born in these Hearings thatpeople had a right to monitor public ex-penditure and development work in theirarea was simple, but revolutionary. Itwas far-reaching in its promise of a moredemocratic form of governance thanpeople were hitherto used to. The ideaof public monitoring that emerged, eventhough confined only to the specific andlimited area of public spending, had thepotential to encompass all areas of gov-ernance and development.

The concept of the people’s Right to In-formation as a basic democratic right,including aspects of transparency, so-cial audit and accountability, had for along time been discussed in urban semi-nar rooms, but this new initiative by or-dinary people at the grassroots energisedthe discourse and also energised the peo-ple into an unprecedented public actionin the direction of realising this right.

Follow Up of the Jan Sunwaisand the Backlash

Following the end of the campaign ofJan Sunwais, the MKSS pressed for ac-countability in the cases of corruptionhighlighted in them. Alarmed by theresponse of the Jan Sunwais and theMKSS determination to follow thingsthrough till the end and see those re-sponsible for corruption held account-able and punished, the vested interestsin the region cemented their nexus -especially the lower level governmentbureaucracy and elected representa-tives of the people. A backlash inevi-tably followed.

In the Jawaja Jan Sunwai, Kesar Singhof Baghmal village had raised the mat-ter of corruption in Asan, Badakhaanand Badakheera Gram Panchayats ofJawaja Block in Ajmer District. He hadsupplied material for nine constructionworks during 1991-93 in these threePanchayats, but had received only partpayments. As the MKSS put pressure forthe records of these construction worksto be made public and an inquiry con-ducted to determine the extent of cor-ruption in them, the Gram Sewak, theJunior Engineer and the newly electedSarpanches and Panchayat Samiti mem-bers got together and tried to pressurisethe Ajmer District administration intonot giving in to these demands. They alsotried to tempt Kesar Singh with moneyand pressurise him through a castepanchayat into withdrawing his com-plaint. Despite all this, and because ofthe public agitation on the issue, theAjmer Collector ordered an inquiry bythe Sub Divisional Magistrate of Beawarinto all the nine construction works.

The SDM came to Asan on June 6,1995. In an unprecedented show ofsolidarity, 25 newly elected Sarpanchesand ex-Sarpanches led by the JawajaBlock Pradhan Shankar Singh Rawatalso descended on the village in drovesof Maruti cars and motorbikes to in-timidate the villagers from giving tes-timony and thwart the inquiry. As soonas the SDM arrived, they surroundedthe 250 strong gathering. When ChunniSingh, an MKSS activist, of BadkochraPanchayat started speaking about theJawaja Block administration beinginsensitive to the grievances of thevillagers, Narbada Bai, the woman

The idea of publicmonitoring thatemerged, eventhough confined onlyto the specific andlimited area of publicspending, had thepotential toencompass all areasof governance anddevelopment

21

Sarpanch of Asan, brandished her slip-pers gesturing him to keep quiet. Whenthis did not silence him, she attackedhim and tore his shirt. The meeting wasdisrupted for a while, but the SDMmoved from the open into thePanchayat Bhawan nearby and com-pleted the day’s proceedings.

The elected Panchayati Raj representa-tives who had gathered in Asan in soli-darity had nothing to do with the mat-ter at hand. Yet the subtle shift in powerthat the MKSS campaign was engineer-ing in favour of the ordinary citizens invillages, had scared them into this sortof desperate action. All of them and thePresident of the District Gram SewakSangh hung around outside thePanchayat Bhawan till the inquiry wasover and handed a memorandum to theSDM refusing share information with thepeople and threatening to stop develop-ment work if the administration con-ducted such probes.

Share in the loot for everybody involvedand kinship were important elements inthe operative nexus witnessed in thiscase. Sarpanch Narbada Bai’s husband,the ex-Sarpanch of Asan, was thebrother-in-law of the Gram Sewak JethSingh and the supplier of material in thenine construction works in question.

Undeterred by all this, the Beawar SDMcontinued the inquiry, which he con-ducted in two phases. He returned toAsan after a while to collect more evi-dence. But the Jawaja Block officials tookept up the pressure on the District ad-ministration to scuttle the probe, enlist-ing the support of the Zila Pramukh, the

then member of the State Assembly fromBeawar and the Member of Parliamentfrom Ajmer, Ugamraj Mehta and RasaSingh Rawat respectively and severalministers of the State government. In ameeting of the 20 point programmecommittee in the Ajmer collectorate onAugust 20, 1995, they lashed out at theMKSS, the concept of transparency andthe inquiry being conducted. The ZilaPramukh even said that he was issuingorders that no documents relating toPanchayati Raj work be shown to any-one. The Beawar MLA and theRajasthan Panchayati Raj minister al-leged that the MKSS was collecting peo-ple by distributing money and was for-cibly snatching muster rolls from gov-ernment functionaries.

A couple of days later, on August 7,about 50 people from Asan went to pro-vide further evidence in the inquiry. An-gered by this, one Kalla Ram, a ‘mate’(a person who heads a team of labour-ers) whose name had figured in corrup-tion, attacked, with the help of two ac-complices, three young Dalit men, MangiLal, Purna Ram and Bher Ram, who haddeposed against him and beat them upwith lathis. When the villagers reachedthe place, Kalla Ram locked them up inhis house. On the basis of a complaintfrom the MKSS an FIR was lodged withthe Todgarh police station and the twoattackers finally arrested. Needless tosay in this background, the SDM’s in-quiry report went on the back burner.No action was taken on it till April 5,1996 on the eve of the Beawar Dharnawhen the SDM lodged an FIR againstthe Sarpanch in this case.

Share in the loot foreverybody involvedand kinship wereimportant elements inthe operative nexus



Stepping Up the Campaign forRight to Information

With the backlash against the MKSScampaign in the area gathering strength,the need to step up the campaign tocounter it effectively became quiteclear. In the meantime, the campaign,though focused locally had attractedattention at the state and central levels.This was also because of the active net-working efforts of the MKSS.

It was a mass meeting in Beawar on Sep-tember 25, 1995 that publicly markedthe stepping up of the campaign to makethe right to information a legal entitle-ment of the people. For the first time inthe course of the campaign, more thantwo thousand people, mostly poor peas-ants and workers from villages all overRajasthan, gathered and made this de-mand. More than 30 speakers, speakingon behalf of workers, representativesof mass organisations and voluntary or-ganisations, ex-bureaucrats, journalists,doctors, intellectuals, trade unionists,and elected representatives ofPanchayati Raj Institutions lent theirsupport to the demand.

From transparency in development ex-penditure, the meeting widened the ar-ticulation to include various other as-pects. Many speakers referred to theneed for transparency in fields like healthservices provided by the State, contra-ceptive technologies, the role oftransnational corporations in the era ofa liberalised economy and its impact onthe poor, the impact of large projectson oustees, land records, matters relatedto the government as employer and big-ger matters of State policy. As far as the

issue engaging everybody’s attentionlocally in central Rajasthan was con-cerned – that of transparency in devel-opment expenditure – many elected rep-resentatives of Panchayati Raj Institu-tions who had come from other parts ofRajasthan, said that even they did nothave full access to such information.

In the meantime, the articulation of theRight to Information issue by the MKSSthrough its Jan Sunwais had galvanisedits network of friends elsewhere. Themain MKSS spokesperson Aruna Roy,a former officer of the Indian Adminis-trative Service, had once passed throughthe portals of the Lal Bahadur ShastriAcademy of Administration inMussoorie on her way to becoming anadministrator. Now, during the course ofthe Public Hearings she helped organ-ise in central Rajasthan as a citizen ac-tivist, the same Academy invited herand her colleagues, along with other in-dividuals from different professionalbackgrounds, to deliberate on opera-tionalising people’s Right to Informa-tion. These deliberations culminated inthe framing of the first draft of a bill onthe subject, produced non-officially, fol-lowing a meeting in the Academy inOct., l995.

Beawar Dharna

Despite ground level noises by theMKSS and the attendant lobbying andnetworking at the macro level, there waslittle movement in the Rajasthan gov-ernment towards operationalisingShekhawat’s announcement of 5 th April,1995. On 6th April 1996 – a year and aday after the Chief Minister’s announce-ment in the State Assembly – the MKSS

It was a mass meetingin Beawar onSeptember 25, 1995that publicly markedthe stepping up of thecampaign to make theright to information alegal entitlement ofthe people

23

started an indefinite dharna or sit-instrike in Beawar to press for its imple-mentation. The Dharna was preceded bythe MKSS issuing a notice to the Stategovernment on April 2. With the parlia-mentary elections at hand, theShekhawat government tried to show aswift response. It issued an order on thefirst day of the Dharna itself, giving citi-zens the right to inspect all documentsrelating to development works executedby the Panchayat bodies. Not fully sat-isfied with the order as it did not meetthe demand for granting the right to ob-tain photocopies of such documents, theMKSS continued with the Dharna.

It was a Dharna quite unlike those thatthe small town of Beawar had so far wit-nessed. Here was a big group of poorvillagers not raising any sectarian de-mands but demanding a right for the so-ciety as a whole. More than half of the250 people whom the town saw on thestreets for the first four days of theDharna at Chang Gate were women,some with babies in their laps. Thesepoor people came with bags of graindonated for the Dharna by people invarious villages of the area. People inthe Dharna did not just sit around idly.The Dharna was alive with songs, pup-pet shows, street plays or talks, continu-ously communicating the message of theagitation. The vitality of the Dharnasoon embraced the whole town and themagnitude, relevance and simplicity ofthe issue struck the local citizens. Beawartoo, then, extended its wholehearted sup-port and solidarity to the Dharna.

The people of Beawar started throng-ing the Dharna site. They made smallcash contributions of Rs.5 and Rs.11.

The vegetable vendors gave vegetablesfree and flower sellers contributed theirsmall earnings. A retired sweeper cameunfailingly every morning at 5.30 to of-fer his services to keep the Dharnacanopy clean and make his daily contri-bution of Rs. 5. A disabled young mancame every day to contribute Rs.10.These small donations amounted toRs.46,000 in 40 days of the Dharna. Thesurrounding villages gave 20 quintals ofwheat. The people donated six quintalsof vegetables and several trolleys of fuelwood. And there was the occasionaldonation supply of free milk, jaggery,rice, dal and spices. The tent house low-ered its rent by half and the photogra-phers charged nothing for their services.Doctors volunteered their services andtowards the end even policemen begandonating small amounts individually.

The town of Beawar offered more thanmere material support. A professionalBhajan Mandali (group of devotionalsingers) would come regularly to singbhajan (devotional song) parodies lend-ing support to the dharna cause andtaunting the State government for ignor-ing the voice of the people. Bagpiperscame to play their bagpipes in supportof the Dharna, local poets came to re-cite poems they had composed in sup-port of the agitation, sign painterspainted banners free and almost everysocial, political and cultural organisationof the town wrote to the Chief Ministerin support of the Dharna demands. TheBeawar citizenry actively participated inthe public meetings addressed at theDharna site by eminent guest speakersand townsfolk marched with the villag-ers whenever a procession was taken out

The vitality of theDharna soonembraced the wholetown and themagnitude, relevanceand simplicity of theissue struck the localcitizens



from the Dharna site to present a memo-randum to the local administration. TheDharna also became Beawar’s own.

The local cadres of various trade un-ions, except the Bhartiya MazdoorSangh that was affiliated to the thenruling party in the State, gave unstintedsupport to the MKSS agitation. Localunits of All India Trade Union Congressand Centre for Indian Trade Unions, thetwo left Trade Unions, even held a rallyagainst the government’s silence on theMKSS demands. That year the MKSScelebrated May Day in Beawar jointlywith the non BMS trade unions.

Except for the BJP, the party that ruledthe State at that time, all other majorpolitical parties voiced public supportlocally to the Dharna demands. It wasthe run-up to the parliamentary electionsthat year and local Lok Sabha candidatesof all political parties but the BJP com-mitted themselves publicly in supportof the MKSS demands.

With widespread media coverage, theBeawar Dharna soon attracted a host ofeminent personalities from other partsof the country who came to extend theirsolidarity. They included grand old menof Indian journalism like NikhilChakravarty, Kuldip Nayyar, AjitBhattacharjee and Prabhash Joshi, activ-ists like Medha Patkar, Swami Agnivesh,Vijay Pratap, Bhanwari Devi and AnilPrakash, and eminent personalities fromthe varied realms of economics, theatreand even administration, including theredoubtable GR Khairnar, the munici-pal administrator from Mumbai. The out-siders were greatly impressed. Here werepoor villagers fighting for an entitlement

hitherto considered to be the concernmainly of the urban intelligentsia.

The way the agitation articulated theRight to Information caught the imagi-nation of the outside world. It was theenabling nature of this right for the re-alisation of the socio-economic rightsof the community and for fighting cor-ruption that the Beawar Dharna elo-quently articulated. The Jansatta editorPrabhas Joshi summed it up beautifullyin a signed article, “Janana Jine Ke Liye(The Right to Know is the Right toLive)”. The Mainstream Editor NikhilChakravarty saw in this movement ofthe ordinary villagers in centralRajasthan the seeds of another nationalliberation struggle. Thanks to the na-tional Hawala Scam and various otherbig scams in many states, it was the yearof cynicism in Indian politics.

The Beawar Dharna drew widespreadsupport from various Non GovernmentOrganisations and mass based strugglegroups in Rajasthan. To add more punchto its campaign, the MKSS began a si-multaneous Dharna near the Secretariatin the State capital of Jaipur at the endof 30 days of the Beawar sit-in. Thisbrought the campaign knocking at thegates of the State government even asthe election process for the Lok Sabhainched to a close. Finally, the State gov-ernment had to relent somewhat. Aftermore than five weeks of relentless agi-tation by the MKSS, the State govern-ment announced that it would set up afive member committee under the thenAdditional Chief Secretary Arun Kumarto suggest ways to implement the ChiefMinister’s announcement on the Rightto Information made in the State

With widespreadmedia coverage, theBeawar Dharna soonattracted a host ofeminent personalitiesfrom other parts of thecountry who came toextend their solidarity

25

Assembly more than a year earlier. TheState government’s announcement madethrough a press release issued on 14th

May 1996 also set a deadline of twomonths for the committee to submit itsreport. After running for 40 days inBeawar and 10 days in Jaipur, the Dharnawas lifted on 16th May.

Secrecy of the Report on Rightto Information

It took two months for the State gov-ernment to constitute the Arun KumarCommittee, which finally submitted itsreport on 31st August 1996. One of theterms of reference of the Committeewas to look into the feasibility of pro-viding photocopies of documents to thepublic on payment of fees, as, duringthe course of the Dharna, the State gov-ernment had publicly questioned thepracticality of providing photocopies ofdocuments in 9000 Gram Panchaytas ofRajasthan.

Ironically, the report of the Committeewas made secret as soon as it was sub-mitted: copies were not even left withits members for fear of leakage to thepress. This happened with a report thatunequivocally recommended transpar-ency and endorsed the people’s right toinformation. The MKSS later obtaineda copy through informal channels. Thereport recommended the following:

l The certified photocopies of musterrolls, bills and vouchers of completedpublic works should be made avail-able to the citizens in the PanchayatSamitis (blocks) and Gram Panchayatoffices where photocopying facilitiesare available.

l Where no photocopying facilitiesare available in Panchayat Samitisand Gram Panchayat offices, hand-written certified true copies of theabove mentioned documents shouldbe provided.

l The photocopy machines should beinstalled by the government or by theprivate sector. This should be ac-corded priority at the PanchayatSamiti level.

l The person entitled to obtain certi-fied photocopies, or handwritten cer-tified true copies, of the muster rolls,bills and vouchers related to publicworks at the Panchayat Samitis andthe Gram Panchayat levels should beany one of the following:

l A resident of the area concerned.

l An elected representative of thePanchayati Raj bodies.

l A Member of Legislative Assem-bly or a Member of Parliament ofthat area.

l A copy of the record could be ob-tained of the works completed threeyears prior to the date of application.

l The copy of the record would be madeavailable on payment of a fee of atleast Rs.5 per page.

The Arun Kumar Committee endorsedanother important demand of themovement. It felt that NGOs takingfunds for development activities di-rectly from the State or central govern-ments and their bodies should alsoshare information about their activities.For this purpose, the committee felt,

The Arun KumarCommittee felt thatNGOs taking funds fordevelopmentactivities directly fromthe state or centralgovernments andtheir bodies shouldalso shareinformation abouttheir activities



the funds of the NGOs should be regu-larly audited and information regard-ing their activities be made availableto the people and the public representa-tives of the area.

Formation of NCPRI

While the MKSS continued with itsagitational activities at the grassrootslevel in the form of demonstrations anddharnas at Panchayat Samiti headquar-ters in its area after lifting the Beawarand Jaipur Dharnas, the Rajasthan Rightto Information Movement took anothermajor turn. With the national body poli-tic reeking of various corruption scamsin the past decade and the Bofors, theSecurities, the Fodder and the Hawalascandals tainting nearly all major politi-cal formations, the novelty of the grass-roots MKSS experiments in Social Auditusing Right to Information as a tool tofight corruption had a unique appeal forvarious enlightened intellectuals and ac-tivists in the country. The 40 day Dharnain Rajasthan and the collateral linkagesit articulated between the Right to Infor-mation, the fight against corruption andrealisation of various other economic-developmental entitlements of the peo-ple galvanised this varied group of intel-lectuals and activists across the countryinto a concerted campaign of advocacyand action at their level on the issue ofthe people’s Right to Information.

A major happening in this connectionwas the involvement of the Press Coun-cil of India, (a statutory body under thethen Chairman Justice PV Sawant) withthese efforts. On July 20 and 21, 1996,the MKSS and the Press Council of In-dia held a joint meeting in the Rajasthan

capital of Jaipur wherein prominent per-sons from the city intelligentsia, variousNon Government Organisations andgrassroots level activists of the State andsenior members of the Rajasthan gov-ernment participated – including ChiefMinister Bhairon Singh Shekhawat. Un-der the chairmanship of Justice Sawant,the meeting addressed to various con-ceptual and practical questions relatedto the people’s Right to Information.There was much drama on the first daywith the government members, led bythe Chief Minister, and the rest of thegathering taking adversarial positions anumber of times. On the second day,the meeting devoted itself to attendingthe details of the draft Right to Infor-mation bill prepared at the LBS Acad-emy, Mussoorie workshop the previousyear with a view to improving it and sub-mitting a viable draft bill to the centralgovernment for enacting a legislation tooperationalise this important constitu-tional entitlement of the citizens.

The Press Council followed this up witha similar but bigger meeting it called inDelhi on July 31 and August 1, 1996which was also attended by variousprominent political leaders like formerPrime Ministers Chadrashekhar andVP Singh, Union minister GeorgeFernandes and several parliamentarians.All of them pledged their commitmentto passing a law on the Right to Informa-tion. The then Leader of the Opposition,Atal Behari Vajpayee, sent a letter to thePress Council, which was read out in themeeting, pledging his support to thecause. The meeting launched the Na-tional Campaign for People’s Right toInformation with activists, intellectuals

The 40 day Dharna inRajasthan and thecollateral linkages itarticulated betweenthe Right toInformation, the fightagainst corruption andrealisation of variousother economic-developmentalentitlements of thepeople galvanisedthis varied group ofintellectuals andactivists across thecountry into aconcerted campaignof advocacy andaction at their level onthe issue of thepeople’s Right toInformation.

27

and professionals from various states,which then set up a small group to final-ise the draft bill. To run the campaigntoo, a small working group of prominentpeople was formed.

By the end of the year, the NCPRI andthe Press Council of India managed toprepare and submit to the Union Gov-ernment a comprehensive draft Right toInformation Bill. This was called thePress Council draft bill on the Right toInformation. It was later revised at aworkshop hosted by the National Insti-tute of Rural Development and wasthereafter called the Press Council-NIRD bill. Intensive advocacy by theNCPRI helped forge an atmosphere thatmade various political formations in thecountry pledge support to the idea of aRight to Information law at the centrallevel and in various states. It resulted inthe United Front Government at thecentre appointing the HD Shourie Com-mittee, which included senior secretar-ies of the Government of India apartfrom the chairperson who is a well-known consumer rights activist. Thegovernment referred the Press Council-NIRD draft to the Shourie Committee,which finally produced its own draftFreedom of Information Bill. This wasrevised by the Union Government andpassed by the Parliament as the Free-dom of Information Act, 2002. The at-mosphere created by NCPRI advocacyalso provided the context wherein sev-eral State governments, beginning withTamilnadu and Goa in 1996-97, pro-duced their own Right to InformationLaws, Orders and Acts. An evaluationof these various has been attemptedlater on in this paper.

Agitation Again and JaipurDharna

As the Arun Kumar Committee Reportwas made secret by the Rajasthan gov-ernment and its implementation re-mained blocked despite all the net-working and advocacy efforts and ne-gotiations at the state and at the na-tional level s, the MKSS decided tolaunch a fresh agitation in February,1997. Meanwhile, a Jan Sunwai atBeawar held jointly by the MKSS andthe Press Council in September, 1996,and Dharnas at Panchayat Samiti head-quarters in MKSS areas and widespreadmedia coverage of these events hadkept up the heat in the State.

A run-up to this phase of agitation sawDharnas, lasting several days, in all thefive Divisional towns of the State, mo-bilising support for the as yet unrealiseddemands of the 40 day long Dharna ofthe previous year. These were not to-ken Dharnas but live agitational affairswith street plays, puppet shows, groupsongs, marches and meetings commu-nicating the message of the movementand mobilising support and resources forit. The Divisional Dharnas culminatedin the indefinite Dharna before the Statesecretariat at the Statue Circle in Jaipur.

Beginning on May 26, 1997, exactly ayear after the Dharna was lifted in 1996,the Jaipur Dharna lasted for 53 days –ending on July 14, 1997. True to form,the State government came up with atrick on the eve of this Dharna too. Ina conference of Chief Ministers held inNew Delhi on May 24, 1997, BhaironSingh Shekhawat of Rajasthan an-nounced that his government had

Intensive advocacy bythe NCPRI helpedforge an atmospherethat made variouspolitical formations inthe country to pledgesupport the idea of aRight to Informationlaw at the central leveland in various states



already ensured transparency in admin-istration by passing orders enabling thepublic to obtain photocopies at thePanchayat level, of records relating tothe various State government depart-ments. The next day an MKSS delega-tion met the Chief Minister to ask forthe orders. But they did not exist. TheChief Minister gave the assurance thatthe orders would be issued on May 26,the day the Dharna was going to begin.When an NCPRI delegation met himunder the leadership of veteran jour-nalist and Rajya Sabha member KuldipNayyar on May 26, the day the Dharnabegan, the Chief Minister said thatthese orders would be passed by June3, 1997 and asked the MKSS to lift theDharna. Taken in by Chief MinisterShekhawat’s assurance, Nayyar re-quested the MKSS to do so. But know-ing better, the MKSS continued withthe Dharna. And on June 3, instead ofpassing the transparency orders, theState government constituted a sub-committee to look into the matter.

In the face of the State government’sovert hostility, this Dharna too was alive point of agitation from which vari-ous kinds of agitational activities andaggressive advocacy efforts emanatedthat drew the attention and support ofenlightened opinion across the country.During the course of the Dharna,Kuldip Nayyar, a veteran columnist andMember of Parliament, wrote a letterto the then Prime Minister IK Gujralpointing out the scale of corruptionscams in rural development works in9000 village Panchayats on the basis ofthe evidence of corruption perPanchayat unearthed by the few MKSS

Jan Sunwais that had till then occurredin central Rajasthan. Nayyar calculatedthat this rural development scam inRajasthan would surpass the Rs. 900crore fodder scam in Bihar.

During the Dharna, the MKSS alsotook out a Ghotala Rath Yatra (scamchariot trip) in Jaipur and Delhi, listingall the major corruption scams in inde-pendent India, mocking the BJP leaderLK Advani’s so called Rath Yatra(chariot trip) against hunger, fear andcorruption even as his party’s govern-ment in Rajasthan turned a deaf yearto the people’s demands for the Rightto Information that had been demon-strated as an effective tool against cor-ruption. The NCPRI organised a greatdeal of support for the Dharna in Delhiwhere a delegation of eminent personssubmitted a memorandum in supportof Dharna demands addressed to theChief Minister to the Rajasthan Resi-dent Commissioner.

The lifting of the Dharna, after the Stategovernment conceded its major demandof making available on demand to citi-zens photocopies of all records ofPanchayati Raj bodies, including bills,vouchers and muster rolls of rural de-velopment works carried out by them,was preceded by an extraordinary drama.At a press conference on the 14th of July,Rajasthan Deputy Chief MinisterHarishankar Bhabhra pulled out a copyof the Rajasthan Gazette, dated 30t h

December 1996 and classified as ex-traordinary, notifying the Panchayati RajAct rules gave the citizens the right toinspect and obtain copies of all recordskept by the Panchayati Raj bodies,including bills, vouchers and muster rolls

On the basis of theevidence of corruptionper Panchayatunearthed by the fewJan Sunwais that hadoccurred till then,Nayyar calculated thatthis rural developmentscam in Rajasthanwould surpass theRs. 900 crore fodderscam in Bihar

29

of development works carried out bythem. This fulfilled the demands madeby the MKSS. The gazette proved ex-traordinary in the sense that no one, noteven the government that had issued it,seemed to be aware of its existence formore than six months – from Dec. 30,1996 to July 14, 1997.

Treating the gazette as if it were ap-proved on July 14, the MKSS liftedthe Dharna after taking out a victoryparade on the streets of Jaipur. Thegazette gave to MKSS even morethan it had asked, including suo moto

display by the government a tPanchayats/Panchayat Samitis andwork sites details of sanction andexpenditure of construction workscarried out by Panchayat bodies. Be-ing in the rules of the RajasthanPanchayati Raj Act, these provisionshad the legal status no executive or-der of the State government couldhave. The farce of the Cabinet subcommittee appointed to go into thefeasibility of providing certified cop-ies of Panchayati Raj documents wasalso rendered meaningless now.



Maturing Methodology

The success of the Jaipur Dharna in1997 and the victory in getting the RTIentitlement in Panchayati Raj did makea difference in the area covered by di-rect MKSS activity. In fact, the JanSunwai campaign of the organisationhas two distinct phases: pre JaipurDharna and post Jaipur Dharna. The lat-ter phase is distinguished from theformer in terms of a new found confi-dence, the degree and intensity of mo-bilisation, the tangibility of impact, thetenacity of follow-up on Jan Sunwais anda maturing of methodology.

After the end of the Jaipur Dharna inJuly 1997, the MKSS set about trying totest the newly introduced RTI provisionsin the Panchayati Raj Act in the State.As a first step, the organisation listed out10 village Panchayats from whom to ob-tain copies of records relating to thetotal expenditure incurred by them onrural development work since 1995. TheSarpanches and the Gram Sewaks orPanchayat Secretaries were hesitant inhonouring the Rajasthan governmentgazette notification and providing infor-mation until pressure was put on themby the local people or until district au-thorities intervened under popular pres-sure. Even after a notional acceptanceof providing information, it took more

This chapter tells the story of the five Jan Sunwais of the second phase, after theRTI entitlement was won with respect to Panchayati Raj, and analyses the matu-rity of methodology and growth they register over the first phase.

than ten visits to a panchayat before thebills, vouchers and muster rolls of theworks were handed over to the peoplefor inspection and photocopying. Finally,with sufficient records in hand,Panchayats of Kukarkheda, Barar andKushalpura were chosen for the firstJan Sunwai of the second phase atKukarkheda in Rajsamand District onJan. 9, 1998.

Kukarkheda Jan Sunwai: Power ofPublic Shame

Nothing in the first phase of Jan Sunwaiscould surpass the drama of this JanSunwai. Villager after villager came for-ward to testify to the falsity of thePanchayat records and give the real pic-ture of the work actually carried out bythe Kukarkheda Gram Panchayat. Thecollective murmur of disapproval risingfrom a gathering of more than a thou-sand became too much for the Sarpanchwho sat with the panelists. Finally, prov-ing the power of public shame, andshowing courage at the same time,Basanta Devi got up to accept her re-sponsibility for the instances of corrup-tion that came out, announcing her de-cision to return the embezzled amount.The Sarpanch of Kukarkheda an-nounced she would return Rs. 1 lakh,

The latter phase isdistinguished from theformer in terms of anew found confidence,the degree andintensity ofmobilisation, thetangibility of impact,the tenacity of follow-up on Jan Sunwaisand a maturing ofmethodology.

CHAPTER III


31

the amount she confessed having em-bezzled. Out of this, she said, she wouldimmediately return Rs. 50,000 to thePanchayat account and return the otherRs. 50,000 a little later.

The major frauds detected in Kukar-kheda Gram Panchayat were:

l Fraud in the construction of a canal

l Fraudulent billing of the cement used,125 bags in excess of what was actu-ally used

l Fraudulent bills for carting material,and

l Fraud in muster rolls.

The approximate misappropriation offunds in Kukarkheda Panchayat was alittle over a lakh of Rupees. Dramaticthough it was in the midst of the JanSunwai, Sarpanch Basanta Devi’s an-nouncement did not come as a surpriseto the MKSS activists. As MKSS activ-ists went about physically verifying eachexpenditure and the work done in thePanchayat during the run-up to the JanSunwai, Basanta Devi gradually gave in.She had also not resisted giving photo-copies of documents the MKSS activ-ists had asked for.

In this Jan Sunwai, the Barar Panchayatexperience provided a contrast to theKukarkheda experience. SarpanchAsha Devi of Barar did not cooperateat all in providing bills, vouchers andmuster rolls related to works in herPanchayat. Rather, she had a ward mem-ber threaten Laxman Singh, who wasinvolved in trying to access these docu-ments. There were two major frauds inthis Panchayat, mostly related to con-struction of an anicut: fraudulent bills

for the sand and stones supplied andfraud in muster rolls. The total scamamounted to Rs. 1.50 lakhs approxi-mately – 40 percent of the total ex-penditure, compared to 30 percent ofthe expenditure in Kukarkheda.

This Jan Sunwai exposed the lie of theargument justifying fudging of accountson the grounds of so called ‘adjustment’to maintain the 60:40 ratio in employ-ment intensive rural development worksas per the requirement of the centralgovernment. This argument had beenoften heard from the Panchayat to thetopmost bureaucratic levels in the Statein the course of the anti-corruption cam-paign of the MKSS over the years. It wasmade clear in the Jan Sunwai by econo-mist Prof. VS Vyas and junior engineerGirish, who helped MKSS out for theJan Sunwai, that the central governmentrequirement was with respect to allworks taken together in the district andnot all individual works. Moreover, theJan Sunwai clearly demonstrated that thematerial bills were the first to be fudgedas they were easier to fudge, and thenthe labour bills were further fudged tomeet the ratio. For corruption, in fact,any excuse and opportunity would do.

Economist Prof. VS Vyas from Jaipur,Neuro Psychiatrist Prof. SriniwasMurthy from Bangalore and Prof.Shekhar Singh from Indian Institute ofPublic Administration, Delhi wereamong those who constituted the panelfor the Public Hearing.

But more dramatic was what happenedafter the event. The Jan Sunwai had ex-posed the corruption of various peopleapart from Basanta Devi – the BararSarpanch, the Gram Sewak, the junior

It was made clear inthe Jan Sunwai that thecentral governmentrequirement was withrespect to all workstaken together in thedistrict and not allindividual works



engineer etc. A little while later, theDistrict Administration singled outBasanta Devi for an investigation intocharges of corruption, intimidated herwith this threat and forced her to takeback the amount she had returned to thePanchayat coffers.

Surajpura Public Hearing:The Way Forward

Going a step ahead of Kukarkheda, theSurajpura Jan Sunwai in Jawaja Tehsilof Ajmer District, held on Jan. 19, 1998saw two Sarpanches owning responsi-bility for corruption in developmentworks and agreeing to return the moneythat was misappropriated. ChhaganSingh of Rawatmal Panchayat and OmPrakash Solanki of Surajpura agreed toreturn Rs.1.47 lakh and Rs.1.15 lakhrespectively. The presence of fiveSarpanches in the Jan Sunwai –Bhanwar Singh of Jawaja, Kanku Deviof Badkochra, another Kanku Devi ofLotiyana, Omprakash Solanki ofSurajpura and Chhagan Singh ofRawatmal – testified to the sea changethat had come about due to the MKSScampaign in the area since the daysof the first phase of Jan Sunwais in1994-95 when no Sarpanch cared toattend a Public Hearing. Obviously, thebig public mobilisation in a MKSS JanSunwai was not something that couldbe ignored by any public representativein the area. A high point in the publicprofile of Jan Sunwais was the arrivalof, and address by, former Prime Min-ister Vishwanath Pratap Singh in theSurajpura Jan Sunwai. A gathering ofaround 2000 villagers was the most im-portant participant in, and witness to,this morality play.

This Jan Sunwai mostly examined de-velopment works in the threePanchayats of Surajpura, Rawatmal andLotiyana. The most dramatic case ofcorruption came from Rawatmal wherea non-existent water channel wasshown in the records as completed.Fraud was also detected in the construc-tion of an anicut in SurajpuraPanchayat and digging of a pond inLotiyana Panchayat. Some prominentinstances of frauds in Surajpura andLotiyana Panchayats were:

l Surajpura – fraud bills for 99 trolliesof stone and 260 bags of cement

l Lotiyana – manipulation in muster roll,showing 40 workers worked for10 days against the actual figure of7 workers working for a week

Apart from VP Singh, the panelists inthe Surajpura Jan Sunwai included AjitBhattacharjee, veteran journalist and theDirector of Press Institute of India inDelhi, Harsh Mander, then in theMadhya Pradesh cadre of the IndianAdministrative Service, SantoshMathew from the Bihar cadre of the IAS,Pushpa Bhave, Marathi writer fromMumbai, Ved Vyas, a Hindi writer andjournalist from Jaipur and Prem KrishanSharma, prominent High Court lawyerfrom Jaipur and President of theRajasthan unit of the People’s Union forCivil Liberties.

The two Sarpanches, Chhagan Singh ofRawatmal and Omprakash Solanki ofSurajpura, who took moral responsibil-ity for defalcation of developmentmoney, were true to their word and re-turned the amount promised to theirrespective panchayat funds. Unlike its

A high point in thepublic profile of JanSunwais was thearrival of, and addressby, former PrimeMinister VishwanathPratap Singh in theSurajpura Jan Sunwai

33

Rajsamand counterpart, which forcedBasanta Devi of Kukarkheda to takeback the embezzled amount she had re-turned, the Ajmer district administra-tion did not try to influence ChhaganSingh and Solanki in such a way. In fact,the Ajmer district administration, againunlike the Rajsamand one, was quitecooperative in making information forthe three panchayats in Jawaja Tehsilcovered by the Surajpura Jan Sunwai,accessible to the MKSS activists.

Bori Public Hearing: FightingA Feudal Grip

Occurring as it did when the exerciseof framing the Rajasthan Right to In-formation law was still on, the Bori JanSunwai marked a real turning point inthe MKSS operations in centralRajasthan. Held on December 18,1999 outside of the usual area ofMKSS operations till then, the JanSunwai at Bori village in UmarwasPanchayat of Rajsamand District wasthe first to be held after the change ofgovernment in the State. It was held awhole year after the Congress govern-ment under Chief Minister AshokGehlot took over in the State, a yearthat saw both the government and theMKSS interacting to get a new RTI lawacross in Rajasthan.

With both the District Collector and theSuperintendent of Police present in theJan Sunwai, the new turn in the admin-istrative orientation was amply evident,as it was for the first time the adminis-tration at such a senior level actually be-came part of a Jan Sunwai. But morethan that, the Jan Sunwai was a water-shed in the course of public hearings in

central Rajasthan in that for the firsttime it hit at the point where India’s tra-ditional feudal inequities converge withthe pathologies of its modern develop-ment and democratic machinery – to theadvantage of the former.

As pointed out, the MKSS till then hadoperated in an area where the caste andclass inequities in the villages werenot as pronounced as elsewhere inRajasthan. But the magic of the JanSunwais had gradually caught on, andwith it the profile and name of theSangathan. So it was that PyarchandKhatik, the Sarpanch of Umarwas (andthat was another of the unique thingsor ‘firsts’ to happen with this JanSunwai), had been after the MKSS fornearly two years to hold a Jan Sunwai inhis Gram Panchayat – much before hewas suspended and eventually dismissed,with the government ordering a recov-ery of Rs.1.5 lakh from him.

A Dalit Sarpanch, Pyarchand had ap-proached the MKSS when he realisedthat he was being taken for a ride by asmall upper caste coterie of Nain SinghSolanki, the Thakur of the village,Laxman Das and Bhanwarlal Sewak,who had him elected to the reservedpost in order to manipulate him for theirown benefit. In his four years of office,Pyarchand never knew what he was sign-ing. And with each piece of paper hesigned, he filled the coffers of thiscoterie and its henchmen and in effectsigned his own eventual dismissal inearly 1999.

The administration’s quick actionagainst Pyarchand was based on ananonymous complaint, which came

The Jan Sunwai was awatershed in thecourse of publichearings in centralRajasthan in that forthe first time it hit atthe point where India’straditional feudalinequities convergewith the pathologiesof its moderndevelopment anddemocraticmachinery – to theadvantage of theformer



soon after he had approached MKSS.But Pyarchand persisted with his plead-ings to hold a Jan Sunwai in Umarwas.Here also the Bori Public Hearing hasimportant lessons to offer. First, com-plete transparency is the best defenceagainst blackmail and manipulation.Second, reservation as a means of em-powerment is inadequate without a cor-responding support structure.

The Bori Jan Sunwai seemed to sow theseeds of such a support structure, how-ever elementary, among the Dalits ofUmarwas Panchayat as they spoke outpublicly for the first time against thosewho controlled their lives. Till just 15days before the Jan Sunwai, there was apall of fear in the Panchayat, prevent-ing anyone from speaking out – a feartorn to shreds during the run-up to theJan Sunwai as MKSS activists began con-fronting the falsehood contained in gov-ernment records with physical verifica-tion of things on the ground. Before andduring the Jan Sunwai, Pyarchand washonest enough to confess that he too gotcrumbs from the loot which was alltaken back from him in the name of re-covering election expenses made on hisbehalf by the same coterie. This con-fession, showing that he was not at allconcerned with the consequences, wasa proof of Pyarchand’s innocence. Someexamples, highlighted in the Jan Sunwai,of the way the dominant coterie in thevillage pocketed development andPanchayati Raj through Pyarchand are:

l A new building constructed withPanchayat funds and shown as thecommunity centre in Data Niwas vil-lage actually served as the annexe toThakur Nain Singh’s Ravla or manor.

l Free houses under Indira Awasscheme went not to the poor of thePanchayat but to Nain Singh, who wasalso the Ward Panch, five of his rela-tives and three other Ward Panches,all well off, against all norms.

l The community centre in Asan vil-lage actually became a part ofPanchayat Samiti member KamalaNath’s house.

l A water channel drawn by thePanchayat to water fields of Bansa vil-lagers actually irrigated only the fieldsof Nain Singh and relatives.

l Ghost wages were paid and pocketedby the coterie on the basis of falseentries in muster rolls.

l Thousands of rupees were embez-zled in the name of building Hathaisor traditional public platforms thatalready existed.

The atmosphere in the gathering of be-tween 2000 and 3000 became morecharged as this outrageous list grew. Thecoterie tried to lay all the blame on thedismissed Sarpanch Pyarchand throughwhose signature all the works were ex-ecuted. But Pyarchand’s pleas that hehad been manipulated and forced to sub-mit carried weight as he seemed to bethe beneficiary of none of the misde-meanours. In fact, what was revealed inthe Bori Jan Sunwai was not only themanipulation of Pyarchand, but alsoPanchayati Raj, the system of reserva-tions, rural development schemes – infact, our modern democracy itself.Never before had a MKSS Jan Sunwaiunraveled layers of such feudal holdover our modern system.

The Bori PublicHearing has importantlessons to offer. First,completetransparency is thebest defence againstblackmail andmanipulation.Second, reservationas a means ofempowerment isinadequate without acorresponding supportstructure

35

The Bori Jan Sunwai, with writerArundhati Roy and feminist activist andwriter Madhu Kishwar among thepanelists, threw a fresh plea to the admin-istration for real justice. While the benefi-ciaries of corruption in the Panchayatroamed free, Pyarchand, the victimof manipulation had been punished.Moreover, two government servants sus-pended with Pyarchand were reinstatedtwo months later while Pyarchand’sSarpanchship was terminated.

The District Collector and the Superin-tendent of Police participated and didsome smooth talking in the public hear-ing. But how did the system react later?On Jan.7,2000, the Block DevelopmentOfficer of Kumbhalgarh filed a FirstInformation Report at Gadbhor policestation. It referred to the Bori JanSunwai, but gave a short shrift to themain instances of corruption and theevidence unearthed there. Instead, itagain made Pyarchand the main accusedby a selective use of evidence. As theMKSS persisted with petitions andmeetings over the next many months toget real justice in the case, an out-of-court settlement was arrived at with theadministration. Recoveries were madeby the administration through civil pro-ceedings from Nain Singh and his gangwho had benefited from corruption ascriminal proceedings had been droppedagainst Pyarchand – and against thecoterie as well.

Bhim Jan Sunwai: Knocking atthe System’s Gate

The fourth in the second phase of JanSunwais, the one at Bhim was intendedto feed into the Ward Sabha social

audit proceedings. This Jan Sunwai washeld in the wake of the Rajasthan gov-ernment ordinance, later made into anAct, devolving widespread powers fur-ther down the line from Gram Sabhasto Ward Sabhas, an assembly of alladults living in a Panchayat ward. Twoof the most important powers given toa Ward Sabha included Social Audit andDevelopment Planning. The first SocialAudit Ward Sabhas were slated to beheld between May 1 and May 15, 2000.

The MKSS planned the Bhim JanSunwai in April 2000 with the inten-tion of going with its results to theWard Sabhas, when they were held, andpresenting these results for Social Au-dit. This would test on the ground thenew ordinance that looked so progres-sive on paper. Bhim being one of thebiggest village Panchayats in Rajasthan,with 29 wards and a population of morethan 20,000, seemed a natural choicefor the purpose.

Held on 3rd April 2000, the Jan Sunwaiwas attended by a representative of thedistrict administration in the person ofRajiv Thakur, the Project Director ofthe District Rural Development Author-ity. Apart from him, the panel includedJustice Vinod Shankar Dave, a formerjudge of the Rajasthan High Court,Ram-sharan Joshi, the Director ofMakhanlal Chaturvedi University ofJournalism in Bhopal and a team fromKerala Shashtra Sahitya Parishad, the or-ganisation that made a name for itselfwith the implementation of the People’sPlan exercise in Kerala.

Some startling instances of corruptionwere exposed in the Jan Sunwai, of

The Bori Jan Sunwaithrew a fresh plea tothe administration forreal justice. While thebeneficiaries ofcorruption in thePanchayat roamedfree, Pyarchand, thevictim of manipulationhad been punished



which a case of non-payment of mini-mum wages grabbed most of the atten-tion. Women workers on a work sitewere paid as little as Rs.8 per day. Stonewas supplied for this construction fromthe private stone quarry of a henchmanof the Sarpanch Sohanlal Mewara. Thisquarry owner had employed somewomen in his quarry and did not wantto pay them from his pocket. TheSarpanch showed them in the musterroll as having worked on the Panchayatwork site where some other women hadactually been employed. So what hap-pened was that the money, which hadcome for wage payment for thePanchayat work, was divided amongmore labourers than stipulated. Boththe Panchayat work site women and thequarry women workers suffered as aresult of this and had to make do withlow wages.

Interestingly, one case of corruptionwas revealed through a diary main-tained by a ward member. It revealedthat the construction of a village roadwas overbilled to the tune of Rs. 1 lakhapproximately. In another instance ofcorruption, an extra floor, (the firstfloor) was added to an existing KisanVikas Kendra building but paymentagainst bills was received for diggingthe foundation as well. In another case,earth dug up from one Panchayat worksite was used as filling at another in thesame Panchayat, but this filling wasbilled and charged as having beenbrought from elsewhere.

The more than 2000 strong gatheringat the Jan Sunwai held SarpanchMewara, the Gram Sewak and the Jun-ior Engineer responsible for this

scandal. None of them attended thePublic Hearing, even though theSarpanch sat within hearing distance allthrough at a tea shop nearby.

All the cases of corruption unearthedin the Jan Sunwai were put up for SocialAudit in their respective Ward Sabhameetings in May. The Ward Sabhas alsotook resolutions recording these casesof corruption and forwarded them tothe State government for action, but invain. Nothing happened.

Janawad Jan Sunwai: A LongRoad

The long road to Janawad Jan Sunwaiand after traverses the constraints andpotential of the MKSS experience ofpublic hearings since Dec. 1994. Heldon April 3, 2001 as a part of the chainof events commemorating five years ofthe Beawar Dharna, the Jan Sunwai atJanawad came at the end of a one yearlong battle for obtaining information.This year long battle is a testimony tohow opposition to the idea of transpar-ency is so entrenched in the system thatit will do anything to thwart the sharingof information with the people. The rea-son for this came out clearly in the JanSunwai, which demonstrated how sharpa tool information is to expose the darkways of corruption leading to controlover resources and lives of human be-ings under the cover of secrecy.

Janawad in Rajsamand District, likeUmarwas, was also way out of theMKSS’ usual area of operations. As inthe case of MKSS Jan Sunwais in othervillages, it was the people of Janawadwho took the initiative of followingup the complaints regarding cases of

The Jan Sunwai atJanawad came at theend of a one year longbattle for obtaininginformation. This yearlong battle is atestimony to howopposition to the ideaof transparency is soentrenched in thesystem that it will doanything to thwart thesharing of informationwith the people

37

corruption, presided over by ex-SarpanchRamlal during his tenure from 1994 to1999. With a lot of high level politicalbacking, he still had a strangle-hold overthe new Panchayat, which was nowheaded by a woman, Bhuri Bai. The cloutof Ramlal is evident from the fact thatout of the Rs.10 crore allotted to the37 Gram Panchayats of KumbhalgarhPanchayat Samiti for construction worksin five years, around Rs.1.25 crore wentto Janawad alone. More than anythingelse, the year long travails of MKSS ac-tivists and people of the village in try-ing to access official Panchayat recordspertaining to development work inJanawad, under the provisions of thePanchayati Raj Act rules of Rajasthan,are themselves a testimony to Ramlal’sclout with the politics and administra-tion of the area – and also his masteryof the judicial mechanism. Therefore aquick look at this pre-Public Hearing taleis instructive.

Inspired by the Public Hearing inUmarwas in Dec. 1999 and having seenthe information board in Janawad, thepeople of the Panchayat applied for in-formation relating to works executed in1995-2000, on Feb.16, 2000 under thePR Act. As per rules, they should havegot the information in four days, butthey were refused. After a month, on 30th

March, they applied to the District Col-lector of Rajsamand for the same infor-mation. It took more than a month forthe district administration to respond,albeit in a dilatory way. On May 17, theChief Executive Officer of RajsamandDistrict wrote to the Block Develop-ment Officer of Kumbhalgarh to givethe information asked for.

As suggested by the administration,the MKSS and the local villagersresubmitted their application in aPanchayat meeting on the 6th of June.The Gram Sewak promised to give themthe information between the 5th and 7th

of July. But no one was there during thatperiod to give information. On the 24th

of July when people presented them-selves again in the Panchayat meetingto get the information, it was refusedon the ground that the Accounts hadgone for Audit and would be returnedin Aug. 2000. On Aug.14, the MKSSand Janawad residents again wrote a let-ter to the CEO Rajsamand. On Sept. 9,the MKSS got to know that theSarpanch and the Gram Sewak ofJanawad had written to the CEO say-ing they could not give the informationasked for as the Gram Sabha had passeda resolution to this effect on 15th Mayand the Gram Panchayat general meet-ing had taken a similar resolution on 24th

July. On the15 th of September, theMKSS wrote a letter to the Minister andSecretary of the Panchayati Raj depart-ment of Rajasthan about the illegalityof the so-called Gram Sabha and GramPanchayat resolutions.

A month later, on the 16th of October,the Secretary Panchayati Raj and theState government ordered the BDO ofKumbhalgarh to furnish the informa-tion. On 23rd October, the State gov-ernment’s Panchayati Raj departmentalso set aside the so-called Gram Sabhaand Gram Panchayat resolutions andasked for an explanation by theSarpanch and the Gram Sewak within15 days. On 2 nd November, theKumbhalgarh Panchayat Samiti Pradhan

The MKSS got toknow that theSarpanch and theGram Sewak ofJanawad had written tothe CEO saying theycould not give theinformation asked foras the Gram Sabhahad passed aresolution to this effecton 15th May and theGram Panchayatgeneral meeting hadtaken a similarresolution on 24th July



took possession of the records and or-dered evaluation of the Janawad worksexecuted in 1995-2000 by a committeeconsisting of the BDO of Kumbhal-garh, the Junior Engineer and the Jun-ior Accountant within two months. Herefused information to the MKSS andthe people of the village on the groundthat it would result in disturbing thepeace. The next day, Nov. 3, he also in-formed the Rajsamand Collector andSecretary of the Panchayati Raj depart-ment of his decision and said that thedenial of information to the MKSS wasin public interest. After a fortnight, onNov. 18, the Panchayati Raj Secretaryordered the Sarpanch and the GramSewak of Janawad to bring all recordsto him in three days.

When this did not happen, the MKSSorganised a Dharna of over a 1000 resi-dents of Bhim, Devgarh, Kumbhalgarh,Jawaja and Kishangarh PanchayatSamitis outside the Rajsa-mandcollectorate, demanding the implemen-tation of Panchayati Raj Act rules asamended in 1996. The Collector cameout and assured the people in the pres-ence of the Kumbhalgarh BDO thatinformation related to the Janawadworks would be provided by thePanchayat by Nov. 25. But on 25th Nov.,the Gram Sewak again refused to pro-vide information, saying, through a let-ter, that under Section 323 of thePanchayati Raj Act rules he could onlypermit scrutiny, and not furnish copies,of the documents. Protesting againstthis, the MKSS wrote to the BDO andGram Sewak that Section 324 of thesame Rules allowed furnishing of au-thenticated photocopies.

On Nov. 26, the NCPRI shot off a let-ter to the Rajasthan Panchayati RajMinister demanding the immediate fur-nishing of information, the suspensionof the Janawad Gram Sewak, actionagainst the BDO, CEO and the Col-lector Nirmal Wadhwani (ironically thesame young BDO of yesteryears whohad so diligently provided informationand conducted an inquiry in the initialdays of the MKSS journey ) for collu-sion in not implementing the law andrefusing to give information, and ac-tion against the Kumbhalgarh Pradhanand Janawad Sarpanch.

But the great drama happened onNov. 28, when the Gram Sewak disap-peared with all original records andcopies and reappeared a few days laterwith a stay order of the Jodhpur HighCourt on the orders of the State gov-ernment. It was more than two and ahalf months later, on 20th Feb., 2001that the High Court vacated the stayand ordered that the information askedfor be given to the MKSS and the resi-dents of Janawad. Finally on 24th Feb.,2001, the people of Janawad got theinformation, even though the recordsreceived were still incomplete with sev-eral papers gone missing.

However, whatever records were avail-able and the subsequent Jan Sunwai re-vealed corruption on an unprecedentedscale and explained why there was somuch resistance in the system to part-ing with these records. Copies of recordsrelating to 98 works in the course offive years (worth more than Rs.1.25crore) were made available, of whichmany documents were incomplete -with measurement books and utilisation

39

certificates of many works missing. TheJan Sunwai examined works worthRs.65 lakh and established embezzle-ment of approximately Rs.45 lakh. Thisfigure went up to nearly Rs.70 lakh sub-sequent to a government enquiry by theBannalal committee.

The story of the arduous Janawadstruggle for the Right to Informationhad become such a legend in the area,as well as outside, that the grounds forthe Jan Sunwai were backed with morethan 3000 people on April 3, 2001. Thepanel was presided over by the PressCouncil Chairperson, Justice PBSawant, and the panelists included theretired Chief Justice of Delhi HighCourt, Justice Rajinder Sachhar, retiredJudge of Rajasthan High Court JusticeVS Dave, Press Institute of India Di-rector, Ajit Bhattacharjee, journalistKalpana Sharma and activists fromother parts of the country like VandanaShiva, Baba Adhav, MP Parameswaran,Surendra Mohan and NelsonFernandez. Though the local Collectorand the Superintendent of Police choseto abstain from the Jan Sunwai (thedistrict administration was representedby officers lower in rank), a high rank-ing government of India official, SudhaPillai, Joint Secretary in the Rural De-velopment Ministry was on the panel.The tone of the Jan Sunwai was set bythe Sarpanch, Bhuri Bai, who testifiedto the hold of the ex-Sarpanch Ramlaland said that the Gram Sewak,Baburam Saini, had got her to sign sev-eral sheets of blank paper.

To cut a long story short, under pres-sure from the unprecedented mobilisa-tion for the Jan Sunwai, the high profile

of the case and the widespread nationalmedia coverage, the police arrestedformer Janawad Sarpanch RamlalGurjar, ex-Panchayat Secretary AttaMohammed and the Junior EngineerSanwarchand Chandel on April 10 un-der a First Information Report lodgedduring the run-up to the Jan Sunwai. Thenext day the BDO lodged another FIRand added the name of another JuniorEngineer, Vinod Kumar Arora.

But these FIRs did not cover the wholeextent of the fraud in Janawad. Andsoon enough an attempt at cover-upstarted. A district administration inquirygave a clean chit with reference to mostof the Janawad works. Meanwhile, inresponse to a MKSS representation tothe Chief Minister demanding a thoroughgovernment enquiry into the completerange of Janawad works by someonefrom outside the area and with a highlevel of integrity, the State governmentconstituted an inquiry committee. Thecommittee was headed by Bannalal, aDeputy Secretary in the Audit depart-ment and known for his integrity. Thecommittee also included two technicalofficers, an executive engineer and anaccounts officer of the Panchayati Rajdepartment.

Formed on April 27, the committee sub-mitted its report on 24th July and did athorough job of it. It conducted a par-ticipatory and transparent probe ensur-ing full involvement of the MKSS ac-tivists and the residents of Janawad.More than 400 pages long, the Bannalalcommittee’s is a historic report basedon the physical verification of all 141development works executed inJanawad Panchayat in the six years

In response to aMKSS representationto the Chief Ministerdemanding athorough governmentenquiry into thecomplete range ofJanawad works bysomeone fromoutside the area andwith a high level ofintegrity, the Stategovernmentconstituted an inquirycommittee



between 1994 and 2001 and the testi-mony of everybody concerned. Andthe committee’s findings includenearly every kind of corruption thatis possible in development works in aPanchayat. Salient findings of theJanawad Jan Sunwai and the BannalalCommittee report are:

l Out of a development expenditure ofRs.1.25 crore in 6 years, Rs.70 lakhwere misappropriated.

l Out of a total of 141 developmentworks, the number of ghost workswas 49 – only on paper, not on theground.

l Embezzlement took place in 105works.

l The ghost works included anicut,wells, primary school, sub health cen-tre, veterinary hospital, roads, inn,bridges and community centre – allof which could have been valuablecommunity assets in a drought prone,poor and backward area.

l The poor were robbed of their hous-ing entitlement under the Indira Awasscheme, while the relatively better offbenefited.

l One anicut was measured and billedfour times. Similarly, the Panchayatbuilding was also measured and billedas the veterinary hospital and subhealth centre.

l Community construction was takenunder personal possession and for per-sonal use.

l Ghost entries in muster rolls.

l Four water storage tanks were con-structed, which are unusable.

l The works violated all norms andwere without effective supervision.

l Even while under suspension, the Jun-ior Engineer kept filling measurementbooks, on the basis of which thePanchayat Samiti kept sanctioningfunds.

l The employees concerned were givenvoluntary retirement despite policecases against them.

l The Chief Minister was misinformedby the district administration throughits probe report – a fact accepted bythe administration.

l A crucial measurement was foundmissing during the probe.

The Bannalal Committee held govern-ment functionaries responsible in eachinstance of corruption that it estab-lished. It recommended that these peo-ple should be prosecuted by the spe-cial cell of the anti-corruption depart-ment under 105 different FIRs one foreach work involving embezzelment. Italso recommended recovery of theembezzled amount from these 15 peo-ple and departmental action againstthem. Only one of these, the formerSarpanch is an elected functionary, therest of them are administrative offi-cials, government engineers and gov-ernment accountants. On the basis ofthis report, the State government hastill now filed 11 First Information Re-ports with the anti-corruption depart-ment against those found guilty by theBannalal committee.

Analysing the Growth

The second phase of Public Hearingsregistered a definite growth over the first

The committee’sfindings includenearly every kind ofcorruption that ispossible indevelopment works ina Panchayat

41

and campaign was more mature. ThesePublic Hearings showed a dramatic in-crease in the participation and mobili-sation of people. The prolonged andhigh profile mass movement for the peo-ple’s Right to Information in the Stateand its success in getting the entitlementfirst in the Panchayati Raj Act rules andthen as a general law did help in creat-ing widespread awareness of the issuesinvolved and their significance. This be-came a major factor in the popularityof the Jan Sunwai. And with the suc-cess of each Jan Sunwai, the attendance,the participation, the involvement andthe mobilisation kept increasing.

The success of the movement in fi-nally obtaining the entitlement also ef-fected a sea change in another respect.Even if people at various levels ofadministration continued exposingthemselves by thwarting efforts at ac-cessing information, the legal entitle-ment made it impossible beyond apoint to sustain such stonewalling inthe face of the singularity of purposeand tenacity of the people or organi-sation pursuing information.

The major achievement of the secondphase of Jan Sunwais was in terms ofthe scale of corruption and the com-plex operations and nexus behind itthat they unearthed. Corruption at thevillage level affects the people directlyby robbing them of their various otherentitlements. Therefore, the successof each Jan Sunwai in exposing such

corruption and its ways kept on driv-ing home the efficacy of the methodand hence increasing its popularity.

The change in the circumstances be-tween the first phase and the secondphase was such that the Jan Sunwaiscould no longer be ignored by either theelected Panchayat functionaries or theadministration. While the first phase ofJan Sunwais was assiduously boycottedby the Sarpanches and the local admin-istration, this was not the case in the sec-ond phase. The presence of the admin-istration in the Jan Sunwais gave morefocus to the follow-up of the findingsof a Hearing despite all hurdles.

The second phase of Jan Sunwais wasalso far more dramatic in impact thanthe first phase. Though an obdurate ad-ministrative machinery kept on thwart-ing justice in established cases of cor-ruption, the Jan Sunwais did establishthe power of public shame as witnessedin the return of the embezzled amountby some Sarpanches. The second phaseof Jan Sunwais are also marked by theworsting of powerful vested interestsby the collective strength of the peo-ple. Each such success made a breachin the wall of feudal fear that charac-terises a typical Rajasthan village,helped put the finger on the conver-gence between feudal inequities and thepathologies of contemporary practicesof development and politics and thushelped make the Jan Sunwai a continu-ously growing mass movement.

The second phase ofPublic Hearingsshowed a dramaticincrease in theparticipation andmobilisation of people



Fallout

This chapter deals with the fallout of the MKSS movement in Rajasthan: thequestion of transparency in civil society, RTI movement elsewhere in Rajasthanand the lateral impact of the movement in the Right to Food agitation and thewomen’s movement.

The Question of Transparencyin Civil Society

As the MKSS movement gathered mo-mentum, the question of transparencyin non-government organisations(NGOs) and citizens’ bodies workingwith the community also came to thefore. This was partly as a logical theo-retical extension of the demand fortransparency in discharge of public du-ties, and partly as a result of the gov-ernment and local backlash whichstarted questioning the bona fides ofthose institutionally funded organisa-tions that came out in support of theMKSS movement.

It began during the peak of the MKSSDharna in Jaipur. Some BJP politicians,led by one Ramakant Sharma, an MLAfrom Alwar district and a former bureau-crat, made certain allegations againstSWRC, Tilonia, the organisation foundedby Aruna Roy’s husband Bunker Roy. Itwas alleged that the SWRC was divert-ing funds provided for education andrural development by donor institutionsto the MKSS agitation and other ends.In any case, as an active supporter of the Transparency cause, the SWRC wasalready thinking of a Transparency Meet-ing to open up its accounts and works to

public scrutiny. It did so soon in 1997.This set an example of sorts for volun-tary organisations in the State. There fol-lowed a small series of Transparencymeetings organised by Praytna, Dudu in1999 and SARA, Sikar and Social Workand Research Centre, Jawaja in 2000. Butall these organisations belong to theSWRC family and it is a pity that manyof the other big NGOs in Rajasthan andthe country did not buy the idea, thoughthe URMUL family active in WesternRajasthan had transparency, including itsown transparency, and the Right to In-formation as the theme of its annual con-ference in the year 2000.

RTI Agitation Elsewhere inRajasthanApart from the MKSS area, exercise ofRTI by the people elsewhere inRajasthan has been slow to grow and ispicking up only now. In the initial phaseof the movement in 1996-97, two JanSunwais were held at Sare Khurd inAlwar district and Bisalpur in Tonkdistrict on the question of evictionfrom land and homes because of indus-trialisation and construction of a damrespectively. These Jan Sunwais, heldunder the aegis of the Bharat GyanVigyan Samiti and Bisalpur Bandh

As the MKSSmovement gatheredmomentum, thequestion oftransparency in non-governmentorganisations (NGOs)and citizens’ bodiesworking with thecommunity also cameto the fore

CHAPTER IV

Fallout

43

Samanway Samiti respectively, differedwith each other in experience. The firstwas not persistently followed at variouslevels and its failure to make an impactis a pointer to the constraints witnessedin the exercise of RTI without appro-priate organisational and mobilisationalbackup. The experience of theRajasthan Mazdoor Kisan Morcha inKishangarh district in 1997-98 in beingpersistently denied information by ob-durate public officials is also illustrativeof similar constraints.

The Bisalpur Jan Sunwai was a more sub-stantial affair in terms of the history ofprotest by the Dam oustees in the areaand the organisational backup and fol-low-up by the Bisalpur Bandh SamanwaySamiti. The Bisalpur agitation for the re-lief and rehabilitation of Dam ousteesstill continues, but a series of follow-upJan Sunwais in the area and correspond-ing civil society networking could havehad better impact.

It was during the drought year, 2001,that the Right to Information movementwas picked up in right earnest outsideof the MKSS area in western Rajasthanby the URMUL network of NGOs,though not in the Jan Sunwai mode. TheURMUL campaign was successful inmany ways in curtailing corruption inthe government food for work pro-gramme for famine relief. Though theinitiative was largely activist dependentand fell short on mass mobilisation, forthe first time an RTI agitation has shownreal promise outside of the MKSS area.

Lateral Impact

A significant fallout of the Right to In-formation movement in Rajasthan is the

way it has influenced interaction be-tween the state machinery, at the upperlevel at least, and citizens’ bodies in cer-tain other aspects resulting in a lateralimpact not thought of before.

Right to Food Agitation

The most important example of this isthe recent citizens’ campaign on theRight to Food and Food Security in theState in 2001 in the context of the thirdsuccessive year of drought in Rajasthan.It made the State part with disaggre-gated information at various levels withrespect to famine relief works, food forwork programmes and various otherstate and central schemes related to em-ployment and food security. The infor-mation thus obtained helped people towrest, through mass agitation, severalconcessions from the government withrespect to their food and employmententitlements and forced the governmentto rectify gaps in implementation. Infact, the Right to Information law in theState and the willingness of the Stategovernment machinery to share infor-mation during the drought created anatmosphere in the State wherein thegeneral level of corruption in droughtrelief work in Rajasthan in the years2001 and 2002 seemed to have comedown. In Nokha Tehsil of Bikaner Dis-trict, the Sarpanches tried to shirk offthe ever vigilant monitoring by a citi-zens’ group, the Jagruk Nagrik Manch,by refusing to take up the drought re-lief work in the area. Thankfully, thistactic did not succeed.

To its credit, the government machin-ery in the State did not hesitate toshare records and documents with the

A significant fallout ofthe Right toInformationmovement inRajasthan is the way ithas influencedinteraction betweenthe State machinery,at the upper level atleast, and citizens’bodies in certain otheraspects resulting in alateral impact notthought of before

Fallout


agitating citizens’ network, the AkalSangharsh Samiti, Rajasthan, despitethe adversarial positions they had onseveral counts. In fact, the informationobtained from the Rajasthan adminis-tration provided a valuable part of thefoundation for the Right to Food writfiled by the People’s Union for CivilLiberties, Rajasthan that has recentlysucceeded in getting a Supreme Courtorder converting various food securityschemes of the central governmentinto legal entitlements for the peopleof India.

Atrocities against Women and Hu-man Rights Violations

There is another interesting experiencein Rajasthan on transparency with re-gard to cases of atrocities againstwomen and general human rights viola-tions. The Government of Rajasthansuffered from an attitude of public de-nial on the issue of increasing crimesagainst women. Women’s rights andhuman rights groups found it very diffi-cult to prove that there were often de-lays or irregularities by the police in tak-ing action relating to arrests and filingof charge sheets in serious crimes likerape, sexual assault, battering, domes-tic violence etc. There was no account-ability on the part of the police towardsthe people, including the complainant.The complainant also had no right toknow what was happening to her case.Human rights and women’s activists hadno facts to establish either the increas-ing vulnerability of women to violenceor the role of police in manipulating in-vestigations. The police and the HomeDepartment were not at all willing tohave any dialogue on this issue.

Organisations working towards justice forwomen came under the banner of MahilaAtyachar Virodhi Jan Andolan, Rajasthanin 1996. After much public agitationagainst its (government’s) attitude, theState government set up a forum of dia-logue and information sharing with thewomen’s rights and human rights groupunder the Chairmanship of the Home Sec-retary. This forum met on a monthly ba-sis. Police personnel right from the Addi-tional Director General of Police and theSuperintendent of Police (women atroci-ties) to lower officials would sit with ac-tivists and kin of the complainant andscrutinise irregularities or negligence at thepolice station level in the State on a caseby case basis. The fact that this forum pro-vided for openness and that any case couldbe subjected to public scrutiny led thepolice to become more accountable. Anorder was also issued by the Home De-partment that information regarding crimesagainst women would be collated at thedistrict level on a fortnightly basis and atthe State level on a monthly basis. Apartfrom the fact that it resulted in each po-lice station incharge and each District Su-perintendent of Police working hard toshow that they were swift in respondingto cases, it also got the activists informa-tion from the Home Commissioner’s of-fice and the SP’s office on a regular basis.

The success of this forum resulted insimilar fora being set up at the districtlevel. Today the message is clear thatthe police and police stations have tobe transparent, accountable and provideinformation to the people. This has hada good impact and has resulted in im-proved police accountability even withregard to cases of general human rightsviolation and custodial crimes.

An order was issuedby the HomeDepartment thatinformation regardingcrimes against womenwould be collated atthe district level on afortnightly basis andat the state level on amonthly basis

45

Granting the Entitlement

This chapter deals with the State initiatives on the Right to Information, includ-ing the passage of the Rajasthan Act and a comparative analysis of the variousState Acts and the Freedom of Information Act, passed by the Parliament inDec. 2002.

The Rajasthan Act: Through aTransparent ProcessBetween 1994 and 1998 in Rajasthan,even as the then government resistedthe idea of a Right to Information Act,the opposition adopted the MKSS pro-gramme. The opposition Congressparty promised a RTI legislation in theState in its election manifesto in 1998.Coming to power in 1998, the newChief minister, Ashok Gehlot, ap-pointed a committee of bureaucrats,under PN Bhandari, a secretary to theState government, to draft a RTI bill tobe presented in the State Assembly.When objections were raised by theMKSS and the NCPRI, Rajasthan, onthe absence of any citizens’ representa-tive in the committee, the State gov-ernment and the committee it had setup invited assistance from these twoorganisations to prepare the draft bill.The MKSS and NCPRI held public con-sultations in each divisional headquar-ters of Rajasthan and formulated adraft bill on the basis of these consul-tations. This draft bill was submittedto the government committee, whichinvited the NCPRI and MKSS forseveral rounds of discussions. Thegovernment committee drew heavily

from the citizens’ draft for its recom-mendations even though they shiedaway from accepting the citizens’ draftin toto. The Rajasthan Act, as it was fi-nally adopted, retained many of the sug-gestions of the RTI movement, but di-luted others. The Rajasthan Act issomewhat stronger than some stateActs like those of Tamilnadu andMaharashtra but lags behind someother State Acts like those of Goa,Karnataka and Delhi. But the processthat was followed in enacting theRajasthan legislation was transparentand participatory to some extent andfollowed the spirit of the Right to In-formation movement. The Act cameinto force only on Jan 26, 2001 - afterthe rules were framed. Possibly, the firstever exercise of this Act was by theMKSS when it obtained the copy of theBannalal Committee Enquiry report oncorruption in Janawad Panchayat (re-ferred to earlier in this paper). It is stilltoo early to offer a comprehensiveevaluation of the effect of this Actin Rajasthan.

Apart from the Act, as stated earlier inthis paper, Rajasthan also has Right toInformation provisions in the Rules ofits Panchayati Raj Act granted by the

CHAPTER V


When objections wereraised by the MKSSand the NCPRI,Rajasthan,on the absence ofany citizens’representative in thecommittee, the Stategovernment and thecommittee it had setup invited assistancefrom these twoorganisations toprepare the draft bill


previous State government after a longstruggle. While the power of informa-tion unshackled in Public Hearingsforced many Sarpanches to concedefraud and return the embezzled moneyto the panchayat fund, it also exposedthe fraud committed by the entire chainof development administration from thePanchayat Secretary to Junior Engineer,the Block Development Officer, thePradhan and the District Administra-tion. Not surprisingly, the system hasshown such entrenched opposition toinformation sharing with the public,underlining the lesson that any loopholewould be exploited to deny people thisbasic entitlement. Hence, the need fora strong enactment if the legislation isto be made meaningful on the ground.

While attempts by the administrativemachinery to block informationabound in Rajasthan, one case reallystands out as being representative ofthe phenomenon. Members of theRajasthan Mazdoor Kisan Morcha, anal ly of the MKSS and act ive inKishangarh Tehsil of Ajmer Districtsought information related to devel-opment works of Harmara Panchayat.They had to undergo the ordeal of vis-iting various offices – from the Pancha-yat to the District Collector’s – sixtyfive times between September 1997and June 1998 in their quest for theinformation. Then threatening astatewide agitation, the RMKM an-nounced a big rally on the eve of whichpartial information was released tothem. Fearing that this informationwould establish irregularities, theSarpanch of Harmara Panchayat dis-bursed to the entitled people, money

meant for, but not spent on, construc-tion of houses under the Indira AwaasYojana, construction of latrines, pay-ment of wages for work under JawaharRojgar Yojana and other schemes.

The present State government has triedto institutionalise the experiment of JanSunwais by granting Social Audit pow-ers to the Ward Sabhas, the general as-sembly of all adult members of a vil-lage ward and potentially (though notin practice) the most powerful institu-tion of self governance. But this is stilllargely an exercise only on paper asholding Ward Sabhas still remains amere formality in most of the Stateswithout much effort at mobilising pub-lic participation.

Towards RTI as Law: the Statesand the Nation

It is oft repeated that Courts hold theRight to Information as being inherentin the Fundamental Right to Freedom ofSpeech and Expression granted in theConstitution under Article 19(1) (a). (S.P.Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp. SCC87, Secretary, Ministry of I&B v. CricketAssociation, Bengal, AIR 1995 SC 1411,State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC865). But the greater part of the citizens’experience in more than half a centuryof our republic would testify that secrecyhas been the norm and transparency theexception for our governments and ad-ministrators. With public opinion becom-ing more and more vocal in demandingfull operation-alisation of the Right to In-formation in recent years, a process as-sisted nationally by the NCPRI and vari-ous other groups, various State govern-ments have responded by passing laws

The present Stategovernment has triedto institutionalise theexperiment of JanSunwais by grantingSocial Audit powers tothe Ward Sabhas, thegeneral assembly ofall adult members of avillage ward andpotentially the mostpowerful institution ofself governance

47

or issuing orders to operationalise thisimportant constitutional right. So far,Tamilnadu, Goa, Rajasthan, Karnataka,Maharashtra, Assam and Delhi have RTIActs in place. The Madhya Pradesh As-sembly also passed a RTI bill, but itdid not get Presidential assent andhence could not become a law. Nev-ertheless, Madhya Pradesh was thefirst State to pass Right to Informa-tion orders with respect to a numberof areas of governance. LikeRajasthan, Kerala has the Right to In-formation provisions in its PanchayatiRaj Act. The climactic point in theState initiatives in this regard is thepassage of Freedom of InformationAct, 2002 by the Indian Parliament inDec. 2002. The President of Indiagave his assent to this on Jan.11, 2003.

This series of welcome initiatives de-note recognition by the Indian State ofa significant entitlement and inalien-able right that the Constitution hasgranted to every Indian citizen. But atthe same time it would not be unchari-table to say, in the light of grassrootdemocratic experience and rational ex-pectations, that the various State Actsand the central Freedom of Informa-tion Act, 2002 seek to impose unrea-sonable restrictions on a FundamentalRight granted by the Constitution. Itwould be pertinent to examine them inthe light of certain criteria for a goodRTI law evolved by the NCPRI throughwidespread debate and grassroots ex-perience. But before going ahead withthis analysis, it would be useful to takea summary look at the salient featuresof the various Right to Informationlaws passed by the states and the

Centre so far. Assam’s Act, passed in2002 is being excluded from this as theEnglish translation was not available atthe time of writing this paper.

The Tamilnadu Right to InformationAct, 1997

Though Tamilnadu is credited to be thefirst State in India to pass a Right to In-formation Act, it did not win much plau-dit from the NCPRI on account of itsvarious perceived weaknesses. Passedby the Legislative Assembly in the firsthalf of 1997, it received the assent ofthe governor on 4th May, 1997 and wasnotified the next day.

The ‘information’ to which theTamilnadu Act gives people access isdefined as including “copy of any docu-ment relating to the affairs of the Stateor any local or other authorities consti-tuted under any Act for the time beingin force or a statutory authority or a com-pany, corporation or a co-operative so-ciety or any organisation owned or con-trolled by the Government”. This defi-nition gives people the right to informa-tion pertaining to all activities of theState government, panchayats and mu-nicipal bodies of Tamilnadu and all au-tonomous bodies, indulging in businessor other activity, owned or controlled bythe State government. This definitionexcludes not only private bodies inde-pendent of the government from theAct’s purview but bodies receiving gov-ernment aid and not technically ownedor controlled by the State government.

Under the Tamilnadu Act, informationis not necessarily accessible at the pointwhere it is generated or stored, but at


The Right toInformation initiativesat the state andnational levels denoterecognition by theIndian State of asignificant entitlementand inalienable rightthat the Constitutionhas granted to everyIndian citizen


the level of a government official notbelow the rank of a deputy collectorwho is defined as the “competent au-thority” in the Act. This means to ob-tain any information relating to the af-fairs of a village panchayat, a personwill have to come to the district head-quarters – a daunting prospect for aperson constrained by time and means.By referring to the ‘bona fide’ of theperson seeking information (3 (1) ofthe Act), the Tamilnadu law puts asweeping instrument in the hands ofthe official concerned for rejecting anyrequest for information. It leaves it tothe subjective opinion of an individualofficer to decide the bona fides or malafides of a petitioner and is violative ofthe principle of the absoluteness of ahuman right which can only be limitedby reasonable restrictions.

In fact, the Tamilnadu Act goes intometiculous detail while listing areaswhere information is made inaccessibleor enumerating grounds on which it canbe withheld. The information made in-accessible includes that relating to de-fence security; that which will prejudicethe security, integrity and sovereignty ofthe Nation and the State; that whichwould harm the conduct of interna-tional relations or affairs; that which isreceived in confidence from foreign gov-ernments, foreign courts or internationalorganisations; and that which wouldharm the frankness and candour of in-ternal discussion. This last point includesproceedings of cabinet and cabinetcommittees; internal opinion, advice,recommendations, consultation and de-liberation; projections and assumptionsre lating to internal policy analysis;

analysis of alternative policy options andinformation relating to rejected policyoptions; and confidential communica-tions between departments, public bod-ies and regulatory bodies.

Information relating to confidential com-munications between ministers and theGovernor; and information whose dis-closure would prejudice the administra-tion of justice, including fair trial andthe enforcement and proper administra-tion of the law are also exempted fromdisclosure. As if the point about admin-istration of justice was not enough, theAct goes on to exempt “informationwhose disclosure would prejudice legalproceedings or the proceedings of anytribunal, public inquiry or other formalinvestigation .......”. In fact the Act cov-ers as many exemptions related to legalproceedings, safety and security and or-der as it can: for instance, informationcovered by legal professional privilege;information whose disclosure wouldprejudice the prevention, investigationor detection of crime and the apprehen-sion of offenders; information whosedisclosure would harm public safety orpublic order; and information whosedisclosure would endanger the life andphysical safety of any person or iden-tify the source of information or assist-ance given in confidence for law enforce-ment or security purposes.

Other exemptions in the Act pertain tolikelihood of damage to the environmentof rare and endangered species and theirhabitats; the ability of the governmentto manage the economy etc.; and theassessment and collection of taxes, du-ties etc.; “commercial confidences, tradesecrets or intellectual property. The

The Tamilnadu Actgoes into meticulousdetail while listingareas whereinformation is madeinaccessible orenumerating groundson which it can bewithheld

49

exemptions also include informationwhose disclosure could lead to impropergain or advantage or would prejudicethe competitive position of a depart-ment or other public body and the ne-gotiation or the effective conduct ofpersonnel management or commercialor contractual activities. Informationsupplied in confidence by a person isalso excluded from disclosure as is in-formation whose disclosure is prohib-ited under any enactment, regulationand international agreement, and infor-mation that will constitute a breach ofparliament/assembly/legislative coun-cil privilege. The exceptions includedocuments referred in section 123 and124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872and any matter which is likely to helpthe commission of offence, help or fa-cilitate escape from legal custody or af-fect prison security or impede the proc-ess of investigation or apprehension orprosecution of offenders. This last pointsounds very much like a repetition ofsimilar provisions related to the admin-istration of justice. In fact, many exemp-tions are merely finer repetitions of theothers in this long list.

Not satisfied with this long list of ex-ceptions, the Tamilnadu Act providesfurther grounds for the rejection of a rightto information request. A request maybe rejected if the competent authoritythinks that the disclosure “is likely tocause violence, or disharmony among asection of the people on the basis of re-ligion, language, caste, creed, communityor if it is prejudicial to public interest”.It may also be rejected if the disclosure“would be prejudicial to the maintenanceof public order or maintenance of

essential services and supplies”. The in-vocation of blanket terms like ‘public in-terest’ and ‘public order’ leave the grant-ing of a right to information requestpurely at the subjective mercy of thecompetent authority. As a matter of fact,with the long list of exemptions andgrounds of refusal, the Tamilnadu Actreads more like a prohibitive OfficialSecrets Act rather than a law that makesinformation accessible.

Another feature of the Tamilnadu Rightto Information Act that drew adversepublic attention is an omission. The Actdoes not prescribe any penalty forwillfully withholding or delaying infor-mation. The Tamilnadu Act is thus ren-dered toothless and sounds more like anexpression of good intent than an effec-tive law. As far as the time period forproviding information is concerned,there is again a bit of sabotage in thefine print of the Act. It prescribes a limitof 30 working days from the receipt ofapplication for passing “orders eithergranting or refusing the request” and notfor actually making available the docu-ment asked for. As for the provision fora suo moto or proactive information shar-ing by the government, it is too much toexpect from such an Act. The TamilnaduAct, however, does provide for an ap-peal if any request is rejected. But theappeal prescribed is only an internal oneto a higher authority within the govern-ment and not outside it.

The Goa Right to Information Act,1997

As it stands, the Goa Right to Informa-tion law was notified on Dec. 2, 1997after the Governor’s assent on Oct. 29,


The Tamilnadu Rightto Information Actdoes not prescribeany penalty for willfullywithholding ordelaying information.The Tamilnadu Act isthus renderedtoothless and soundsmore like anexpression of goodintent than aneffective law


1997. It was passed as it exists now bythe Goa Assembly on July 31, 1997. Inits previous avatar earlier that year, theGoa Act had stringent provisions topunish what it called the mala fide useof information, which was perceived asanti-freedom of press by the Goa jour-nalists. In the face of a stiff agitation bythem, that Act was amended to itspresent form.

Drawing heavily from the draft bill pre-pared by the Press Council of India withinputs from the NCPRI, the Goa Rightto Information Act was a great improve-ment on Tamilnadu’s. It defined infor-mation in such a way as to expand thescope of the Act beyond Tamilnadu’sto also include - apart from State gov-ernment departments, local bodies, gov-ernment controlled and owned organi-sations – any other organisation execut-ing any public work or service on be-half of, or authorised by, the govern-ment. So this would also include privatebodies engaged in public work. The GoaAct also has a wider definition of theRight to Information that includes theright to inspect and obtain copies of anydocument or record and even “takingsamples of material”.

As compared to Tamilnadu, the Goa Actalso shortens the list of restrictions onthe Right to Information. It prohibits thedisclosure of information prejudiciallyaffecting the sovereignty and integrityof India or security of the State or In-ternational relations or Public Order oradministration of justice or Investiga-tion of an offence or which leads to in-citement to an offence. But another pro-vision does leave scope for the subjec-tive proclivity of a competent authority

to withhold information, which will notsubserve any ‘public interest’. Informa-tion relating to an individual’s affairs orpersonal privacy is rightfully exemptedfrom disclosure as is information thatwould endanger the life or physical safetyof any person or identify the source ofinformation or assistance given in con-fidence for law enforcement or securitypurposes or in public interest. The re-strictions also include papers submittedto the Governor for discharge of hisconstitutional function; disclosure preju-dicially affecting centre-state relations;trade and commercial secrets and otherinformation protected by law; and in-formation that would constitute a breachof parliamentary or legislative privilege.

To lessen misuse of the exemptionsprovisions, the Goa Act introduced aproviso that was subsequently emu-lated by some other states. It says, “in-formation which cannot be denied tothe State Legislature shall not be de-nied to any person.”

A major improvement in the Goa lawover that of Tamilnadu is that there is aprovision for penalties in case of delib-erate withholding of information or de-lay in making it available. The penaltyprovision in the Goa Act provides fordisciplinary departmental action againstthe erring official and also levy of a per-sonal fine of Rs.100 per day for everyday of delay beyond the stipulated 30working day period. In another improve-ment over Tamilnadu, Goa has an ex-ternal appeal to the Administrative Tri-bunal against the former’s provision ofan internal appeal. Again, in the GoaAct, there is no restriction for a ‘com-petent authority’ to be above the rank

To lessen misuse ofthe exemptionsprovisions, the GoaAct introduced aproviso that wassubsequentlyemulated by someother states. It says,“information whichcannot be denied tothe State Legislatureshall not be denied toany person.”

51

of a deputy collector. The Goa Act alsoprescribes a fee for making copies ofdocuments available. The fee includesthe cost of processing and reproduction.With reports of exorbitant fees in thename of processing cost, a ceiling ofRs.100 as processing fee was imposedby a subsequent amendment.

A very significant feature of the GoaAct is the provision for a State Coun-cil for the Right to Information.Headed by the Minister in charge ofthe Administrative Reforms depart-ment and with official and non-officialmembers, the Council is supposed topromote right to information in theState. For this, it would review the op-eration of the Act and its rules; reviewthe administrative arrangements andprocedures to operationalise the Act;conduct research and documentationfor the management of informationwith a view to improve its extent andaccuracy; and to advise the governmenton training, development and orienta-tion of its employees to bring in theculture of openness and transparency.

A very significant provision in the GoaAct stipulates giving information relat-ing to the life and liberty of a personwithin 48 hours even though the nor-mal time limit is 30 working days fromthe date of the receipt of application.

The Rajasthan Right to InformationAct, 2000

The process behind the passage of theRajasthan Act has already been dealtwith earlier in this chapter. The Act it-self falls somewhere between theTamilnadu and Goa Acts, but is a bigimprovement over the former and

nearer to the latter in letter and spirit.The Act does not extend to all the pub-lic activities of the private sector andNGOs, as advocated by the PressCouncil draft bill and the national cam-paign. And unlike the Goa Act, it alsodoes not cover private bodies execut-ing public works either on behalf ofthe government or under its authorisa-tion. But the definition of ‘public body’in the Act does extend its scope to abody “receiving substantial financialassistance from the State government”.In fact, in this matter, the provisionsof the Rajasthan Act are closer to thatof Tamilnadu than Goa.

In defining the right to information, theRajasthan Act closely follows the Goaone and includes within its purview ob-taining certified copies of documents orrecords; inspection of accessible recordsand documents and taking notes andextracts from them; inspection of pub-lic works; and taking samples of mate-rial from public works. In the system ofappeal, the Rajasthan law incorporatesfeatures of both the Tamilnadu and theGoa Acts in that it provides for an in-ternal as well as external appeal. The ap-peal system in the Rajasthan Act is infact multi-layered. The first appeal is tothe next higher authority in the govern-ment and second appeal is external, butto different bodies at the district andstate levels. For any denial of informa-tion up to the district level, the secondappeal would be made to the DistrictPublic Grievances cum Vigilance Com-mittee with official and non-officialmembers and chaired by the districtcollector. In cases going beyond the dis-trict level, the Rajasthan Civil Services


A very significantfeature of the Goa Actis the provision for aState Council for theRight to Information


Appellate Tribunal would deal with thesecond appeal. By imposing the penalprovision of disciplinary departmentalaction for willfully denying information,the Rajasthan Act is an improvement onTamilnadu’s but falls short of the Goaprovision for simultaneously levying apersonal fine on the errant official for adelay in making information available.

The exemptions and grounds for refusalin the Rajasthan Act are fewer innumber and less sweeping than theTamilnadu Act, but more than Goa’s.They total 10 in Rajasthan comparedto Tamilnadu’s 24 and Goa’s 10. Overand above that of Goa’s in substance,Rajasthan has provisions prohibiting dis-closures that would harm the candourof internal discussions like cabinet pa-pers, departmental notes etc., disclo-sures which would prejudice the gov-ernment’s ability to manage theeconomy, information referred to in theIndian Evidence Act, and some moreinformation related to the administra-tion of justice and law and order mat-ters. Besides, the Rajasthan Act also hasan additional insidious ground for re-fusing an information request. Informa-tion can be withheld on the ground thatthe request is too general and the vol-ume of information required would in-volve disproportionate diversion of re-sources of a public authority or wouldadversely interfere with the functioningof such authority. The exemption pro-visions in Rajasthan do not have theredeeming Goa proviso that guaranteesaccess to information which cannot bedenied to the State legislature.

The Rajasthan Act too levies a fee forproviding information, but leaves its

quantum to be prescribed by the gov-ernment from time to time. And im-proving on the Tamilnadu and Goa laws,the Rajasthan Act directs the State gov-ernment for proactive or suo moto shar-ing of information vital to the publicinterest. The Rajasthan Act shortens thetime limit for providing information bymaking it 30 days, instead of ‘30 work-ing days’, from the date of receipt ofthe application. Similarly, the disposalof appeal is also time bound with30 days as the limit.

The Maharashtra Right toInformation Act, 2000

Passed on the 18th of July, 2000, theMaharashtra Act rivaled Tamilnadu’s inpublic criticism. As originally passed, thelist of exemptions in the Act, 22 innumber, were nearly as prohibitive andexhaustive as in Tamilnadu’s, and so itis unnecessary to enumerate them here.The Maharashtra Act too did not pro-vide for any penalty for willfully with-holding information or delaying makingit available, and was as toothless as theTamilnadu Act in this regard. The ques-tion of internal or external appeal wasleft vague in the Maharashtra Act by pro-viding for an appeal to the governmentor an authority to be prescribed by it.

As far as the time lime limit was con-cerned, the Maharashtra Act followedGoa and Tamilnadu in making it 30working days. It also did not have anyprovisions for a suo moto or proactiveinformation sharing by the govern-ment. In the scope of the Act and thedefinition of the competent authority,the Maharashtra Act literally followedthe Tamilnadu provisions. It excluded

The Rajasthan Actalso has an insidiousground for refusing aninformation request.Information can bewithheld on the groundthat the request is toogeneral and thevolume of informationrequired would involvedisproportionatediversion of resourcesof a public authority orwould adverselyinterfere with thefunctioning of suchauthority

53

private bodies completely from its pur-view and prohibited getting informa-tion from anyone below the rank ofdeputy collector.

In the light of severe public criticismled by the well-known anti-corruptioncampaigner and social worker AnnaHazare, Maharashtra passed an amen-ded Right to Information Act in thesecond half of 2002 which intro-duced suo moto information sharing bythe government in certain respectsand made some other minor changes.Since the amended Act was not yetnotified and an English copy of it wasnot yet available at the time of writ-ing this paper, its summary is notbeing offered here.

The Karnataka Right to InformationAct, 2000

The Karnataka Act could be placedclose to Rajasthan’s in terms of civilsociety approval. It is certainly muchbetter than Tamilnadu and Maharashtra.The exceptions list is shorter than thesetwo states and is closer to Rajasthan’sthough a bit longer than Goa’s. TheKarnataka Act has 8 exemptions plusfour additional grounds of refusal com-pared to Rajasthan’s 10. But unlikeRajasthan, it does not extend access ofinformation to the inspection of pub-lic works and obtaining samples of ma-terial from a public works site. It, how-ever, extends it another direction (inkeeping with its techno-savvy image)to all sorts of electronically stored in-formation. There is no prescriptionof rank for the competent authority -unlike the Tamilnadu and the Mahara-shtra Acts.

The Karnataka Act too, like Rajasthan,provides for suo moto or proactive shar-ing of information of which one par-ticular provision is particularly signifi-cant: “before sanctioning or initiating orcausing to sanction or initiate anyproject, scheme or activity as may bespecified by the State government, pub-lish or communicate to the public gen-erally or to the persons affected or likelyto be affected by the project, scheme oractivity in particular in such manner asmay be prescribed, the facts availableto it or to which it has reasonable ac-cess which in its opinion should beknown to them in the best interests ofmaintenance of democratic principles.”

Compared even to Rajasthan and Goa,the Karnataka Act shortens the normaltime limit to 15 working days for pro-viding information. But unlike Goa’s pro-vision of giving information in mattersof life and liberty, Karnataka does nothave any stipulation of meeting requestsurgent in nature. The time limit for thedisposal of appeals is 30 days. Penaltyprovisions in the Karnataka Act are morestringent than Rajasthan. For an unrea-sonable rejection of request or delay inmeeting it, Karnataka has a provision ofimposition of personal fine on the errantofficial not exceeding Rs. 2000, apartfrom departmental disciplinary action.The Karnataka Act too provides, likeRajasthan, two layers of appeal. The firstappeal would be within the governmentand the second one would be made tothe Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. Un-like Goa, the Karnataka Act has noprovision for a State Council for theRight to Information. The fee inKarnataka is not exorbitant and is not


In the light of severepublic criticism ledby the well-knownanti-corruptioncampaigner andsocial worker AnnaHazare, Maharashtrapassed an amendedRight to InformationAct in the second halfof 2002 whichintroduced suo motoinformation sharing bythe government incertain respects andmade some otherminor changes


to exceed the actual cost of supplyinginformation.

The Delhi Right to InformationAct, 2001

Delhi is the newest entrant to the clubof states with a Right to Informationlaw. Its Act too is in the same league asthe Rajasthan and Karnataka Acts. With8 exemptions, the exceptions list is a bitshorter than Rajasthan and Karnatakabut slightly longer than Goa. The pen-alty provision of disciplinary actionagainst the errant official is akin toRajasthan and less stringent than Goaand Karnataka.

The appeal provision is similar to Goa’swith a single external appeal to the Pub-lic Grievances Committee. The timelimit for making information availableis 30 days, though it is stipulated thatnormally it should be 15 days. The timelimit for the disposal of appeal in theDelhi Act is also 30 days. The provi-sions for the suo moto or proactive shar-ing of information by the governmentin the Delhi Act is akin to Karnataka’s.

As far as access to information is con-cerned, the Delhi Act combines the bestfeatures of the Rajasthan, Goa and theKarnataka Acts to extend access to sam-ples of material of public works andelectronically stored information. LikeRajasthan, the Delhi Act covers privatebodies to the extent that they are sub-stantially funded by the government, butit goes beyond Rajasthan to cover con-stitutional bodies (which would includethe courts, Lokayukta’s office etc.). Inthe matter of fees, the Delhi Act fol-lows the Goa provision of includingthe cost of processing and making it

available. But in the absence of an up-per ceiling like Goa, the Delhi Act is vul-nerable to abuse.

The Central Enactment: Freedomof Information Act , 2002

The central enactment on the subjecttook long in coming. It took more thanfive years between the appointment ofthe HD Shourie Committee and the pas-sage of the final Act by both Houses ofthe Parliament in Dec. 2002. The mainstages in the formulation of the Actwere: recommendations of the ShourieCommittee; based on these recommen-dations (but diluting them in the proc-ess), formulation and tabling of theDraft Freedom of Information Bill,2000; reference of the Bill to the Par-liamentary Standing committee onHome Affairs that invited depositionsfrom several stakeholders; and tablingand passage of the revised Freedom ofInformation Bill, 2002. Instead of go-ing into details of each stage, it wouldbe relevant only to take a quick look atthe final product, i.e., the Freedom ofInformation Act, 2002.

The first significant departure that thecentral Act makes from that of all theseven states is in the nomenclature itself.Here we have a Freedom of InformationAct instead of the Right to InformationActs passed by the states (emphasis ours).Even though Freedom of Informationhas been defined as the ‘right to obtainInformation’ in section 2(C) of the Act,the difference in the nomenclature is sig-nificant in that it suggests that thoughone is free to access information, it is nota natural right i.e. a right a human beingis born with. In keeping with this subtle

As far as access toinformation isconcerned, the DelhiAct combines the bestfeatures of theRajasthan, Goa andthe Karnataka Acts toextend access tosamples of material ofpublic works andelectronically storedinformation

55

shift, the central Act has a short pream-ble, setting a limit to this freedom (‘con-sistent with public interest’) even as itproclaims its purpose: ‘in order to pro-mote openness, transparency and ac-countability in administration’.

The Freedom of Information Act, 2002covers only the organs of the Statewhich include, apart from the execu-tive, the legislature and the judiciaryand leaves out the whole of private sec-tor, including the corporate world andthe non-profit non-government organi-sations. The Act applies to all threetiers of the government – the centre,the state and the local government –and its various agencies and bodies.Even though information about non-state actors like the corporate sectorand the NGOs is theoretically accessi-ble under its provisions through theregulatory, monitoring and enforce-ment agencies of the government, theAct goes to great lengths to protect non-state players, which would be coveredby the term ‘third party’ used in the Actalong with State agencies that are notrecipients of information requests butabout whom information is beingsought, by laying down a lengthy andcumbersome process for obtaining in-formation from them.

The Act explicitly states that no infor-mation given in confidence by a thirdparty can be disclosed unless there isan overriding public interest angle thatis to be determined by the competentauthority. Moreover, for any informa-tion sought regarding a third party, thelatter would be given a reasonablehearing before any decision is taken.The time limit for notice to the third

party is 20 days. Even though the dead-line for disclosing information underthe Act is 30 days from the day of re-ceipt of a request in normal circum-stances, it extends to 60 days wherethe information sought is regarding athird party. If the period of two ap-peals available to the third party iscounted, it could well be five monthsbefore one can obtain information re-garding a third party, if one can obtainit at all.

The Act enjoins ‘public authority’, (aterm that encompasses all bodies cov-ered by the Act), to maintain recordsproperly, duly catalogued and indexed,and provides for the appointment ofPublic Information Officers for dissemi-nation of information. Significantly, theAct provides for proactive or suo motodisclosure of certain kinds of informa-tion by a public authority like:

l the particulars of its organisation,functions and duties.

l the powers and duties of its officersand employees and the procedure fol-lowed by them in the decision mak-ing process.

l the norms set by the public authorityfor the discharge of its functions.

l rules, regulations, instructions, manualand other categories of records underits control used by its employees fordischarging its functions.

l the details of facilities available to citi-zens for obtaining information, and

l the name, designation and otherparticulars of the Public InformationOfficer;


The Freedom ofInformation Act, 2002covers only theorgans of the Statewhich include, apartfrom the executive,the legislature and thejudiciary and leavesout the whole ofprivate sector,including thecorporate worldand the non-profitnon-governmentorganisations


But the most important kinds ofproactive or suo moto information thatFreedom of Information Act, 2002 pro-vides for in its section 4 are containedin the following clauses:

(c) Publish all relevant facts concerningimportant decisions and policies thataffect the public while announcing suchdecisions and policies;

(d) Give reasons for its decisions,whether administrative or quasi-judicialto those affected by such decisions;

(e) Before initiating any project, publishor communicate to the public generallyor to the persons affected, or likely tobe affected, by the project in particular,the facts available to it or to which ithas reasonable access and which, in itsopinion, should be known to them in thebest interest of natural justice and pro-motion of democratic principles.

Even though the deadline for providinginformation on request is 30 days, theAct provides for disclosure of informa-tion within 48 hours of asking in mat-ters where the life and liberty of a per-son is at stake. But quite significantly,the Act does not prescribe for any pen-alty in the case of willful non-compli-ance. It does provide for two tiers ofappeal where the aggrieved personthinks (s)he has been wrongly deniedinformation, but both appeals are withinthe system i.e. within the government.

Any law is significant, and hence isevaluated, with regard to two aspects:what it allows or enables and what itrestricts. And the list of restrictions orexemptions is fairly long in the Freedomof Information Act, 2002. Some wouldsay it outweighs the areas opened up for

information. The restrictions in the Actcan be put into three categories: themeor subject restrictions wherein certainthematic areas or subjects have beenmade inaccessible for information; in-stitutional restrictions wherein certaininstitutions, agencies or departmentshave been exempted; and proceduralrestrictions wherein information is re-stricted on grounds of procedure.

The Freedom of Information Act,2002 keeps a whole lot of subjects outof bounds for citizens seeking Infor-mation. For instance, information, thedisclosure of which would prejudi-cially affect:

l the sovereignty and integrity of India,security of the State, strategic scien-tific or economic interest of India orconduct of international relations;

l public safety and order, detectionand investigation of an offence orwhich may lead to an incitement tocommit an offence or prejudiciallyaffect fair trial or adjudication of apending case;

l the conduct of Centre-State rela-tions, including information ex-changed in confidence between theCentral and State Governments orany of their authorities or agencies.

Other subjects out of bounds to citi-zens are:

l cabinet papers including records ofdeliberation of the Council of Min-isters, Secretaries and other officers;

l minutes or records of advice includ-ing legal advice, opinions or recom-mendations made by any officer of apublic authority during the decision

Any law is significant,and hence isevaluated, with regardto two aspects: what itallows or enables andwhat it restricts. Andthe list of restrictions orexemptions is fairlylong in the Freedom ofInformation Act, 2002

57

making process prior to the executivedecision or policy formulation;

l trade or commercial secrets pro-tected by law or information, the dis-closure of which would prejudiciallyaffect the legitimate economic andcommercial interests or the competi-tive position of a public authority,or would cause unfair gain or loss toany person; and

l information, the disclosure of whichmay result in the breach of privilegesof Parliament or the Legislature ofa State, or contravention of a lawfulorder of a court.

To its credit, however, the Act doesprovide for declassification of informa-tion related to the above mentionedsubjects after a period of 25 years.Another subject restriction, providedelsewhere in the Act, is any informa-tion, the disclosure of which wouldcause the unwarranted invasion of theprivacy of a person.

As far as institutional restrictions go,a significant exemption, of course, isthe whole of the private sector, includ-ing the corporate world and the non-profit non-governmental organisations.But more significant is the blanket ex-clusion of security and intelligence or-ganisations and any information pro-vided by them to the government,which also covers their non-securityand non-intelligence functions andpossible abuse of their powers. TheSchedule in the Act, which lists some19 such agencies of the central gov-ernment and the Union Territories,also cleverly includes vigilance andanti-corruption bureaus and revenueenforcement agencies. Moreover, the

Act empowers the State governmentsto add, by a notification, their own se-curity and intelligence organisations,similar to those of the central govern-ment, to this list. The central govern-ment also by a notification can add anyother security organisation to thisSchedule at a future date, if it so de-sires. Among procedural restrictions,the significant one is one which saysthat a public information officer mayreject a request for information “wheresuch request is too general in natureor is of such a nature that, having re-gard to the volume of information re-quired to be retrieved or processedwould involve unreasonable diversionof the resources of a public authorityor would adversely interfere with thefunctioning of such (public) authority”.This has a qualifier as follows: “pro-vided that where such request is re-jected on the ground that the requestis too general, it would be the duty ofthe Public Information Officer torender help as far as possible to theperson making request to reframe hisrequest in such a manner as may fa-cilitate compliance with it.” But thisqualifier does not cover the grounds ofunreasonable diversion of resourcesand adverse interference with the func-tioning of the public authority as rea-sons for denying information. Anotherexample of procedural restriction is thegreat lengths to which the Act goes toprotect ‘third party’ interest.

Campaign Criteria for StrongLegal Provisions

With this summary of state laws and thecentral Act, it is time to measure themand other draft legislations against the


As far as institutionalrestrictions go, asignificant exemptionis the whole of theprivate sector,including thecorporate world andthe non-profit nongovernmentalorganisations. Butmore significant is theblanket exclusion ofsecurity andintelligenceorganisations and anyinformation providedby them to thegovernment


criteria evolved by the public campaignon the Right to Information.

Unreasonable Restrictions: Casefor Minimal Exemptions

As interpreted by the Supreme Court,right to information flows from Arti-cle 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Henceany restriction on this right has to bejustified only on the exceptions allowedby the Constitution itself in Arti-cle 19(2). This Article allows only “rea-sonable restrictions” and only on thegrounds of “sovereignty and integrity ofIndia, the security of the State, friendlyrelations with foreign states, public or-der, decency or morality, or in relationto contempt of court, defamation or in-citement of an offence”. The burden toprove that the restrictions are within theconstitutional limits lies on the Govern-ment (Secretary, Ministry of I&B v.Cricket Association, Bengal, AIR 1995SC 1236). If the government fails to dothis, the Judiciary would be perfectly jus-tified in striking down those portions ofthe Act which prove to be unreasonableor are based on grounds not allowed bythe Constitution.

The Freedom of Information Act, 2002and all the state laws mentioned aboveenvisage numerous exemptions, whichare restrictions on the right to informa-tion. The Tamilnadu Act takes the cakewith a total of 23 exemptions. Many arenot justifiable on the grounds of Article19(2) and hence are unconstitutional.No Act can take away or restrict whatis already provided under the Constitu-tion. An Act is only there to opera-tionalise a constitutional right, not torestrict it beyond the Constitution.

The most blatant of these exemptionsin the FOI Act, 2002 is the Schedule ofsecurity and intelligence organisationsthat keeps them out of the purview ofthe proposed law. Even the states havebeen given the option of adding theirown security and police organisations tothis list. It is an irony that while the Billprovides for giving information in 48hours where the life and liberty of a per-son is concerned, it exempts those or-ganisations that are most often accusedof illegally violating civil liberties andhuman rights, including the right to life,from the purview of the proposed law.Moreover, excluding such organisationsas vigilance and anti-corruption bureausand revenue enforcement agencies fromthe purview of the Act would only putthe course of various corruption casesunder a shroud of secrecy. This is a ne-gation of the essential lesson learnt fromthe grassroots public audit campaignin Rajasthan.

An exemption clause which can provequite restrictive in the FOI Act, 2002,in a blanket way so to say, is the oneallowing the competent authority towithhold any information on the groundthat it interferes with the work of a gov-ernment office or involves a dispropor-tionate expenditure in collecting it.

Covering Private Bodies

Another point relates to exclusion ofprivate bodies like companies, NGOs,etc. in the Freedom of Information Act,2002 from the obligation to provide in-formation pertaining to the publicsphere. It would be pertinent to pointout in this context that the language ofArticle 19(1) - ‘All citizens shall have

No Act can take awayor restrict what isalready providedunder the Constitution.An Act is only there tooperationalise aconstitutional right, notto restrict it beyond theConstitution

59

the right ...’ – makes it clear that this isa right of general import and universalapplicability. In contrast are Articles likeArticle 14, which are a negative rightavailable only against State action andare worded like: ‘The State shall notdeny.....’. So, rights that do not restrictexplicitly their application against theState only are available universallyagainst the entire world, including theprivate sector. This was clarified in Peo-ples Union for Democratic Rights v.Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1473 Su-preme Court. Other Articles of likewording are, inter alia, Article 17, 23 and24. Since the right to information flowsfrom Article 19(1) that has such a widesweep as to include the private sectoralso, a legislation cannot legally excludeprivate parties from its purview. Thiswould also in a way amount to impos-ing an unreasonable, and hence uncon-stitutional, restriction on a constitu-tional right. It is relevant to recall thatthe Goa Act, taking its cue from thePress Council-NIRD draft, does coverthe private sector and the NGOs withinits ambit.

For the Freedom of Information Act,2002 to conform to the Constitutionand empower the citizen in the light ofthe letter and spirit of the Constitution,our argument is that it should have hadminimal exemptions, not more thanthose contained in Article 19(2), andshould have included within its purviewall private organisations operating in thepublic sphere. Another argument for in-clusion of companies, trusts, societies,associations etc. is that the state is with-drawing more and more from the publicarenas which affect the lives of the

citizens and handing these arenas overto private organisations. And it wouldbe in the fitness of things that privateorganisations too be made transparentand accountable to the public they serve.The Bhopal gas tragedy of 1984, whichkilled thousands, is a grim reminder thatleaving the private sector out of thetransparency and public accountabilitynet could lead to unmitigated disaster.With regard to the inclusion of privatesector operating in the public spherewithin the purview of any meaningfulRight to Information legislation, we ad-vocate the excellent provision containedin the draft Press Council-NIRD Bill onthe Subject, which defines “public au-thority” as including-

l the Government and Parliament ofIndia and the Government and Leg-islature of each of the States and lo-cal or other authorities within the ter-ritory of India or under the controlof the Government of India; and

l the Administrative Offices if theCourts; and

l a company, corporation, trust, firm,society, a co-operative society, or as-sociation whether owned or control-led by the Government or by privateindividuals and institutions;

The expressions company, corporation,trust, firm, society, cooperative societyand association shall have the samemeaning as assigned to them in the re-spective Acts under which they are reg-istered. This is quite comprehensive, butanother blanket clause can be added toit, taking from the South African Con-stitution, so that any oversight is takencare of:


It would be in thefitness of things thatprivate organisationstoo be madetransparent andaccountable to thepublic they serve. TheBhopal gas tragedy of1984, which killedthousands, is a grimreminder that leavingthe private sector outof the transparencyand publicaccountability netcould lead tounmitigated disaster


l and any other person informationfrom whom is required for the exer-cise or protection of any right.

The Goa Right to Information Act, 1997also echoes the same spirit in differentwords in its definition of Information.The South African Constitution whichgrants the Right to Information as aFundamental Right, gives it an explicituniversal sweep. Section 32 of theSouth African Constitution says:

“(1) Everyone has the right of accessto –

(a) any information held by thestate; and

(b)any information that is held by an-other person and that is requiredfor the exercise or protection ofany rights.”

The Nepali Constitution (s.16) enshrinesthe right to information as a fundamen-tal right and provides that ‘every citi-zen shall have the right to demand andreceive information of any matter ofpublic importance’.

The Question of Penalties

Apart from the factors of exemptionsand applicability, the Freedom of In-formation Act, 2002 falters on the sig-nificant counts of penalties for non-compliance and an independent appealmechanism. The grassroots experiencein seeking information under theRajasthan Panchayati Raj Act Rules,1996 (recounted earlier in this note)convinces one that a law without pen-alty provisions for non-compliance andan independent appeal mechanism out-side of the government/bureaucraticapparatus would not have enough teeth

to ensure compliance from an obstinatesystem. It is a pity that l ike theTamilnadu State Right to InformationAct, the Central Act provides no pen-alty at all for non-compliance by errantgovernment officials. Other State Acts,like those of Goa, Karnataka andRajasthan, provide for some penalty.The Rajasthan RTI Act provides for dis-ciplinary action under service ruleswhereas Goa and Karnataka subjectthe erring official to discretionary mon-etary fines apart from disciplinary ac-tion under service rules. We submit thatmere disciplinary action under servicerules would not be effective enoughagainst an erring official as demon-strated repeatedly in the case of otherkinds of routine dereliction of duty bythe government staff. And we suggestthat fines too should not be a fixed sumbut a portion of the erring person’s sal-ary, say half a day’s salary for each dayof delay in giving information beyondthe stipulated limit. This is because afixed amount would lose its value aftersome time as money tends to lose valueover a period of time. Besides, a fixedamount as fine would mean an unevenburden for officials drawing differentlevels of salary.

As far as provisions of penalty for non-compliance are concerned, it would beinteresting to take a look at the SouthAfrican Access to Information Act (s.90)that provides for imprisonment for aperiod not exceeding two years or finefor destroying, damaging, altering, con-cealing, or falsifying a record.

It is again a pity that the FOI Act, 2002does not provide for an independentappeal outside of the government. In

As far as provisionsof penalty fornon-complianceare concerned, itwould be interestingto take a look at theSouth African Accessto InformationAct (s.90) thatprovides forimprisonment for aperiod not exceedingtwo years or fine fordestroying, damaging,altering, concealing,or falsifying a record

61

this respect, it is regressive comparedto some State Acts like those of Goa,Rajasthan and Karnataka which pro-vide for external appeals outside of thesystem – to the administrative tribu-nal. Though the Central Act providesfor two tiers of appeal, even the sec-ond appeal is to the government. It is‘an appeal from Caesar to Caesar’ soto speak. To make things worse, courtshave been barred from intervening.Thankfully, the courts have struckdown such a clause as invalid with re-spect to other Acts and would be mostlikely to do in this case also. But thenwhy have such a clause at all, exceptto dissuade ordinary people from tak-ing judicial recourse when aggrieved bythe working of the Act.

Like Rajasthan and Karnataka, we con-tend that the central legislation shouldhave had an internal first appeal and anexternal second appeal. For more inde-pendence, we suggest that the secondappeal should have been made to theLokpal to be constituted under the pro-posed Lokpal Bill. A look at some in-ternational precedents would be rel-evant in this regard.

The Australian Freedom of InformationAct, 1982 provides for one internal ap-peal and a second appeal to the admin-istrative tribunal. An option to thismechanism under the Australian Act isan appeal to the Ombudsman (Lokepalin the Indian context). The CanadianAct provides for the Information Com-missioner, who is independent of thegovernment, for receiving complaints,conducting investigations, and issuingrecommendations.

Suo Moto or Proactive InformationSharing

It is heartening to see that the FOI Act,2002 provides for suo moto publicationof certain information in Chapter IIcalled Freedom of Information andObligations of Public Authorities. Agovernment sharing informationproactively without being asked for it isa true indication of a democratic andtransparent society. It marks a paradigmshift from the culture of secrecy to oneof transparency. This proactive role ofthe State is of special significance to asociety like ours, where due to social andeducational reasons, many people arenot able to exercise a right provided tothem, which leads to the right existingon paper alone.

But there are two improvements thatwould make the Central Act better. TheCentral Act is silent on the manner ofpublication of the information. Unlessthe publication is understandable andcommunicable, the entire purpose islost. The Madhya Pradesh Right to In-formation Bill, passed by the Assem-bly, but not assented to by the Presi-dent, provided for suo moto publica-tion of information by ‘electronic orprinted media or by beat of drum orany other suitable method’ (s. 3(2)).Again as the Supreme Court said inanother context, one of the languagesof publication must be the regional lan-guage of the State (State of Orissa v.Sridhar Kumar Malik, AIR 1985 SC1411). Secondly, the Central Act shouldhave provided a more extensive illus-trative, not exhaustive, list of itemsexpected to be published suo moto. Also,


A governmentsharing informationproactively withoutbeing asked for it is atrue indication of ademocratic andtransparent society. Itmarks a paradigmshift from the cultureof secrecy to one oftransparency


as far as the life or liberty of a personare concerned, the Act should have in-corporated the Supreme Court guide-lines given in D.K. Basu v. State ofWest Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 608.

In addition, the time frame for provid-ing any information required by the FOIAct, 2002 is 30 days and gets unduly de-layed in case of information related to athird party. The third party delay couldhave been avoided. And with respect tolife and liberty of a citizen, the time limitfor providing information should havebeen 24 hours and not 48 hours, in con-sonance with the spirit of Article 22 ofthe Constitution and various judgementsof the Supreme Court.

What Should a Strong LawHave?

Based on widespread consultations, astudy of the various State laws, thePress Council-NIRD draft Bill and les-sons from the ground, such as from theMKSS experience, one can make cer-tain suggestions for revising and im-proving the Freedom of InformationAct, 2002 and making it a strongcentral law. This includes a set ofnon-negotiables and incorporation ofcertain procedural provisions.

First of all, the preamble should clearlyenunciate that the Act seeks to opera-tionalise the constitutional Right toInformation implicit in the Fundamen-tal Right to Freedom of Speech andExpression. Correspondingly, the no-menclature of the Act should also bechanged from the Freedom of Infor-mation Act to the Right to InformationAct because it would mean recognis-ing that information is an entitlement

and not a favour. The set of non-negotiables that emerges for a strongcentral law is as follows:

l There should be minimal exemptions.The restrictions should not be beyondthose contained in Article 19(2) ofthe Constitution.

l The law should apply to the Privateand Voluntary Sectors too.

l There should be penalties for non-compliance.

l The appeal mechanism should be in-dependent of the government set up.

l The State should suo moto share infor-mation vital to public interest.

l Information relating to the life andliberty of a person should be madeavailable within 24 hours.

Then there are certain procedural detailsthat need attention for the central lawto be more effective and helpful for theordinary citizens:

l Apart from information stored onpaper and electronically, the defini-tion of ‘record’ must include, as inthe Rajasthan Act, materials and sam-ples (for example, of food grains),even though this can be taken careof in the rules even now by a crea-tive interpretation of the definitionof information provided in the cen-tral Act which “means any materialin any form relating to the adminis-tration, operations or decisions of apublic authority.

l A set format for applying for infor-mation must be provided. All possi-ble assistance must be provided to

The nomenclature ofthe Act should alsobe changed from theFreedom ofInformation Act to theRight to InformationAct because it wouldmean recognisingthat information is anentitlement and not afavour

63

the people to apply for specific in-formation.

l All applications should be recordedin a specified register.

l An acknowledgement of the receiptof application/request for informa-tion should be made mandatory.

l Fees for providing information mustnot exceed the cost of reproducing/supplying the record.

l If information is not provided withinthe specified time frame, it must bedeemed to be a refusal and appeal

must be allowed, even if the requestis not explicitly rejected.

l The senior officer of the departmentfrom which the information is de-manded must also be made vicari-ously liable for not providing the re-quested information.

l No information that is available to theMembers of Parliament or State legis-latures should be denied to any citizen.

Many of these can be taken care ofwhile framing the rules of the presentCentral Act.



Conclusion

A Need to Open UpOn April 5 and 6 2001, the NCPRI ob-served the fifth anniversary of theBeawar agitation for the RTI launchedby the MKSS on the same day in 1996.A convention was held to mark thisoccasion. It reviewed the entire move-ment and the government response sofar. The deliberations of the conventionfinally concluded with a Beawar decla-ration that calls for the exercise of RTIby the people not only to access ruraldevelopment entitlements but to accesstheir entitlements in various other keyareas like health, food security, humanrights, gender, education, environmentand pollution, employment, nationalsecurity etc.

The moot question the Beawar Resolu-tion addresses is this: How do the peo-ple exercise their sovereignty over theState and other Institutions on a con-tinuous basis, and not just periodicallywhen they vote? The resolution ob-serves with dismay the veil of secrecythat the vested interests weave to sur-round the Institutions, which a sover-eign people created to serve as instru-ments for their own betterment. In thechallenge to expand the available demo-cratic spaces in every field, the BeawarResolution recognises the significanceof the Right to Information as an im-portant weapon.

The surreal context of hunger amidstplenty - a stock of 50 million tonnes ofgrain in government godowns and star-vation deaths in many parts of the coun-try - lent to the Beawar Resolution a toneof urgency. As the Resolution observes,it is through an insistent inquiry into thedetails of policy and implementationwhich create this irony, that the peoplecan ensure that the State does not abdi-cate its responsibility towards ensuringpeople their basic Right to life which in-cludes their right to food. The Resolu-tion recognised that the Right to lifedemands the democratisation of healthand medical services and the need to ridthem of their elitist and gender bias. Thisalso requires persistent inquiry by thepeople to breach the veil of secrecy sur-rounding the health and medical poli-cies and processes, often controlled bypharmaceutical cartels.

A similar insistent inquiry is also neededinto the politics of displacement - intothe logic of the mega projects that oustpeople from their homes, livelihoodsand cultural habitats, into an explana-tion of the ‘national interest’ that is sup-posed to take precedence over the peo-ple who constitute the nation and intothe mundane details of land acquisitionand rehabilitation that actualise the rob-bery. Along with these, the Beawar reso-lution sought to take the battle for trans-parency to the realms of educational

CHAPTER VI

Conclusion

In the challenge toexpand the availabledemocratic spaces inevery field, the BeawarResolution recognisesthe significance of theRight to Informationas an importantweapon

65

rights, custodial and law enforcementinstitutions of the State like the policeand the jails and the way they affect thecivil liberties of the people, the electoralsystem (for instance transparency inelectoral expenditure, assets and incomeof the candidates and their criminalrecords, if any), judicial appointmentsand functioning, the media (includingthe linkages media groups and individu-als have with politics and business) andalso voluntary agencies and citizens’ as-sociations who claim to serve the peo-ple selflessly.

Interests and processes controlling thelives of the people are becoming moreand more remote from those in decisionmaking seats - be they international re-gimes or transnational businesses andthe political interests that shape them.Recognising this, the Beawar Resolutionsought to take the battle for transpar-ency into all aspects of globalisation andeconomic liberalisation and the interna-tional regimes they have engendered.

As in other countries, the Defence andNuclear Establishments are most re-sistant to the idea of transparency anddemocratic accountability. They feedand grow on disinformation and chau-vinism. The Beawar Resolution rec-ognised that subjecting these estab-lishments to a close public scrutiny iseven more necessary. For the peoplemust ensure that their lives and realsecurity are not hijacked in the nameof security.

As far as a declaration can go, theBeawar resolution makes significantlinkages between the Right to Informa-tion and its collateral applications, i.e.,its application as an enabling right in

realising other entitlements - not onlycivil and political rights, but the wholerange of human rights, including socio,cultural and economic rights. It is yet tobe seen how far into action does theNCPRI takes the process.

Looking Ahead

Drawing from the MKSS experience inRajasthan, the Beawar Resolution madean attempt to look ahead and into addi-tional vistas. These additional vistashave become possible because of thecollateral linkages of the Right to In-formation with other entitlements of thepeople that the MKSS experience firmlyestablished with reference to rural de-velopment and Panchayati Raj. Any at-tempt to look ahead requires summingup of the quintessential MKSS experi-ence and the way it has established thesignificance of the Right to Informationfor realising the whole range of humanrights – economic, social, political, andcultural. This paper has tried to showthat Jan Sunwais related to rural de-velopment expenditure form the coreof the MKSS experience. Let us try tolook at the meaning of this core.

Tool to Identify and FightCorruption

What began as a search for fora for lis-tening to people’s voices, as a MKSSnote said during the first phase of theJan Sunwais, turned out to be a collec-tive exercise of the people’s Right toInformation. Exercised collectively, thisexercise became a sharp tool to identifyin detail the kind of corruption thatpervade rural development work andalso help fight it. The corruption in ru-ral development work that the Jan

Conclusion

The Defence andNuclearEstablishments aremost resistant to theidea of transparencyand democraticaccountability. TheBeawar Resolutionrecognised thatsubjecting theseestablishments to aclose public scrutinyis even morenecessary


Sunwais have identified can be catego-rised into:

l Purchase Overbilling: For instance, payfor (and use) 50 bags of cement, butget a bill for 100 bags and claim it.

l Sale Overbilling: Suppliers give over-priced material or sell inferior or adul-terated material at full price. ThoughPanchayat Accounts might appear al-right in this case, the public is never-theless robbed.

l Fake Muster Rolls: Appropriate wagesof fictitious workers through ghostentries in the muster rolls.

l Under Payment of Wages: Get the work-ers to sign for an amount and pay themless than that.

l Tinkering with Labour-Material Ratio:Often, fake wage payments are en-tered in the Accounts to pay for extramaterial for which there is no bill. Thisis meant to get around the official60:40 ratio between expenditure onwages and material respectively.Though this ‘adjustment’, as it iscalled, may not involve any directmisappropriation of public funds, itis serious to the extent that it depriveslabourers of employment and wages.

l Ghost Works: This is the climacticfraud involving wholesale fabrica-tion of records for non-existentworks. In Janawad, the number ofghost works was 49 out of 141 –more than one third.

Linkage with Other Rights

The Jan Sunwais also established thateach of such acts of corruption robs

the poorest of the poor, especially thewomen and the dalits, who exist on thebrink of survival, of the communityand individual entitlements that wouldincrease their life chances – their em-ployment, wages, housing, water,schools and health centres. The JanSunwais have thus established them-selves as a fight against corruption andsimultaneously a fight for increasingthe life chances of the poor – therebylinking the Right to Information, thefight against corruption, the right to lifeand livelihood and the whole range ofsocio-economic rights that go into themaking of the right to life. As a forumof expression and communication, aJan Sunwai also gets linked to a cul-tural right.

The Jan Sunwais, most dramaticallythe Bori one, also demonstrated howmisappropriation through corruptionin rural development works feeds on,and into, the structural feudal inequi-ties of our society, and how by breach-ing feudal fear and loosening the feu-dal stranglehold the power relation-ships in a village are changed. Thus,the Jan Sunwais and the Right to In-formation Acts show promise towardsrealisation of socio-cultural rights inan innovative way.

Implications for Governance, Devel-opment and Democracy

Operating in the context of rural de-velopment work executed by thePanchayati Raj bodies, an institution ofdemocratic local self-governance, andraising questions of transparency andaccountability in that context, theMKSS Jan Sunwais have important

The Jan Sunwais havethus establishedthemselves as a fightagainst corruption andsimultaneously a fightfor increasing the lifechances of the poor –thereby linking theRight to Information,the fight againstcorruption, the right tolife and livelihood andthe whole range ofsocio-economic rightsthat go into the makingof the right to life

67

implications for the three above men-tioned things. By trying to stop pilfer-age of public funds and pressing for theaccountability of administrative ma-chinery through transparency, the JanSunwais have demonstrated the useful-ness of the Right to Information forgood governance. But they underlineeven more fundamental implicationsfor development and democracy byaiming to:

l Reclaim Development: Through theJan Sunwais, the people assert theirright to the proper use of develop-ment funds, thereby reclaimingthe development they have beenrobbed of.

l Build Democracy: By trying to ensurethat the accountability of the govern-ment machinery flows downwards tothe people, the Jan Sunwais or the col-lective exercise of the Right to Infor-mation becomes a means for the peo-ple to exercise their sovereignty on acontinuous basis and not periodicallyat the time of elections. A Jan Sunwaithus becomes an exercise in “govern-ment for the people, by the people,without the intermediation of politi-cal parties,” as Jean Dreze says in anarticle. In short, in the words of ArunaRoy, “it is a short step towards thetransition from representative democ-racy to participatory democracy”.

By recognising the rights of the indi-vidual, modern democracy, its institu-tions and the constitutions giving itform ensure the free existence of theindividual against manipulation byforces beyond her control. But it is byfinding ways and founding institutions

for collective exercise of the individu-al’s rights, that disadvantaged indi-viduals learn to democratically rene-gotiate, from positions of relativestrength, their status within the schemeof things. The right to vote, for in-stance is an individual’s right, recog-nising the free choice of the individualin the matter. Exercised in a purpose-ful way, it acquires meaning and doeswonders. Collect ively exercisedthrough Jan Sunwais by the poor ofRajasthan, the individual’s Right toInformation acquired hitherto unhigh-lighted meanings and ramifications asmentioned above. Apart from these, italso became a means of people directlysetting the agenda of political dis-course to be picked up later by the po-litical parties and the administration.

Lessons for Democratic Governance

Herein, the MKSS experience of JanSunwais in Rajasthan has obvious les-sons for good, democratic and constitu-tional governance of this country. Theconstitutional establishment has fol-lowed up on one set of lessons by en-acting RTI legislations, however prob-lematic from the citizens’ point of view,and granting a transparency and RTIcomponent in various other entitle-ments of the people and spheres of gov-ernance, for instance Panchayati Raj Actin Kerala and various other governmentdepartments in Madhya Pradesh.

Some other State governments, likeRajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, havefollowed up on a second set of lessonsby institutionalising Social Auditthrough Ward Sabhas or Gram Sabhas.Even the rural development ministry of

Conclusion

By recognising therights of theindividual, moderndemocracy, itsinstitutions and theconstitutions giving itform ensure the freeexistence of theindividual againstmanipulation byforces beyond hercontrol


the central government has made this aprecondition for assistance to the Stategovernments for its schemes. But it isone thing to institutionalise merely for-mally and another to institutionalisesubstantially. As exemplified by theMKSS follow-up through Social AuditWard Sabhas in May 2000 on Bhim JanSunwai, the details of procedure, whichwould give substance to Social Auditthrough Ward Sabhas, still need to beworked into the system. As the MKSSJan Sunwais have shown, it is attentionto details that traps misappropriation,pilferage and corruption.

Overlooking working out the details andprocedural follow up in Social Audit byWard/Gram Sabhas, is in consonancewith the loopholes of RTI laws in a fewstates that it exists in and the recentlyenacted central legislation after so manysessions of Parliament since it was in-troduced. It is reflective of the en-trenched resistance in the system tosharing information with the people,which would mean sharing power withthe people and a democratic controlensuring the straight and narrow ofpublic service.

Faltering on Accountability

Transparency has a twin in accountabil-ity, and even while trying to accommo-date the former in whatever limited andhalting manner, the system has muchneglect to account for so far as the lat-ter is concerned. This is again a fact bestborne out by the MKSS experience ifwe look at the present status of thecorruption cases that sprang up in thecourse of various Jan Sunwais.

In the corruption cases established bythe first Jan Sunwai at Kot Kirana inDec.1994, the police dropped prosecu-tion against the Junior Engineer namedand brought charges in the courtagainst the Gram Sewak concerned. Asper rules, with a criminal case againsthim, his pension was stopped after re-tirement, but curiously begun againafter some time. The case against himis still pending in the court six yearslater. The case against the non-exist-ent company Bhairunath and Sonsthrown up by the 2nd Jan Sunwai atBhim in Dec.1994, and registered bythe anti-corruption bureau of the Stategovernment, has been closed afterlevying and receiving minor taxes. Theowner of that company is now thePanchayat Samiti Pradhan with nocase against her. Another case of thatJan Sunwai which related to KaladehPanchayat did not make any headwaywith the police because the anti-cor-ruption bureau took away the originalpapers related to the case.

The 3rd Jan Sunwai at Vijaypura hadbrought to light irregularities in primeland leased out by the Panchayat. Thesubsequent departmental inquiry invali-dated valid leases to poor eligibleallottees and validated irregular allot-ments to rich people. The case relatingto Anganwadis too was covered up. Inthe 4th Jan Sunwai at Jawaja, the GramSewak had returned the bribes he hadtaken from beneficiaries of Indira Awasscheme. But in the case of false entriesin muster rolls in Asan and Baghmal(the same workers had been shown tohave worked at two different sites the

Transparency has atwin in accountability,and even while tryingto accommodate theformer in whateverlimited and haltingmanner, the systemhas much neglect toaccount for so far asthe latter is concerned

69

same day in these two different vil-lages), the police closed the case on thebasis of an affidavit by the accused andnot by the people supposed to haveworked the two far removed sites. Theaccused said in their affidavit that theworkers had worked the two sites indifferent day and night shifts the sameday due to rains. In the 5th Jan Sunwaiat Thana in April, 1995 it was theMKSS which ensured recoveries to thePanchayat fund in a few cases of mis-appropriation. The cases never went tothe official machinery.

With respect to the second phase of JanSunwais, the record of the official ma-chinery is slightly better at the top leveleven though the pains taken by the sys-tem as a whole to cover up criminal casesis as much. After Sarpanch BasantaDevi of Kukarkheda Panchayat returnedthe embezzled Rs.50,000 following theJan Sunwai in her Panchayat in Jan.1998,the district administration intimidatedher into taking back the money by threat-ening her with an inquiry and prosecu-tion. After the same Jan Sunwai, theanti-corruption bureau filed a First In-formation report against the BararSarpanch Asha Devi. There has been noinformation regarding any headway fornearly four years now. In Surajpura JanSunwai in Jan.1998, two Sarpanches hadreturned Rs.1.47 lakh and Rs.1.18 lakhrespectively. The many cases of corrup-tion that came up in this Jan Sunwai arebeing investigated simultaneously by thePanchayati Raj department, the policeand the anti-corruption bureau. Theseprobes are not complete even nearly fouryears later. Following this Jan Sunwai,though, the Lotiyana Sarpanch Kanku

Devi was suspended and then debarredfrom fighting elections by the PanchayatiRaj department for her misdemeanour.

With regard to the Bori Jan Sunwai inDec.1999, the MKSS effected a deal forrecovery of embezzled funds fromThakur Nain Singh and his factotumsin return for dropping of charges by thepolice against the dismissed DalitSarpanch Pyarchand, the innocent vic-tim of the coterie’s wiles. The corrup-tion cases exposed in Bhim Jan Sunwaiin April 2000, were fed into the SocialAudit Ward Sabhas the next month. Buteven the Ward Sabha resolutions failedto lead these cases anywhere. Thisshows a complete failure of the systemand its new initiative of Social Audit,the reasons for which have been ex-plained above.

The Janawad Jan Sunwai experience hasbeen recounted in great detail. Theex-Sarpanch and his two accomplices inthe official machinery have been theonly persons till now to have gone tojail because of their misdeeds being ex-posed in a Jan Sunwai. The anti-corrup-tion bureau has filed 11 First Informa-tion Reports against them and variousother accused covering the spectrum ofgovernment machinery. A recovery ofRs. 1.37 lakh has also been ordered fromthem by the State government.

This recollection of cases makes it clearthat except in the case of Janawad, itwas only the people’s mechanism of re-dress, wherever it was strong enough tobe effective, that resulted in recoveries.In the case of government machinery,forces working against justice andredress have generally proved stronger.

Conclusion


This brings us to the question of thereplicability of the MKSS experience.

The Question of Replicability

There are two aspects to the questionin this context. One pertains to the peo-ple and the other to the constitutionalestablishment, including the govern-ments, the legislatures and the courts.As we have seen, the people of centralRajasthan have not only replicated theJan Sunwai several times, but have alsomade it evolve. Is the experience repli-cable in space also? The area coveredby the MKSS operations has expandedover the years in central Rajasthan, al-beit slowly. The demand for Jan Sunwaisfrom newer and further off Panchayats,as in the case of Umarwas and Janawad,has come from the residents of thesePanchayat themselves – indicating aslow ripple effect. The slowness of thisripple effect can be explained in termsof the arduous attention to detail andthe difficulty in negotiating official hur-dles, as well as those put up by the localvested interests, that a Jan Sunwai en-tails and the lack of MKSS’ matchingorganisational numbers to deal with this.

The relatively slow organisationalgrowth of MKSS in over a decade ofhectic and intense activity could be dueto its own subjective hesitation in ex-pansion because of its avowed commu-nity centredness for credibility, support,recruitment and resources. This subjec-tive hesitation could also be because ofthe organisation’s sensitivity on thequestion of transparency and integrityof its members, primarily involved as itis with these questions in its publicwork. Already, the MKSS has had some

adverse experiences (with a few work-ers employed in the Mazdoor KisanaKirana shops run by it in Bhim andJawaja and also with the former ThanaSarpanch) in this regard within its ranks.The organisation had to indicate firmlythat such things and persons had nostanding at all with it. Apart from this,hurtling from one long and arduousmass agitation to another and on to na-tional level networking efforts for theNCPRI in the past decade, especiallyduring the past seven years, has left theMKSS with little time to attend to agrassroots organisational strategy. As itis, the organisation consists of only ahandful of people – whole timers andpart timers – who constitute a centralcommittee. It has no branches or unitsin villages, blocks, districts or states. Itreceives no institutional funding as amatter of policy, but only modest indi-vidual donations. The impact and vis-ibility of the MKSS work has been farmore than its size would suggest.

For the impact and visibility to trans-late into rootedness of the MKSS expe-rience elsewhere in the country, what isneeded is an organisation with the senseof purpose and tenacity of the MKSSto take the exercise forward in a newregion. Such an organisation should alsohave a local support base and macrolevel networking like the MKSS to bearany backlash from vested interests, lo-cal as well as official, that the centralRajasthan experience has indicated.

The work ahead for NCPRI seems cutout – identifying and supporting suchgrassroots organisations across thecountry, formulating and articulatingthe right to information component in

The demand for JanSunwais from newerand further offPanchayats has comefrom the residents ofthese Panchayatthemselves –indicating a slowripple effect

71

various contexts other than rural de-velopment works and helping evolvemodes of the collective exercise ofpeople’s Right to Information like theJan Sunwais in these other contexts. Achallenging task indeed, now that theNCPRI has established itself in thepublic realm by articulating and widelydisseminating the need for a Right toInformation law and helping into be-ing laws in some states by ardent ad-vocacy and contributions to the draft-ing exercise. In short, this is a task ofhelping translate the Beawar Resolu-tion into Action.

The second aspect of replicability per-taining to the constitutional establish-ment, we have seen, still requires muchwork. Government machinery in anoverwhelming number of states in thecountry have not had much experi-ence with the Right to Information

entitlement of the people, and Parlia-ment has only recently passed a law (inDecember 2002). Moreover, as theRajasthan experience shows, the estab-lishment still has to attend to the muchneglected question of accountabilitythat goes hand in hand with transpar-ency, for any meaningful institutionali-sation of the MKSS’ Jan Sunwai experi-ment. The governments should at leastbegin by fixing, in their Right to Infor-mation legislations, responsibility andaccountability of those entrusted withgiving information to people but stall-ing it in practice.

Looking back at the sum total of theexperience with transparency and ac-countability in Rajasthan and this coun-try, we can say there is still a long wayto go. With its pitfalls and roadblocks.And with its triumphs and exhilaration,if taken collectively and in right earnest.

Conclusion

The governmentsshould at least beginby fixing, in their Rightto Informationlegislations,responsibility andaccountability of thoseentrusted with givinginformation to peoplebut stalling it inpractice


Bibliography

Report on Delivery systems of Poverty Alleviation Pro-grammes for the rural poor: A study in Bhim andDevgarh tehsils of Rajsamand District ofRajasthan, Nikhil Dey and Aruna Roy, 1991

Living with Dignity and Social Justice: Rural WorkersRight to Creative Developments, Aruna Roywith Nikhil Dey and Shanker Singh, 1992,TOI Fellowship

Bringing Justice to the People, Bunker Roy, IndianExpress, February, 1995

Mode of Public Hearings, Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey,Shanker Singh, Kavita Srivastava, Seminar431, July 1995,

Workshop on the Right to Information: A preliminary Setof Readings, Lal Bahadur Shastri National Acad-emy of Adminstration, Mussoorie, 1995

Fundamental Right to Information, Rajasthan Villag-ers lay down the rules for their officers, BunkerRoy, The Asian Age, 11 May, 1996

40 Days Dharna For Right to Information, KavitaSrivastava, New Age Reality, June, 30/ July6, 1996

Statement of the National Campaign for People’s RightInformation, August, 1996

The Right to Know, The Right to Live, MKSS, July,1996

Jaananaa, Jeene’ ke’ liye’, Prabhash Joshi, Jansatta,May, 26, 1996

Building People’s Fora: Public Hearings in Rajasthan,Project Report ( 1994-96) Kavita Srivastava,BGVS & CAPART

Survival And Right to Information (Gulam Rasoolthird memorial lecture) - Aruna Roy, 1996,MKSS

Right to Information, Ajit Bhattacharjee, TheHindustan Times, August 10, 1996

Demanding accountability: Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey,Shanker Singh, India 1996’, Seminar 449,January 1997

Tilonia proves a model in Social Work, The Hindu,July, 15, 1997

Unknown faces Determined Minds, Soma Basu, TheHindu, July, 27, 1997

Fight to the Finish, SB, The Hindu, July, 27, 1997

Right to Information Bill, 1997( Press Council-NIRD bill),National Workshop on Right to Information,September 3-4, 1997, NIRD, Hyderabad

Transparency in the Voluntary Sector- A First Step,Bunker Roy, Economic and Political Weekly,November 29, 1997

Information is Power, Neelabh Mishra, July 28, 1997,Newstime

Bapu Kuti, ( DevDoongri, life along the black tarredroad) , Rajni Bakshi, Penguin Books, 1998

Speak Up We’re Listening, Neelabh Mishra,Newstime, January 13, 1998

Drums of the Jan Sunwai, Ajit Bhattacharjee, TheHindustan Times, July, 1998

For Development and Democracy, Bela Bhatia, JeanDreze, Frontline, March 6, 1998

People Tighten Grip in Panchayats, State FileRajasthan, Newstime, 31 July, 1998

The Non Party Political Process Profile Of A People’sOrganization: MKSS (Rajasthan) – Madhu& Bharat Dogra, 1998

MKSS, Public Hearing: Why and How, MKSS, Janu-ary, 1998

Right to Information in South Asia, A ConferenceReport, Common Wealth Human RightsInitiative, 1999

Bibliography

73

Beyond Information: Breaching the Wall of State Inaction:MKSS, Dastak, ( PUCL bulletin), April 1999

Rajasthan’s Battle to Know, Rajesh Sinha, The In-dian Express, December, 17, 1999

Chronology of events relating to RTI (1994 to 1999),Kavita Srivastava, MKSS, 1999

Memorandum from MKSS and NCPRI, submitted toRTI Committee (GOR), April 12, MKSS, 1999.

The Movement For The Right To Information In India,Harsh Mander, National Centre for Advo-cacy Studies, Pune, 1999

The RTI and Corruption Movement in Maharashtra,Neelabh Mishra, Transparency, 1999

The URMUL Network Meet on Advocacy, Transpar-ency and RTI, Transparency, February, 1999,Press Institute of India, Delhi

Comparative table of State and International laws onRTI: CHRI, N.Delhi, 2000

Information, Democracy And Ethics, (12th Shri. B.V.Narayana Reddy Memorial Lecture) ArunaRoy, Bangalore, Feb 1,2000

Rural Realities in Rajasthan, Neelabh Mishra,Frontline, March 4-17, 2000

The Right to Know-Making Government Accountableto the People, Aruna Roy, September, 2000,Magsaysay Foundation, Manila

Accounts And Accountability : Theoretical Implicationof Right To Information Movement In India,Rob Jenkins & Anne Marie Goetz, 2000

Budget as if People Mattered, Democratising MacroEconomics Policies, Nilufer Calatay et al, May,2000, UNDP/SEPED Conference papers

Redefining Gurus, The Hindu, Aruna Roy, 2000

For the Greater Common Good, Neelabh Mishra, TheWeek, July 30 2000

Beawar Statement (Draft): Deepening DemocracyThrough the Right to Information, 6th April,2001, MKSS , 2001

From Information to Accountability - Reclaiming Democ-racy – Aruna Roy & Nikhil Dey, MKSS, 2001

Chasing A Right, 15 April, 2001, Frontline ArunaRoy & Nikhil Dey

Calendar of Events, relating to the implementation ofthe Panchayati Raj Rules and the mockery of thespirit of the Right to Information law – Rajasthan2000: Information about the application and at-tempts made to get information from PanchayatJanawad, Kumbalgarh, Rajsamand, Rajasthan2001, MKSS, Rajasthan, 2001

Janawad Jan Sunwai, 3rd April, 2001 – An Overview,MKSS, Rajasthan, 2001

Details of Expenditure and Development of the past6 years of Development Expenditure in JanawadGram Panchayat(1994-2000), MKSS, 2002.

The Right to Information Discourse in India, NeelabhMisra, Hindustan Times, Jaipur, October27, 2001

MKSS pamphlet: MKSS and The People’s Right toInformation, MKSS, 2001

Demand transparency, assert sovereignty and your rightto live, National Campaign for People’s Rightto Information pamphlet, hosts Chomsky:Nov. 5, 2001.

Critique of State Government initiated Social AuditCampaign and Public Hearings, MKSS, March,2002

Support of Vigilance Systems in Government to citi-zens’ effort to fight corruption. – N. Vittal, CVC,January, 2002

Right to know: Right to decide (The collaborative impactof public hearing), March, 2002, MKSS, India

A background note for the workshop on: Institutionalis-ing social audit and public vigilance, MKSS, HCMRIPA, Jaipur 2002

Enforcing transparency and accountability in PanchayatRaj institutions: Review of Government-initiatedJan Sunwais (public hearings) in high spendingPanchayats of every Panchayat Samiti – March11, 2002, MKSS, HCM RIPA, Jaipur

The Right to Information, Vidura, Press Institute ofIndia, September, 2002

The Right to Information Act, Neelabh Mishra, TheTimes of India, December 31, 2002

A Battle half Won, Combat Law, (Right to Infor-mation), Neelabh Mishra, Vol 1 Issue, 6,February, 2003


Right to Information Laws

1. The Freedom Of Information Act, 20022. The Rajasthan RTI Act, 20003. The Goa RTI Act, 19974. The Karnataka RTI Act, 20005. The Tamil Nadu RTI Rules, 19976. Maharashtra RTI Act, 20007. Delhi RTI Act, 20018. Constitution of Nepal9. Constitution of South Africa

10. Access to Information Act, Canada11. Freedom of Information Act, Australia12. Access to Information Act, South Africa13. Freedom of Information as an Internation-

ally Protected Human Right, Toby Mendel,Head of Law Programme, ARTICLE 19

14. SP Gupta vs. Union of India, 1981 Supp.SCC 87.

"people's right to information movement: lessons from ...€¦ · discussion paper series...

Documents