New Delhi: The Centre has decided to involve RTI activists in formal discussions on the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2013.
A standing committee has, for the first time, asked activists lobbying to bring political parties within the purview of the transparency law to attend its November 6 meeting.
RTI activist Subhash Agarwal, the National Campaign for People’s Right to information and others have been asked to present their opinion to the 20-member committee at the meeting.
"It is standard procedure to call stakeholders to a meeting. What is cause for concern is that the government took so much of time to include activists in the discourse. They should hold a wider range of consultations," said Agarwal.
The committee intends to review the decision of the central information commission (CIC) declaring six parties – Congress, BJP, NCP, CPM, CPI and BSP – as public authorities, hence liable to part information to the public under the transparency law.
The government has come under criticism for trying to amend the law without proper consultation. It was forced to refer the matter to the parliamentary standing committee on personnel, public grievances, law and justice after an uproar in Parliament.
Activists have expressed unhappiness at the way the committee, headed by Shantaram Naik, is functioning.
"The committee hasn’t been transparent at the public consultations it held earlier. It had handpicked people to come and give their opinions and barred them from discussing it outside. The idea was to have public consultations and get a wide range of people involved," said activist Lokesh Batra.
Batra was referring to a public consultation held at a five-star hotel last month in Mumbai. Only four persons were invited — two activists and two from the general public who were brought in by the activists themselves.
"The committee held a public consultation by invitation," said Mumbai-based RTI activist, Bhaskar Prabhu, one of the activists called for that meeting. Other such meetings were held in Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu.
Prabhu was also told not to reveal what he suggested to the committee.
"When the committee goes to cities for public meetings, they should make sure that they publicise the matter enough to get more people involved. It is a public welfare act, a transparency law. Why should it be shrouded in mystery?" asked Prabhu.
"The idea of referring the bill to a standing committee was to take the discourse out to the public. In fact, I made this very clear during the meeting which I attended."