Right to Information: A Tool for Combating Corruption in India

IntroductionThe cliche is not quite right: information by itself is not power. But information is a vital first step in the exercise of economic and political power. Opening up channels of information brings about changes about who can do what. The last few decades have witnessed increased awareness among citizens from all parts of the world demanding more information and an end to secretive decision making. As a result, laws regarding public access to information pertaining to government services have been adopted by United Kingdom, Japan, India, South Africa, Mexico and a host of other countries (Florini, 2007). The proponents of greater disclosure argue that transparency is not only a tool for cleaning up governments but also a key component of public policy effectiveness and efficiency. In an environment riddled with intrigue, secrecy and corruption, the RTI Act, 2005 was passed by the Indian Parliament to bring transparency. The next section throws light on the corruption that has plagued the Indian administrative system. Further, history and struggle leading to the enactment of the RTI Act in India is briefly discussed. It throws light on the uniqueness of the Indian struggle to help the reader understand how RTI as an instrument is developed and being used by the Indian masses.Indian Public SectorThe Indian public sector remains the biggest employer in the country. The recent Economic Survey (2008-09) undertaken by the Ministry of Finance reported that 18.188 million people were employed in the organised Indian public sector. In terms of economic contribution, public sector accounted for about 35% of industrial value added in India (Ahluwalia, 2002). Economic reforms were introduced late in India, embarking on the process in earnest only in 1991 in the wake of an exceptionally severe balance of payments crisis (Ahluwalia, 2002; Arun and Nixon, 2000). In developing economies privatisation unfolds rather slowly, and in Indian context it was slower than the pace originally visualized (World Bank, 1996). The problem was compounded as disinvestment program was seen as threatening the material interests of politicians, civil servants, and organised labour (Arun and Nixon, 2000). World Bank (1995) ranked India among the countries that have been most unsuccessful in reforming their state enterprises. Therefore Arun and Nixon (2000) concluded that India provided a checklist of what should not be done with respect to disinvestment/privatisation.India's public sector can be divided into three categories: (i) governmental bureaucracy- central, state and local (ii) departmental enterprises, such as postal services, railways and parts of the telecommunication system and (iii) non-departmental enterprises incorporated as independent companies, and includes firms in manufacturing as well as services (Mohan, 2005). This study focuses on the first category- governmental bureaucracy. The following section discusses the features of the Indian bureaucracy with a prime focus on the corruption that has plagued the bureaucratic apparatus in India.Indian Administrative/Bureaucratic SystemIndia inherited and continued an administrative system that was designed by the British government in sync with the colonial interests. According to Barthwal (2003) British ruled India for centuries and created a nature of state that was law and order state or a police state. The administrative system created by the British in India was regulatory, rigid, and at times oppressive. It was basically meant to maintain law and order and collect revenues. Therefore, the administration in such a system could hardly be expected to have links with the people and be responsive to their needs and preferences (Barthwal, 2003; Perumal, 2003). Absolute authority in the hands of bureaucrats paved a way for corrupt practices and decision-making in line with vested interests. No wonder, corruption has become the hallmark of today's Indian administrative culture. …