The Right to Information Act, 2005 is supposed to bring transparency and accountability in a system that had reeked with opacity and people were left in the dark on how public funds were used. Before the RTI Act was passed, those running governments got away with large scale corruption, nepotism and all manner of wrongdoing. Officials refused to divulge information to the media and more so to members of the public and hid behind the Official Secrets Act. The attitude of civil servants before the RTI was “Its none of anyone’s business how departments spent their budgets as there was no mechanism to check on whether public money was spent on the public good or if the money was diverted to private pockets.
After the RTI Act, several scams have surfaced when members of the public took it upon themselves to ask questions from respective departments when they sensed that there was wrongdoing in those departments. Very often of course the answers given, especially by Departments such as State Public Works Department (PWD) and Public Health Engineering Department (PHED) are intentionally made technical so that the public that gets the information cannot decipher the answers and will have to seek the help of technicians. Despite the RTI Act there is a general air of resistance to provide the public with information and we can only assume that this is because there is wrongdoing that needs to be hidden from the public eye. Transparency is one of the basic principles of good governance and citizens should be enabled to inspect public works and to question those in charge of construction of public utilities. In the Jal Jeevan Mission it has been found that implementation leaves a lot to be desired and people are yet to receive piped water into their homes as promised by the Prime Minister. So too several other road projects and public utilities are either incomplete or badly executed even while contractors have been paid and completion certificates issued by engineers. In a situation where most politicians are also contractors executing government projects there is a direct conflict of interest but this does not seem to matter in Meghalaya.
The RTI Act also speaks of voluntary disclosure by the government wherever public funds are involved but this is a far cry in Meghalaya. It is also a matter of grave public concern that retired police officials and bureaucrats are appointed as State Information Commissioners and LokAyukta despite it being made clear that the Lokayukta is usually a former High Court judge or Chief Justice of the High Court.The Lokayukta is an anti-corruption authority appointed to safeguard the interests of the public, and not of the government. Most importantly, it investigates allegations of corruption and mal-administration against public servants and is tasked with speedy redressal of public grievances. This has made both the offices of State Information Commissioner and Lokayukta infructuous.
