FORUM (Spotlight Weekly)

Need Of Right To Information Act

By YUBA RAJ PANDEY

Many analysts like to refer the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal 1990 as one of the best constitutions of the world. They say the certain features of this Constitution like the provision of sovereignty vested upon the people and the inclusion of right information as one of the fundamental rights of Nepalese citizens as the strengths of this Constitution. Some other analysts may refer the lack of the provision of interim government during the period of parliamentary election and the lack of adequate provisions to authorize the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) to register files even against people holding the positions of Prime Minister or the Chief Justice if reliable charges of corruption are made and evidences of corruption are seen against them as its weakness. But all of them unanimously agree the provision of right to information as one of the best provisions of this Constitution. This provision is made by article 16 of the Constitution.

According to the article, every citizen has the right to demand and receive information on any mater of public importance if secrecy is not needed on that matter according to law. This provision shows the need of a separate law to define the fields or matters about which secrecy is to be maintained. Although the Supreme Court has tried to clarify on this provision by its decisions made during the course of its hearings on certain cases, the parliament is yet to adopt a separate law to clarify the people's right to information. When I think about the constitutional provision of right to information and try to examine the need of a separate act for the clarification of this provision I often remember the remark made by a famous Thai journalist about the importance of Official Information Act, 2540 (1997) in his country. In an interaction program organized some months ago in Kathmandu, the editor of a famous daily newspaper of Thailand credited the act as one of the six pillars of democracy in Thailand. Election Commission, Ombudsmen, The National Human Rights Commission, Constitutional Court and The National Counter Corruption Commission were mentioned as other pillars by the editor of a English daily. All these five organizations are independent constitutional bodies in Thailand. We don't have a separate constitutional court in Nepal nor our constitution has given constitutional status to the Human Rights Commission.

The functions given to Ombudsmen and The National Counter Corruption Commission in Thailand seemed to have been given to the Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority which appears relatively weaker in its jurisdiction in Nepal. These differences in Thailand and Nepal make the role of right to information more important in Nepal. If the constitutional provisions or their practical application or the roles of constitutional bodies become inadequate in controlling corruption and abuses of authority, people themselves can walk ahead to remove such inadequacies. The role of people to remove such adequacies can be effective only if people have the access to all information having public importance. Therefore, we have to make people more and more able to get more and more information on any matter of public importance so as to make people holding important positions more and more accountable. Adoption of a separate Right to Information Act can no doubt be historical achievement in this direction. This need seems to have been recognized both by the government and non-government sides at present times.

In Nepal it has become more or less a tradition that we generally adopt new laws in a hurry and then start to think about the amendment of that very law even before the process of formal adoption completes. The drafts of proposed bills are not generally made public. Votes by the parliament members in favor or against such bills also are often given on the basis of party whips. That is why the law making procedure in the country has not yet been made democratic and transparent in the real sense. People often know about the provisions of a certain bill only after the adoption of those provisions by the parliament. If the draft of a bill is made public before it is tabled in the parliament, the debate appearing among observers and analysts can be helpful in recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of the draft which will then be helpful in making timely corrections according to the national need.

The exercise of making a draft of a proposed bill public before it is tabled in the parliament should therefore be a general practice of the country if we want to see the laws of nations being able to represent the will of the people in real sense. The country has followed such practice in its effort to formulate the right to information act. But the draft has not been adequately revised by showing due respects to the suggestions given by the different groups of the society. If a certain law is formulated by looking merely to only one side of a society, then the law itself may become impracticable. We should always remember this fact when we try to formulate and adopt a certain law. Right to Information Bill also cannot be the exception of this general rule of nature.

(Mr. Pandey is the Director General of Department of Information)