British colonial regime in India enacted restrictive legislation, like the Official Secrets Act 1923, to suit the agenda of consolidating its hold on the country and its resources. The political leadership that assumed power at Independence and ruled the country thereafter made no move to repeal such laws. They continued to be on the statutes and were used as the instruments for furthering vested political and economic interests. Our Constitution makes high promise in its Preamble but has, surprisingly, serious deficiencies when it comes to the operative provisions. The initial document did not provide for democratic governance at the grassroots level. The Directive Principles of State Policy speak of the State taking steps to organise " village panchayats " to function as "units of self-governance". After more than four decades, the 73rd and 74th Amendments came as a half-hearted attempt as the form of self-government it outlined is short of being fully democratic and self-sustaining. The successive governments could ignore the people's right of self-governance with impunity because the Constitution provides that the Directive Principles "shall not be enforced by any court". Thus, they remain piously pretentious homilies. Similarly, the "right to information" finds no place among the Fundamental Rights. It is a significant fundamental right as it empowers citizens and people's groups vis-à-vis the state.

The fundamental rights are of essence in a democratic polity. Their range shapes not only its texture but also determines the scale of its liberal content. Friedrich Naumann, a Liberal statesman of Germany's Weimer Republic era had said that "an individual able to articulate and defend his rights and involved in political process is the only alternative to the domination by state and social institutions". From this perspective, the right of access to information is a critical element in the people's capacity-building for informed involvement in governance. Because of the absence of "right to information" as a Fundamental Right, our Constitution admittedly falls short of providing a truly democratic and liberal polity.

The attributes of an open society are transparency in governance and government's accountability to the people. The free flow of information and the citizen's ability to freely access information from all sources are the hallmarks of people's power. Unfortunately, even after five decades, we have made little effort to introduce legal and systemic changes that would conduce to more transparency and accountability. The closed colonial mindset still predominates the government's thinking at all levels. While political leadership harps that "people are sovereign", yet every turn of the phrase of archaic laws and every trick of administrative trade, including overarching plea of "national security", are used to silence the demand for information. On occasions, governments at various levels spread misinformation to obfuscate the issues and escape accountability. The coercive methods are commonly used or their use is threatened to discourage the persistent information seeker. The other aspect is the curbing of people's initiative. The colonial regime cultivated a paternalistic "Sarkar Mai Baap" approach that fostered dependency syndrome in the people. After Independence, the vested political interests continued with it in the name of evolving a socialistic pattern of society. Such practices have smothered the people's initiative and made them indifferent to their rights. They have also made a mockery of our claim to be a truly democratic polity.

With the grassroots Panchayati Raj institutions now in place in most of the States, a wind of change is gathering strength. There is growing awareness that the lack of information impinges on an individual's quality of life. The people's movements to secure the right to information are gaining ground. By far the most successful campaign at the grassroots level is from Rajasthan. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) galvanised the rural people and showed them the way for advocacy of their rights. Out of the local struggle for securing minimum wages for the people engaged in rural development works came the realisation that right to information is inextricably linked to the right to survival. It was also realised that the process of social audit of government managed development projects can make the administrative machinery more transparent and accountable, and the key to its becoming an effective instrument of change is the ability to freely access relevant information from government sources.

The MKSS adopted the modality of "public hearing". In these open village meetings, the information on development projects, obtained through various means, were presented. Their extent and the manner of their presentation transformed the otherwise dry government statistics into meaningful information by comparing the record with the ground reality. The government officials felt threatened by such exposure and became hostile. In the wake of a potentially tense stand-off between them and the people, Rajasthan Government set up a committee in 1999 to draft a "Right to Information" Bill, which the Rajasthan Assembly passed into law in May 2000. Though a step forward, the law has many deficiencies as it side-steps some of the major issues raised during the public campaign. Maharashtra and Goa Assemblies have also passed similar laws. Some other States are also contemplating such a legislation.

In 1997, the United Front Government at the Centre made public the "Freedom of Information" Bill drafted by a working group chaired by Mr H D Shourie, the noted social activist. It was criticised on many grounds. The same year, the Press Council of India and the National Institute of Rural Development finalised another Bill, which is considered an improvement on the Shourie Bill. The Ahmedabad-based Consumer Education & Research Council has also come out with a comprehensive draft Bill. It is, more or less, similar to the South African law. The NDA Government is considering a "Freedom of Information" Bill. It was drafted behind closed doors and, unlike the Shourie Bill, yet to be made public. In sharp contrast, the Karnataka Government adopted a transparent process of drafting its Bill. The State Government invited public comments and held consultations with civil society at every stage.

The right to information has two critical aspects. These are the exemptions from disclosure and the penal provisions for deliberate non-disclosure. On both these counts, the Central Government's draft Bill has grave deficiencies. For instance, its umbrella phrase "prejudicially affect public safety and order" can be used with ease and impunity to deny disclosure of any and every information. Its other shortcoming is depriving a citizen's right to legal recourse by excluding the court's jurisdiction in seeking redress. The government's credibility is at the lowest ebb. Increasingly, the people look upon the Judiciary as the court of last resort. Its exclusion dilutes what is basically a fundamental right. The Bill also does not provide for deterrent action against intransigence and deliberate non-disclosure by government officials.

The Bill is yet to be presented to Parliament. If Parliament passes it in its deficient form, it may be a step forward but also two steps backwards. Therefore, the moment is opportune for the enlightened and liberal elements of civil society to rally round and vigorously campaign for a wide-ranging public discussion on the draft Bill. The BJP-led Government would do well if it follows the Karnataka approach and holds consultation with every segment of the society.