It is indeed “Sweet September” for an enthusiast of Right to Information. The struggle and sustained advocacy paid off when the government decided to refer the RTI amendment bill to the parliamentary standing committee on personal, public grievances, law and justice.

The panel, headed by Rajya Sabha MP Shantaram Naik, invited suggestions/views from the individuals/organisations on the bill. This significant turnabout from August 12 when the RTI (Amendment) Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha to keep the political parties out of the purview of the RTI Act is a result of a long and sustained fight.

This debate was sparked fire on June 3 when the central information commission (CIC) in a full-bench decision passed an order directing the six national political parties to appoint officials to answer RTI queries as they were interpreted to be under the purview of RTI. This decision was a major blow to the political class who ironically were credited for introducing this progressive law in the country. Of course, it was applauded by civil society activists as this was an opportunity to “clean up the political system” and make political parties accountable. The parties could have chosen to counter the verdict with an appeal in a court, they chose to unite and amend the law itself – a route not open to the ordinary citizen. 

For transparency activists, the only way to stop the parties from amending the law was to create public opinion against the move. They began to encourage more and more people to speak out against this unfair use of political powers to wriggle out of transparency. Each activist organization, depending on its base and network, took multiple actions to reach out to people and point out what was wrong in amending the law. Civil society expressed the fear that the opportunity would be used by the political parties to roll back much more than just exclusion of parties. Even though elections are not far away and everyone acknowledges that the Right to Information is a particularly valuable law whose broad sweep the public will not easily allow to be taken away from them, it was recognised that politicians would strain every sinew to oppose anything that comes between them and the power to gather and use finances anyway they want. Without this, elections become difficult and reelection uncertain.

When the politicians across parties decided to go for an amendment it seemed that all was lost. But outside parliament, civil society leapt into feverish action. It was not all smooth sailing for those who were opposing the amendment. It took time, debates and nuanced arguments. Some felt that the CIC judgment was a case of overreach while others were of the opinion that the right route was appeal and not amendment. Some even felt that the judgment could be parsed so as to make space for only financial dealings of the political parties to come under the RTI Act while the rest of their affairs could be left out. After some debates and discussions, all agreed that there should be no amendment at all.

When the unanimous agreement was established civil society activists became more organised and took multiple advocacy initiatives to stop the amendment. It was strategised to include more and more people in their support as well as to create a public opinion on the subject being raised. The news was initially picked by traditional media but with the extreme positions that were held by the politicians and civil society it led to further debates and discussions. The activists went to panel discussions and wrote well researched opinion pieces to reach out to people. They resorted to calling, texting, emailing and tweeting to MPs to express their discontent with the amendment.

The prominent civil society groups such as National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI), Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), Satark Nagrik Sangathan and RTI-Call-a-Thon volunteers took the lead in initiating multiple advocacy methods to stall the amendment. One significant move was the online petition addressed to Lok Sabha speaker Meira Kumar demanding specifically to send the amendment bill to a standing committee. The campaign was a huge success as it got signatures of 20,733 within a fortnight from different strata of people from across the country and abroad. Letters and several petitions were also written to the president, prime minister as well as to the UPA chairperson.

Social media as an instrument was used dynamically by organisations, individuals, activists and the anti-amendment group of politicians. It worked to mobilise the mass and create public awareness. The two Facebook pages which created maximum noise and awareness were the “National Campaign for People’s Right to Information” and “Defend the RTI Act against Amendments”. Their posts went viral across the board. They were picked up, endorsed and the objective of spreading the word and creating public opinion through social media were quite successful.

At first nothing seemed to dent the ‘political collective’ but slowly allies appeared from within their ranks. Occasional tweets, speeches, announcements and individual outreach to civil society signaled that there were those within parties who though inhibited by their membership and the fear of whips were opposed to amendments and sensitive to the importance of bringing political parties within the RTI Act as a means of curbing corruption and correcting the runaway financial excess witnessed during elections with unaccounted money. The leading activists lobbied and gave technical details to the MPs and briefed them about the nuanced arguments to stall the amendment.

Finally on September 5, V Narayansamy, minister of state for personnel, announced: “The government has decided to refer the RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2013, to the standing committee as it needs elaborate study.” This was a huge relief for many activists who by principle believed that Right to Information is the mother of all human rights. The multiple advocacy tools that were adopted around the cause stood out the test of time to defend the RTI Act against amendments yet it is just another milestone for RTI activists.

A small battle is won. Its significance lies in demonstrating what can be done by quick communications; by making allies outside the fold with disparate interests; that political parties are not monoliths; that there is a stirring among younger MPs not to be slavishly in step with their party positions however wrong these may be; that public opinion can matter even though most of India’s public still have no voice that can reach parliament in civil discourse.

Nevertheless, referring the bill to the standing committee means the big war is yet to be won. To keep the fight on and further strengthen the demand to keep the political parties within the ambit of the RTI Act the interested individuals and organizations should come forward with their suggestions, recommendation and opinions before the standing committee before it is too late. Truly is it said that "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”.