Thursday, July 7, 2011

Re: [HumJanenge] CCS to discuss including Indian Armed Forces under Lokpal etc

Section 24 of the RTI Act that grants exemption to certain security
and intelligence agencies is totally unwarranted and needs to be
struck down. Surprisingly, the defence forces, which are the primary
agencies that provide security to the nation, are not in the list of
exempted organisations. According to Section 8 (1) of the Act, any
government department can refuse information that is likely affect
national security. Then what is the justification for a separate list
for the intelligence and security agencies? This provision has been
inserted at the behest of the intelligence agencies to keep their
misdeeds hidden from public view and to reiterate their self
proclaimed status as 'secret' agencies. The law makers who lent their
voice to the Act did not realise its far reaching the implications.
The RTI Act enables citizens to get any information that serves a
public purpose. The intelligence agencies also have such information,
concerning expenditure, conditions of service, tenures, promotion
prospects and so on, which have no intelligence or security value. Why
should this be denied?
Coming to the specific case of inclusion of investigation agencies
such as the CBI and NIA, it is well known that they often take short
cuts and violate rules. It is only through the RTI Act that persons
falsely implicated can get relief, as happened in the case of
Commander Mukesh Saini and Brigadier Ujjal Dasgupta. They were able
to get bail after spending four years behind bars, only after using
the RTI Act. In several cases that others have filed, it has been
shown that the CBI has not followed the rules. This also applies to
the Special Cell of Delhi Police and other investigation agencies such
as the NIA. They spend large amounts of funds on legal expenses and
monetary rewards to their personnel. Once exempted, such information
will be hidden from public view and scrutiny.
As regards the Armed Forces, they have not been exempted so far, and
there is nothing on record to show that this has had any adverse
effect on their functioning. In any case, they are subject to
parliamentary oversight by a standing committee of Parliament. If the
committee can ask them questions, concerning their budget,
acquisitions, human rights violations, incentives to women etc, which
do not disclose operational plans, why should a citizen not have the
same privilege? Every tax payer has a right to know whether an agency
being maintained from his funds is doing its job or not.
An important point concerns welfare. Today, a soldier, sailor or
airman can ask for information concerning his salary, accommodation,
promotion prospects etc. If the Armed Forces are exempted, this
information will no longer be available. This will lead to loss of
morale of the soldier, which is most undesirable.
On this ground itself, Section 24 needs to be scrapped. The privilege
available to other government servants is denied to personnel serving
in the BSF, ITBP, CISF Assam Rifles. RAW, IB etc. If this is not grave
injustice and discrimination, then what is?
I feel that the armed forces should not be exempted from the RTI Act
or jurisdiction of the Lokpal. The applicability of the Army Navy and
Air Force Acts need a separate discussion.
Maj Gen VK Singh (Retd)


On 6 July 2011 23:08, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> The CCS (Cabinet Committee on Security) and/or EGOM is to examine whether
> the Armed Forces should be brought under ambit of LokPal Act or taken out of
> RTI Act u/s 24 like the CBI (there is now a strong case considering Military
> Intelligence functions of the 3 service wings). This is in the context of a
> note to the PM circulated by some Chief Justices which inter-alia refers to
> the inconsistency of applicability of RTI Act to our Armed Forces.whilst
> keeping armed forces out of Lokpal scrutiny.
> The need for amending / harmonising the various Armed Forces Acts.(Army Act,
> Navy Act etc) is also likely to be discussed.
>
> Views of our members with services background is requested.
>

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.