Q 48- The official secrecy statute directly contradicts the 2005 Right to Information Act. Examine the statement in light of the policies introduced during the Covid 19 pandemic. (250 words)
Paper & Topic: GS II à Government policies and interventions for
development in various sectors
Model Answer:
Introduction:
The details of pandemic response, vaccination cost, and expert committee meeting schedules are not available to the public.
The workings of PM-CARES have been shrouded in secrecy, making it difficult to hold the government accountable.
The ethos of Right to Information is undermined by bureaucratic concealment.
Body:
According to the Official Secrets Act of 1923, any government official can mark a document as confidential in order to prevent it from being published.
In the event of a dispute between the two laws, the RTI Act's provisions take precedence over the OSA's
Section 22 of the RTI Act provides that its requirements would take effect despite anything in the OSA that contradicts them.
However, this has not been the case in the case of pandemic data. Official secrecy is at odds with RTI.
Government criticism:
The government's responses to RTI queries filed over the past year have been characterised by blatant denials.
Opacity serves as a cover for large-scale over-centralisation and misgovernance in COVID-19-related topics, from vaccine manufacture and pricing decisions to last year's lockdown planning and the establishment and running of the ten-thousand-crore-plus PM CARES fund.
Vaccine-related details: Bharat Biotech hasn't released any peer-reviewed interim efficacy assessments from Phase 3 clinical studies until now.
The DCGI has denied RTI requests regarding its decision to give Covaxin and Covishield emergency approval, saying that information about efficacy and safety is considered privileged commercial information.
The ICMR will receive a 5% royalty on the vaccination.
Only because the Supreme Court heard a suo motu PIL on the pandemic has these and other bits of information become public.
The government's summary dismissals not only violate citizens' fundamental right to information, but also force RTI petitions into a two-year appeals procedure.
Citizens must seek Information Commissions and High Courts to obtain basic information, wasting time and money.
Effects on governance and the general welfare:
Effective planning and administration cannot take place in the dark, and experts blame incompetence and a lack of preparation as much as the virus for the high death toll and misery.
Official secrecy is jeopardising scientists', public health experts', and policy experts' ability to provide timely input and recommendations to the government.
The information blackhole is so bad that over 900 scientists have petitioned the Prime Minister for access to data and information.
However, not much has changed.
Because the government receives a large number of charity gifts, it must be accountable to the public for how these funds are spent.
A lack of medicines, hospital beds, vaccines, and oxygen raises questions about the government's preparedness to confront the pandemic.
Conclusion:
In accordance with Sections 4 and 7 of the RTI Act, which deal with proactive and urgent disclosures with life and liberty implications, the Supreme Court should require the government to suo motu reveal material connected to COVID-19 policies.
Amartya Sen stated in a paper about famines in colonial India that mass hunger and death do not occur if information flows freely.