With the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2009 lying dormant in Bangladesh, advocates are now hopeful that the new government will take steps to activate it. The law has been inactive due to the absence of information commissioners since the interim government took over in August 2024 after a mass uprising, raising concerns of intentional inaction to avoid public scrutiny. While dealing with immediate priorities, the current government has deferred the consideration of the hasty RTI (Amendment) Ordinance, among other matters left unresolved by the interim administration. However, the pressing need to appoint information commissioners and revive the law’s functionality cannot be delayed any further.
Reviving the RTI Act is crucial not only for its intrinsic value but also for assisting the government in fulfilling its obligations, where citizen participation through the RTI Act is vital.
While awaiting the revival of the law, it is advisable for citizens to explore the broader scope of the RTI Act beyond its conventional applications. Drawing insights from neighboring countries like India and Sri Lanka, which initiated their RTI journey around the same time as Bangladesh, can offer valuable lessons. Notably, recent cases from India and Sri Lanka present relevant experiences worth considering for Bangladesh.
Enthusiasts of the RTI Act in Bangladesh, along with the prospective information commissioners, should refer to decisions made by the Right to Information Commission of Sri Lanka and the pivotal role of the Court of Appeal in enhancing RTI jurisprudence. These instances underscore the significance of an impartial dispute resolution mechanism in promoting the effective implementation of the RTI law.
One case from Sri Lanka involves former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who fled the country during a popular uprising in 2022. A citizen sought information regarding his departure on a naval vessel and the utilization of public funds for this purpose, which was initially declined citing national security concerns.
The RTI Commission in Sri Lanka, supported by the Court of Appeal, rejected the blanket denial of information. While acknowledging the need to withhold sensitive operational details, they emphasized the disclosure of financial information related to public resource usage. This case highlighted that “national security” cannot be a blanket justification for withholding information when public funds and executive accountability are at stake, emphasizing transparency even during crises.
Comparatively, public engagement with such sensitive RTI issues in Bangladesh remains limited. Without active involvement from civil society, equipped with knowledge and a sense of responsibility, the full potential of the RTI framework may remain untapped.
Another case from Sri Lanka, M.J.K. Dissanayake v. Asia Broadcasting Corporation (Pvt) Ltd, exemplifies the expansive reach of the RTI Act. The Court of Appeal upheld a ruling by the Information Commission that a private television broadcaster, Hiru TV, could be considered a “public authority” under the RTI Act. The case stemmed from an RTI request seeking information on the verification process of a contentious news report. Rejecting the broadcaster’s claim of being purely private, the Information Commission and the Court of Appeal clarified that entities conducting public functions under a state license, such as utilizing public frequencies, are subject to RTI obligations while safeguarding journalistic sources.
This ruling is significant as it extends the RTI’s applicability to private entities exerting public influence. In Bangladesh, concerns persist about the exclusion of private entities from the law’s purview, despite avenues such as recourse to the High Court.
An illustrative case from India pertains to the disclosure of a committee report. In Sajimon Parayil v. State of Kerala and Others, a citizen requested access to the Justice Hema Committee Report on gender discrimination in the Malayalam film industry, submitted in 2019 but withheld by the government citing sensitivity.
The Kerala State Information Commission ordered partial disclosure with redactions, a decision upheld by the Kerala High Court on August 13, 2024. The court emphasized that the RTI Act permits partial disclosure rather than blanket refusals due to sensitivity, advocating for redaction to address privacy concerns and prioritize public interest. In Bangladesh, several committee reports remain inaccessible to the public as citizens seldom utilize the RTI Act to request them.
The message is clear: the RTI Act in its current state holds vast, largely unexplored potential. Unleashing its full benefits hinges on both governmental commitment and an informed, engaged citizenry willing to leverage it. The onus is on citizens to grasp the law’s nuances, push its boundaries, and reclaim it as
