"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression"

Article 19 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 19 of the Indian Constitution says much the same thing, guaranteeing for all citizens the right to freedom of speech, expression, conscience and religion.

Freedom of speech and expression are basic rights in any democratic society. Democracy is based on the premise that every citizen has the right to express his or her views freely. This is why no restrictions may be placed on public speeches, assemblies where dissident opinions are voiced, group discussions, even street corner meetings.

The same right extends to journalists in democratic societies. It is no more and no less than the right to free speech of the ordinary citizen; the only difference is that journalists have ready access to the vehicles of mass media.

The Supreme Court has held that the right to information is implicit in this right, for freedom of speech and expression is meaningless without a parallel right to information.

In free societies, there is an inevitable conflict between the democratic requirements of openness, and the need to preserve official secrecy. Governments tend to be secretive and regard secrecy as a functional necessity. The press, as conscience keeper and watchdog, is charged with giving citizens the information they need to understand democratic processes and the functioning of government. This leads to a clash of interests, sharpened if the government is the key source of much of the information related to government functioning and decision making.

The Government of India divides documents into two categories: classified and non-classified. Classified documents are further sub divided:

• Top-secret
  
• Secret
  
• Confidential
  
• Personal - not for publication

It goes further than that. Officials are barred from communicating to anyone any information - including unclassified - that might have come into their possession in the course of their official duty unless authorised by general or specific orders. Specific rules to this effect can be found in the Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure and the Central Civil Service Conduct Rules.

The Official Secrets Act of 1923 has rarely been used against the press. However, the very fact of its existence in the Statute Book inhibits the right to information, as does the Government's tendency to appropriate for itself the sole right to determine what constitutes national (public) interest and what does not.

Except for a short period during the Emergency (1975-77) declared by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, when the state muzzled the press and brought in censorship, the vigour and independence of the Indian press has served as a beacon in Asia. The Indian press has played a commendable role as watchdog, exposing corruption and malpractice in high places while at the same time drawing attention to the needs of people all over the country. The Bofors case, the Hawala scandal, and the Fodder scam are illustrations of corruption at high levels exposed by the press. Now the Right to Information movement is creating a fresh opportunity to investigate public grievances of every kind.

The right to information is at the very heart of the journalist's profession. The journalist not only seeks information that might be withheld but also tries to bring information alive so that it makes people sit up and take notice of what's happening.

The Indian media has defended its right to information and freedom of expression on numerous occasions, including its successful protest against the Defamation Bill introduced in 1988. Today it faces new challenges to its freedom.

Veteran Indian editor T.J.S.George has argued that press freedom and professional standards are not objective realities but are relative. In every nation, he says, there will be some acceptable and some unacceptable constraints on the media.

The limits imposed by history and by the need to respect other freedoms are reasonable and therefore acceptable. Those imposed by the growth of monopolies and by vested interests within media are among the undesirable constraints. In between are problems created by perceived national interests where the media tends to identify itself with the political establishment of a country in the name of patriotism.

Walking the Tightrope - Press Freedom and Professional Standards in Asia; Asian Media Information & Communication Centre (AMIC),1999

In the rising violence across the country, Indian journalists covering religious, separatist and ethnic conflicts often find themselves caught in a cross-fire of pressure from government and from militant organisations. Several journalists have been killed or injured over the past few years.

Srinagar-based newspapers suspended publication on April 20, 1996, after the government and militant organisations imposed fresh curbs on their freedom to publish opposition statements. While the Hizbul Mujahideen asked the papers not to publish official statements and government advertisements, the government threatened the newspapers with legal action if they carried what the government described as subversive material, interviews with terrorists and militant threats. According to the South Asian Human Rights Documentation Centre (SAHRDC), in 1995, the local papers stopped publication at least six times.

All this isn't something which concerns only the press. Our rights as journalists to free speech or to information are no different from those enjoyed - in theory - by every citizen of India. And it's worth recognising that India is perhaps the only country in the world where the demand for the Right to Information has come from the grassroots.

The decade of the nineties saw social movements raise the demand for the Right to Information in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Goa and other states where people's organisations have sought more openness to reduce administrative corruption. An open information order, they say, would play a part in limiting arbitrary exercise of patronage and power (especially in the administering of government schemes), and would facilitate the implementation of social legislation related, for instance, to minimum wages and gender rights. Put simply, people want greater transparency and accountability of the administration.

To the credit of the Indian press, it has widely reported these movements and has argued that improved access to information would give the people a better understanding of how government works, and how it makes decisions. This would, in turn, enhance their participation in governance.

Several state governments have acceded to these demands and opened their records to public scrutiny. At a national level, a comprehensive Bill has been introduced in Parliament. Some states are also planning to open information booths that will provide access to a data bank of information on various government departments providing public utility services. What this means is that people will be able to obtain all the information they need about things like getting a water connection, a ration card or even an electricity connection.

What has spurred the demand for a right to information is a growing realisation that things are not always as they should be. Take rural development funds. If only 15 paise, perhaps even less, out of every rupee allocated for development in the rural areas reaches beneficiaries, where does the rest go and how can that leak be plugged?

In Rajasthan, where the movement for the Right to Information first began, reports of people's hearings held to assess local records, have revealed a huge gap between the amounts claimed to have been spent and actual expenditure.

Muster rolls provide the most striking and immediate evidence of fraud. They contain names of persons listed as having been paid the stipulated wages for work on the project. At both Jan Sunwais (people's hearings), as the names were read out, villagers stood up to testify that many of those named were dead, working elsewhere or were no longer resident in the area. Some confirmed that they had worked and been paid, but not the stipulated amount. Charging for non-existent labour has become the simplest form of corruption and of defrauding the poor of employment benefits….

Impact of jan sunwais, Grassroots, May 1999

The hearings in Rajasthan demonstrated that "access to official records can effectively unearth corruption, enforce accountability and ensure that rural development works match performance standards…"

Examples are not difficult to find.

Human rights organisations all over the world believe that the right to information is fundamental to the realisation of both economic and social rights as well as civil and political rights. In developing countries, such access is also seen as closely linked with survival.

The World Development Report 2000, notes that:

Poor people typically have little knowledge of their rights and may be misinformed. Contemporary legal systems are written and conducted on the basis of written documents - making access inherently difficult for poor people, who usually have little formal education. Language, ethnic caste, and gender barriers and other exclusionary practices add to these problems.

Take the case of Jagannath Paswan, a landless labourer from Bihar who came to Delhi to seek the release of his sons from a remand home. Among other things, the story indicates how little he and the other parents knew about the papers and procedures required to be completed before they could take their children home. It points out that for this man the delay cost him more than he could afford as it meant extra days in Delhi until the paperwork could be sorted out.

Many Indians are still not aware of their rights, of how the government works, what they can do to protect themselves and to get the benefits to which they are entitled. In order to progress, citizens require all sorts of information: information about health, about rights, about free and compulsory education, about new trends in agriculture, what government schemes are available and how these can be utilised…

Women in India are poorly informed about how to prevent unwanted pregnancies and what they can do if such pregnancies occur, The Times of India reported. India accounts for almost half the world's abortions and, according to the story, 80 per cent of these are carried out by untrained health providers with poor facilities. One person quoted by the report says "Family planning per se is known to most. Many women even want to plan their families, but have little or no access to information about the means and the consequences."

'Left without choices, women opt for illegal abortions', The Times of India, 18.8.00

According to the Human Development Report, 2000, 44.3 per cent of India's population remains illiterate. There are only 121 radio sets, 69 TVs, 22 main telephone lines, and 0.4 public telephones for every thousand Indian citizens. Having the right to information is one thing. Access to information is something else again. As is awareness not only that such a right exists, but also how to make use of it.

It's all part of an empowerment process. The right to information can greatly reduce the incidence of human rights abuse by creating conditions in which people are better able to protect themselves and improve their lives. Dissemination of information is critical to building a more democratic society, and it is here that the journalist has a special role to play.

The Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, a Delhi-based organisation, says India "is being flooded with untested unlabelled genetically engineered foods - which consumers in the rich countries are rejecting." It claims that Monsanto, the world's biggest genetic engineering company, has "started trials in India, putting Indian farmers, bio-diversity and consumers health at risk" and adds that the trials are part of a capital-intensive, chemical-intensive agriculture which is forcing farmers into debt, suicides and kidney sales.

How much information about the debate is available to the consumer? How many people know that they are already consuming foods that contain genetically engineered substances? In a predominantly agricultural nation, how well informed are farmers themselves about the new developments? There are arguments in favour of genetically engineered crops, and arguments against them, but are they properly explained? It is only through open access to information that we, the journalists, and our readers can make a judgement.