The recent raids by the Central Bureau of Investigation on the house of a retired officer of the Research & Analyses Wing (RAW) for alleged violations of the Official Secrets Act (OSA) have ignited a public debate on the role of this act in preventing greater openness and transparency in government. The OSA, enacted by the British, regulates all matters relating to secrecy and confidentiality in government. It mainly provides a statutory framework for dealing with threats to the unity and integrity of the nation by way of espionage, sedition and other covert acts against the nation. Despite its colonial lineage, the act has been kept operational after Independence on grounds of national security.

In its first report, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) headed by me had undertaken a full review of this act in the context of the Right to Information Act in a bid to reconcile the felt need for transparency in government with the imperatives of national security. It would be illuminating and opportune at this juncture to retrace the basis of our eventual recommendation in that report to abolish the OSA.

How to deal with so-called ‘official secrets’ is perhaps the most contentious issue in the implementation of the RTI Act. In a democracy, people are sovereign and the elected government and its functionaries are public servants accountable to the citizens. Transparency should therefore pervade all aspects of governance. At the same time, it has to be recognised that public interest is best served if certain sensitive matters affecting national security are kept out of the public domain. The RTA Act treads this fine balance — for example, by giving people the unhindered right to know the decisions of the cabinet and the reasons for these, but not access to the actual discussions that may occur in the cabinet. The act explicitly recognises these confidentiality requirements in matters of state and Section 8 of the act exempts all such matters from disclosure.

... contd.