I, in the copy of the Constitution in my personal possession, have added a new clause as: "(c) the right of every willing citizen to obtain information on matters of public interest is also guaranteed." In fact, I try to comfort myself by doing this. But this is not a fun. In this Information Age like many in the world I also really mean it, and I have very strong logic for it.

Our Constitution says that freedom of speech and expression along with freedom of press are guaranteed, and then it naturally implies that there should be a right to know and let others know about everything of public interest. If you cannot obtain information how can you build an opinion? If a journalist does not have enough access to information, what his newspaper will deliver to the people and how the Press can be free?

These are not new thoughts. By now it is universally recognised that, information is indispensable for the functioning of a true democracy. People have to be kept informed about public affairs and issues -- political, social and economic. Attorney General of India Soli Sorabjee says, 'Lack of transparency was one of the main causes for all pervading corruption and Right to Information would lead to openness, accountability and integrity'. According to Former Supreme Court judge of India P. B. Sawant, 'the barrier to information is the single most cause responsible for corruption in society. It facilitates clandestine deals, arbitrary decisions, manipulations and embezzlements. Transparency in dealings, with their every detail exposed to the public view, should go a long way in curtailing corruption in public life.'

Over 40 countries in the world now have comprehensive laws to facilitate access to state records; over 30 more are in the process of enacting such legislation. In recent years, many Commonwealth countries like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have passed laws providing for the right of access to administrative information. USA, France and Scandinavian countries have also passed similar laws.

It is not only the developed countries that have enacted freedom of information legislation; similar trends are seen in the developing countries as well. Malaysia operates an on-line data base system known as Civil Services Link, through which a person can access information regarding functioning of public administration. Sweden has been enjoying the right to know since 1810. It was replaced in 1949 by a new Act, which enjoyed the sanctity of being a part of the country's Constitution itself. Every Swedish citizen should have access to virtually all documents kept by the State or municipal agencies. The Freedom of the Press Act, now part of the Swedish Constitution, provides, among other things, that 'every Swedish subject shall have free access to official documents'. In Australia, the Freedom of Information Act was enacted in December 1982. It gave citizens more access to the Federal Government's documents. Even the Soviets, under Mikhail Gorbachev, had realised that 'the State does not claim monopoly of truth any longer'. His Glasnost has cast away the cloud of secrecy.

In Asia, the Philippines recognised the right to access information through passing a Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees in 1987. Hong Kong adopted a Code on Access to Information in March 1995. The Official Information Act came into effect in Thailand in December 1997. In South Korea, the Act on Disclosure of Information by Public Agencies came into effect in 1998. In Japan, the Law Concerning Access to Information Held by Administrative Organs was enacted in April 2001. India has also adopted a Freedom of Information Act in 2002.

For the sake of transparency in the democratic process and good governance in Bangladesh public access to information is essential. Freedom of information is indispensable for a citizen to bring his or her grievances before the administrative authority or to the court of law for redress. If the general public remain ignorant about the affairs of the state touching their fate it will amount to futility of our democratic system. But so far we do not have any legal instrument through which citizens can enjoy their right to information. On the contrary, there are certain laws which are great obstacles to free flow of information. These laws are: 1. Section 5(1) of the Official Secrets Act, 1923; 2. Section 123 & 124 of the Evidence Act, 1872; 3. Rule 28(1) of the Rules of Business; 4. Rule 19 of the Government Servants (conduct) Rules, 1979; and 5. Oaths (affirmation) of secrecy under the Constitution.

The Law Commission was working hard to initiate a change and they undertook a research work on this. They also published a working paper, which contained the outcome of the research work. They suggested that a Right to Information Act should be adopted. The Law Commission reportedly formulated a draft, which would be proposed as a bill, and sent it to the Law Ministry. More than a year has past since then, but there is no response. When I made a phone call a week ago, an official in the office of the Law Commission told me at one point that there are some people in the bureaucracy who do not feel good when the point of free access to information for public is raised. They actually do not want any law of that kind to be passed. Even, some of them are in favour of amending the existing Official Secrets Act to make it tougher than it is now.

We do not know what the Law Minister has to say about it. But we cannot kill more time. There is a strong public opinion in favour of amending, even abolishing the Official Secrets Act, which was promulgated in British colonial era for the interest of the colonial rulers. We see the government very eager to amend the constitution for hanging portraits of leaders, which has little meaning to the general people. What should be done is to add a new clause in Article 39 which will guarantee the right to information for each and every citizen, and which will actually nullify the Official Secrets Act.

Mashiul Alam is a media analyst.