Skip to main content

Highest judicial office under RTI purview: Of positives, creative tensions


By Venkatesh Nayak*
“To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
the slings and arrows of outrageous (RTI applications) fortune,
or to take arms against a sea of (information requesters) troubles
and by opposing end (their right to know) them.”
(With apologies to Shakespeare for a poor parody of his creative genius and “Hamlet — the brooding Prince of Denmark”)
Unlike his contrarian predecessor, the present Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi has, in concert with four brother Justices, declared his august office, covered by the RTI Act. In its 15th year of implementation, this unanimous opinion of the Constitution Bench (CB) strengthens the transparency law in many ways and paves the way for bringing another constitutional authority, namely, the Governor of a State under its compass. That question of law opened up twelve years ago through an RTI application penned by a former Union Defence Minister when he was the Leader of Opposition in Goa. Although the appeal case itself has been dismissed and the applicant is no longer with us, the Apex Court is yet to constitute another Bench to answer this important question of law.
In the latest case that the CB has decided, the RTI applicant Subhash Chandra Agarwal’s, the wait was not any less protracted. Three of his RTI applications, which formed the subject matter of the dispute are more than a decade old. Curiously, two of them have been referred back to the Apex Court’s Public Information Officer (PIO) for making a decision in accordance with the expansive procedures laid down by the law and the principles of interpretation explained by the Bench collectively and by Justices Ramana and Chandrachud, individually. Whether or not the information continues to have any currency, the RTI applicant will have to tell us. Will he move the Courts again this time on questions of fact, if the PIO rejects the requests after following due process, is a moot question. The struggle for transparency even in the judicial realm is not any easier than it is in the executive sphere, going by the experiences of millions of private citizens.
Leaving the facts of the three cases aside, the common and individual opinions penned by the Justices clarify several interpretational matters for the benefit of both the seekers and holders of information. However, in some respects, they also pose serious challenges to the already well-established understanding of the interplay between the right of access to information and the grounds for rejection of such access. In a couple of places, lay readers are likely to end up in confusion about the seeming divergence of views between the common opinion and the individual opinions of the Justices. In this piece, I hope to illustrate these issues in brief in order to encourage the readers to negotiate the 250-page long judgement to make their own determination about the import of this judicial milestone of sorts.
Let us start with the many positives for which the judgement deserves unqualified appreciation. First, despite not intending it to be so, because the facts of the cases related to accessing information from a State institution, the explication of Section 2(f) is a very welcome jurisprudential development. While the first limb of the definition of ‘information’ brings within its scope a wealth of forms in which information may be held by a public authority, such as samples and models of materials used, in addition to conventional records, logbooks, reports, written opinion and advice, electronic data and emails, it also includes information that a public authority may access from any private body under the provisions of any other existing law.
The CB’s conjunctive interpretation of the term ‘information” and “right to information” which is “under the control” of a public authority clarifies that it has a duty to collect information about a private hospital, school, shop, hotel, firm or factory, under lawful authority of course, and furnish it to an RTI applicant in accordance with the Act’s provisions even though such information was not held in material form in its records at the time of receiving the request. This provision has not been used to the fullest and wherever attempts were made, PIOs often resisted the performance of such duties. This judgement is a potent tool in the hands of RTI applicants who would like to make private entities that are not directly covered by the Act, more transparent about their activities.
Second, both the common and individual opinions of Justice Chandrachud contain a very detailed discussion of how to interpret “public interest” in the context of disclosure of information which is rejected by a PIO by invoking one or more grounds listed in Section 8(1) of the Act. Readers familiar with the RTI Act will recall, ten clauses in Section 8(1) contain more than 30 grounds on which information sought by an RTI applicant may be legitimately refused. However, these exemptions are subject to a later clause that requires even such information to be made public if by so doing the larger public interest will be served better.
Justice Chandrachud’s opinion, in particular, builds upon the gold standard of interpretation of how to balance competing for public interests favouring transparency and continued confidentiality that Justice P. N. Bhagwati (as he then was) developed in S. P. Gupta vs President of India & Ors. in 1981. Not only is this portion of Justice Bhagwati’s opinion highlighted for the benefit of the reader, a non-exhaustive list of factors that must be taken into consideration while performing such a balancing test is also underscored. Factors such as likelihood of disclosure causing embarrassment to the Government – a criterion that continues to guide the labelling of official records as “secret” or confidential” within the Government, or the RTI applicant’s likelihood of misunderstanding or misinterpreting the contents of a record or the high seniority of the author of an official record are all irrelevant considerations for the purpose of applying the “public interest test”.
The Department of Personnel and Training which often loses no time in sending out circulars highlighting regressive interpretations of the RTI Act contained in occasional judicial pronouncements would do well to show similar enthusiasm in circulating these portions of the judgement to PIOs, First Appellate Authorities and Information Commissions. This will go a long way in shedding ossified practices of denying access to information on such frivolous grounds.
Third, the common opinion consigns to the dustbin of history, the penchant of public authorities and even many an Information Commissioner to refuse to treat an individual’s quest for justice by seeking information, as a matter of “public interest”. All five Justices have agreed that public interest has “no relationship with the number of individuals adversely affected by disclosure or the number of individuals wanting such disclosure. The decision will vary depending upon how the public interests in maintaining the exemptions will be balanced with those favouring disclosure depending upon the facts and circumstances of every case.
Some readers might scorn at this ‘case-to-case’ approach as it lends no fixity to the concept of “public interest” but that indeed is the inherent strength of the method. It is not based on treating an entire class of information as being exempt for all time to come. What matters ultimately is the effect of disclosure- the facts and circumstances of each case- will it harm a public interest already listed in the exemptions or be beneficial to the public interest or remain neutral. Only the first effect requires continued confidentiality. The common and individual opinion of Justice Chandrachud provides very useful guidance to public authorities in this regard, if only they were to read it intently.
Now moving on to the challenges and confusion that the judgement poses to the implementation of the RTI Act. Much has already been said and will continue to be said about the interface between the fundamental rights to privacy and to access information from public authorities — both being judicial discoveries as Part III of the Constitution does not make a reference to them at all. The CB has itself hoped that some of the tensions in the interplay of these two rights are likely to be resolved with the enactment of the long-pending personal data protection law. So also with the clarification of the conditions in which fiduciary relationships arise and become a brake on the drive for greater transparency. We will not dwell on these topics in any detail.
Perhaps the most deleterious impact of the common opinion on the RTI regime may be said to be the inclusion of “motive” of the RTI applicant as a relevant factor while administering the public interest test. The CB recognizes that the purpose of the information seeker will have no relevance while making a decision on an RTI application but it will be a relevant factor while applying the public interest test to decide whether exempt information may be disclosed (para #79). This despite the CB recognising the existence of a bar on compelling an RTI applicant to disclose her or his motive while seeking information under Section 6(2).
Strangely, nowhere in the common or the individual opinions is Section 19(5) of the RTI Act even mentioned. Under this provision, the burden of proving why the requested information must remain exempt is on the PIO. The RTI Act does not place a corresponding obligation on the RTI appellant to explain motives for demanding access to information at any stage of the internal and external appeals. It is not clear whether this matter was brought to the notice of the Justices at all in the pleadings and written submissions.
This significant and embarrassing lapse is likely to embolden public authorities and Information Commissions to insist on a declaration of the purpose of seeking not just exempt information but eventually all information. It is very well known that decisions of PIOs and appellate authorities, not to mention several Information Commissioners, often raise this point when their obvious intent is to prevent disclosure of the requested information.
Second, the common opinion divests the PIO of the power coupled with a duty to direct disclosure of exempt information on grounds of public interest under Section 8(2) of the RTI Act. Instead, the CB has declared that this is a “discretionary power” exclusively vested with the “public authority” which the PIO represents (para #27). It is respectfully submitted, this interpretation creates two problems.
First, under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the PIO is clearly vested with the power of making a decision to disclose personal information of an individual other than the RTI applicant (after following due procedure of third party interests are attracted as per the terms of Section 11 of the Act). That power coupled with duty cannot be taken away through judicial pronouncement unless the Court wants to supplant legislative intent, which it has always abhorred and avoided.
Second, the only clear finding on a question of fact in the entire case is the determination that the Supreme Court as established under Article 124 of the Constitution is one “public authority” and the CJI’s office is part of the same public authority. So if the “public authority” is an institution, who, then in such an institution as well as in other similarly labelled institutions will wield the power to determine whether exempt information will be disclosed under the terms of Section 8(2) of the Act? The common and individual opinions are silent on this point.
Next, the explication in both the common and individual opinions of the manner in which competing public interests must be harmonized and the factors that will be relevant or irrelevant for the purpose of determining public interest in favour of disclosure or otherwise, clearly indicates that it is in the nature of a quasi-judicial function. Where is the scope for applying any “discretion” in matters where the competing public interests must be balanced? It is respectfully submitted that “discretion” will only colour the entire exercise with arbitrariness.
Third, with the deepest respect to the wisdom of the Justices, it must be pointed out that the common and individual opinions betray a contradictory approach with regard to the manner of application of exemptions. This point cannot be illustrated without delving a bit into the jurisprudential development around the manner of invoking of exemptions. If memory serves us right, the earliest explanation of how exemptions must be invoked is found in Justice Ravindra Bhat’s opinion in Bhagat Singh vs Chief Information Commissioner & Ors., of 2007 when he served in the Delhi High Court. In that judgement, Justice Bhat (now elevated to the Apex Court) pointed out that exemptions listed in Section 8(1) of the Act, being exceptions to the general rule of transparency contained in Section 3 must be construed strictly.
In several other matters decided by the High Courts of Kerala, Madras and Calcutta, this interpretational rule was accepted. However, the Apex Court overturned that position in 2011 while deciding Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs Aditya Bandopadhyaya and Ors., (see slide 35 at this weblink). The Court said that the exemptions must not be treated as “fetters on the right to information”, instead a harmonious approach must be adopted to balance these competing public interests. This position reiterated in ICAI vs Shaunak H. Satya delivered the same year and subsequent judgements of the Apex Court is also appreciated and explained in the common opinion of the CB. However, the individual opinion of Justice Ramana contains a discordant note as it gives currency to the approach several High Courts adopted between 2007 and 2011.
After lending his name to the common opinion, at para #23 of his individual opinion, Justice Ramana writes as follows:
“There is no doubt it is now well settled that exemption clauses need to be construed strictly. They need to be given appropriate meaning in terms of the intention of the legislature.”
In our humble opinion, this is also an area that needs some curative action from the Apex Court to avoid the embarrassment of contrary opinion being presented by a Justice at two different places on the same issue.
Fourth, both the common opinion (para #26) and the individual opinion of Justice Chandrachud (para #75) treat seven of the ten exemptions listed in Section 8(1) of the RTI Act as “absolute” in character where the PIO is barred from disclosing such information even if the larger public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm caused to the protected interests. Three exemptions relating to commercial confidence, trade secrets and intellectual property, information covered by a fiduciary relationship and the last clause which protects personal privacy are not absolute in so far as they are tempered specifically by public interest override clauses. In our humble opinion this characterization is not in accordance with legislative design and intent.
Most of the blame for this confusion must lie with the draftspersons and we the advocates of transparency who pushed Parliament to legislate without cleaning up the initial draft. The RTI Bill tabled in Parliament did not contain an omnibus public interest clause which now exists as Section 8(2) in the Act. Instead, Section 8(2) in the original Bill contained what is now a proviso underneath Section 8(1) which contains the noble principle that information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be denied to any citizen. Only clauses under Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) whose contents are explained at the beginning of this paragraph were subjected to a public interest override clause.
The omnibus public interest override clause was inserted as Section 8(2) upon the recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee which vetted the Bill with copious inputs from civil society advocates, lawyers and academics. Due to the rushed passage of the final version of the Bill (on the last days of the Session of both Houses of Parliament), the draft was perhaps not cleaned up (the hard copy of the gazette notification of the Act contains at least two typographical errors even now). So the public interest override element stays in the three exemption clauses in addition to the omnibus clause as part of the law and is the source of this confusion.
However, a basic principle of interpretation of the law is that Parliament intended for every word and formulation to exist in the manner it is crafted and visible in the final text adopted and notified after Presidential assent. So the doctrine of harmonious construction comes to play to resolve any conflict between two or more provisions oflaw. It is respectfully submitted that characterising seven out of ten exemptions clauses as being “absolute” does not amount to harmonious construction but amounts to doing injustice to legislative intent. We hold this view for multiple reasons. First, if Parliament had intended for these exemptions to be absolute then the opening limb of Section 8(1) would have read- “The following information shall not be provided or disseminated” in the manner of Section 3(3) of Nepal’s Right to Information Act enacted in 2007. Several other countries place such a prohibition which can be realistically termed “absolute”.
The Indian RTI Act, however, takes a different approach. The opening limb reads” Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen…” In our humble opinion, this implies- a citizen cannot reasonably expect to get information covered by these exemptions as a matter of right- a principle which the common opinion also recognizes. However, that does not turn seven of these clauses into absolute exclusions.
First, Section 8(2) provides the exception to these exemptions- so they cannot be termed exclusions at all.
Second, Section 8(3) prohibits the invoking of seven out of ten exemptions for information that is more than 20 years old. This 20-year rule applies to five of the seven exemption clauses which the common opinion characterizes as absolute. So here again the characterization of these exemptions as absolute is not sustainable in our humble opinion.
Strangely, this important provision does not merit even a mention in either the common or the individual opinions of the Justices. Unless these confusions are cleared up through a curative petition, public authorities are likely to misuse this portion of the judgement to deny access to more and more information which was not the intent of Parliament in the first place.
Last, but without putting too much emphasis on it as it is most likely to be the handiwork of a negligent law clerk which went unnoticed, Justice Chandrachud’s opinion contains a howler. The seminal paragraph where the citizens’ right to know was discovered for the first time by another 5-Member Constitution Bench in State of U.P. vs Raj Narain, was authored by Justice K. K. Mathew and not the then Chief Justice of India, Justice A. N. Ray as attributed in this opinion.
However, it must be acknowledged that despite the cautious manner in which the common opinion seeks to strike a balance between citizen’s access to information about how judges are appointed (a point which has been remanded back to the PIO for afresh decision) and the need for ensuring the independence of the judiciary and preventing possible attacks on the reputation of candidates for judgeship in the constitutional courts, Justice Chandrachud mentions a non-exhaustive list of essential norms in regard to judicial appointments in his opinion.
Will the PIO reveal the norms that went into the elevation of certain judges over and above others, now that the RTI application has been remanded to him for fresh consideration remains to be seen. What objections will the individuals so elevated will pose to making this information transparent also becomes a matter of immense public interest? How effectively will the PIO apply the tests and the interpretative tools laid down by the common and the individual opinions remains to be seen as well?
At the other end of the spectrum of this creative tension characterizing the adjudication undertaken by the CB is the anxiety expressed by Justice Ramana that RTI could become a potential tool of surveillance to scuttle the effective functioning of the judiciary.
With the deepest respect and in all humility it is submitted that RTI cannot be equated with the tools that empower the government to conduct surveillance over anybody- citizens and high public functionaries alike. The latter is abhorrent to human dignity and a violation of basic human rights and freedoms when attempted in an illegal and illegitimate manner.
The RTI Act contains adequate safeguards as noted by the Hon’ble Justices themselves that have convincingly until now and will in the future prevent disclosure of information that should legitimately remain under wraps. If not, these three cases would not have reached the Supreme Court’s high table of justice.

*Head, Access to Information Programme, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi. Views are personal. This article first appeared in The Leaflet

Comments

TRENDING

Zakir Naik tumult, Catholic Church power abuse: will Anwar Ibrahim save Malaysia?

Anwar Ibrahim By Jay Ihsan*  Anwar Ibrahim, a hardcore reformist who took a punch to his eye in 1998 from then inspector-general of police, Rahim Noor, has finally been given the mandate by Malaysians to serve as the nation's 10th prime minister. Anwar knows too well the burden of staying true to both trust and faith the people have in him requires every once of commitment and dedication. The question is will he be apologetic for his transgressions enroute to "rebuilding" Malaysia? In his overzealousness to get the job done, Anwar, 75, needs to safeguard every bit of gumption to address prickling issues plaguing the safety of the nation especially those involving communal sensitivities. For one, dare Anwar get rid of terrorist hate preacher and fugitive Zakir Naik for inciting religious unrest in Malaysia? In November 2016, India’s counter-terrorism agency filed an official complaint against Naik, holding him responsible for promoting religious hatred and unlawful activi

Although sporting genius, Wasim Akram was mascot of cricket globalisation era

By Harsh Thakor*  Since Independence India and Pakistan produced a galaxy of cricketing stars that permeated cricketing artistry of legendary heights. Amongst this bunch.Wasim Akram manifested pure cricketing genius to the greatest height.I speculate how India’s fortunes would have changed had partition not taken place and Wasim playing for India. Wasim Akram explored realms untranscended in bowling wizardry, like a painter devising new art forms or a scientist experimenting. He simply re-defined the art of reverse swing, reversing the ball in and out. There were bowlers quicker, more accurate and with better records, but none equalled Wasim in an all-round package. He was more lethal with a new and old ball than any fast bowler ever. Wasim could produce balls that were surreal, with his reverse swing, defying laws of bio mechanics He was simply the epitome of versatility, possessing a repertoire of six different deliveries within an over itself, disguising deliveries in the manner of

Galileo-Catholic church affair: must history repeat at Malaysia’s St Francis Xavier church?

By Jay Ihsan*  Christianity is the enemy of liberation and civilization -August Bebel Christianity taught men that love is worth more than intelligence -Jacques Maritain Real Christianity can be summed up in two commands: Love God and love people. - Joyce Meyer Pious XI was too neutral to mention the gas chambers; decent people like my own family were turned into devils by crude Christianity - Lionel Blue Religious doctrines cannot escape the liberty of thoughts and expression. To each their own, so it is said. From all things nice to all things that make one cringe - religion is polarised and in this regard, Christianity has over time faced the wrath of bigotry espoused by those "bequeathed" to protect it. Take Pope Francis for example. He had a secret meeting with giant pharma Pfizer chief executive officer Albert Bourla last year while the world struggled to make sense of the word "lockdown" and suffer adverse effects of the Corona virus vaccines produced by Pfiz

Qatar World Cup has a strong Bangladesh connection: stadium construction, t-shirts

By Mashrur Siddique Bhuiyan*  The FIFA World Cup fever has unquestionably cut through the minds of mass people all over the world. Stadiums in Qatar are buzzing with football fans and athletes representing their countries at the “Greatest Show on Earth". The magic of the FIFA World Cup is so enormous that even being unable to participate does not matter much to the fans who support different nations. This is one of the highest viewed events in the world, with the 2018 event viewed by about 3.6 billion people worldwide. But this crowd is not aware of the contribution of migrant workers who helped build the very stadiums where the matches are playing in. Qatar won the bid in 2010 to host the FIFA World Cup 2022, which got the oxymoron of celebration and controversy. This also created the potential for Qatar to Showcase its monumental economic achievements and unique culture on the global stage. The motto for Qatar’s bid team in 2010 was ‘Expect Amazing’ and migrant workers across th

Floods: As ax falls on most vulnerable, Pak seeks debt cancellation, climate justice

By Tanupriya Singh  Even as the floodwaters have receded, the people of Pakistan are still trying to grapple with the death and devastation the floods have left in their wake. The floods that swept across the country between June and September have killed more than 1,700 people, injured more than 12,800, and displaced millions as of November 18. The scale of the destruction in Pakistan was still making itself apparent as the world headed to the United Nations climate conference COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, in November.  Pakistan was one of two countries invited to co-chair the summit. It also served as chair of the Group of 77 (G77) and China for 2022, playing a critical role in ensuring that the establishment of a loss and damage fund was finally on the summit’s agenda, after decades of resistance by the Global North. “The dystopia has already come to our doorstep,” Pakistan’s Minister for Climate Change Sherry Rehman told Reuters. By the first week of September, pleas for h

Implementing misleading govt order to pollute Hyderabad's 100 year old reservoirs

Senior activists* represent to the Telangana Governor on GO Ms 69 dated 12.4.2022 issued by the Municipal Administration and Urban Development (MA&UD), Government of Telangana: ‘...restrictions imposed under para 3 of said GO Ms 111 dated 8.3.1996 are removed...’: *** Ref: GO Ms 111 dated 8.3.1996: ‘To prohibit polluting industries, major hotels, residential colonies or other establishments that generate pollution in the catchment of the lakes upto 10kms from full tank level as per list in Annexure-I...’ We come to your office with grievance that GO Ms 69 dated 12.4.2022 issued by Government of Telangana not only contains false information issued ‘By Order and in the name of the Governor of Telangana’ , without any scientific or expert reports, but also that implementation of the said GO is detrimental and can be catastrophic to the Hyderabad city as two 100 year old reservoirs Osman Sagar and Himayath Sagar were constructed as dams on river Moosa and river Esa, with the first and

A classic, 'Gandhi' ignores merciless cruelty unleashed on militant freedom fighters

By Harsh Thakor  The movie ‘Gandhi’ produced by Richard Attenborough, which was released 40 years ago on November 30th, 1982, was classic in it's own right. Ironical that it took an Englishman to embark upon the making of a film on this legendary figure. I can't visualize a better pictorial portrayal of Gandhi's life or an actor getting in the skin of the character an exuding the mannerisms as actor Ben Kingsley. Episodes are crafted and grafted surgically, illustrating how Gandhi wove fragmented bits into a cohesive force, to confront he British empire. Most boldly the movie unfolds how British colonialism subjugated the Indian people to barbaric cruelty. With great mastery the cinematography captures the vast Indian landscapes and essence of livelihood of Indians under colonial rule. The movie most illustratively shows the crystallisation of anti-colonial fervour from the embryonic stage and how it fermented into an integrated movement. In a most subtle manner it illustr

Bangladesh's ties with Myanmar, Nepal, China need connectivity with India's NE states

By Samara Ashrat*  On 26th November, India's External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said that India is trying to improve trade and connectivity with Bangladesh and Myanmar on his two-day visit to India's Northeast region. He emphasized the importance of linking Northeastern India to the rest of the nation and reiterated Delhi is working to improve connectivity and infrastructure in the region. By taking the G20 presidency India will try to showcase the true spirit of the Northeast to the world, with its tourism benefits. But, the umbilical cord between the Indian mainland and North Eastern Region is Chicken's Neck or Siliguri corridor which brings Bangladesh into the Indian equation of northeastern development. Not only that, Bangladesh has very close relations with West Bengal, Assam, Meghalaya, and Tripura in terms of language, culture, and history. These factors make Bangladesh an inextricable element of the development of the northeastern states. Tourism Sector and Con

25 years of CHT peace accord: A glorious chapter of conflict resolution in Bangladesh

By Kamal Uddin Mazumder*  Conflicts between the Bangladesh army and Shanti Bahini persisted in the Chittagong Hill Tracts for more than two decades. On December 2, 1997, Parbatya Chattagram Jana Samhati Samiti (PCJSS) and the Bangladeshi government signed the CHT Accord, putting an end to the violent armed conflict and improving the life of a lot of the people there. It has been made possible through just seven meetings under the worthy leadership of Sheikh Hasina. The historic peace agreement created an atmosphere of peace in the mountainous region. An atmosphere of peace has been established by ending the armed conflict. The geographical features and ethnic diversity of Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) are distinctive. The 13,184 square kilometer territory is bordered by Myanmar and the Indian state of Mizoram on the East and Tripura on the North. With its 1.6 million people, it entails great importance to Bangladesh for its geopolitical location. Due to the conflict-prone Northeast Indi

Film on evidence of viability of in situ communitarian urban water management

By Rahul Banerjee  Over the past few years it has become increasingly clear that centralised urban water management in India is in deep crisis. Water supply is both inadequate and extremely costly, water harvesting and recharging and used water treatment and reuse are mostly absent and storm water management is a disaster. Under the circumstances, the only viable solution is communitarian in situ water management and this is what has been proposed in the latest guidelines of both the Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation and the Swacch Bharat Mission. Our NGO, Mahila Jagat Lihaaz Samiti , has not only implemented communitarian in situ water management but has also carried out research to provide evidence of the unviability of centralised water management and the suitability of the former. Here is a film based on a detailed research that I did on urban water management in Chhattisgarh for the National Institute of Urban Affairs, New Delhi, that succinctly critiques cen