Review of Information Commission

Parliamentary Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice has decided to review working of the Central Information Commission (CIC) and the State Information Commissions (SICs).

Central/State (C/S) Information Commissions are statutory bodies constituted under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. They are the final appellate authority for RTI Act, with wide power to impose penalty on erring Public Information Officers (PIOs), initiate an inquiry against them etc.

CIC is required to submit annual reports to the Parliament and the SICs to state legislatures. However, these annual reports are rarely discussed in Parliament or state legislatures raising questions over the efficacy of the information law (RTI).

Why is there a need to scrutinize the functioning of the C/S Information Commission?  

• To prevent the misuse of power by the C/S Information Commission
• Ensuring diligent discharge of the mandates
• Keeping public trust intact in the C/S Information Commissions
• Provide continuity in regular transparency in the system: exposure of many corruptions cases (like Adarsh Society Scam, 2G scam, Common wealth game scam etc.

Parliamentary scrutiny would not only provide continuity but may also give fillip to such effective functioning. 

What more needs to be done to enhance the accountability of the C/S Information Commission? 

• Make the process of appointing transparent:  Supreme Court in Namit Sharma case, 2013directed that the selection committee to put the relevant facts in public domain.
• Ensure balanced composition of the ICs
• Cases should be allocated to commissioners with expertise in the matter
• Ensure optimal capacity of the C/S Information Commissions: develop norms for budget and staffing patterns
• Appeal filing process should be made people friendly to check the rising number of rejection of cases

To ensure all the public authorities discharge their functioning in such a way that it upholds the public interest, it is important to make the C/S Information Commission accountable to the people. Scrutiny by the parliamentary committee may prove an effective tool in this direction.

Central Information Commission (CIC) recently released its annual report (for 2019-20)

• Progressive reduction in Rejections: rejection rate fell to 4.3% (from 8.4% in 2014-15) which is the lowest rejection percentage
• Disparity in rejection rate across ministries: While the rejection rate fell from 20.2% in 2014-15 to 12.48% for the ministry of finance in 2019-20, it rose from 13.9% to 20.46% for the Ministry of Home Affairs. Agriculture Ministry’s rejection rate doubled from 2% in 2018-19 to 4% in 2019-20.
• Increase in rejections under ‘others’ category: About 39% from previous 33% did not include any valid reason, as they did not invoke one of the permissible exemption clauses in the RTI Act.
• Section 8 (1) (j) saw the highest use. It permits denial of access to personal information if disclosure is likely to cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual concerned
• Increase in the number of First appeals and Second appeals: A total of 152,354 first appeals were filed in 2019-20, whereas, in 2014-15, the corresponding number was 110,095. Number of Second Appeals/Complaints Registered during reporting year was 22,243.

Hurdles in implementation of RTI

• Low Public awareness: PWC study, only 15% respondents were aware of RTI Act and awareness is low among women, rural population and OBC/SC/ST category.
• Section 26 of RTI Act Government may organize educational programmes to advance the understanding of the public regarding their rights under the Act.
• Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21, by implication, guarantee to the citizens of India the right to know everything done by public functionaries.
• Constraints faced in filing applications includes:
• Non-availability of User Guides for information seekers.
• Non-availability of standard application form.
• Non-friendly attitude of the PIOs (Public information officers).
• Inadequate efforts to receive applications through electronic means.
• Poor quality of information provided: Due to lack of infrastructure and adequate processes to comply with the RTI Act
• Constraints faced in inspection of records: information is to be provided in the form requested unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Low awareness of this provision can be linked to inadequate training of officials.
• Failure to provide information within 30 days (as mandated under Act): inadequate measures and processes to view the adherence levels
• Public officials faced challenge due to inadequate record management procedures further aggravated due to lack of enabling infrastructure (computers, scanners, internet connectivity, photocopiers etc.)
• Inadequately trained PIOs and First Appellate Authority (FAA): lack of in-depth understanding of the RTI Act apart from lack of awareness of key judgements
• The training of PIOs is a big challenge due to huge number of PIOs to be trained, frequent transfers of and huge constraint with respect to the availability of training resources.

Salient features of the Right to Information (RTI) Act

• Public Authority: Section 2(h)
• Right to Information: As per Section 2(j) rights of a citizen to seek any information accessible under the Act, which is held by or under control of any Public Authority.
• Exemption from Disclosure of Information: Sections 8, 9, 10, 11 and 24 enlist limitations on disclosure of certain information.
• Section 8(1) provides following Exemption for information:
• disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India.
• expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal.
• disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;
• commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property.
• available to a person in his fiduciary relationship
• received in confidence from foreign government
• disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person
• impede the process of investigation
• cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers.
• Section 9: whose copyright is not held by the state.
• Section 24: exempts information related to security and intelligence organisations.

Steps to overcome these hurdles

• User friendly application process
• Usage of digital technology:  records catalogued and indexed in a manner that the entire data is available through a centralized system using advanced technology like Big Data.
• Investment in infrastructure: ARC report Government may allocate 1% of the funds of the ‘Flagship Programmes’ for a period of five years for improving the infrastructure requirements.
• Need an external agency for training: Potential of non-profit organizations to carry out the trainings in official/ un-official capacities can be tapped by appropriate Government and Training Institutes.