RTI MIS 2023: Three lakh cases due with Information Commissions is a concern

Why is RTI in discussion?

Recently Vigilant Citizens Organization (SATARK NAGRIK SANGATHAN- SNS) released ‘Report Card on the Performance of Information Commissions in India’ under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.), 2022-23′, reveals that Maharashtra, with 1,15,524 pending appeals, has been the worst performing state in RTI response.

• SNS is a non-governmental organization (NGO) dedicated to promoting transparency and accountability in India by empowering citizens to be active and informed participants in democracy.

Key points of the report card:

Other poor performers:

• The second highest number of pending appeals was in Karnataka (41,047), while Tamil Nadu, which refused to provide information about the total pending appeals in its Information Commission, was the worst performer in the year 2022.
• The overall situation in the year 2023:
  • A total of 3,21,537 appeals and complaints are pending in 27 State Information Commissions across the country and the backlog is continuously increasing.

Status of previous years:

• The assessment of the year 2019 revealed that a total of 2,18,347 appeals/complaints were pending in 26 Information Commissions, which increased to 2,86,325 in the year 2021 and then increased to three lakh in the year 2022.

Defunct Information Commission:

• Four Information Commissions (Jharkhand, Telangana, Mizoram, and Tripura) are inactive as no new Information Commissioners have been appointed to the vacant posts after leaving office.

• The six Information Commissions (Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions of Manipur, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Bihar, and Punjab) are currently leaderless.

Settlement Rate:

• The assessment shows that the West Bengal State Information Commission (SIC) will take an estimated 24 years and one month to dispose of a case as per the current standards and is the worst performer in disposal rate.

• The estimated time taken by SIC to dispose of an appeal or complaint in Chhattisgarh and Maharashtra is more than four years. Estimates show that it will take a year or more for the 10 Information Commissions to dispose of an appeal/complaint.

Central and State Information Commission:

Central Information Commission (CIC):

• Establishment: CIC was established by the Central Government in the year 2005 under the provisions of the Right to Information Act (2005). It is not a constitutional body.
• Members: This Commission consists of a Chief Information Commissioner and a maximum of ten Information Commissioners.
• Appointment: He is appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the Prime Minister as Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by India’s Prime Minister.
• Tenure: The Chief Information Commissioner and an Information Commissioner shall hold office for such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government or until they attain the age of 65 years (whichever is earlier). They are not eligible for reappointment (as per the amendment made in the RTI Act, 2005 in the year 2019).
  • It is the duty of the Commission to interrogate the person concerned in case of complaints received on any subject under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
  • The Commission can take suo-moto power and order an investigation in any case if there are proper grounds.
  • The Commission has the powers of a civil court in issuing summons for questioning, requiring documents etc.

State Information Commission:

• It is constituted by the state government.

• It consists of a State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC) and a maximum of 10 State Information Commissioners (SIC) appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of the Appointments Committee headed by the Chief Minister.

Right to Information Act:

• The RTI Act originated in the year 1986 through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Kulwal vs. Jaipur Municipal Corporation, wherein it was directed that the freedom of speech and expression provided under Article 19 of the Constitution is clearly subordinated to the Right to Information. Is. Without information, freedom of information, speech, and expression cannot be fully exercised by citizens. Its objective is to enable Indian citizens to exercise their rights to ask certain relevant questions to the government and various public utility service providers in a practical manner. The Freedom of Information Act, of 2002 was converted into the RTI Act. The objective of this Act was to help citizens avail prompt services of government agencies as this Act enables them to ask questions as to why a particular application or official proceeding is delayed. The main objective of this Act is to realize the dream of a corruption-free India. The Right to Information Act, 2005 was amended in the year 2019 to bring changes regarding the tenure and service conditions of CIC and IC at both the central and state levels.

• Recently, Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act has been amended by Section 44 (3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, thereby eliminating the problem of disclosure of all personal information and removing the pre-existing exceptions. Under which there was a provision for permission to release such information, has been removed.

Information to be provided under the Act:

• Any Indian citizen is free to apply to any government authority for a delayed IT refund, a driving license, or a passport or to obtain details of the completion or status of an infrastructure project.

• Freedom to seek information regarding amounts allocated under various types of relief funds in the country.

• The Act also provides freedom to students to obtain copies of answer sheets from universities.

Challenges related to RTI Act, 2005:

• Under the provisions of this Act, many times such information is demanded that is not related to public interest and sometimes these can be used to misuse the law and harass the public authority. for example:
  • Constant and excessive information seeking.
  • Filing RTI just for show.
  • RTI cannot be used due to illiteracy and poverty in the majority of the country’s population.
• Although RTI is not intended to create a grievance redressal mechanism, notices from Information Commissions generally relate to calling upon public authorities to redress grievances.
• Lack of digital integration at sub-district and block level blocks e-governance mechanisms which hinders the implementation of the RTI Act, 2005.

The way forward

• To achieve the third paradigm, the state will have to accept the importance of an informed public and its role in the development of the country as a nation. In this context, the underlying issues related to the RTI Act should be resolved, so that it can meet the information needs of the society.
• In the 2019 order, the apex court issued several directions to the Central and State Governments to fill the vacant posts in the Central and State Information Commissions in a transparent and time-bound manner.
• Rapid digitization of records and proper record management is important as the lack of remote access to records during the lockdown has been widely cited as a hindrance in hearing appeals and complaints by the Commissions.
• It is well known that improving governance is necessary, but not sufficient. There is a need to bring accountability into governance, including the protection of whistleblowers, decentralization of power, and diffusion of authority with accountability at all levels.
• Yet this law provides us with a valuable opportunity to relook at the process of governance, especially at the grassroots level, where citizen interaction is maximum. Therefore, awareness should be created on a large scale at the local level regarding the RTI Act, of 2005
• Home