Right To Information Act Unit III

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, passed in 2005, brought a major shift in how government operates in India. This act has empowered citizens to seek information from public authorities. Information Commissions, present at both the central and state levels, are essential in upholding this act. They play a crucial role in ensuring transparency and accountability in the way public administration operates. In this article, we will examine their structure, powers, functions, and key judicial interpretations.

Overview of Information Commissions

Information Commissions: Central and State

1. Central Information Commission (CIC)

• Established under Section 12 of the RTI Act, 2005.

• Consists of:

  • The Chief Information Commissioner and

  • Up to 10 Information Commissioners.

• Appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee (PM, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, and a Union Cabinet Minister).

2. State Information Commissions (SIC)

• Established under Section 15 of the RTI Act, 2005.

• Consists of:

  • The State Chief Information Commissioner and

  • Up to 10 State Information Commissioners.

• Appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of a similar committee at the state level.

India's commitment to transparency relies heavily on two main bodies: the Central Information Commission (CIC) and various State Information Commissions (SICs). These commissions work continuously to enforce the RTI Act and protect citizens' rights to access critical information from public authorities.

The Central Information Commission handles appeals and complaints related to information requests from central government entities. It often addresses situations where information has been denied or inadequately answered. In contrast, State Information Commissions, set up by state governments, deal with local governance issues and related inquiries.

Each commission is led by a Chief Information Commissioner, assisted by several Information Commissioners. The President of India appoints the Chief Information Commissioner for the CIC, while State Governors appoint those for the SICs. This structured setup is vital as it creates a direct line between government functions and empowering citizens with information.

Powers and Functions of Information Commissions

Powers and Functions of the Information Commissions

(Under Section 18, Section 19, and Section 20 of the RTI Act)

A. Key Functions

1. Hearing Complaints (Section 18)

   • Refusal to accept RTI applications

   • No response within time

   • Demand for excessive fees

   • Incomplete or misleading information

2. Hearing Appeals (Section 19)

   • First Appeal to the senior officer in the concerned department.

   • Second Appeal lies with the CIC or SIC.

3. Order Disclosure of Information

   • Direct public authorities to provide the requested information.

4. Annual Reports

   • Submit annual reports to the Parliament or State Legislature.

5. Monitoring and Promoting RTI

   • Recommend steps to improve RTI implementation.

     
     

B. Powers (Section 18(3))

Commission has powers of a civil court:

• Summoning and enforcing attendance of persons

• Requiring discovery and inspection of documents

• Receiving evidence on affidavit

• Requisitioning public records

Information Commissions hold significant power under the RTI Act. Their responsibilities extend beyond simple information requests. They enforce penalties for non-compliance and provide guidance to public authorities on effective information management.

1. Adjudication of Appeals

One of the main duties of Information Commissions is to handle appeals from individuals whose attempts to obtain information have been denied. For instance, in 2021, a CIC ruling led to over 10,000 information requests being reassessed, resulting in a significant increase in successful disclosures.

When an appeal is filed, the commission reviews the circumstances surrounding the request and the initial denial. In many cases, it can issue orders requiring the public authority to provide information or explain the reasons for the denial. This process promotes transparency and enforces accountability in governance.

2. Penalty Imposition

In cases where unjust denials or significant delays occur, Information Commissions can impose penalties on public officials. For example, in 2022, one commission imposed fines totaling over ₹500,000 on officials who failed to respond to RTI requests in time. This financial accountability encourages a culture of promptness and responsibility.

The RTI Act outlines specific criteria for penalties, ensuring that such actions are reserved for notable offenses like repeated violations. This authority enhances the credibility of the commissions, encouraging citizens to engage more actively with their right to access information.

3. Promotion of Transparency and Awareness

Apart from enforcing the RTI Act, Information Commissions also work to promote broader transparency. They run outreach initiatives, workshops, and informational camps reaching thousands of citizens each year. For example, a recent campaign by a state commission educated over 25,000 people about their rights under RTI, empowering them to seek information effectively.

This educational outreach elevates the public's awareness and understanding of their rights, allowing them to hold authorities accountable. By fostering an informed citizenry, these commissions contribute to a robust democratic environment.

Appeal Mechanism in Information Commissions

Appeals and Penalties

A. Appeals Process

1. First Appeal (Section 19(1)):

   • Filed with the First Appellate Authority (FAA) within the same public authority.

2. Second Appeal (Section 19(3)):

   • Filed before the CIC/SIC within 90 days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was received.

B. Penalties (Section 20)

• A penalty of ₹250 per day up to a maximum of ₹25,000 can be imposed if:

  • The officer has without reasonable cause refused to receive an application or

  • Malafidely denied the request or

  • Knowingly given incorrect, misleading, or incomplete information or

  • Destroyed information or

  • Obstructed the process in any manner.

• Disciplinary action may also be recommended.

The RTI Act provides a structured appeal mechanism that reinforces citizens' rights. There are two main levels of appeal: the first appeal to the designated officer within the public authority and the second appeal to the Information Commission.

First Appeal

If a citizen's information request is denied or not adequately addressed, they can file a first appeal with the relevant Public Information Officer (PIO). The PIO must respond within a certain timeframe, typically within 30 days. If the response is unsatisfactory, the individual has the right to escalate the matter to the Information Commission. This two-tier appeal system allows citizens multiple opportunities for resolution.

Second Appeal

The second appeal process before the Information Commission is formal and involves hearings with both the applicant and the public authority. The commission evaluates both perspectives carefully and issues a decision based on the merit of the case. This structured approach provides a vital pathway for citizens to challenge arbitrary denials and ensure proper information disclosure.

Penalties for Non-Compliance

Penalties play an important role in the operations of Information Commissions. Under the RTI Act, fines can be imposed on public officials who do not fulfill their duties defined by this law.

Nature of Penalties

Penalties may vary, but they often involve fines that accumulate for each day of delay beyond the specified response time. For instance, officials can face fines ranging from ₹250 to ₹25,000, depending on the severity of the offense. The cumulative effect can significantly impact non-compliant officials, motivating adherence to RTI guidelines.

Impact of Penalties

The penalty system sends a clear message about the importance of compliance with the RTI Act. Enhanced accountability ensures that public servants treat information requests seriously. Previous cases have shown that the mere threat of penalties leads to a more responsive approach from officials, improving information provision.

Supreme Court of India on Right to Information

The Supreme Court has played a critical role in defining and upholding the Right to Information in India. Its judgments have consistently reinforced the need for transparency and good governance.

Landmark Judgments

Several pivotal cases have shaped the RTI landscape, confirming the right to information as fundamental to freedom of speech under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. For example, in the "Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay" ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that information should be readily accessible without unreasonable barriers.

Expanding the Scope of RTI

The Supreme Court's decisions have broadened the scope and application of the RTI Act. It recognizes the right to information not just as an individual tool but as critical in promoting good governance and fighting corruption. This judicial affirmation helps citizens challenge government actions effectively, fostering a participatory democracy where officials are held accountable.

Supreme Court on Right to Information

Notable Judgments:

1. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)

   • Citizens have the right to know about candidates contesting elections, including their assets and criminal records.

2. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975)

   • Laid the foundation of RTI; the Court held that "the people of this country have a right to know every public act."

3. CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011)

   • Students can access their evaluated answer sheets under RTI.

4. Namit Sharma v. Union of India (2013)

   • Initially ruled that Information Commissioners should be from a judicial background, later reviewed and modified.

5. Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (2015)

   • RBI was directed to disclose information under RTI, including inspection reports of banks.

     
     

The Impact of Information Commissions: A Transformative Force

The establishment of Information Commissions exemplifies India’s commitment to democratic values. By processing information requests and educating the public, these bodies nurture informed participation in governance.

As the judicial system further endorses and develops the principles of the Right to Information, the role and effectiveness of Information Commissions will continue to evolve. Empowering citizens with access to information drives accountability within government institutions, fostering an environment where public offices are answerable to the people they serve.

The ongoing legacy of the RTI Act and the work of Information Commissions highlight society's unwavering commitment to transparency and accountability, solidifying the essential connection between citizens and their government.