Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Non-imposition of penalties under the Right to Information Act by Information Commissioners (ICs) is causing an estimated loss of Rs.203 crores annually, a recent research has found.
The research was conducted by the SatarkNagrikSangathan (SNS) & Centre for Equity Studies on orders of the Central Information Commission (CIC). 549 orders of the CIC, for the period January 1, 2018 to March 31, 2018, were randomly sampled and analysed for the purpose of the study. All orders were analysed in terms of their completeness and compliance with the provisions of the law. Where disclosure of information in appeals was partly or fully denied, the section of the law/reasons relied on for denial was recorded and it was examined whether the denial of information was in keeping with the provisions of the RTI Act and whether the orders were well reasoned. In addition, it was assessed whether violations of the law were acted against as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Here is a summary of the findings of this study:
Quality of orders
The assessment found that 7% of the orders analysed contained deficiencies in terms of not recording critical facts like information sought by the appellant/complainant. This, it said, was “significant improvement”, as a prior assessment of orders of the CIC from 2013 to 2016 had found that 63% of orders did not describe the information sought. It, however, noted that in several cases where information was denied, it was found that the orders were not adequately reasoned.
Backlogs in Information Commissions
The assessment found that on an average, the CIC takes 319 days to hear and give an order on an appeal/complaint from the date that it was filed before the commission. Highlighting the effect of such backlogs on the spirit of the RTI act, the report said that the huge backlog in the disposal of appeals and complaints by the commissions and the concomitant long waiting time for disposal of appeals and complaints is one of the most serious problems being faced by the transparency regime in India.
The report further states that often, the huge pendency and the concomitant long waiting time are a result on non- appointment of ICs. It points out that even though, as of October 2018, nearly 25,000 appeals/complaints are pending in the CIC, since January 1, 2018 the CIC has been functioning with only 7 ICs
Penalty imposition
The assessment found that an average of 56% orders recorded one or more violations listed in Section 20 of the RTI Act, based on which the IC should have triggered the process of penalty imposition. However, of these 56% cases, only in 28% cases ICs issued notices to the PIOs asking them to show cause why penalty should not be levied.
The report then states that such non-imposition is causing an estimated loss of Rs.203 crores annually, however, it asserts that even more important than the revenue loss is the loss of deterrence value that the threat of penalty was supposed to have provided. This, it said, has resulted in PIOs denying information, delaying information, not responding at all, or violating other provisions of the RTI Act with impunity, without fear of consequences.
Orders in violation of the RTI Act
The assessment found that more than 60% denials by the ICs were on grounds which are not provided for in the RTI Act. It was further found that in several cases, information was denied without citing any specific exemption under the RTI Act.
Who is using the RTI Act & for what?
Interestingly, the assessment found a “gender divide” in terms of filing RTI applications, with 91% of the appeals/complaints having been filed by men.
It further found that 44% of RTI applications sought information where, at least a part of the information if not all, was such that it should have been made public proactively, without anyone applying for it. This included information that should have been made proactively available under Section 4 of the RTI Act and information which even without the existence of the RTI Act should have been proactively provided
Lastly, the report said that the lack of compliance with provisions of mandatory proactive disclosures results in adjudicators spending a significant amount of their time on hearing appeals and complaints of people seeking information which in any case should have been proactively disclosed.
86540
103860
630
114
59824