The CIC and state information commissions (SICs) are almost all functioning much below their sanctioned strength.
New Delhi: A crippling staff shortage and vacancies in crucial positions at the central and state information commissions is severely undermining the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a study by NGOs Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS) and Centre for Equity Studies (CES) has found.
According to the study, ‘Report Card on the Performance of Information Commissions in India’, which looked at 29 information commissions, including the central information commission (CIC), and is based on data gathered via 169 RTI pleas, the failure of the central and state governments to proactively put out information in the public domain is the second biggest bottleneck in the effective implementation of the Act.
The CIC and state information commissions (SICs) are almost all functioning much below their sanctioned strength. The CIC, for example, is four short of its sanctioned strength of 10 information commissioners. Of these, four are set to retire this year.
Also, the Maharashtra, Nagaland and Gujarat SICs are headless in the absence of a chief information commissioner. Kerala’s, meanwhile, has only one information commissioner, out of a sanctioned strength of five.
The information commissions serve the role of watchdogs in the implementation of the RTI Act, approached by petitioners when their pleas are either not accepted by a government agency, refused, or elicit inadequate information.
According to the report, in 2016, the number of appeals and complaints pending with 23 SICs stood at the “alarming figure of 1,81,852”, growing 9.5 per cent to 1,99,186 at the end of October 2017. The Mizoram and Sikkim SICs had zero pendency as of October 2017, while information wasn’t available for other states.
“The assessment found that several ICs were non-functional or functioning at reduced capacity, as the posts of commissioners, including that of the chief information commissioner, were vacant during the period under review,” said the study, which covered the period from January 2016 to October 2017.
According to the report, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Sikkim had spells where the SICs didn’t function at all, while the West Bengal SIC did not hear any complaints or appeals for nearly 12 months. Not surprisingly, the date of resolution for a complaint/appeal filed with West Bengal SIC in November 2017 was estimated at 43 years later by the NGOs (see graphic).
Estimated time required for disposal of an appeal/complaint filed on November 1, 2017.
In a situation of this kind, people have “no recourse to the independent appellate mechanism prescribed under the RTI Act”, the report pointed out.
“The transparency in public authorities completely diminishes. They have no fear or accountability when this happens,” said RTI activist Subhash Agrawal.
“The poorest of the poor use RTI for information regarding basic entitlements such as ration cards. If it takes 5 years to get a response then what is the point? Justice delayed is justice denied,” said Anjali Bhardwaj, co-convenor of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information and a founding member of the Satark Nagrik Sangathan.
There are outliers, of course. The SICs for Mizoram and Sikkim disposed of appeals/complaints in less than a month.
The political side of it
State chief information commissioners, as is the case with the central chief information commissioner, are appointed by the government in consultation with the opposition. Agrawal said while not appointing chiefs was often a government bid to dilute institutions, delayed appointments resulted several times from a lack of coordination between the chief minister and the leader of the opposition. “Mayawati and Mulayam Singh didn’t see eye to eye, so it took a long time for the UP state commission to be set up,” he added.
“Not having a chief (information commissioner) is legally unsound. It is the commissioner who runs everything, while everyone else is supposed to support him,” said Habibullah.
When the last resort crumbles:
The multitude of vacancies is a factor, of course, but experts pointed out that it was the lack of transparency on the part of the central and state governments that forced people to file RTI pleas even for the most basic information.
“The government is not doing its job of suo motu disclosure under Section 4(1)(B) of the RTI Act, under which it has to update information every 120 days,” said Wajahat Habibullah, the first chief information commissioner.
Agrawal said “more proactive disclosures by the government can cut the number of RTI pleas filed by 70%”.
The ‘inexplicable’ overnight drop
The report pointed out how the CIC stated in an RTI reply that the total number of appeals and complaints pending with it stood at 28,502 as on 31 December 2016. However, according to its website, only 364 cases were pending with it on 1 January 2017, it added, terming the fall “inexplicable”.
The returned complaints
Apart from the pendency, concerns have also been raised about the high number of appeals and complaints returned to petitioners, several for unspecified reasons, with many people wondering whether this was a ploy to project lower pendency rates.
“This is extremely problematic as people, especially the marginalised, reach the commissions after a great deal of hardship and a long wait,” said the report.
“The number is so high that I suspect cases were not rejected on solid grounds,” Habibullah added.
Bhardwaj said they had found instances where cases were wrongfully returned.
She added that when the commissions returned complaints, it “fails to perform its legal duty as a friend of the petitioner”. “Many people are unlettered but they do have the right to information,” she said.
“The number is so high that I suspect cases were not rejected on solid grounds,” Habibullah added.
Bhardwaj said they had found instances where cases were wrongfully returned.
She added that when the commissions returned complaints, it “fails to perform its legal duty as a friend of the petitioner”. “Many people are unlettered but they do have the right to information,” she said.
The penalties, or the lack thereof
According to the RTI Act, the information commissions can impose penalties of up to Rs 25,000 against public information officers (PIOs) for violations of the RTI Act. However, according to the report, penalties were rare.
The report added: “Penalties were imposed in… only 4.1% of the cases where penalties were imposable!”