The Central Information Commission building
Central Information Commission building | Commons
Text Size:

Fifteen years after it came into effect, promising a new era in transparency in government functioning, India’s Right to Information, or RTI, Act is dying a slow but certain death, with the executive letting go of no chance to hasten the process.

According to an estimate, between 40 and 60 lakh RTI applications are filed every year, but less than 3 per cent Indian citizens have ever filed an RTI plea.

Of the applications filed, less than 45 per cent received the information they had sought, according to the ‘Report Card of Information Commissions in India, 2018-19’ released by the Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SSN) and the Centre for Equity Studies (CES). But of the 55 per cent who didn’t receive the information, less than 10 per cent filed appeals.

It doesn’t help that the Chief Information Commission (CIC) and the State Information Commissions (SICs) have an unwritten rule about not penalising erring public information officers for their failure to respond to RTI applications properly and in time. And then there is the matter of huge backlog.

The ‘Report Card’ revealed that as of 31 March 2019, there were 2.18 lakh appeals and complaints pending before the SICs. The study added that it took an average of more than a year for  most SICs to dispose of complaints/appeals. While the SIC of Andhra Pradesh would take 18 years to dispose of a complaint, West Bengal SIC would take seven years and five months.


Also read: Indian citizens and media have been terrorised enough with sedition. SC must end it now


Concerted effort

When demonetisation happened, RTI applications were routinely rejected by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on the specious ground that disclosing the information would “prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the state, relation with foreign state or lead to incitement of an offence” – all mentioned in Section 8 of the RTI Act, which deals with exemptions.

We are deeply grateful to our readers & viewers for their time, trust and subscriptions.

Quality journalism is expensive and needs readers to pay for it. Your support will define our work and ThePrint’s future.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

When the CIC directed the RBI to provide the list of wilful loan defaulters, the RBI went to court and got a stay. Finally, on the directions of the Supreme Court, the RBI issued the list.

More recently, the Narendra Modi government has resolutely rejected applications seeking information about the controversial PM CARES Fund, set up to collect financial aid from citizens to fight the Covid-19 pandemic.

Helping the government in its endeavour to make the RTI movement ineffective is the higher judiciary, which has been resisting bringing in any kind of transparency in its own functioning.

After all, the Supreme Court’s own record in dealing with cases pertaining to the applicability of the RTI Act on matters of judicial appointment isn’t something to write about.

Lack of adequate infrastructure and shortage of staff in government offices to deal with RTI applications is another cause for worry.

Then there is the issue of threats and acts of violence against RTI activists. In the last 15 years, at least 86 people who had filed RTI applications have been killed while 175 others have been attacked. At least seven applicants committed suicide while 184 applicants reported being harassed.


Also read: Modi govt set to appoint J&K separatist’s son-in-law as high court judge


What the numbers say

Publicly available data, including in the annual reports of the CIC, shows that while there has been a steady increase in the number of RTI applications filed every year, the backlog, too, has been increasing.

As per a study by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, between 2012-13 and 2018-19, the total number of RTI pleas with various central government offices rose by 83 per cent — from 8.86 lakh to 16.30 lakh. But the number of CPIOs mandated to handle them increased by only about 13 per cent — from 21,204 to 24,048. More importantly, there was a a sharp fall in the mandatory reporting of data by ministries and departments to the CIC.

Another successful method to prevent outflow of information under the RTI Act is to appoint former government servants as information commissioners. After all, who better than a retired bureaucrat to prevent from getting public an information that could embarrass the government.

The 2018-19 SSN-CES ‘Report Card’ found that of the 374 information commissioners appointed in the 29 SICs since the inception of the RTI Act, over 58 per cent were former government officials. Of the 115 chief information commissioners appointed during this period, over 83 per cent were retired government servants, with 64 per cent from the elite IAS.


Also read: Information panel wants Modi govt to relax RTI response deadline during lockdown


Government keeping IC posts vacant

The central and state governments have devised an effective way to thwart activists’ attempt to seek information by keeping the posts of information commissioners vacant.

In fact, on 16 December 2019, the Supreme Court directed the central and state governments to appoint information commissioners in CIC and SICs “within three months”. The court had said in its order that operational information commissions were “vital for the smooth working of the RTI Act”.

But, the governments can’t be bothered, because several posts continue to remain vacant. When the term of the information commissioners of the common SIC for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana ended in May 2017, it took an order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana to push the two states to constitute SICs.

Andhra Pradesh took over a year to finally appoint three ICs, that too after the intervention of the Supreme Court, choosing not to appoint a CIC for almost two years. BJP-ruled Tripura remained without a functional SIC for over six months.


Also read: 21 of 29 state information commissions did not hold any RTI hearings during lockdown


Taking cue from 2011 SC order

In its judgment in the Central Board of Secondary Education versus Aditya Bandopadhyay on 9 August 2011, the Supreme Court observed that the RTI Act should not be “allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquillity and harmony among its citizens”.

“Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising `information furnishing’, at the cost of their normal and regular duties,” the bench further said.

Many public information officers often cite these words to discourage RTI applicants.

But, like several other spheres, in these times, the courts have often been siding with the government and failing to uphold the letter and spirit of the RTI Act. They have ensured that people seeking to use the RTI Act to expose the wrongdoings of the government are fearful of adverse observations. What hopes then do the common citizens have to hold their governments accountable? Perhaps, the judiciary can ask this question on behalf of Indian citizens. 

The author is a senior journalist. Views are personal.

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

News media is in a crisis & only you can fix it

You are reading this because you value good, intelligent and objective journalism. We thank you for your time and your trust.

You also know that the news media is facing an unprecedented crisis. It is likely that you are also hearing of the brutal layoffs and pay-cuts hitting the industry. There are many reasons why the media’s economics is broken. But a big one is that good people are not yet paying enough for good journalism.

We have a newsroom filled with talented young reporters. We also have the country’s most robust editing and fact-checking team, finest news photographers and video professionals. We are building India’s most ambitious and energetic news platform. And we aren’t even three yet.

At ThePrint, we invest in quality journalists. We pay them fairly and on time even in this difficult period. As you may have noticed, we do not flinch from spending whatever it takes to make sure our reporters reach where the story is. Our stellar coronavirus coverage is a good example. You can check some of it here.

This comes with a sizable cost. For us to continue bringing quality journalism, we need readers like you to pay for it. Because the advertising market is broken too.

If you think we deserve your support, do join us in this endeavour to strengthen fair, free, courageous, and questioning journalism, please click on the link below. Your support will define our journalism, and ThePrint’s future. It will take just a few seconds of your time.

Support Our Journalism

4 Comments Share Your Views

4 COMMENTS

  1. It is the Supreme Court, not the Government, which is the biggest enemy of RTI Act. It resolutely refuses to fully come under the scope of the RTI. Recently, I had applied under RTI for copies of pleadings in a concluded case in the supreme court. It was not confidential information, affecting anyone’s personal right. Being case record, it was a public document. The CPIO rejected with a cryptic letter directing me to apply under The Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The first appellate authority simply repeated the same order, Neither would say, why an application was not maintainable under RTI Act, when it was not a exempt information under Section 8 of the Act, nor covered in the Schedule to the Act. Now, my appeal is pending in the CIC Delhi. Through and through, everyone concerned with RTI in any manner act irresponsibly. There are no adverse consequences at all on the CPIOs or First Appellate Authorities for flouting the law.

  2. I think article written in very mild language whereas, Information commissioner belentatly flouting the provisions of RTI Act by harrassing the information seekers instead penalizing the CPIO for defaults.

  3. I think article written in very mild language whereas, Information commissioner belentatly flouting the provisions of RTI Act by harrassing the information seekers instead penalizing the CPIO for defaults.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here