News Click: National: Wednesday, June 27, 2018.
One of the
hardest won legislations in India, the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act)
is under attack. This has not arisen from nefarious amendments, but instead
from neglect. The Information Commissions at the state and the Union level are
functioning with fewer Information Commissioners than is statutorily mandated
and this has led to a backlog of pending appeals and complaints. The situation
did not arise overnight, but has been building up over a period of time. A
petition has thus been filed in the Supreme Court to remedy this unfolding
death of transparency.
The
petitioners have sought directions issued by the Supreme Court to the concerned
governments to:
- Fill the existing vacancies in their respective Information Commissions.
- Commence the selection process at a minimum of three months prior to when the vacancy will arise.
- Publish all records of deliberations and rational criteria related to short-listing the candidates to the respective information commissions.
- Formulate a transparent method of selecting the Chief Information Commissioner and other Information Commissioners.
The
petitioners in this PIL are all known for their work towards ensuring
transparent governance. Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri have both worked in
the field of transparency before the Right to Information Act even became a
reality. They are both members of the National Campaign for People's Right to
Information as well as the Satark Nagrik Sangathan. The other petitioner, in
this case, is a retired Naval Commodore, Lokesh K Batra. Commodore Batra has
been active in the realm of RTI and is a transparency campaigner, he has also
filed applications under the RTI Act with respect to the Election Bond Scheme.
The respondents are the Union of India as well as the State Governments of
Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Nagaland, Odisha,
Telangana and West Bengal.
The petition
is based on a chain of events starting from 2015, the petitioners have observed
with dismay.
THE
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
On September
2, 2016, the Union Government had issued a notification inviting applications
for two posts in the Central Information Commission (CIC) as the posts would
become vacant in December 2016 and February 2017 respectively. On December 31,
2016, the Central Information Commissioner, M A Khan Yusufi retired. Until that
date, the CIC had been functioning with one Chief Information Commissioner and
ten Information Commissioners. On February 15, 2017, Basant Seth completed his
term as the Chief Information Commissioner and retired. Thus, there were two
vacancies in the CIC, neither of which have been filled. On June 5, 2017, the
petitioners had sent a letter to the Prime Minister urging him to fill the
vacancies in the CIC. On September 8, 2017, more than three months later,
Anjali Bhardwaj filed an application under the RTI seeking information
concerning the status of the letter. The response showed that the Prime
Minister's Office had treated the letter as a grievance and had registered it
on the online portal of the government. However, when the petitioners tracked
the 'grievance', the website stated that it had been closed as the matter was
pending. On September 22, 2017, Sharat Sabharwal completed his term as the
Chief Information Commissioner and retired. Thus, bringing the tally of
vacancies in the CIC to three. On January 15, 2018, Manjula Prasher retired
from the CIC, the vacancies thus rose to four. As of April 4, 2018, the CIC
website showed that more than 23,500 appeals and complaints are pending before
it, some have been pending for two years.
ANDHRA
PRADESH STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
In May 2017,
the State Information Commission (SIC) of Andhra Pradesh completely stopped functioning
as all the members of the commission had retired. In August 2017 the government
of Andhra Pradesh had issued an order to constitute the SIC. However, there
have been no appointments to the effect.
GUJARAT
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
On January
19, 2018, the Gujarat Chief State Information Commissioner retired. The
position has not yet been filled.
KARNATAKA
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
The Karnataka
State Information Commission has been functioning with five Information
Commissioners while 33,000 appeals and complaints pending before it as of
October 31, 2017.
KERALA
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
As of October
31, 2017, the Kerala State Information Commission has been functioning with
only one Information Commissioner despite around 14,000 appeals pending before
it.
MAHARASHTRA
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
In April 2017
the Chief Information Commissioner of the Maharashtra State Information
Commission (SIC) retired, however, no new Chief has been appointed. As of
February 2018, the Maharashtra SIC has been functioning with seven Information
Commissioners despite a sanctioned strength of eleven. At the end of February
more than 40,000 appeals and complaints were pending before it.
NAGALAND
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
On September
28, 2017, Toshi Aier retired as the Chief Information Commissioner of the
Nagaland State Information Commission (SIC). Since then, the SIC of Nagaland
has been functioning without a Chief Information Commissioner.
ODISHA
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
The Odisha
State Information Commission has been functioning with three Information
Commissioners and with more than 10,000 appeals and complaints pending.
TELANGANA
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
The Telangana
State Information Commission has been functioning with only two Information
Commissioners while more than 15,500 appeals and complaints pending before it.
WEST
BENGAL STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
Between November
2015 to July 2016 the State Information Commission (SIC) of West Bengal did not
function and did not hear any appeals as there was only one Commissioner.
Between April 2017 to July 2017 the SIC of West Bengal was once again
'non-functional' as there was only one member in the SIC. As of October 31,
2017 more than 8,000 appeals are pending before the SIC of West Bengal.
It is thus
clear that the RTI Act is being undermined by official neglect and bureaucratic
opacity. This apparent official apathy need not necessarily be deliberate.
However, its effect is certainly chilling. Considering that the RTI Act
mandates under subsection 1 of section 7 that an application under the Act has
to be responded to within 30 days and non-disclosure of information is thus
subject to appeal. By not appointing adequate numbers of authorities to deal
with the appeals, a system has emerged wherein if a department declines or
ignores an application, the appeal cannot be disposed off until probably after
the concerned departmental officials have retired. This clearly cannot be in
the interest of transparency and good governance.
However, if
the Supreme Court were to expedite the hearings and deliver a decision in
favour of the petitioners, both levels of government would be bound to abide by
the decision. On the other hand, the Higher Judiciary in the country is gripped
with a similar set of circumstances.