The Hindu: National: Wednesday,
November 09, 2016.
A new study
on the performance of the adjudicators of the Right to Information (RTI) Act
has revealed that information commissions (ICs) imposed the penalty for denial
of information (in violation of the RTI Act) in only 1.3 per cent of the cases
where penalty was imposable. “This destroys the basic framework of incentives
and disincentives built into the RTI law and promotes a culture of impunity,”
noted the study conducted by Research, Assessment and Analysis Group (RaaG) and
Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS).
The RTI Act
empowers the ICs to impose penalties of up to Rs. 25,000 on erring Public
Information Officers (PIOs). Section 20 of the RTI Act defines the violations
for which PIOs should be penalised. By foregoing penalties in cases where it
was imposable, the ICs caused an estimated annual loss of Rs. 290 crore to the
exchequer, observed the report. “Even more important than the revenue lost is
the loss of deterrence value that the threat of penalty was supposed to have
provided.”
The study
found that the two provisions of the RTI Act invoked the most for denial of
information were section 7 (9) (disproportionate diversion of resources) and
section 11 (1) (third party information). “Neither of these can themselves be
used to deny information,” noted the study.
The “most
disturbing trend”, according to the report, was the invention of exemptions
that were not part of the RTI Act. Of the 252 appeals analysed, 50 per cent of
the denials were found to be in violation of the RTI Act. The ICs denied
information because it pertained to previous years, or because information
sought was voluminous, or because PIOs claimed the information could not be
traced, or because the IC determined that the applicant “had no good reason”
for seeking information. “None of these are valid grounds for denial of
information,” observed the study.
The research
also found that more than 60 per cent of the IC orders analysed contained
deficiencies in terms of recording critical facts. Rajasthan and Bihar’s State
Information Commissions (SIC) were the worst performers, with 74 per cent and
73 per cent of the orders not describing the information sought.
The study
further found that the collective backlog in the disposal of appeals and
complaints in the 16 ICs studied, was an “alarming 1,87,974 cases pending as on
December 31, 2015.” Compared to December 2013, the pendency had shot up by 240
per cent in Assam SIC, and by more than 60 per cent in Odisha and Punjab. The
Chief Information Commission (CIC) saw a rise in pendency of 43 per cent. In
nine of the 16 ICs whose data were analysed, the waiting time for a hearing was
more than a year. A matter filed before the Assam SIC on January 1, 2016 would
come up for hearing in 2046, noted the study.
.JPG)
.JPG)
