Moneylife: National: Tuesday, May 01, 2018.
It is
alarming to note that in the thirteenth year of the implementation of the Right
to Information (RTI) Act, more than 75% Information Commissions (ICs) failed to
proactively disclose basic updated information about their functioning on their
own websites. Further, 55% of Commissions have failed to provide complete
information within the stipulated timeframe in response to information requests
filed to them, shows a study report.
According to
a “Report Card on the Performance of Information Commissions in India” prepared
by Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS) and Centre for Equity Studies (CES),
transparency is a key to promoting peoples’ trust in public institutions. The
assessment found that several ICs were non-functional or were functioning at
reduced capacity, despite large backlogs, as the posts of commissioners,
including that of the chief information commissioner (CIC), were vacant during
the period under review. In many cases, the appointments of information
commissioners were found to be set aside by courts due to lack of transparency
in the process of appointment and for being in violation of the provisions of the
RTI Act and directions of the Supreme Court.
In addition,
the Report, says, “By failing to disclose information on their functioning, ICs
continue to evade real accountability to the people of the country whom they
are supposed to serve. The legal requirement for the central and state
information commissions to submit annual reports every year to Parliament and
state legislatures respectively, is to make, among other things, their
activities transparent and available for public scrutiny. However, very few ICs
fulfil this obligation, and even fewer do it in time”.
For
institutions that are vested with the responsibility of ensuring that all
public authorities function transparently and adhere to the letter and spirit
of the RTI Act, it would perhaps be fair to expect that information commissions
lead by example, the report says adding, ICs are also public authorities under
the RTI Act and therefore, other than responding to applications for
information under law, they are also required to proactively disclose (under
section 4) information on their functioning and the details of decisions taken
by them.
As part of
the assessment, and in order to access information about the functioning of
information commissions, both SNS and CES filed RTI applications with the 28
state information commissions (SIC) and the Central Information Commission
(CIC). A total of 169 RTI applications were filed seeking identical information
from all the 29 information commissions. The RTI applications were tracked to
assess how each information commission performed as a public authority, in
terms of maintaining and disclosing information. Three information commissions
from Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu did not respond to, or even
acknowledge, the RTI applications filed within stipulated time.
"Several
ICs, like from Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh
rejected requests for information invoking provisions seemingly in violation of
the RTI Act. In all these cases, an appeal was filed against the denial of
information. However, till the time of publication of this report, the
requisite information had not been disclosed," the report says.
Apart from
Tamil Nadu, three State Information Commissions (SICs), Odisha, Sikkim and
Kerala returned the RTI applications citing procedural deficiencies.
Only 13 out
of 29 ICs provided full information in response to the RTI applications filed
as part of this assessment.
Non-functional
information commissions
During the
period under review, there were four information commissions, Andhra Pradesh,
Telangana, West Bengal and Sikkim, which were not functional for varying
lengths of time. In the absence of functional commissions, information seekers
have no reprieve under the RTI Act if they are unable to access information as
per the provisions of the law.
Commissions
functioning without a Chief Information Commissioner
Three SICs,
Nagaland, Gujarat and Maharashtra were found functioning without a Chief
Information Commissioner during the review. "The RTI Act envisages a
critical role for the chief information commissioner, including
superintendence, management and direction of the affairs of the information
commission. The absence of a chief commissioner, therefore, has serious
ramifications for the efficient and autonomous functioning of the
commission," the Report says.
Commissions
functioning at reduced capacity
Several
information commissions across the country are functioning at a reduced
capacity, despite large backlogs of appeals and complaints. For example, the
SIC of Kerala has been functioning with a single commissioner since 2016. As of
31 October 2017 nearly 14,000 appeals and complaints were pending with the
commission. In 2016, the High Court of Kerala set aside the appointment of five
information commissioners stating that the selection process was flawed.
The Odisha
SIC is functioning with three commissioners despite having a pendency of more
than 10,000 appeals and complaints as of 31 October 2017.
Even the CIC
is not spared from shortage of ICs. There are currently four vacancies in the
CIC the first of which arose in December 2016. Of the existing seven
commissioners, four commissioners, including the Chief, are set to retire in
2018.
Majority of
commissioners appointed from among retired government officials
Information
was sought under the RTI Act from 29 ICs about the background of all
commissioners, including the chief information commissioners, appointed since
the inception of the ICs. "Despite the RTI Act providing that
commissioners should be appointed from diverse backgrounds and fields, the
assessment found that since the RTI law came into effect, an overwhelming
majority of information commissioners have been appointed from among retired government
servants," the Report reveals.
Of the 303
commissioners for whom background information was available, 59% were retired
government officials, while 14% had a legal or judicial background (11% were
advocates or from the judicial service and 3% were retired judges). About 8%
commissioners had a background in journalism, 6% were educationists and 3% were
social activists or workers.
Of the 107
chief information commissioners for whom data was obtained, the overwhelming
majority (84%) were retired government servants including 67% retired Indian
Administrative Service (IAS) officers and another 17% from other services. Of
the remainder, 10% had a background in law (5% former judges and 5% lawyers or
judicial officers).
No gender
parity
The
assessment found the gender composition of commissions to be extremely skewed.
The Report says, "Since the passage of the RTI Act in 2005, merely 10% of
all information commissioners across the country have been women. In terms of
Chief Information Commissioners, the gender parity is even worse, with less
than 7% chiefs being women. At present, of the 26 serving chief information
commissioners in the country, only one is a woman- the chief of the SIC of
Tamil Nadu. Clearly much needs to be done to address the poor representation of
women in information commissions."
Answerability
of ICs to the Parliament, state legislatures and citizens is compromised when
annual reports are not published and proactively disclosed every year as
required under the law. Unless ICs significantly improve their responsiveness
to RTI applications, provide information proactively in the public domain
through regularly updated websites and publish annual reports in a timely
manner, they will not enjoy the confidence of people. The guardians of
transparency need to be transparent and accountable themselves.
Here are
the recommendations from the Report...
1. All
information commissions must put in place necessary mechanisms to ensure prompt
and timely response to information requests filed to them.
2. Each
information commission must ensure that relevant information about its
functioning is displayed on its website. This must include information about
the receipt and disposal of appeals and complaints, number of pending cases,
and orders passed by commissions. The information should be updated in real
time.
3.
Information commissions must ensure that, as legally required, they submit
their annual report to the Parliament/state assemblies in a reasonable time.
Violations should be treated as contempt of Parliament or legislature, as
appropriate. The Parliament and legislative assemblies should treat the
submission of annual reports by ICs as an undertaking to the house and demand
them accordingly. Annual reports published by ICs must also be made available
on their respective websites.
4. ICs in
collaboration with appropriate government should put place a mechanism for
online filing of RTI applications,
along the lines of the web portal set up by the central government
(rtionline.gov.in). Further, the online portals should also provide facilities
for electronic filing of first appeals, and second appeals/complaints to the
information commissions.
.JPG)
.JPG)
