Economic Times: New Delhi: Friday, August 31, 2018.
In an ironical move,
the Central Information Commission (CIC) has refused to make public a
transparency audit conducted of central ministries and departments.
The transparency
watchdog had commissioned a transparency audit of about 900 public authorities
on how proactively are they disclosing information. The audit was conducted by
the Indian Law Institute. However, CIC has refused to follow the transparency
diktat itself and rejected the RTI application.
Anjali Bhardwaj of
National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) had filed an RTI
application earlier this month, seeking a copy of the audit report. CIC
divulged the broad results of the audit, as was reported by ET on April 17, but
refused to share the report.
In its reply, CIC has
taken refuge in Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act, which says, “An information shall
ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would
disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be
detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question”.
CIC has said, “The
report of the Indian Law Institute (ILI) is voluminous and would disproportionately
divert the resources. However, a consolidated list of public authorities duly
graded by ILI is enclosed”.
While CIC has given the
number of public authorities graded as A, B, C and D, there is no description
of which is a higher grade and the methodology or criteria for this grading.
“It is surprising that
CIC, which is the final appellate authority for RTI matters, would take such a
stance,” Bhardwaj said. “The transparency audit report should ideally be in the
public domain. It should have been uploaded on the website even before somebody
sought it under the RTI Act.”
Under Section 4 of the
Act, every government department has to voluntarily disclose information
through annual reports and websites, which include directory of its officers,
their remuneration, functions, list of beneficiaries of government schemes,
minutes of board meetings, annual reports and other updated information. The
audit had revealed that most of the public authorities have not been following
the rulebook in maintaining public records and proactive disclosure. Out of
2,023 public authorities registered with the transparency watchdog, 963 were
surveyed on quality of information being disclosed by them.