Moneylife: Pune: Friday, 11 July 2025.
Presently, the central
information commission (CIC) holds its hearings in a hybrid form, wherein RTI
applicants and representatives of the public authorities (PA) attend either in
person or virtually, but the access is restricted to journalists, civil society
members, and the general public, which reeks of opaqueness and is anathema to
the sunshine law.
The CIC has not implemented its own 2016 internal directive which contains a clear protocol for public access to hearings and publishing the same on its website.
Additionally, last year on 2 July 2024, Saurav Das, an independent journalist and RTI activist, sent a letter to the CIC, urging it to allow public access to its hearings. Since the CIC failed to respond or take any steps to address the issue, a public interest litigation (PIL) was filed by five journalists in the Delhi High Court (HC), last month.
Petitioners comprised Saurav Das, Betwa Sharma, Vinita Deshmukh, Kunal Rajnikant Purohit, and Mohit M Rao all journalists, who urged the Delhi HC to direct the CIC to facilitate both physical and virtual access to its hearings to journalists, activists and the general public and; to declare that all second appeal hearings/ complaints of the CIC must be open to public under the RTI Act. This, the petitioners appealed, would truly uphold the principles of transparency and public accountability.
Observes Mr Das, who has filed several RTI-related petitions in the Madras HC and Delhi HC, “We are challenging the opaque functioning of the CIC. Regular users of the RTI Act have raised serious concerns over the CIC’s practice of conducting complaints and appeal hearings behind closed doors.”
As the apex body for hearing RTI appeals and complaints, the CIC holds significant powers which include ordering disclosure of information, penalising public information officers (PIOs), and directing PAs to abide by the RTI Act and functions as a quasi-judicial body.
The following points were raised in the PIL to highlight the reasons why the CIC needs to be transparent in its second appeal/complaint hearings:
The HC also enquired from the CIC secretary who had appeared in-camera for the hearing, “as to why the CIC has not considered upgrading to a more accessible virtual platform such as Webex similar to the one used by this Court and several High Courts across the country as these would go beyond the current limitation that virtual appearances be made only from NIC Studios located at district headquarters, and; offer far greater convenience to parties wishing to participate in CIC proceedings virtually.”
The secretary CIC, submitted that he would take it up at the administrative level and take a decision. The CIC has been directed to file a fresh status report on this issue within six weeks from 9 July 2025.
The CIC has not implemented its own 2016 internal directive which contains a clear protocol for public access to hearings and publishing the same on its website.
Additionally, last year on 2 July 2024, Saurav Das, an independent journalist and RTI activist, sent a letter to the CIC, urging it to allow public access to its hearings. Since the CIC failed to respond or take any steps to address the issue, a public interest litigation (PIL) was filed by five journalists in the Delhi High Court (HC), last month.
Petitioners comprised Saurav Das, Betwa Sharma, Vinita Deshmukh, Kunal Rajnikant Purohit, and Mohit M Rao all journalists, who urged the Delhi HC to direct the CIC to facilitate both physical and virtual access to its hearings to journalists, activists and the general public and; to declare that all second appeal hearings/ complaints of the CIC must be open to public under the RTI Act. This, the petitioners appealed, would truly uphold the principles of transparency and public accountability.
Observes Mr Das, who has filed several RTI-related petitions in the Madras HC and Delhi HC, “We are challenging the opaque functioning of the CIC. Regular users of the RTI Act have raised serious concerns over the CIC’s practice of conducting complaints and appeal hearings behind closed doors.”
As the apex body for hearing RTI appeals and complaints, the CIC holds significant powers which include ordering disclosure of information, penalising public information officers (PIOs), and directing PAs to abide by the RTI Act and functions as a quasi-judicial body.
The following points were raised in the PIL to highlight the reasons why the CIC needs to be transparent in its second appeal/complaint hearings:
- The citizens’ right to participate in proceedings under the RTI Act has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India, 2023 INSC 915, wherein the state information commissions across the country were directed to enable virtual access to the public.
- Neither the RTI Act, nor any rules framed thereunder authorise the CIC to conduct its hearings behind closed doors, in-camera style. On the contrary, the CIC’s own internal order dated 23 September 2016 declares that its proceedings “are open to general public” and in-camera hearings are permitted with special reasons to be recorded in writing.
- The CIC, like any other court or tribunal exercising quasi-judicial powers, is bound by the principles of ‘open justice’. The CIC has failed to offer any compelling justification to exclude public oversight over its decision-making processes.
- By excluding the press and civil society, the CIC has deprived the right of citizens to full, impartial, and accurate reporting of its decisions and proceedings.
- The commission’s closed-door in-camera hearings runs counter to the fundamental objective behind the RTI Act and to secure the right to information guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21.
- It is indeed paradoxical that an institution constituted to enforce transparency operates behind closed doors. Hence, the petitioners respectfully seek this Hon’ble Court to compel the CIC to open its proceedings for the press, civil society, and citizens both virtually and physically.
The HC also enquired from the CIC secretary who had appeared in-camera for the hearing, “as to why the CIC has not considered upgrading to a more accessible virtual platform such as Webex similar to the one used by this Court and several High Courts across the country as these would go beyond the current limitation that virtual appearances be made only from NIC Studios located at district headquarters, and; offer far greater convenience to parties wishing to participate in CIC proceedings virtually.”
The secretary CIC, submitted that he would take it up at the administrative level and take a decision. The CIC has been directed to file a fresh status report on this issue within six weeks from 9 July 2025.
.JPG)
.JPG)
