Daily Excelsior: Jammu: Wednesday, 20 August 2025.
In recent weeks, the
Central Information Commission has issued a series of strongly worded orders
targeting multiple Government offices in Jammu and Kashmir for persistent
violations of the RTI Act. These cases, involving the Deputy Commissioner’s
Office in Kishtwar, the Mechanical and Hospital Engineering Department, the
Crime Branch Headquarters, and even a prestigious university, reveal a
disturbing and entrenched pattern of disregard for statutory transparency
obligations. The details are telling. In one instance, a JKAS officer was
denied complete access to documents relating to complaints and salary stoppage
orders. In another case, a citizen’s request for vehicle purchase and usage
records went unanswered for months. In a third, the Crime Branch invoked an
exemption clause even after the investigation in question had concluded-an
argument the CIC rightly dismissed. In all these matters, the problem was not
merely delay but also non-adjudication of first appeals and, most tellingly,
unexplained absenteeism of PIOs from appeal hearings despite prior notices.
The CIC’s orders reflect a dual approach: compelling immediate disclosure of information while simultaneously holding errant officers personally accountable. Show-cause notices, warnings of penal action, and explicit compliance deadlines have been issued. The message is clear-non-compliance will not be tolerated, and accountability will be enforced. This is a welcome stance, but the very need for such repeated intervention exposes the systemic weaknesses in the RTI enforcement framework in J&K.
The RTI Act of 2005 is more than a procedural law-it is a democratic instrument designed to shift the culture of governance from opacity to openness. By empowering citizens to seek information, participatory governance is strengthened, corruption is deterred, and accountability in public administration is ensured. The Act lays down strict timelines-30 days for initial responses and a similar urgency for appeals-precisely to prevent bureaucratic evasion. Yet the pattern revealed in J&K shows that for many officials, the law remains optional rather than obligatory. When PIOs ignore appeals, skip hearings, or deliberately delay responses, they are not just failing in their professional duty-they are eroding citizens’ faith in the system. The CIC’s repeated references to “wilful obstruction” and “vitiation of proceedings” underscore that such conduct is neither accidental nor trivial. These incidents collectively point to a deeper malaise-an administrative culture resistant to transparency, whether through inertia, ignorance, or deliberate evasion. Several factors contribute: inadequate training of PIOs, absence of institutional monitoring, lack of consequences for non-compliance until matters reach the CIC, and a broader bureaucratic mindset that treats public information as a privilege to be granted rather than a right to be respected.
To address this, piecemeal directives from the CIC, while necessary, are insufficient. A systemic overhaul is required.The RTI Act thrives only in an environment where information disclosure is the norm and denial the exception. Unfortunately, in J&K, the reverse seems to be the case. This inversion breeds suspicion about what officials might be hiding. Whether the matter concerns infrastructure projects, procurement records, disciplinary proceedings, or environmental issues, the public has a legitimate stake in knowing how their Government operates.
The CIC’s recent actions are therefore not merely about enforcing compliance in a few isolated cases-they are about reaffirming the principle that in a democracy, Government information belongs to the people. PIOs are not gatekeepers guarding a vault; they are custodians entrusted with facilitating access. The law is unambiguous, the obligations are clear, and the consequences for non-compliance are spelt out. What is missing is the administrative will to embed transparency into the day-to-day functioning of public offices.
If J&K is to strengthen its democratic institutions and public trust, its approach must change. Transparency should not depend on a citizen’s persistence or the CIC’s intervention; it should be the default mode of governance. The recent spate of orders is both a warning and an opportunity-a warning that negligence will attract penalties and an opportunity to build a culture where the RTI is respected in spirit as well as in letter. Anything less would weaken the democratic fabric it was designed to protect.
The CIC’s orders reflect a dual approach: compelling immediate disclosure of information while simultaneously holding errant officers personally accountable. Show-cause notices, warnings of penal action, and explicit compliance deadlines have been issued. The message is clear-non-compliance will not be tolerated, and accountability will be enforced. This is a welcome stance, but the very need for such repeated intervention exposes the systemic weaknesses in the RTI enforcement framework in J&K.
The RTI Act of 2005 is more than a procedural law-it is a democratic instrument designed to shift the culture of governance from opacity to openness. By empowering citizens to seek information, participatory governance is strengthened, corruption is deterred, and accountability in public administration is ensured. The Act lays down strict timelines-30 days for initial responses and a similar urgency for appeals-precisely to prevent bureaucratic evasion. Yet the pattern revealed in J&K shows that for many officials, the law remains optional rather than obligatory. When PIOs ignore appeals, skip hearings, or deliberately delay responses, they are not just failing in their professional duty-they are eroding citizens’ faith in the system. The CIC’s repeated references to “wilful obstruction” and “vitiation of proceedings” underscore that such conduct is neither accidental nor trivial. These incidents collectively point to a deeper malaise-an administrative culture resistant to transparency, whether through inertia, ignorance, or deliberate evasion. Several factors contribute: inadequate training of PIOs, absence of institutional monitoring, lack of consequences for non-compliance until matters reach the CIC, and a broader bureaucratic mindset that treats public information as a privilege to be granted rather than a right to be respected.
To address this, piecemeal directives from the CIC, while necessary, are insufficient. A systemic overhaul is required.The RTI Act thrives only in an environment where information disclosure is the norm and denial the exception. Unfortunately, in J&K, the reverse seems to be the case. This inversion breeds suspicion about what officials might be hiding. Whether the matter concerns infrastructure projects, procurement records, disciplinary proceedings, or environmental issues, the public has a legitimate stake in knowing how their Government operates.
The CIC’s recent actions are therefore not merely about enforcing compliance in a few isolated cases-they are about reaffirming the principle that in a democracy, Government information belongs to the people. PIOs are not gatekeepers guarding a vault; they are custodians entrusted with facilitating access. The law is unambiguous, the obligations are clear, and the consequences for non-compliance are spelt out. What is missing is the administrative will to embed transparency into the day-to-day functioning of public offices.
If J&K is to strengthen its democratic institutions and public trust, its approach must change. Transparency should not depend on a citizen’s persistence or the CIC’s intervention; it should be the default mode of governance. The recent spate of orders is both a warning and an opportunity-a warning that negligence will attract penalties and an opportunity to build a culture where the RTI is respected in spirit as well as in letter. Anything less would weaken the democratic fabric it was designed to protect.
.JPG)
.JPG)
