As the RTI Act marked its 14th anniversary on October 12, a study showed that government officials barely face any punishment for violating the law by denying applicants the information sought by them. State and Central Information Commissions, which are the courts of appeal under the Act, failed to impose penalties in about 97 per cent of the cases where violations took place in 2018-19.

Key findings

* The Report Card on the Performance of Information Commissions in India was prepared by the Satark Nagrik Sangathan and the Centre for Equity Studies.

* It studied information from 22 commissions, which disposed of almost 1.17 lakh cases in that time period. Using previous analyses showing that 59 per cent of cases record one or more violations listed in Section 20 of the RTI Act, it can be estimated that penalties should have been imposed in 68,900 cases.

* In fact, penalties were imposed only in 2,091 cases, which are 3 per cent of the cases where violations took place, and less than 2 per cent of the total number of cases disposed.

* Overall, penalties worth Rs 3.15 crore were imposed on officials. The State Commissions of Tamil Nadu, Sikkim, Mizoram and Tripura did not impose penalties in any cases at all.

* Apart from fines, the commissions also have the power to recommend disciplinary action against officials for persistent violations of the RTI Act. Only 10 states invoked these powers.

* The commissions have an increasing workload, which is leading to a huge pendency of cases. The report showed that there were 2.18 lakh cases pending with the commissions in March, in comparison with 1.85 lakh pending cases a year earlier.

* As of October 11, the Central Information Commission (CIC) alone had more than 33,000 pending cases. Any new appeal to the CIC would have to wait for more than 18 months for resolution. The rising backlog is exacerbated by the fact that four out of 11 posts in the CIC are yet to be filled.

RTI Act

Under the RTI Act, 2005, public authorities are required to make disclosures on various aspects of their structure and functioning.  This includes (i) disclosure on their organisation, functions and structure, (ii) powers and duties of its officers and employees, and (iii) financial information.  The intent of such suo moto disclosures is that the public should need minimum recourse through the Act to obtain such information. If such information is not made available, citizens have the right to request for it. This may include information in the form of documents, files or electronic records under the control of the public authority. The intent behind the enactment of the Act is to promote transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities.

Who are public authorities?

Public authorities include bodies of self-government established under the Constitution, or under any law or government notification. For instance, these include ministries, public sector undertakings and regulators. It also includes any entities owned, controlled or substantially financed and non-government organisations substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the government.

How is the right to information enforced under the Act?

The Act has established a three-tier structure for enforcing the right to information guaranteed under the Act. Public authorities designate some of their officers as public information officers. The first request for information goes to central / state assistant public information officer and central / state public information officer designated by the public authorities. These officers are required to provide information to an RTI applicant within 30 days of the request. Appeals from their decisions go to an Appellate Authority. Appeals against the order of the Appellate Authority go to the State / Central Information Commission. These commissions consist of a Chief Information Commissioner and up to 10 Information Commissioners.

What does the RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2019, propose?

The Bill changes the terms and conditions of service of the Central Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners at the Centre and states.