SC Taps Centre For Information On Vacancies, Pendency In CIC, SICs

Relevance: GS2 - Statutory, regulatory and various quasi-judicial bodies. Important aspects of governance, transparency and accountability, e-governance- applications, models, successes, limitations, and potential; citizens charters, transparency & accountability and institutional and other measures.

(Source: The Hindu, 10/31/2023)

Click here for Daily Current Affairs

Why in the news?

• Recently, the Supreme Court directed the Union and State Governments to fill all the vacancies in the Central and State Information Commissions.
• The “Report Card on the Performance of Information Commissions in India, 2022-23” report prepared by Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS) revealed that 3,21,537 appeals and complaints are pending in 27 State Information Commissions across India.

What has the SC ruled?

• The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by activists alleging that the vacancies in the Information Commissions had put them at risk of redundancy.
• The three-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice directed the Union government and the governments of the states to fill the vacancies in the Central and State Information Commissions respectively.
• The Court stated that action had to be taken urgently to ensure that the institutions did not become “defunct” and that the citizens were deprived of the right to know under the Right to Information Act.
• Previous verdict: In 2019, the Supreme Court had directed the government to fill the vacancies.
• Deadline: The Union government was given a three-week deadline to collect data from the States on the sanctioned strength of the Information Commissions as well as the vacancies (both existing and anticipated till March 31, 2024) and case pendency.

Petitioner’s arguments

• According to the petitioners, the vacancies have resulted in the near redundancy of the RTI.
• The cases pending before the Information Commissions had soared as many of these bodies had stopped accepting cases due to the lack of sufficient members.
• They highlighted the vacancies and case backlog in the Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions such as the SICs Jharkhand, Tripura, Telangana, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Bihar, Odisha, and West Bengal.

What are the findings of the report?

• Pendency: 3,21,537 appeals and complaints are pending in 27 State Information Commissions across the country.
  • Maharashtra has the highest number of pending appeals (1,15,524), followed by Karnataka (41,047).
  • Tamil Nadu did not provide information on its backlog.
• Efficiency: 2,20,382 appeals and complaints were registered between July 1, 2022, and June 30, 2023, of which 2,14,698 cases were disposed of by 29 Information Commissions.
• Time taken: 10 Information Commissions will take one year or more to dispose of an appeal/complaint.
  • The time to resolve cases was calculated using the current monthly disposal rate and pendency.
  • The West Bengal State Information Commission (SIC) would take an estimated 24 years and one month to dispose of a matter while SICs In Chhattisgarh and Maharashtra, would take over four years to dispose of an appeal or complaint.
  • In Odisha and Arunachal Pradesh, it is over two years. The assessment shows that
• Nonfunctioning Commissions: Four Information Commissions in Jharkhand, Telangana, Mizoram, and Tripura are non-functional because new Information Commissioners have not been appointed.
  • Six Information Commissions are currently without a head.
  • This includes the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions of Manipur, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Bihar, and Punjab.
• Penalties: Commissions did not impose penalties in 91% of the cases where they could have been imposed.

Who prepared the report?

• The report was prepared by the Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS), a citizens’ group that aims to promote transparency and accountability in governance.
• It is based on the performance of Information Commissions across India and data obtained through the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

Right to Information Act

• The Right to Information Act, which was enacted in 2005, empowers Indian citizens to request information from public authorities, with the aim of making governance and the government transparent and accountable.
• It was implemented to strengthen the citizen’s fundamental right to ‘freedom of speech’.
  • RTI is implicit in the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19, making it an implied fundamental right.

Key Provisions

• Section 4: Suo motu disclosure of information by each public authority.
• Section 8 (1): Exemptions against furnishing information under the RTI Act.
• Section 8 (2): Disclosure of information exempted under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 in larger public interest

Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019

• It provided that the Chief Information Commissioner and an Information Commissioner (of Centre and States) shall hold office for a term prescribed by the Central Government, unlike the previous fixed 5-year terms.
• The salary, allowances, and other service conditions of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners would be prescribed by the Central Government.
  • Earlier, the salary, allowances, and other service conditions of the Chief Information Commissioner were similar to those of the Chief Election Commissioner and that of an Information Commissioner were similar to those of an Election Commissioner.
• Provisions regarding deductions in the salary of the Information Commissioners due to pension or other retirement benefits were removed.

Criticism

• Public authorities have not been proactive in disclosing information and Public Information Officers have been accused of a hostile attitude towards citizens.
• Officials have also been criticized for misinterpreting provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act in order to conceal information and rejecting requests on important matters.
• There is a lack of clarity on what public interest is and the right to privacy

Central Information Commission

• The Central Information Commission was established in 2005 under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
• Information Commissions serve as the final appellate authority under the RTI Act, ensuring the fundamental right to information for the citizens of India.
• Jurisdiction: All Central Public Authorities.
• Staff: Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and not more than 10 Central Information Commissioners
• Term: The term prescribed by the Central Government or until they attain the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier.
• CIC is not eligible for reappointment but ICs are eligible for appointment as the CICbut aggregate term should not be more than five years.
• Appointment:
• Appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee chaired by the Prime Minister, with the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister as members.
• Eligibility: They should be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science, technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media, or administration and governance.
• Member of Parliament or Member of the Legislature of any State or Union Territory, or those holding any other office of profit or connected with any political party or carrying on any business or pursuing any profession are ineligible.
• Removal from office: The President can remove the members of CIC on the following conditions:
  • Adjudged an insolvent
  • Moral turpitude
  • Engages in paid employment outside his duties
  • Declared unfit by reason of infirmity of mind or body, by the President
  • Proved misbehavior or incapacity, after an inquiry by the Supreme Court

State Information Commissions

• The SIC consists of a State Chief Information Commissioner and not more than 10 State Information Commissioners.
• Jurisdiction: All State public authorities
• Appointment: Appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of a committee chaired by the Chief Minister, with the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly, and a State Cabinet Minister nominated by the Chief Minister as members.
• Eligibility: Same criteria as Central Information Commissioners.
• Term: The term prescribed by the Central Government or until they attain the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier.
  • State Information Commissioners are eligible for appointment as the State Chief Information Commissioner but his aggregate term should not be more than 5 years.
• Removal from office: The Governor can remove the members of SIC from office if he is:
  • Adjudged as insolvent
  • For moral turpitude
  • For engaging in any paid employment outside the duties of his office
  • Declared unfit by reason of infirmity of mind or body, by the Governor
  • For proved misbehavior or incapacity following an inquiry by the Supreme Court.

Powers of Information Commissions

• Receive and inquire into complaints regarding information requested under the RTI Act.
• Order an inquiry into any matter on reasonable grounds.
• Powers of a civil court in respect of summoning, requiring documents, etc.
• Adjudication in the second appeal for giving information;
• Direction for record-keeping
• Imposition of penalties and Monitoring and Reporting including preparation of an Annual Report.

Concerns

• Transparency: The selection criteria and functioning of the Information Commissions lacks transparency with the Supreme Court highlighting a bias toward appointing former bureaucrats which raises concerns about impartiality.
• Inefficient management: Inefficient record management and data collection from field offices have led to delays in processing RTI applications.
• Vacancies: Vacancies in the ICs are not promptly filled, resulting in a backlog of cases.
• Capacity: Some Chief Public Information Officers (CPIOs) have been found to lack adequate knowledge of the RTI Act which has led to unnecessary delays in responding to applications.
• Pendencies: While the RTI Act stipulates timeframes for First Appeal processing, it lacks specific limits for Second Appeal disposal, leading to delays.
• Information Quality: The information provided under the RTI Act has been criticized as being unsatisfactory.
• Low Awareness: There is very limited awareness of the RTI Act and Information Commissions among the public, particularly marginalized communities.

(*Click this link to read prelims specific weekly current affairs articles)

FAQs

MCQs

Question: Consider the following statements:

1. The right to information is treated as a fundamental right under Article 21.
2. An RTI application can be filed for free.
3. There is no set timeframe to dispose of first or second appeals under the RTI Act.

How many of the above statements is/are correct?

(a) Only 1 statement

(b) Only 2 statements

(c) All 3 statements

(d) None of the above