The Right to Information process begins with a formal request to a public authority, which must respond within 30 days.
Credit: iStock Photo
The recent decision by Andhra Pradesh’s State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC) to enforce strict attendance rules—requiring commissioners to be present for six and a half hours a day and withholding salaries for non-compliance—has sparked a much-needed
conversation on the functioning of India’s information
commissions.
At the national level, according to data compiled by Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS), an alarming 3,88,886 appeals and complaints were pending with information commissions as of July 30, 2023. The Report Card of Information Commissions in India reveals an even more startling figure: in West Bengal, the estimated time to clear these cases exceeds 24 years, though the state is an outlier. In most other states, the average waiting period ranges from six months to four years, reflecting widespread inefficiency.
The Right to Information process begins with a formal request to a public authority, which must respond within 30 days. If the applicant is dissatisfied or receives no response, they can file a first appeal. If that fails, a second appeal or complaint can be lodged with the State or Central Information Commission. These commissions, tasked with ensuring the proper implementation of the RTI Act, play a crucial role in upholding transparency. As quasi-judicial authorities, commissioners—often drawn from public life with experience in governance, law, or civil services—are responsible for hearing appeals and holding public authorities accountable. Their regular presence and timely decision-making are essential to the system’s effectiveness.
For years, RTI activists have pointed to a lack of accountability among commissioners, particularly their irregular attendance, as a key factor contributing to these delays. In some states, the backlog stretches for years, and commissioners dispose of few cases. The Andhra Pradesh Commission has over 10,000 pending cases, with backlogs only expected to grow at its present rate of disposal.
The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) reports that high court judges dispose of roughly 2,000 to 3,000 cases per year, or about 167 to 250 cases per month. In stark contrast, Andhra Pradesh Information Commissioners dispose of fewer than 100 cases per month. This difference shows that it’s not just about the hours commissioners spend in office but how efficiently they dispose of cases. For example, there appears to be little difference in case disposal rates between commissioners whose salaries are withheld for non-compliance with attendance rules and those complying with them. This suggests that while attendance is necessary, it is not sufficient for ensuring efficiency. Many information commissioners across India dispose of 3,000 to 6,000 cases annually, with most cases decided in under 90 days.
The AP SCIC’s move to enforce a 6.5-hour workday for commissioners is not merely a formality; it has the potential to significantly improve transparency and efficiency. Regular attendance is essential for several reasons:
1. Clearing the Backlog: Thousands of RTI appeals and complaints are pending, with delays often stretching for over a year. Strict attendance would ensure that commissioners dedicate the necessary time and attention to hear and dispose of cases, significantly reducing the backlog.
2. Accountability and Transparency: The RTI Act mandates transparency and accountability in governance. When the very bodies overseeing transparency fail to uphold these principles, public trust erodes. Regular attendance will ensure that commissioners can effectively enforce transparency measures, a critical aspect of their role.
3. Judicial Mandate: Courts have repeatedly emphasised the importance of the timely and effective functioning of information commissions. In Anjali Bhardwaj & Others vs Union of India (2019), the Supreme Court stressed the need for timely appointments and efficient operations, warning that inefficiency undermines the very purpose of the
RTI Act.
4. Efficient Case Disposal: The longer the cases remain pending, the more public authorities can delay information disclosure without penalty. Under Section 19(8) of the
RTI Act, information commissions have the power to compel public authorities to provide information.
5. Restoring Public Trust: Citizens rely on the RTI Act to obtain vital information about public services, from healthcare to employment benefits. Regular attendance by commissioners and timely disposal of cases are crucial for maintaining trust in the system.
The RTI Act was enacted to empower citizens and ensure government accountability. But without functional information commissions, the Act’s potential remains unfulfilled. Enforcing attendance rules and timely disposal of cases is a critical step toward restoring faith in the RTI system and ensuring that justice is delivered in a timely, transparent manner. The information commissions must recognise the importance of this move and adopt similar practices to make the RTI system work efficiently for every citizen.
Shailesh Gandhi is a former CIC; Chakradhar Buddha is Co-Convenor of the United Forum for RTI Campaign, Andhra Pradesh)