‘Vacancies, Backlogs, Culture of Impunity’: Dismantling the Transparency Watchdogs

Nineteen years after the Right to Information (RTI) Act was implemented, there is clear evidence that governments are whittling down peoples’ right to access information by rendering information commissions ineffective. Under the RTI Act, information commissions are the final appellate authority and are mandated to safeguard and facilitate people’s right to information. They have wide ranging powers, including the ability to direct disclosure of information which governments find inconvenient to share or would prefer to keep under wraps. 

Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS) accessed data using the RTI Act on the functioning of the 29 information commissions across the country. Here are the five key points emerging from the report, which highlight the dismal state of the transparency watchdogs:

Vacancies

Vacancies in information commissions result in a large backlog of appeals and complaints, leading to long delays in disposal of cases. 

Out of 29 information commissions, seven were non-functional for varying lengths of time last year. These included the commissions in  Jharkhand, Telangana, Tripura, Goa, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. 

Additionally, five commissions were functioning without a chief information commissioner (CIC) and eight were working at reduced capacity with inadequate number of information commissioners (ICs), despite a large backlog of appeals and complaints. 

Maharashtra did not have a CIC and had six vacancies. The Central Information Commission was working with only the Chief and two ICs.

Backlogs

In the 29 information commissions across the country, more than 4 lakh appeals and complaints were pending as of June 30, 2024.

With a backlog of 1,08,641 cases, the Maharashtra state information commission (SIC) had the highest number of cases pending in the country. This was followed by the Karnataka SIC with more than 50,000 cases and Tamil Nadu with a backlog of 41,241.

Estimated time for disposal

The estimated time for disposal of a fresh appeal or complaint would be more than one year in 14 information commissions. The SNS report shows that the Chhattisgarh SIC would take 5 years and 2 months and the SIC of Bihar, would take 4 and a half years. This means a fresh appeal or complaint would be disposed of in the year 2029 in the two commissions at the current rate of disposal! 

Inordinate delays by commissions in disposing appeals and complaints violate the basic objective of the RTI Act. Long delays in commissions render the law ineffective for people, especially for those living at the margins, who are most dependent on government services (and therefore need information the most).

Also read: ‘161 Applications Received for 8 Vacant Information Commissioner Posts at CIC’: RTI

Inadequate penalties on erring officers

According to the SNS report, commissions did not impose penalties in 95% of the cases where penalties were imposable. 

The RTI Act empowers the commissions to impose penalties of up to Rs 25,000 on erring public information officers (PIOs) for violating the RTI Act. This penalty clause is one of the key provisions of the Act that gives the law its teeth. However, our experience in India suggests that even when ICs are appointed, a majority of them are either retired government officials or people who enjoy political patronage. Consequently, they are often reluctant to act against violations of the transparency law.  

The report shows that a penalty was imposed in just 3% of the cases disposed of by the commissions. Non-imposition of penalties in deserving cases sends a signal to public authorities that violating the law will not invite any serious consequences. This destroys the basic framework of incentives built into the RTI law and promotes a culture of impunity.

The SIC of Uttar Pradesh imposed the highest amount of penalty (Rs 4.85 crore), followed by Chhattisgarh (Rs 1.83 crore), Karnataka (Rs 93.95 lakh) and Haryana (Rs 38.18 lakh). 

Compliance reports

Finally, the report shows that the transparency watchdogs do not have a shining track record in terms of their own transparency and accountability towards the citizens. 

The RTI Act obligates each commission to prepare a “report on the implementation of the provisions of this Act” every year which is to be laid before parliament or the state legislature. 

The performance of many commissions on this front was found to be dismal, with 18 of 29 ICs (62%) not publishing their annual report even for 2022-23. 

The SICs of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have not published their annual report since the constitution of the respective SICs in 2017 following the bifurcation of the erstwhile state. 

The SIC of Bihar has not published its annual report for more than 6 years (since 2017-18).

Nearly 33% of them have not made their latest annual report available on their website.

The RTI law has empowered people in India to meaningfully participate in democracy. Every year, 4-6 million RTI applications are filed across the country. 

The law has been used extensively in the last 19 years to hold governments accountable for corruption and lapses in the delivery of essential services and secure access to basic rights. It has also been used to question the highest authorities of the country on their performance, decisions and conduct. 

For the law to continue to meaningfully empower people, it is critical that information commissions are robust and fiercely independent. The RTI Act was passed in the country as a result of a strong people’s movement. People need to come together once again to protect their fundamental right to information and ensure that the transparency watchdogs perform their mandated role.

Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri are transparency activists associated with Satark Nagrik Sangathan and the National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information.