The use of RTI in India

The Use of Right to Information Laws in India

A Rapid Study

Based on the Annual Reports of Information Commissions

(2011‐12)
Research and Report
Venkatesh Nayak
Amrita Paul Seema Choudhary
General Editor
Maja Daruwala
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI)
B‐117, First Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi – 110 017
Tel: 011‐ 43180201/43180216, Fax: 011‐2686 4688
Website: www.humanrightsinitiative.org
Email: director@humanrightsinitiative.org, venkatesh@humanrightsinitiative.org
amrita@humanrightsinitiative.org & seema@humanrightsinitiative.org
October 2013

2
Contents
Executive Summary
• Main findings and Recommendations … 3
Main Report … 16
• I Availability of the Annual Reports of Information
Commissions on Websites … 17
• II How many RTI Applications were Filed across India? … 18
• III To 5 Public Authorities Receiving the Most Number
of RTI Applications … 22
• IV Proportion of Rejections at the RTI Application Stage … 24
• V Receipt and Disposal of First Appeals … 26
• VI Receipt and Disposal of Second Appeals and Complaints … 28
• VII Imposing Penalties, Awarding Compensation and
Recommending Disciplinary Action … 32
Data Tables … 34
Tables 1‐9 … 35
CHRI’s role in promoting RTI in India and the Commonwealth … 48
3
The Use of Right to Information Laws in India: A Rapid Study
Based on the Annual Reports of Information Commissions (2011‐12)
Executive Summary
Last year, on 12th May, on the occasion of the seventh anniversary of the adoption of the Right
to Information Act by Parliament, we published our first attempt to present a comprehensive
picture of the composition and working of Information Commissions established in India.1 This
year, on the eve of the eighth anniversary of the operationalisation of the Right to Information
Act, 2005 (12th – 13th October),2 we are presenting a snapshot view of the use of the right to
information (RTI) by citizens, based on data mined from the latest Annual Reports published by
the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions of Andhra
Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and
Rajasthan on their respective websites, for the years 2011‐12. We have also included in our
study the Annual Report published by the State Information Commission of Jammu and
Kashmir containing RTI user data for the same period. As none of the Information Commissions
have published their Annual Reports for the year 2012‐13, we are unable to present the latest
data on the usage of RTI laws in India.3 Soon we will publish Version 2.0 of our Rapid Study of
the Working of Information Commissions in India.
By enabling people to engage with Governments and public authorities through legitimate
methods, we believe, RTI is proving to be a game changer. The statistics analysed in this
report show that the ‘little man’ and ‘little woman’ are not sitting quietly after pressing the
button on the electronic voting machines once in five years. Instead they are pressing more
buttons to make Government more accountable. The ever growing numbers of citizens asking
1 While the Central Government and 27 of the 28 State Governments in India are covered by the Right to
Information Act, passed by Parliament in 2005 (Central RTI Act), the Government of Jammu and Kashmir is
covered by the Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2009 (J&K RTI Act). While 27 State Information
Commissions and the Central Information Commission are established under the Central RTI Act, the Jammu and
Kashmir State Information Commission is established under the J&K RTI Act. We have included all 29
Information Commissions in this rapid study.
2 The 120‐day period stipulated in the Central RTI Act for operationalising all of its provisions ended on the 12th of
October 2005. As that day was a Sunday, many citizens across the country filed their information requests the
next working day on the 13th. So while some RTI aficionados celebrate the anniversary of the Central RTI Act on
the 12th, others celebrate the same event on the 13th. Irrespective of these dates, it is an interesting coincidence
that these dates occur within a fortnight of the International Right to Know Day celebrated across the planet on
28th September.
3 We have included in the current study only those Annual Reports (2011‐12) published on the dedicated websites
of Information Commissions as on 09 October, 2013 because of our self‐imposed deadline for completing the
report on time for the eighth anniversary of the Central RTI Act. We would be happy to make any changes or
alterations in the findings if the Information Commissions covered by this rapid study point out any errors on the
basis of evidence contained in their Annual Reports.
4
what big and small public authorities are doing in their name, using their money, year after
year, augurs well for our democracy.
An executive summary of our main findings followed by our recommendations is given below.
The Main Report containing more details of our findings is placed at the end of this executive
summary.
I Availability of the Annual Reports of Information Commissions on Websites
Main findings of the study: (See Table 1)
• Although in our previous study we had found the Mizoram State Information
Commission defaulting over public disclosure of its Annual Reports, it has now
uploaded all Annual Reports up to the year 2011‐12. Seven State Information
Commissions identified in our study last year, namely, those in Gujarat, Madhya
Pradesh, Manipur, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura and Uttar Pradesh continue to be
defaulters in terms of displaying their Annual Reports on their websites. These
websites do not contain even a link for ‘Annual Reports’.
• Only Maharashtra State Information Commission has uploaded on its website, its
latest Annual Report due, for the calendar year 2012. No other Information
Commission has uploaded its latest Annual Report due, for either the calendar year
(January – December 2012) or the financial year (April 2012 – March 2013).
• The Central Information Commission and 9 Information Commissions in the States of
Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), Karnataka,
Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Rajasthan have uploaded their Annual Reports
for all the years up to 2011‐12.4 Others have displayed Annual Reports for one year or
more but not for the period 2011‐13.
• With the exception of the Central Information Commission and the State Information
Commissions of Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan all other Information
Commissions have published their Annual Reports in English only.
Recommendations:
• Publishing Annual Reports in a timely manner at least within six months of the ending
of the reporting year must become a priority with all Information Commissions.
• Information Commissions will be able to compile their Annual Reports in a timely
manner only if they receive statistical data from all public authorities under their
jurisdiction. According to Section 25 (2) of the Central RTI Act and Section 22(2) of the
4 The Annual Reports of the State Information Commissions of Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and
Meghalaya cover the calendar year 2011 only. The Annual reports of all other Information Commissions cover
the financial year 2011‐12.
5
J&K RTI Act the duty of ensuring reporting of RTI returns from all public authorities lies
squarely on the concerned Ministries. Unless they apply pressure on public authorities
under their jurisdiction they will not fall in line to submit RTI returns in a timely
manner. They must insist filing of RTI returns at least every quarter. The nodal
department charged with ensuring the implementation of the RTI law under each
appropriate Government, must send frequent reminders to the other Ministries and
Department to do their mandated job.
• Even if the RTI returns are not forthcoming from the ministries/departments,
Information Commissions have the statutory duty to publish a report of their own
activities at least and submit it to the respective Legislatures in order to account for
spending the taxpayers’ money. This would provide them the opportunity to publicly
name and shame the defaulting public authorities and compel compliance with the
reporting requirement under the respective RTI laws.
• At the very minimum, all Annual Reports must be drafted in the official languages
used by the appropriate Governments.
II How Many RTI Applications were Filed across India?
Although the Central RTI Act is entering the ninth year of implementation, to the best of our
knowledge, there is no report in the public domain about the total number of citizens who have
used the RTI Act for seeking information across the country in any given year. We have
presented below our findings based on RTI user data available from the Central Government
and 10 State Governments.
Main findings of the study: (See Tables 2 and 9)
• During the year 2011‐12 a total of 20.39 lakh (2.03 million) RTI applications were
submitted to public authorities under the Central Government and in the 10 States
included in this study (including Jammu and Kashmir).
• The Annual Report of the Central Information Commission does not contain any
disaggregate data about the number of RTI applications received and disposed by the
Secretariats of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha in Parliament. Similarly no data
about the receipt and disposal of RTI applications in the respective State Legislatures is
available in the Annual Reports of the State Information Commissions of Chhattisgarh
and Rajasthan. All other Information Commissions have reported this category of data
(Table 9).
• There is no information about the receipt and disposal of RTI applications in the
Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court in the Annual Report of the Central
Information Commission. The State Information Commissions of Andhra Pradesh,
Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Jammu and Kashmir have
published RTI application statistics for High Courts and courts in their States (Table 9).
6
• In Chhattisgarh 2,351 women (4.81% of the total number of RTI applicants) sought
information under the Central RTI Act. No other Information Commission has published
data about the gender‐wise breakup of the number of applicants.
• In Chhattisgarh 2.49% of the RTI applicants belonged to Below the Poverty Line (BPL)
category. No other Information Commission has captured this data category in its
Annual Report. However how many of these BPL applicants actually received the
requested information is not known.
• In Maharashtra 11,246 BPL applicants (1.76% of the total no. of successful applicants)
received the information they requested.
• In Chhattisgarh applicants from traditionally disadvantaged communities such as
Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) accounted for 3.38% and 3.06% of
the total number of RTI applications submitted in that State, respectively.
• In Chhattisgarh, the only State where the urban‐rural breakup of RTI applicants is
available, a little more than a fifth of the applicants (21%) were living in villages.
• The University of Kashmir is reported to have received the highest number of RTI
applications (1043) during the last years 2009‐12.5 It is reasonable to expect that a
substantial number of these applicants may be young students.
• None of the Information Commissions have published figures pertaining to urgent
requests for information relating to life and liberty that public authorities must furnish
within 48 hours [proviso to Section 7(1)].
Recommendations:
• By conservatively extrapolating the pattern of user data available in the annual
reports included in this study, if we presume that a similar number of RTI applications
may have been submitted in the remaining 18 States, the final figure of RTI users
across the country for the period 2011‐12, may be estimated to cross 40 lakhs. This
would be a mere 0.3% of the 120 crore (1.2 billion) population of the country. It would
also amount to only 0.5% of the electorate comprising of citizens aged 18 and above.
More resource investment is required to spread awareness about the RTI Act amongst
the hundreds of crores of citizens who have not yet used this law to seek information.
• Parliament which enacted the Central RTI Act must make the effort to submit RTI data
to the Central Information Commission regularly as its Secretariats receive several
information requests every year. All State Legislatures must also submit their annual
RTI returns to the respective State Information Commissions.
5 The Annual Report of the J&K State Information Commission ranks the public authorities on the basis of the most
number of RTI applications received during all three years of the implementation of the J&K RTI Act i.e., from
2009‐12. The year‐wise breakups are not provided in the report. Nevertheless the combined data presents an
interesting variation in rankings compared with public authorities in other States listed above. The percentages
are calculated on the basis of the total number of RTI applications received over all three years i.e., 15,987 in all.
7
• The Supreme Court which recognised the fundamental right to information as being an
inseparable part of the fundamental right to information within the scope of the
fundamental right to free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution must take the lead in submitting annual RTI returns to the Central
Information Commission. All High Courts must also submit annual RTI returns to the
respective Information Commissions for themselves and the courts and tribunals under
their jurisdiction.
• All Information Commissions must make the effort to capture RTI user data about
women applicants and those belonging to other disadvantaged segments of society
such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and BPL and minority communities.
• Information Commissions must include in their Annual Reports, statistics about the
number of RTI applications relating to life and liberty received and the number of
instances where information was provided within 48 hours.
III Top 5 Public Authorities Receiving the Most Number of RTI Applications
Conventional wisdom presumed that ministries and departments that have the largest clientele
would receive the most number of RTI applications. However the departments responsible for
land records, education and health which have the largest clientele and more frequent direct
dealings with the public have not always figured amongst the top three of the list of
ministries/departments receiving the most number of RTI applications in all the States included
in this study.
Main findings of the study: (See Table 4)
• The Revenue and Urban Development Departments topped the list of
departments/public authorities that received the most number of RTI applications in
the States of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra. In Karnataka the Revenue
and Urban Development Departments together accounted for more than 50% of the RTI
applications received.
• Rural Development Departments (with or without the charge of Panchayati Raj) figure
amongst the top 5 in 7 other States, namely, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh,
Karnataka, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, and Nagaland.6
• The Police Department topped the list in Mizoram. The Home Department, including
the police, topped the list in Chhattisgarh while in Maharashtra its counterpart
occupied the second position. The Delhi Police and the Director General of Police in
Andhra Pradesh also figure in the top 5 list.
6 CHRI is happy to report that it resourced training workshops in five of these States (except Maharashtra) for
heads of departments, public information officers and first appellate authorities.
8
• The Jaipur Development Authority and the University of Kashmir are the only public
authorities outside of ministries and departments in their respective States that
topped the list amongst all 11 jurisdictions covered by this study.
• The Ministry of Finance covering many other public authorities such as banks and
insurance companies received more than a fifth (20.41%) of the total number of RTI
applications submitted to various public authorities under the Central Government.
Individually speaking, the Department of Posts stood first in terms of number of RTI
applications received by a public authority.7
• The Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi received more than 10% of
the total number of RTI Applications accounted for in the Central Information
Commission’s Annual Report.
Recommendation:
• Ministries, departments and public authorities receiving the highest number of RTI
applications must analyse the kinds of information citizens are seeking from them.
This would help them identify the categories of information frequently sought by
citizens which could then be disclosed and disseminated proactively through various
methods listed under Section 4(4) of both the RTI laws unless one or more exemptions
listed under Sections 8, 9, 11 and 24 are attracted. This would go a long way in
reducing the burden of RTI applications on the public information officers.
IV Proportion of Rejections at the RTI Application Stage
Anecdotal evidence across the country has made many civil society actors and activists believe
that rejection of request is the norm in many public authorities and access to information is an
exception, which they believe amounts to reversing the objectives of both RTI laws. However, if
the data published in the Annual Reports of Information Commissions covered by this study is
to be believed, only a small proportion of the total number of requests is rejected at the
application stage.
Main findings of the study: (See Table 1‐ column 4 and Table 3)
• In States with smaller populations like Meghalaya and Mizoram less than 1% rejection
was reported at the RTI application stage.
• In Karnataka where public authorities received close to 2.93 lakh (293,000) requests
the proportion of rejections was a mere 0.30%.
• Some of the highest proportions of rejections were observed in the context of public
authorities under the Central Government (8.14%) and those under the State
7 CHRI is happy to report that it resourced training programmes for senior officers of the Dept. of Posts during the
initial years of the implementation of the Central RTI Act.
9
Government of Maharashtra (7.2%) both of which received more than 6.5 lakh
(650,000).
• Although the macro picture in all governments covered by this study indicates rejection
of not more than 10% of the total number of RTI applications received, some of the
public authorities had very high rates of rejection. For example, the rejection rate at
the offices of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Directorate General of
Safeguards was 100%. The offices of the Director General, Income Tax (Investigation)
based in Ahmedabad (86.8%), Jaipur (71.6%), Kolkata (66.7%) and New Delhi (59.5%)
also had a very high rejection rate.
• The Jammu and Kashmir State Information Commission has reported that while RTI
applications received by public authorities in that State grew phenomenally, the
rejection rate dropped from 9% (2009‐10) to 4% (2010‐11) and stood at 1.37% for the
last reporting year (2011‐12).
• Only the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions of
Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka have provided in their Annual Reports, clause‐wise
break up [Sections 8(1)(a) to (j), 9 and 24] of the number of times the exemptions
were invoked by public authorities to reject information requests at the application
stage.
• The largest number of rejections of RTI applications (15,279) in public authorities
under Central Government occurred on the grounds of protecting personal privacy
[Central RTI Act, Section 8(1)(j)]. In Andhra Pradesh the exemptions pertaining to
contempt of court and prohibition on the disclosure of information by courts was
invoked most frequently (131 times) to reject RTI applications [Central RTI Act, Section
8(1)(b)]. Public authorities in Karnataka are said to have invoked most frequently (101
times) the exemption relating to police investigation, arrests and criminal trials
[Central RTI Act, Section 8(1)(h)].
• More than 4,000 RTI applications are said to have been rejected because they
pertained to the 25 intelligence and security organisations notified by the Central
Government under Section 24 of the Central RTI Act.
Recommendations:
• Information Commissions must pay special attention to public authorities where
rejection rates are very high to see if the exemption provisions and public interest
override clauses contained in Section 8 are being invoked by the public information
officers or the first appellate authorities with due application of mind. Fewer the
number of rejections, lesser will be the number of appeals and complaints.
• All Information Commissions must collect and publish data about the number of
times exemption clauses are invoked by public authorities to reject RTI applications
as this is a statutory requirement.
10
• Information Commissions must collect and publish data about the rejection of RTI
applications by organisations notified under Section 24 of the Central RTI Act and
Section 21 of the J&K RTI Act in keeping with the statutory mandate of accounting
for all instances of rejection of requests by public authorities.
V Receipt and Disposal of First Appeals
Section 19 of the Central RTI Act and Section 16 of the J&K RTI Act recognise the right of
aggrieved RTI applicants to file an appeal with the designated First Appellate Authority who
must be an officer senior in rank to the public information officer. However many civil society
actors and RTI users think that the first appeals procedure is pointless as first appellate
authorities more often than not uphold the decision of the public information officer to reject a
request. One would expect the proportion of first appeals to tally with the proportion of RTI
applications rejected by public authorities. However this does not seem to be the case in many
States (Table 5‐ columns 4 and 5).
Main findings of the study: (See Table 5, Table 6‐ columns 4 and 5 and Table 9)
• The Central Information Commission and the J&K State Information Commission have
not included statistics about the receipt and disposal of first appeals by public
authorities in their Annual Reports. In fact the Central Information Commission had
included this data in the first two Annual Reports only (2006‐07 and 2007‐08). However
this practice has been discontinued for reasons unknown.
• In Bihar despite only 4.22% of the RTI applications being rejected, the number of first
appeals submitted was almost six times higher (23.94%). In Nagaland where fewer RTI
applications were submitted, despite the rejection rate being a little less than 10%,
the proportion of first appeals filed was one and a half times higher (15.32%). In
Meghalaya the proportion was eight times higher (8.80%) than the rejection rate of
less than 1%.
• Nagaland State Information Commission records, “lack of response from the PIO” as
the reason for the submission of 48% of the total number of first appeals, whereas the
remaining are said to have been submitted by citizens dissatisfied with the reply or
quality of information received.
• While, in most States, first appellate authorities ordered disclosure of information in
about 90% of the cases, in Rajasthan, more than a third (34.48%) of the first appeals
was rejected by their counterparts.
• Except the State Information Commission of Andhra Pradesh, no other Information
Commission reported the number of times exemption clauses were invoked by first
appellate authorities to reject an appeal or uphold the decision of public information
officers to deny access to information.
11
• Only the State Information Commissions of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Meghalaya
and Nagaland have published data about first appeals received and disposed by their
respective State Legislatures.
• There is no mention of the number of first appeals received and disposed by the High
Courts of Delhi, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan and Jammu and Kashmir in the Annual
Reports of the respective Information Commissions.
Recommendations:
• All Information Commissions must collect and publish data about the receipt and
manner of disposal of first appeals by the designated first appellate authorities. This
information must be placed in the public domain to enable proper assessment of their
performance.
• Secretariats of Parliament and all Legislatures must submit to the respective
Information Commissions statistics of first appeals received and disposed and also the
manner of the disposal.
• All High Courts must submit to the respective Information Commissions statistics of
first appeals received and disposed by themselves as well as all courts and tribunals
under their jurisdiction and also the manner of disposal.
VI Receipt and Disposal of Second Appeals and Complaints
The twin RTI laws provide an independent mechanism for citizens aggrieved by any action or
omission of a public authority in relation to providing access to information. Where the first
appellate authority upholds the decision of a public information officer to reject a request for
information the applicant may submit a second appeal before the concerned Information
Commission. In several matters relating to the implementation of the RTI laws, citizens can file
complaints with the respective Information Commissions directly. In 2011 the Supreme Court
ruled that the powers granted to Information Commissions under Section 18 of the Central Act
are for the purpose of supervising compliance in public authorities only.8
Main findings of the study: (See Table 6: columns 6 and 7 and Tables 7 and 9)
• Under ideal conditions one would expect that the number of second appeals filed with
the Information Commissions, as a proportion of the total number of RTI applications
8 For details of the decision and CHRI’s critique of the same go to the introductory paras under Section V of the
Main Report.
12
rejected, would reduce because of the first appeals mechanism available for redressing
grievances. This is the pattern in all States covered by this study except Rajasthan. The
proportion of second appeals submitted to the State Information Commission of
Rajasthan was more than double the proportion of RTI applications rejected. In all
other Information Commissions this proportion ranged between 1‐10% of the total
proportion of rejections at the RTI application stage (Table 6).
• In Bihar, despite recording a rejection rate of only 4.22% at the RTI application stage,
the proportion of second appeals and complaints submitted to the State Information
Commission was as high as 19.31%. The proportion of second appeals and complaints
submitted to the State Information Commission in Jammu and Kashmir was about 7
times higher than the proportion of rejections. These figures indicate high
dissatisfaction levels amongst the citizenry in Bihar and Jammu and Kashmir with regard
to the implementation of the two RTI laws (Table 6).
• The proportion of complaints (4.28%) submitted to the State Information Commission
in Karnataka was much higher than the proportion of rejections (0.30%). This figure
was higher compared to the second appeals figure (0.31%). In Meghalaya despite the
small numbers involved, complaints outnumbered second appeals before the State
Information Commission. This indicates that despite the Supreme Court’s judgement
mentioned above, people are using the complaints mechanism to redress their
grievances against public authorities and Information Commissions are entertaining
them (Table 6).
• With the exception of those in Andhra Pradesh and Meghalaya, no other Information
Commission has published figures about their decisions taken on second appeals and
complaints, namely, how many were allowed and how many were rejected. In Andhra
Pradesh appeals and complaints were allowed in 1,305 cases and rejected in 334 cases.
In Meghalaya 8 second appeals and complaints were allowed and 5 were rejected.
• Data about the receipt and disposal of second appeals and complaints pertaining to
the State Legislatures is available in the Annual Reports of the State Information
Commissions of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Meghalaya and Nagaland only (Table 9).
• Data about the receipt and disposal of second appeals and complaints pertaining to
the High Courts is published in the Annual Reports of the State Information
Commissions of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Meghalaya and Nagaland only (Table 9).
• At the end of the reporting year, pendency of second appeals and complaints was
highest in the Maharashtra State Information Commission. Given the lesser number of
second appeals and complaints received, the State Information Commissions of
Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland did not have any pending cases at the end of the
reporting period. This is an improvement from the previous year which had a small
number of pending cases (Table 7).
• More than 10,800 second appeals and complaints were pending before the Central
Information Commission during the period 2011‐12 (Table 7). This figure is said to have
13
crossed 19,500 as on 30th September, 2013 according to the monthly progress reports
displayed on the Commission’s website.
• The State Information Commission of Andhra Pradesh is the only body to publish data
about the provenance of appellants and complainants approaching it. About 45% of
the appellants and complainants are said to be from rural areas. This figure was a mere
11% during the first year of the implementation of the Central RTI Act (2005‐6). This
Commission has also published data about complaints and appeals received from each
geographical region: Telengana – 44.84%; Andhra – 39.87%; Rayalaseema – 15.29%.
Recommendations:
• Although the proportion of second appeals and complaints filed with the Information
Commissions is not very high in many States as compared with dissatisfaction levels
based on anecdotal evidence of citizens and civil society actors, these figures cannot be
taken for granted. Several dissatisfied applicants may not approach the Information
Commission due to lack of awareness about its procedures or simply due to frustration,
given the fact that the office of the Information Commission may be in a distant city.
Some Information Commissions like those in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh travel to the
districts to conduct hearings. The Information Commissioners in Maharashtra are
actually based in different parts of the State making them more accessible to people. The
Central Information Commission was the pioneer in using video conferencing facility to
hear appeals and complaints. Some of its Commissioners also visit other cities to hold
hearings en masse. It is heartening to note that a few other Information Commissions
like that in Karnataka have adopted these procedures. All these methods must be
explored and adopted by Information Commissions to provide easy and quick
resolution to RTI‐related disputes. Governments must invest more resources in
educating people, particularly disadvantaged segments of society in the appeals and
complaints procedures available under the RTI Act.
• Three major causes are responsible for pendency of cases in the Information
Commissions. First, the number of Information Commissioners appointed may not be
adequate for the purpose of clearing pending cases. Second, several Information
Commissions have reported inadequate staffing. Third, if first appellate authorities take
adequate action to redress grievances of RTI applicants the number of second appeals
and complaints would reduce automatically. So it is necessary to conduct a scientific
analysis of the rate of pendency in every Information Commission and the requirement
of numbers of Information Commissioners and staff based on annual projections of
receipts of second appeals and complaints. The requisite number of Information
Commissioners must be appointed in accordance with the RTI laws in a transparent
and participatory manner. Information Commissions must be provided adequate
numbers of competent staff and funds to carry out their work efficiently. In‐depth
training programmes must be conducted regularly for first appellate authorities based
on inputs such as the developing jurisprudence around the RTI laws in order to reduce
the number of second appeals submitted to the Information Commissions.
14
• Information Commissions must lay down for themselves norms for reporting their
work and comply with them scrupulously while publishing their Annual Reports. At a
minimum these reports must contain:
1) break‐up of the number of second appeals and complaints disposed;
2) break‐up of the number of second appeals and complaints allowed and those
rejected;
3) break‐up of the number of times appeals and complaints were rejected in
accordance with the clauses exempting disclosure of information; and
4) disaggregate data about the number of second appeals and complaints pending
from previous years but disposed during the reporting year.
• All Information Commissions must publish data about the number of second appeals
and complaints received and disposed, in relation to the Secretariats of Parliament
and the respective State Legislatures.
• All Information Commissions must publish data about the number of second appeals
and complaints received and disposed in relation to the public authorities under the
judiciary.
VII Imposing Penalties, Awarding Compensation and Recommending
Disciplinary Action
Under Section 20(1) of the Central RTI Act and Section 17(1) of the J&K RTI Act, an Information
Commission may impose a penalty on the public information officer from Rs. 250 per day to a
maximum of Rs. 25,000 for various contraventions of the law. The Information Commissions are
also empowered to recommend disciplinary action against a public information officer who
repeatedly contravenes the provisions of the RTI laws. The Information Commissions are also
empowered to award compensation to an appellant or complainant who has suffered any loss
or detriment on account of wrongful denial of access to information.
Anecdotal evidence indicates that Information Commissions are reluctant to impose penalties
or recommend disciplinary action against public information officers. Most of the Information
Commissioners who were career bureaucrats before joining the Information Commission are
perceived to adopt a very lenient attitude towards public information officers who do not
comply with their obligations under the RTI laws. The statistics given below supports this
perception to some extent.
Main findings of the study: (See Table 8)
• The total value of the penalties imposed by the Central Information Commission and
the State Information Commissions of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra
were the highest crossing Rs. 35 lakhs (Rs. 3.5 million) each. However the amounts
actually recovered were much lesser due to administrative delays or grant of stay order
by High Courts.
15
• The State Information Commission of Karnataka imposed penalties in the most
number of cases (537) followed by its counterpart in Maharashtra (343). In its Annual
Report, we could not find data about the actual number of instances in which the
Central Information Commission imposed penalties.
• The lowest recovery of penalty amounts was in Bihar (about 1/4th). Many State
Information Commissions have not published data about the recovery of penalty
amounts from public information officers or payment of compensation awarded to
appellants / complainants.
• The number of cases in which the Maharashtra State Information Commission
recommended disciplinary action against a public information officer was as high as
443. In comparison the Central Information recommended disciplinary action only in
24 cases. It is not known whether the public authority complied with these
recommendations. Several Information Commissions have not published any data about
the number of cases where disciplinary action was recommended against public
information officers.
• The State Information of Karnataka took the lead in awarding compensation to
appellants/complainants (Rs. 3.17 lakhs or Rs. 317,000) who had suffered loss or
detriment on account of wrongful denial of access to information. The Annual Report
of the Central Information Commission does not contain data about the compensation
awarded to appellants or complainants.
Recommendations:
• In order to dispel doubts in the minds of appellants and complainants as to why
penalties were not imposed on errant public information officers, every Information
Commission must, as a rule, record their decision as to why penalty was not imposed
on a public information officer despite issuing a show cause notice.
• Information Commissions must publish in their Annual Reports details of cases where
penalties were imposed in the manner of the State Information Commissions of
Karnataka, Meghalaya and Nagaland.
• All Information Commissions must regularly monitor compliance with their orders
imposing penalties, awarding compensation or recommending disciplinary action even
if those orders are stayed by High Courts. The relevant RTI rules may be amended in
order to ensure such monitoring as has been done in the latest RTI Rules notified by
the Government of Uttarakhand.9
9 See footnote #22 below.
16
The Use of Right to Information Laws in India: A Rapid Study
Based on the Annual Reports of Information Commissions (2011‐12)
Main Report
Introduction
On 12th May, 2005 Parliament gave its approval to place the Right to Information Act (Central
RTI Act) on the statute book.10 The President gave his assent to the law a month later. The
implementation of the Central RTI Act commenced with its publication in the Official Gazette on
21 June, 2005. Citizens were able to make formal requests for information from 13th October,
2005. Since then, lakhs (1 lakh = 100,000) of people around the country have sought and
obtained information from public authorities under this law. The Jammu and Kashmir Right to
Information Act was enacted in March 2009 and it came into force immediately. Thousands of
residents of J&K have used this law to seek information from public authorities in their State.
Under Section 25 of the Central RTI Act, all public authorities under the Central and State
Governments are required to submit to their Ministries and Departments annual reports about
the status of implementation of the law within their jurisdiction. The Ministries and
Departments are required to compile these reports and submit them to the respective
Information Commissions. The Information Commissions forward these status reports along
with a report of the performance of their own obligations under the law which is then tabled in
Parliament or the respective State Legislatures. Similar provisions in the J&K RTI Act require the
J&K State Information Commission to submit a similar Annual Report to the State Legislature
through the State Government. Several Information Commissions have set up online‐systems
for receiving implementation reports from public authorities every quarter directly. The
Information Commissions also display their Annual Reports on their website after they are
tabled before the concerned legislature.
Last year, we had reported that all Information Commissions except that of Mizoram had set up
dedicated websites for publicising information about their work. Soon after, the Mizoram
Information Commission wrote to us pointing to their newly set up website. We had missed
noticing it as it was not appearing up on Google Search facility easily, perhaps due to weak
search optimisation levels. However that problem appears to have been sorted out this year as
the website appears on top of Google Search results like that of all other Information
Commissions. We have not included the category of “availability of dedicated websites of
Information Commissions” in this year’s study for obvious reasons.
10 The text of the Central RTI Act is accessible on the RTI portal of the Government of India:
http://righttoinformation.gov.in/rti‐act.pdf as on 01 May, 2012.
17
I Availability of the Annual Reports of Information Commissions on Websites
Last year we presented our findings about the availability of the Annual Reports on the website
of the respective Information Commissions for the period 2006‐2011 that is, from the date of
their establishment until May 2012. While the Central Information Commission and the State
Information Commissions of Andhra Pradesh and Bihar had uploaded all annual reports up to
2011 on their respective websites, many had uploaded reports for fewer years of their
existence. Information Commissions in eight States namely, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur,
Mizoram, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura and Uttar Pradesh had not uploaded any of their annual
reports on their websites. The current status of the availability of the Annual Reports of
Information Commissions on their websites is given below.11
Main findings of the study: (See Table 1)
• Although in our previous study we had found the Mizoram State Information
Commission defaulting over public disclosure of its Annual Reports, it has now
uploaded all Annual Reports up to the year 2011‐12.
• 7 State Information Commissions identified in our study last year, namely, those in
Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura and Uttar Pradesh
continue to be defaulters in terms of displaying their Annual Reports on their
websites. These websites do not contain even a link for ‘Annual Reports’.
• Only Maharashtra State Information Commission has uploaded on its website, its
latest Annual Report due, for the calendar year 2012. No other Information
Commission has uploaded its latest Annual Report due, for either the calendar year
(January – December 2012) or the financial year (April 2012 – March 2013).
• The Central Information Commission and 9 Information Commissions in the States of
Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and
Rajasthan have uploaded their Annual Reports for all the years up to 2011‐12.12
• The J&K State Information Commission has uploaded its first Annual Report in
consolidated form for the years 2009‐2012.
• Information Commissions other than those mentioned above have displayed Annual
Reports for one year or more but not the latest ones.
• The Central Information Commission has published its Annual Report in both English
and Hindi languages. The State Information Commissions in Bihar, Chhattisgarh and
11 Where an annual report is not available on the dedicated website of the Information Commission, no
assumption is made about their preparation or availability in printed form. They may or may not be available in
hard copy. This study examines the availability and contents of Annual Reports (for the period 2011‐2012) only if
they are displayed on the dedicated websites.
12 The Annual Reports of the State Information Commissions of Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and
Meghalaya cover the calendar year 2011 only. The Annual reports of all other Information Commissions cover
the financial year 2011‐12.
18
Rajasthan have published their Annual Reports in Hindi only while the Annual Report of
the Maharashtra State Information Commission is available in Marathi only. All other
Information Commissions have published their Annual Reports in English only.
Recommendations:
• Unless Annual Reports are publicised in a timely manner people will discuss and
debate the implementation of the RTI Act and the working of the Information
Commissions in their States based on anecdotal evidence of good or bad experiences
of appellants only. In order to provide citizens factual data about the implementation
of the RTI laws by all public authorities and the working of Information Commissions,
it is important that the Annual Reports are compiled and publicized within six months
of the completion of the reporting year. This must become a priority with all
Information Commissions.
• Information Commissions will be able to compile their Annual Reports in a timely
manner only if they receive statistical data from all public authorities under their
jurisdiction. While some Information Commissions receive this data online on their
websites, others probably wait for them to file RTI returns at the end of the year in
hard copy or through computer discs. According to Section 25 (2) of the Central RTI Act
and Section 22(2) of the J&K RTI Act, the duty of ensuring reporting of RTI returns from
all public authorities lies squarely on the concerned Ministries. Unless they apply
pressure on public authorities under their jurisdiction they will not fall in line to submit
RTI returns in a timely manner. They must insist filing of RTI returns at least every
quarter. The nodal department charged with ensuring the implementation of the RTI
law under each appropriate Government, must send frequent reminders to the other
Ministries and Department to do their mandated job.
• Even if the RTI returns are not forthcoming from the ministries/departments,
Information Commissions have the statutory duty to publish a report of their own
activities at least and submit it to the respective Legislatures in order to account for
spending the taxpayers’ money. This would provide them the opportunity to publicly
name and shame the defaulting public authorities and compel compliance with the
reporting requirement under the respective RTI laws.
• At the very minimum, all Annual Reports must be drafted in the official languages
used by the appropriate Governments. It is advisable to publicise English language
translations of these reports so that civil society actors based in other places may also
have access to the information contained in these reports.
II How many RTI applications were Filed across India?
Although the Central RTI Act is entering the ninth year of implementation, to the best of our
knowledge, there is no report in the public domain about the total number of citizens who have
used the RTI Act for seeking information across the country in any given year. Nor is any data
available about the total number of RTI applications received by public authorities all over the
19
country. Annual reports of Information Commissions contain data about RTI applications
received and disposed only with respect to public authorities under their jurisdiction. Neither
the Department of Personnel and Training under the Central Government, nor any other
government institution has made the effort to compile this information. We have compiled
statistics about RTI applications filed as recorded in the latest Annual Reports of Information
Commissions wherever such reports are available for the period 2011‐2012. However a point of
caution must be noted. While many Information Commissions have adopted the financial year
(April to March) as the reporting period, others such as those in Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh,
Maharashtra and Meghalaya prepare reports for every calendar year (January‐December). For
the purpose of the current study we have focused on statistics about RTI applications (RTI user
data) available for the period 2011‐2012.13 In order to restrict the scope of this study to a
period of one year only we have not included Annual Reports published for the period 2010‐
11.14
Main findings of the study: (See Tables 2 and 9)
• During the year 2011‐12, a total of 20.27 lakh (2.02 million) RTI applications were
submitted to public authorities under the Central Government and in the 9 States
included in this study. If the figures available for the same year from Jammu and
Kashmir are added, the total number of information requests submitted under the
twin RTI laws rises to 20.39 lakhs (2.03 million).
• The total number of RTI applications received in Maharashtra outnumbered the total
figures put out for the Central Government. However this comparative picture may be
illusory because 32% of the public authorities under the Central Government are said to
have defaulted in submitting complete data about the number of RTI applications
received during the year 2011‐12.15 If all public authorities had meticulously submitted
their RTI returns to the Central Information Commission, the total figure for the Central
Government might have been much higher than that of Maharashtra.
• The Secretariats or offices of the President of India and the Prime Minster, the
Governors and Chief Ministers of the respective States have submitted data about the
number of RTI applications received and disposed to the respective Information
Commissions for publication in their annual reports.
• The Annual Report of the Central Information Commission does not contain any
disaggregate data about the number of RTI applications received and disposed by the
13 It is unfortunate that even though Central RTI Act binds all 28 Information Commissions they have not adopted a
uniform reporting period. Similarly the J&K State Information Commission has adopted the financial year as the
index for its reports.
14 Some Information Commissions have reported statistics of pending RTI applications carried over from the year
previous to the period covered by this study. We will include these figures when we come up with a more
detailed report on the working of Information Commissions later, when the Annual Reports of all Information
Commissions are displayed on their websites.
15 See foot note under Table 2 below.
20
Secretariats of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha in Parliament. Similarly no data
about the receipt and disposal of RTI applications in the respective State Legislatures is
available in the Annual Reports of the State Information Commissions of Chhattisgarh
and Rajasthan. All other Information Commissions have reported this category of data
(Table 9).
• There is no information about the receipt and disposal of RTI applications in the
Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court in the Annual Report of the Central
Information Commission. The State Information Commissions of Andhra Pradesh,
Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Jammu and Kashmir have
published RTI application statistics for High Courts and courts in their States (Table 9).
• In Chhattisgarh, 2,351 women (4.81% of the total number of RTI applicants) sought
information under the Central RTI Act. No other Information Commission has published
data about the gender‐wise breakup of the number of applicants. It is not known how
many of these women applicants actually received information. In Chhattisgarh, women
sought information most from the departments of Police (477), Panchayati Raj and Rural
Development (275) and Urban Administration and Development (270).
• In Chhattisgarh, 2.49% of the RTI applicants belonged to Below the Poverty Line (BPL)
category. No other Information Commission has captured this data category in its
Annual Report. However how many of these BPL applicants actually received the
requested information is not known.
• In Maharashtra, 11,246 BPL applicants (1.76% of the total no. of successful applicants)
received the information they requested. However the total number of applications
submitted by BPL persons during this period is not known. In terms of sheer numbers,
successful BPL applicants in Maharashtra were 10 times more than the total number of
BPL applicants in Chhattisgarh.
• The Chhattisgarh State Information Commission has also captured data about
applicants from traditionally disadvantaged communities such as Scheduled Castes
(SCs ‐ 3.38%) and Scheduled Tribes (STs ‐ 3.06%). This data provides good feedback for
the State Government to focus its public education efforts towards these disadvantaged
communities – a statutory requirement under Section 26(1) of the Central RTI Act.
• In Chhattisgarh, the only State where the urban‐rural breakup of RTI applicants is
available, a little more than a fifth of the applicants (21%) were living in villages. About
79% of the RTI applications were filed by urban residents.
• Although nothing in the RTI Act requires Information Commissions to capture the age
profile of RTI applicants in their report, the user data published by the J&K State
Information Commission indicates that a substantial number of information seekers in
that State may be young students. The University of Kashmir is reported to have
received the highest number of RTI applications (1043) during the last years 2009‐12.16
16 The Annual Report of the J&K State Information Commission ranks the public authorities on the basis of the
most number of RTI applications received during all three years of the implementation of the J&K RTI Act i.e.,
21
It is reasonable to expect that a substantial number of these applicants may be young
students.
• None of the Information Commissions have published figures pertaining to urgent
requests for information relating to life and liberty that public authorities must furnish
within 48 hours [proviso to Section 7(1)].
Recommendations:
• By conservatively extrapolating the pattern of user data available in the annual reports
included in this study, if we presume that a similar number of RTI applications may have
been submitted in the remaining 18 States, the final figure of RTI users across the
country may be estimated to cross 40 lakhs for the period 2011‐12. This would be a
mere 0.3% of the 120 crore (1.2 billion) population of the country. It would also
amount to only 0.5% of the electorate comprising of citizens aged 18 and above. Even
this estimation may not be accurate as it assumes that each of these RTI applications
may have been submitted by a separate individual. In fact it is very common for persons
to submit multiple applications, so the actual number of RTI users may be much lesser
than this crude estimation. The Central and State Governments, the mass media and
the civil society sector have their work cut out in terms of spreading awareness about
the RTI Act. More resource investment is required to spread awareness about the RTI
Act amongst the hundreds of crores (millions) of citizens who have not yet used this
law to seek information.
• Both RTI laws require the respective Information Commissions to table their reports in
Parliament or the respective State Legislatures to provide a detailed picture of their
implementation. Parliament which enacted the Central RTI Act must make the effort
to submit RTI data to the Central Information Commission regularly as its Secretariats
receive several information requests every year. All State Legislatures must also
submit their annual RTI returns to the respective State Information Commissions.
• The Supreme Court which recognised the fundamental right to information as being an
inseparable part of the fundamental right to free speech and expression guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, must take the lead in submitting annual RTI
returns to the Central Information Commission in a timely manner. All High Courts
exercise the power of judicial review over the decisions of the Information
Commissions. They must also submit annual RTI returns to the respective Information
Commissions for themselves and the courts and tribunals under their jurisdiction.
• As a norm, all Information Commissions must make the effort to capture RTI user data
about women applicants and also those belonging to other disadvantaged segments
from 2009‐12. The year‐wise breakups are not provided in the report. Nevertheless the combined data presents
an interesting variation in rankings compared with public authorities in other States listed above. The
percentages are calculated on the basis of the total number of RTI applications received over all three years i.e.,
15,987 in all.
22
of society such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and BPL and minority
communities. This data will be useful to the appropriate Governments for targeting
their activities to promote awareness about the RTI laws in the manner described in
Section 26(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
• Information Commissions must include in their Annual Reports, statistics about the
number of RTI applications relating to life and liberty received and the number of
instances where information was provided within 48 hours.
III Top 5 Public Authorities Receiving the Most Number of Applications
Section 25(3)(a) of the RTI Act obligates every public authority to submit an annual report of the
total number of requests received to its parent Ministry/Department. All Information
Commissions have published this data and many of them have gone a step ahead to rank the
public authorities in terms of the number of times citizens approached them with information
requests. The data published in the Annual Reports included in this study shows that the
pattern of seeking information is not uniform across the States. Conventional wisdom
presumed that ministries and departments that have the largest clientele would receive the
most number of RTI applications. However the departments responsible for land records,
education and health which have the largest clientele and more frequent direct dealings with
the public have not always figured amongst the top three of the list of ministries/departments
receiving the most number of RTI applications in all the States included in this study.
Main findings of the study: (See Table 4)
• The Revenue and Urban Development Departments topped the list of
departments/public authorities that received the most number of RTI applications in
the States of Karnataka and Maharashtra. In Andhra Pradesh, the Chief Commissioner,
Land Administration whose mandate includes functions similar to that of Revenue
Departments in other States topped the list. In Karnataka the Revenue and Urban
Development Departments together accounted for more than 50% of the RTI
applications received.
• Rural Development Departments (with or without the charge of Panchayati Raj) figure
amongst the top 5 in 7 other States, namely, Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh,
Karnataka, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, and Nagaland.17
• The Police Department topped the list in Mizoram. The Home Department, including
the police, topped the list in Chhattisgarh while in Maharashtra its counterpart
occupied the second position. The Delhi Police and the Director General of Police in
Andhra Pradesh also figure in the top 5 list. Rajasthan and Jammu and Kashmir are the
only States where neither the Home Department nor the Police Department figures
amongst the top 5.
17 CHRI is happy to report that it resourced training workshops in five of these States (except Maharashtra) for
heads of departments, public information officers and first appellate authorities.
23
• The State Public Service Commissions in Mizoram and Rajasthan figured amongst the
top 5 indicating that most of the applicants might be employment seekers or serving
officers.
• The Jaipur Development Authority and the University of Kashmir are the only public
authorities outside of ministries and departments that topped the list amongst all 11
jurisdictions covered by this study.
• The Ministry of Finance received more than a fifth (20.41%) of the total number of RTI
applications submitted to various public authorities under the Central Government.
This figure appears so large because this Ministry covers a large number of autonomous
institutions such as banks and insurance companies. Individually speaking the
Department of Posts stood first in terms of number of RTI applications received by a
public authority.18 That the Employees Provident Fund Organisation stood second in the
ranking indicates that a large number of applicants are employed with the Central
Government or its agencies.
• The Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi received more than 10% of
the total number of RTI Applications accounted for in the Central Information
Commission’s Annual Report.
Recommendations:
• Ministries, departments and public authorities receiving the highest number of RTI
applications must analyse the kinds of information citizens are seeking from them.
This would help them identify the categories of information frequently sought by
citizens which could then be disclosed and disseminated proactively through various
methods listed under Section 4(4) of both the RTI laws unless one or more exemptions
listed under Sections 8, 9, 11 and 24 are attracted. This would go a long way in
reducing the burden of RTI applications on the public information officers.
• Some of the Information Commissions have reported a small number of public
authorities that did not receive any RTI application at all during the year. The reasons
for this phenomenon could be varied: they maybe volunteering information so
extensively, that citizens have no need to seek information in a formal manner, or,
their clientele may simply not be aware of their rights under the RTI laws. Given the
miniscule number of citizens using the RTI laws as indicated above, the latter
explanation may most probably be true for several public authorities. It is advisable
for the nodal departments for implementing the RTI laws to undertake a study of the
reasons for this phenomenon in these public authorities and launch public education
and awareness raising programmes about people’s right to information.
18 CHRI is happy to report that it resourced training programmes for senior officers of the Dept. of Posts during the
initial years of the implementation of the Central RTI Act.
24
IV Proportion of Rejections at the RTI Application Stage
Section 7(1) of both the Central and J&K RTI laws authorise a public information officer to reject
a request for any of the reasons given under Sections 8 and 9 of the respective laws. These
provisions contain the exemptions that may be invoked to withhold access to information in the
public interest. Section 7(8) of both laws requires a public information officer to give detailed
reasons for denying access to information. An RTI application may also be rejected if the
information sought is not held in material form by any public authority or by agreeing with the
legitimate objections of third party under Section 11 of both laws. Security and intelligence
organisations notified by the Central and State Governments do not have a duty to disclose any
information other than that pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations.
Information relating to allegations of human rights violations may be disclosed only with the
approval of the concerned Information Commission.
Anecdotal evidence across the country has made many civil society actors and activists believe
that rejection of request is the norm in many public authorities and access to information is an
exception which amounts to reversing the objectives of both RTI laws. However, if the data
published in the Annual Reports of Information Commissions covered by this study is to be
believed, only a small proportion of the total number of requests is rejected at the application
stage.
Section 25(3)(b) of the Central RTI Act and the corresponding Section 22(3)(b) in the J&K RTI Act
require public authorities to cite the number of instances in which they invoked the exemptions
to reject information requests. In this study, we have compared the pattern of rejections based
on information published in the Annual Reports of the Central Information Commission and the
State Information Commissions of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. Other Information
Commissions have not provided the break‐up of the number of times exemption clauses were
invoked by public authorities to deny access to information.
Main findings of the study: (See Table 1‐ column 4 and Table 3)
• In States with smaller populations like Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland, less than
1% rejection was reported at the RTI application stage.
• In Karnataka, where public authorities received close to 2.93 lakh (293,000) requests,
the proportion of rejections was a mere 0.30%.
• Some of the highest proportions of rejections were observed in the context of public
authorities under the Central Government (8.14%) and those under the State
Government of Maharashtra (7.2%) both of which received more than 6.5 lakh
(650,000) RTI applications during the period covered by this study. It is important to
note that despite receiving a slightly larger number of applications than the Central
Government, the proportion of rejections is lesser in Maharashtra.
• Although the macro picture in all governments covered by this study indicates rejection
of not more than 10% of the total number of RTI applications received, some of the
public authorities had very high rates of rejection. For example, the rejection rate at
25
the offices of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Directorate General of
Safeguards was 100%. The offices of the Director General, Income Tax (Investigation)
based in Ahmedabad (86.8%), Jaipur (71.6%), Kolkata (66.7%) and New Delhi (59.5%)
also had a very high rejection rate. In these offices the number of RTI applications
received ranged between 38‐289.
• The Jammu and Kashmir State Information Commission has reported that while RTI
applications received by public authorities in that State grew phenomenally, the
rejection rate dropped from 9% (2009‐10) to 4% (2010‐11) and stood at 1.37% for the
last reporting year (2011‐12).
• Only the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions of
Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka have provided clause‐wise break up [Sections 8(1)(a)
to (j), 9 and 24] of the number of times the exemptions were invoked by public
authorities to reject information requests at the application stage. Despite this being a
statutory requirement no other Information Commission has captured this data in its
Annual Report.
• The largest number of rejections of RTI applications (15,279) in public authorities
under Central Government occurred on the grounds of protecting personal privacy
[Central RTI Act, Section 8(1)(j)]. However this clause was rarely used in Andhra Pradesh
(25) and Karnataka (33) to reject requests. In Andhra Pradesh, the exemptions
pertaining to contempt of court and prohibition on the disclosure of information by
courts was invoked most frequently (131 times) to reject RTI applications [Central RTI
Act, Section 8(1)(b)]. Public authorities in Karnataka are reported to have invoked this
clause only 8 times. Public authorities in Karnataka are said to have invoked most
frequently (101 times) the exemption relating to police investigation, arrests and
criminal trials [Central RTI Act, Section 8(1)(h)].
• More than 4,000 RTI applications are said to have been rejected because they
pertained to the 25 intelligence and security organisations notified by the Central
Government under Section 24 of the Central RTI Act. In Andhra Pradesh only one
instance of rejection on this ground has been reported. No data for this category is
available in the Annual Report of the Karnataka State Information Commission. Perhaps
some rejections on this ground might have been included in the category‐ “Others”
which accounts for 300 rejections under other unspecified Sections of the Central RTI
Act.
Recommendations:
• Information Commissions must pay special attention to public authorities where
rejection rates are very high to see if the exemption provisions and public interest
override clauses contained in Section 8 are being invoked by the public information
officers or the first appellate authorities with due application of mind. Fewer the
number of rejections, lesser will be the number of appeals and complaints.
26
• All Information Commissions must collect and publish data about the number of
times exemption clauses are invoked by public authorities to reject RTI applications
as this is a statutory requirement.
• Information Commissions must collect and publish data about the rejection of RTI
applications by organisations notified under Section 24 of the Central RTI Act and
Section 21 of the J&K RTI Act in keeping with the statutory mandate of accounting
for all instances of rejection of requests by public authorities.
V Receipt and Disposal of First Appeals
Section 19 of the Central RTI Act and Section 16 of the J&K RTI Act recognise the right of
aggrieved RTI applicants to file an appeal with the designated First Appellate Authority who
must be an officer senior in rank to the public information officer. A first appeal may be filed if
the RTI applicant is not satisfied with the decision of the public information officer or if he/she
did not receive a decision within the time limit specified in the two RTI laws. Both RTI laws do
not prescribe any procedure for first appellate authorities to deal with appeals received from
aggrieved RTI applicants. Also, the RTI Rules notified under both laws also do not contain the
details of procedure to be adopted for receiving and disposing first appeals. However the
Department of Personnel and Training has issued some guidelines for Appellate Authorities for
disposing appeals within the time limit specified in the two RTI laws. First appellate authorities
are required to observe the principles of natural justice such as giving the appellant and the
public information officer concerned an opportunity to present their cases before deciding an
appeal.19 They are also advised to provide copies of the information sought if they have easy
access to it while deciding against a rejection order issued by the public information officer. If
the information is not readily accessible they have the option of stipulating a time limit for the
public information officer to supply the information to the appellant.
Many Information Commissions time and again have directed appellate authorities to apply
their minds to every appeal they are required to examine, instead of mechanically upholding a
decision of rejection given by the public information officer. First appellate authorities are also
required to balance the public interests favouring disclosure against other relevant public
interests that would be served better by withholding access to the information before arriving
at a decision on the appeal. All these arguments must be included in the order of the first
appellate authority. However many civil society actors and RTI users think that the first appeals
procedure is pointless as first appellate authorities more often than not uphold the decision of
the public information officer to reject a request.
19 Guidelines for the Officers Designated as First Appellate Authority, OM No. 1/3/2008‐IR dated 25 April, 2008
accessible on the website of the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India at:
http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02rti/1_3_2008_IR(Eng).pdf accessed on 10 October, 2013.
27
Main findings of the study: (See Table 5, Table 6‐ columns 4 and 5 and Table 9)
• The Central Information Commission and the J&K State Information Commission have
not included statistics about the receipt and disposal of first appeals by public
authorities in their Annual Reports. In fact the Central Information Commission had
included this data in the first two Annual Reports only (2006‐07 and 2007‐08). However
this practice has been discontinued for reasons unknown.
• One would expect the proportion of first appeals to tally with the proportion of RTI
applications rejected by public authorities. However this does not seem to be the case in
many States (Table 6‐ columns 4 and 5). In Bihar, despite only 4.22% of the RTI
applications being rejected, the number of first appeals submitted was almost six
times higher (23.94%). In Nagaland, where fewer RTI applications were submitted,
despite the rejection rate being a little less than 10%, the proportion of first appeals
filed was one and a half times higher (15.32%). In Meghalaya, the proportion was
eight times higher (8.80%) than the rejection rate of less than 1%. These statistics are
probably reflective of two phenomena. Citizens may have submitted first appeals
because they did not receive any reply from the public information officer or because
they were dissatisfied with the reply or the quality of the information that was
furnished. Nagaland State Information Commission records, “lack of response from the
public information officer” as the reason for the submission of 48% of the total
number of first appeals, whereas the remaining are said to have been submitted by
citizens dissatisfied with the reply or quality of information received. However the
Nagaland State Information Commission has not reported the outcome of these first
appeals unlike other State Information Commissions.
• While, in most States, first appellate authorities ordered disclosure of information in
about 90% of the cases, in Rajasthan, more than a third (34.48%) of the first appeals
was rejected by their counterparts. One of the 3 first appeal cases filed in Mizoram was
rejected because of which the rejection rate is 33.33%.
• Except the State Information Commission of Andhra Pradesh no other Information
Commission has reported the number of times exemptions clauses were invoked by
first appellate authorities to reject an appeal or uphold the decision of public
information officers to deny access to information.
• Only the State Information Commissions of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Meghalaya
and Nagaland have published data about first appeals received and disposed by their
respective State Legislatures. The Annual Reports of the State Information Commission
of Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan do not contain first appeal related statistics relating to
the respective State Legislatures.
• There is no mention of the number of first appeals received and disposed by the High
Courts of Delhi, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan and Jammu and Kashmir in the Annual
Reports of the respective Information Commissions.
28
Recommendations:
• All Information Commissions must collect and publish data about the receipt and
manner of disposal of first appeals by the designated first appellate authorities. This
information must be placed in the public domain to enable proper assessment of their
performance. First appellate authorities are not quasi‐judicial authorities. In fact they
are administrative authorities vested with quasi‐judicial functions and responsibilities.
They must not be excluded from the statutory requirement of reporting their activities
under the twin RTI laws.
• Secretariats of Parliament and all Legislatures must submit to the respective
Information Commissions statistics of first appeals received and disposed and also the
manner of the disposal.
• All High Courts must submit to the respective Information Commissions statistics of
first appeals received and disposed by themselves as well as all courts and tribunals
under their jurisdiction and also the manner of disposal.
• Section 25(3) of the Central RTI Act and Section 22(3) of the J&K RTI Act require public
authorities to report the number of times exemption clauses were invoked to reject
access to information. This reporting requirement applies not only to public
information officers at the RTI application stage but also to first appellate authorities
who receive appeals from aggrieved citizens. They must provide this data to the
respective Information Commissions so that the breakup of the rejection figures is also
published in the annual reports.
VI Receipt and Disposal of Second Appeals and Complaints
Both RTI laws establish Information Commissions for the purpose of redressing grievances of
citizens who are not satisfied with the responses of public authorities or their designated
representatives such as public information officers and first appellate authorities. Under
Section 19(3) of the Central RTI Act and Section 16(3) of the J&K RTI Act, citizens may file a
second appeal with the concerned Information Commission if they are aggrieved by the
decision of the first appellate authorities. Third parties who are aggrieved by the order of a first
appellate authority to disclose information pertaining to them may also file a second appeal
with the Information Commissions.
Under Section 18 of the Central RTI Act and Section 15 of the J&K RTI Act, any person may
submit a complaint with the concerned Information Commission on the following grounds:
a) if no public information officer has been appointed by a public authority;
b) if a request for information sought under the RTI laws has been rejected;
c) failure of the public authority to provide a response to an RTI application within the
specified time limits;
d) charging exorbitant fees for supplying information;
29
e) providing false, incomplete or misleading information; and
f) any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under the RTI
laws.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the powers granted to Information Commissions under
Section 18 of the Central Act are for the purpose of supervising compliance in public authorities
only.20 Citizens aggrieved by the decision of a public authority rejecting access to information
must utilize the appeals mechanism for redress. The complaints procedure cannot be used for
this purpose.
Main findings of the study: (See Table 6: columns 6 and 7 and Tables 7 and 9)
• Under ideal conditions one would expect that the number of second appeals filed with
the Information Commissions, as a proportion of the total number of RTI applications
rejected, would reduce because of the first appeals mechanism available for redressing
grievances. While this is the pattern in all States covered by this study except Rajasthan.
The proportion of second appeals submitted to the State Information Commission of
Rajasthan was more than double the proportion of RTI applications rejected. The
proportion of second appeals filed was 0.85% higher than the proportion of first appeals
as compared to the proportion of rejections. This indicates high dissatisfaction levels
amongst the citizenry with the manner of implementation of the Central RTI Act in many
public authorities.21 In other Information Commissions, this proportion ranged
between 1‐10% of the total number of rejections at the RTI application stage (Table 6).
• In Bihar, despite recording a rejection of only 4.22% at the RTI application stage the
proportion of second appeals and complaints submitted to the State Information
20 Chief Information Commr. And Another vs State of Manipur and Another, Civil Appeal Nos.10787‐10788 OF 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P(C) No.32768‐32769/2010), judgement dated 12 December 2011. With deepest respect to
the wisdom of the Supreme Court it must be pointed out that this judgement has not adequately considered all
aspects of the complaints and appeals procedures provided under the Central RTI Act. By reasoning that the
appeals procedure would be rendered defunct if all grievances about access to information were sought to be
redressed through the complaints mechanism, the opposite effect has been achieved. As a result of this
reasoning, the complaints procedure has been rendered defunct theoretically, because, we believe Information
Commissions are now prevented from issuing any order other than imposing penalties on, or recommending
disciplinary action against, errant public information officers while deciding a complaint. Nothing in the
judgement indicates that all aspects of Sections 18 and 19 as well as the RTI Rules notified by the Central
Government detailing the appellate procedure have been taken into consideration adequately. No attention has
been paid to the meaning and significance of the term “complainant” that occurs twice in Section 19 where the
powers of the Information Commissions under second appeal procedure are listed. Not much attention has been
paid to the fact that many of the grounds for complaints specified under Section 18 have corresponding
remedies clearly described under Section 19(8) of the Central RTI Act. Nevertheless it is heartening to note that
citizens are using the complaints procedure seeking redress for their grievances against public authorities.
21 This may also be a statistical anomaly due to imperfect reporting. We have included only the total number of
first and second appeals received during the year 2011‐12 as reported in the Annual Report of the Rajasthan
State Information Commission. To the best of our knowledge this figure does not include appeals pending from
the year 2010‐11.
30
Commission was as high as 19.31%. No disaggregate data for second appeals and
complaints has been published in the Annual Report. The proportion of second appeals
and complaints submitted to the State Information Commission in Jammu and
Kashmir was about 7 times higher than the proportion of rejections. These figures
indicate high dissatisfaction levels amongst the citizenry in Bihar and Jammu and
Kashmir with regard to the implementation of the two RTI laws (Table 6).
• The proportion of complaints (4.28%) submitted to the State Information Commission
in Karnataka was much higher than the proportion of rejection (0.30%). This figure was
higher compared to the second appeals figure (0.31%). In Meghalaya, despite the small
numbers involved, complaints outnumbered second appeals before the State
Information Commission. This indicates that despite the Supreme Court’s judgement
mentioned above, people are using the complaints mechanism to redress their
grievances against public authorities and Information Commissions are entertaining
them (Table 6).
• With the exception of those in Andhra Pradesh and Meghalaya, no other Information
Commission has published figures about their decisions taken on second appeals and
complaints, namely, how many were allowed and how many were rejected. In Andhra
Pradesh, appeals and complaints were allowed in 1,305 cases and rejected in 334 cases.
In Meghalaya 8 second appeals and complaints were allowed and 5 were rejected.
• Data about the receipt and disposal of second appeals and complaints pertaining to
State Legislatures is available in the Annual Reports of the State Information
Commissions of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Meghalaya and Nagaland only (Table 9).
• Data about the receipt and disposal of second appeals and complaints pertaining to
High Courts is published in the Annual Reports of the State Information Commissions
of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Meghalaya and Nagaland only (Table 9).
• At the end of the reporting year, pendency of second appeals and complaints was
highest in the Maharashtra State Information Commission. Given the lesser number of
second appeals and complaints received, the State Information Commissions of
Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland did not have any pending cases at the end of the
reporting period. This is an improvement from the previous year which had a small
number of pending cases (Table 7).
• More than 10,800 second appeals and complaints were pending before the Central
Information Commission during the period 2011‐12 (Table 7). This figure is said to have
crossed 19,500 as on 30th September, 2013 according to the monthly progress reports
displayed on the Commission’s website.
• None of the Information Commissions have published data about the number of
instances where various exemptions under the two RTI laws were invoked while
rejecting a second appeal.
• The State Information Commission of Andhra Pradesh is the only body to publish data
about the provenance of appellants and complainants approaching it. About 45% of
31
the appellants and complainants are said to be from rural areas. This figure was a mere
11% during the first year of the implementation of the Central RTI Act (2005‐6). This
Commission has also published data about complaints and appeals received from each
geographical region: Telengana – 44.84%; Andhra – 39.87%; Rayalaseema – 15.29%.
Recommendations:
• Although the proportion of second appeals and complaints filed with the Information
Commissions is not very high in many States as compared with dissatisfaction levels
based on anecdotal evidence of citizens and civil society actors, these figures cannot be
taken for granted. Several dissatisfied applicants may not approach the Information
Commission due to lack of awareness about its procedures or simply due to frustration,
given the fact that the office of the Information Commission may be in a distant city.
Some Information Commissions like those in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh travel to the
districts to conduct hearings. The Information Commissioners in Maharashtra are
actually based in different parts of the State making them more accessible to people. The
Central Information Commission was the pioneer in using video conferencing facility to
hear appeals and complaints. Some of its Commissioners also visit other cities to hold
hearings en masse. It is heartening to note that a few other Information Commissions
like that in Karnataka have adopted these procedures. All these methods must be
explored and adopted by Information Commissions to provide easy and quick
resolution to RTI‐related disputes. Governments must invest more resources in
educating people, particularly disadvantaged segments of society in the appeals and
complaints procedures available under the RTI Act.
• Three major causes are responsible for pendency of cases in the Information
Commissions. First, the number of Information Commissioners appointed may not be
adequate for the purpose of clearing pending cases. Second, several Information
Commissions have reported inadequate staffing. Third, if first appellate authorities take
adequate action to redress grievances of RTI applicants the number of second appeals
and complaints would reduce automatically. So it is necessary to conduct a scientific
analysis of the rate of pendency in every Information Commission and the requirement
of numbers of Information Commissioners and staff based on annual projections of
receipts of second appeals and complaints. The requisite number of Information
Commissioners must be appointed in accordance with the RTI laws in a transparent
and participatory manner. Information Commissions must be provided adequate
numbers of competent staff and funds to carry out their work efficiently. In‐depth
training programmes must be conducted regularly for first appellate authorities based
on inputs such as the developing jurisprudence around the RTI laws in order to reduce
the number of second appeals submitted to the Information Commissions.
• Information Commissions must lay down for themselves norms for reporting their
work and comply with them scrupulously while publishing their Annual Reports. At a
minimum these reports must contain:
32
5) break‐up of the number of second appeals and complaints disposed;
6) break‐up of the number of second appeals and complaints allowed and those
rejected;
7) break‐up of the number of times appeals and complaints were rejected in
accordance with the clauses exempting disclosure of information; and
8) disaggregate data about the number of second appeals and complaints pending
from previous years but disposed during the reporting year.
• All Information Commissions must publish data about the number of second appeals
and complaints received and disposed in relation to the Secretariats of Parliament and
the respective State Legislatures.
• All Information Commissions must publish data about the number of second appeals
and complaints received and disposed in relation to the public authorities under the
judiciary.
VII Imposing Penalties, Awarding Compensation and Recommending
Disciplinary Action
Under Section 20(1) of the Central RTI Act and Section 17(1) of the J&K RTI Act, an Information
Commission may impose a penalty on the public information officer from Rs. 250 per day to a
maximum of Rs. 25,000. A public information officer may be penalized for refusing to receive an
RTI application or delaying the furnishing of information without reasonable cause; malafidely
denying access to information, knowingly giving incomplete, false or misleading information;
destroying information that is the subject matter of a pending RTI application or obstructing the
furnishing of information in any manner. The Information Commissions are also empowered to
recommend disciplinary action against a public information officer who repeatedly contravenes
the provisions of the RTI laws. The Information Commissions are also empowered to award
compensation to an appellant or complainant who has suffered any loss or detriment on
account of wrongful denial of information.
Anecdotal evidence indicates that Information Commissions are reluctant to impose penalties
or recommend disciplinary action against public information officers. Most of the Information
Commissioners who were career bureaucrats before joining the Information Commission are
perceived to adopt a very lenient attitude towards public information officers who do not
comply with their obligations under the RTI laws. The statistics given below supports this
perception to some extent in many States.
Main findings of the study: (See Table 8)
• The total value of the penalties imposed by the Central Information Commission and
the State Information Commissions of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra
were the highest crossing Rs. 35 lakhs (Rs. 3.5 million) each. However the amounts
33
recovered were much lesser due to administrative delays or grant of stay order by High
Courts.
• The State Information Commission of Karnataka imposed penalties in the most
number of cases (537) followed by its counterpart in Maharashtra (343). In its Annual
Report, we could not find data about the actual number of instances in which the
Central Information Commission imposed penalties.
• The lowest recovery of penalty amounts was in Bihar (about 1/4th). Many State
Information Commissions have not published data about the recovery of penalty
amounts from public information officers or payment of compensation awarded to
appellants / complainants.
• The number of cases in which the Maharashtra State Information Commission
recommended disciplinary action against a public information officer was as high as
443. In comparison the Central Information recommended disciplinary action only in
24 cases. It is not known whether the public authority complied with these
recommendations. Several Information Commissions have not published any data about
the number of cases where disciplinary action was recommended against public
information officers.
• The State Information of Karnataka took the lead in awarding compensation to
appellants / complainants (Rs. 3.17 lakhs or Rs. 317,000) who had suffered loss or
detriment on account of wrongful denial of access to information. The Annual Report
of the Central Information Commission does not contain data about the compensation
awarded to appellants or complainants.
Recommendations:
• In order to dispel doubts in the minds of appellants and complainants as to why
penalties were not imposed on errant public information officers, every Information
Commission must, as a rule, record their decision as to why penalty was not imposed
on a public information officer despite issuing a show cause notice.
• Information Commissions must publish in their Annual Reports details of cases where
penalties were imposed in the manner of the State Information Commissions of
Karnataka, Meghalaya and Nagaland.
• All Information Commissions must regularly monitor compliance with their orders
imposing penalties, awarding compensation or recommending disciplinary action even
if those orders are stayed by High Courts. The relevant RTI rules may be amended in
order to ensure such monitoring as has been done in the latest RTI Rules notified by
the Government of Uttarakhand.22
22 See Rule 11 under Uttarakhand’s Right to Information Rules, 2013 available on the website of the Chief Minister
of Uttarakhand at: http://www.cm.uk.gov.in/pages/display/1185‐the‐uttarakhand‐right‐to‐informationrules2013
accessed on 20 October, 2013. CHRI is happy to report that it provided technical advice to the
Government of Uttarakhand to revise its RTI Rules earlier this year.
34
35
Data Tables
Table 1: Availability of the Annual Reports of Information Commissions on websites (Y = yes; N = no)
Sl.
no.
Information
Commission 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Comments
1. Central Information
Commission Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Latest Annual Report is available for the year
2011‐12
2. Andhra Pradesh Y Y Y Y Y Y N ‐
3. Arunachal Pradesh Y Y N N N N N ‐
4. Assam N N Y Y N N N ‐
5. Bihar
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Latest Annual Report is available for the year
2011‐12
6. Chhattisgarh Y Y Y Y N Y Y Latest Annual Report is available for the year
2011‐12
7. Goa Y Y Y N N N N ‐
8. Gujarat N N N N N N N ‐
9. Haryana Y N N N N N N ‐
10. Himachal Pradesh Y Y Y Y Y Y N ‐
11. Jharkhand Y Y Y Y Y Y N ‐
12. Karnataka Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Latest Annual Report is available for the
year 2011‐12
13. Kerala Y Y Y Y Y Y N ‐
14. Madhya Pradesh N N N N N N N ‐
15. Maharashtra Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ‐
16. Manipur N N N N N N N ‐
17. Meghalaya Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Latest Annual Report is available for the year
2011‐12
18. Mizoram Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ‐
19. Nagaland N N Y Y Y Y Y Latest Annual Report is available for the year
2011‐12
Sl.
No.
Information
Commission 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Comments
20. Odisha Y Y Y Y Y Y N ‐
21. Punjab Y Y Y Y N N N ‐
22. Rajasthan Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Latest Annual Report is available for the year
2011‐12
23. Sikkim N N N N N N N ‐
24. Tamil Nadu N N N N N N N ‐
25. Tripura N N N N N N N ‐
26. Uttarakhand Y N N N N N N ‐
27. Uttar Pradesh N N N N N N N ‐
28. West Bengal Y Y Y Y N N N Annual reports for 2006‐2009 presented in
2009
29. Jammu and Kashmir ‐ ‐ ‐ Y Y Y Y Combined report for the years 2009‐12 was
published in 2012
38
Table 2: Number of information requests received by Public Authorities and
the proportion of rejection at the RTI Application Stage
Sl.
no.
Government/State No. of RTI
applications
received
Rejection at
the application
stage
Remarks
1 2 3 4 5
1. Central
Government23
6,55,572 8.14% ‐
2. Andhra Pradesh 1,22,133 4.94% ‐
3. Bihar 1,29,807 4.22% ‐
4. Chhattisgarh 48,785 3.85% 38,616 urban applicants
10,169 rural applicants
2,351 women applicants
1,653 SC applicants
1,494 ST applicants
1,216 BPL applicants
5. Karnataka 2,93,405 0.30% ‐
6. Maharashtra 6,82,286 7.2% 11,246 BPL applicants
got the requested
information
7. Meghalaya 1,068 0.74% ‐
8. Mizoram 1,045 0.86% ‐
9. Nagaland 2,206 9.74% ‐
10. Rajasthan 71,243 4.59% ‐
Total no. of RTI applications‐ 20,27,152
11. Jammu and Kashmir 12,136 1.37% ‐
Grand Total‐ 20,39,288
23 The Annual Report of the Central Information Commission contain two figures for the total number of RTI
applications received during the year 2011‐12: one based on reporting of RTI data by public authorities for all
four quarters of that year and the other based on reporting of RTI data by public authorities for at least one
quarter. We have taken the larger figure as it is nearer to the total number of RTI applications received which
remains a mystery as about 32% of the public authorities under the Central Government did not file any
statistical report with the Commission. We have also not included in these figures data about pending RTI
applications from the previous year carried over to the next year due to this study’s self‐imposed limitation of
focusing on only one year during the period‐ 2011‐12.
39
Table 3: Number of instances where exemptions were invoked
Sl.
no.
Central RTI Act
Exemption clause
invoked
(Section 8 & 24)
Public authorities
under the
Central
Government
Public authorities
under the State
Government of
Andhra Pradesh
Public authorities
under the State
Government of
Karnataka
1. 8(1)(a)
National security related 418
17 1
2. 8(1)(b)
Contempt of court
related
193 131 8
3. 8(1)(c)
Breaching privileges of
Parliament or State
Legislatures
206
6 5
4. 8(1)(d)
Commercial confidence,
trade secrets, intellectual
property rights
7,613
35 82
5. 8(1)(e)
Fiduciary relationship 5,647
3 35
6. 8(1)(f)
Confidential information
from foreign government
338
1 6
7. 8(1)(g)
Endangering life or safety
of a person and law
enforcement related
1,976
44 67
8. 8(1)(h)
Impediment to
investigation, arrest or
prosecution
2,925
18 101
9. 8(1)(i)
Cabinet papers related 1,306
13 16
10. 8(1)(j)
Personal privacy
15,279 25 33
11. 24
Intelligence & security
organisations
4,099
1 no data
These statistics are not available in the Annual Reports of other Information Commissions
covered by this study, including that of the J&K State Information Commission established under
the J&K RTI Act, 2009 which has similar provisions.
40
Table 4: Top five Ministries/Departments/Public Authorities that received the most number of RTI applications
Sl.
no.
Government/
State
# Ranking
( Proportion of RTI applications received during 2011‐12)
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5
1. Central
Government
Ministries/
Departments24
Ministry of
Finance
(20.41%)
Department of
Posts
(8.23%)
Ministry of Home
Affairs
(8.06%)
Labour &
Employment Ministry
(6.80%)
Ministry of
Human Resource
Development
(5.73%)
Public
Authorities
under Central
Government
Department of
Posts
(8.23%)
Employees
Provident
Fund Orgn.
(6.44%)
Delhi
Police
(5.24%)
Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Ltd. (BSNL)
(3.50%)
State Bank of India
(3.41%)
2. Andhra Pradesh Chief
Commissioner,
Land Admn.
(37.75%)
Director,
Municipal
Administration
(6.82%)
Commissioner,
Panchayati Raj &
Rural Empl.
(5.75%)
Director General of
Police
(3.70%)
Commissioner &
Inspector General,
Regn. & Stamps
(2.86%)
3. Bihar Education
Department
(9.52%)
General
Administration
Department
(3.48%)
Home
Department
(2.64%)
Rural Development
Department
(1.94%)
Energy
Department
(1.73%)
4. Chhattisgarh Home
Department
(13.33%)
Urban
Administration &
Development
Department
(11.45%)
Panchayati Raj &
Rural
Development
Department
(10.24%)
Public Works
Department
(7.21%)
Housing and
Environment
Department
(5%)
24 Several Ministries in the Central Government are comprised of multiple departments and attached offices all of which are public authorities in their own
right. So we have separately listed the Ministries and Departments that have received the most number of RTI applications and individual public authorities
that have received the highest number of RTI applications.
41
Sl.
no.
Government/
State
# Ranking
( Proportion of RTI applications received during 2011‐12)
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5
5. Karnataka25 Revenue, Muzrai,
Stamps & Regn.
Dept. & Karnataka
Admin. Tribunal
(27.11%)
Urban Dev. Dept.
including
Municipal Admn.
& Corpns.
(23.02%)
Rural
Development and
Panchayati Raj
Department
(8.69%)
Home
Department
including Prisons
(5.14%)
Transport
Department
(4.84%)
6. Maharashtra Urban Dev.
Department
(28.82%)
Revenue &
Forests Dept.
(14.57%)
Home
Department
(8.87%)
Housing
Department
(8.22%)
Rural Dev., Panchayats
& Water Conservation
(7.20%)
7. Meghalaya26 Community &
Rural Dev. Dept.
(12.35%)
Forests &
Environment
Department
(9.92%)
Home
Department
including Prisons
(9.55%)
Education
Department
(6.36%)
Public Works
Department
(4.96%)
8. Mizoram Police
Department
(11.86%)
Mizoram Public
Service
Commission
(10.23%)
Home
Department
(Secretariat)
(4.11%)
District Agriculture
Office,
North Lawngtalai
(3.92%)
Chakma Autonomous
District Council &
Dept. of Personnel &
Administrative Reforms
(3.06% each)
9. Nagaland Transport
Department
(19.49%)
Rural Dev.
Department
(9.70%)
School Education
Department
(7.47%)
Health and Family
Welfare Department
(5.07%)
Police
Department
(4.85%)
25 Although the Urban Development Department is shown at rank #2, a word of caution must be added here. This figure includes the RTI applications received
by various municipal corporations under its jurisdiction. As these bodies are also public authorities in their own right, adding their statistics to the
Department’s inflates the figure considerably. This is true of all other Ministries and Departments that have provided combined data from public authorities
under their jurisdiction.
26 Table 7.2.1 annexed to the Meghalaya State Information Commission’s Annual Report mentions a total of 136 RTI applications received by the Personnel
Department during the year 2011. However this figure includes RTI applications received by the offices of the Deputy Commissioners in the districts as well.
These officers are public authorities in their own right. So we have not included the Personnel Department in the ranking scheme.
42
Sl.
no.
Government/
State
# Ranking
( Proportion of RTI applications received during 2011‐12)
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5
10. Rajasthan Jaipur
Development
Authority
(12.85%)
Finance
Department
(12.38%)
Energy & Non‐
Conventional
Energy Dept.
(11.59%)
Rajasthan Public
Service Commission
(8.14%)
Cooperatives
Department
(5.72%)
11. Jammu and
Kashmir27
University of
Kashmir
(8.41%)
J&K Public Service
Commission
(5.95%)
Directorate of
School Education,
Jammu
(5.71%)
Directorate of School
Education, Srinagar
(4.65%)
Directorate of Social
Welfare, Srinagar
(4.07%)
27 The Annual Report of the J&K State Information Commission ranks the public authorities on the basis of the most number of RTI applications received during
all three years of the implementation of the J&K RTI Act from 2009‐12. The year‐wise breakups are not provided in the report. Nevertheless the combined
data presents an interesting variation in rankings compared with public authorities in other States listed above. The percentages are calculated on the basis
of the total number of RTI applications received over all three years i.e, 15,987 in all.
43
Table 5: Receipt and Disposal of First Appeals during 2011‐2012
Sl.
no.
Government Appeals
Received
(cases)
Information
given
(cases)
Information
denied
(%)
Comments
1. Central
Government
no data no data no data The CIC has not captured
this data in its Annual
Report
2. Andhra Pradesh 11,881 10,693 9.99% ‐
3. Bihar 31,084 30,1467 1.98% ‐
4. Chhattisgarh 4,948 4,625 6.52% _
5. Karnataka 7,892 no data no data 7,426 appeals are said to
have been disposed.
6. Maharashtra 62,609 55,961 10.61% ‐
7. Meghalaya 94 93 1.06% ‐
8. Mizoram 3 2 33.33% ‐
9. Nagaland 338 no data no data 288 appeals are said to
have been disposed
10. Rajasthan 6,657 4,364 34.44% ‐
11. Jammu and
Kashmir
no data no data no data ‐
44
Table 6: Appeals and Complaints compared with RTI Applications and Rejection Data for 2011‐12
Sl.
no.
Government/
State
No. of RTI
Applications
received
(2011‐12)
Rejection at the
application
stage
(%)
Proportion of 1st
Appeals received
(Internal)
(%age of column 3)
Proportion of 2nd
Appeals received
(Information Commission)
(%age of column 3)
Proportion of
Complaints received
(Information Commission)
(%age of column 3)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Central
Government
6,55,572 8.14% no data 5.17%
(data combined for appeals and complaints)
2. Andhra Pradesh 1,22,133 4.94% 9.72% 3.27% 0.735%
3. Bihar 1,29,807 4.22% 23.94% 19.31%
(data combined for appeals and complaints)
4. Chhattisgarh 48,785 3.85% 10.14% 5.85% 2.86%
5. Karnataka 2,93,405 0.30% 2.68% 0.31% 4.28%
6. Maharashtra 6,82,286 7.2% 9.17% 4.00% 0.66%
7. Meghalaya 1,068 0.74% 8.80% 1.21% 2.52%
8. Mizoram 1,045 0.86% 0.28% 0.09% 0.28%
9. Nagaland 2,206 9.74% 15.32% 1.04% 0.31%
10. Rajasthan 71,243 4.59% 9.34% 10.19% 0.83%
11. Jammu and
Kashmir
12,136 1.37% no data 8.02%
(data combin1ed for appeals and complaints)
45
Table 7: Appeals and Complaints: Receipts, Disposals and Pendency in Information Commissions
Sl.
no.
Information
Commission
2ndAppeals in 2011‐12 Complaints in 2011‐12 Total
Pendency
(Appeals &
complaints)28
Receipts Disposal Pending Receipts Disposal Pending
1. Central Information
Commission
Appeals & complaints received = 33,922
Appeals & complaints disposed = 23,112
(Only combined data published)
10,810
2. Andhra Pradesh 4,001 1,520 2,481 886 119 767 8,891
3. Bihar Appeals & complaints received = 24,843
(Only combined data published)
Appeals & complaints disposed = 38,963 (includes cases pending from 2010‐11)
No data
4. Chhattisgarh 2,854 1,755* 1,099 1,400 455* 945 3,948
5. Karnataka 927 Disposed 770
(current & pending from 2010)
12,566 Disposed 15,291
(current & pending from 2010)
8,261
6. Maharashtra 28,323 20,851* 7,472 4,571 4,487* 84 50,330
7. Meghalaya 13 13 0 27 31* 0 0
8. Mizoram 8 8 0 16 16 0 0
9. Nagaland 23 23 0 7 7 0 0
28 The pendency figures in this column include 2nd appeals and complaints pending with the Commissions from the previous year (2010‐11). However pendency
figures as on the date of this report are likely to be different as we have not included pendency data for the year 2012‐13 due to non‐availability of current
information on many SIC websites. According to the data available on the website of the Central Information Commission more than 19,500 appeals and
complaints were pending at the end of September 2013.
* These figures include disposal of cases pending from the previous year (2010‐11). Breakup of disposal figures for the period under study is not always
available in the Annual Reports of the respective State Information Commissions. Some like the State Information Commissions of Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra
and Meghalaya have published this kind of data.
46
Sl.
No.
Information
Commission
2ndAppeals in 2011‐12 Complaints in 2011‐12 Total
Pendency
(Appeals &
complaints)29
Receipts Disposal Pending Receipts Disposal Pending
10. Rajasthan 7,260 3,088 4,172 597 310 287 4,459
11. Jammu and Kashmir Appeals & complaints received = 974
(Only combined data published)
Appeals & complaints disposed = 589 (includes cases pending from 2010‐11)
419
29 The pendency figures in this column include 2nd appeals and complaints pending with the Commissions from the previous year (2010‐11). However pendency
figures as on the date of this report are likely to be different as we have not included pendency data for the year 2012‐13 due to non‐availability of current
information on many SIC websites. For example, according to the data available on the website of the Central Information Commission more than 19,500
appeals and complaints were pending at the end of September 2013.
* These figures include disposal of cases pending from the previous year (2010‐11). Breakup of disposal figures for the period under study is not always
available in the Annual Report of the respective State Information Commissions. Some like the Meghalaya State Information Commission have published this
kind of data.
47
Table 8: Penalties (imposed and recovered), Compensation Awarded and Disciplinary Action Recommended
Sl.
no.
Information
Commission
Penalties imposed Compensation awarded Disciplinary
Action
No. of cases
No. of cases Amount
Imposed
Amount
recovered
No. of cases Amount
awarded
Amount
actually paid
1. Central
Information
Commission
No data
Rs. 38,82,500
Rs. 24,68,701
No data
No data
No data
24
2. Andhra Pradesh 62 Rs. 3,87,000 No data No data No data No data No data
3. Bihar 435 cases of penalty and disciplinary action
Penalty imposed = Rs. 5,64,000/‐
Penalty recovered = Rs. 1,50,000/‐
No data No data No data No data
4. Chhattisgarh 32 Rs.14,10,250 No data 1 Rs. 1,59,950 No data 4
5. Karnataka 537 Rs. 36,56,500 No data 129 Rs. 3,17,850 No data No data
6. Maharashtra 343 Rs.38,08,500 No data No data No data No data 443
7. Meghalaya 2 Rs. 26,250 No data 2 Rs. 5,500 No data No data
8. Mizoram 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9. Nagaland 5 Rs. 71,750 Rs. 14,500 0 0 0 0
10. Rajasthan 130 Rs. 16,97,00 Rs. 10,62,000 No data Rs. 30,500 Rs. 20,500 No data
11. Jammu and
Kashmir
5 No data No data 1 No data No data 0
48
Table 9: RTI statistics about Legislatures and Courts (Yes = data available)
Sl.
no.
Union / State
Parliament / Legislatures Supreme Court / High Courts and other Courts
RTI
applications
First
Appeals
Second
Appeals &
Complaints
RTI
applications
First
Appeals
Second Appeals
& Complaints
1. Union Parliament
No data
Parliament
No data
Parliament
No data
Supreme Court
No data
Supreme Court
No data
Supreme Court
No data
Legislature Legislature Legislature High Court and
other Courts
High Courts and
other Courts
High Courts and
other Courts
2. Andhra Pradesh Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
3. Bihar Yes No data No data Yes No data No data
4. Chhattisgarh No data No data No data Yes No data No data
5. Karnataka Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
6. Maharashtra Yes No data No data No data No data No data
7. Meghalaya* Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ye
8. Mizoram No data No data No data No data No data No data
9. Nagaland* Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
10. Rajasthan No data No data No data No data No data No data
11. Jammu and
Kashmir
Yes No data No data Yes No data No data
* Even where no RTI application or appeal/complaint was received by any of these public authorities, the data table had “0” as an entry indicating the effort
made by the Information Commission to include these statistics in the Annual Report.
49
CHRI’s role in promoting RTI in India and the Commonwealth
CHRI was closely associated with the drafting of the two RTI laws in India at various stages.
Within a fortnight of Parliament approving the Central RTI Bill, CHRI organised the first ever
national conference to discuss its implementation. Senior representatives of Central and State
Governments, civil society, academia and the mass media discussed the ways and means of
implementing the RTI Act with experts and Information Commissioners from Mexico, the
United Kingdom, Canada, South Africa and Jamaica. The outcome document of the conference
served as the basis for several States to strategise their implementation efforts. Later within a
span of a few months CHRI resourced State‐level implementation conferences in Uttarakhand,
Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tamil Nadu. During the initial
years of implementation CHRI worked with officer training institutes at the Central and State
level to design and conduct training programmes for public information officers and appellate
authorities designated under the Central RTI Act. CHRI has conducted or resourced several
workshops all over the country to train representatives of big and small civil society
organisations and networks and the mass media to use the Indian RTI laws in public interest.
CHRI has worked closely with civil society actors, academia, lawmakers and the State
Government of Jammu and Kashmir for the enactment, implementation and use of the J&K RTI
Act.
In recent years CHRI has worked with Information Commissions and partner organisations to
develop and implement proactive disclosure templates for making development‐related
information accessible to people through gram panchayats, particularly in the State of Gujarat.
CHRI was part of the Government‐appointed Task Force that drew up guidelines for
implementing the proactive disclosure provisions of the Central RTI Act.
Internationally, CHRI works with governments and civil society for the adoption of RTI laws in
Commonwealth countries. CHRI shared its technical knowledge and experience of advocacy
with civil society partners in Bangladesh who successfully moved Government and Parliament
to enact their own RTI law. Since then CHRI has worked with partners to build civil society
capacity to spread awareness about the value and use of RTI at the community level in South
Asia and Africa. CHRI has provided technical inputs for strengthening draft RTI legislation in
Barbados, Cook Islands, Fiji, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Malaysia (provincial RTI Bills) the Maldives,
Malta, Pakistan (national and provincial RTI Bills), Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tanzania
and Zambia. CHRI also facilitates learning programmes in India for visiting government and civil
society representatives from South Asia and Africa to acquire first‐hand knowledge about the
efforts being made to embed the regime of transparency in India.
For more information about CHRI’s work in India and the Commonwealth please visit:
www.humanrightsinitiative.org
The Open Society Foundations and the Friedrich Naumann Stiftung‐ Für Die Freiheit are
currently supporting CHRI’s Access to Information Programme.