RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005—AN ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
The Right to Information Act of 2005 makes government data accessible to the public, promoting transparency and accountability. It ensures informed democratic involvement by making public bodies’ documents accessible to the public. The purpose of the Act is to empower vulnerable groups, encourage good governance, and reduce corruption by mandating timely responses to information requests. It is an important first step toward encouraging accountable and open governance in India.
The authority and duties of the Information Commissions, which are essential entities set up to carry out the Act’s provisions, are defined in great detail in Chapter V of the Right to Information Act of 2005. This chapter, which runs from Sections 18 to 20, describes how to file an appeal when public authorities refuse your request for information or don’t provide it to your satisfaction. It gives the Information Commission the authority to rule on these appeals and, in appropriate cases, issue orders for disclosure. Furthermore, Chapter V outlines the sanctions that public information officers may face for unjustifiable information denials or for violating Act requirements. By enforcing accountability and upholding the openness principles outlined in the RTI Act, these sanctions aim to strengthen the public’s right to access government information, which is a vital component of democratic governance.
CHAPTER V
Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, delineates the extensive powers and functions entrusted to both the Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions. These bodies are essential to maintaining public officials’ accountability and citizens’ access to government information.
These commissions’ main responsibility is to hear complaints from those who run into obstacles when trying to get information. This includes instances in which there is no appointment of a public information officer or in which applications from assistant public information officers are turned down for forwarding to higher authorities or the relevant information commission. They also deal with situations in which obtaining the desired information is flatly refused or is postponed past the required deadlines. In addition, complaints about outrageous fee requests, inaccurate, deceptive, or incomplete information provided, and other procedural errors in obtaining public documents are under their jurisdiction.
The Information Commissions are empowered to launch investigations after receiving a complaint, provided that they determine there are good reasons to look into the matter. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, they have authority similar to that of a civil court during these investigations. This includes calling witnesses, making them appear in person, making them testify under oath, and requiring them to produce pertinent paperwork or evidence. They can also issue summonses for additional exams, demand the discovery and inspection of papers, get evidence in the form of affidavits, and require public records or copies from offices or courts.
Notably, the Act gives information commissions access to any records that are relevant to their investigations and that are held by government agencies. This authority guarantees unrestricted access to information essential for openness and public accountability, superseding any contradictory restrictions in any Acts of Parliament or State Legislatures.
The extensive appeals process that is accessible to people who are unhappy with the response—or lack thereof—that Public Information Officers (PIOs) provide to them in relation to their requests for information is described in Section 19. An applicant has thirty days from the deadline or the day they get the decision to file an appeal if they are not satisfied with the PIO’s decision or do not receive a response within that time frame. A senior officer in the public authority who is superior to the PIO must receive the appeal.
Concerned parties must also file appeals under Section 11 within thirty days of the PIO’s decision in cases involving third-party information. If an appellant misses these deadlines for legitimate reasons, the appeal may be admitted beyond the allotted time by the Information Commission or a senior officer.
If an individual is still unhappy after the first appeal, they have ninety days from the date the decision should have been made or received to file a second appeal with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission. This time frame may also be extended in appropriate situations.
The PIO or State PIO has the burden of proof to support any information denial during the appeals process. The RTI Act gives the Information Commissions the power to order public bodies to follow certain requirements, such as assigning PIOs, releasing information ahead of time, and enhancing record-keeping procedures. They can also penalize negligent officials and mandate compensation for any losses incurred by the appellant.
The Information Commission’s decisions are final and enforceable, and they have an obligation to notify the public authority and the complainant of their decisions as well as any additional rights of appeal. Reasons for processing appeals are documented and they are handled quickly—ideally in thirty days, but no more than forty-five days.
Section 20 delineates the penalties that may be imposed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) or State Information Commission (SIC) on Public Information Officers (PIOs) who fail to fulfill their obligations under the Act. If upon deciding a complaint or appeal, the CIC or SIC finds that a PIO has unreasonably refused to accept an information request, delayed providing information beyond the specified time, deliberately denied valid requests, or provided misleading or incomplete information, they may impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees per day until compliance, with a maximum penalty not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees.
Before imposing a penalty, the PIO must be given a fair opportunity to present their case. It is incumbent upon the PIO to demonstrate that their actions were reasonable and diligent to avoid penalties.
In cases where the CIC or SIC determines that a PIO has persistently and without reasonable cause failed in their duties, they can recommend disciplinary action under the applicable service rules. This includes situations where the PIO habitually delays or obstructs the provision of information, knowingly provides false information, or destroys information requested under the RTI Act.
The provisions under Section 20 aim to enforce accountability among PIOs, ensuring timely and accurate dissemination of information to citizens as mandated by the RTI Act. By penalizing non-compliance and recommending disciplinary measures for persistent offenders, the CIC and SIC uphold the integrity of the RTI framework, reinforcing transparency and public trust in governmental processes. These measures encourage PIOs to adhere to their statutory duties diligently, fostering a culture of openness and responsiveness in public authorities across the country.
CONCLUSION
The crucial roles that information commissions play in enforcing these principles through investigations, appeals, and sanctions for non-compliance are outlined in Chapter V and its sections 18 through 20. These sections establish robust mechanisms for appeals and penalties, crucial for ensuring transparency and accountability in governance.
