The performance appraisal of even law can help understand how far it has been successful in providing law and order framework to the society.
In a first of its kind judgement in Jharkhand, a district court that has directed for registration of FIR against four government officials for not supplying information sought under RTI. The case also draws attention to the state and other states where the information delay is over the issue that state information commission has been defunct. Jharkhand for the past two years has been struggling over the issue owing to the non-appointment of the chief information commissioner and information commissioners. There is no hearing in the state information commission, which is causing problems for RTI activists in getting justice as reported in the newspapers about vacancy.
The RTI activist in this particular case had sought recordings in the form of CDs of all the CCTVs footage installed in the sub-registrar office for the day of June 28, 2021. But none of the officials provided him with the CCTV footage in the form of CDs claiming that the CCTV footage is not stored and that the information sought does not come under the Right to Information Act.
Supreme Court on RTI: The Supreme Court had observed in a case that the objective of the RTI Act is to ensure time-bound access to information and, therefore, commissions should dispose of appeals and complaints on time.
Pendency status: The state information commissions should function at full strength, i.e., one chief and 10 information commissioners. Over 2.55 lakh appeals and complaints were pending on 30 June, 2021, in 26 information commissions, as per a report by the Times of India in 2021. The assessment of the data obtained by voluntary organisation Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS) through RTI shows that 13 commissions would take over one year to dispose of them. The SNS report documented the performance of these commissions, highlighting the delays in disposing of cases due to both shortage of personnel and inefficient operations.
According to the report, titled Report Card on the Performance of Information Commissions in India, 2021, while three information commissions — of Jharkhand, Tripura and Meghalaya — remained completely defunct as no new commissioners were appointed as vacancies arose, another three commissions — of Nagaland, Manipur and Telangana — remained without a head as the posts of chief information commissioners remained vacant.
Obstruction in supplying information: Any public official who deliberately delays or obstructs an application for information, or who deliberately provide incorrect or misleading information can be punished under the Central Act.
Officers directly responsible for not supplying information to be penalised: It is important to note that the penalty provisions under the Central Act can be imposed personally on the official responsible for non-compliance with the Act. You should be aware that penalties can not only be imposed on the Public Information Officer (PIO) responsible for managing applications, but also on any officer whose assistance they requested, if that officer did not help them. Thus, if the PIO asked another officer to provide them with a file and that officer refused or delayed unreasonably, that officer and not the PIO will be sanctioned.
Penalty: Section 20(1) of the Central Act allows for the imposition of penalties where a PIO has, without any reasonable cause:
- refused to receive an application;
- not furnished information within time limits;
- malafidely denied the request;
- knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information;
- destroyed information subject to a request;or
- obstructed the process,
the Information Commission can impose a penalty of Rs 250 per day. The total penalty cannot exceed Rs 25,000.
Section 20(1) of the Central Act states that “Public Information Officers” can be penalised, but when read with s.5(5) of the Central Act (which states that any officer whose assistance is sought by a PIO will be treated as a PIO for purposes of the Act’s penalty clauses) it is clear that in practice any official can be sanctioned for non-compliance if they have shirked their duties under the law.
Before a penalty is imposed under s.20(1) of the Central Act however, an official must be given a reasonably opportunity of being heard. The official is responsible for providing that he/she acted reasonable and diligently.
Under section 20(2) of the Central Act, where a monetary penalty is imposed, the Information Commission can also recommend disciplinary action against the PIO under the applicable service rules.
The penalties can usually be imposed by appeal bodies, whether or not they are internal appeals bodies or external appeals bodies. Unfortunately, under the Central Act it is unclear under the law whether the first Appellate Authority can impose penalties, although it is explicit that the Information Commission can.
According to report published in the Hindu newspaper dated October 12, 2021 “Information Commissions grapple with vacancies, 2.55 lakh case backlog” it mentioned the top three states positions of information backlogs- Maharastra, Uttar Pradesh and CIC.
Another interesting point highlighted in one of the litigation on RTI before Simla High Court in 2012, the judges noted ” We find no provision under the Act which reduce or enhance penalty”
Image: Vivekananda International Foundation
