Right to Information Act

Source: This post on Right to Information Act has been based on article “Cripple and scuttle – Governments are discouraging the exercise of the right to information ” published in The Hindu on 9^th January 2025.

UPSC Syllabus- GS 2- Polity

Context: The article highlights the challenges facing the implementation and efficacy of the Right to Information (RTI) Act in India, which was enacted nearly two decades ago to promote transparency and accountability in governance. Despite its potential to empower citizens and ensure governmental accountability, successive governments have shown discomfort with the Act’s provisions, often attempting to dilute its effectiveness.

Why is the Right to Information Act under threat?

1. Nearly two decades after its enactment, governments remain uncomfortable with the transparency and empowerment the Right to Information (RTI) Act brings.
2. Efforts to weaken the law include:
   1. Amendments to dilute its efficacy.
   2. Delays or denials of requested information.
   3. Undermining the functioning of Information Commissions by leaving vacancies unfilled.

What is the current status of Information Commissions in India?

The Supreme Court noted significant vacancies in both central and State Information Commissions:

• Eight vacancies exist in the Central Information Commission (CIC), with 23,000 appeals pending.
• Some State-level Information Commissions are nearly defunct due to a lack of members to handle cases.

Why are Information Commissions important?

These commissions handle appeals from the public when:

• Access to information is denied.
• No response is received from designated information officers.

What concerns has the Supreme Court raised?

1. The Court questioned how the RTI framework can function effectively without adequate personnel.
2. It highlighted the urgent need to address vacancies to ensure the RTI Act’s purpose is fulfilled.

What steps has the Supreme Court mandated?

1. Directed the Department of Personnel and Training to:
   1. Provide timelines within two weeks for completing the appointment process for CIC vacancies.
   2. Share details of the search committee and applicants for the posts.
2. States were instructed to complete their appointment processes within a fixed timeframe.

What additional challenges hinder the RTI framework?

1. Non-compliance with the 2019 Supreme Court verdict:
   1. Governments were instructed to proactively fill vacancies by advertising early.
2. Autonomy of the CIC undermined:
   1. A fixed five-year tenure for Information Commissioners was replaced with an open-ended tenure.
3. Limited diversity in appointments:
   1. Preference for retired civil servants over candidates from varied backgrounds, as noted by the Supreme Court.

What are the consequences of vacancies and delays?

1. A large backlog of cases discourages people from filing appeals or seeking information.
2. This aligns with suspicions that those in power deliberately undermine the RTI framework to reduce accountability.

What needs to be done to restore the RTI Act’s efficacy?

1. Governments must:
   1. Expedite appointments and maintain full staffing in Information Commissions.
   2. Comply with court directives on early advertisements for vacancies.
   3. Ensure appointments include diverse candidates and restore the autonomy of the CIC.
2. Without these measures, the RTI Act risks losing its purpose of ensuring transparency and empowering citizens.