House panel to review working of RTI watchdogs, experts wary

A parliamentary standing committee, for the first time, will scrutinise the working of the transparency watchdogs, the Central Information Commission (CIC) and the

A parliamentary standing committee, for the first time, will scrutinise the working of the transparency watchdogs, the Central Information Commission (CIC) and the State Information Commissions (SICs), a move that has caused consternation among Right to Information (RTI) activists who see it as an attempt to “usurp” the powers of state legislatures.

HT Image

As the information commissions are statutory bodies, the CIC is required to submit annual reports to Parliament and the SICs to state legislatures through their administrative wings, the ministry of personnel and training at the Centre and the services departments in the states.

These annual reports are rarely debated in Parliament or state legislatures although members have raised questions over the efficacy of the RTI law in short-duration discussions and during the zero hour, where a member can raise an issue approved by the presiding officers.

Rajya Sabha secretary general Desh Deepak Verma has listed 12 issues for examination by the parliamentary standing committee in the current financial year (2020-21), which includes a review of the working of the Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions. Other issues listed on the agenda include reviews of the working of virtual courts, guardianship and adoption laws and functioning of Alternate Dispute Resolution Mechanisms.

Committee chairperson and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Bhupendra Yadav was not available to comment on the matter. A Rajya Sabha official familiar with the development said the committee decides on the agenda after gathering inputs from all members, including 10 MPs from the Rajya Sabha and 20 from the Lok Sabha.

“The committee has taken a decision to review the information commissions as there were lots of media reports about their functioning,” said the official, who requested anonymity.

The committee has the powers to summon any official and seek suggestions from non-government organisations to review the performance of any organisation, including the information commissions, he added.

A report by the Satark Nagarik Sangathan (SNS) released in connection with the 15th anniversary of the RTI law on October 9, 2020, said that around a third of information commissions in India were headless, with a fourth of information commissioner posts lying vacant.It added that the Jharkhand and Tripura information commissions were defunct.

The report said nine states, including Uttar Pradesh, Telangana and Rajasthan, did not have a chief information commissioner, whose appointment under the RTI law is a statutory requirement.Since then, Rajasthan has appointed a chief information commissioner.The Centre on November 10 filled the post of chief information commissioner, a position that had been vacant since August with the appointment of Yashwardhan Kumar Sinha.

Another report filed by Transparency International India on the same day said that around 33 million RTI applications had been filed with various government departments across the country in the past 15 years, showing the widespread use of the watershed law that empowers citizens to raise governance questions with public authorities.Only about 9% of these RTI applications resulted in a second appeal, meaning that over 90% of the applicants were satisfied with the government’s response, something that transparency law activists see as RTI’s biggest achievement.

“We have no problem with a review of the chief information commission by a parliamentary standing committee as the legislature has powers to review,” said Anjali Bhardwaj of SNS. “We want the committee to give terms of reference of the review and the exercise should not be used to weaken the RTI Act. Earlier, the central government had weakened the RTI law by bringing new service rules for information commissioners.”

The Centre, in October 2019, notified rules downgrading the information commissioner’s post, which was on par with that of an election commissioner, to equivalence with the post of a secretary in the Government of India. The new rule also reduced the term of an information commissioner from five to three years and empowered the Centre to remove the officer, which, Bhardwaj said, had undermined the spirit of the RTI Act in the name of rationalisation.

Venkatesh Nayak of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) wondered how a parliamentary panel could review the functioning of the state information commissions, which come under purview of state governments and state legislatures.“This is another attempt to usurp the powers of the state legislature, to which state information commissions submit their annual reports,” Nayak said.

Agreeing with him, Bhardwaj said the standing committee should take transparency and federalism into account in the review of the functioning of information commissions.

The importance of that RTI Act in India can be gauged from a 2019 verdict of the Supreme Court, which said the law had the potential to bring about good governance, which is an integral part of a vibrant democracy. “Attaining good governance is also one of the visions of the Constitution,” the court said.

The RTI is a central law, which was adopted by the states without any substantial change. State governments have, however, effected some changes in the appointment of information commissioners and the functioning of the state information commissions by amending some rules.