An analysis of the orders of the CIC : RTI Study 2
31 Aug, 2012STUDY - 2
The first part of the study dealt with the outcome of the appeals / complaints heard by the Central Information Commission (CIC) in terms of the disclosure of the information sought. The second part of the study deals with the penalty proceedings, compensation awarded and the recommendations given by the CIC. For the introduction, objectives and methodology of this RTI study, readers may kindly refer to the RTI Study 1 on this site or click on the link http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/analysis-orders-cic-rti-study-1-2187
Abbreviations used:
CIC – Central Information Commission
PIO – Public Information Officer
FAA – First Appellate Authority
SCN – Show Cause Notice
Penalty
As per Section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act, at the time of deciding any complaint / appeal, if the CIC is of the opinion that without any reasonable cause the PIO has,
- refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7, or
- malafidely denied the request for information, or
- knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, or
- destroyed information which was the subject of the request, or
- obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information,
it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished subject to a maximum of twenty-five thousand rupees in one case.
During the course of the study, 2165 orders of the CIC passed in the month of July 2012 were examined and it was found that out of the total orders passed, the CIC imposed penalty on the PIO / deemed PIO in four cases. In three cases, the penalty was imposed by Smt. Deepak Sandhu while it was imposed by Shri Basant Seth in one case. The maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- each was imposed in two cases while in one case it was divided into four equal parts of Rs. 6,250 each on four PIOs. Further, in one case, a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the PIO. In terms of the total number of orders passed in the month of July, penalty was imposed in less than 0.2% cases by the CIC.
Shri Shailesh Gandhi, the Information Commissioner at CIC who has now retired, had mentioned in an interview – “The RTI Act works to a large extent because of the threat of penalties. However, Commissioners have been rather reluctant to penalise PIOs. In over 50 per cent of the cases before most Commissioners, PIOs have defaulted in providing information. For penalty to remain a viable threat, at least around 10 per cent of defaulting PIOs (this would mean about five per cent PIOs) should be penalised. Instead, it is often less than 0.5 per cent. This results in the PIOs losing any real fear of defaulting in RTI”.
Table 1: Quantum of penalty imposed by the CIC in the month of July, 2012
S. No. |
Quantum of penalty imposed |
Name of Information Commissioner |
1 |
Rs. 10,000/- |
Smt. Deepak Sandhu |
2 |
Rs. 25,000/- |
Smt. Deepak Sandhu |
3 |
Rs. 25,000/- |
Smt. Deepak Sandhu |
4 |
Rs. 6,250/- x 4 = Rs. 25,000/- |
Shri Basant Seth |
Show cause notices and enquiries by the CIC
Proviso to section 20 (1) of the RTI Act says that the PIO shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him. During the course of study it was seen that:
- Out of the total cases heard by the CIC in July, 2012 the CIC issued a show cause notice to the PIO / deemed PIO for imposition of penalty in 78 cases.
- The CIC also heard cases where show cause notices were issued earlier and dropped proceedings in 16 cases, imposed penalty in 4 cases while 1 case was adjourned.
- During the course of hearing of cases, the CIC specifically ordered for not imposing penalty in 6 other cases where no show cause was previously issued.
- The CIC issued warning to PIO in 5 cases.
Under Section 18 (2) of the RTI Act, the CIC may initiate an inquiry if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter. During the scrutiny of cases, it was seen that:
- In 36 cases, the CIC directed the FAA to conduct an enquiry under section 18(2) Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof. Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof. while in another 44 cases, the CIC simply directed the FAA to enquire without citing the section 18(2) Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof. Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof. or any section of the RTI Act.
- The FAA faced the wrath of the CIC in 18 cases wherein an explanation was called by the CIC. There was no case where any enquiry had been completed and thereafter the CIC had specifically directed disciplinary action against any officer.
Table 2: Study of various penal measures invoked by the CIC in the month of July, 2012
S. No. |
Penalty |
Number of cases |
1 |
SCN issued to PIO why penalty should not be imposed |
78 |
2 |
SCN dropped by CIC |
16 |
3 |
Penalty not imposed |
06 |
4 |
Hearing of penalty case adjourned |
01 |
5 |
Warning issued to PIO |
05 |
6 |
Order of enquiry under section 18 (2) |
36 |
7 |
FAA directed to enquire |
44 |
8 |
FAA directed to explain |
18 |
Compensation
Section 19 (8) (b) of the RTI Act grants the power to the CIC to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered.
The total number of cases where compensation was granted by the CIC was 8 or in another words, 0.37% of the cases heard by the CIC ended in grant of compensation to the complainant. In six cases, an amount of Rs. 2000/- was granted while Rs. 500/- and Rs. 3000/- was granted as compensation in one case each. In all, Rs. 15,500/- was granted as compensation by the CIC to the complainants. The maximum and minimum amount of compensation granted to a complainant was Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 500/- respectively.
Table 3: Award of compensation by the CIC in the month of July, 2012
(Amount in Rs.)
S. No. |
Compensation |
Number of cases |
Total Amount |
1 |
2,000 |
6 |
12,000 |
2 |
500 |
1 |
5,00 |
3 |
3,000 |
1 |
3,000 |
Total |
8 |
15,500 |
Recommendations by the CIC
As per Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act, if it appears to the CIC that the practice of a public authority in relation to the exercise of its functions under this Act does not conform with the provisions or spirit of this Act, it may give a recommendation to the authority specifying the steps which ought in its opinion to be taken for promoting such conformity.
Under section 19 (8) (a) of the RTI Act, the CIC has the power to require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including -
(iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records;
(v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials;
The CIC has the powers to give recommendations to the public authorities for ensuring transparency in the working and improving accountability. It was seen that in 47 cases, the CIC gave recommendations to the various public authorities out of which six involved implementation of Section 4 and forty-one recommendations were of various other kinds. The CIC has given directions to the Public authorities to hear the complaints of the appellant within a particular time frame. In some cases, the CIC has even directed to address the grievance of the appellant.
Table 4: Recommendations given by the CIC in the month of July, 2012
S. No. |
Recommendation |
Number of Cases |
1 |
Section 4 |
6 |
2 |
Others |
41 |
Total |
47 |
Readers may recall that section 4 deals with pro-active disclosure by the public authority.
A few examples of the recommendations made by the CIC are given below which would give an idea to reader as to what are the different kinds of recommendations given by the CIC to the public authorities.
- To take necessary steps to provide appropriate training on RTI to its officials
- Vigilance branch to ensure that the enquiry is completed and the appellant is informed of the outcome of the enquiry as also the action taken by 15th August, 2012.
- Recommends that the PIO take an early decision on the activation of the Card
- Look into the matter personally and take a decision regarding change of the drainage pipes
- Recommends the Public Authority u/s 25(5) to devise procedures in order to verify (in case of doubt) whether the RTI Applicant is the Citizen of India (for RTI Applications filed through E mail) as per section 3 of the RTI Act
- CMD of the Oriental Insurance Company limited to issue directions regarding its early disposal and take a decision on the matter pending with him and place it before the screening committee for final decision which may be communicated to the Appellant preferably by end of July, 2012
- the senior Police officials may look into his complaint
- enquiry into bogus gas connection
- delay in transfer to be brought to the notice of the competent authority
- The Deputy Commissioner of Police & FAA is hereby directed to look into the reasons why the complaint has not been enquired into by an Officer of the rank of ACP and inform the appellant.
- recommended that the Respondents, as agreed, examine the Appellant’s promotion case and take a view on the same through a speaking order
The lawyers may raise the issue of the legality of some of the recommendations, it is noteworthy that almost all of them are in favour of the appellants.
STUDY - 3 FOLLOWS SHORTLY