An analysis of the orders of the CIC : RTI Study 3

STUDY - 3

This is the third part of the study involving analysis of the orders of the Central Information Commission (CIC).

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. 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

The second part of the study dealt with the penal proceedings, compensation awarded and the recommendations given by the CIC. For the second part of this study, readers may kindly refer to the RTI Study 2 on this site or click on the link http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/analysis-orders-cic-rti-study-2-2197

Abbreviations used:

CIC – Central Information Commission

PIO – Public Information Officer

FAA – First Appellate Authority

SCN – Show Cause Notice

In this part of the study, the clubbing of orders by the Information Commissioners, the format of the order issued by the CIC and the monthly disposal of cases by the CIC were taken up for analysis.

Clubbing of the orders by the Information Commissioners

Taking up related issues and hearing them together and issuing a common order for their disposal is a practice very often resorted to by the adjudicating authorities. This system is usually resorted to when the issue involved is identical / similar / related. It enables quick disposal of the applications and is an accepted method all over the world.

If similar issues are clubbed together and taken up by the Information Commissioners, then the disposal of cases can be expedited. This would involve preliminary screening of the appeals by the supporting staff of the Information Commission. Different appeals filed by an individual in a similar case can be taken up together to save the time and energy of all concerned – the Commission, the applicant as well as the respondent.

What is the maximum number of appeals disposed of by a single order?

The maximum appeals disposed of by a single order wherein 118 cases were clubbed together and disposed of by the Deputy Registrar Shri Vijay Bhalla vide order no. CIC/SM/C/2012/000765-791 & 663-755.

It is witnessed that appeals continue to be filed on issues which have already attained finality. In some cases, the appellants continued to file appeals even when their earlier appeals were already rejected. In other cases, the reason for filing of the appeal was denial of information on matters which ought to be pro-actively disclosed by the public authority. If matters which already stand settled continue to come up before the CIC again and again, they would only clog the channels for providing information to the others. The delay in providing information can defeat the reasons for seeking information.

Table 1: Clubbing of orders by the Information Commission

*118 cases were sent to the State Information Commission (SIC) by the Deputy Registrar Shri Vijay Bhalla as per “directions”. The authority who has directed the Deputy Registrar has not been mentioned in the order but it can be presumed that the same has been done as per the order of the Information Commissioner.

On a quick reading, a disposal of 285 cases (or nearly 13.2 %) by clubbing appears to be impressive. However, a deeper examination shows that just one single order disposed 118 cases (or nearly 5.5 %). 

Suggestion

• A mechanism should be devised to ensure that issues which have attained finality are disposed early and such cases do not have to come before the CIC repeatedly.
• Clubbing of appeals and complaints should be resorted to more frequently.
• The PIO and the FAA need to be trained properly to enable them to deal with the RTI applications as per the provisions of the RTI Act to avoid unnecessary litigation. 
• Pro-active disclosure by public authorities should be implemented effectively.

How old are the cases which were heard by the CIC?

An attempt was made to find the age of appeals being filed before the CIC which, however, ended in futility. It was seen that the date of filing of the original application was not mentioned in the orders issued by the Information Commissioners, barring a few. In the absence of data, it is not possible to say amongst the appeals disposed by the CIC which appeals were the oldest. Based on the previous receipt and disposal figures of the Information Commission, it can broadly be said that the average age of appeals heard by the CIC was 10 -12 months.

In case of File No.CIC/WB/A/2009/001017DSSM, it was seen that CIC had last heard this case on 7 December 2010 and issued directions. The case came up again and the PIO was directed to provide the information on 10 July 2012. It indicates that cases may take up to 2-3 years from the date of filing of application for getting the complete information.

Suggestion

• Remanding the cases back to the PIO/ FAA should be done only in the rarest of the cases by the CIC.
• In case of non-compliance of the orders of the CIC, the complaints filed by the appellants should be heard through a separate channel and should not be taken up along with the routine appeals. More appropriately, the CIC may consider evolving a mechanism to monitor that its orders are enforced.
• A quarterly review may be done to ensure that all the cases of similar vintage appear before the different benches of the Information Commission.

What is the format of the order issued by the CIC?

The RTI Act, 2005 does not prescribe a format for filing of an application for seeking information. Recently, the RTI Rules, 2012 has prescribed a format for the filing of appeal to the CIC.

On examination of the different orders, it is seen that different Information Commissioners are passing orders using different description as per their convenience. The Information Commissioners are using his/ her own nomenclature for describing a case and words used for description of the orders are:

1. Decision No.,
2. Appeal No.,
3. File No., and
4. Case No.

The different nomenclature is made complex by the use of additional words such as “adjunct to….” and “penalty” etc. along with the description of the order. With the change of the bench, the initials of the Information Commission heading the bench are added to the description which adds to the complexity of the description. As different nomenclature is being used for the orders issued by the CIC due to lack of a standard format, it is confusing when these cases are being referred to and quoted elsewhere. As a body hearing appeals and complaints from all over the country, there is no reason why the different benches of the CIC should use different terminology for the same thing. 

Suggestion:

• A uniform pattern should be followed for all the orders issued by any of the benches of the CIC. The description should be such that a reading of the citation conveys some basic information about each order such as:-

                     i)  It is an order of CIC

                     ii) The name of the bench and whether it is larger bench

                     iii) The year when the appeal / complaint was filed

                     iv) The month and year of issue of order

                     v) Unique identification number for the order

                     vi) Whether it is any appeal/ complaint/ both

                     vii) Whether it is any Penalty order or any order subsequent to original order

• The terms Decision No., Appeal No., File No., and Case No. may be replaced by a single phrase - “order number”. This would create uniformity and referring to the cases all over the country would be easier.
• Examples of the different description used for the orders by the various Information Commissioners at CIC are given below. The name of the Information Commissioner is also given along with.

1. CIC/SM/A/2012/000239/BS/0284

Satyananda Mishra

Chief Information Commissioner

2. Decision No. CIC/LS/A/2011/003557/BS/0390

Appeal No. CIC/LS/A/2011/003557/BS

Basant Seth

Information Commissioner

3. Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001406

Sushma Singh

Information Commissioner

4. Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/001120/19446

Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2012/001120

Shailesh Gandhi

Information Commissioner

5. File No: CIC/AD/C/2012/000662

Annapurna Dixit

Information Commissioner

6. Decision No.CIC/DS/A/2011/001303/VS/00366

Appeal No.CIC/DS/A/2011/001303/VS

Vijai Sharma

Information Commissioner

7. File No.CIC/DS/A/2011/001237/RM

Rajiv Mathur

Central Information Commissioner

8. Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2011/001784

Smt. Deepak Sandhu

Information Commissioner

1. File No.CIC/SS/A/2012/001534

File No.CIC/LS/A/2011/003548

M.L. Sharma

Central Information Commissioner

Monthly disposal of the cases by the Information Commission

The receipt and disposal of cases by the Central Information Commission (CIC) between April 2006 till April 2012 were taken up for analysis. The receipt of the number of cases was in hundreds during 2006 and 2007 (except March 2007 and November 2007) which increased to thousands in 2008. In 2009, the receipt of cases first crossed 2000 and has been beyond that baseline since March 2010 except on two occasions.

Table 2: Monthly disposal of cases by the CIC

The figures show that the maximum receipt of appeals and complaints in a single month was in December 2011 which was 5,120 while the maximum orders passed in a month was in July 2010 which was 2,449. The receipt of cases has always been less than the disposal of cases, barring a few stray incidents.

There is an accumulation of an average of 750 cases every month during the last one year (May 2011 and April 2012) with the CIC due to the gap between the receipt and disposal.

Graph 1: Receipt and disposal of cases by the CIC

The curve of the Cumulative receipt and Cumulative disposal of cases by the CIC shows an ever increasing gap between two.

The figures show that the receipt of cases by the CIC has numbered nearly 1.22 lakhs while the disposal has been 94 thousand. This implies that there are 28 thousand cases pending before the CIC. With an average disposal of 2 thousand cases, this means that it would require more than a year for the CIC to hear the cases pending before it. The graph depicting the Cumulative receipt and Cumulative disposal of cases by the CIC is given below.

Graph 2: Cumulative receipt and Cumulative disposal of cases by the CIC

FOURTH AND FINAL PART OF THE STUDY FOLLOWS