<p>Alarming levels of pendency at information commissions across the country has reached such a level that a matter filed in Assam this January could be taken up only in 2046.<br /><br /></p>.<p>The Information Commissions (ICs) are saddled with at least 1.87 lakh pending cases. <br /><br />The analysis by Research, Assessment and Analysis Group (RaaG) and Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS) showed that a comparison with the data in a 2014 report showed an alarming rise in pendency. <br /><br />Pendency in the Assam State Information Commission went up by 240% while Odisha and Punjab saw a rise of more than 60%. Kerala saw cases stagnate by 49% while at the Central Information Commission the pendency was 43%. <br /><br />The figure of 1.87 lakh may also increase as the data was for 16 Information Commissions as on December 31, 2015.<br /><br />“The huge backlog in the disposal of appeals and complaints by the commissions is one of the most serious problems being faced by the transparency regime in India. <br /><br />The high levels of pendency in ICs result in applicants having to wait for many months, even years, for their appeals and complaints to be heard,” it said.<br /><br />If one goes by the disposal rate of appeals and complaints, a complaint filed in Assam in January 2016 would take 30 years to dispose, while it would take 11 years in West Bengal and seven years in Kerala.<br /><br />In Karnataka, the pendency is such that it would take 20 months to dispose a case filed this January, while it was just 14 months in 2014. <br /><br />In nine of the 16 Information Commissions for which data was available for 2016, the waiting time for a hearing was more than one year.<br /><br />The report found that several ICs were non-functional or were functioning at reduced capacity as the posts of commissioners, including that of the chief information commissioner, were vacant during the period under review. Non-appointment of information commissioners was found to be the major reason for pendency. <br /><br />“Even where there are adequate number of commissioners, often a reasonable number of cases are not disposed every month due to the tardy functioning of commissioners,” it said. <br /><br /></p>
<p>Alarming levels of pendency at information commissions across the country has reached such a level that a matter filed in Assam this January could be taken up only in 2046.<br /><br /></p>.<p>The Information Commissions (ICs) are saddled with at least 1.87 lakh pending cases. <br /><br />The analysis by Research, Assessment and Analysis Group (RaaG) and Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS) showed that a comparison with the data in a 2014 report showed an alarming rise in pendency. <br /><br />Pendency in the Assam State Information Commission went up by 240% while Odisha and Punjab saw a rise of more than 60%. Kerala saw cases stagnate by 49% while at the Central Information Commission the pendency was 43%. <br /><br />The figure of 1.87 lakh may also increase as the data was for 16 Information Commissions as on December 31, 2015.<br /><br />“The huge backlog in the disposal of appeals and complaints by the commissions is one of the most serious problems being faced by the transparency regime in India. <br /><br />The high levels of pendency in ICs result in applicants having to wait for many months, even years, for their appeals and complaints to be heard,” it said.<br /><br />If one goes by the disposal rate of appeals and complaints, a complaint filed in Assam in January 2016 would take 30 years to dispose, while it would take 11 years in West Bengal and seven years in Kerala.<br /><br />In Karnataka, the pendency is such that it would take 20 months to dispose a case filed this January, while it was just 14 months in 2014. <br /><br />In nine of the 16 Information Commissions for which data was available for 2016, the waiting time for a hearing was more than one year.<br /><br />The report found that several ICs were non-functional or were functioning at reduced capacity as the posts of commissioners, including that of the chief information commissioner, were vacant during the period under review. Non-appointment of information commissioners was found to be the major reason for pendency. <br /><br />“Even where there are adequate number of commissioners, often a reasonable number of cases are not disposed every month due to the tardy functioning of commissioners,” it said. <br /><br /></p>