<p>Last month, an anguish-ridden article describing the shoddy manner in which the Central Information Commission disposed of a bunch of RTI appeals floated across cyberspace. Its author is not a ‘busybody’ who vexes public authorities with frivolous, vague or voluminous information requests. He is a trained chemical engineer, an intellectual property rights (IPR) lawyer educated at some of the best law schools in India and the US and a whistleblower who monitors the drug regulation regime in India. Frustrated that the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) nixed eight of his nine efforts to obtain information from public sector institutions responsible for providing healthcare, testing medicines, and procuring life-saving drugs, he confessed to joining the ranks of the disillusioned who are sounding the death knell of the RTI Act.</p>.<p>Citing the contentious orders, he demonstrated how the CIC either upheld the public authorities’ decisions to deny information without providing detailed reasoning or by conducting hearings ex parte. Another case was simply remanded back to the public authority even though the RTI Act does not vest Information Commissioners with such powers. In the last case, the CIC blandly agreed with the public information officer (PIO) that the records being sought simply did not fall within the definition of ‘information’.</p>.<p>But what esoteric matters was the author pursuing? One RTI application related to the deaths allegedly caused by contaminated drugs in a prestigious medical education and research institution in Chandigarh. Another request was for details of the testing equipment that the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata, uses for its work. Five cases related to action taken by the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, Delhi, on complaints lodged against certain private pharmaceutical companies. The CIC closed these cases because neither the PIO nor the appellant was present at the hearing. The author claims he never received notice of the hearing – a common complaint often made against several State Information Commissions. Two other cases related to seeking copies of COVID vaccine development and purchase contracts. Ironically, while observing that “disseminating information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic is of great value to the people”, the CIC upheld the PIO’s claim of protecting these sarkari secrets on grounds of national security and commercial confidence.</p>.<p>But there was a ray of hope for RTI from another quarter. Ten days ago, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh chastised the erstwhile State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC) for abdicating his statutory responsibility and acting as, “an agent of the government in not examining the facts of the case in minute detail.”</p>.<p>In this case, another public-spirited citizen sought some information from the Directorate of Animal Husbandry. The PIO slapped a fee demand notice of Rs 2.12 lakh for supplying the information even though the 30-day deadline for replying had lapsed. In 2023, the Court had remanded this matter back to the SCIC for fresh consideration of all facts and arguments. Nevertheless, the SCIC rejected the applicant’s contention that he is entitled to receive the information free of cost under the Act and upheld the PIO’s actions.</p>.<p>The Court was shocked that neither the Directorate nor the Information Commission had presented the correct dates and facts related to the RTI matter even during the second round of litigation. The Court awarded Rs 40,000 as costs to the RTI applicant, payable within 30 days, for non-application of mind on the part of the SCIC and forcing the petitioner to a long drawn litigation.” The Court directed the recovery of this amount from the delinquent officers!</p>.<p>Despite the establishment’s concerted efforts to curtail the scope of RTI through retrograde amendments and frustrate its objectives through rampant malpractices, thousands of citizens continue to use it to make the government more transparent and accountable at all levels. But they often hit a dead-end when Information Commissions do a poor job as appellate authorities. Two measures are urgently required to remedy this situation. In the short term, pro bono legal assistance from public interest lawyers must be mustered to challenge their untenable orders in the constitutional courts. In the medium term, vacant posts of Information Commissioners must be filled up with transparency champions who err on the side of open government. The selection criteria must include every candidate’s track record of promoting the RTI Act’s objectives over the last two decades. Unless these measures are effectuated, the Commissions’ performance will be coloured by the ji-huzoor approach of pliable appointees.</p>
<p>Last month, an anguish-ridden article describing the shoddy manner in which the Central Information Commission disposed of a bunch of RTI appeals floated across cyberspace. Its author is not a ‘busybody’ who vexes public authorities with frivolous, vague or voluminous information requests. He is a trained chemical engineer, an intellectual property rights (IPR) lawyer educated at some of the best law schools in India and the US and a whistleblower who monitors the drug regulation regime in India. Frustrated that the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) nixed eight of his nine efforts to obtain information from public sector institutions responsible for providing healthcare, testing medicines, and procuring life-saving drugs, he confessed to joining the ranks of the disillusioned who are sounding the death knell of the RTI Act.</p>.<p>Citing the contentious orders, he demonstrated how the CIC either upheld the public authorities’ decisions to deny information without providing detailed reasoning or by conducting hearings ex parte. Another case was simply remanded back to the public authority even though the RTI Act does not vest Information Commissioners with such powers. In the last case, the CIC blandly agreed with the public information officer (PIO) that the records being sought simply did not fall within the definition of ‘information’.</p>.<p>But what esoteric matters was the author pursuing? One RTI application related to the deaths allegedly caused by contaminated drugs in a prestigious medical education and research institution in Chandigarh. Another request was for details of the testing equipment that the Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata, uses for its work. Five cases related to action taken by the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, Delhi, on complaints lodged against certain private pharmaceutical companies. The CIC closed these cases because neither the PIO nor the appellant was present at the hearing. The author claims he never received notice of the hearing – a common complaint often made against several State Information Commissions. Two other cases related to seeking copies of COVID vaccine development and purchase contracts. Ironically, while observing that “disseminating information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic is of great value to the people”, the CIC upheld the PIO’s claim of protecting these sarkari secrets on grounds of national security and commercial confidence.</p>.<p>But there was a ray of hope for RTI from another quarter. Ten days ago, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh chastised the erstwhile State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC) for abdicating his statutory responsibility and acting as, “an agent of the government in not examining the facts of the case in minute detail.”</p>.<p>In this case, another public-spirited citizen sought some information from the Directorate of Animal Husbandry. The PIO slapped a fee demand notice of Rs 2.12 lakh for supplying the information even though the 30-day deadline for replying had lapsed. In 2023, the Court had remanded this matter back to the SCIC for fresh consideration of all facts and arguments. Nevertheless, the SCIC rejected the applicant’s contention that he is entitled to receive the information free of cost under the Act and upheld the PIO’s actions.</p>.<p>The Court was shocked that neither the Directorate nor the Information Commission had presented the correct dates and facts related to the RTI matter even during the second round of litigation. The Court awarded Rs 40,000 as costs to the RTI applicant, payable within 30 days, for non-application of mind on the part of the SCIC and forcing the petitioner to a long drawn litigation.” The Court directed the recovery of this amount from the delinquent officers!</p>.<p>Despite the establishment’s concerted efforts to curtail the scope of RTI through retrograde amendments and frustrate its objectives through rampant malpractices, thousands of citizens continue to use it to make the government more transparent and accountable at all levels. But they often hit a dead-end when Information Commissions do a poor job as appellate authorities. Two measures are urgently required to remedy this situation. In the short term, pro bono legal assistance from public interest lawyers must be mustered to challenge their untenable orders in the constitutional courts. In the medium term, vacant posts of Information Commissioners must be filled up with transparency champions who err on the side of open government. The selection criteria must include every candidate’s track record of promoting the RTI Act’s objectives over the last two decades. Unless these measures are effectuated, the Commissions’ performance will be coloured by the ji-huzoor approach of pliable appointees.</p>
