Information law must promote transparency, accountability without compromising administrative efficiency: Commission
JAMMU, SEPTEMBER 20: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed Public Authorities in Jammu and Kashmir to deal with applications filed under the Right to Information Act with due diligence, cautioning officials against disposing of RTI requests and appeals in a routine or mechanical manner.
The Commission observed that the RTI Act is an important instrument for strengthening transparency and accountability in public administration. At the same time, it noted that broad, impractical or indiscriminate demands for information can place an unnecessary burden on government machinery and affect administrative efficiency.
The observations were made while adjudicating a Second Appeal connected with the Directorate of School Education, Kashmir, where the CIC found shortcomings in the manner in which both the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) had dealt with the RTI request.
The Commission also referred to the Supreme Court’s observations in the case of CBSE & Another versus Aditya Bandhopadhyay and Others, concerning the purpose and scope of the RTI framework.
According to the CIC, the right to information enables citizens to seek greater transparency and accountability from public authorities, particularly in matters concerning governance and the fight against corruption. However, the Commission simultaneously stressed that legitimate public interests, confidentiality and the effective functioning of government must also be taken into consideration.
CIC QUESTIONS HANDLING OF RTI REQUEST
In the matter before the Commission, the RTI application sought extensive service-related information concerning several individuals over a prolonged period, apart from seeking clarifications and information covering more than a decade.
The CIC noted that the CPIO had not adequately examined the request within the framework of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which defines information that can be sought under the legislation.
The Commission further observed that the applicability of Section 8(1)(j), relating to personal information, had not been properly considered. Although the CPIO stated that some records were unavailable, the response did not adequately identify the relevant provisions of the RTI Act supporting the decision.
FAA’S APPROACH ALSO QUESTIONED
The Commission also examined the reasoning adopted by the First Appellate Authority, who had cited a pending investigation and invoked Section 8(1)(h) for withholding certain information.
The CIC observed that applying the provision in such a manner could lead to an inappropriate interpretation whereby personal information relating to third parties might become disclosable merely because an investigation or prosecution had subsequently concluded.
The Commission consequently described the manner in which the RTI application and subsequent appeal had been handled as mechanical, stressing that authorities must independently examine each request under the applicable provisions of the law.
CASE RELATED TO SCHOOL EDUCATION DIRECTORATE
The matter originated from an RTI application submitted by Abdul Qayoom on July 11, 2024, before the Directorate of School Education, Kashmir.
The applicant had sought information concerning service records, appointment-related documents and other connected records.
During the proceedings, the CPIO informed the applicant that some records could not be traced. Information concerning GPF details was also withheld on the ground that the matter was under investigation.
After examining the case, the CIC limited the relief sought but directed the CPIO to issue a fresh and legally compliant response concerning the appointment list linked to a specific reference letter dated March 1, 1983.
The Commission directed that the revised response be issued within two weeks of receipt of its order, subject to the provisions of Section 8(1) read with Section 10 of the RTI Act.
CIC HIGHLIGHTS PROACTIVE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT
The Commission also drew the attention of the concerned authority to the requirement of suo motu disclosure under Section 4(1)(b)(ix) of the RTI Act.
It observed that an appointment list of a Public Authority may include details concerning its employees and that information falling within the statutory public-disclosure framework should ordinarily be made available in the public domain, unless it is unavailable or covered by a lawful exemption under the Act.
AUTHORITIES TOLD TO EXAMINE RTI REQUESTS PROPERLY
The CIC has cautioned the CPIO and First Appellate Authority against adopting a routine approach while processing RTI applications and appeals in future.
The Commission’s observations underline that RTI requests must be assessed individually, with authorities required to identify the relevant provisions of the Act, examine exemptions where applicable and provide reasoned responses rather than disposing of applications mechanically.
The order thus reinforces the need to maintain a balance between the citizen’s statutory right to information, protection of legitimately exempt information and efficient functioning of public administration.(KNC)
