Central Information Commission (CIC): Role, Powers, and Impact under the RTI Act

The Central Information Commission (CIC) stands as a cornerstone of India's commitment to transparency and accountability, primarily through its pivotal role in the implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. This statutory body serves as the final appellate authority for grievances and appeals concerning access to information held by Central Government public authorities. Its establishment marked a significant stride towards empowering citizens, fostering good governance, and curbing corruption by dismantling the veil of secrecy surrounding government operations.

1. Introduction: The Genesis of Transparency

The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) is a landmark legislation that grants Indian citizens the right to access information held by public authorities. This Act aims to promote transparency and accountability in governance, reduce corruption, and encourage public participation in the democratic process. At the heart of this framework lies the Central Information Commission (CIC), an independent, quasi-judicial body constituted under the Act. The CIC's primary function is to address complaints and decide appeals related to information requests, ensuring that citizens can effectively exercise their right to information.

2. Historical Background and Constitutional/Legal Basis

Prior to the RTI Act, the official secrets regime largely governed access to government information, often leading to opacity. The demand for greater transparency gained momentum over decades, culminating in the enactment of the RTI Act, 2005. The Central Information Commission was specifically constituted with effect from October 12, 2005, under the provisions of Section 12 of the RTI Act. It is crucial to note that the CIC is a statutory body, deriving its existence and powers from a specific law passed by Parliament, and is not a constitutional body. Its jurisdiction extends to all central public authorities and Union Territories.

3. Composition of the Central Information Commission

The CIC is structured to function as an independent adjudicatory authority.

A. Members: The Central Information Commission comprises:

• A Chief Information Commissioner (CIC).
• Not more than ten Information Commissioners (ICs).

B. Appointment Process: The Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners are appointed by the President of India. This appointment is based on the recommendation of a high-powered committee consisting of:

1. The Prime Minister (as the Chairperson).
2. The Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
3. A Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.

C. Qualifications: Members of the CIC are required to be persons of "eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media, administration and governance." They must not be a Member of Parliament or a Member of the Legislature of any State or Union Territory, nor should they hold any other office of profit, be connected with any political party, or carry on any business or profession.

D. Tenure and Service Conditions (Impact of RTI Amendment Act, 2019): The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 brought significant changes to the tenure, salary, and service conditions of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners at both central and state levels.

• Before 2019 Amendment: The Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners held office for a fixed term of five years or until they attained the age of 65 years, whichever was earlier. Their salaries and service conditions were equivalent to those of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, respectively.
• After 2019 Amendment: The Act removed the fixed tenure of five years. Now, the Central Government determines the term of office, salaries, allowances, and other service conditions for the CIC and ICs through rules. This change has raised concerns about the independence and autonomy of the Information Commissions, as it potentially makes them more susceptible to government influence.

E. Removal: The President can remove the Chief Information Commissioner or any Information Commissioner under specific circumstances:

• If the member is adjudged an insolvent.
• If the President holds them responsible for an offense involving moral turpitude or if they are convicted for such an offense.
• If they engage in any paid employment outside their office duties.
• If they are declared unfit by reason of infirmity of mind or body.
• On grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. In such cases, the President refers the matter to the Supreme Court for an inquiry. If the Supreme Court, after the inquiry, upholds the cause for removal and advises so, the President can then remove them.

4. Jurisdiction and Powers of the Central Information Commission

The CIC possesses extensive powers to ensure the effective implementation of the RTI Act. These powers are primarily outlined in Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.

A. Powers and Functions:

• Receiving and Inquiring into Complaints (Section 18): The CIC has the duty to inquire into complaints received from any person who:
  • Has been unable to submit an information request due to the non-appointment of a Public Information Officer (PIO).
  • Has been refused information or has not received a response within the stipulated time (30 days normally, 48 hours for life and liberty related matters).
  • Believes the fee requested is unreasonable.
  • Believes the information provided is incomplete, false, or misleading.
  • Has been obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information.
  • Regarding any public authority claiming itself to not be a public authority.
• Appellate Jurisdiction (Section 19): The CIC acts as the second appellate authority. If an applicant is dissatisfied with the decision of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), they can file a second appeal with the CIC within 90 days.
• Suo-moto Power: The Commission can suo-moto order an inquiry into any matter if there are reasonable grounds.
• Powers of a Civil Court: While inquiring into a complaint or appeal, the CIC has the powers of a Civil Court in respect of:
  • Summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compelling them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce documents or things.
  • Requiring the discovery and inspection of documents.
  • Receiving evidence on affidavit.
  • Requisitioning any public record from any court or office.
  • Issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents.
• Power to Secure Compliance (Section 19(8)): The Commission has the power to secure compliance with its decisions from the public authority. This includes directing the public authority to:
  • Provide access to information in a particular form.
  • Appoint a Public Information Officer (PIO) where none exists.
  • Publish information or categories of information (proactive disclosure).
  • Make necessary changes to practices relating to management, maintenance, and destruction of records.
  • Enhance training provision for officials on the right to information.
  • Seek an annual report from the public authority on compliance with the Act.
  • Compensate the complainant/appellant for any loss or detriment suffered.
• Power to Impose Penalties (Section 20): The CIC can impose a penalty on the PIO at the rate of Rs. 250 per day, up to a maximum of Rs. 25,000, for:
  • Refusal to receive an application.
  • Not furnishing information within the specified time.
  • Malafide denial of the request.
  • Knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information.
  • Destroying information subject to the request.
  • Obstructing in any manner in furnishing information. The penalty is levied from the PIO's salary. The CIC can also recommend disciplinary action against the PIO.
• Annual Report (Section 25): The CIC prepares an annual report on the implementation of the RTI Act and forwards it to the Central Government, which then lays it before Parliament.

B. Diagram: RTI Appeal Process Flowchart

                     RTI Application (Section 6)
                           |
                           v
              Public Information Officer (PIO)
                           |
                           | (Response within 30 days, or 48 hrs for life/liberty)
                           v
        (If dissatisfied or no response)
                           |
                           v
        First Appeal to First Appellate Authority (FAA) (Section 19(1))
                           | (Within 30 days of PIO's decision/due date)
                           v
        (If dissatisfied with FAA's decision)
                           |
                           v
        Second Appeal to Central Information Commission (CIC) (Section 19(3))
                           | (Within 90 days of FAA's decision/due date)
                           v
            CIC Inquiry / Adjudication (Sections 18, 19, 20)
                           |
                           v
               CIC Decision (Binding Order, Penalties, etc.)

5. Role in Ensuring Transparency & Accountability

The CIC plays a critical role in upholding the principles of transparency and accountability in governance.

• Empowering Citizens: By providing a platform for appeal and complaint, the CIC ensures that citizens' fundamental right to information is not merely symbolic but effectively enforceable.
• Promoting Proactive Disclosure: The CIC can direct public authorities to comply with Section 4 of the RTI Act, which mandates proactive disclosure of various information categories, reducing the need for individual RTI applications.
• Holding Public Authorities Accountable: Through its power to impose penalties and recommend disciplinary action against erring PIOs, the CIC acts as a deterrent against arbitrary denial of information and encourages public authorities to maintain proper records.
• Setting Precedents: CIC decisions often interpret the provisions of the RTI Act, setting precedents that guide public authorities and RTI applicants alike, thereby standardizing information disclosure practices.
• Monitoring Implementation: The annual reports by the CIC provide an overview of the Act's implementation across central government bodies, highlighting areas of concern and recommending reforms.

6. Challenges and Criticisms

Despite its crucial role, the CIC faces several challenges that impact its effectiveness:

• Pendency of Cases: There is a significant backlog of appeals and complaints before the CIC, leading to delays in disposal. This is partly due to the lack of specific time limits for disposing of second appeals.
• Vacancies: Delays in filling vacancies for the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners contribute to the backlog and hinder the commission's efficiency. The Supreme Court has expressed concerns regarding these delays.
• Lack of Enforcement Powers (Limited): While the CIC can impose penalties, concerns have been raised about its ability to enforce its orders effectively, especially when public authorities do not comply.
• Impact of RTI Amendment Act, 2019:
  • Reduced Independence: The amendment allowing the Central Government to determine the tenure and salaries of CIC/ICs is viewed as undermining their independence, making them potentially susceptible to executive pressure. Critics argue this goes against the spirit of the original Act, which sought to put them on par with Election Commissioners.
  • Erosion of Autonomy: The government's increased control over terms and conditions could lead to a perceived dilution of the commission's autonomy and its ability to function without fear or favor.
• Poor Record Management: Inadequate record management systems within public authorities lead to delays and poor quality of information.
• Lack of Transparency in Selection: Concerns have been raised about the transparency in the selection process of Commissioners, with a predominance of former bureaucrats being appointed.
• Low Public Awareness: Despite its significance, there is still low public awareness about the RTI Act and the role of the CIC, particularly in rural areas.

7. Landmark Judgments/Decisions Related to CIC and RTI

Several judicial pronouncements have shaped the interpretation and application of the RTI Act and the role of the CIC:

• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission and Ors. (Supreme Court, 2013): This case dealt with the disclosure of personal information of public servants. The Supreme Court held that information related to property, assets, and liabilities, and income tax returns of a public servant, falls under "personal information" (Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act) and can be denied unless a larger public interest is involved. This judgment has been a point of contention among transparency activists.
• Subramaniam v. Union of India and Ors. (Supreme Court, 2013): While not directly about CIC, this judgment emphasized that recording of information (written directions) was necessary to ensure accountability in the functioning of civil servants, aligning with the spirit of the RTI Act.
• Union of India vs. Namit Sharma (Supreme Court, 2013): This case challenged the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the RTI Act, particularly regarding the qualifications of Information Commissioners. The Supreme Court upheld the Act's validity but suggested that judicial members should be preferred for appointment as Information Commissioners, especially at the higher levels, to ensure adherence to legal principles. However, a review petition later clarified that the eligibility criteria of "eminence in public life" should be maintained.
• Central Information Commission v. Delhi Development Authority (Supreme Court, 2024 INSC 513): This recent landmark judgment by the Supreme Court affirmed the CIC's autonomy and expansive authority under the RTI Act. The Court reinstated the CIC's Management Regulations, 2007, which had been quashed by the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court recognized the necessity of implicit administrative powers for the CIC to manage its extensive workload and ensure efficient functioning, thereby upholding the CIC's power to form benches and frame regulations.
• Others: Several High Court decisions have also reinforced the CIC's powers and the obligations of public authorities, such as the Calcutta High Court ordering compensation for delay in information supply (2016).

8. Comparison with State Information Commissions (SICs)

The structure and functions of the Central Information Commission are mirrored at the state level by State Information Commissions (SICs).

9. Contemporary Developments and Way Forward

The RTI Act and the CIC's functioning are continually evolving. The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019, remains the most significant recent development, centralizing control over the terms of appointment for Information Commissioners. This has sparked considerable debate about the future independence and effectiveness of the commissions.

Way Forward:

• Strengthening Independence: There is a persistent call from civil society and transparency advocates to restore the autonomy of the Information Commissions by ensuring security of tenure and equivalence of status, similar to constitutional bodies.
• Timely Appointments: Ensuring timely filling of vacancies in the CIC and SICs is crucial to reduce the backlog and ensure efficient disposal of cases.
• Technological Upgrades: Leveraging technology for better record management, online RTI filing portals, and virtual hearings can streamline processes and reduce delays.
• Capacity Building: Training and awareness programs for Public Information Officers and citizens are essential to improve the quality of information provided and increase effective utilization of the Act.
• Proactive Disclosure: Encouraging greater suo motu disclosure by public authorities under Section 4 of the RTI Act would reduce the burden on commissions and foster a truly transparent environment.

10. Conclusion

The Central Information Commission, established under the RTI Act, 2005, has undeniably played a transformative role in fostering transparency and accountability in India's governance. By providing a vital mechanism for citizens to demand information and hold their government accountable, it has strengthened democratic processes and empowered an informed citizenry. While challenges such as pendency, vacancies, and the implications of recent amendments persist, the CIC remains a critical institution. Its continued effectiveness hinges on robust institutional independence, adequate resources, and a renewed commitment from all stakeholders to uphold the spirit of the Right to Information Act, ensuring that India's democratic fabric is truly strong and transparent.

Interactive Q&A / Practice Exercises

A. Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. The Central Information Commission (CIC) is a: a) Constitutional body b) Statutory body c) Quasi-judicial body d) Both (b) and (c)

Explanation: The CIC is established by the Right to Information Act, 2005 (a statute), making it a statutory body. It also exercises powers akin to a civil court, adjudicating disputes, hence it is also a quasi-judicial body.

2. The Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners are appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee that includes: I. The Prime Minister II. The Chief Justice of India III. The Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha IV. A Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister Which of the above are correct? a) I, II, and III only b) I, III, and IV only c) I, II, and IV only d) All of the above

Explanation: The appointment committee consists of the Prime Minister (Chairperson), the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The Chief Justice of India is not part of this specific committee for CIC appointments.

3. What was the fixed tenure of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners before the RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019? a) 3 years or until 65 years of age b) 5 years or until 65 years of age c) At the pleasure of the Central Government d) Until 62 years of age

Explanation: Before the 2019 amendment, their term was fixed for 5 years or until they attained the age of 65 years. The 2019 amendment removed this fixed tenure, giving the Central Government power to determine it.

4. Under which section of the RTI Act, 2005, does the Central Information Commission have the power to impose penalties on a Public Information Officer (PIO)? a) Section 18 b) Section 19 c) Section 20 d) Section 25

Explanation: Section 20 of the RTI Act grants the CIC (and SIC) the power to impose penalties on a PIO for non-compliance or malafide actions.

B. Scenario-Based Question

Scenario: Ms. Priya filed an RTI application with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare seeking details about the expenditure on a particular public health scheme. After 35 days, she received no response from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO). She then filed a first appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA) within the Ministry. The FAA also failed to provide a satisfactory response within the stipulated time.

Question: What is Ms. Priya's next recourse as per the Right to Information Act, 2005, and what powers does the concerned authority have in this situation?

Answer Explanation:

1. Next Recourse: Ms. Priya's next recourse is to file a second appeal with the Central Information Commission (CIC). She can file this second appeal within 90 days from the date on which the FAA's decision should have been made or was actually received.
2. Powers of the CIC: Upon receiving the second appeal, the CIC can:
   • Inquire into the complaint: The CIC will hear both Ms. Priya (the appellant) and the CPIO/FAA.
   • Direct disclosure: If it finds that information was wrongly denied or not provided, it can direct the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (the public authority) to provide the requested information to Ms. Priya in a specific form.
   • Impose penalty: Since the CPIO failed to provide a response within 30 days and the FAA also failed to address the appeal effectively, the CIC can impose a penalty on the CPIO at the rate of Rs. 250 per day, from the date the information was due until it is furnished, subject to a maximum of Rs. 25,000. This penalty is payable from the CPIO's salary.
   • Recommend disciplinary action: The CIC can also recommend disciplinary action against the CPIO as per service rules.
   • Secure compliance: The CIC has general powers to ensure the public authority complies with the provisions of the RTI Act.

C. Match the Following

Match the RTI Act Section with its relevant provision/function:

Answer:

1. Section 12: c) Constitution of Central Information Commission
2. Section 18: d) Functions related to inquiries and complaints
3. Section 19: b) Second appeal to Information Commission
4. Section 20: a) Powers to impose penalties

D. Diagram-Based Question

Question: Analyze the following flowchart representing the RTI appeal process. Identify the three key stages and the typical timeframe associated with each stage for a standard RTI application.

Stage 1 -> Stage 2 -> Stage 3

Flowchart Legend:

• Stage 1: Filing of initial RTI Application
• Stage 2: First Appeal
• Stage 3: Second Appeal

Answer Explanation:

• Stage 1: Filing of initial RTI Application

  • Action: A citizen makes a request for information to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the concerned public authority.
  • Typical Timeframe: The PIO is mandated to respond within 30 days of receiving the application. If the information concerns the life or liberty of a person, the response must be provided within 48 hours.

• Stage 2: First Appeal

  • Action: If the applicant is dissatisfied with the PIO's decision (e.g., information denied, incomplete, or no response), they can file a first appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA), who is a senior officer within the same public authority.
  • Typical Timeframe: The first appeal must typically be filed within 30 days from the date the PIO's decision was received or should have been made. The FAA is generally expected to dispose of the appeal within 30-45 days.

• Stage 3: Second Appeal

  • Action: If the applicant is still aggrieved by the FAA's decision or lack thereof, they can file a second appeal with the Central Information Commission (CIC) (for central public authorities) or State Information Commission (SIC) (for state public authorities).

  • Typical Timeframe: The second appeal must be filed within 90 days from the date on which the FAA's decision should have been made or was actually received. While there are no strict time limits for the disposal of second appeals by the Commissions, they are expected to be adjudicated expeditiously.

Recommended Books

You can explore these highly recommended resources for a deeper understanding.

• Indian Polity (English) by M Laxmikanth for UPSC CSE 2025 | 7th edition (latest) | Civil Services Exam - Prelims, Mains and Interview | State PSCs exams/ PCS exams - by M Laxmikanth
• Oswaal NCERT One For All Book for UPSC & State PSCs | Indian Polity Classes 6-12 - by Oswaal Editorial Board
• Bharat Ki Rajvyavastha (भारत की राजव्यवस्था) - M Laxmikanth for UPSC CSE