State Information Commissions (SICs): Role, Challenges, and Reforms for Strengthening Transparency in India

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, stands as a cornerstone of India's democratic framework, empowering citizens to demand transparency and accountability from public authorities. At the heart of its implementation lie the Information Commissions, both at the Central and State levels. While the Central Information Commission (CIC) oversees central government bodies, the State Information Commissions (SICs) play an equally crucial role in ensuring transparency within state-level public authorities. This comprehensive blog post delves into the functions, challenges, and the way forward for SICs, examining their critical role in India's evolving transparency landscape.

State Information Commissions (SICs): Role, Challenges, and the Path Forward in India’s Transparency Framework

1. Introduction: Pillars of Transparency

In a vibrant democracy, the right to information is not merely a legal entitlement but a fundamental prerequisite for informed citizenry and good governance. The Right to Information Act, 2005, enacted to operationalize this right, created a decentralized mechanism for its enforcement. The State Information Commissions (SICs), established under this Act, serve as the primary appellate authorities and oversight bodies for information requests pertaining to state government entities. Their effective functioning is paramount to fostering public trust, curbing corruption, and ensuring that public authorities remain accountable to the citizens they serve.

2. Historical Context and the Genesis of the RTI Act, 2005

The journey towards a codified Right to Information in India was long and arduous, rooted in the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)). The Supreme Court, in landmark judgments like State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975), affirmed that the right to know is an inherent part of freedom of speech and expression. This judicial activism, coupled with persistent advocacy by civil society movements, laid the groundwork for legislative action.

Early attempts at transparency laws were seen in states like Tamil Nadu (1997), Goa (1997), Rajasthan (2000), and Maharashtra (2002). However, a uniform and comprehensive national framework was deemed essential. This culminated in the enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005, a revolutionary piece of legislation that shifted the paradigm from a culture of secrecy to one of openness in governance. The Act aims to provide a practical framework for citizens to access information under the control of public authorities, thereby promoting transparency and accountability, and containing corruption.

3. Understanding State Information Commissions (SICs)

SICs are statutory bodies, established under Section 15 of the RTI Act, 2005. They are integral to the three-tier structure for information dissemination and grievance redressal under the Act, which includes Public Information Officers (PIOs), First Appellate Authorities (FAAs), and finally, the Information Commissions.

3.1. Establishment and Composition

Every State Government is mandated to constitute a State Information Commission by notification in the Official Gazette.

• Composition: The SIC consists of:
  • A State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC).
  • Such number of State Information Commissioners (SICs), not exceeding ten, as deemed necessary.
• Appointment: The Governor appoints the SCIC and SICs on the recommendation of a committee comprising:
  1. The Chief Minister (Chairperson of the committee).
  2. The Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly.
  3. A State Cabinet Minister nominated by the Chief Minister.
  • Note: If there is no recognized Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the single largest group in opposition in the Legislative Assembly is deemed to be the Leader of Opposition.
• Qualifications: Appointees must be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in fields such as law, science, technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media, or administration and governance.
• Disqualifications: They should not be a Member of Parliament or a Member of the Legislature of any State or Union Territory, or hold any other office of profit, or be connected with any political party, or carry on any business or profession.
• Tenure and Service Conditions (Pre and Post 2019 Amendment):
  • Pre-2019 Amendment: The SCIC and SICs held office for a fixed term of five years or until they attained the age of 65 years, whichever was earlier, and were not eligible for re-appointment. Their salaries and allowances were at par with the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, respectively, ensuring a high degree of independence.
  • Post-2019 Amendment: The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019, controversially altered these provisions. Now, the Central Government has the authority to prescribe the tenure, salaries, allowances, and other terms and conditions of service for both Central and State Information Commissioners. This change has raised significant concerns regarding the independence and autonomy of the Information Commissions.

3.2. Jurisdiction and Powers

SICs are empowered to receive and inquire into complaints and appeals related to the RTI Act within state-level public authorities. Their jurisdiction extends to state government departments, financial institutions, public sector undertakings, and other organizations operating under the state's control.

The SICs possess wide-ranging powers akin to a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when inquiring into a matter:

• 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 or copies thereof from any court or office.
• Issuing summons for the examination of witnesses or documents.
• Any other matter which may be prescribed.

The Commission can order an inquiry into any matter if there are reasonable grounds (suo motu power). Importantly, during an inquiry, the Commission has the right to examine any records under the control of public authorities, and no such records can be withheld from it.

3.3. Key Functions

The core functions of SICs include:

• Adjudication of Appeals: Receiving and deciding upon the second appeals from citizens who are aggrieved by the decision of the First Appellate Authority or non-receipt of information within the stipulated time.
• Complaint Handling: Receiving and inquiring into complaints where a person has been unable to submit an RTI request, has been refused information, has not received a response within the prescribed time, has been charged an unreasonable fee, or has received incomplete, misleading, or false information.
• Securing Compliance: Directing public authorities to take necessary steps to comply with the RTI Act, such as providing access to information in a specific format, appointing PIOs, publishing certain information proactively (under Section 4 of the RTI Act), making changes in record management, or enhancing training for officials.
• Imposition of Penalties: Imposing penalties on Public Information Officers (PIOs) if they, without reasonable cause, deny a request, provide incorrect/incomplete/misleading information, or obstruct access to information.
• Monitoring and Reporting: Submitting an annual report to the State Government on the implementation of the RTI Act's provisions. The State Government, in turn, places this report before the State Legislature.
• Awareness Programs: Occasionally conducting awareness programs on the effective implementation of the RTI Act.

3.4. Comparison with Central Information Commission (CIC)

Both CIC and SICs are statutory bodies constituted under the RTI Act, 2005, performing similar functions at their respective levels of government.

Table 1: Central Information Commission (CIC) vs. State Information Commission (SIC)

4. Constitutional and Legal Framework

While SICs are statutory bodies and not constitutional ones, their existence and functions draw their legitimacy from the broader constitutional ethos of transparency and accountability. The Right to Information has been recognized as a fundamental right flowing from Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. The RTI Act, 2005, provides the practical framework for the exercise of this fundamental right.

Key Sections of the RTI Act, 2005 relevant to SICs:

• Section 2(k): Defines "State Information Commission".
• Section 2(l): Defines "State Chief Information Commissioner" and "State Information Commissioner".
• Section 3: Establishes the right to information for all citizens.
• Section 4: Mandates obligations of public authorities for proactive disclosure of information. This is crucial to reduce the need for RTI applications and lighten the burden on SICs.
• Section 5: Pertains to the designation of State Public Information Officers (SPIOs) and State Assistant Public Information Officers (SAPIOs) in every public authority.
• Section 6: Details the procedure for making a request for information.
• Section 7: Outlines the disposal of requests within prescribed timeframes (30 days, or 45 days in certain cases).
• Section 8: Lists exemptions from disclosure of information (e.g., national security, personal information without public interest). This section is often litigated.
• Section 15: Provides for the constitution, composition, appointment, qualifications, and other details of the State Information Commission.
• Section 16: Deals with the term of office and conditions of service of the SCIC and SICs. (Significantly altered by 2019 Amendment).
• Section 17: Outlines the procedure for removal of SCIC and SICs by the Governor.
• Section 18: Enlists the powers and functions of SICs, including receiving complaints and initiating inquiries.
• Section 19: Lays down the appeal mechanism, including second appeals to SICs.
• Section 20: Empowers SICs to impose penalties on PIOs.
• Section 25: Mandates monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the Act by SICs to the State Legislature.

Diagram 1: RTI Act's Three-Tier Information Redressal Mechanism

graph TD
    A[Citizen seeking Information] -- Application (Section 6) --> B(State Public Information Officer - SPIO / SAPIO (Section 5))
    B -- Within 30 Days (Section 7) --> C{Information Provided?}
    C -- Yes --> D[Information Received]
    C -- No --> E(First Appellate Authority (FAA) - Senior to SPIO (Section 19(1)))
    E -- Within 30-45 Days (Section 19(6)) --> F{Decision by FAA?}
    F -- Yes --> G[Decision Accepted/Rejected]
    F -- No OR Dissatisfied --> H(State Information Commission - SIC (Section 19(3)))
    H -- Adjudication (Section 18, 19) --> I[SIC Decision (Binding - Section 19(7))]
    I -- Powers (Section 19(8), 20) --> J(Compliance / Penalty on defaulting PIO)

Explanation: This flowchart illustrates the typical path an information request takes under the RTI Act at the state level. A citizen first approaches the SPIO. If the information is not provided, or is unsatisfactory, the first appeal lies with the FAA. If still dissatisfied, the citizen can file a second appeal with the SIC, which holds significant powers to adjudicate and enforce compliance.

5. Challenges Faced by State Information Commissions

Despite their pivotal role, SICs across India grapple with numerous challenges that impede their effectiveness and undermine the spirit of the RTI Act.

1. Pendency of Appeals and Complaints: A colossal backlog of cases plagues many SICs, leading to significant delays in the disposal of appeals and complaints. This backlog defeats the purpose of timely information access and frustrates applicants. In some states, the waiting time for an appeal can exceed a year.
2. Vacancies in Key Posts: A recurring and critical issue is the delay in filling vacancies for SCICs and SICs. Several State Information Commissions have been reported to be defunct or headless due to the absence of commissioners, severely impacting their functioning. The Supreme Court has repeatedly slammed both central and state governments for these delays.
3. Lack of Transparency in Appointment Process: Concerns have been raised about the transparency and impartiality of the selection process for commissioners. The dominance of former bureaucrats in appointments also raises questions about the diversity and competency of the commissions.
4. Staff Shortages and Infrastructure Deficiencies: Many SICs operate with limited funds, inadequate personnel, and poor infrastructure. This restricts their ability to function optimally, process requests efficiently, and conduct hearings effectively.
5. Impact of RTI Amendment Act, 2019: The 2019 amendment, which empowers the Central Government to determine the tenure and salaries of Information Commissioners, has been widely criticized for undermining their independence and autonomy. Critics argue that this makes commissioners susceptible to political influence, potentially eroding their ability to act as impartial arbiters.
6. Resistance from Public Authorities: Some public authorities exhibit a hostile attitude towards citizens seeking information, misinterpreting provisions of the RTI Act to withhold information. Non-compliance with proactive disclosure mandates (Section 4) also remains a significant issue.
7. Low Public Awareness: Especially in rural areas, there is often insufficient public awareness about the RTI Act and the role of SICs, limiting the effective exercise of the right to information by citizens.
8. Poor Record Management and Digitalization Gaps: Inadequate record-keeping practices and a lack of digitization hinder efficient information retrieval and processing, contributing to delays.
9. Frivolous or Malicious Applications: While the RTI Act is a powerful tool, it is occasionally misused for personal vendettas or frivolous requests, burdening the already stretched resources of public authorities and Information Commissions. However, penalizing such applications is a delicate balance, as it risks stifling genuine requests.

6. Landmark Judgments and Their Impact on RTI/SICs

The Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court and various High Courts, has played a crucial role in strengthening the Right to Information and defining the operational contours of Information Commissions.

• State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975): This seminal judgment by Justice Mathew affirmed that the right to know is implicit in the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This paved the way for the RTI Act.
• Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002): The Supreme Court asserted the right to information as a fundamental right necessary for free and fair elections, mandating disclosure of criminal antecedents, assets, and liabilities of electoral candidates. This broadened the scope of information considered to be in the public domain.
• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission & Ors. (2013): This case dealt with the disclosure of personal information of public servants, such as service records, assets, and income tax returns. The Supreme Court held that such information typically falls under personal information (Section 8(1)(j)) and can be denied unless a larger public interest is established. This judgment clarified the balance between the right to information and the right to privacy.
• Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011): The Supreme Court emphasized that the RTI Act should not lead to "anarchy" and that the PIO is not expected to create information or deduce answers from existing records. It clarified the scope of "information" under the Act.
• Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2019): The Supreme Court, in this PIL, expressed serious concern over delays in appointing Information Commissioners at both central and state levels and the lack of transparency in the appointment process. It directed governments to fill vacancies in a time-bound and transparent manner, emphasizing that delayed appointments defeat the very purpose of the RTI Act.
• T.S.R. Subramanian v. Union of India (2013): The Court highlighted that Sections 3 and 4 of the RTI Act emphasize transparency and that recording of information (through written instructions) is necessary to ensure accountability of civil servants.
• Public Information Officer, Chief Minister's Office, Civil Secretariat Govt. of U.P. v State Information Commission and Ors. (Allahabad HC, 2018): The Allahabad High Court affirmed that information regarding recipients of discretionary funds from the Chief Minister's office must be disclosed, underscoring the vital role of transparency in matters of public expenditure.
• Karnataka Information Commissioner v. PIO: This case clarified the jurisdiction over High Courts. The Central Information Commission ruled that High Courts, as public authorities, fall under the jurisdiction of the Central Information Commission, not the State Information Commission, based on the constitutional ambit of Parliament regarding the constitution and organization of High Courts.

7. The Path Forward: Recommendations and Reforms

To truly empower State Information Commissions and strengthen India's transparency framework, multi-faceted reforms are imperative.

7.1. Strengthening Autonomy and Independence

• Revisit 2019 Amendment: There is a strong call from civil society and experts to restore the fixed tenure and salary parity of Information Commissioners with Election Commissioners, as originally enshrined in the RTI Act. This would insulate them from executive influence and enhance their independence.
• Transparent Appointment Process: Implement a transparent, time-bound, and merit-based process for appointing SICs. This should involve broader public scrutiny, disclosure of applicants' details, and minutes of selection committee meetings. The 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) also recommended strengthening the autonomy and powers of Information Commissions.
• Financial Independence: Ensure adequate and independent budgetary allocation for SICs, rather than making them solely dependent on state government funding, to prevent financial leverage and ensure their operational autonomy.

7.2. Addressing Vacancies and Pendency

• Timely Appointments: Mandate strict timelines for filling vacancies in SICs, perhaps within a stipulated period like 30 days, as directed by the Supreme Court.
• Increase Capacity: Augment the staff strength and provide necessary infrastructure to SICs to handle the large volume of appeals and complaints efficiently.
• Performance Monitoring: Implement performance metrics and conduct regular audits of SICs to identify bottlenecks and ensure speedy disposal of cases.

7.3. Leveraging Technology and Proactive Disclosure

• Digitalization: Urgently digitize all records and improve record management practices within public authorities and SICs to facilitate easier access and quicker processing of information requests.
• E-RTI Portals: Develop user-friendly online portals for filing RTI applications, first appeals, and second appeals, making the process accessible to a wider population, especially in rural areas.
• Proactive Disclosure (Section 4): Strictly enforce the mandate of proactive disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI Act. Public authorities should publish more information suo motu, reducing the need for individual RTI applications. This includes details on budgets, expenditures, policies, decision-making processes, and beneficiary lists.

Diagram 2: Enhancing SIC Effectiveness - A Multi-pronged Approach

graph TD
    A[Challenges Faced by SICs] --> B{Vacancies & Pendency};
    A --> C{Lack of Autonomy/Resources};
    A --> D{Low Awareness/Resistance};

    B --> B1[Solution: Timely Appointments];
    B --> B2[Solution: Increased Staff & Infrastructure];
    B --> B3[Solution: Digitalization & E-Portals];

    C --> C1[Solution: Restore Independence (Post-2019 Act)];
    C --> C2[Solution: Transparent Selection];
    C --> C3[Solution: Financial Autonomy];

    D --> D1[Solution: Proactive Disclosure (Sec 4)];
    D --> D2[Solution: Public Awareness Campaigns];
    D --> D3[Solution: Capacity Building for PIOs];

Explanation: This organogram visually categorizes the major challenges faced by SICs and maps them to corresponding proposed solutions, highlighting a comprehensive approach to strengthening their effectiveness.

7.4. Capacity Building and Awareness

• Training for Officials: Provide regular and comprehensive training programs for Public Information Officers (PIOs) and other government officials on the provisions and spirit of the RTI Act.
• Public Outreach: Launch extensive public awareness campaigns, particularly in rural and marginalized communities, to educate citizens about their right to information and how to effectively use the RTI Act and approach SICs.
• Whistleblower Protection: Ensure the full implementation of the Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014, and provide robust mechanisms to protect RTI activists and whistleblowers who often face threats and harassment.

7.5. Legislative and Structural Improvements

• Review Exemptions: Periodically review the exemption clauses (Section 8) to ensure they are not misused to arbitrarily deny information. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which expanded exemptions for personal information, needs careful consideration to prevent it from diluting the RTI Act's core purpose.
• Gender Diversity: Implement measures to ensure better gender representation among Information Commissioners, bringing diverse perspectives to the decision-making process.
• Dedicated RTI Cells: Establish dedicated and adequately staffed RTI cells within public authorities to streamline the processing of requests.

8. Current Relevance and Evolving Interpretations

Even with the challenges, State Information Commissions remain highly relevant. They continue to be the last resort for citizens seeking information that could unearth corruption, question administrative inaction, and ensure efficient public service delivery. The ongoing debates and judicial pronouncements around the RTI Act, especially post-2019 amendments, highlight its dynamic nature and the continuous need for vigilance to preserve its integrity. The Supreme Court's continuous emphasis on filling vacancies and ensuring transparency in appointments indicates the judiciary's recognition of the commissions' vital role. The RTI, when properly implemented, continues to be a powerful tool for good governance, fostering trust, accountability, and citizen participation.

9. Conclusion: Towards a More Transparent Future

State Information Commissions are indispensable institutions in India's journey towards truly transparent and accountable governance. While the RTI Act has undeniably empowered millions, the challenges faced by SICs—particularly concerning autonomy, vacancies, and resources—threaten to dilute its effectiveness. Addressing these issues with urgency, through legislative correction, administrative reforms, and sustained public awareness, is crucial. A robust and independent SIC system is not just a legal formality; it is the bedrock upon which an informed citizenry can truly participate in and shape the democratic destiny of their states and the nation. The path forward demands unwavering commitment from governments, active engagement from civil society, and continued judicial oversight to ensure that the light of information continues to shine brightly, dispelling the shadows of opacity and corruption.

Interactive Q&A / Practice Exercises

This section is designed to test your understanding of State Information Commissions and the Right to Information Act.

I. Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. Which section of the Right to Information Act, 2005, deals with the constitution of State Information Commissions? a) Section 12 b) Section 13 c) Section 15 d) Section 18

   Correct Answer: c) Section 15 Explanation: Section 15 of the RTI Act, 2005, specifically mandates the constitution of State Information Commissions by every State Government. Section 12 deals with the Central Information Commission.

2. Who among the following is NOT a member of the selection committee for the appointment of the State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners? a) Chief Minister (Chairperson) b) Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly c) Chief Justice of the concerned High Court d) A State Cabinet Minister nominated by the Chief Minister

   Correct Answer: c) Chief Justice of the concerned High Court Explanation: The selection committee comprises the Chief Minister (Chairperson), the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly, and a State Cabinet Minister nominated by the Chief Minister. The Chief Justice of the High Court is not part of this committee.

3. Prior to the RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019, the tenure of a State Information Commissioner was fixed at: a) 3 years or till 65 years of age b) 5 years or till 65 years of age c) As prescribed by the State Government d) No fixed tenure, at the pleasure of the Governor

   Correct Answer: b) 5 years or till 65 years of age Explanation: Before the 2019 amendment, the SCIC and SICs held office for a fixed term of five years or until they attained the age of 65 years, whichever was earlier. The 2019 amendment changed this to "as prescribed by the Central Government".

4. Which of the following powers can a State Information Commission NOT exercise during an inquiry? a) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons b) Examining any record under the control of a public authority c) Directing a public authority to create new information that does not exist d) Imposing penalties on a Public Information Officer for unreasonable denial of information

   Correct Answer: c) Directing a public authority to create new information that does not exist Explanation: SICs have powers similar to a civil court, including summoning, examining records, and imposing penalties. However, they cannot direct a public authority to create information that is not already in existence or held in a material form.

5. The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019, controversially shifted the authority to determine the tenure and salaries of State Information Commissioners to: a) The State Legislature b) The Governor of the State c) The Central Government d) A High-Powered Judicial Committee

   Correct Answer: c) The Central Government Explanation: The 2019 amendment gave the Central Government the power to prescribe the tenure, salaries, and other terms of service for both Central and State Information Commissioners, a move widely criticized for impacting their independence.

II. Scenario-Based Questions

1. Scenario: Mr. Sharma filed an RTI application with the Public Works Department of his state seeking details of funds allocated and utilized for a specific road construction project in his village. The State Public Information Officer (SPIO) rejected his application, stating that the information is too voluminous and would "disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority." Mr. Sharma then filed a First Appeal, which was also rejected on similar grounds.

   Question: What is Mr. Sharma's next course of action, and what powers does the State Information Commission have in such a situation?

   Answer:

   • Next Course of Action: Mr. Sharma's next course of action is to file a Second Appeal with the State Information Commission (SIC) under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. He can do this if he is dissatisfied with the decision of the First Appellate Authority or if no decision is given within the prescribed time.
   • Powers of SIC: The SIC has broad powers to adjudicate this matter:
     • It can summon the SPIO and other relevant officials of the Public Works Department for a hearing.
     • It can examine the records related to the road project to verify the SPIO's claim about the volume of information.
     • The SIC can direct the public authority to provide the information in a specific format, or even allow Mr. Sharma to inspect the relevant records, if it finds that the information was wrongly withheld.
     • If the SIC determines that the SPIO's refusal was unreasonable and not in good faith, or that the "disproportionate diversion of resources" claim was merely an excuse to deny information, it can impose a penalty on the SPIO under Section 20(1) of the Act (e.g., Rs. 250 per day up to Rs. 25,000).
     • The SIC can also recommend disciplinary action against the SPIO.
     • The decision of the SIC will be binding on the Public Works Department.

2. Scenario: The State Information Commission of State 'X' has been functioning without a Chief Information Commissioner and two other Information Commissioners for over a year due to delays in appointments by the state government. Consequently, the pendency of appeals has soared, leading to an average waiting period of two years for a hearing.

   Question: Discuss the implications of such vacancies on the right to information and the role of the judiciary in addressing this issue.

   Answer:

   • Implications of Vacancies:
     • Denial of Right to Information: Long delays due to vacancies effectively deny citizens their fundamental right to timely information. The very purpose of the RTI Act – to ensure quick access to information – is defeated.
     • Erosion of Accountability: When Information Commissions are dysfunctional, public authorities face less scrutiny, leading to reduced accountability and increased opportunities for opacity and corruption.
     • Loss of Public Trust: Citizens lose faith in the RTI mechanism and the government's commitment to transparency, as their legitimate requests for information go unheard for prolonged periods.
     • Burden on Higher Judiciary: Frustrated citizens might resort to filing writ petitions in High Courts, increasing the burden on the already stretched judiciary.
     • Weakening of Democratic Governance: An informed citizenry is vital for a functioning democracy. Vacancies undermine this by creating an information vacuum.
   • Role of the Judiciary:
     • The judiciary, especially the Supreme Court and High Courts, plays a crucial role in safeguarding the RTI Act and the functioning of Information Commissions.
     • Judicial Intervention: The Supreme Court, in cases like Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2019), has directly intervened, slamming governments for delays in appointments and issuing directions for timely and transparent filling of vacancies.
     • Upholding Constitutional Mandate: The courts reiterate that the right to information is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and the non-functioning of commissions negates this right.
     • Ensuring Compliance: Through contempt proceedings or other legal remedies, the judiciary can ensure compliance with its directions regarding appointments and the overall functioning of SICs.
     • Interpretation of Law: Courts continue to interpret the provisions of the RTI Act, balancing it with other rights (like privacy) and guiding the commissions in their adjudicatory functions.

III. Match the Following

Match the following RTI Act Sections with their respective provisions:

Answer:

1. Section 4 - c. Proactive disclosure obligations of Public Authorities
2. Section 15 - a. Constitution of State Information Commission
3. Section 18 - b. Powers and functions of Information Commissions
4. Section 20 - e. Penalties for Public Information Officer for non-compliance
5. Section 19 - d. Appeal mechanism to Information Commissions

IV. Chronological Order Exercise

Arrange the following events related to the Right to Information in chronological order:

1. Enactment of the Right to Information Act
2. Supreme Court ruling in State of U.P. v. Raj Narain
3. Introduction of RTI (Amendment) Act
4. State of Maharashtra enacts its own RTI-like law

Answer:

1. Supreme Court ruling in State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975)
2. State of Maharashtra enacts its own RTI-like law (2002) (This was one of the early state-level laws, preceding the central Act)
3. Enactment of the Right to Information Act (2005)
4. Introduction of RTI (Amendment) Act (2019)

Explanation: The judicial recognition of the right to know preceded the national law. Some states enacted their own laws before the central RTI Act came into force in 2005. The 2019 amendment was a recent development after the Act's initial implementation.

V. Diagram-Based Question

Refer to Diagram 1: RTI Act's Three-Tier Information Redressal Mechanism.

Question: Based on the flowchart, describe the journey of an RTI application from a citizen seeking information to the final decision by the State Information Commission, highlighting the role of each intermediary level.

Answer: The diagram illustrates a hierarchical grievance redressal mechanism for RTI requests at the state level:

1. Citizen to SPIO/SAPIO: A citizen desiring information first submits an RTI application (under Section 6) to the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) or State Assistant Public Information Officer (SAPIO) of the concerned public authority (under Section 5).
2. SPIO's Response: The SPIO is obligated to dispose of the request within 30 days (under Section 7). If the information is provided, the process concludes.
3. First Appeal to FAA: If the citizen does not receive the information, or receives an unsatisfactory/incomplete response, they can file a First Appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA) (under Section 19(1)), who is an officer senior in rank to the SPIO within the same public authority. The FAA must dispose of this appeal typically within 30 days, extendable to 45 days in writing (under Section 19(6)).
4. Second Appeal to SIC: If the citizen remains dissatisfied with the FAA's decision, or if the FAA fails to provide a decision, the citizen can file a Second Appeal with the State Information Commission (SIC) (under Section 19(3)).
5. SIC's Adjudication and Enforcement: The SIC then takes up the complaint/appeal. It has wide powers (under Section 18 and Section 19) to summon parties, examine records, and hear the matter. Upon concluding its inquiry, the SIC issues a binding decision (under Section 19(7)). The SIC can further direct the public authority to provide the information as requested, mandate corrective actions (under Section 19(8)), and if warranted, impose penalties on the defaulting PIO (under Section 20) to secure compliance with its decisions.

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