Central Information Commission

Introduction: The Central Information Commission (CIC) of India is a pivotal institution established under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). It serves as the apex body for implementing and overseeing the right to information regime in the country. The CIC plays a crucial role in ensuring transparency, accountability, and good governance by empowering citizens to access information held by public authorities.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SIC) are both statutory bodies established under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Their primary objectives include:

• Exercising the powers granted to them under the RTI Act, 2005.
• Addressing complaints filed by any citizen, as per Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005.
• Adjudicating second appeals lodged by citizens, in accordance with Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005.
• Fulfilling the responsibility of monitoring and reporting, as outlined in Section 25 of the RTI Act, 2005.

Composition

The Central Information Commission (CIC) is comprised of a Chief Information Commissioner and a maximum of ten Information Commissioners.

The State Information Commission (SIC) is comprised of a State Chief Information Commissioner and a maximum of ten State Information Commissioners.

Appointment

The members of the Central Information Commission are appointed by the President based on the recommendations of a committee chaired by the Prime Minister. This committee also includes the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.

They are appointed by the Governor based on the recommendation of a committee, which includes the Chief Minister as the Chairperson, the Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly, and a State Cabinet Minister nominated by the Chief Minister.

Eligibility

The members of both the Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commission (SIC) must be individuals of distinguished reputation in public life, possessing extensive expertise and experience in various fields such as law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media, administration, and governance. They should not hold positions as Members of Parliament or the Legislature of any State or Union Territory, nor should they be engaged in any other office of profit, affiliated with any political party, involved in business activities, or pursuing professional endeavors.

Tenure

The members will serve for a duration determined by the Central Government or until they reach the age of 65, whichever comes first.

Reappointment

The Chief Information Commissioner cannot be reappointed. Each Information Commissioner, upon leaving office, is eligible for appointment as the Chief Information Commissioner. Additionally, their total term of office, both as Information Commissioner and Chief Information Commissioner, cannot exceed five years.

Similarly, State Information Commissioners, upon vacating office, are eligible for appointment as State Chief Information Commissioners, with their total term of office not exceeding five years in both capacities.

Removal

The President has the authority to remove members of the Central Information Commission (CIC), while the Governor holds the power to remove members of the State Information Commission (SIC) under specific circumstances, including if the member:

1. Is declared insolvent,
2. Is convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude by the Central Government (for CIC) or Governor (for SIC),
3. Engages in paid employment outside the duties of their office during their term,
4. Is declared unfit due to mental or physical infirmity by the President (for CIC) or Governor (for SIC).

Furthermore, the President (for CIC) or Governor (for SIC) can remove members for proved misbehavior or incapacity. In such cases, the matter is referred to the Supreme Court for an inquiry. If the Supreme Court upholds the cause of removal and advises accordingly, the President or Governor can remove the member.

During the Supreme Court inquiry, the President (for CIC) or Governor (for SIC) may suspend the member from office or prohibit them from attending the office.

Functions

• Duty to Inquire Complaints: Both the Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commission (SIC) are tasked with investigating complaints received from any individual regarding information requested under the RTI Act 2005.
• Adjudication in Second Appeal: The CIC and SIC have the authority to adjudicate in the second appeal for providing information.
• Imposition of Penalties: The CIC and SIC can impose penalties if they believe that a Public Information Officer, at either the central or state level, has failed to perform their duty and unreasonably rejected or refused to entertain the application made by the complainant.
• Access to Public Records: During inquiries, the CIC and SIC have the right to request any records under the control of a public authority.
• Suo-Moto Power: They can initiate an inquiry into any matter based on reasonable grounds (suo-moto power) and possess the powers of a civil court in summoning individuals and requiring documents.
• Ensuring Compliance: The CIC and SIC have the authority to ensure compliance with their decisions from the respective public authorities.
• Annual Reporting: The CIC submits an annual report to the Central Government, which is then presented before the Parliament. Similarly, the SIC submits its report to the State Government, which is laid before the State Legislature.

Challenges

1. Lack of transparency in selection criteria and operations of CIC and SIC raises concerns about fairness. Example: The Supreme Court noted a trend of appointing primarily former bureaucrats as commissioners, suggesting bias in selection processes.
2. Ineffective record management systems contribute to delays in processing RTI applications. Example: Poor collection of information from field offices results in inefficient processing of RTI requests.
3. Delayed filling of vacancies in CIC exacerbates backlog issues. Example: Despite nearly 26,800 pending cases, three commissioner posts in CIC remain unfilled.
4. Insufficient capacity building for CPIOs leads to delays in responding to RTI applications. Example: Many appointed CPIOs lack adequate knowledge of the RTI Act, causing delays in providing responses.
5. Disposal of Second Appeals faces delays, impacting the efficiency of the RTI Act. Example: As of June 30, 2021, 2.56 lakh appeals were pending across 26 information commissions in the country.
6. CPIOs often provide unsatisfactory information to applicants and complainants.
7. Limited public awareness, particularly among marginalized communities, hampers the effective utilization of the RTI Act.

In a democratic setup, governance should prioritize the welfare of citizens, necessitating transparency and accountability. Addressing challenges within the RTI Act is essential to empower citizens with information, thereby contributing to national development. Information commissions play a vital role, especially during crises like the Covid-19 pandemic, by facilitating access to crucial information on healthcare, social security, and essential services. The judiciary’s directive to fill vacancies in information commissions aims at ensuring transparency and efficiency. Urgent digitization and proper record management are imperative, particularly in times of crisis, to enable remote access to records and ensure the smooth functioning of information commissions.

Also read about National Human Right Commission.