Page 1 of 16

Power & Functions

Of
Information Commissions
In the subject of

Right to Information & Media Law

Submitted to: Dr. Nehmat Submitted by: Arnav Singh

Asst. Professor 245/19

UILS Section E

Panjab University B.COM.LLB.

Chandigarh Semester 7
 Page 2 of 16

ACKNOWLEDEGEMENT

The detailed project would not have been possible without the kind support and help of many
individuals. I would like to thank them all.

I am highly indebted to Dr. Nehmat for providing her invaluable guidance, comments and
suggestions throughout the project.

I would also like to thank my parents and friends for bearing with me throughout the project.

ARNAV SINGH
 Page 3 of 16

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDEGEMENT............................................................................................................2
Introduction......................................................................................................................................4
Central Information Commission (CIC)..........................................................................................4
State Information Commission (SIC)..............................................................................................5
Powers and Functions of Information Commissions.......................................................................6
Impact of Inormation Commissions..............................................................................................11
Criticism of Inforation Commissions............................................................................................13
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................15
Bibliography..................................................................................................................................16
 Page 4 of 16

INTRODUCTION

The Indian people made the decision to establish a democratic society in 1947. Only until all the
citizens are granted the right to participate in national governance is there a true democracy.

Even this right to involvement is worthless if citizens lack access to knowledge about all the
issues that affect them. Inaccurate information, disinformation, misinformation, and lack of
information all help to produce an uninformed populace. When the government apparatus
controls the sources of information and the opinions that are conveyed, a democracy is not truly
democratic. People in our country continue to live in poverty, are illiterate, and lack access to
even the most basic essentials. They are unable to afford either print or electronic media. They
make up India's misinformed population. Therefore, the right to information is one of the
fundamental needs of the modern society.

Knowledge of the government's policies and programmes is essential for maintaining life.
Numerous social movements were established in India to demand the right to knowledge at the
local level, asking about the daily wages of labourers participating in government projects and
initiatives.

One of the important objects of the RTI Act is “establishment of appellate machinery” of the
Central Information Commission (CIC) at the central level and State Information Commission
(SIC) at the state level, to monitor and review the decisions of Public Information Officers.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION (CIC)

 The Central Information Commission is the authorized body in India to investigate

complaints from individuals unable to submit information requests to a Central or State
Public Information Officer because the officer has not been appointed or has refused to
entertain the request under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) because the officer has
not been specified.
 Section 12 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 deals with the constitution of a statutory
body known as the Central Information Commission.
 According to this provision, the central government shall constitute a body called the
Central Information Commission bypassing a notification in the Official Gazette.
 The Central Information Commission is headed by a Chief Information Commissioner
and has a maximum of 10 Information Commissioners.
 Page 5 of 16

 The CIC members should be people of eminent personal life with a wide knowledge of
laws, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, governance, etc.

 The president appoints the Central Information Commission on the committee's

recommendation, consisting of the prime minister as head, the opposition leader in Lok
Sabha, and any cabinet ministers of the union nominated by the prime minister as
members.

 The Central Information Commission is entitled to exercise the powers conferred to it

and perform its duties and functions as per this legislation.
 The Government of India through the Parliament of India amended the Right to
Information Act in July 2019 and introduced some changes in RTI Rules related to
salaries, allowances, and tenures of the Information Commissioner(s).

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION (SIC)

Sections 15 to17 of the Act provide for the constitution of the State Information Commission,
terms and conditions of service and removal of the State Chief Information Commissioner
(SCIC) and State Information Commissioners respectively.

 The State Information Commission is a multi-member body, just like the Central
Information Commission.

 Section 15 (1) states that every State Government shall, by notification in the Official
Gazette, constitute a body to be known as the (name of the State) Information
Commission to exercise the powers conferred on, and to perform the functions assigned
to it, under the Act.

 Section 15(2) stipulates that the State Information Commission shall consist of—

a) The State Chief Information Commissioner; and

b) Such number of State Information Commissioners, not exceeding ten, as may be
deemed necessary.
 Page 6 of 16

 Section 15(3) states that “Governor shall appoint State Chief Information Commissioner
and the State Information Commissioners on the recommendation of a committee”. This
Committee will consist of—

i) The Chief Minister, who shall be the Chairperson of the committee;

ii) The Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly; and
iii) Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Chief Minister

 It states that the State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information
Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and
experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass
media or administration and governance.

POWERS AN FUNCTIONS OF INFORMATION

COMMISSIONS

Chapters V of the RTI Act, 2005, sections 18-20 describe the powers and functions of the
Information Commissions, its right to receive appeals and impose penalties.

 Power to Receive and Inquire into Complaint

It is a duty of the Central Information Commission and the State Information

Commission to inquire the complaints received from any person:

1) who has been unable to submit a request for information to a Public Information
Officer either at central or state level, either by the reason that no such officers
have been appointed under this statute or the appointed officers refuse to accept
his/her application;
2) who has been refused to get access to the information requested under this statute;
3) who has not been receiving any response for the application he/she made for
information and access to information with the limited time as per this
legislation;
4) who has been required to pay an unreasonable amount of fee;
 Page 7 of 16

5) who believes that the information provided by the officers are false, misleading
and incomplete in nature;
6) In respect of other matters related to the violation of the provisions of this Act.

In Ved Prakash v.CPIO1,Mr. Ved Prakash had filed a RTI application with the Public
Information Officer, Deputy Secretary NCERT, New Delhi on 06/06/2008 asking for
certain information. Since no reply was received within the mandated time of 30
days, he had filed a complaint under Section 18 to the Commission. The Commission
issued a notice to the PIO asking him to supply the information and sought an
explanation for not furnishing the information within the mandated time.

 Power to Conduct Enquiries(suo-moto power)

Information Commissions can order an inquiry into any matter if there are reasonable
grounds.

As per section 18(2), where the Information Commission is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof.

 Powers of a Civil Court

Section 18(3) of the Act confers the powers of a civil court to the Information
Commissions. It states that while inquiring into any matter under this Section, the
Information Commission shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court while
trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following matters,
namely:

a) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compelling them to give oral
or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things;
b) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents;
c) receiving evidence on affidavit;
d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office;
e) issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents; and
f) any other matter, which may be prescribed.

1
Second Appeal No. CIC/CCACH/A/2018/154792
 Page 8 of 16

The act confers the power of civil court to the information commissions in the
proceedings of enquiry but it does not mean that the commission can be equated to a civil
court. In Gokalbhai Nanbhai Patel v. Chief Information Commissioner2, it was held by
the Gujarat High Court that the order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner for
removal of the enrichment was totally whimsical and capricious. Whether there was
encroachment or not, was civil dispute and it could not have been decided by the Chief
Information Commissioner.

 Access to Records
Section 18(4) states that, notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other
Act of State Legislature, during the inquiry of any complaint under this Act, the
Information Commission may examine any record to which this Act applies, which is
under the control of the public authority, and no such record may be withheld from it on
any ground.

This clearly lays down that no record can be denied to the Commission.

 Appellate Jurisdiction of the Commission

Section 19 bestows the power of entertaining appeal to the Commission. The RTI regime
constructs two tier mechanisms for appeal.

I. First Appeal
Section 19 (1) provides that any person who does not receive a decision within
the time specified or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central or State Public
Information Officer, may prefer first appeal, within thirty days from the expiry
of such period or from the receipt of such a decision, to such officer who is
senior in rank to the Central or State Public Information Officer, in each
public authority. Proviso to Section 19 (1) states that such officer may admit the
appeal even after the expiry of the period of thirty days, if s/he is satisfied that the
appellant was prevented from filing the appeal in time due to some sufficient
cause.

Under Section 19 (2), where an appeal is filed by third party, against an order
made by a Public Information Officer under Section 11 to disclose third party
information, the appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty
days from the date of the order.

2
AIR 2008 Guj 2
 Page 9 of 16

Sub-section 6 of Section 19 states that the first appeal under Sub-section (1) or
(2) must be disposed of within 30 days or such extended period not exceeding
a total of 45 days from the date of filing, with reasons to be recorded in writing.

II. Second Appeal

In accordance with Section 19(3), the appellant must submit a second appeal
to the Information Commission within 90 days of the date the decision should
have been rendered or was actually received if the appellant is dissatisfied with
the outcome of the first appellate authority.

It should be emphasized that the Act does not provide a deadline for the
resolution of a second appeal.

It is clear from the perusal of section 19(3) that the law provides the Commission
with judicial powers to deal with the dispute between the parties and determine
them on merits fairly and objectively, as stated in the case of Poornaprajna co-
operative Soceity v. Karnataka Information Commission.3

Section 19 (4) states, if the decision of the Public Information Officer, against
which an appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party, the
Information Commission shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to
that third party.

As per Section 19 (5), in any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial
of a request was justified shall be on the Public Information Officer, who denied
the request.

Section 19(7) declares that the decision of the Information Commission shall
be binding. The final level of review is an appeal to the judiciary.

Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi-judicial function of the SIC.
Hence, the Appellate Authority should ensure that justice is not only done but it
should also appear to have been done.

Section 19 (8) provides that in its decision, the State Information Commission,
has the power to –

3
AIR 2007 Kant 136
 Page 10 of 16

a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to
secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including—
i. by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular
form;
ii. by appointing a State Public Information Officer;
iii. by publishing certain information or categories of information;
iv. by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the
maintenance, management and destruction of records;
v. by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for
its officials;
vi. by providing it with an annual report in compliance with Clause (b) of
Sub-section (1) of Section 4;
b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or
other detriment suffered;
c) impose any of the penalties provided under this Act;
d) reject the application.

Under Section 19 (9), the Information Commission is required to give notice of its
decision, including any right of appeal, to the complainant and the public authority.

Section 19 (10) mandates that the Information Commission shall decide the appeal in
accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed under the Act.

 Power to Impose Penalty

Under Section 20, it is the responsibility of Information Commissions to ensure

implementation and effectiveness of the RTI Act.

If the PIO has without reasonable cause:

a. refused to receive an application for information or

b. not furnished information within the time specified under Sub-section (1)
of Section 7 or
c. denied the request for information with malafide intention related or
d. knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or
e. destroyed information, which was the subject of the request or obstructed
in any manner in furnishing the information,
 Page 11 of 16

the Commission shall impose a penalty of Rs. 250 each day till the
application is received or information is furnished. However, the total
amount of such penalty shall not exceed Rs. 25,000/. Only the
Commission has the authority to impose penalty.

This must be done after giving the PIO an opportunity of hearing to

defend his/her actions. The onus of proving that s/he had acted in a
reasonable and responsible manner is on the PIO.

The Commission has the authority to suggest disciplinary action against a

PIO who repeatedly defaults on their obligations. However, as a
recommendatory power, it is up to the power of the government to act in
accordance with the relevant service regulations.4

In the case of Dr. Anand Akhila vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research5, The Central Information Commission recommended
disciplinary action against an Appellate Officer by extending the meaning
of Section 20(2) of the RTI Act. The Commission held that though an
appellate authority is not covered under the penal provisions of the Act
but in this case, it clearly failed to uphold the Act in the public interest. It
was observed that this decision might be sent to the public authority to
consider disciplinary action against the Appellate Authority, under their
service rules.

IMPACT OF INFORMATION COMMISSIONS

 With the objective to empower the citizens and promote transparency and accountability
in Government functioning, various awareness programmes on Right to information are
organised by the Commission.
The Information Commissions organises various seminars & awareness programmes on
the Implementation of the Right to Information Act 2005. The commissions with the help
of such seminars & awareness programmes promotes the transparency & accountability
within the citizens. They promote the usage of Right to Information for seeking

4
S.19(4) of The Right To information Act,2005
5
CIC/WB/A/2006/00040
 Page 12 of 16

information from public department and educated the citizens to minimise the misuse of
the rights given to them

 Individuals got freedom to seek Government related information and appeal, if the
information wasn’t provided. It played pivotal role in knowing the working of
Government departments and to change old mind set about secrecy in working of
Government

 Initially it was difficult for the appellant to register RTI application to Public Information
Officers. Sometimes they didn’t find the PIO’s, when someone wanted to register their 8
application. These PIO’s were not answerable to anyone. There were no appellate body in
the Information seeking procedure. Establishment of Information Commissions helped
the citizens in seeking information. PIO’s were answerable to IC’s and the appellate got
the benefit of appealing i.e. 1st Appeal & 2nd Appeal, to the CPIO’s and CIC. It helped
the citizens in submitting application and seeking information.

 Information Commissions helped in blocking escape routes under exemption clause.

Earlier Public Authorities used to hide behind the exemption clauses, when information is
sought by the citizen. These authorities take the shield of Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005
to hide the information and violate individual’s right of Information & Transparency.
This led to increase in corruption. The establishment of CIC led to strict implementation
of RTI Act. It blocked the Public Authorities from hiding behind the provision of Section
8.

 Subhash Chandra Agarwal v. Indian National Congress & Ors.6

In the given case, the complainants had approached the Central Information Commission
(CIC) raising the issue of the disclosure of accounts and sources of funding of 6 leading
political parties. In addition, the complainants had also sought for details of the promises
made by the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) in their election manifesto and further details
about how many of the promises were fulfilled. However, the parties denied the
information sought for by the complainants on the ground that they were not public
authorities and, therefore, the Parties were not obliged to provide the requisite
information.

In a landmark verdict, the CIC held that the Indian National Congress (INC),
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), left parties CPI(M) and CPI, the Nationalist

6
File No. CIC/SM/C/2011/001386
 Page 13 of 16

Congress Party (NCP) and Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) are public authorities and
therefore fall within the purview of the Right to Information, Act 2005 (RTI Act). In
particular, the role being played by these political parties in the democratic set up and the
nature of duties performed by them also pointed towards their public character, bringing
them within the ambit of section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The Full Bench of the CIC directed
that the parties designate Chief Public Information Officers who would respond to the
RTI requests made by the complainants, granting them 6 weeks time to do so.

 The CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal & Anr7.

In the above case, the CIC directed the disclosure of information regarding the personal
assets of Judges. This order of the CIC was challenged before the High Court of Delhi
and it was held that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a public authority under the Right
to Information Act and the CJI holds the information pertaining to asset declarations in
his capacity as Chief Justice; which is a public office under the provisions of the RTI Act.
Further, the information pertaining to declarations given, to the CJI and the contents of
such declaration are “information” as defined under the RTI Act and such information is
not held by the office of the CJI in a fiduciary capacity.

 Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal Mistry8

The apex court in this case held that the RBI was to act in the interest of the public at
large for it is the statutory duty of the Reserve Bank to comply with the provisions of the
Right to Information Act, 2005.

The RBI does not place itself in a fiduciary relationship with the Financial Institutions
because the reports of the inspections, bank statements, and information related to the
business obtained by the RBI are not under the pretext of confidence or trust, the Court
ruled, rejecting the argument that information could be withheld in light of the fiduciary
relationship with other banks.

CRITICISM OF INFORATION COMMISSIONS

o Delays and Backlogs

7
Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010

8
Civil Case No.91 of 2015
 Page 14 of 16

i. On average, the CIC takes 388 days (more than one year) to dispose of an
appeal/complaint from the date it was filed before the commission.
ii. A report released last year has pointed out that more than 2.2 lakh Right to
information cases are pending at the Central and State Information Commissions
(ICs).

o No Penalties

i. A report found that the Government officials hardly face any punishment for
violating the law.
ii. Penalties were imposed in only 2.2% of cases that were disposed of, despite
previous analysis showing a rate of about 59% violations which should have
triggered the process of penalty imposition

o Lack of Transparency

There is always an issue concerning the transparency in the appointment of the Central
Information Commission, as there has been no documentation with respect to the selection
criteria of the CIC.

o Vacancies

One of the primary reasons for the backlogs of complaints is the failure of central and state
governments to take timely action to appoint information commissioners.

Appointments are not made in a timely manner, resulting in a large number of vacancies.

Endless vacancies of commissioners in the central and state information commissions has
contributed to the Act falling short of achieving its objectives.

In recent times, the central information has faced a lot of flake as the office of Central
Information Commissioner for the fourth time in last two years is empty.

o Lack of responsibility in educating people about RTI

As per the survey results published by “statista” on 16th October 2020, many Indian states are
still having more than 40% of people unaware of their right to access information from
government authorities.
 Page 15 of 16

CONCLUSION

The Right to Information Act is regarded by many as one of the nation's most effective pieces of
legislation and a tool used by the average person to combat the ills of social and demographic
welfare.

To successfully execute the RTI Act, public information officers and information commissioners
have important duties on their shoulders. Unfortunately, the majority of PIOs and ICs do not
support the Act's focus on the public, and as a result, they contribute to the established system of
official secrecy.

Democracy is all about the governance of the people, by the people and for the people. In
order to achieve the third paradigm, the state needs to start acknowledging the importance of an
informed public and the role that it plays in the country’s development as a nation. In this
context, underlying issues related to RTI Act should be resolved, so that it can serve the
information needs of society.

There are few suggestions that can be applied to make the Information Commissions more
efficient and helpful in achieving objectives of the Act:

i. According to the high percentage of the population that is ignorant that was raised,
frequent awareness campaigns, or nukkad nataks, should be held in this regard to
reach every citizen of the democracy and enable them to exercise their rights fully.

ii. The first focus should be how quickly complaints are resolved. The advisory of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court should be followed that more positions be created and more
officers be hired in order to hear appeals and complaints at the Commission level.

iii. The Commission should be enforcing the Act more strictly especially when it comes to
not following deadlines by the PIOs. The deliberate delay and furnishing of irrelevant
information must be dealt with strict penalties as it amounts to refusal of information
thus implicitly infringing the fundamental right of the citizen.
iv. Urgent digitization of records and proper record management is important as lack
of remote access to records in the lockdown has been widely cited as the reason for not
being able to conduct hearings of appeals and complaints by commissions.
v. It has often been pointed out that the office of Chief Information Commissioner has
been given to person having administrative background which sometimes lead to indirect
control of central government. This should by amended by giving an opportunity to a
non-administrative person who has contributed in promoting RTI Act and has deep
understanding of the Act.
 Page 16 of 16

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Books

 Dheera Khandelwal & K.K. Khandelwal RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.,2005

(The Bright Law House, New Delhi,1st Edition,2007)

 Dr. Madabhushi Sridhar RIGHT TO INFORMATION LAW & PRACTICE

( Wadhwa & Company Law Publishers, New Delhi, 1st Edition,2006)

 V.K. Dewan THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT ( India Law House, New
Delhi, Edition 2010)

 Websites

 https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/central-
information-commission-cic
 https://byjusexamprep.com/central-information-commission-cic-upsc-i
 https://www.egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/77100/1/Unit-5.pdf
 https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/Role%20of%20CIC%20IN
%20IMPLEMENTATION%20OF%20RTI%20by%20Aanchal%20Agarwal.pdf
 https://pria.org/knowledge_resource/
Analysis_of_Judgments_of_the_Central_Information_Commission_on_the_RTI_
Act.pdf
 https://www.supremecourtobserver.in/the-desk/right-to-information?slug=reserve-
bank-of-india-v-jayantilal-mistry
 https://blog.ipleaders.in/criticisms-right-information-act-2005-subjected/

 Bare Act

 The Right To Information Act,2005