- August 19, 2023
SC asks Centre, state info comms to ensure public authorities make ‘proactive disclosures’ under RTI | India News – Times of India
AGRA: The Supreme Court while dealing with a PIL filed by an Agra-based RTI activist and lawyer, seeking proactive or suo motu web-based disclosure of information as per the mandate of Section 4 of RTI Act, has held that the purpose and object of the statute will be accomplished only if the principle of accountability governs the relationship between “right holders” and “duty bearers”. The court observed that “power and accountability go hand in hand.”
The three-judge Bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice JB Pardiwala held: “While declaring that all citizens shall have the ‘right to information’ under Section 3 of the Act, the co-relative ‘duty’ in the form of obligation of public authorities is recognised in Section 4. The core of the right created under Section 3 in reality rests on the duty to perform statutory obligations. Public accountability is a crucial feature that governs the relationship between ‘duty bearers’ and ‘right holders.”
Section 4 of the RTI Act casts an obligation on public authorities to suo motu disclose on their website information concerning: (a) maintenance of all public records, duly catalogued and indexed for easy accessibility of the information; (b) publishing particulars of the organisational structure, functions and duties of officers, procedures that are followed for decision-making, salary structure, budget allocation, publication of facts relating to policies and announcements which includes providing reasons for quasi-judicial decisions.
In the PIL filed by Kishan Chand Jain, it was submitted to the court that the laudable purpose of suo motu disclosures under Section 4 of the RTI Act is to place a large amount of information in the public domain on a proactive basis to make the functioning of the public authorities more transparent and substantially reduce the need for individual RTI applications.
Relying on the 12th Convention of the Central Information Commission, Jain submitted that “suo motu disclosures of information are the heart and soul of the RTI Act”. Jain also stated that implementation of the requirements of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act should be taken up in a mission mode with specific timelines given to all public authorities.
“Since the celebrated RTI Act is an acknowledged charter of the people’s right to information, it is aimed to radically alter the governance landscape. It’s S. 4(1)(b) read with sub-sections (2) and (3) of S. 4 enjoin for the suo motu disclosure of information which is the focal point at which most disclosure-related efforts of the public authorities must converse,” the PIL stated.
The court found it evident that “the system needs the concerned authority’s complete attention, followed by strict and continuous monitoring. It is in this context that the functioning and duties of the Central and State Information Commissions assume utmost importance.”
The petition submitted that transparency audits were conducted by only 33% of public authorities in the past four years. The petition mentions that on top of poor implementation of third-party audits, the 33% of public authorities that had in fact their transparency audits conducted, performed badly. There is clear evidence that quality and quantity of proactive disclosure were not in accordance with Section 4 of the RTI Act, the petition added.
Jain informed the court that poor implementation of third-party audits was adversely commented upon by the Department of Personnel and Training in its office memorandum of September 14, 2022.
The SC directed that the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions shall continuously monitor the implementation of the mandate of Section 4 of the Act as also prescribed by the Department of Personnel and Training in its guidelines and memorandums issued from time to time. For this purpose, the commissioners were entitled to issue recommendations under sub-section (5) of Section 25 to public authorities for the necessary steps for complying with the provisions of the Act.
Commenting on Section 25, the Bench observed: “Section 25 gloriously integrates ‘the right to information’ of a citizen with the collective responsibility of the government to the legislature under Article 75 (3) or 164 (2) of the Constitution.”
Talking to TOI, Jain said, “This landmark judgment of the apex court would significantly impact transparency laws and the role of the information commissions. It would ensure web-based proactive disclosure, strengthen the authority of ICs in enforcing Section 4 mandates, and make it obligatory for public authorities to undergo annual third-party transparency audits. Additionally, the judgment would impose the possibility of contempt proceedings on ICs for non-compliance, thereby motivating the system to function more efficiently. Such a development could indeed contribute to effective functioning of democratic institutions.”
The three-judge Bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice JB Pardiwala held: “While declaring that all citizens shall have the ‘right to information’ under Section 3 of the Act, the co-relative ‘duty’ in the form of obligation of public authorities is recognised in Section 4. The core of the right created under Section 3 in reality rests on the duty to perform statutory obligations. Public accountability is a crucial feature that governs the relationship between ‘duty bearers’ and ‘right holders.”
Section 4 of the RTI Act casts an obligation on public authorities to suo motu disclose on their website information concerning: (a) maintenance of all public records, duly catalogued and indexed for easy accessibility of the information; (b) publishing particulars of the organisational structure, functions and duties of officers, procedures that are followed for decision-making, salary structure, budget allocation, publication of facts relating to policies and announcements which includes providing reasons for quasi-judicial decisions.
In the PIL filed by Kishan Chand Jain, it was submitted to the court that the laudable purpose of suo motu disclosures under Section 4 of the RTI Act is to place a large amount of information in the public domain on a proactive basis to make the functioning of the public authorities more transparent and substantially reduce the need for individual RTI applications.
Relying on the 12th Convention of the Central Information Commission, Jain submitted that “suo motu disclosures of information are the heart and soul of the RTI Act”. Jain also stated that implementation of the requirements of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act should be taken up in a mission mode with specific timelines given to all public authorities.
“Since the celebrated RTI Act is an acknowledged charter of the people’s right to information, it is aimed to radically alter the governance landscape. It’s S. 4(1)(b) read with sub-sections (2) and (3) of S. 4 enjoin for the suo motu disclosure of information which is the focal point at which most disclosure-related efforts of the public authorities must converse,” the PIL stated.
The court found it evident that “the system needs the concerned authority’s complete attention, followed by strict and continuous monitoring. It is in this context that the functioning and duties of the Central and State Information Commissions assume utmost importance.”
The petition submitted that transparency audits were conducted by only 33% of public authorities in the past four years. The petition mentions that on top of poor implementation of third-party audits, the 33% of public authorities that had in fact their transparency audits conducted, performed badly. There is clear evidence that quality and quantity of proactive disclosure were not in accordance with Section 4 of the RTI Act, the petition added.
Jain informed the court that poor implementation of third-party audits was adversely commented upon by the Department of Personnel and Training in its office memorandum of September 14, 2022.
The SC directed that the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions shall continuously monitor the implementation of the mandate of Section 4 of the Act as also prescribed by the Department of Personnel and Training in its guidelines and memorandums issued from time to time. For this purpose, the commissioners were entitled to issue recommendations under sub-section (5) of Section 25 to public authorities for the necessary steps for complying with the provisions of the Act.
Commenting on Section 25, the Bench observed: “Section 25 gloriously integrates ‘the right to information’ of a citizen with the collective responsibility of the government to the legislature under Article 75 (3) or 164 (2) of the Constitution.”
Talking to TOI, Jain said, “This landmark judgment of the apex court would significantly impact transparency laws and the role of the information commissions. It would ensure web-based proactive disclosure, strengthen the authority of ICs in enforcing Section 4 mandates, and make it obligatory for public authorities to undergo annual third-party transparency audits. Additionally, the judgment would impose the possibility of contempt proceedings on ICs for non-compliance, thereby motivating the system to function more efficiently. Such a development could indeed contribute to effective functioning of democratic institutions.”
