TAG: GS 2: POLITY
THE CONTEXT: The Central Information Commission (CIC) recently upheld the Rashtrapati Bhavan’s response to a Right to Information (RTI) query.
EXPLANATION:
- This query pertained to the number of times former President Ram Nath Kovind returned decisions taken by the Prime Minister or the Union Council of Ministers for reconsideration.
- The President’s Secretariat had replied that no such information was available on record.
- This decision has sparked a detailed examination of the transparency and accountability mechanisms within India’s highest constitutional offices.
The RTI Query and Initial Response
- A college student from Chennai, filed an RTI query seeking information on whether former President Kovind had ever returned decisions made by the Union Council of Ministers for reconsideration.
- The President’s Secretariat responded that no information was available on this matter in their records.
First Appeal: Seeking Clarity
- The student was dissatisfied with the initial response.
- He filed a first appeal to the First Appellate Authority (FAA), questioning whether the lack of information implied that the President had never returned any decisions or if it simply was not documented.
- He claimed that the response was “incomplete, misleading, or false”.
- The Officer on Special Duty (OSD) at the FAA referred the appeal to the relevant section, which reiterated the initial response that no such information was available.
Second Appeal: Emphasis on Transparency
- The student escalated the issue to the CIC in a second appeal, asserting that the response was unsatisfactory.
- He argued that as a constitutional authority, the President is accountable to the public, and providing information on legislative actions is crucial for promoting transparency and accountability in the public authority’s operations.
Rashtrapati Bhavan’s Stand
- The Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO) and Deputy Secretary at Rashtrapati Bhavan maintained that the information requested by the student was not available.
- They emphasized that the response was consistent with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, which mandates that only information held and available on record can be shared.
CIC’s Decision
- After hearing arguments from both sides, Chief Information Commissioner Heeralal Samariya upheld the Rashtrapati Bhavan’s response.
- He affirmed that the RTI Act stipulates that only information existing in records can be disclosed.
- Since no such information about the former President returning decisions was available on record, the response given was appropriate and compliant with the RTI Act.
Legislative Actions During President Kovind’s Tenure
- During his tenure, President Ram Nath Kovind gave assent to several significant Bills, including:
- The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019
- The Triple Talaq Bill
- Amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019
- The Citizenship Amendment Bill
- The three controversial farm Bills
- These legislative actions highlight the crucial role of the President in the legislative process, underscoring the importance of transparency regarding the President’s decisions and actions.
Importance of Transparency and Accountability
- This case underscores the ongoing debate about transparency and accountability in India’s constitutional offices.
- While the RTI Act provides a framework for citizens to access information held by public authorities, it also highlights the limitations when information is not formally documented or recorded.
- The CIC’s decision reinforces the need for public authorities to maintain comprehensive records to ensure transparency and accountability.
RTI Act, 2005
- RTI Act provide for setting up of Central Information Commission and State Information Commission.
- These Commissions act as the Second Appellate Authority and also exercise supervision and monitoring over the functioning of Public Information Officers.
- Public authorities have to provide information as early as possible as but not later than 30 days (not later than 48 hours in the matters pertaining to life and liberty of an individual).
- In case of delay, the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission can impose a penalty.
- The Commission can also recommend disciplinary proceedings against the officials guilty of the not providing information with malafide intention.
- In case of denial or not providing proper information an appellate structure has also been provided.
- First appeal lies with the First Appellate Authority nominated by the Department while the second appeal lies with the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission.
- Under the law, every commission should have a chief and up to 10 commissioners.
Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019
- The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 was passed by the Indian Parliament to amend the Right to Information Act, 2005. The key changes introduced by this amendment are:
- The terms of office for the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (ICs) were changed from a fixed term of five years to be determined by the Central Government.
- Similarly, the terms of office for State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC) and State Information Commissioners (SICs) were also changed to be determined by the Central Government.
- The salaries and allowances of the CIC and ICs were previously equal to those of the Chief Election Commissioner. The amendment allows the Central Government to prescribe their salaries and allowances.
- The salaries and allowances of the SCIC and SICs were also changed to be determined by the Central Government.
- The amendment added two new subsections to Section 27 of the RTI Act, which empowers the Central Government to make rules for the salaries and allowances of the CIC and ICs, as well as the SCIC and SICs.
