• .. About Us
• .. Award Categories
• .. Eligibility Criteria
• .. How to Apply?
• .. Media Partners
• .. RTI Awards 2009
• .. Photo Gallery

Release of First Round of data on RTI

RTI Awards 2009 Secretariat release the first round of the most exhaustive RTI related exercises carried out in the country

If you filed an appeal with an RTI Information Commission, there is a 27% chance that you will get the information. And if you got a favorable order from the Commission, there is still only a 39% chance that you would get the information!

These are some of the many interesting findings of the largest ever study conducted to assess the performance of RTI Information Commissions across the country.

There are a total of 28 Information Commissions – one in each state and one at the Center – with 94 Information Commissioners and several joint benches. Normally, if you do not get satisfactory information from a government department, you approach the Information Commissions, who then pass orders either directing release or withholding information. Besides, it is also their responsibility to penalize officials who violate the RTI Act without a reasonable cause. In that sense, Information Commissioners are central and critical to the implementation of the RTI. .

About the Study:

For the purpose of this study, orders passed in 51,128 cases by the Information Commissioners and benches during 2008 were analyzed by the RTI Awards 2009 Secretariat. However, our analysis does not include the states of Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Sikkim. Despite repeated efforts, an RTI application, several phone calls and two visits to Lucknow, UP did not provide copies of their orders saying that they do not have them. Tamil Nadu claims to have passed 40,402 orders during calendar year 2008 but provided us with copies of only 900 orders. Sikkim did not provide the list of addresses of all appellants.

Key Criteria:

The data from this study is presented here and is also available on the website (www.rtiawards.org). Four key metrics have been identified and all the data has been presented on the basis of these parameters. These metrics are: Overall Public satisfaction (OPS), Effectiveness, Deterrent Impact, and Pro-disclosure factor. These metrics have been described in detail and on each of these metrics the top five and bottom five commissions/commissioners have been identified.

Overall Public Satisfaction

The study found that in 34,980 cases (i.e. 70% cases), orders were passed in favor of disclosure – either observing that complete information had already been provided or directing the government to provide information. The RTI Awards 2009 Secretariat wrote letters to these 34,980 people asking them whether they finally received satisfactory information after Commission’s orders. To this, nearly 6,000 people responded out of which only 39% reported having received information, despite the Information Commission’s order in their favor.

This means that if 100 people approached Information Commissions, only 27 finally received information. For the purpose of the analysis this metric has been termed as Overall Public Satisfaction (OPS). Based on the data received, all the Commissions and Commissioners we ranked on this parameter. It was found that Karnataka tops the list with 55% OPS and West Bengal is at the bottom with 6% OPS. This means that if 100 people approach West Bengal Information Commission, only 6 finally get information or in other words there are only 6% chances that you will finally get information in the state.

Amongst Commissioners, P Faziluddin from Kerela is at the top with an OPS of 67%. C D Arha of Andhra Pradesh and Naveen Kumar of Maharashtra are at the bottom with 4% OPS. Interestingly seven of the Central Information Commissioners are in the bottom 15 with less than 20% OPS.

Effectiveness

The next metric is the effectiveness of the Commissions in getting its own orders implemented. It was found that 39% of the pro-disclosure orders were complied with on a national level. This means that despite a favorable order, 61% people still do not get satisfactory information. Unfortunately, these people made several rounds of the Commissions, wrote many letters and made repeated phone calls but do not receive information as the case was closed after the order is passed. RTI Act gives powers of summons, penalties, arrests, production of documents etc. Barring penalties, these powers were never invoked by any commissioner. However, some Commissions like those in Punjab and Karnataka follow an interesting practice. They do not close a case and keep having repeated hearings till the appellant reports satisfaction, which perhaps is one of the reasons for their high rankings on this parameter. It was found that Karnataka & Kerala are at the top on this parameter with 60% effectiveness.

Again, P Faziluddin of Kerala leads with an effectiveness of 75%. The Chief Information Commissioner of CIC Wajahat Habibullah is fourth at 63%. At the bottom of the list is Arun Kumar Bhattacharya of West Bengal at 8%.

Deterrent Impact

The third metric on which the Commissions and the Commissioners were ranked was the deterrent impact. To be blatant, exactly how scared are the government officers of the RTI Act? The larger question was, given the high levels of corruption and a culture of secrecy, what is the penalty levied on a government officer, who has all the incentive to hide information, if he does not disclose information? Under the RTI Act, a direct penalty can be imposed and deducted from the salaries of the officials who violate the Act. But has this provision served as a deterrent?

Out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed, which means that a violation of RTI Act was established, only 2% were penalized! So, if an officer does not provide information under the RTI Act, despite an order from the Information Commission, there is a two percent chance that he would be penalized! Is this a sufficient deterrent? The RTI Act clearly says that a penalty “shall” be imposed. However, in practice it appears that the will of the Parliament has been mostly ignored!

On this parameter, Mizoram created the maximum deterrent by imposing penalties in 25% of the cases. On the other hand, Manipur and Tripura did not impose even a single penalty! Combined benches seem to impose more penalties rather than individual commissioners. The Combined benches of Orissa had a deterrent impact of 30%.

Individually, Vijay Baburao Borge of Maharashtra had maximum deterrent impact at 13% followed by D N Padhi of Orissa at 11%.

Interestingly, the North Eastern states have been quite high on penalties. Unfortunately, public satisfaction with these Commissions could not be analyzed because of insufficient feedback. Hopefully, these reports will encourage a large number of people from the North East to send in their feedback.

Pro-Disclosure Factor

The last metric that was used to rank the Commissions and the Commissioners was the pro-disclosure factor. It’s a measure of who passed the maximum number of orders in favor of disclosures. It was found that 98% of the orders in Assam were pro-disclosures. Andhra Pradesh rejected a large number of cases on technical grounds and is at the bottom with 33%. Uttarakhand remanded large number of cases and rejected large number of complaints and was at 35%.

Individually, Anil Joshi of Chhattisgarh passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures. Naveen Kumar of Maharashtra who remanded back almost 50% of his orders and rejected 36% cases is at the bottom with just 14% orders in favor of disclosures. C D Arha follows at 18%, Vijay Baburao Borge at 22% and R S Tolia at 35% pro-disclosure factor. Interestingly all these Commissioners rejected a large number of cases or remanded them back without holding any hearings.

Call to Action

Release of these findings today is just the beginning of a process. The hope is that citizens will constantly assess the performance of high public officials, as integral part of an effective democracy.

All the rankings released today are largely based on public feedback received so far. These rankings will change in the coming days on the basis of additional public feedback.

We urge the media to kindly publish the following message for the next ten days. Please contact us for more stories on this study:

If an order was passed by any Information Commission in your case during calendar year 2008, did you finally get information after that? Please send us your feedback by calling us at at 09711222577 or visit our website www.rtiawards.org

Your feedback would decide which Commissioner should get this year’s Best Information Commissioner’s Award.

Depending upon the feedback received, we will release daily rankings of Commissions and Commissioners on all these parameters.

Designed & Maintained by: Vitalect, Inc.