A 6% fall between 2015-16 and 2016-17 was reported in RTI applications filed with the 1,950 public authorities of the Central government, which receives maximum information applications followed by Maharashtra and Karnataka.
The right to information law meant to empower Indians and bring transparency in governance appeared to be losing steam with the number of queries going down mainly because of stone-walling of information by officials and slow disposal of appeals, studies based on government data show.
The trend, activists say, is a blow to the concept of a “vibrant democracy”.
The information watchdog, the Central Information Commission (CIC), in a report released in March, said the number of applications seeking information from Central government departments has gone down for the first time since the groundbreaking law was enacted in 2005.
A 6% fall between 2015-16 and 2016-17 was reported in RTI applications filed with the 1,950 public authorities of the Central government, which receives maximum information applications followed by Maharashtra and Karnataka.
“This trend is worrying because people are increasingly finding that getting information from the government is becoming difficult,” said Shailesh Gandhi, a former central information commissioner. There are multiple reasons for the trend.
RTI users say the first roadblock in most cases are the information officers, who either don’t respond or provide incomplete information.
“Earlier, we were scared,” said an information officer with a Central government department, adding they have realised now that taking action against them for not providing information is a “long drawn” process.
The applicant will first have to file an appeal with the first appellate authority, an officer senior to the information provider in the same department. Only after the authority had decided on appeal, a second appeal can be lodged with the information commission. The RTI users say by the time information commissions decided on an appeal — average of two to five years — the information officer is transferred out.
Government data from the CIC and other information commissions show that penalty imposed on errant officers for not responding on time or providing incomplete information was going down.
“Our analysis shows that penalty is imposed in just 4% of appeals where it can be done,” said Venkatesh Nayak, a programme coordinator with the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI).
Please click here to read more.