We find that this whole operation of RTI has been empowering our citizens as nothing else does.

At least if our parliament doesnt work occasionally, RTI does work! You have groups of enlightened citizens, enthusiastic citizens, young, old, older...all of them doing their own little thing, trying to injest and thats a great thing for nation and democracy at the grass roots that is being propagated. I wish the contestants and all the prize winners great success and more success in the future. I thank the organizers for having thought of this idea of trying to not reward but at least appreciate...this is not an award, its an appreciation of the superb efforts that you all have been making because our country, as someone said, is full of ghotalas and the ghotalas have to be got at and this is where RTI comes in.

- Fali S Nariman
(In his closing remarks at the RTI Awards ceremony)

CONTENTS
Executive Summary...5 Preface.8 Jury Members....9 Jury Meet..10 Jury Statement.11 Role of an Information Commissioner...13 Methodology.14 Why have UP, Tamil Nadu and Sikkim not been included in this years analysis?..............17 Parameters & Key Findings19 Pendency and Disposals...19 Pro-disclosure Factor.. 21 Remanded Back Cases Rejection on Technical Ground Denials Effectiveness.27 Deterrent Impact..28 Overall Public Satisfaction..30 Arunachal Pradesh: A Case Study.31 State-wise Assessment Sheet of Commission/ Commissioner Andhra Pradesh...34 Arunachal Pradesh..46 Assam49 Bihar..56 Chief Information Commission..66 Chhattisgarh.90 Goa99 Gujarat106 Haryana..109 Himachal Pradesh..127

Jharkhand...133 Karnataka...151 Kerala..161 Madhya Pradesh176 Maharashtra.......188 Manipur..204 Meghalaya...207 Mizoram..210 Nagaland.213 Orissa..216 Punjab.226 Rajasthan247 Tripura250 Uttarakhand...253 West Bengal256 Annexure A: Ranking by Parameters.259 Annexure B: Copy of Arrest Warrant Issued by Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission279 Annexure C: Reaction of Some Information Commissioners to Interim Report and Our Response.283

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Right to Information (RTI) Awards was instituted in the year 2009. One of its objectives is to comparatively assess the performance of all information commissioners. For this purpose, the performance of each commissioner was studied in great detail. The study reveals a highly uneven implementation of RTI Act across the country. It also highlights best practices, which some commissioners may like to emulate. 1. Methodology: For the purpose of this study, orders passed in 51,128 cases during 2008 by 72 Information Commissioners and 14 combined benches from 25 Information Commissions (barring Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Sikkim) were analyzed. We found that in 35,930 cases (i.e. 68% cases), orders were passed in favor of disclosure. We wrote letters to these 35,930 appellants. We also interviewed many of them on phone. We asked one question from all of them did they finally get information after approaching the information commission? Finally we received feedback from 8,400 appellants who shared with us their experiences with the commission. 2. Orders in Favor of Disclosures: Nationally, for every 100 appeals and complaints filed in Information Commissions, orders in favor of disclosure were passed in 68 cases. Information was denied in 22% cases and 10% cases were remanded back. Mr. Anil Joshi of Chhattisgarh, Mrs. Gangotri Kujur of Jharkhand and combined benches of Chhattisgarh passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures. 34 commissioners passed more than 90% orders in favor of disclosures. Among states, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Arunachal Pradesh, Punjab and Karnataka passed more than 90% orders in favor of disclosure. However, 10 commissioners and four states passed less than 50% orders in favor of disclosures, Mr. Naveen Kumar from Maharashtra and Mr. C D Arha from Andhra Pradesh being at the bottom of the list with less than 20% orders in favor of disclosures. 3. Compliance of Orders: However, a favorable order from Information Commissioner does not translate into information. Nationally, just 38% of the pro-disclosure orders could actually be implemented. In the balance 62% cases, the people did not get information despite a favorable order. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. In addition to Arunachal Pradesh, Mr. A Venkatratnam of Goa, Mrs. Gangotri Kujur of Jharkhand and combined benches of Assam and Nagaland could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. However, on the lower side, 44 commissioners could get less than 40% of their orders implemented. Mr. R Dileep Reddy and Mr. C D Arha of Andhra Pradesh, Mr. M R Ranga of Haryana and Mr. M M Ansari, Mr. M L Sharma and Mr. S N Mishra of CIC could get less than 20% of their prodisclosure orders complied with. 4. Non-compliance: Many commissioners close a case after passing orders in favor of disclosure without ensuring compliance thereof. The appellant has to struggle with the public authority for a few months to get the order implemented. After writing several letters and making several visits to the public authority, when the order is still not complied with, he makes a complaint to the commission. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months because most of the commissions have huge pendencies, thus causing hardships to appellants. Mostly the complaint is disposed off without a hearing with a letter to the public authority to comply with commissions earlier order. The public authority still does not obey the order. Even if a hearing takes place in the commission, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 5. Continuing Mandamus: Some states follow the practice of continuing mandamus. They do not close a case after passing orders but post hearings subsequently for compliance thereof. The case is not closed till the appellant reports satisfaction. These are Punjab, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Orissa, Karnataka, Arunachal Pradesh, Gujarat and some commissioners like Mrs. Gangotri Kujur of Jharkhand etc. Their compliance rates are better than other commissioners and commissions.

However, the problem with most of them is that barring a few, they have been quite soft with officers. Repeated non-compliance is ignored. As a result, in some cases, several hearings take place spanning over several months, which leads to attrition and tires out appellants. When appellant stops coming, the cases are closed with the assumption that the appellant might have received all information. Therefore, continuing mandamus needs to be coupled with strict enforcement. 6. Arrest Warrants: Arunachal Pradesh is the first and the only information commission in the country to have issued bailable arrest warrants under section 18(3) of RTI Act for non-compliance of commissions orders. Non-compliance of their orders is treated as a complaint under section 18 of RTI Act. Section 18(3) of RTI Act empowers commission to issue bailable arrest warrants and seek production of documents. Arunachal Pradesh has used this section quite effectively to get its orders implemented. Other commissions across the country may also like to invoke their powers under this section to improve compliance. 7. Disposals: Mr. Vijay Baburao Borge and Mr. Naveen Kumar have disposed maximum number of cases 383 and 333 respectively per month. However, they achieved this disposal by rejecting or remanding back almost 80% of their cases without hearings. Mr. Shailesh Gandhi stood out by disposing 270 cases per month in the first few months and more than 400 cases per month later. He could bring down his pendency from 12 months to less than 2 months. At the lower end are North Eastern States, who disposed very few cases because they get few appeals. However, there are some commissioners who disposed very few cases despite huge pendencies. Commissioners who disposed less than 10 cases per month despite huge pendencies are Mr Dileep Reddy of Andhra Pradesh, Mr. Arun Kumar Bhattacharya of West Bengal, late Sh G G Kambli of Goa and Mr. R K Angousana Singh of Manipur. 8. Imposition of Penalties: The RTI Act mandates that every violation of the Act shall be penalized unless there was a reasonable cause on the part of the PIO. The penalty amount has to be deducted from the PIOs salary. However, just 2.4% of recorded violations across the country were penalized. In 74% cases of recorded violations, Honble Information Commissioners did not even question the PIO whether there was a reasonable cause or not. The PIOs were questioned in just 26% cases through show cause notices. However, as many as 65% of these show cause notices remained pending at the end of the year. 23% notices were dropped because the commissioners found the explanations and excuses presented by PIOs in these cases as reasonable. The combined benches of Orissa imposed penalties in almost 30% of pro-disclosure cases. As an individual commissioner, Mr D N Padhi of Orissa was at the top, even though he imposed penalties on less than 11% of pro-disclosure cases. There are six commissioners who imposed penalties in more than 10% of pro-disclosure cases. Nearly 50 Commissioners and 11 Commissions including the CIC imposed penalties in less than 2% pro-disclosure cases. What was alarming was the fact that there were 29 Commissioners and three Commissions who did not impose even a single penalty despite thousands of recorded violations. 9. Pendencies: Huge pendencies have become such a severe problem in some states that it takes more than a year for a case to come up for hearing if it were filed today. Some urgent steps need to be taken to address mounting pendencies. States with more than a years pendency are Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, UP and some of the commissioners at CIC. Strict imposition of penalties will have a direct bearing on number of appeals received at the commission. When RTI Act came, officers were scared of violating it because of its strong penal provisions. But when they saw that the penal provisions were not being strictly enforced, they started taking RTI lightly. If PIOs do not take RTI Act seriously, the number of appeals at commissions will increase exponentially. Therefore, the inflow of cases to the commission can be reduced with strict enforcement of penal provisions. 10. State of Records: In many commissions, the state of records is not very healthy. Many commissions do not even know for sure how many cases they disposed. At different times, they gave us different figures of disposals. Many commissions do not have copies of all orders. Uttar Pradesh claimed to

have passed 22,658 orders during 2008. However, they said that they do not maintain copies of all orders. Tamil Nadu said they had passed more than 40,000 orders but provided us with only 900 orders. 11. Missing Records: The trend of PIOs reporting records to be missing or lost seems to be on the rise. In many cases this is treated as a legitimate excuse for denial of information. However, in some parts of the country, when the commissioners threatened police action, suddenly records came out, which means that missing records was merely an excuse given by the PIOs to deny information. Mr Vijay Kuvalekar of Maharashtra has been very successful in forcing PIOs to trace out records in many cases when he threatened police action. 12. Arbitrary Commissioner Strength: Commissioners seem to be appointed by state governments without reference to the pendency of that commission. On one hand, we came across states like Arunachal Pradesh that has five commissioners for 43 appeals, on the other hand, we have Gujarat that has one commissioner for a pendency of almost 5,000 cases. It is important to formulate some guidelines stating on how much pendency a commissioner should be appointed.

PREFACE
If an officer denies information under RTI Act because he has done something wrong and wants to hide something it is understandable. However, a large number of officers are rejecting information, not because they have something to hide but because they are culturally oriented to say No. Often, one comes across officers who would say Why should I give information to him? Why is he asking for information? What will he do with this information? Who is he to question me? These questions are reflective of a mindset in which our bureaucracy has been working for decades. They are simply not used to being questioned by the public. The RTI Awards were therefore instituted in the year 2009 by Public Cause research Foundation (PCRF) a public trust started by some RTI activists to encourage officers to think and act positively while dealing with RTI requests. Likewise, RTI Awards seeks to comparatively assess the performance of all information commissioners so that best practices could be highlighted. During 2009, we studied 51,128 orders passed by various information commissions during the calendar year 2008 and received feedback from 8,400 appellants. The performance of each commissioner was studied in great detail in terms of his disposals and pendencies, pro-disclosure attitude, compliance of his orders, deterrence impact and satisfaction ratio. The outcome of this study is in your hands. The study reveals a highly uneven implementation of RTI Act across the country. It should be treated as an opportunity to collectively address deficiencies in RTI implementation. The award has been instituted in three categories Information Commissioner (to felicitate an information commissioner who has enabled access to correct and complete information to maximum appellants and strictly enforced the RTI Act); Public Information Officer (to felicitate information officers who have provided complete and correct information in maximum number of RTI applications within the prescribed time limit); and Citizens (to felicitate those citizens who created maximum public impact by using RTI Act). We are encouraged to see the response to RTI Awards and its impact in the very first year. We received phone calls from large number of officers across the country on our methodology and parameters for Public Information Officers. Some of them said From now on, we will try and satisfy every RTI applicant. Likewise, it also generated a lot of interest from many information commissioners and citizens. Our best wishes to the winners of 2009! We hope their work would inspire others to emulate them.

(Arvind Kejriwal) Managing Trustee, PCRF

JURY MEMBERS
Aamir Khan: Actor and Producer

Fali S Nariman: Constitution Expert and Senior Advocate

J M Lyngdoh: Former Chief Election Commissioner of India

Justice J S Verma: Former Chief Justice of India and Former Chairperson, NHRC

Madhu Trehan: Author and Media Professional

Mallika Sarabhai: Kuchipudi and Bharatnatyam Dancer and Social Activist

N R Narayana Murthy: Chief Mentor, Infosys

Dr Prannoy Roy: Chairman, NDTV

Pullela Gopichand: Ace Badminton Player and National Badminton Coach

Sanjay Gupta: Editor and CEO, Dainik Jagran Group

Santosh: RTI Grassroots Activist

JURY MEET
The jury met on November 27, 2009 to decide the final winners of the RTI Awards. Before that, we had met each of the jury members individually to discuss and seek their guidance on the methodology being followed. On November 27, all the jury members were present except Mr Sanjay Gupta, who was traveling at that time. 1. Citizens Category: 19 finalists were presented to the jury. The names of these 19 citizens had been finalized after extensive discussions with jury members individually. Two out of them were to be selected for the award. However, the jury was so impressed by the impact of the work of each of the finalists that they decided to give an award to each one of them. The jury unanimously decided that Mr. Akhil Gogoi of Assam should be the winner and the other 18 finalists should be treated as runners up. But as there was no provision for funds to give awards to so many runners up, Mr Narayana Murthy and Mr Aamir Khan immediately agreed to provide the funds. 2. PIO Category: Three finalists were presented to the jury. The jury decided to give first prize to Dr Lalit Narayan Mishra. He had provided information in 100% cases (did not reject or deny information in any case) and there was no appeal against his decisions. We wrote to all RTI applicants, who had filed RTI applications with Dr Mishra. 100% of those who responded said that they were satisfied with the information received. Almost a perfect PIO! Dr Atul Fulzale and Mr. S P Rajasekhar got the runners up prize. 3. Information Commissioner: The jury unanimously decided to give the award to Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission jointly. In 93% cases, they directed complete disclosure of information. Out of these pro-disclosure cases, more than 90% got implemented. They imposed penalties on 18% cases during 2008 and on 25 officers in 45 cases in the previous year. Their overall satisfaction was more than 80%. Almost all the appellants in Arunachal Pradesh from whom feedbacks were received were in praise of their commission. The only point against them was that five commissioners together passed just 43 orders in the entire year. This was too less a disposal. But this was not their fault. Their pendency at the beginning and the end of the year was NIL. Therefore, it was not that the commissioners were not working. It was just that they were receiving fewer appeals, which could not be held against them. As far as the number of commissioners was concerned, it is right that the commission does not need so many commissioners. However, the commission does not have any role in it. The state government appoints information commissioners. Whereas the jury was very impressed with the work of the citizens, the jury could not control its anguish at the performance of some information commissions. The members issued a joint statement as an appeal to the information commissioners and the governments.

10

JURY STATEMENT
The members issued the following statement, as an appeal to the information commissioners and the governments, at the end of their meeting on 27th November 2009: Non-compliance of the orders of Information Commissions and huge pendencies of appeals and complaints emerge as the two big problems in the functioning of Information Commissions. Interestingly, it is good practices adopted by some of them, which provide the solution. The states of Bihar, Orissa, Uttarakhand, Gujarat, Karnataka, Arunachal Pradesh and Punjab follow the practice of continuing mandamus i.e. they do not close a case till such time as the appellant reports compliance. And that could be one of the reasons why they are higher than others in terms of compliance. However, they are low on enforcement. Repeated hearings (in some cases more than 15 hearings), sometimes spanning into a few years, tired out a citizen. Therefore, it is time for Information Commissioners to implement the law as mandated following the principle of maximum disclosures. They have the power to create an atmosphere of strong deterrence that RTI violations would not be tolerated. On one hand there is a need to strictly deal with every RTI violation, on the other hand, following the example of Arunachal Pradesh, the commissioners are empowered, barring exceptional cases, to invoke their powers of arrest and production of documents if the officer does not provide satisfactory information. Information, in many cases, loses its relevance, if provided two years after filing RTI. Strong enforcement would also reduce pendencies as that would reduce the inflow of complaints and appeals at Information Commissions. Out of roughly 52,000 orders, in negligible number of cases had the Commissioners found that RTI was misused or that it was a case of frivolous RTI. If at all such cases came, they were adequately handled by Information Commissions. We, therefore, do not feel a need to amend RTI Act to give power of refusal of frivolous RTIs to PIOs.

Two Critical Problems in RTI Implementation

The study revealed the following as the two most severe problems affecting RTI implementation in the country: 1. High Rate of Non-compliance of Orders: At national level, 62% pro-disclosure orders passed by information commissions are not complied with. How does one address this? Most commissioners close a case after passing an order, without ensuring its compliance. The appellant has to write letters and make several visits to the public authority subsequently to get these orders implemented. When the order is still not implemented, the appellant makes a complaint to the commission. The commission, many a times, simply does not respond to the complaint. Some commissioners write letter to the public authority to provide information without holding any hearing. Even if a hearing is held in response to the complaint, the case is closed by again directing the public authority to provide information. The order still remains uncomplied with. Some state like Bihar, Orissa, Uttarakhand, Gujarat, Karnataka, Arunachal Pradesh and Punjab follow the practice of continuing mandamus i.e. they do not close a case without ensuring compliance of their order. After passing an order, they post it for compliance hearings. The case is closed only after the appellant reports satisfaction. A higher compliance ratio of these states indicates to the desirability of this practice.

11

However, repeated compliance hearings, sometimes several hearings spanning over several months, tire out applicants and lead to attrition. Arunachal Pradesh has found the answer to this problem. In one case, when their order was not implemented, they invoked their powers under section 18(3) and issued a bailable arrest warrant against the officer, who did not implement the commissions interim order. The warrant was issued in the first instance of violation itself. And within a few days of the issue of arrest warrant, the commissions order was complied with. This sent a strong signal to the entire bureaucracy that commissions orders cannot be taken lightly. Other commissions in the country may like to follow this practice. Copies of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Pradesh are attached at Appendix B. 2. Mounting Pendencies: The second critical problem affecting RTI implementation is growing pendencies. Huge pendencies have become such a severe problem in some states that it takes more than a year for a case to come up for hearing if it were filed today. Some urgent steps need to be taken in these states to address mounting pendencies. States with more than a years pendency are Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, UP and some of the commissioners at CIC. Strict imposition of penalties may have a direct bearing on number of appeals received at the commission. When RTI Act came, officers were scared of violating it because of its strong penal provisions. But when they saw that the penal provisions were not being strictly enforced, they started taking RTI lightly. If PIOs do not take RTI Act seriously, the number of appeals at commissions will increase exponentially. Therefore, the inflow of cases to the commission can be reduced with strict enforcement of penal provisions. Some commissioners use the tool of penalty (section 20) to get their orders implemented. Rather than imposing penalty for violating time limits mentioned in section 7(1), which is what section 20 is meant for, they imposed penalties if their orders are not complied with. This is not only against the law but also has proved rather ineffective in getting orders implemented. It also sends a message to the bureaucracy that they need not give out information in the first instance but only when an appellant would approach information commission and only when the information commission would pass an order in his favor that the PIO would act. That would tend to increase pendency of appeals in the commission and also encourage irresponsible behavior on the part of the PIO.

12

ROLE OF AN INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Before we go into detailed analysis, it would be useful to discuss the role of an information commission. Whereas information commissions perform many functions, we feel that their following three roles are most crucial and central: Quasi-judicial Function: Wherever there is a dispute whether information should be provided or not, the commission acts as a quasi-judicial body and is required to adjudicate whether information should be provided or not through a speaking order. Ensure that an Appellant Receives Information: In rest of the cases, where it is clear that information has to be provided, the commission has a duty to ensure that the appellant gets full and correct information. Strong Deterrent Impact: RTI Act empowers Information Commissions to penalize officials for violations of RTI Act. Therefore, the commission needs to create a strong deterrent impact so that officials attend to every RTI request, within prescribed time, so that appeals are filed in rarest of cases.

13

METHODOLOGY
Our first task was to collect all the orders passed by 28 Information Commissions in the country. While some orders were available on their websites, for many commissions, we had to file RTI applications and sometimes make multiple trips to collect their orders. For instance, despite two trips to Lucknow, we did not get any orders from them. Finally, we could collect 51,128 orders passed by 72 Information Commissioners and 14 combined benches from 25 Information Commissions. The states of Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Sikkim could not be included in this years study. This is because UP categorically said that they did not have copies of their orders. Tamil Nadu said that they had passed 40,000 orders but provided us with copies of only 900 orders. Sikkim did not provide us with addresses of RTI appellants. Each of these orders was read and analyzed by a team of 12 people for almost six months, and the following data was captured: Name and address of appellant Name and address of public authority Date of second appeal Date of order Case closed with observation that information had already been provided PIO directed to provide full information PIO directed to provide part information Complete denial of information Whether case was remanded back Show cause notice issued Show cause notice withdrawn Penalty imposed Penalty withdrawn after being imposed If opportunity of hearing was given to both parties If a typical practice was observed for any state or commissioner, that data was also captured for that particular state or commissioner. For instance, in the case of some commissioners, it was found that they reject a large number of cases on the ground that what has been sought is not information under section 2(f). Another example, missing records was rampantly used and allowed in some states as an excuse for denying information. So, such data for certain commissioners was also captured. We filed RTI applications in all Information Commissions and obtained some more data like their brought forward and carried forward pendencies, budget details, etc. At the end of analysis of orders, we found that 34,980 orders had been passed in favor of full disclosure. The next question before us was whether these people, in whose cases pro-disclosure orders had been passed, finally receive satisfactory information or not. Ultimately a person approaches an information commission for information and not for an order. Our, initial plan was to write to 10% of these appellants and draw our conclusions from their response because we did not have the budget to send letters to all appellants. But then, after extensive discussions, we decided to send letters to all 34,980 appellants. Corners were cut and somehow money was found to send out these letters. So we wrote letters to all these 34,980 people asking them whether they finally received complete and satisfactory information. These letters were prepared and handled by a team of almost 25 people working for three months. Many letters came back undelivered due to wrong or incomplete address. However, in the first stage, we received written response from roughly 6,000 people. We then consulted some statistics experts who

14

reassured us that for a population size of 34,980 this was a reasonably good sample. However, this was not uniformly distributed over all commissioners. Response in some cases was quite less. The next big issue was how to get more responses. Also, analysis of 51,128 orders was a huge exercise. There could be mistakes. So, we were advised by some jury members that we should put up our findings on the website in each category for two reasonsto get more feedback and also to request people to point out mistakes, if any. These findings were put on our site on October 21, 2009, more than a month before the jury was to finally meet. It was made abundantly clear that these were merely interim findings and were likely to change after more feedbacks were received. Some people pointed out specific mistakes in our analysis during this one month period, which we corrected before presenting final analysis to the jury. We are particularly grateful to Mr.C J Karira from Andhra Pradesh and Mr.Pradeep Pradhan from Orissa for pointing out specific mistakes. We are also grateful to Major Ravindran and Col Kurup from Kerala for providing us with useful inputs which reflected upon the performance of Kerala Information Commissioners. Some Information Commissioners also reacted to our interim report. Their reactions and our response thereto are annexed at Annexure C. Regarding feedback, we asked just one question from those people who had appeared before any information commissioner during the calendar year 2008 did you finally get full and satisfactory information after approaching the information commission? We got some more feedback through our website. However, this was also inadequate. So, we called up and wrote to all such commissioners in whose cases the feedback was inadequate requesting them to provide us with phone numbers of appellants from their appeal files. While some Commissioners were kind enough to compile this information themselves and send it to us, several others allowed us to inspect their files and take out numbers ourselves. Therefore, we visited Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Chandigarh, Jharkhand and some other places to collect these phone numbers. All these appellants, whose numbers we had received, were called up and interviewed on phone to take their feedback. In the case of Arunachal Pradesh, even that did not work because phone networks are quite bad in that state. So, our team went to Itanagar and contacted many of the appellants personally and interviewed them. We have tried to ensure that we include feedback of at least 20% appellants (in whose case prodisclosure orders were passed) for each commissioner. However, in some cases it is still less, because despite all our efforts, we could not get more feedback. We have mentioned inadequate feedback against these commissioners in our analysis. After the release of interim report, we received feedback from another 2,400 people. Interestingly, the interim report said that only 39% orders passed by Information Commissioners get implemented. 27% of all the people who approach information commissions finally get information. These figures have almost remained same, even after incorporating feedback from 2,400 appellants. According to the final analysis, 38% orders of information commissions get implemented and 26% of the people who approach information commissions finally get information. This shows that the conclusions drawn from this sample size are fairly representative of the entire data. In the interim report, the analysis was presented in the form of four parameters. However, these parameters did not reflect pendencies and disposals. So, as per suggestions received from several people, a new parameter was later added to reflect this information also. The parameters and their analysis follows. Three of the parameters i.e. Pro-disclosure factor, Deterrent Impact and Disposals are straight from analysis of the orders and do not depend upon feedback. The other two parameters i.e. Overall Public Satisfaction and Effectiveness depend upon public feedback.

15

We have made slight changes in presentation of figures and rankings for two parameters Effectiveness and Overall Public Satisfaction on the basis of suggestions received from several quarters after the release of our interim report. In the interim report, we had mentioned specific percentages of compliance of orders and satisfaction for each commissioner. However, the percentages are so close to each other in some cases that inter se rankings could change if more feedbacks were taken. Therefore, we have created bands of percentages and rather than writing specific percentages, we have mentioned these figures in ranges (10 to 20%, 20 to 30% and so on).

16

WHY HAVE UP, TAMIL NADU AND SIKKIM NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THIS YEARS ANALYSIS?
The state of records in many information commissions is not very healthy. Many commissions do not even know for sure how many cases they disposed. At different times, they gave us different figures of disposals. Many commissions do not have copies of all orders. However, the situation in Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu appears particularly serious. Uttar Pradesh: In response to our initial letter and phone calls requesting the then acting Chief Information Commissioner, Mr. Gyanendra Sharma, to provide us with copies of all the orders passed by the commission during 2008, we were informed that the UP Commission does not have copies of all orders. They can provide us with copies of some of their best orders. That would not have helped us because we wanted all orders for our analysis. Therefore, we filed an RTI application asking for copies of all orders. We did not get any reply to RTI application in 30 days. When we filed first appeal in the Commission itself, we were asked to come and attend a hearing at Lucknow. During hearing, we were informed that UP Commission had passed 22,658 orders during calendar year 2008. If we wanted copies of orders, we should provide them with the following details for each order: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. Order No Name of appellant Name of respondent District of respondent Decided/Pending Last date of hearing, if any Next date of hearing, if any Date of final hearing, if any Name of Information Commissioner Description of the order Any other description.

Obviously we did not have any of the above details for any of the orders, otherwise why would we be asking them. They asked us to attach Rs 10 court fee for each order. That would have cost us Rs 2.2 lakhs! UP is the only Commission which asked us money for providing copies of their own orders, which under section 4 of RTI Act should be there on their website. The Chief Information Commissioner had already informed us earlier that the Commission did not have copies of all orders. Obviously, the Commission now was trying to hide its deficiency through this order. Rather than officially admitting that they did not have copies of all orders, they used this ploy. We made two more visits to Lucknow. Finally, we could not obtain orders from UP Information Commission. Tamil Nadu: In response to our letter requesting copies of all orders, the Commission sent us a CD containing orders passed during September to December 2008. We were informed on phone that the rest of their orders are on their website. After downloading them, we had a total of 614 orders. However, in response to our RTI application, they wrote to us in September 2009 that the Commission had passed 40,402 orders during the calendar year 2008! They again mentioned that all their orders are on Commissions website. When we again checked the site, we found only 900 orders on the site. Since we

17

failed to obtain the orders from TN Commission despite our best efforts, we have not been able to analyze the performance of TN Commission. Sikkim: They provided us with copies of all their orders, however, despite our repeated efforts, they did not provide us with addresses of all appellants. Without that, we could not have obtained feedbacks. Therefore, we could not include Sikkim in this years analysis.

18

PARAMETERS & KEY FINDINGS

We wish to clarify that all the parameters should be read together to comment upon the performance of any commissioner. If a commissioner is high on one parameter but is lower on others, he will certainly not be effective in his functioning. Therefore, being high on one parameter is no reason for celebration, and being low on another is no reason for regret, though it does reflect upon areas of strengths and weaknesses of a commissioner. For instance, if a commissioners disposal is very high, but his compliance is low, then from an appellants perspective the commissioner proved ineffective in getting him/her information. From commissioners point of view, these parameters indicate that whereas a high disposal is his strength, he needs to pay attention to his compliance rate. Likewise, if the commissioner has passed all orders in favor of disclosures but the compliance rate of these orders is low, then from an appellants point of view, the commissioner was not able to get him the required information. However, from a commissioners point of view, it indicates that high pro-disclosure factor is his strength but he needs to address the issue of low compliance rate now. Therefore, a commissioner needs to do well on all parameters to be effective. To be high or low on a parameter indicates his strengths and weaknesses.

PENDENCY & DISPOSALS

Two figures have been put together for each commissioner to draw conclusions for this parameter i.e. pendency and disposals. The following points should be kept in mind while perusing the figures related to this parameter: Whereas the disposal of some commissioners may look quite low, but it is not their fault because they receive very few appeals. Similarly, a commissioner may have a huge pendency despite disposing large number of cases. However, if a commissioner disposes very few cases despite having a huge pendency, it is certainly a matter of concern. Since some commissioners worked for less than a year, we have calculated the disposals on per month basis. Pendency of an individual commissioner keeps changing during the year as departments are added or removed from his/her jurisdiction. Therefore, rather than discussing the pendency of an individual commissioner, we have considered the pendency of the whole commission and divided it by the number of commissioners to arrive at average pendency per commissioner. However, some commissions did not provide us with the figures of commissions pendency. At these places, we have mentioned NA (Not Available).

(Important note: To calculate the disposals of a commissioner per month, we have added number of cases disposed by him/her as a single bench and number of cases disposed with other commissioners in joint benches. To that extent, you may observe discrepancy in the disposal figure used for this parameter and that mentioned against that commissioners name and used for other parameters) Mr. Vijay Baburao Borge and Mr. Naveen Kumar have disposed maximum number of cases 383 and 333 respectively per month. However, Mr. Vijay Baburao Borge rejected as many as 78% cases without hearings. Mr. Naveen Kumar remanded back 50% cases and rejected 36% cases without hearings. Mr. Shailesh Gandhi has made remarkable progress on this parameter. When he joined about a year back, the waiting period was almost 12 months. This has come down to about two months now. He joined in October 2008 and worked for just three months. During these three months, his disposal was almost 270 cases per month. In the next one year, he has disposed more than 5,000 cases, which comes to

19

roughly 400 orders per month. He disposed all these cases by holding proper hearings barring those which were in the nature of complaints and where order was passed in favor of the appellant. At the lower end are North Eastern States, who disposed very few cases. But their low disposals are due to the fact that they receive very few appeals. Their year end pendencies are also quite low. However, some commissioners disposed very few cases despite huge pendencies. Take a look at the following table: Name of Commissioner Dileep Reddy K Sudhakar Rao A S Rao Arun Kumar Bhattacharya Anil Joshi A Venkatratnam Late Sh G G Kambli D C Jugran Iqbal Ahmed Mahesh Pandey P P Tiwari State AP AP AP WB Chhattisgarh Goa Goa MP MP MP MP Average Disposal per month 3 16 36 9 15 3 4 30 28 16 44 Average Pendency per commissioner 467 467 467 856 492 56 56 960 960 960 960 Pendency of more than a year. He did not give his pendency figures despite several letters, phone calls, and RTIs. 75 1987 1987 191 191 191 191 191

Dr V Suresh Joshi

Maharashtra

85

R K Angousana Singh D N Padhi Jagadananda Dr K Rajagopal P Faziluddin P N Vijayakumar Palat Mohandas V V Giry

Manipur Orissa Orissa Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala

7 35 21 23 12 12 40 21

Some commissioners argued that since their disposals were very high, therefore, their compliance rates were not as good. Interestingly, lesser disposals do not necessarily translate into better compliance. The compliance rates of most of the commissioners mentioned above were not very high despite lower disposal rates. Among states, Maharashtra tops with 187 orders passed per month per commissioner, but they have achieved this disposal by rejecting and remanding back large number of cases without hearings. Maharashtra also has one of the highest pendency of 14,307 cases. At present rate of disposals, it would still take a year for a case to come up for hearing. In Bihar, 175 orders were passed per commissioner per month. Here again, a large number of cases were remanded back. Some other states with more than a years pendency are Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, UP and some of the commissioners at CIC. Urgent steps need to be taken in these states to address mounting pendencies. Arbitrary Commissioner Strength: Commissioners seem to be appointed by state governments without reference to the pendency in that commission. On one hand, we came across states like Arunachal

20

Pradesh which has five commissioners for 43 appeals. On the other hand, we have Gujarat, which has only one commissioner for a pendency of almost 5,000 cases. It is important to formulate some guidelines defining on how much pendency a commissioner should be appointed.

PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR
Pro-Disclosure Factor indicates the percentage of orders passed by a commissioner in favor of disclosure. The calculation of pro-disclosure was simple we divided those cases in which an order was passed in favor of disclosure was passed by the total number of orders passed by that commissioner. Pro-disclosure = Number of cases in which orders were passed in favor of disclosure*100 Total number of cases disposed by that commissioner Each order was read to determine whether that order was in favor of disclosure or not. If pro-disclosure factor is 60%, does it mean that the commissioner denied information in 40% cases? Not necessary. The balance 40% cases may consist of remanded back cases, cases in which information was denied and those cases which were rejected on technical grounds (like papers not properly attested etc). After our interim findings were released, we received a letter from Mr R S Tolia, Information Commissioner of Uttarakhand. He argued that since remanded back cases were not included with prodisclosure cases, it gave an erroneous impression that remanded back cases were a part of denied cases. We assured him that in order to avoid such misunderstanding, we would provide separate details of remanded back cases so that people do not treat them as denial or rejected cases. In our final report now, we have separately mentioned remanded back cases to avoid any confusion. There would be certain instances, where a commissioner would need to deny information to protect larger public interest. For instance, if a commissioner is dealing with departments like police or income tax, the number of denials could be higher. A commissioner dealing with rural development department may have a higher pro-disclosure factor. But a higher pro-disclosure factor certainly indicates overall pro-disclosure attitude of a commissioner. A lower pro-disclosure factor indicates a need to analyze the reasons for the same. The purpose of the RTI Act is to extend the boundaries of transparency rather than restrict them. Everything has to be weighed on the scale of public interest. The governing principle of our RTI Act is disclosure should be the norm and denial an exception. Everything should be disclosed unless public interest would be hampered by its disclosure. Disclosure should be made even in those cases where though a private interest is likely to be affected, but larger public interest would be served by its disclosure. Section 8 exemptions have also been prescribed keeping in mind that disclosure of certain types of information would impede public interest. If a commissioner has ordered 100% disclosure and as a result, if no harm (real or perceived) happened to any individual or society, then shouldnt we encourage disclosures on all such issues by other commissioners also. It would not serve public interest to justify non-disclosure by citing legal technicalities. Therefore, a better pro-disclosure factor is certainly desirable. At a national level, 68% orders were passed by the Commissioners in favor of disclosure. Mr. Anil Joshi of Chhattisgarh, combined benches of Chhattisgarh and Mrs. Gangotri Kujur of Jharkhand passed 100% orders in favor of disclosure. This means they neither denied information in any case, nor did they remand back or technically reject any case. They are followed by combined benches of Assam, who passed 98.8% cases in favor of disclosure and Mr. B K Gohain of Assam who passed pro-disclosure orders in 98% cases. Almost 35 commissioners and combined benches passed more than 90% orders in favor of disclosures.

21

At the lower end is Mr. Naveen Kumar of Maharashtra who ordered disclosure only in 13.7% cases. He remanded back 50% of the cases received by him and partly or fully denied information in 36% cases (this also includes rejections on technical grounds). Interestingly, he remanded back all such cases where no first appeal had been filed, where the order of the first appeal had not been implemented or where there had been an inordinate delay at his own level i.e at second appeal stage! Next from the bottom is Mr. C D Arha of Andhra Pradesh, whose pro-disclosure factor is 18.1%. He remanded back 34% cases and denied information in 48% cases (most of them being technical rejections), all without hearings. Mr. Vijay Baburao Borge of Maharashtra is at 21.5%. He denied information in almost 78% cases, majority of them being technical rejections, which were rejected without any hearings. He did not remand back any case. Wide disparities were noted in implementation of RTI Act across states and sometimes across commissioners in the same state. We mention hereunder some such issues with respect to ProDisclosure Factor: Remand Back Cases: Which type of cases should be remanded back? There appears to be an overlap in the law. Section 19(1) of RTI Act and section 18(1)(c) and 18(1)(e) talk of exactly similar situations i.e. if a person does not receive any response or receives an unsatisfactory response within prescribed time period, he can either approach the Commission directly under section 18 or he can file the first appeal under section 19. Interestingly, we observed a range of practices across the country. On one hand there are commissioners who remanded back a large number of cases. On the other hand are those commissioners who did not remand back any case. Within the same Commission, the Commissioners are following completely different practices. Commissioners who remanded back more than 25% cases: Name of Commissioner R S Tolia Naveen Kumar P N Narayanan C D Arha State Uttarakhand Maharashtra Bihar Andhra Pradesh % of cases remanded back 60% 50% 35% 34%

Commissions/Commissioners who remanded back very few cases: Name of Commission/ Commissioner R Dileep Reddy, K Sudhakar Rao All commissioners of Jharkhand All commissioners of Assam Annapurna Dixit All commissioners of Chhattisgarh M R Ranga, Asha Sharma, Prem Vir Singh All commissioners of Karnataka State AP Jharkhand Assam CIC Chhattisgarh Haryana Karnataka % of cases remanded back 0% 0% 0% Negligible 0% 0% Negligible

22

All commissioners of Kerala All commissioners of MP Dr Suresh V Joshi, Vijay Kuvalekar, Vijay Baburao Borge, Vilas Patil Mizoram All commissioners of Punjab Arun Kumar Bhattacharya

Kerala MP Maharashtra

Negligible Negligible Negligible

Mizoram Punjab West Bengal

0% Negligible 0%

In our discussions, commissioners have forwarded interesting arguments depending upon the practice that they follow. One argument is that the law gives an option to the appellant whether the appellant wishes to invoke section 18 or section 19. Section 19 says that the appellant may file first appeal. Section 18 says that it shall be the duty of the Information Commission to receive and enquire into a complaint received. Section 18 casts a very strong duty upon the Commissions to act upon complaints received under this section. Therefore, it is argued, that the Commission should respect the decision of the appellants, which section they wish to invoke, as this option has been given to the appellants by the Parliament. It is argued that all the appellants would then start directly approaching information commissions. That may not necessarily happen. Because in those states, where the pendencies are high and commissioners are not perceived to have pro-citizen attitude, and if a particular department has a good First Appellate Authority, the citizen may opt to go for first appeal rather than directly approach the information commission. The other extreme argument is that any complaint filed under Section 18 should be returned back if there is no first appeal filed. However, this argument would render section 18 completely ineffective. A middle path has been chosen by some commissioners. If an appellant does not receive any response from the PIO within 30 days or receives incomplete information, they entertain it as a complaint under section 18. But if an appellant is dissatisfied with the response received, they treat it as an issue of adjudication or appeal and require first appeal to be filed in such cases. There is a huge confusion in the minds of the people due to such divergent practices. What is the right practice? is the larger question. Public convenience and public interest, rather than technical legalities, should be the paramount factor in determining the right practice. Rejections on Technical Grounds: Some commissioners have rejected a large number of cases on technical grounds. These were found particularly high in Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and the CIC. All these cases are rejected without holding any hearings. Some commissioners use it as a tool to show high disposals or to reduce pendencies. Mr. C D Arha of Andhra Pradesh rejected 34% of the total cases received by him on technical grounds. Mr. A Subba Rao of Andhra Pradesh rejected 31% cases on technical grounds. Following are some of the grounds cited by Mr Arha and Mr Rao while rejecting cases: The appellant has not mentioned whether he has paid the fee or not The appellant did not self attest enclosures Copy of RTI application has not been enclosed Copy of first appeal has not been filed Case is time barred The appellant has filed one appeal for three RTI applications No proof has been filed to show that RTI application was filed before the PIO No proofs have been filed to show that first appeals were filed before the first Appellate Authority These appear to be very petty reasons for rejecting cases. All these cases were rejected without holding any hearings. If hearings were held in these cases, the appellant could have been asked to remove these defects at the time of hearing. For instance, many cases were rejected on the grounds that he/she had

23

not mentioned whether he/she had paid the fee or not. He/she could have been asked this during the hearing. Or where the appellant did not self attest all enclosures, he/she could have done it during the hearing. Was there really a need to reject these cases? The Andhra Pradesh RTI Rules are quite cumbersome. In one of the TV interviews, Mr Dileep Reddy blamed these rules for such high rate of rejections. According to him, the cases are not rejected. Appellant is informed about defects in appeal and he/she is asked to correct it within a week or ten days. The appeals are accepted after the defects are removed. However, this does not seem to be the case. If this indeed were the case, then there should have been one more order for each rejected case, which was passed after the case was accepted after removal of defects. However, we did not find two orders for each such rejected case. Therefore, it appears that these rejections become permanent and people do not come back again after rectifying defects. Interestingly, one of the commissioners in Andhra Pradesh, Mr K S Rao working under the same Rules, rejected negligible number of cases on such petty and technical grounds. This means that it is possible to stop rejecting cases on technical issues, which seems to be causing a lot of hardship to people. In Maharashtra, three commissioners rejected a large number of cases on technical grounds. Mr. Vijay Borge rejected 71% cases (3,266 cases), Mr. Vilas Patil rejected 43% cases (1,008 cases) and Mr. Naveen Kumar rejected 33% cases (1,004 cases). According to them, these cases were rejected and sent back to the appellants without having been heard even once. Interestingly, Maharashtra does not have complicated RTI Rules to blame for such high rejections. Mr. Vijay Kuvalekar from the same commission, however, rejected only 57 cases. The CIC had been at the top till two years back in rejecting cases on technical grounds. In April 2007, 57.96% of appeals received by the CIC were rejected. Rejection figures rose to 63.76% in June 2007. In the period January to June 2007, 13,152 appeals and complaints were received by the Commission out of which 8,229 were rejected due to technical deficiencies. Only 4,823 were registered! This means nearly two out of three appeals and complaints were not registered! Faced with a lot of criticism earlier, the CIC responded to us recently that they have stopped maintaining these figures! We did not get information from other commissions on this account. Therefore, we are not sure whether such a practice exists in other commissions also. The RTI Act was supposed to be a poor mans tool to fight injustice. In order to enable poor and illiterate people to use RTI, the Act itself obligates a PIO to help such people in writing their applications who cannot do so. Though the Act does not specifically obligate the information commissioners to do that, shouldnt they promote practices which enable people to easily approach commissions? With so much illiteracy and lack of knowledge in our country, should the cases be rejected in such large numbers on such petty and technical grounds? Shouldnt the Commissioners hand-hold citizens? When Supreme Court of India accepts anything written on a post card as a writ petition, the Commissioners need to become less bureaucratic. Denials: The RTI Act provides a list of items in section 8 on which information should not be provided. In addition to the grounds mentioned in section 8, the following also emerged as important reasons for rejection: 1. Definition of Information: Information sought does not fall within the definition of information under the RTI Act this seems to be becoming a major cause for denial of cases. Information on questions like what action has been taken on my complaint, by when would action be taken on my complaint, why has no action been taken so far, etc have been declared out of the purview of the RTI Act by some commissioners. In many cases, commissioners have raised strong displeasure at people using the RTI Act for their personal grievances.

24

Kerala Information Commission says that you cannot ask questions like why a Consumer Court did not sit on a particular date? Why have the orders of High Court not been obeyed? According to them, this is outside RTI Act. Interestingly, different practices are being followed by Commissioners in same Commissions. Whereas Mr. Shailesh Gandhi, Mr. A N Tiwari and Mr. M M Ansari of CIC rejected large number of cases on this ground, Mr. Wajahat Habibullah and Mr. O P Kejariwal from the same commission have allowed information and have denied very few cases on these grounds. Mr. R N Das of Gujarat and Mr. Vijay Kuvalekar of Maharashtra have not only entertained such requests for information and ensured that information is provided, but have also gone out of their way to get the grievances redressed. Prof M M Ansari rejected 134 cases on this ground, almost 8% of the total cases decided by him. However, Prof M M Ansari has allowed information in some such cases by resorting to section 4(1)(d). According to section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, any government agency is required to suo moto inform the affected people, reasons for all its administrative and quasi-judicial decisions. According to Prof Ansari, public authorities are duty bound to provide reasons to public about its inaction also under this clause. This is a very interesting and progressive interpretation of this clause. In most of these cases, the commissioners have taken a stand that a query cannot be asked under RTI Act. As mentioned above, barring a few commissioners, most commissioners have allowed such information. Therefore, if information could be provided under RTI on these questions in most states without any problem and without any adverse impact on public interest (on the contrary, allowing public to question their public authorities by asking such questions promotes public interest), then it appears that such rejection by some commissioners on this ground appears merely technical that whether it falls under the definition of information or not? Whereas we do agree that sometimes people ask for information, which neither exists, nor could be compiled. The information sought is hypothetical. In such cases, obviously, information cannot be provided because it cannot be compiled or put on paper. Other than such cases, we need to debate whether denying information only on the ground that it is a query does it promote or adversely impact public interest? Often, the definition of information under section 2(f) is cited as a reason to deny information. It is said that the information should be in material form to be provided. However, the Act does not say that. The Act says information includes any material in any form, which means that information may not be in material form but could be in any other form also. It could be in amorphous form. There is a lot of information, which the concerned officials are aware of but it does not exist in the written form. Does the Act cast a duty on the government to put it in a written form and provide it to information seeker? In our opinion, the answer is yes. Any law should be interpreted in a manner that it promotes wider public good. The RTI Act should be interpreted in a manner that it expands the boundaries of transparency rather than restricting it. Will any damage take place to public interest if the queries were answered? It appears No because a large number of Information Commissioners are already allowing queries. There are very few commissioners who disallow queries. We hope they would revisit their stand. 2. Missing Records: Many PIOs report missing records, records lost, not traceable as reasons for denying information. This trend seems to be on the rise, depending upon the response of Information Commissioners to such pleas. Response of commissioners has been varied. 1. Assam: PIOs plea that records are missing is normally accepted by the commission. Most of the time, the commission closes a case with following observationsPIO seems to have made stringent efforts to locate records. The department is ordered to conduct a time bound enquiry and the case is closed.

25

2. Chhattisgarh: Mostly the plea is accepted with directions that PIO should be careful with records in future. However, in some cases, the commission has ordered the Department to fix responsibility and closed the case. 3. Himachal Pradesh: In HP, the commission has taken a strange stand, which in a way, encourages officers to offer the plea of missing records. According to the commission, when records are lost, they are not held by the officer and under RTI Act, only such information could be provided, which is held by an officer. Therefore, information in such cases cannot be provided. 4. Madhya Pradesh: The MP commission directs the Department to fix responsibility and take action as per their rules. Here, the experience of Maharashtra Information Commissioner, Mr. Vijay Kuvalekar has been quite interesting. In many cases, when he threatened police action, suddenly many missing files surfaced from nowhere, which means that PIOs were merely making excuses to deny information. The following case study is quite revealing: An information seeker from Sangli (South Maharashtra) found to his delight that a file, considered missing for the last 18 years, turned up magically after Pune information commissioner Mr. Vijay Kuvalekar pressed the right buttons. The applicant in question had been trying vainly for several years to get Sangli-Miraj-Kupwad Municipal Corporation to share with him records that showed that his housing society included some illegal constructions. He had even moved the court without any luck. The municipal corporation parried every query with the response: The file is missing. He received the same reply when he filed an RTI application. At the hearing of his second appeal in early 2007, the PIO told Mr. Kuvalekar that the file was probably lost during Sanglis transition from a municipal council to a municipal corporation many years ago. As soon as Mr. Kuvalekar directed the PIO to register specific police complaints against all officers who were supposedly in custody of those records, the file came out. 3. Voluminous Information: a. Some commissioners have rejected appeals on the ground that the information sought is voluminous. The RTI Act does not allow such rejection, and Kerala High Court has clearly said in a judgement (Canara Bank vs CIC) that RTI Act does not talk of voluminous information. If the appellant is prepared to pay fee for information, he should be provided the same. Section 7(9) reads as: An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. It does not say that an application can be rejected on this ground. The idea is that every effort would be made to assist the appellant to be able to obtain information. b. Some commissions and officers reject a request which requires even a small compiling of information quoting section 7(9) saying that they are not required to compile information. However, this seems to be a wrong interpretation of section 7(9). This section clearly states that information shall ordinarily be provided in the form it has been sought. Therefore, ordinarily, the Act casts a statutory duty on the officer to make every effort to provide information in the form in which it has been sought, even if it requires some amount of compiling. Section 7(9) can be invoked in those very rare cases when compiling in the form sought would unnecessarily divert huge government resources. 4. Pending Investigations: Many Commissioners have rejected cases on the ground that the investigation is pending. However, the Delhi High Court has clearly said in the case of Bhagat Singh vs Income Tax Department that mere pendency of a case is not sufficient for denial of information. The public authority would need to establish how disclosure of that information would impede investigations.

26

EFFECTIVENESS
Passing an order in favor of disclosure is not sufficient. It is important that the order should be implemented and the appellant should finally get satisfactory information. Effectiveness is the compliance rate of that commissioners pro-disclosure orders. It has been calculated as: Number of feedbacks in which appellant received satisfactory information*100 Total number of cases in which feedback received Out of 51,128 orders analyzed, orders were passed by Information Commissions in 34,980 cases in favor of disclosure. According to the feedback received from appellants, only 38% of 34,980 orders could be complied with. Despite favorable orders, 62% people still did not get information. An objection has been raised against this parameter by some commissioners stating that some people are never satisfied with the information that they receive or that some people are seeking redressal of their grievances and even if they get complete information, they do not get satisfied till such time their grievance is addressed. We completely agree with them. However we can safely assume that such people would be evenly distributed all over the country and would creep into the feedbacks of all commissioners, this factor would thus even out. Continuing Mandamus: This term was coined by Justice J S Verma, the then Chief Justice of India, in hawala case. Earlier, courts used to pass orders and close a case. If the order was not complied with, the petitioner could come back to the court under contempt. Justice Verma realized that it takes a lot of time and energy on the part of the petitioner to again come back to the court under contempt. Also, the petitioner keeps struggling with the governments to get orders implemented by writing several letters and pursuing it with them. Therefore, he decided not to close a case after order but to post hearings subsequently for the parties to come back and report compliance. The compliance hearings were posted till such time as the court was satisfied with the compliance. He called it continuing mandamus Many courts started following this practice subsequently. Most Information Commissions close a case by simply directing an officer to provide information within a week or fortnight. These orders, mostly, remain unimplemented. First the appellant keep struggling for the next few months with the public authority to gets the orders implemented. He writes to them and makes several visits. When the order is still not implemented, the appellant then complains to the commission about non-compliance. Again, he keeps writing and visiting the Information Commission requesting them to take appropriate action to get its orders complied with. In some cases, even his complaints of noncompliance are not attended to. However, information commissioners of Punjab, Uttarakhand, Orissa, Karnataka, Gujarat, Bihar and Arunachal Pradesh follow the practice of continuing mandamus. They do not close a case with simple direction to PIO to provide information. They direct the PIO to provide information to the appellant/complainant and post a hearing for another date to discuss compliance of their order. Till such time as the appellant reports satisfaction, the case is not closed and compliance hearings are held. Usefulness and efficacy of this practice is supported by the fact that those states, which follow this practice, have a higher compliance rate. Whereas repeated hearings make for a good practice, if done without adequate strictness, it tires out the information seekers. In some cases, appellants had to attend more than 15 hearings spanning over several months. So, after a few compliance hearings, the appellant gets tired and he stops coming. And when he does not turn up, the case is closed by the commissioner assuming that the appellant might have got all the information. Most of the cases in these states were closed when the appellant was absent, with the remark: The appellant is absent. It seems he has got all information. Therefore, the case is closed. After tiring out an

27

appellant with multiple hearings, the case is closed at the first opportunity when the appellant is absent without intimation. These repeated compliance hearings need to be coupled with strict implementation of penal powers. The RTI Act empowers Commissioners to order arrests of errant officials or use force to get information or documents from government departments. So, if an order is not complied with, the commissioners should invoke these powers. Barring Arunachal Pradesh, none of the Commissioners ever used any of these powers. Some commissioners say that repeated compliance hearings would slow down the process. They are burdened with huge pendency. Interestingly, this argument is not borne out by facts. Each Commissioner in Bihar disposed more than 2,000 cases, but they follow the practice of continuing mandamus, whereas many commissioners who disposed less than one case a day do not follow this practice.

DETERRENT IMPACT
This is perhaps the only law passed by the Parliament of India which directly places a relationship between the performance of an officer and his salary. It requires an officer to provide information in 30 days else there is a provision for deduction of his/her salary. India is one of the very few countries to have a penalty clause. The Parliamentarians realized how difficult it could be to extract information from Indian bureaucracy. Therefore, they introduced the penalty clause. Whereas the clause says that penalty shall be imposed, it does not mean that penalty has to be imposed in every case. The commissioner is required to examine whether there was a reasonable cause for delay or whether there was a malafide in case of denial of information. If no reasonable cause is established or if it is a case of malafide denial of information, in those cases, imposition of penalty is mandatory. Show Cause Notices: Since the Act says that penalty shall be imposed, it seems mandatory for the commissioners to enquire into each case of RTI violation whether there was a reasonable cause or not in each case of delay or whether there was a malafide or not in each case of denial? If the Commissioner orders that information should be provided, it means that complete information was not provided till the time of the order i.e. within the statutory period of 30 days. The Commission, in all such cases, therefore, should require the PIO to show why the delay took place. At the national level, out of all pro-disclosure cases, show cause notices were issued only in 26% cases. Maximum show cause notices were issued in Bihar. Mr. P N Narayanan issued show cause notices in 98% cases. His colleagues Dr Shakil Ahmed and Justice Shashank Kumar Singh issued penalty show cause notices in more than 90% cases. This means that they issued show cause notice in almost every case in which there was an RTI violation. Though this is laudatory, the follow ups of the notices in Bihar do not appear encouraging. Penalties were subsequently imposed in a very few casesin just 2% cases. Rest of the show cause notices were either withdrawn or remained pending at the end of the year. In many cases, penalties were withdrawn after imposing. The following commissioners did not issue a single penalty show cause notice, despite hundreds of cases of delays and denials i.e. they did not even enquire whether there was a reasonable cause for delay or denial was malafide: 1. Mr. R Dileep Reddy of Andhra Pradesh

28

2. Mr. Baijnath Mishra, Mr. Harishankar Prasad, Mr. Harishchandra Pattar Munda, Prof Praful Kumar Mahato and Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta of Jharkhand 3. Prof Radhamohan of Orissa (he was the Commissioner only for one month during 2008) 4. The entire Commission of Tripura Pending Showcause Notices: Many commissioners issue showcause notices but keep them pending. Sometimes, for years, no action is taken on them. Allegations were made by some people that this creates possibility for wrongdoing by staff as they could negotiate with guilty officers to misplace their files, etc. Whereas possibility of this cannot be ruled out, however, we did not get any specific evidence of that. More than 70% of the show cause notices issued by the following commissioners remained pending at the end of the year (the following table does not include those commissioners who joined during the year and worked only for a few months or those who retired during the year): Name of Commissioner State Percentage Of Show Cause Notices Pending At The End Of Year 90% 100% 94% 93% 76% 100% 100% 94% 91% 87% 92% 91% 90% 93% 79% 92% 100% 100% 81% 93% 89% 91% 100% 75%

A S Rao K S Rao Shakil Ahmad M M Ansari R N Das P S Rana Shrishtidhar Mahato H N Krishna K A Thippeswamy K K Mishra Combined Benches of Karnataka Combined Benches of Kerala Dr K Rajagopal P N Vijayakumar Palat Mohandas Combined Benches of MP D C Jugran Iqbal Ahmad Mahesh Pandey P P Tiwari Naveen Kumar Ramanand Tiwari R K Angousana Singh Arun Kumar Bhattacharya

Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Bihar CIC Gujarat Himachal Pradesh Jharkhand Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Karnataka Kerala Kerala Kerala Kerala Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Maharashtra Manipur West Bengal

Imposition of Penalties: In terms of imposition of penalty, combined benches of Orissa imposed penalties in 30% of all pro-disclosure cases, combined benches of Mizoram imposed penalties in 25% cases, combined benches of Nagaland in 22% cases and combined benches of Arunachal Pradesh in 17.5% cases. The following 25 commissioners did not impose a single penalty: Mr. A Subba Rao, Mr. R Dileep Reddy, Mr. C D Arha and Mr. K S Rao of Andhra Pradesh; combined benches of Tripura; Mr. P K Verma and combined benches of Punjab; Mr. Radhamohan of Orissa; Mr. R K Angousana Singh of Manipur; Mr. D C Jugran, Mr. Iqbal Ahmed and combined benches of MP; Mr. P N

29

Vijayakumar and Dr K Rajagopal of Kerala; combined benches of Karnataka; Mr. Shrishtidhar Mahato, Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Prof Praful Kumar Mahato, Mr. Harishchandra Pattar Munda, Mr. Harishankar Prasad, Mr. Baijnath Mishra from Jharkhand; Mr. P S Rana of Himachal Pradesh; Mrs Asha Sharma of Haryana; Mr. S N Mishra, Mr. M L Sharma, Mrs. Annapurna Dixit and combined benches of CIC; and Mr. B K Gohain of Assam. In terms of commissions, the states of Andhra Pradesh, Tripura, Manipur and Assam did not impose a single penalty. Withdrawal of Penalties: Some commissioners withdraw penalties after imposing them. Mr. B K Gohain of Assam imposed penalty in just one case and subsequently withdrew it. Mr. P N Narayanan of Bihar imposed penalties in 280 cases but withdrew penalties in 244 cases (he withdrew 87% of the penalties imposed). Dr Shakil Ahmed of Bihar imposed penalties in 65 cases but withdrew in 28 cases (i.e. 43% cases). Arguments by Some Commissioners against Imposition of Penalties: Many commissioners have argued against imposition of penalties. They argue that imposition of penalties would not improve RTI implementation. Some commissioners also argue that they are able to get the grievances of the appellant resolved using the threat of penalty. If they actually started imposing penalties, officers may not oblige and solve grievances. The above arguments appear invalid in view of the following: 1. Violation of RTI Act has been treated as an offense by the Parliament. Whether it would improve RTI implementation or not is outside the jurisdiction of Honble Commissioners to comment. For instance, can we say that section 302 of IPC has been able to stop murders or whether punishments prescribed for rapes has been able to stop rapes? These sections in IPC may not have been able to stop these crimes completely, but they definitely act as huge deterrents. Therefore, in every case of delay, it must be enquired whether there was a reasonable cause for the delay. In every case of denial which is not upheld by the commission, it must be enquired whether there was a malafide behind the denial. Wherever no reasonable cause for delay is established or wherever it is proced that there was actually a malafide for denial of information, penalty must be imposed. That is the will of the Parliament and it should be respected. 2. Some people say that the maximum limit of Rs 25,000 penalty is so small that it would have no impact. It is not the quantum of punishment but its certainty and swiftness that acts as a deterrent. Therefore, if every PIO knows that he would be penalized if he violated RTI Act, it would certainly help in reducing inflow of appeals. 3. Arunachals example clearly establishes the importance of penalty clause. Arunachal Pradesh imposed penalties on 25 officers in 45 cases in 2006-07. They have consistently been imposing high number of penalties on guilty officials. Coupled with continuing mandamus, it has ensured high level of compliance and low pendency for Arunachal Pradesh. 4. Use of penalty as a threat to get grievances resolved appears completely contrary to law. Whereas we do appreciate and applaud the desire of commissioners to solve appellants grievances. But dropping the penalty as a quid pro quo seems to set a dangerous precedent.

OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS)

This factor, in a way is a combination of Pro-Disclosure and Effectiveness parameters. If 100 people approached an information commissioner, if pro-disclosure orders were passed in 70 cases, out of these, 26 finally got information. This is the OPS. Arunachal Pradesh has the highest OPS of more than 80% followed by Mrs. Gangotri Kujur of Jharkhand with 70 to 80%. Andhra Pradesh has the lowest OPS of less than 10%.

30

ARUNACHAL PRADESH: A CASE STUDY

Among the states, Arunachal Pradesh stands out as a shining example of how a state commission can perform well even with limited resources. The state of Arunachal Pradesh has five information commissioners who till recently passed orders as a combined bench. In the year 2008, the bench had received 43 cases of which orders were given in favor of disclosure in 40 cases (93%), thereby ranking third among the states in terms of pro-disclosure factor. Of these, the commission issued showcase notices in 12 cases, of which two were eventually dropped and a penalty was imposed finally in 7 cases (17.5% of pro-disclosure cases). It stood third among the states on Deterrence Impact. In the previous year, the commission imposed penalties on 25 officers in 45 cases! Parameter Pro-disclosure Factor Deterrence Impact Effectiveness Overall Public Satisfaction Pendency Score (Rank) 93% (3rd) 17.50 (3rd) < 90% 80-90% 0

In many states despite a high pro-disclosure factor, the effectiveness of the commission was found to be low due to low compliance rate of the orders. However, in the case of Arunachal Pradesh the compliance rate or effectiveness was found to be more than 90%. In fact, according to our study, it is the only state with a more than 90% compliance rate. From the feedback received, it was found that in terms of Overall Public Satisfaction also the state came at the numero uno spot with 80-90% public satisfaction. Moreover, the state had no pendencies as well. The commission follows the practice of continuing mandamus. It does not close a case after passing an order. Hearings are posted for compliance of that order thereafter. On an average, in Arunachal Pradesh, it takes four months time between filing an appeal and getting information after all the hearings. Despite that, when the commission was finding it difficult to get its orders implemented, it issued bailable arrest warrants against an officer under section 18(3) of RTI Act, who did not implement an interim order passed by the commission and also did not appear in the next hearing. Within a week of the warrants being issued, the commissions orders were implemented! Most of the people we spoke to during the course of this research had something positive to say about this commission and its commissioners. In fact some said that they were extremely happy with the commission, and applauded its effort to reveal information. Some critics have pointed that how could a commission with so many commissioners, who had disposed so few cases be awarded? This issue was discussed in jury meet also. This argument is invalid for the following reasons: Their pendency at the beginning and the end of the year was NIL. Therefore, it was not their fault that they were receiving few appeals. It was not that the commissioners were not working. It was just that they were receiving less appeals, which could not be held against them. As far as the number of commissioners was concerned, it is right that the commission does not need so many commissioners. However, the commission does not have any role in it. The state government appoints information commissioners. The argument that because they did so few cases, they were able to perform better is also invalid when you look at the data. There are more than 25 commissioners in the country who disposed less than one case per day, and even then, their compliance and public satisfaction ratios was pretty low.

31

32

Statewise & Commissionerwise Data

33

ANDHRA PRADESH
STATE FACTSHEET
State Chief Information Commissioner State Information Commissioners C.D. Arha R. Dileep Reddy A. Subba Rao K. Sudhakara Rao 1685 741 1867 Data not available Rs. 1,82,49,500

Total Number of Cases Analysed by us (as provided to us) Pendency as on January 1, 2008 Pendency as on December 31, 2008 Average Time Taken Between Filing of Appeal and First Hearing Total Funds Spent by the Commission (FY 2008-09)

STATE OF RECORDS
According to Andhra Commission, they passed 3,043 orders in 2008. When we asked them for copies of these orders, they said all their orders were on their website. However, we found only 1,685 orders on their website. We wrote to the Commission and also spoke to them asking them for copies of balance orders. However, they always maintained that all their orders were uploaded on their website.

RANKINGS BY PARAMETERS
Name Prodisclosure Factor % (Rank) 32 (25th) Effectiveness (%) Deterrent Impact % (Rank) 0 (22nd) Overall Public Satisfaction (%) Less than 10

State Rankings

20-30

Rankings of Individual Commissioners C.D. Arha R. Dileep Reddy A.Subba Rao K.Sudhakara Rao 18 (85th) 68 (69th) 48 (79th) 66 (71st) 10-20 NA 20-30 40-50 0 (57th) 0 (57 ) 0 (57 ) 0 (57 )
th th th

Less than 10 NA 10-20 20-30

34

PERFORMANCE OF COMMISSION ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS

DISPOSALS An average of 35 cases per commissioner per month (4 commissioners working for 12 months each disposed 1,685 cases). Pendency increased from 741 to 1867 during the year. With an average disposal of 35 cases per commissioner per month and with a pendency of 1867, it should take more than 10 months for the first hearing to take place if an appeal were filed today. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 32% National Average: 68% Rank amongst states on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 25 1685 541 (32%) 786 (47%) 358 (21%) National Best: 98.3%

EFFECTIVENESS: 20 to 30%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 20 to 30% of 541 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0 National Average: 2% Rank amongst states: 22 Penalty show cause notices issued: 39 Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 9 (23% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 30 (77% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: NIL o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net penalties imposed: NIL Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 25%

OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): Less than 10% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90%

If 100 people approach Andhra Pradesh Information Commission, pro-disclosure orders were done in 32 cases. Out of these, less than 10 finally got information.

35

PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS

C.D Arha (Chief Information Commissioner)

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 86 cases per month Average pendency per commissioner: 467 cases (Total pendency of 1,867 divided by 4 commissioners). Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 3 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 18% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 85 1030 186 (18%) 496 (48%) 348 (34%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 10 to 20%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 10 to 20% of 186 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0 National Average: 2% Rank amongst commissioners: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 7 (4% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 7 (100% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: NIL Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: NIL o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net penalties imposed: NIL Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): Less than 10% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 18 cases. Out of these, less than 10 finally got information.

36

Detailed Findings
1. Out of 496 cases rejected by Mr Arha, 348 (33%) were rejected on technical grounds like a. The appellant has not mentioned if paid the fee or not b. The appellant did not self attest enclosures c. Copy of RTI application has not been filed d. Copy of first appeal has not been filed e. The appeal has got time barred f. The appellant has filed one appeal for three RTI applications g. No proof has been filed to show that RTI application was filed before the PIO h. No proofs have been filed to show that first appeals were filed before the first Appellate Authority 2. These appear to be very petty reasons for rejecting cases. All these cases were rejected without holding any hearings. If hearings were held in these cases, the appellant could have been asked to remove these defects at the time of hearing. For instance, many cases were rejected on the grounds that he/she had not mentioned whether he/she had paid the fee or not. He/she could have been asked this during the hearing. Or where the appellant did not self attest all enclosures, he/she could have done it during the hearing. Was there really a need to reject these cases? 3. The Andhra Pradesh RTI Rules are quite cumbersome. In one of the TV interviews, Mr Dileep Reddy blamed these rules for such high rate of rejections. According to him, the cases are not rejected. Appellant is informed about defects in appeal and he/she is asked to correct it within a week or ten days. The appeals are accepted after the defects are removed. However, this does not seem to be the case. If this indeed were the case, then there should have been one more order for each rejected case, which was passed after the case was accepted after removal of defects. However, we did not find two orders for each such rejected case. Therefore, it appears that these rejections become permanent and people do not come back again after rectifying defects. 4. Interestingly, one of the commissioners, Mr K S Rao working under the same Rules, rejected negligible number of cases on such petty and technical grounds. This means that it is possible to stop rejecting cases on technical issues, which seems to be causing a lot of hardship to people. 5. In a country where there is so much illiteracy, is it right to reject such large number of cases on such petty grounds? Even Supreme Court does not insist upon compliance with such technicalities. A post card is also admitted as a writ petition in Supreme Court. 6. Such large number of rejections has brought down the Pro-Disclosure Factor of Mr Arha to 18%, which means that Mr Arha passed orders in favor of disclosures only in 18% cases disposed by him. Compare this with the best in the country. 3 commissioners passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. If Mr Arha revisits the practice of rejecting cases on technical grounds, the pro-disclosure factor could substantially improve. 7. However, only 10 to 20% of the pro-disclosure orders could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 80 to 90% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 8. Why is Mr Arhas compliance so low? Because cases are closed after passing orders that information be provided - without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 9. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance.

37

10.

11.

12. 13.

b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Arha in 186 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 7 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 7 cases and not in the balance 186 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and all 7 show cause notices were dropped. None translated in penalties. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). Deterrence Impact of Mr Arha, therefore, is zero. According to the dates mentioned in orders, average time taken between filing of an appeal in the commission and the first hearing was 3 months. However, with an average disposal of 86 cases per month and an average pendency of 467 cases, this would increase to at least five months. We have learnt that the distribution of workload is uneven amongst commissioners and Mr Arha handles much more workload than his fellow commissioners. In that case, the waiting time would be even more in Mr Arhas court, unless the workload is evenly distributed.

38

R. Dileep Reddy
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 3.1 cases per month Average pendency per commissioner: 467 cases (Total pendency of 1867 divided by 4 commissioners). Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available because these dates were not mentioned in orders. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 68% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 69 37 25 (68%) 12(32%) 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: NA
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% The effectiveness could not be calculated due to inadequate feedback. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0 National Average: 2% Rank amongst commissioners: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: NIL Show cause notices dropped subsequently: NIL Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: NIL Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: NIL o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net Penalties imposed: NIL Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): NA National Average: 26%

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

National Best: 80 to 90%

The overall public satisfaction could not be calculated due to inadequate feedback.

39

DETAILED FINDINGS
1. We were informed by the Commission that Mr Reddy passed more than 200 orders and that they were all on commissions website. However, we found only 37 orders passed by Mr Reddy on commissions website. Despite repeated requests that the balance orders be provided to us, the commission maintained that all their orders were on website only. Therefore, we have assumed that these are the only orders passed by Mr Reddy. 2. Commissions pendency increased from 741 to 1867 cases during the year. Against such a huge pendency, Mr Reddy disposed only 37 cases in the entire year, roughly 3 cases per month! We could not find out the time taken between filing of an appeal in Mr Reddys court and the first hearing because these dates were not mentioned in the orders. We understand that there is a skewed distribution of workload at Andhra Commission. Whereas some of the commissioners are overstretched, others do not have adequate workload. Whatever be the reasons - whether it is due to low disposals by Mr Reddy or due to inadequate allocation of workload to him the problem needs to be addressed and disposals should increase. Mr reddy needs to improve disposals to address mounting pendencies. Nationally, there are 4 commissioners who dispose more than 200 cases per month. 18 commissioners dispose more than 100 cases per month. 3. Mr Reddy denied information in 32% cases. Therefore, his Pro-Disclosure Factor is low at 68%, which means that Mr Reddy passed orders in favor of disclosures in 68% cases. Compare this with the best in the country. 3 commissioners passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 4. Mr Reddys effectiveness in terms of getting his orders complied with could not be assessed due to inadequate feedback. But it was observed that he has a practice of closing a case without ensuring compliance of his orders. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. Mr Reddy may like to adopt the following best practices from other commissions to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. The Deterrent Impact is 0, which means that Mr Reddy did not impose a single penalty. 6. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Reddy in 25 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Mr Reddy did not issue show cause notice in any case. He did not ask any officer, who had failed to provide information with prescribed time, to explain reasons for the delay. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases.

40

A. Subba Rao
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 35.8 cases per month Average pendency per commissioner: 467 cases (Total pendency of 1867 divided by 4 commissioners). Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available because these dates were not mentioned in orders. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 48% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 79 430 206 (48%) 214(50%) 10 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 20 to 30%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 20 to 30% of 206 pro-disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0 National Average: 2%

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 21 (10% of pro-disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 2 (10% of notices issued) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 19 (90% of notices issued) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: NIL o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net Penalties imposed: NIL Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 10 to 20%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 48 cases. Out of these, 10 to 20 people finally got information.

41

DETAILED FINDINGS
1. Out of 214 cases rejected by Mr A S Rao, 136 (32%) were rejected on technical grounds like a. The appellant has not mentioned if paid the fee or not. b. The appellant did not self attest enclosures c. Copy of RTI application has not been filed. d. Copy of first appeal has not been filed. e. The appeal has got time barred f. The appellant has filed one appeal for three RTI applications g. No proof has been filed to show that RTI application was filed before the PIO h. No proofs have been filed to show that first appeals were filed before the first Appellate Authority 2. These appear to be very petty reasons for rejecting cases. All these cases were rejected without holding any hearings. If hearings were held in these cases, the appellant could have been asked to remove these defects at the time of hearing. For instance, many cases were rejected on the grounds that he/she had not mentioned whether he/she had paid the fee or not. He/she could have been asked this during the hearing. Or where the appellant did not self attest all enclosures, he/she could have done it during the hearing. Was there really a need to reject these cases? 3. The Andhra Pradesh RTI Rules are quite cumbersome. In one of the TV interviews, Mr Dileep Reddy blamed these rules for such high rate of rejections. According to him, the cases are not rejected. Appellant is informed about defects in appeal and he/she is asked to correct it within a week or ten days. The appeals are accepted after the defects are removed. However, this does not seem to be the case. If this indeed were the case, then there should have been one more order for each rejected case, which was passed after the case was accepted after removal of defects. However, we did not find two orders for each such rejected case. Therefore, it appears that these rejections become permanent and people do not come back again after rectifying defects. 4. Interestingly, one of the commissioners, Mr K S Rao working under the same Rules, rejected negligible number of cases on such petty and technical grounds. This means that it is possible to stop rejecting cases on technical issues, which seems to be causing a lot of hardship to people. 5. In a country where there is so much illiteracy, is it right to reject such large number of cases on such petty grounds? Even Supreme Court does not insist upon compliance with such technicalities. A post card is also admitted as a writ petition in Supreme Court. 6. Such large number of rejections has brought down the Pro-Disclosure Factor OF Mr Rao to 48%, which means that Mr Rao passed orders in favor of disclosures only in 48% cases disposed by him. Compare this with the best in the country. 3 commissioners passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. If Mr Rao revisits the practice of rejecting cases on technical grounds, the pro-disclosure factor could substantially improve. 7. However, only 20% to 30% of the pro-disclosure orders could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 70 to 80% of the appellants still did not get information, Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 8. Why is Mr Raos compliance so low? Because he closes the after passing orders that information be provided - without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 9. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance.

42

10.

11.

12. 13.

14.

b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Rao in 206 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 21 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 21 cases and not in the balance 206 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. However, 19 of these show cause notices were not even decided. They remained pending at the end of the year. Just two cases were decided. Even in these two cases, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted and these two show cause notices were also dropped. Therefore, Deterrent Impact is 0. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was not imposed in case. Disposals seem to be low despite a huge pendency. Only 36 orders are passed per month. The wait time for the first hearing to take place after filing an appeal is increasing at the commission. It takes several months to be heard. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission. Mr Rao disposed an average of 36 cases per month. This is quite low considering that there is an average pendency of 467 cases in the commission. Time taken between filing of appeal before Mr Rao and the first hearing could not be calculated. However, if we go by the present rate of disposal, it would take more than a year for a case to come up for hearing, if it were filed today. The disposals need to be increased to reduce pendencies. Nationally, there are 4 commissioners who dispose more than 200 cases per month. 18 commissioners dispose more than 100 cases per month.

43

K. Sudhakar Rao
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 15.7 cases per month Average pendency per commissioner: 467 cases (Total pendency of 1867 divided by 4 commissioners). Averge time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available because these dates were not mentioned in orders. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 66% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 71 188 124 (66%) 64(34%) 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 40 to 50%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 40 to 50% OF 124 pro-disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0 National Average: 2%

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 11 (9% of pro-disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: NIL Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 11 (100% of notices issued) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: NIL o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net penalties imposed: NIL Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 20 to 30%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 66 cases. Out of these, 20 to 30 people finally got information.

44

Detailed Findings
1. Whereas his colleagues rejected large number of cases on technical and petty grounds citing cumbersome RTI Rules of Andhra Pradesh as an excuse, Mr K S Rao rejected hardly any case on such petty grounds. Such pro-citizens action of his should be lauded. It should also be emulated by his colleagues. 2. However, his Pro-Disclosure Factor appears to be quite low at 66%, which means that 66% orders were passed in favor of disclosure. He denied information in as many as 34% cases. Compare this with the best in the country. 3 commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 3. However, only 40-50% of these orders got implemented. This is slightly higher than the national average of 38%, however, it is still low. This means that almost 50 to 60% people did not get information despite having favorable and pro-disclosure orders. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 4. Why is Mr Raos compliance low? Because he closes a case after passing orders that information be provided - without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 5. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 6. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Rao in 124 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 11 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 11 cases and not in the balance 124 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 7. All 11 show cause notices remained pending at the end of the year. 8. Therefore, the Deterrent Impact is 0. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was not imposed in any case. 9. Mr Rao disposed an average of 16 cases per month. This is quite low considering that there is an average pendency of 467 cases in the commission. Time taken between filing of appeal before Mr Rao and the first hearing could not be calculated. However, if we go by the present rate of disposal, it would take more than two years for a case to come up for hearing, if it were filed today. The disposals need to be increased to reduce pendencies. Nationally, there are 4 commissioners who dispose more than 200 cases per month. 18 commissioners dispose more than 100 cases per month.

45

Arunachal Pradesh
STATE FACTSHEET
State Chief Information Commissioner State Information Commissioners Nyodek Yonggam Bani Danggen Nipo Nabam Habung Payeng Toko Anil 43 0 0 One month

Total Number of Cases Analysed by us (as provided to us) Pendency as on January 1, 2008 Pendency as on December 31, 2008 Time Taken Between Filing of Appeal and First Hearing Total Funds Spent by the Commission (FY 2008-09)

Rs. 90,74000

STATE OF RECORDS
They provided us with copies of all their orders.

RANKINGS BY PARAMETERS
Name Prodisclosure Factor % (Rank) 93 (3rd) Effectiveness (%) Deterrent Impact % (Rank) 17.5 (3rd) Overall Public Satisfaction (%) 80-90

State Rankings

90-100

Rankings of Individual Commissioners: Joint Benches* 93 (23rd) 90-100 17.5 (4th) 80-90

(*Most of the orders were passed by Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission in benches. Very few orders were passed by commissioners as a single bench. Therefore, we have treated all the orders as having been passed by joint benches. Therefore, the performance of joint benches would be the same as the entire commission. However, rankings within states and within commissioners would be different)

46

PERFORMANCE OF COMMISSION ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS Summary Sheet

DISPOSALS An average of 4 cases per month Pendency, both in the beginning as well as at the end of the year, was zero Average time taken between filing of an appeal the first hearing is one month PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 93% National Average: 68% Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back Rank 43 40 (93%) 2 (4.7%) 1 (2.3%) 3 National Best: 98.3%

EFFECTIVENESS: 90 to 100%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% More than 90% of 43 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 17.5% National Average: 2%

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 25%

Penalty show cause notices issued: 12 (30% of pro-disclosure orders) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 2 (17% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 3 (25% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 7 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net penalties imposed: 7 Number of arrest warrants issued: During 2009, the commission issued arrest warrants to get its orders implemented. OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 80 to 90%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approach Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission, pro-disclosure orders were given in 93 cases. Out of these, 80 to 90 people finally got information.

47

DETAILED FINDINGS
1. Most of the orders were passed by Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission in benches. Very few orders
were passed by commissioners as a single bench. Therefore, we have treated all the orders as having been passed by joint benches.

2. Arunachal Information Commission passed quite a high percentage of orders (93%) in favor of disclosure. Therefore, Pro-Disclosure Factor is at 93%. 3. The Commission follows the practice of continuing mandamus i.e. they do not close a case after passing orders, but fix compliance hearings thereafter to ensure compliance of their orders. 4. If the order is still not complied with, the commission issues bailable arrest warrants under section 18(3) of RTI Act against the PIO to ensure compliance. 5. As a result, the compliance of Arunachal Information Commission is the highest in the country. They were able to get more than 90% of their orders implemented. 6. The Commission also imposed high number of penalties. The Deterrent Impact is 17.5%. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was finally imposed in 17.5% cases. In the previous year, they imposed penalties upon 25 officers in 45 cases. 7. Arunachal Commission disposed just 43 cases in the entire year. The disposals seem to be very low. However, they have NIL pendency in the beginning and at the end of the year. Therefore, low disposals are not because the commissioners shied away from work but it is because the commission gets very few appeals. 8. The Commission has five Information Commissioners. It receives just 43 cases in a year. Therefore, it appears that the commission does not need so many commissioners. Such trend has been observed in many other states also where the number of commissioners seems to be much higher than may be needed to handle the available workload. The Governments may like to have some guidelines, that if the pendency crosses a particular limit, only then would an information commissioner be appointed.

48

Assam
STATE FACTSHEET
State Chief Information Commissioner State Information Commissioners Total Number of Cases Analysed by us (as provided to us) Pendency as on January 1, 2008 Pendency as on December 31, 2008 Time Taken Between Filing of Appeal and First Hearing Total Funds Spent by the Commission (FY 2008-09) R.S.Mooshahary B.K. Gohain 230 Not Available 42 4 months Rs. 27,05,000

STATE OF RECORDS
Initially, the Commission said that the records up to 10.9.08 were destroyed in fire. Later, on our request, the commission sent us 230 orders stating that these were the only orders passed by the Commission during the entire 2008.

RANKING BY PARAMETERS
Name Prodisclosure Factor % (Rank) 98 (1st) Effectiveness % Deterrent Impact % (Rank) 0.44% (19th) Overall Public Satisfaction %

State Rankings

40 to 50 %

40 to 50%

Rankings of Individual Commissioners B.K. Gohain Combined Bench of Assam* 98(5th) 99(4th) 30 to 40 % 60 to 70 % 0(57th) 1.25(43rd) 30-40% 60-70%

(* As the number of orders passed by Mooshahary in single bench was just 4, they have been combined with the orders passed by the combined bench)

49

PERFORMANCE OF COMMISSION ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS

DISPOSALS An average of 19 cases per commissioner per month (Total of 230 orders divided by two commissioners) (The Commission replied to our letter stating that records pertaining to the year 2008 had been destroyed in a fire, therefore we are assuming that whatever orders they sent to us is the total number of orders disposed by them in 2008) Pendency at the beginning of the year is not available. However, at the end of the year, it was just 42 cases. Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing is 4 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 98.3% National Average: 68% Rank amongst states on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 1 230 226 (98.3%) 4 (1.7%) 0 National Best: 98.3%

EFFECTIVENESS: 40-50%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 40 to 50% of 226 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0.44% National Average: 2% Rank amongst states: 19 Penalty show cause notices issued: 29 (13% of pro-disclosure orders) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 22 (76% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 5 (17% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 2 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net penalties imposed: 2 Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 25%

OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 40 to 50% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approach Assam Information Commission, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 98 cases. Out of these, 40 to 50 people finally got information.

50

PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS

R.S. Mooshahary (Chief Information Commissioner)

Mr Mooshahary passed just 4 orders as a single bench. Therefore, his 4 orders have been combined with joint benches.

51

Combined bench of Assam

Summary Sheet
PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 98.8% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back Rank National Best: 100% 4 81 (includes 4 orders of Mr Mooshahary) 80 (98.8%) 1 (1.2%) 0 4

EFFECTIVENESS: 60 to 70%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 60 to 70% of 80 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 1.3% National Average: 2% Rank amongst commissioners: 43 Penalty show cause notices issued: 19 (24% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 16 (84% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 2 (10% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 1 (1.3% of pro-disclosure orders) o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net penalties imposed: 1 Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 60 to 70% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 99cases. Out of these, 60to 70% people finally got information.

52

Detailed Findings
1. Since Mr Mooshahary passed only 4 orders as a single bench, we have combined his orders with the combined benches. 2. In 99% cases, combined benches passed orders in favor of disclosures. In fact, they denied information in just one case. This is quite high. Combined bench of Assam, treated as a commissioner, ranks 4 from the top on Pro-Disclosure Factor amongst all commissioners. 3. 60 to 70% of their orders got implemented, which is much higher than the national average of 30 to 40%. 4. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Assam combined benches in 80 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 19 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 19 cases and not in the balance 80 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 5. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 16 of these show cause notices were dropped. Just one translated in penalties. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 6. Therefore, Deterrent Impact of combined benches is low at 1.3%. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 1.3% cases.

53

B. K. Gohain
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 19 cases per month (This includes 149 cases disposed by him as single bench and 81 cases disposed by him in joint bench) Since Mr Mooshahary retired during the year, Mr Gohain will have to deal with the entire pendency of the Commission, which stood at 42 cases at the end of the year Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 4 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 98% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 5 149 146 (98%) 3 (2%) 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 30 to 40% of 146 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0 National Average: 2% Rank amongst commissioners: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 10 (7% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 6 (60% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 3 (30% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 1 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 1 o Net penalties imposed: NIL Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 98 cases. Out of these, 30 to 40 % finally got information.

54

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Gohain passed 98% orders in favor of disclosures, which is one of the best in the country. He stands at 5th position from the top amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. 2. However, only 30-40% of these orders got implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 60 to 70% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Why is Mr Gohains compliance so low? Because he closes a case after passing orders that information be provided - without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Gohain in 146 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 10 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 10 cases and not in the balance 146 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued by Mr Gohain, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 6 of these show cause notices were dropped. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. Penalty was imposed in just one case, which was also subsequently withdrawn. Therefore, finally, Mr Gohain did not impose any penalty. Therefore, his Deterrence Impact is zero. 8. 3 show cause notices remained pending at the end of the year. 9. On an average, Mr Gohain disposed 19 cases per month, which is quite low. The Commission had a small pendency of 42 cases at the end of the year. It takes four months between filing of an appeal and the first hearing to take place. This time could be substantially reduced if the disposals were improved. 10. Mr Gohain has been quite liberal in letting off PIOs when they deny information on the ground that records are missing or untraceable. Such cases are closed with remarks that stringent efforts seem to have been made by the PIO. A time bound enquiry is ordered and matter closed. No FIR is ordered. In some parts of the country, when the commissioners threatened police action, suddenly records came out, which means missing records was merely an excuse being given by the PIO to deny information.

55

Bihar
STATE FACTSHEET
State Chief Information Commissioner Justice Shashank Kumar Singh (during 2008) Ashok Kumar Choudhary (replaced Singh recently) P.N. Narayanan M. Shakeel Ahmad 5951 1976 4884 Not Available Rs 1,30,86,117

State Information Commissioners Total Number of Cases Analysed by us (as provided to us) Pendency as on January 1, 2008 Pendency as on December 31, 2008 Average Time Taken Between Filing of Appeal and First Hearing Total Funds Spent by the Commission (FY 2008-09)

STATE OF RECORDS
We visited Bihar information commissions Patna office to get photocopies of the orders. We were provided with copies of all the orders.

RANKING OF COMMISSIONERS BY PARAMETERS

Name Prodisclosure Factor % (rank) 76.1% (17th) Effectiveness Deterrent Impact % (rank) 2.2% (12th) Overall Public Satisfaction

State Rankings

40 to 50%

30 to 40%

Rankings of Individual Commissioners Justice Shashank Kumar Singh P.N. Narayanan M. Shakeel Ahmad 86.3% (46th) 63.6% (73rd) 87% (44th) 2.2% (33rd) 2.1% (35th) 2.3% (31st)

40-50% 30-40% 30-40%

40-50% 20-30% 30-40%

56

PERFORMANCE OF COMMISSION ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS

DISPOSALS An average of 175 cases per commissioner per month Pendency increased from 1,976 to 4,884 cases during the year 2008. Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 2 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 76.1% National Average: 68% Rank amongst states on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 17 5,951 4,530 (76.1%) 90 (1.5%) 1331 (22.4%) National Best: 98.3%

EFFECTIVENESS: 40 to 50%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 40 to 50% of 4530 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 2.2% National Average: 2% Rank amongst states: 12 Penalty show cause notices issued: 4293 (95% of pro-disclosure orders) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 1157 (27% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 2758 (64% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 378 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 280 o Net penalties imposed: 98 (2% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 25%

OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90%

If 100 people approached Bihar Information Commission, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 76 cases. Out of these, 30 to 40 people finally got the information requested.

57

PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS

Justice Shashank Kumar Singh (Chief Information Commissioner)

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 134 cases per month. He retired by the end of the year. Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 2 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 86.3% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back Rank 46th 1,340 1,156 (86.3%) 23 (1.7%) 161 (12%) 46th National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 40 to 50%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 40 to 50% of 1156 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 2.2% National Average: 2% Rank amongst commissioners: 33 Penalty show cause notices issued: 1068 (92% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 22 (2% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 1013 (95% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 33 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 8 o Net penalties imposed: 25 (2.2% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 40 to 50% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90%

If 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 86.3 cases. Out of these, 40 to 50 people finally got the information requested.

58

Detailed Findings
1. Justice Shashank retired during the year. 2. Saddled with huge pendency, Bihar Information Commission has found a unique way to increase its disposals. Instead of directly deciding these appeals and complaints, the Commission sent large number of cases to senior officials including respective DMs, under Section 18 (2) of the RTI Act, directing them to ensure that information sought by the appellant be provided and also to inquire whether or not provisions of RTI Act had been violated. Effectively, the commission transferred its workload on other officers through this method. In October-December 2008 alone, the Commission sent over 500 appeals/complaints to officials u/s 18(2) for inquiry instead of directly deciding the cases and relieving the information seekers of further uncertainty and delay. An appellant approached Information Commission after getting frustrated from bureaucratic apathy and inaction. This way, the Commission again tosses the appellant back to the same bureaucracy. In all these cases, neither any penalty show cause notices were issued nor penalties imposed. The Commission does not have any record of what happened to these cases subsequently. From commissions point of view, these cases are disposed. 3. Justice Shashank ordered disclosure of information in 86.3% cases. Though quite high, Justice Shashank was at 46th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor because many other commissioners had passed more orders in favor of disclosures. 3 commissioners from other states passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% prodisclosure orders. 4. However, only 40-50% of these orders could be implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 50 to 60% of the appellants did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 5. Justice Shashank follows the practice of continuing mandamus i.e. a case is not closed after passing orders but compliance hearings are posted subsequently to ensure compliance. That could be one of the reasons that the compliance is better than the national average. 6. The Commission has a good practice of issuing penalty show cause notice, in every case received at the commission, to explain reasons for delay or denial. Justice Shashank issued penalty show cause notices in 92% pro-disclosure cases. However, 1013 (95%) of these notices remained pending at the end of the year. That was partly due to the fact that he retired before the end of the year. 7. Therefore, his Deterrent Impact is low at 2.2%. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 2.2% cases.

59

P.N. Narayanan
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 228 cases per month Average pendency per commissioner: 1628 (Total pendency of 4884 divided by 3 commissioners) Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 2 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 64% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 73 2,734 1,740 (63.6%) 49 (1.8%) 945 (34.6%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 30 to 40% of 1740 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 2.1% National Average: 2%

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 35 Penalty show cause notices issued: 1708 (98% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 1111 (65% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 317 (19% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 280 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 244 o Net penalties imposed: 36 (2.1% of pro-disclosure cases) Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 20 to 30%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

Out of 100 people who approached this Commissioner, 86 got pro-disclosure orders, but only 20 to 30 people finally got the information requested.

60

Detailed Findings
1. Saddled with huge pendency, Bihar Information Commission found a unique way to increase its disposals. Instead of directly deciding these appeals and complaints, the Commission sent large number of cases to senior officials including respective DMs, under Section 18 (2) of the RTI Act, directing them to ensure that information sought by the appellant be provided and also to inquire whether or not provisions of RTI Act had been violated. No hearing is held in such cases. The commission has designed a form. It merely fills up that form and transfers the case to some officer in the district to which that case belongs to. Effectively, the commission transfers its workload on other officers through this method. In October-December 2008 alone, the Commission sent over 500 appeals/complaints to officials u/s 18(2) for inquiry instead of directly deciding the cases and relieving the information seekers of further uncertainty and delay. An appellant approaches Information Commission after getting frustrated from bureaucratic apathy and inaction. This way, the Commission again tosses the appellant back to the same bureaucracy. In all these cases, neither any penalty show cause notices were issued nor penalties imposed. The Commission does not have any record of what happened to these cases subsequently. From commissions point of view, these cases are disposed. Amongst all commissioners in Bihar, Mr Narayanan transferred maximum number of cases through this method. We wonder whether such a practice is legally sound. 2. Mr Narayanan remanded back almost 35% of the cases, in addition to the cases forwarded u/s 18(2) above. 3. Though he denied information in only 2% cases, however, remanding back such large number of cases brought down his Pro-Disclosure Factor to 64%, which means that out of all the orders passed by him, he ordered full disclosure of information in 64% cases only. Compare this with the best in the country. 3 commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. If Mr Narayanan revisits the practice of remanding back large number of cases, his pro-disclosure factor could substantially improve. 4. However, only 30 to 40% of these orders got implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, the 60 to 70% of the appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 5. Mr Narayanan does not close a case without ensuring compliance. He follows the practice of continuing mandamus i.e. after passing an order, he holds compliance hearings. 6. Then why is compliance to his orders so low? This is because repeated compliance hearings tire out appellants. In some cases, several hearings spanning over several months have taken place. After a few hearings, when the appellant does not turn up for hearings, the case is closed with remarks that the appellant might have got all information. Mr Narayanan would need to act tough to ensure compliance and avoid repeated hearings. If the order remains uncomplied even after a few compliance hearings, Mr Narayanan may like to invoke powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3), as is being done by Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission, to ensure compliance. 7. Bihar Information Commission has a good practice of issuing penalty show cause notice, in every case received at the commission, to explain reasons for delay or denial. Mr Narayanan passed ProDisclosure orders in 1740 cases and issued penalty show cause notices in 1708 cases i.e. 98% of pro-disclosure orders. This was the highest number of show cause notices issued in the country. 8. However, such large number of notices did not translate into deterrent impact. Mr Narayanan proved too soft. He accepted the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs in 1111 (65% of the total show cause notices issued) cases. Only 280 translated into penalties. Even out of these 280 penalties imposed, 244 were subsequently withdrawn when the guilty officials came back and pleaded for mercy before Mr Narayanan. Finally penalties were imposed in just 36 cases out of 1708 show cause notices issued. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 9. 317 show cause notices remained pending at the end of the year. 10. Therefore, Mr Narayanans Deterrent Impact is low at 2.1%. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 2.1% cases.

61

11. Mr Narayanans disposal is quite good. He disposed 228 cases per month, much higher than many commissioners in the country. Unlike most Information Commissions, he did not close a case by merely passing an order but subsequently had several compliance hearings in each case. This means that he conducted several hundred hearings every month. However, the pendency is still quite high at Bihar Information Commission. Therefore, high disposals need to be coupled with strong enforcement. Every RTI violation should be dealt with strict penalties, as prescribed under law, so that PIOs satisfy appellants at their level only and cases do not reach the commission. That would help reduce pendency.

62

M. Shakeel Ahmad
DISPOSALS An average of 156 cases per month Average pendency per commissioner: 1628 (Total pendency of 4884 divided by 3 commissioners) Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 2 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 87.1% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 44 1,877 1,634 (87.1%) 18 (1%) 225 (12%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 30 to 40% of 1634 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 2.3% National Average: 2%

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 31 Penalty show cause notices issued: 1517 (93% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 24 (2% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 1428 (94% of the notices issued) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 65 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 28 o Net penalties imposed: 37 (2.3% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

If 100 people approached Mr Shakeel Ahmad, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 87 cases. Out of these, 30 to 40 people finally got the information requested.

63

Detailed Findings
1. Saddled with huge pendency, Bihar Information Commission found a unique way to increase its disposals. Instead of directly deciding these appeals and complaints, the Commission sent large number of cases to senior officials including respective DMs, under Section 18 (2) of the RTI Act, directing them to ensure that information sought by the appellant be provided and also to inquire whether or not provisions of RTI Act had been violated. No hearing is held in such cases. The commission has designed a form, which it merely fills up to transfer the case to some officer in the district to which that case belongs to. Effectively, the commission transfers its workload on other officers through this method. In October-December 2008 alone, the Commission sent over 500 appeals/complaints to officials u/s 18(2) for inquiry instead of directly deciding the cases and relieving the information seekers of further uncertainty and delay. An appellant approaches Information Commission after getting frustrated from bureaucratic apathy and inaction. This way, the Commission again tosses the appellant back to the same bureaucracy. In all these cases, neither any penalty show cause notices were issued nor penalties imposed. The Commission does not have any record of what happened to these cases subsequently. From commissions point of view, these cases are disposed. We wonder whether such a practice is legally sound. 2. Mr Shakeel Ahmad remanded back almost 12% of the cases. Though he denied information in only 1% cases, however, remanding back such large number of cases slightly brought down his ProDisclosure Factor to 87%, which means that out of all the orders passed by him, he ordered full disclosure of information in 87% cases. Compare this with the best in the country. 3 commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 3. However, only 30-40% of the orders passed by the commissioner got implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 60 to 70% of the appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 4. Mr Shakeel Ahmad does not close a case without ensuring compliance. He follows the practice of continuing mandamus i.e. after passing an order, he holds compliance hearings. 5. Then why is compliance to his orders so low? This is because repeated compliance hearings tire out appellants. In some cases, several hearings spanning over several months have taken place. After a few hearings, when the appellant does not turn up for hearings, the case is closed with remarks that the appellant might have got all information. The commissioner would need to act tough to ensure compliance and avoid repeated hearings. If the order remains uncomplied even after a few compliance hearings, he may invoke powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3), as is being done by Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission, to ensure compliance. 6. Bihar Information Commission has a good practice of issuing penalty showcause notice in every case received at the commission, to explain reasons for delay or denial. Mr Shakeel Ahmad passed ProDisclosure orders in 1,634 cases and issued penalty show cause notices in 1,517 cases i.e. 93% of pro-disclosure orders. This is one of the highest showcause notices issued in the country. 7. However, such large number of notices did not translate into deterrent impact. Mr Ahmad did not act upon as many as 1,428 (94% notices issued) notices, which remained pending at the end of the year, thus neutralizing any deterrence impact created by issuing of notices. He accepted the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs in 24 cases. Only 65 translated into penalties. Even out of these 65 penalties imposed, 28 were subsequently withdrawn when the guilty officials came back and pleaded for mercy before Mr Shakeel Ahmad. Finally penalties were imposed in just 37 cases out of 1517 show cause notices issued. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 8. Therefore, Mr Shakeel Ahmads Deterrent Impact is low at 2.3%. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 2.3% cases. 9. Mr Shakeel Ahmads disposal is quite good. He disposed an average of 156 cases per month, much higher than many commissioners in the country. Unlike most Information Commissions, he did not close a case by merely passing an order but subsequently had several compliance hearings in each case. This means that he conducted several hundred hearings every month. However, the pendency

64

is still quite high at Bihar Information Commission. Therefore, high disposals need to be coupled with strong enforcement. Every RTI violation should be dealt with strict penalties, as prescribed under law, so that PIOs satisfy appellants at their level only and cases do not reach the commission. That would help reduce pendency.

65

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

STATE FACTSHEET
Chief Information Commissioner Information Commissioners Wajahat Habibullah A.N. Tiwari M.M. Ansari O.P. Kejariwal Annapurna Dixit S.N. Mishra ML Sharma Padma Balasubramaniam Shailesh Gandhi 7,626 5,313 9,593 Different for different commissioners Rs 8,04,00,000

Total Number Of Cases Analysed By us Pendency as on January 1, 2008 Pendency as on December 31, 2008 Time Taken Between Filing of Appeal and First Hearing Total Funds Spent by the Commission (FY 2008-09)

STATE OF RECORDS
We were informed by the Commission that all their orders are on their website. They claim to have passed 10,285 orders. However, we found only 7,343 orders on their site, which we have analyzed. We have also learnt that a large number of cases are rejected by the registry of CIC on technical grounds. However, in response to our RTI query, they said that they do not maintain such data. Interestingly, in the previous year, they had revealed in response to an RTI query filed by another RTI activist that almost 63% cases received at CIC were rejected on technical grounds.

RANKING OF COMMISSIONERS BY PARAMETERS

Name Pro-disclosure Factor % (Rank) 64.8% (20 th) Effectiveness % Deterrent Impact % (Rank) 1.8% (15 th) Overall Public Satisfaction % 10 to 20%

CIC rankings

20 to 30%

Rankings of Individual Commissioners: Wajahat Habibullah A.N. Tiwari M.M. Ansari O.P. Kejariwal Annapurna Dixit S.N. Mishra ML Sharma Padma Balasubramaniam Shailesh Gandhi 66.7% (70 th) 41.1% (82 nd) 71.7% (66th) 85% (49th) 65.6% (72nd) 48.3% (77th) 81.1% (53rd) 46.5% (80th) 79.7% (57 )
th

50 to 60% 20 to 30% 10 to 20% 20 to 30% 30 to 40% 10 to 20% 10 to 20% 20 to 30% 20 to 30%

4.9% (17th) 6.09% (15th) 0.24% (56th) 2.4% (29th) 0 (57th) 0 (57th) 0 (57th) 1.28% (41st) 0.78% (48th)

30 to 40% 10 to 20% 10 to 20% 20 to 30% 20 to 30% 0 to 10% 0 to 10% 10 to 20% 10 to 20%

66

PERFORMANCE OF COMMISSION ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS

DISPOSALS An average of 110 cases per commissioner per month Pendency of the Commission increased from 5,313 to 9,593 during the year. Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing is different for different commissioners. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 64.8% National Average: 68% Rank amongst states on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 20 7,626 4,938 (64.8%) 2,153 (28.2%) 535 (7%) National Best: 98.3%

EFFECTIVENESS: 20 to 30%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 20 to 30% of 4938 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 1.8% National Average: 2% Rank amongst states: 15 Penalty show cause notices issued: 890 (18% of pro-disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 104 (12% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 694 (78% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 92 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 5 o Net penalties imposed: 87 (1.8% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 25%

OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 10 to 20% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approach Central Information Commission, pro-disclosure orders were done in 65 cases. Out of these, 10 to 20 people finally got information.

67

PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS

Wajahat Habibullah (Chief Information Commissioner)

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 69 cases per month Average pendency per Commissioner: 1200 (Total pendency of 9693 divided by 8 commissioners) Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 8 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 66.7% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 70 826 551 (66.7%) 119 (14.4%) 156 (18.9%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 50 to 60%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 50 to 60% of 551 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 4.9% National Average: 2% Rank amongst commissioners: 17 Penalty show cause notices issued: 180 (33% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 51 (28% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 100 (56% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 29 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 2 o Net penalties imposed: 27 (4.9% of pro-disclosure cases) Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 67 cases. Out of these, 30 to 40 people finally got information.

68

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Habibullah denied information in 14% cases and remanded back 19% cases. He ordered disclosure of information in 67% cases. Amongst all commissioners, he is at 70th position on ProDisclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. 3 commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. 50 to 60% of these pro-disclosure orders got implemented. Though better than the national average of 30 to 40%, however, 40 to 50% of people still did not get information despite favorable and prodisclosure orders. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Why is Mr Habibullahs compliance so low? Because he closes a case after passing orders that information be provided - without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after several months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Habibullah in 551 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 180 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 180 cases and not in the balance 551 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of most of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 51 show cause notices were dropped. 29 finally translated in penalties, out of which 2 were withdrawn. 100 show cause notices (almost 56% of the total notices issued) remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mr Habibullah, therefore, is 4.9%. 8. CIC suffers from huge pendencies. Considering that, Mr Habibullahs disposal seems to be low. An average of 69 orders are passed per month. It takes more than 10 months for a case to be heard after it is filed. Nationally, there are 4 commissioners who dispose more than 200 cases per month. 18 commissioners dispose more than 100 cases per month. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

69

A.N. Tiwari
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 73 cases per month Average pendency per Commissioner: 1,200 (Total pendency of 9,693 divided by 8 commissioners) Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing is 10 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 41.1% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back Rank 82 878 361 (41.1%) 425(48.4%) 92 (10.5%) 82 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 20-30%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 20 to 30% of 361 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 6.1% National Average: 2% Rank amongst commissioners: 15 Penalty show cause notices issued: 76 (21% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 33 (43% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 20 (26% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 23 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 1 o Net penalties imposed: 22 (6.1% of pro-disclosure cases) Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 10 to 20% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were given in 41 cases. Out of these, 10 to 20 people finally got information.

70

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Tiwari passed orders in favor of disclosures in 41% cases. He denied information in 48% cases. This is one of the highest denials in the country. He remanded back 10% of the cases. Therefore, amongst all commissioners, he stands at 82nd position on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. 3 commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. Nationally, on an average, 68% orders were passed in favor of disclosures. 2. Amongst the pro-disclosure orders passed by Mr Tiwari, only 20-30% could get implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 70 to 80% people still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Why is Mr Tiwaris compliance so low? One of the main reasons is because he closes a case after passing orders that information be provided - without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after several months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. The RTI Act clearly states that the intentions of the applicatnt cannot be questioned. However, many cases were rejected questioning the motive of the appellant. 5. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 6. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Tiwari in 361 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 76 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 76 cases and not in the balance 361 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 7. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 33 show cause notices were dropped. 23 translated in penalties of which one was subsequently withdrawn. 20 show cause notices remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 8. Deterrence Impact of Mr Tiwari, therefore, is 6%. 9. Disposals of Mr Tiwari, though much higher than many commissioners in the country, appear low considering huge pendency at CIC. It takes almost ten months for first hearing to take place from the date of filing appeal. An average of 73 orders has been passed by him per month. It is possible to improve disposals. Nationally, there are 4 commissioners who dispose more than 200 cases per month. 18 commissioners dispose more than 100 cases per month. Whereas on one hand, there is a

71

need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

72

Annapurna Dixit
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 147 cases per month Average pendency per Commissioner: 1,200 (Total pendency of 9,693 divided by 8 commissioners) Aveage time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 7 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 65.6% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 72 442 290 (65.6%) 151 (34.2%) 1 (0.2%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 30 to 40% of 290 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0% National Average: 2% Rank amongst commissioners: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 41 (14% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: NIL Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 41 (100% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: NIL o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net penalties imposed: NIL Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 20 to 30% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 66 cases. Out of these, 20 to 30 people finally got information.

73

Detailed findings
1. Mrs Dixit joined in October and worked for only three months during the year. 2. She passed 66% orders in favor of disclosures. She denied information in almost 34% cases, which is high compared to other commissioners. But she remanded back just one case. Therefore, she stands at 72nd position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. 3 commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. Nationally, on an average, 68% orders were passed in favor of disclosures. 3. Only 30 to 40% of the pro-disclosure orders passed by her could be implemented. So, despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 60 to 70% of the appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 4. Why is Mrs Dixits compliance so low? Because she closes a case after passing orders that information be provided - without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after several months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information. Many times, the order is again not complied with. 5. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 6. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mrs Dixit in 290 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 41 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 41 cases and not in the balance 290 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 7. All show cause notices remained pending at the end of the year because she joined towards the end of the year and worked only for three months. 8. Immediately on joining, she started disposing large number of cases. Her average disposal is 147 cases per month, much higher than many other commissioners in the country. Whereas high disposals are welcome, however, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

74

M.L. Sharma
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 85 cases per month Average pendency per Commissioner: 1,200 (Total pendency of 9,693 divided by 8 commissioners) Aveage time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 11 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 81.1% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 53 254 206 (81.1%) 27 (10.6%) 21 (8.3%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 10 to 20%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 10 to 20% of 206 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0% National Average: 2% Rank amongst commissioners: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 8 (4% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: NIL Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 8 (100% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: NIL o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net penalties imposed: NIL Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): Less than 10% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 81 cases. Out of these, less than 10 people finally got information.

75

Detailed Findings
1. He joined in October and worked for only three months during the year. 2. Mr Sharma directed disclosure of information in 81% cases. He denied information in 11% cases and remanded back 8% cases. Therefore, amongst all Information Commissioners, he stands at 53rd position on Pro-Disclosure Factor. This is much better than national average of 68%. However, there are 3 commissioners from different parts of India who passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 3. However, only 10 to 20% of the pro-disclosure orders passed by Mr Sharma could be implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 80 to 90% of the appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 4. Why is Mr Sharmas compliance so low? Because he closes a case after passing orders that information be provided - without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after several months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information. Many times, the order is again not complied with. 5. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 6. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Sharma in 206 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 8 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 8 cases and not in the balance 206 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 7. All show cause notices remained pending at the end of the year because he joined towards the end of the year and worked only for three months. 8. CIC suffers from huge pendency. He disposed an average of 85 cases per month, which is higher than many other commissioners in the country. However, it still takes 11 months for the first hearing to take place after an appeal being filed. Whereas there is a need to improve disposals, however, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

76

Prof M.M. Ansari

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 144 cases per month Average pendency per Commissioner: 1,200 (Total pendency of 9,693 divided by 8 commissioners) Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing is not available because the orders do not contain these dates. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 71.7% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 66 1,726 1,238 (71.7%) 430 (24.9%) 58 (3.4%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 10 to 20%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 10 to 20% of 1238 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0.24% National Average: 2%

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 56 Penalty show cause notices issued: 67 (5% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 2 (3% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 62 (93% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 3 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net penalties imposed: 3 (0.24% of pro-disclosure cases) Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 10 to 20%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 72 cases. Out of these, 10 to 20 people finally got information.

77

Detailed Findings
1. If an applicant asks from a public authority why action was not taken on his grievance or what action was taken, some commissioners reject such an application saying that this does not fall within the definition of information. However, Prof Ansari allowed such information under section 4(1)(d) of RTI Act. According to him, 4(1)(d) says that the authorities are suo moto required to disclose reasons for their quasi-judicial or administrative actions. When they do not act on an application, reasons for such inaction should also be disclosed. However, Prof Ansari allowed such information is some cases but rejected in some others. We could not understand the reasons for such discrimination. In any case, this is an interesting and useful interpretation of section 4(1)(d). Other commissioners may also like to follow it. 2. Through order no 490 in the case of Anil Kumar Baranwal, Prof Ansari disallowed all Government servants from seeking information about grievances related to their service matters. Does RTI Act bar such requests? Is such denial legally sound? According to Prof Ansari, seeking information on such matters is misuse of RTI. The operative part of the said order reads as follows: Ideally speaking, in the garb of seeking information, an employee of a public authority should not raise issues pertaining to grievances regarding the promotion and transfer. Under the service (conduct) rules, which govern the relationship between an employee and his employer, the parties should resolve the disputes in the interest of creating congenial atmosphere for work and promoting productivity of the organisation. 4. In the instant case, the appellant has not only questioned the actions taken by the respondent but also sought explanations for doing so, which tantamounts to insubordination. 5. An employee being a part of the public authority cannot seek its accountability like other citizens as he is free to contribute to its performance through various means available to him. Instead of approaching the competent authority for redressel of his grievances or seeking legal remedy in the matter of alleged deprivation of promotion, the appellant has been misusing the provisions of RTI for promotion of his personal interest, which is unfortunate. 3. In order no 588 in the case of M D N Panicker, Prof Ansari issued directed the appellant to use the information sought in a particular manner. He even directed the appellant to submit a report to the commission within a month. One wonders whether an Information Commissioner has the powers to issue such directions. The appellant should submit a report on the scrutiny of expenditure details indicating the irregularities or otherwise, as observed by him within one month from the date of issue of this decision. Failure to do so would tantamount to harassment of the officials of the respondent on flimsy grounds of arousing unnecessary suspicions about the working of the Rourkela Steel Plant. 4. Many cases were rejected with following observations: In the instant case, the appellant has put up his application for information without ascertaining the availability of information with the concerned CPIO. The appellant is therefore advised to ascertain the availability of information and accordingly submit his application for information. With best intentions and efforts, it is not possible for ordinary citizens to ascertain availability of information from a public authority. How does one do it? By writing to the officials of that department and asking them whether they possess such information? The officials would never respond to such letters. That is why the Parliament introduced section 6(3) and required a PIO to transfer the application to that officer who is in possession of that information. Shouldnt all such appeals have been transferred to the PIO who was in possession of the information sought rather than rejecting them?

78

5. Someone asked for information related to allotment of flats to its employees by a particular public authority. This was treated as misuse of RTI provisions. The appellant has asked for certain information on behalf of an employee of the respondent. The information sought for relate to the procedure for allotment and vacation of government quarters. 3. The CPIO has furnished a point-wise response and thus provided the information, except the personal and official details of employees of the respondent who are, however, not clearly identified. 4. In the course of hearing, the representative of the appellant could not explain as to what was the public interest in seeking the information or as to how anyone was affected in the case. Decision: 5. The RTI Act empowers every citizen to access the information held by the public authorities. Any affected person is free to seek information to realize the goals of life. In the instant case, it is not understandable as to why the appellant has sought for information on behalf of a third person and that too largely about third parties. Such an attempt is to be construed to mean that the provisions of the Act are misused. How did the Commissioner conclude that the appellant was seeking information on behalf of some other employee? Even if he was, what is wrong in that? Everyone knows that so much wrongdoing takes place in allotment of official flats. If someone else is seeking information to expose that, is there anything wrong in that? Can we treat this as misuse of RTI? 6. Information was denied in some cases if the matter is sub-judice. Not only is it against the provisions of RTI Act, it also goes against many of CICs own decisions. In order no 812 in the case of Govind Rai, the following directions were issued: 5. In view of the fact that the Court is duly seized of the issue raised by the appellant and that the information asked for mainly the documents relating to settlement of bills, are under submission to the Court, which will surely allow access to the information to the appellant for ensuring natural justice, there is no justification for the Commission to interfere in the matter at this stage. 6. The appellant is therefore advised to avail of the opportunity of accessing the documents as and when submitted by the respondent. It was also revealed that the documents have already been submitted to the Court once and it would be submitted again this week. 7. Many cases were rejected with following remarks: 5. In the garb of seeking information, the appellant should not make attempt to seek redressal of his grievances. It appears from this statement as if it is a crime to try and get ones grievance resolved by seeking answers to pointed questions from a public authority under RTI. Whereas one agrees that the public authorities are not required to solve grievances and only provide information under RTI, however, experience shows that since accountability gets fixed in the process of providing information, they end up solving grievances. Is that unethical or illegal, if the people use RTI route to get their grievances resolved rather than paying bribes? In fact, this has emerged as one of the best uses of RTI so far that people are using RTI rather than paying bribes. 8. Prof Ansari directed disclosure of full information in 72% cases. He denied information in 25% cases but remanded back just 3% cases. Therefore, amongst all commissioners, he stands at 66th position

79

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14. 15.

16.

on Pro-Disclosure Factor. This is better than the national average of 68%. Compare this with the highest in the country. 3 commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. However, only 10 to 20% of the pro-disclosure orders passed by Prof Ansari could be enforced. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 80 to 90% of the appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. Why is Prof Ansaris compliance so low? Because he closes a case after passing orders that information be provided - without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. Many complaints of non-compliance are either never attended to or disposed off without holding any hearings. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Prof Ansari in 1238 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 67 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 67 cases and not in the balance 1238 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. In 2 show cause notices, Prof Ansari accepted the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs and dropped those notices. Penalties were imposed in 3 cases. However, Prof Ansari did not act upon 62 notices (almost 93% of notices issued by him), which remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). Deterrence Impact of Prof Ansari, therefore, is 0.24%. Prof Ansaris disposal is quite high. On an average, he passed 144 orders per month, which is much higher than many commissioners in the country. However, CIC suffers from a huge pendency. In many cases, it takes more than ten months for the first hearing to take place after an appeal is filed. Therefore, high disposals by Prof Ansari is welcome, however, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission. Prof Ansari responded to our interim report and the final jury verdict. His reaction and our response thereto are annexed at Annexure C.

80

O.P. Kejariwal
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 85 cases per month Average pendency per Commissioner: 1,200 (Total pendency of 9,693 divided by 8 commissioners) Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 10 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 85% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 49 1,024 870 (85%) 121 (11.8%) 33 (3.2%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 20 to 30%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 20 to 30% of 870 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 2.4% National Average: 2% Rank amongst commissioners: 29 Penalty show cause notices issued: 119 (14% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 16 (13% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 80 (67% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 23 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 2 o Net penalties imposed: 21 Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 20 to 30% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 85 cases. Out of these, 20 to 30 people finally got information.

81

Detailed Findings
1. Dr Kejariwal ordered disclosure of information in 85% cases. He denied information in 12% cases and remanded back 3%. Amongst all Commissioners, he stands at 49th position on Pro-Disclosure Factor. This is much better than national average of 68%. Compare this with the highest in the country. 3 commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 20 to 30% of the pro-disclosure orders passed by Dr Kejariwal could be implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 70 to 80% of the appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Why is Dr Kejariwals compliance so low? Because he closes a case after passing orders that information be provided - without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Dr Kejariwal in 870 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 119 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 119 cases and not in the balance 870 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 5. In 16 cases, show cause notices were dropped after accepting the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs as reasonable causes. 23 translated in penalties, out of which 2 were subsequently withdrawn. 80 show cause notices remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 6. Deterrence Impact of Dr Kejariwal, therefore, is 2.4%. 7. He has retired since then.

82

Padma Balasubramaniam
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 168 cases per month Average pendency per Commissioner: 1,200 (Total pendency of 9,693 divided by 8 commissioners) Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 7 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 46.5% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 80 1,513 704 (46.5%) 740 (48.9%) 69 (4.6%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 20 to 30%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 20 to 30% of 704 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 1.28% National Average: 2% Rank amongst commissioners: 41 Penalty show cause notices issued: 190 (27% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 2 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 179 (94% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 9 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net penalties imposed: 9 (1.28% of pro-disclosure cases) Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 10 to 20% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 47 cases. Out of these, 10 to 20 people finally got information.

83

Detailed Findings
1. Mrs Padma directed disclosure of information is just 47% cases. She denied information in 49% cases, highest denials in the country by any commissioner. She remanded back 5% cases. Therefore, she stands at 80th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. 3 commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. Nationally, on an average, 68% orders were passed in favor of disclosures. 2. However, only 20 to 30% of the pro-disclosure orders passed by her got implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 70 to 80% of the appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Why is Mrs Padmas compliance so low? Because she closed cases after passing orders that information be provided - without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order was not complied with subsequently, the appellant had to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mrs Padma in 704 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 190 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 190 cases and not in the balance 704 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 5. In 2 cases, show cause notices were dropped after accepting the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs as reasonable causes. 9 translated in penalties. 179 show cause notices remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 6. Deterrence Impact of Mrs Padma, therefore, is 1.28%. 7. Her disposal at 168 cases per month was quite high compared to many other commissioners in the country. 8. She has retired since then.

84

S.N. Mishra
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 50 cases per month Average pendency per Commissioner: 1,200 (Total pendency of 9,693 divided by 8 commissioners) Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 48.3% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 77 151 73 (48.3%) 39 (25.8%) 39 (25.8%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 10 to 20%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 10 to 20% of 73 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0 National Average: 2% Rank amongst commissioners: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 9 (12% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: NIL Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 9 (100% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: NIL o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net penalties imposed: NIL Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): Less than 10% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 48 cases. Out of these, less 10 people finally got information.

85

Detailed Findings
1. He joined in October and worked for only 3 months. 2. Mr Mishra directed disclosure of information in just 48% cases. He denied information in 26% cases and remanded back another 26% cases. Therefore, he stands at 77th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. 3 commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. Nationally, on an average, 68% orders were passed in favor of disclosures. 3. However, only 10 to 20% of the pro-disclosure orders passed by Mr Mishra could be implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 80 to 90% of the appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 4. Why is Mr Mishras compliance so low? Because he closes a case after passing orders that information be provided - without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after several months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 5. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 6. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Mishra in 73 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 9 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 9 cases and not in the balance 73 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 7. All show cause notices remained pending at the end of the year. Since Mr Mishra joined towards the end of the year and worked only for three months, he had not time to dispose off penalty show cause notices. During this year, therefore, his Deterrence Impact is zero. 8. CIC suffers from huge pendency. It takes more than 10 months for the first hearing to take place in many cases after an appeal is filed. In such a scenario, Mr Mishras average disposal of 50 cases per month is quite low. It is possible to increase this disposal. Nationally, there are 4 commissioners who dispose more than 200 cases per month. 18 commissioners dispose more than 100 cases per month. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

86

Shailesh Gandhi
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 267 cases per month Average pendency per Commissioner: 1,200 (Total pendency of 9,693 divided by 8 commissioners) Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was nine months during this year. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 79.7% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 57 801 638 (79.7%) 99 (12.4%) 64 (8%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 20 to 30%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 20 to 30% of 638 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0.78% National Average: 2% Rank amongst commissioners: 48 Penalty show cause notices issued: 200 (31% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: NIL Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 195 (98% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 5 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net penalties imposed: 5 Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 10 to 20% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 80 cases. Out of these, only 10 to 20 people finally got information.

87

Detailed Findings
1. He joined the Commission in October and worked only for three months during the year. 2. Mr Gandhi directed disclosure of information in 80% cases. He denied information in 12% cases. Another 8% cases were remanded back. Therefore, he stands at his 57th position on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Though this is much better than national average of 68%, however, compare this with the highest in the country. 3 commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 3. However, only 20 to 30% of the pro-disclosure orders passed by Mr Gandhi got implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 70 to 80% of the appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 4. Why is Mr Gandhis compliance so low? One of the reasons was that Mr Gandhis main emphasis was on disposals without worrying about compliance. For instance, 30 complaint cases were closed on the basis of report from the PIO that complete information had been provided, without holding any hearing and without enquiring from the appellant whether he/she was satisfied. 5. Another main reason for low compliance is that he closes a case after passing orders that information be provided - without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after several months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 6. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 7. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Gandhi in 638 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 200 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 200 cases and not in the balance 638 cases? We tried to understand the reasons for this discrimination. We found that penalty show cause notices were issued only in those cases where information was not provided by the PIO despite orders from first appellate authority to do so. In those cases where first appellate authority did not issue such orders, normally penalty show cause notices were not issued. However, exceptions were made to the above trend also because in many cases like order nos 1482, 228, 229, 532 etc, show cause notices were issued even in the absence of specific orders from first appellate authority. The reasons for making such an exception is not clear why notices were issued in some cases and not in others. 8. Mr Gandhi is perhaps the only Commissioner in the country who issued penalty show cause notice for destruction of records with the objective of obstructing information. 9. However, show cause notices were not issued in many cases with following observations:

88

The PIO has given an explanation for the delay. The Commission condones the delay and warns the PIO to ensure that information is given to applicants within 30 days as mandated under Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Does the Commission have the powers to condone the delay? 10. Out of 200 show cause notices, no notice was dropped. However, penalties were imposed only in 5 cases. 195 show cause notices remained pending at the end of the year. This is also because Mr Gandhi worked only for three months during the year. 11. He had a very high disposal rate of 267 cases per month. It is learnt that this disposal rate went up much more during next year. He inherited a waiting period of more than 10 months but it has come down to less then two months now. Whereas it is extremely hearty to note that the disposals are quite high, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

89

Chhattisgarh
STATE FACTSHEET
State Chief Information Commissioner State Information Commissioners Total Number of Cases Analysed by us (as provided to us) Pendency as on January 1, 2008 Pendency as on December 31, 2008 Time Taken Between Filing of Appeal and First Hearing Total Funds Spent by the Commission (FY 2008-09) A.K. Vijayavargia Anil Joshi 1,272 1,146 984 7 months Rs. 120,34,000

STATE OF RECORDS
After a lot of dilly dallying and rejection of our RTI application, Chhattisgarh information commission provided us with 1,272 orders. The commission subsequently sent us a letter, very late in the day, stating that Mr. A.K.Vijayavargia alone had passed around 2,269 orders! We have analyzed only 1,272 orders received from them.

RANKING OF COMMISSIONERS BY PARAMETERS

Name Prodisclosure Factor (rank) 95.3% (2nd) Effectiveness Deterrent Impact (rank) 4.5% (8th) Overall Public Satisfaction 30-40%

Sate Rankings

30-40%

Rankings of Individual Commissioners A.K. Vijayavargia Anil Joshi Combined Bench 94.8% (15th) 100% (1st) 100% (1st) 30-40% 30-40% 30-40% 4.2% (18th) 3.4 (21st) 7.45% (13th) 30-40% 30-40% 30-40%

90

PERFORMANCE OF COMMISSION ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS

Disposals An average of 91 cases per commissioner per month. Pendency of the commission decreased from 1,146 to 984 cases at the end of the year. Average time taken between filing of an appeal and first hearing was seven months.

PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 95.3% National Average: 68% Rank amongst states on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 2 1,272 1,212 (95.3%) 60 (4.7%) 0 National Best: 98.3%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30-40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 30 to 40% of the 1,212 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 4.5% National Average: 2%

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 25%

Rank amongst states: 8 Penalty show cause notices issued: 209 (17.2% of pro-disclosure orders) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 154 (73.7% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 1 (0.5% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 54 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 54 (4.5% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30-40%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80-90%

Out of 100 people who approached Chhattisgarh Information Commission, 95 people got pro-disclosure orders and only 30 to 40 people were fortunate to finally obtain the information requested.

91

PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS

AK Vijayavargia (Chief Information Commissioner)

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 104 cases per month (This includes 1,149 orders passed by the commissioner as a single bench as well as 94 orders passed by the Commissioner as combined bench) Average pendency per commissioner: 492 cases Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 7 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 94.8% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 15 1,149 1,089 (94.8%) 60 (5.2%) 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 30 to 40% of 1,149 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 4.2% National Average: 2% Rank amongst commissioners: 48 Penalty show cause notices issued: 180 (16.5% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 133 (73.9% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 1 (0.6% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 46 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 46 (4.2% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90%

If 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 95 cases. Out of these, only 30 to 40 people finally got the information requested.

92

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Vijayvargia directed disclosure of information in 94.8% cases, denying information in 5.2% cases. He did not remand back any case. Therefore, he stands at 15th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures. He was one among the 34 commissioners who passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 30 to 40% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 60 to 70% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr. Vijayvargias compliance seems to be low because he closes a case after passing orders in favor of disclosure without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing Mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of Arrest Warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Vijayvargia in 1,089 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 180 cases to explain the reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 180 cases and not in the balance 909 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 133 show cause notices were dropped subsequently. Only 46 cases translated in penalties. One out of 180 notices remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mr Vijayvargia, therefore, is 4.2%. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 4.2% cases. 8. Disposals seem to be low in view of huge pendency. 104 orders are passed per month. Though this is higher than many other commissions, it is low keeping in mind the mounting pendencies at the commission. It takes seven months for a case to be heard for the first time after an appeal is filed at the Commission. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests

93

if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission. 9. The RTI Act specifically states that a penalty of Rs 250 per day of delay would be imposed. However, penalty amounts were not calculated as per this formula. 10. In those cases where records are reported missing or lost by the PIO, cases were closed with directions to be careful about records in future. However, in some cases, the department was directed to fix responsibility. However, no FIR is ordered.

94

Anil Joshi
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 62 cases per month (This includes 29 orders passed by the commissioner as a single bench as well 94 orders passed by the Commissioner as combined bench) Average pendency per commissioner: 492 cases Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 100% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 1 29 29 (100%) 0 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 30 to 40% of 29 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 3.4% National Average: 2% Rank amongst states: 21 Penalty show cause notices issued: 6 (20.7% of pro-disclosure orders) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 5 (83.3% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 0 (0% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 1 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 1 (3.4% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90%

If 100 appellants/complainants approached Mr. Anil Joshi, all of them got pro-disclosure orders, but only 30 to 40 people finally got the information requested.

95

Detailed Findings
1. Mr. Joshi came in at the first spot in terms of pro-disclosure factor. He neither denied information in any case nor did he remand back any case. In fact, the combined bench of Mr. Anil Joshi and Mr. Vijayvargia also did not deny or remand back any case, sharing the spotlight at the first position. 2. Despite being high on pro-disclosure factor, the compliance of his orders was only 30 to 40%. This means that despite having pro-disclosure orders, 60 to 70% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr. Joshis compliance seems to be low because he closes a case after passing orders in favor of disclosure without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Joshi in 29 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for the delay as notices were issued in only 6 cases. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 6 cases and not in the balance 23 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 5 show cause notices were dropped subsequently. Only one case translated in penalty. No notice remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mr. Joshi, therefore, is 3.4%. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 3.4% cases. 8. Disposals seem to be low despite a huge pendency. Only 62 orders are passed per month. It takes about 7 months for the first hearing to take place in a case after filing appeal in the commission. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

96

Combined Benches of Chhattisgarh

Summary Sheet
PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 100% National Average: 68% Rank amongst bench on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partially or fully denied Remanded Back 1 94 94 (100%) 0 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 30 to 40% of 94 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 7.4% National Average: 2% Rank amongst commissioners: 13 Penalty show cause notices issued: 23 (24.5% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 16 (69.6% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 0 (0% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 7 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 7 (7.4% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this bench, pro-disclosure orders were done in 100% cases. Out of these, only 30 to 40 people finally got information.

97

Detailed Findings
1. The combined bench of Chhattisgarh held the number one position in terms of pro-disclosure factor. It neither denied nor remanded back any case. It shared the top spot with Mr. Anil Joshi of Chhattisgarh. 2. However, despite having a 100% pro-disclosure factor, only 30-40% of its orders get complied with. This means that 60-70% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. The compliance of the combined bench seems to be low because it closes a case after passing orders in favor of disclosure without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commission may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing Mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of Arrest Warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by the bench in 94 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 23 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 23 cases and not in the balance 71 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 16 show cause notices were dropped subsequently. Only 7 notices translated in penalties. No case remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of the bench, therefore, is 7.4%. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 7.4% cases.

98

Goa
STATE FACTSHEET
State Chief Information Commissioner State Information Commissioners Total Number of Cases Analysed by us (as provided to us) Pendency as on January 1, 2008 Pendency as on December 31, 2008 Time Taken Between Filing of Appeal and First Hearing Total Funds Spent by the Commission (FY 2008-09) A. Venkatratnam (during 2008) Late G.G. Kambli 254 58 112 3 months Rs. 61,17,000

STATE OF RECORDS
The Commission told us that all their orders were on their website. However, we found only 275 orders on their website.

RANKINGS BY PARAMETERS
Name Prodisclosure Factor % (Rank) 62.2% (21st) Effectiveness % Deterrent Impact % (Rank) 8.9% (5th) Overall Public Satisfaction %

State Rankings

30 to 40%

20 to 30%

Rankings of Individual Commissioners A.Venkataratnam Late G.G Kambli Combined Benches of Goa 58% (76th) 80% (59th ) 58% (75th) 70 to 80% Insufficient Feedback 20 to 30% 8.70% (10th ) 5% (16th ) 10% (6th ) 40-50% Insufficient Feedback 10-20%

99

PERFORMANCE OF COMMISSION ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS

DISPOSALS An average of 11 cases per commissioner per month. Pendency increased from 58 to 112 cases during the year 2008 Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing is not available PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 62.2% National Average: 68% Rank amongst states on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 21 254 158 (62.2%) 79 (31.1%) 17(6.7%) National Best: 98.3%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 30 to 40% of 158 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 8.9% National Average: 2% Rank amongst states: 5 Penalty show cause notices issued: 42 (27% of pro-disclosure orders) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 9 (21% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 15 (36% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 18 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 4 o Net penalties imposed: 14 (8.9% of pro-disclosure cases) Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 25%

OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 20 to 30% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached Goa Information Commission, pro-disclosure orders were done in 62 cases. Out of these, 20 to 30 people finally got information.

100

PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS

A.Venkataratanam (Chief Information Commissioner)

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 17 cases per month (This includes 40 cases disposed by him in single bench and 165 cases disposed in joint bench) Average pendency per commissioner: 56 cases (Total pendency of 112 divided by 2 commissioners). Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 3 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 57.5% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partially or fully denied Remanded Back 76 40 23 (57.5%) 16 (40%) 1 (2.5%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 70 to 80%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 70 to 80% of 23 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 8.7% National Average: 2% Rank amongst commissioners: 10 Penalty show cause notices issued: 5 (22% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 1 (20% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 2 (40% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 2 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net penalties imposed: 2 (8.7% of pro-disclosure cases) Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 40 to 50% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 58 cases. Out of these, 40 to 50 people finally got information.

101

Detailed findings
1. Mr Venkataratanam directed disclosure of information in just 58% cases. He denied information in almost 40% cases. He rejected many cases on a strange reason. If the first appellate authority passed order in favour of an appellant and the order was not implemented, the same was not accepted by the Commission as an appeal or a complaint saying that one can file an appeal only against the orders of first appellate authority and not for its compliance. He remanded back just one case. Therefore, he stands at 76th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. 3 commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. Nationally, on an average, 68% orders were passed in favor of disclosures. 2. 70 to 80% of his pro-disclosure orders got implemented, which is fairly high. 3. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Venkataratanam in 23 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 5 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 5 cases and not in the balance 23 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. 4. One show cause notice was dropped. 2 translated in penalties and 2 were pending at the end of the year. The Deterrent Impact is, therefore, at 9%. In itself, it is quite low, but is higher than many other commissioners. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 9% cases. 5. He passed very strict orders whenever the PIO reported missing records. FIR was ordered to be registered, the Department was directed to fix responsibility within a time frame and report, records were ordered to be reconstructed. 6. Penalty amounts were not calculated as per formula given in section 20 of RTI Act. 7. He has retired since then.

102

Late Sh G.G. Kambli

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 18 cases per month (This includes 49 cases disposed by him in single bench and 165 cases disposed in joint bench) Average pendency per commissioner: 56 cases (Total pendency of 112 divided by 2 commissioners). Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 3 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 79.6% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partially or fully denied Remanded Back 59 49 39 (79.6%) 7 (14.3%) 3 (6.1%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS:
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% Effectiveness could not be calculated due to inadequate feedback. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 5.1% National Average: 2% Rank amongst commissioners: 16 Penalty show cause notices issued: 10 (26% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: NIL Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 6 (60% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 4 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 2 o Net penalties imposed: 2 (5.1% of pro-disclosure cases) Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): National Average: 26%

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

National Best: 80 to 90%

The overall pubic satisfaction could not be calculated due to insufficient feedback.

103

Combined Benches of Goa

Summary Sheet
PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 58.2% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partially or fully denied Remanded Back 75 165 96 (58.2%) 56 (33.9%) 13 (7.9%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 20 to 30%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 20 to 30% of 96 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 10.4% National Average: 2%

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 6 Penalty show cause notices issued: 27 (28% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 8 (30% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 7 (26% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 12 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 2 o Net penalties imposed: 10 (10.4% of pro-disclosure cases) Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 10 to 20%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached the joint bench of Goa, pro-disclosure orders were done in 58 cases. Out of these, 10 to 20 people finally got information.

104

Detailed Findings
1. Goa joint benches ordered disclosure of information in just 58% cases, much less than the national average of 68%. They denied information in a large percentage of cases i.e. 34%. 8% cases were remanded back. Compare this with the highest in the country. 3 commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% prodisclosure orders. 2. However, only 20 to 30% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 80 to 90% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Why is the compliance so low? Because the commission closes a case after passing orders that information be provided - without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. The Commission may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by joint benches in 96 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 27 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 27 cases and not in the balance 96 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 8 show cause notices were dropped. 12 translated in penalties, out of which 2 were subsequently withdrawn. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact, therefore, is 10.4%.

105

Gujarat
STATE FACTSHEET
State Chief Information Commissioner Total Number of Cases Analysed by us (as provided to us) Pendency as on January 1, 2008 Pendency as on December 31, 2008 Time Taken Between Filing of Appeal and First Hearing Total Funds Spent by the Commission (FY 2008-09) R.N. Das 1,443 3,565 4,561 5 months Rs. 49,39,942

STATE OF RECORDS
On our request, Gujarat information commission sent us a CD containing their orders. The commission claimed that the CD contained 1,883 orders passed in the year 2008, but we found only 1,443 orders in the CD, which were analysed.

RANKING BY PARAMETERS
Name Prodisclosure Factor % (Rank) 71.6% (19th) Effectiveness (%) Deterrent Impact % (Rank) 2.13% (13th) Overall Public Satisfaction (%) 30-40%

State Rankings

40-50%

Rankings of Individual Commissioners R.N. Das* 71.6% (67th) 40-50% 2.13% (34th) 30-40%

(*The rankings within states and within commissioners would be different)

106

PERFORMANCE OF COMMISSION ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS Summary Sheet

DISPOSALS An average of 120 cases per month Pendency of Gujarat Information Commission increased from 3,565 to 4,561 cases at the end of the year. Average time taken between filing of an appeal and first hearing was 5 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 71.6% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 19 1,443 1,033 (71.6%) 182 (12.6%) 228 (15.8%) National Best: 98.3%

EFFECTIVENESS: 40 to 50%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

40 to 50% of the 1,033 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 2.1%

National Average: 2%

National Best: 25%

Penalty show cause notices issued: 239 (23.1% of pro-disclosure orders) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 36 (15.1% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 181 (75.7% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 22 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 22 (2.1% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

If 100 people approached Gujarat Information Commission, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 72 cases. Out of these, 30 to 40 people finally got the information requested.

107

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Das directed disclosure of information in 71.6% cases. He denied information in 12.6% cases and remanded back as many as 15.8% cases. Therefore, he stands at the 67th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 40 to 50% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 50 to 60% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr Das does not close a case without ensuring compliance. He follows the practice of continuing mandamus i.e. after passing an order, he holds compliance hearings. 4. Then why is compliance of his orders so low? This is because repeated compliance hearings tire out appellants. In some cases, several hearings spanning over several months have taken place. After a few hearings, when the appellant does not turn up for hearings, the case is closed with remarks that the appellant might have got all information. Mr Das would need to act tough to ensure compliance and avoid repeated hearings. If the order remains uncomplied with, Mr Das may like to invoke powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3), as is being done by Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission, to ensure compliance. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Das in 1,033 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 239 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 239 cases and not in the balance 794 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 36 show cause notices were dropped subsequently. Only 22 cases translated in penalties. 181 of the 239 notices remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mr Das, therefore, is 2.1%. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 2.1% cases. 8. Despite disposing reasonable number of orders, the pendency in Gujarat Information Commission is quite high. This is partly because there is just one information commissioner and the state government has been dithering on appointing more information commissioners. However, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

108

Haryana
STATE FACTSHEET
State Chief Information Commissioner State Information Commissioners G. Madhavan Asha Sharma Ashok Mehta Prem Veer Singh M.R. Ranga J.B.S. Yadav Meenaxi Anand Chaudhry 1586 255 409 4 months Rs. 2,12,02000

Total Number of Cases Analysed by us (as provided to us) Pendency as on January 1, 2008 Pendency as on December 31, 2008 Time Taken Between Filing of Appeal and First Hearing Total Funds Spent by the Commission (FY 2008-09)

STATE OF RECORDS
Haryana information commission provided us with copies of all their orders in a CD.

RANKINGS BY PARAMETERS
Name Prodisclosure Factor % (rank) 87.5% (9th) Effectiveness % Deterrent Impact % (rank) 3.7% (11th) Overall Public Satisfaction %

State Rankings

30 to 40%

20 to 30%

Rankings of Individual Commissioners: G. Madhavan Asha Sharma Ashok Mehta Prem Veer Singh M.R. Ranga J.B.S. Yadav Meenaxi Anand Chaudhry 92.3 (24th) 94.2 (19th) 97.6 (6th) 89.0 (36th) 90.0 (30th) 79.3 (60th) 79.9 (56th) 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 30-40% 10-20% 30-40% 30-40% 2.6 (27th) 0 (57th) 2.5 (28th) 1.7 (38th) 10.2 (8th) 6.8 (14th) 4.1 (19th) 20-30% 20-30% 40-50% 30-40% 10-20% 20-30% 20-30%

109

PERFORMANCE OF COMMISSION ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS

DISPOSALS An average of 23 cases per commissioner per month Commissions pendency increased from 255 to 409 during the year Average time taken between filing of an appeal and first hearing is 4 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 87.5% National Best: 98.3% 9 1586 1388 (87.5%) 141 (8.9%) 57 (3.6%)

National Average: 68%

Rank amongst states on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 30 to 40% of 1388 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 3.7% National Average: 2%

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 25%

Rank amongst states: 11 Penalty show cause notices issued: 558 (40% of pro-disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 291 (52% of notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 215 (39% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 52 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net penalties imposed: 52 (3.7% of pro-disclosure cases) Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 20 to 30%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

Out of 100 people approaching Haryana Information Commission, 87 people get pro-disclosure orders, but only 20 to 30 people finally managed to get the information that they had requested.

110

PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS

G. Madhavan (Chief Information Commissioner)

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 42 cases per month Average pendency per commissioner: 58 cases (Total pendency of 409 divided by 7 commissioners). Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 4 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 92.3% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 24 509 470 (92.3%) 34 (6.7%) 5 (1%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 20 to 30%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 20 to 30% of 470 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 2.6 National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 27 Penalty show cause notices issued: 140 (30% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 88 (63% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 40 (29% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 12 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net penalties imposed: 12 (2.6% of pro-disclosure cases) Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): Less than 20 to 30%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

Out of 100 people who approached Mr Madhavan, 92 got pro-disclosure orders, but only 20 to 30 people finally received the information requested.

111

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Madhavan directed disclosure of information in 92.3% cases. He denied information in just 7% cases and remanded back just 1% cases. Therefore, amongst all Information Commissioners, he stands at 24th position on Pro-Disclosure Factor. 2. However, only 20 to 30% of these pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 70 to 80% of the appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Why is Mr Madhavans compliance so low? Because he closes a case after passing orders that information be provided - without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Madhavans in 470 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 140 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 140 cases and not in the balance 470 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 88 show cause notices were dropped. Therefore, out of 140 show cause notices issued, just 12 translated in penalties. 40 notices remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. In most cases, Mr Madhavan issued penalty show cause notices to get his own orders complied with and not to penalize officers for not providing information in the first instance. This appears to be contrary to law. Mr Madhavan may like to invoke powers of arrests and productions of documents available under section 18(3) of RTI Act to get his orders complied with rather than using section 20 for that purpose. 8. Mr Madhavan has been quite soft in terms of taking penal action against errant officials. In many cases (like order nos 1242, 1189), penalties were dropped despite repeated non-compliance of commissions orders. 9. Deterrence Impact of Mr Madhavan, therefore, is 2.6%. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 2.6% cases.

112

10. Mr Madhavans disposal seems to be low. Only 42 orders are passed per month. Though the pendency of the commission is small, still it takes an average of four months for the first hearing to take place from the date of filing appeal. This time could be reduced if the disposals could be slightly increased. Nationally, there are 4 commissioners who dispose more than 200 cases per month. 18 commissioners dispose more than 100 cases per month. Whereas on one hand, the disposals should be increased, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission. 11. RTI Act specifically lays down that a penalty of Rs 250 per day of delay should be imposed. However, Mr Madhavan imposed penalties in many cases without reference to this formula. 12. Mr Madhavan has been quite liberal in letting off PIOs when they deny information on the ground that records are missing or untraceable. Such cases are closed by ordering departmental enquiries. No FIR was ordered. In some parts of the country, when the commissioners threatened police action, suddenly records came out, which means missing records was merely an excuse being given by the PIO to deny information.

113

Asha Sharma
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 10 cases per month Average pendency per commissioner: 58 cases (Total pendency of 409 divided by 7 commissioners). Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 4 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 94.2% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 19 86 81 (94.2%) 5 (5.8%) 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 30 to 40% of 81 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0 National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 42 (52% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 15 (36% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 27 (64% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: NIL o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net penalties imposed: NIL Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 20 to 30%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

If 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 94 cases. Out of these, only 20 to 30 people finally got the information requested.

114

Detailed Findings
1. Mrs Sharma directed disclosure of information in 94.2% cases. She denied information in just 6% cases and did not remand back any case. Therefore, she stands at 19th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. 2. However, only 30 to 40% of the pro-disclosure orders passed by her got implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 60 to 70% of the appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Why is Mrs Sharmas compliance so low? Because she closes a case after passing orders that information be provided - without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mrs Sharma in 81 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 42 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 42 cases and not in the balance 81 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 15 show cause notices were dropped. None translated in penalties. 27 notices remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mrs Sharma, therefore, is zero. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was not imposed in any case. 8. Mrs Sharma passed just 10 orders per month, less than one order a day. This is quite low. Though the pendency of the commission is small, still it takes an average of four months for the first hearing to take place from the date of filing appeal. This time could be reduced if the disposals could be slightly increased. Nationally, there are 4 commissioners who dispose more than 200 cases per month. 18 commissioners dispose more than 100 cases per month. Whereas on one hand, the disposals should be increased, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

115

Ashok Mehta
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 15 cases per month Average pendency per commissioner: 58 cases (Total pendency of 409 divided by 7 commissioners). Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 4 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 97.6% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 6 123 120 (97.6%) 2 (1.6%) 1 (0.8%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 40 to 50%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 40 to 50% of 120 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 2.5% National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 28 Penalty show cause notices issued: 37 (31% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 14 (38% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 20 (54% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 3 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net penalties imposed: 3 (2.5% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 40 to 50%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

If 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 97 cases. Out of these, only 40 to 50 people finally got the information requested.

116

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Mehta directed disclosure of information in 97.6% cases. This is one of the highest in the country. He denied information in 2% cases and remanded back just 1% cases. Therefore, he stands at 6th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. 2. However, only 40 to 50% of these orders of the commissioner got implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 50 to 60% of the appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Why is Mr Mehtas compliance so low? Because he closes a case after passing orders that information be provided - without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Mehta in 120 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 37 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 37 cases and not in the balance 120 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 14 show cause notices were dropped. Only 3 notices translated in penalties. 20 remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mr Mehta, therefore, is 2.5%. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 2.5% cases. 8. Mr Mehta passed just 15 orders per month, less than one order a day. This is quite low. Though the pendency of the commission is small, still it takes an average of four months for the first hearing to take place from the date of filing appeal. This time could be reduced if the disposals could be slightly increased. Nationally, there are 4 commissioners who dispose more than 200 cases per month. 18 commissioners dispose more than 100 cases per month. Whereas on one hand, the disposals should be increased, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

117

Prem Veer Singh

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 15 cases per month Average pendency per commissioner: 58 cases (Total pendency of 409 divided by 7 commissioners). Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 4 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 89% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 36 136 121 (89%) 15 (11%) 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 30 to 40% of 121 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 1.65% National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 38 Penalty show cause notices issued: 68 (56% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 44 (65% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 22 (32% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 2 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net penalties imposed: 2 (1.65% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

If 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 89 cases. Out of these, 30 to 40 people finally got the information requested.

118

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Singh directed disclosure of information in 89% cases. He denied information in 11% cases but did not remand back any case. Therefore, he stands at 36th position amongst all information commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. 3 commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. Nationally, on an average, 68% orders were passed in favor of disclosures. 2. However, only 30-40% of these pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner got implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 60 to 70% of the appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score, and could get more than 90% orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% orders implemented. 3. Why is Mr Singhs compliance so low? Because he closes a case after passing orders that information be provided - without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Singh in 121 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 68 cases. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 68 cases and not in the balance 121 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 44 show cause notices were dropped. Just 2 cases translated in penalties. 22 notices remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mr Singh, therefore, is 1.65%. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 1.65% cases. 8. Mr Singh passed just 15 orders per month, less than one order a day. This is quite low. Though the pendency of the commission is small, still it takes an average of four months for the first hearing to take place from the date of filing appeal. This time could be reduced if the disposals could be slightly increased. Nationally, there are 4 commissioners who dispose more than 200 cases per month. 18 commissioners dispose more than 100 cases per month. Whereas on one hand, the disposals should be increased, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

119

M.R. Ranga
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 13 cases per month Average pendency per commissioner: 58 cases (Total pendency of 409 divided by 7 commissioners). Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 4 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 90% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back Rank 30 120 108 (90%) 12 (10%) 0 30 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 10 to 20%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 10 to 20% of 108 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 10.2% National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 8 Penalty show cause notices issued: 69 (64% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 19 (28% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 39 (57% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 11 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net penalties imposed: 11 (10.2% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 10 to 20%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

If 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 90 cases. Out of these, only 10 to 20 people finally got the information requested.

120

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Ranga directed disclosure of information in 90% cases. He denied information in 10% cases but did not remand back any case. Therefore, he stands at 30th position amongst all information commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor 2. However, only 10 to 20% of these pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 80 to 90% of the appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Why is Mr Rangas compliance so low? Because he closes a case after passing orders that information be provided - without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Ranga in 108 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 69 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 69 cases and not in the balance 108 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 19 show cause notices were dropped. Only 11 notices translated in penalties. 39 notices remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mr Ranga, therefore, is 10.2%. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 10.2% cases. 8. Mr Ranga passed just 13 orders per month, less than one order a day. This is quite low. Though the pendency of the commission is small, still it takes an average of four months for the first hearing to take place from the date of filing appeal. This time could be reduced if the disposals could be slightly increased. Nationally, there are 4 commissioners who dispose more than 200 cases per month. 18 commissioners dispose more than 100 cases per month. Whereas on one hand, the disposals should be increased, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

121

Lt Gen (Retd) J.B.S. Yadav

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 20 cases per month Average pendency per commissioner: 58 cases (Total pendency of 409 divided by 7 commissioners). Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 4 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 79.3% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 60 184 146 (79.3%) 34 (18.5%) 4 (2.2%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 30 to 40% of 146 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 6.8% National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 14 Penalty show cause notices issued: 64 (44% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 27 (42% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 27 (42% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 10 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net penalties imposed: 10 (6.8% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 20 to 30%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

If 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 79 cases. Out of these, only 20 to 30 people finally got the information requested.

122

Detailed Findings
1. If RTI application is not clear and is vague, many commissioners reject the case on this ground ad direct the appellant to file a fresh application. However, Mr Yadav has shown a very sympathetic and people friendly approach. Rather than dismissing the case, he discusses in detail, what exact information is the appellant asking for this is finalized in the hearing only and the public authority is directed to provide the same, even if it is slightly different from the originally requested information (for instance order no 1350 of 2008). Normally, most commissioners reject such an application and direct the appellant to file a fresh application or remand it back to PIO. 2. Mr Yadav directed disclosure of information in 79.3% cases. He denied information in 18% cases and remanded back 4 cases. Therefore, he stands at 60th position amongst all information commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. 3 commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. Nationally, on an average, 68% orders were passed in favor of disclosures. 3. However, only 30 to 40% of these pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 60 to 70% of the appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 4. Why is Mr Yadavs compliance so low? Because he closes a case after passing orders that information be provided - without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 5. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 6. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Yadav in 146 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 64 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 64 cases and not in the balance 146 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 7. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 27 show cause notices were dropped. Penalties were imposed only in 10 cases. 27 notices remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending).

123

8. Deterrence Impact of Mr Yadav, therefore, is 6.8%. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 6.8% cases. 9. Mr Yadav passed just 20 orders per month, less than one order a day. This is quite low. Though the pendency of the commission is small, still it takes an average of four months for the first hearing to take place from the date of filing appeal. This time could be reduced if the disposals could be slightly increased. Nationally, there are 4 commissioners who dispose more than 200 cases per month. 18 commissioners dispose more than 100 cases per month. Whereas on one hand, the disposals should be increased, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

124

Meenaxi Anand Chaudhry

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 36 cases per month Average pendency per commissioner: 58 cases (Total pendency of 409 divided by 7 commissioners). Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 4 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 79.9% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 56 428 342 (79.9%) 39 (9.1%) 47 (11%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 30 to 40% of 342 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 4.1% National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 19 Penalty show cause notices issued: 138 (40% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 84 (61% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 40 (29% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 14 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net penalties imposed: 14 (4.1% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 20 to 30%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

If 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 80 cases. Out of these, only 20 to 30 people finally got the information requested.

125

Detailed Findings
1. Mrs Meenaxi directed disclosure of information in 79.9% cases. She denied information in 9.1% cases but remanded back almost 11% cases. Cases are remanded back without any hearings. Therefore, she stands at 56th position amongst all information commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. 3 commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% prodisclosure orders. Nationally, on an average, 68% orders were passed in favor of disclosures. 2. However, only 30 to 40% of these pro-disclosure orders passed by her got implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 60 to 70% of the appellants did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score, who could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Another 5 commissioners also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Why is Mrs Meenaxis compliance so low? Because she closes a case after passing orders that information be provided - without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mrs Meenaxi in 342 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 138 cases. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 138 cases and not in the balance 342 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 84 show cause notices were dropped. Penalties were imposed in just 14 cases. 40 notices remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mrs Meenaxi, therefore, is 4.1%. Out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 4.1% cases. 8. Mrs Meenaxi passed just 36 orders per month. This is quite low. Though the pendency of the commission is small, still it takes an average of four months for the first hearing to take place from the date of filing appeal. This time could be reduced if the disposals could be slightly increased. Nationally, there are 4 commissioners who dispose more than 200 cases per month. 18 commissioners dispose more than 100 cases per month. Whereas on one hand, the disposals should be increased, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

126

Himachal Pradesh
STATE FACTSHEET
State Information Commissioner Information Commission Total Number of Cases Analysed by us (as provided to us) Pendency as on January 1, 2008 Pendency as on December 31, 2008 Average time Taken Between Filing of Appeal and First Hearing Total Funds Spent by the Commission (FY 2008-09) P S Rana S S Parmar 272 40 48 2 months Rs 50,84,003

STATE OF RECORDS
They provided us with copies of all their orders some in a CD and some as hard copies.

RANKINGS BY PARAMETERS
Name Prodisclosure Factor % (Rank) 88.6 % (7th ) Effectiveness % Deterrent Impact % (Rank) 0.41 (20th ) Overall Public Satisfaction %

State Rankings

30-40%

30-40%

Rankings of Individual Commissioners PS Rana SS Parmar 89.8% (33rd) 87.9% (41st) 40-50% 30-40% 0 (57th) 0.65 (49th) 30-40% 20-30%

127

PERFORMANCE OF COMMISSION ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS

DISPOSALS An average disposal of 11 cases per commissioner per month Pendency increased from 40 to 48 cases during the year 2008. Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 2 months PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 88.6% National Average: 68% Rank amongst states on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partially or fully denied Remanded Back 7 272 241 (88.6%) 21 (7.7%) 10 (3.7%) National Best: 98.3%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 30 to 40% of 241 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0.4% National Average: 2% Rank amongst states: 20 Penalty show cause notices issued: 7 (3% of pro-disclosure orders) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 1 (14% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 5 (71% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 1 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net penalties imposed: 1 (0.4% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 25%

OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached Himachal Information Commission, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 89 cases. Out of these, only 30 to 40 people finally got information.

128

PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS

P.S. Rana (Chief Information Commissioner)

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 8 cases per month Average pendency per commissioner: 24 cases (Total pendency of 48 divided by 2 commissioners). Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 2 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 89.8% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partially or fully denied Remanded Back 33 98 88 (89.8%) 9 (9.2%) 1 (1%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 40 to 50%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 40 to 50% of 88 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0 National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 2 (2% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: NIL Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 2 (100% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: NIL o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net penalties imposed: NIL Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 90 cases. Out of these, 30 to 40 people finally got information.

129

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Rana directed disclosure of information in 90% cases. He denied information in 9% cases and remanded back one case. Therefore, he stands at 33rd position amongst all commissioners on ProDisclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. 3 commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. Nationally, on an average, 68% orders were passed in favor of disclosures. 2. However, only 40 to 50% of these pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 50 to 60% of the appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Why is Mr Ranas compliance so low? Because he closes a case after passing orders that information be provided - without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Rana in 88 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 2 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 2 cases and not in the balance 88 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. He did not act upon these 2 show cause notices. They remained pending till the end of the year. Deterrence Impact of Mr Rana, therefore, is zero. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was not imposed in any case. 7. Disposals are low but it is due to low pendency. Very few appeals are being filed.

130

S.S. Parmar
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 15 cases per month Average pendency per commissioner: 24 cases (Total pendency of 48 divided by 2 commissioners). Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 1 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 87.9% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partially or fully denied Remanded Back 41 174 153 (87.9%) 12 (6.9%) 9 (5.2%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 30 to 40% of 153 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0.65% National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 49 Penalty show cause notices issued: 5 (3% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 1 (20% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 3 (60% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 1 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: NIL o Net penalties imposed: 1 (0.65% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): Less than 10%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 88 cases. Out of these, 20 to 30 people finally got information.

131

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Parmar directed disclosure of information in 88% cases. He denied information in 7% cases and remanded back 5% cases. Therefore, he stands at 41st position amongst all commissioners on ProDisclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. 3 commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 30-40% of these pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner got implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 60-70% of the appellants did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score, as they could get more than 90% orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Why is Mr Parmars compliance so low? Because he closes a case after passing orders that information be provided - without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Parmar in 153 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 5 cases. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 5 cases and not in the balance 153 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. One show cause notice was dropped, penalty was imposed in just one case and 3 cases remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (1 notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mr Parmar, therefore, is 0.65%. Out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 0.65% cases. 8. Mr Parmars disposals are low, because the commission receives very few appeals and complaints. 9. RTI Act specifically lays down that a penalty of Rs 250 per day of delay would be imposed. However, Mr Parmar imposed penalties without reference to this formula. 10. Mr Parmar is quite liberal in letting off PIOs when they deny information on the ground that records are missing or untraceable. Such cases are closed with remarks - stringent efforts seem to have been made by the PIO. Since only such information can be provided which is held by PIO and in this case records are lost and thus not held by the PIO, they cannot be provided. The PIO is let off with these remarks and denial of information is held as legitimate. In some parts of the country, when the commissioners threatened police action, suddenly records came out, which means missing records was merely an excuse given by the PIO to deny information. In light of experiences from other states, Mr Parmar may like to revisit his practice.

132

Jharkhand
STATE FACTSHEET
State Chief Information Commissioner State Information Commissioners R.B. Gupta Baijnath Mishra Gangotri Kujur Harishankar Prasad Harishchandra Patra Munda Praful Kumar Mahto Shrishtidhar Mahto 897 326 502 Not Available Rs 1,68,95,262

Total Number of Cases Analysed by us (as provided to us) Pendency as on January 1, 2008 Pendency as on December 31, 2008 Time Taken Between Filing of Appeal and First Hearing Total Funds Spent by the Commission (FY 2008-09)

STATE OF RECORDS
Several letters and phone calls later, we made a visit to the Jharkhand information commission in Ranchi. We were provided with copies of 897 orders. In response to our letter to confirm that there were no more orders, they informed us in September that there were 1,415 orders. However, copies thereof were not provided. We have, therefore, limited our analysis to 897 orders.

RANKINGS BY PARAMETERS
Name State Rankings Pro-disclosure Factor (rank) 83.4% (12th) Effectiveness 30 to 40% Deterrent Impact (rank) 0.13% (22nd) Overall Public Satisfaction 30 to 40%

Rankings of Individual Commissioners R.B. Gupta Baijnath Mishra Gangotri Kujur Harishankar Prasad Harishchandra Patra Munda Praful Kumar Mahto Shrishtidhar Mahto Combined Benches 68.6% (68th) 76.9% (62nd) 100% (1st) 92.3% (24th) 90.7% (28th) 94.2% (19th) 97.1% (7th) 89.9% (31st) 40-50% 20-30% 70-80% 50-60% 40-50% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 0% (57th) 0% (57th) 0% (57th) 0% (57th) 0% (57th) 0% (57th) 0% (57th) 0.51 (52nd) 30-40% 10-20% 70-80% 50-60% 30-40% 20-30% 30-40% 30-40%

133

PERFORMANCE OF COMMISSION ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS

DISPOSALS An average of 12 cases per commissioner per month. Pendency increased from 326 to 502 cases during the year 2008. Average time taken between filing of an appeal and first hearing was not available as these dates were not mentioned in orders. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 83.4% National Average: 68% Rank Among States on this Parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 12 897 748 (83.4%) 149 (16.6%) 0 National Best: 98.3%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 30 to 40% of 748 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0.13% National Average: 2%

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 25%

Rank amongst states: 22 Penalty show cause notices issued: 2 (0.3% of pro-disclosure orders) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 0 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 1 (50% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 1 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 1 (0.13% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

If 100 people approached Jharkhand Information Commission, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 83 cases. Out of these, only 30 to 40 people finally got the information requested.

134

PERFROMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS

R.B. Gupta (Chief Information Commissioner)

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 23 cases per month (This includes 191 cases disposed by him in single bench and 80 in combined benches) The Commissioners pendency increased from 40 to 156 during the year. Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 68.6% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 68 191 131 (68.6%) 60 (31.4%) 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 40 to 50%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 40 to 50% of 131 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0 National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 0 (0% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 0 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 0 Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 0 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 0 Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

If 100 people approached Mr. R.B. Gupta, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 69 cases. Out of these, only 30 to 40 people finally got the information requested.

135

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Gupta directed disclosure of information in 68.6% cases, denying information in the rest 31.4% cases. He did not remand back any case. Therefore, he stands at 68th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. Nationally, on an average, 68% orders were passed in favor of disclosures. 2. However, only 40 to 50% of the pro-disclosure orders of Mr Gupta could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 50 to 60% appellants still did not get information. On the other hand, Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. The compliance of Mr. Guptas orders seems to be low because he closes a case after passing orders, in favor of disclosure i.e. without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka, etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there is a reasonable cause. ProDisclosure orders were passed by Mr Gupta in 131 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. Despite this, the Commissioner did not issue any show cause notice. He did not ask for the reason for not providing the information on time in any of the cases, let alone imposing penalties. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Therefore, the deterrent impact of Mr. Gupta is 0, i.e. he did not impose any penalty. 7. Disposals seem to be low due to which the pendency of the commissioner has increased four-fold during the year. On an average only 23 orders were passed by the commissioner per month. Nationally, there were 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month and 18 commissioners who disposed more than 100 cases per month. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

136

Baijnath Mishra
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 43 cases per month (This includes 216 cases disposed by him in single bench and 298 cases disposed by him in combined benches) The Commissioners pendency increased from 27 to 116 during the year 2008. Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 76.9% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 62 216 166 (76.9%) 50 (23.1%) 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 20 to 30%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 20 to 30% of 166 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0 National Average: 2% Rank amongst commissioners: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 0 Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 0 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 0 Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 0 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 0 Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 10 to 20% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90% National Best: 30%

If 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 77 cases. Out of these, only 10 to 20 people finally got the information requested.

137

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Mishra directed disclosure of information in 76.9% cases, denying information in 23.1% cases. He did not remand back any case. Therefore, he stands at 62nd position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 20 to 30% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 70 to 80% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. The compliance of Mr. Mishras orders could be low because he closes a case after passing orders in favor of disclosure - without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing Mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka, etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of Arrest Warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Mishra in 166 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. Despite this, the commissioner did not issue any showcause notice. He did not ask for the reason for not providing the information on time in any of the cases, let alone imposing penalties. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Therefore the deterrent impact of Mr Mishra is zero, i.e. he did not impose any penalty. 7. Disposals seem to be low due to which the pendency has increased nearly three-fold during the year. On an average only 43 orders were passed by the commissioner per month. Nationally, there were 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month. 18 commissioners disposed more than 100 cases per month. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

138

Gangotri Kujur
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 8 cases per month. (This includes 41 cases disposed by her in single bench and 58 cases disposed by her in combined benches) The commissioners pendency decreased from 61 to 47 during the year. Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 100% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 1 41 41 (100%) 0 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 70 to 80%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 70 to 80% of 41 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0 National Average: 2% Rank amongst commissioners: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 0 Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 0 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 0 Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 0 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 0 Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 70 to 80% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90% National Best: 30%

All people who approached Mrs. Kujur got pro-disclosure orders, of which 70-80 people finally got the information requested.

139

Detailed Findings
1. Mrs Kujur has a pro-disclosure factor of 100% as she neither denied nor remanded back any case. Therefore she holds the number one position on this parameter along with Mr. Anil Joshi of Chhattisgarh and the combined bench of Mr. Anil Joshi and Mr. AK Vijayavargiya of Chhattisgarh. 2. She fares reasonably well in terms of effectiveness factor as well. Since she follows the practice of Continuing Mandamus, i.e. not closing a case unless the complainant reports satisfaction, she could get as many as 70-80% of her orders implemented, which was far more than her colleagues. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Mrs. Kujur is one among the five commissioners in the country who could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. However, repeated compliance hearings sometimes tire out appellants. If the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. Mrs. Kujur may also like to follow this practice. 4. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mrs Kujur in 41 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. Despite this, the commissioner did not issue any showcause notice. She did not ask for the reason for not providing the information on time in any of the cases, let alone imposing penalties. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 5. Therefore the deterrent impact of Mrs Kujur is zero, i.e. she did not impose any penalty. 6. Disposal of cases by the commissioner seems to be low. On an average only 8 orders were passed by the commissioner per month, which comes to less than one order every three days! Nationally, there were 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month. 18 commissioners disposed more than 100 cases per month. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

140

Harishankar Prasad
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 41 cases per month. (This includes 26 cases disposed by him in single bench and 218 cases disposed by him in combined benches) As per data provided by the Commissioner, his pendency decreased from 17 to zero during the year. Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 92.3% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 24 26 24 (92.3%) 2 (7.7%) 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 50 to 60%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 50 to 60% of 24 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0 National Average: 2% Rank amongst commissioners: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 0 Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 0 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 0 Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 0 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 0 Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 50 to 60% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90% National Best: 30%

If 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 92 cases. Out of these, 50 to 60 people finally got the information requested.

141

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Prasad directed disclosure of information in 92.3% cases, denying information in 7.7% cases. He did not remand back any case. Therefore, he stands at 24th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosure. He is one among the 34 commissioners who gave pro-disclosure orders in more than 90% cases. 2. However, only 50 to 60% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 40 to 50% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr. Prasads compliance seems to be low because he closes a case after passing pro-disclosure orders without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing Mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of Arrest Warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Prasad in 24 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. Despite this, the commissioner did not issue any showcause notice. He did not ask for the reason for not providing the information on time in any of the cases, let alone imposing penalties. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Therefore the deterrent impact of Mr Prasad is zero, i.e. he did not impose any penalty. 7. As per the information provided by the commissioner, his pendency decreased from 17 to zero during the year.

142

Harishchandra Patra Munda

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 35 cases per month. (This includes 118 cases disposed by him in single bench and 298 cases disposed by him in combined benches) The Commissioners pendency increased from 22 to 49 during the year. Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 90.7% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 28 118 107 (90.7%) 11 (9.3%) 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 40 to 50%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 40 to 50% of 107 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0 National Average: 2% Rank amongst commissioners: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 0 Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 0 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 0 Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 0 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 0 Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90% National Best: 30%

If 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 91 cases. Out of these, only 30 to 40 people finally got the information requested.

143

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Munda directed disclosure of information in 90.7% cases, denying information in 9.3% cases. He did not remand back any case. Therefore, he stands at 28th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures. He is one among the 34 commissioners who gave pro-disclosure orders in more than 90% cases. 2. However, only 40 to 50% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 50 to 60% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr. Mundas compliance seems to be low because he closes a case after passing pro-disclosure orderswithout ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Munda in 107 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. Despite this, the commissioner did not issue any showcause notice. He did not ask for the reason for not providing the information on time in any of the cases, let alone imposing penalties. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Therefore the deterrent impact of Mr Munda is zero, i.e. he did not impose any penalty. 7. Disposals seem to be low due to which the pendency has increased from 22 to 49 during the year. On an average only 35 orders were passed by the commissioner per month. Nationally, there are 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month. 18 commissioners disposed more than 100 cases per month. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

144

Praful Kumar Mahto

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 11 cases per month. (This includes 52 cases disposed by him in single bench and 80 cases disposed by him in combined benches) The pendency of the commissioner decreased from 67 to 52 during the year. Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 94.2% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 19 52 49 (94.2%) 3 (5.8%) 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 20 to 30%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 20 to 30% of 49 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0 National Average: 2% Rank amongst commissioners: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 0 Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 0 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 0 Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 0 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 0 Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): Less than 20 to 30% If 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 94 cases. Out of these, only 20 to 30 people finally got the information requested. National Best: 30%

145

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Mahto directed disclosure of information in 94.2% cases, denying information in 5.8% cases. He did not remand back any case. Therefore, he stands at 19th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures. He is one among the 34 commissioners who gave pro-disclosure orders in more than 90% cases. 2. However, only 20 to 30% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 70 to 80% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr. Mahtos compliance seems to be low because he closes a case after passing pro-disclosure orderswithout ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a) Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b) Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Mahto in 49 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. Despite this, the commissioner did not issue any showcause notice. He did not ask for the reason for not providing the information on time in any of the cases, let alone imposing penalties. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Therefore the deterrent impact of Mr Mahto is zero, i.e. he did not impose any penalty. 7. Pendency of the commissioner decreased from 67 to 52 during the year.

146

Shrishtidhar Mahto
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 8 cases per month. (This includes 35 cases disposed by him in single bench and 58 cases disposed by him in combined benches) The Commissioners pendency decreased from 92 to 82 during the end of the year. Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 97.1% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 7 35 34 (97.1%) 1 (2.9%) 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 30 to 40% of 34 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0 National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 1 (3% of the pro-disclosure orders) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 0 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 1 Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 0 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 0 Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

If 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 97 cases. Out of these, 30 to 40 people finally got the information requested.

147

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Mahto directed disclosure of information in 97.1% cases, denying information in 2.9% cases. He did not remand back any case. Therefore, he stands at 7th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures. He is one among the 34 commissioners who gave pro-disclosure orders in more than 90% cases. 2. However, only 30 to 40% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 60 to 70% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr. Mahtos compliance seems to be low because he closes a case after passing pro-disclosure orderswithout ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing Mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of Arrest Warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Mahto in 34 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. Despite this, the commissioner did not issue any showcause notice. He did not ask for the reason for not providing the information on time in any of the cases, let alone imposing penalties. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Therefore the deterrent impact of Mr Mahto is zero, i.e. he did not impose any penalty. 7. Pendency of the commissioner decreased from 92 to 82 during the year.

148

Combined Benches of Jharkhand

Summary Sheet
PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 89.9% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 31 218 196 (89.9%) 22 (10.1%) 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 40 to 50%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

40 to 50% of the 196 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0.51%

National Average: 2%

National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 52 Penalty show cause notices issued: 1 (0.5% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 0 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 0 Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 1 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 1 (0.5% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this combined bench, pro-disclosure orders were given in 90 cases. Out of these, 30 to 40 people finally got information.

149

Detailed Findings
1. The combined bench directed disclosure of information in 89.9% cases, denying information in 10.1% cases. It did not remand back any case. Therefore, it stands at 31st position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 40 to 50% of the pro-disclosure orders passed by the bench could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 50 to 60% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. The compliance of the orders of the combined bench is low because it closes a case after passing orders in favor of disclosure without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commission may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by the bench in 196 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 1 case to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in only 1 case and not in the balance 195 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Deterrence Impact of the bench is, therefore, 0.5%. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 0.5% cases.

150

Karnataka
STATE FACTSHEET
State Chief Information Commissioner State Information Commissioners Total Number of Cases Analysed by us (as provided to us) Pendency as on January 1, 2008 Pendency as on December 31, 2008 Time Taken Between Filing of Appeal and First Hearing Total Funds Spent by the Commission (FY 2008-09) K.K. Mishra H.N. Krishna K.A.Theppeswamy 6,041 1,882 4,887 4 months Data not available

STATE OF RECORDS
Karnataka Information commission provided us with all their orders in a CD.

RANKING BY PARAMETERS
Name Prodisclosure Factor % (Rank) 91.1% (5th) Effectiveness (%) Deterrent Impact % (Rank) 1.11% (18th) Overall Public Satisfaction (%) 50-60%

State Rankings

50-60%

Rankings of Individual Commissioners K.K.Misra K.A. Thippeswamy H.N. Krishna Combined Bench of Karnataka 95.7% (11th) 96.0 % (10th) 79.7% (57 ) 92% (26 )
th th

50-60% 50-60% 50-60% Insufficient feedback

1.22% (44th) 0.81% (47th) 1.50% (40 ) 0 (57 )

th th

50-60% 50-60% 40-50% Insufficient feedback

151

PERFORMANCE OF COMMISSION ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS

DISPOSALS An average of 168 cases per commissioner per month. Pendency increased from 1,882 to 4,887 cases during the year 2008. Average time taken between filing of an appeal and first hearing was four months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 91.1% National Average: 68% Rank amongst states on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 5 6,041 5,506 (91.1%) 526 (8.7%) 9 (negligible percentage) National Best: 98.3%

EFFECTIVENESS: 50-60%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 50-60% of the 5,506 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 1.11% National Average: 2%

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 25%

Rank amongst states: 18 Penalty show cause notices issued: 1,402 (25.5% of pro-disclosure orders) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 57 (4% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 1,284 (91.6% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 61 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 61 (1.1% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 50 to 60%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approach the Information Commission, pro-disclosure orders were given in 91 cases. Out of these, only 50-60 people finally got information.

152

PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS

K.K. Misra (Chief Information Commissioner)

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 158 cases per month (This includes orders passed by the commissioner as a single bench as well as a part of the combined bench) Average pendency per commissioner: 1,629 cases (Total pendency of 4,887 divided by 3 commissioners). Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 4 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 95.7% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 11 1,891 1,810 (95.7%) 78 (4.1%) 3 (0.2%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 50 to 60%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

50 to 60% of 1,810 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 1.2%

National Average: 2%

National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 44 Penalty show cause notices issued: 267 (14.8% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 14 (5.2% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 231 (86.5% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 22 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 22 (1.2% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 50 to 60%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were given in 96 cases. Out of these, only 50-60 people finally got information.

153

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Misra directed disclosure of information in 95.7% cases. He denied information in 4.1% cases and remanded back a negligible 0.2% cases. Therefore, he stands at 11th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures. He was one among 34 commissioners who gave orders in favor of disclosure in more than 90% cases. 2. However, only 50 to 60% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 40 to 50% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr Misra does not close a case without ensuring compliance. He follows the practice of continuing mandamus i.e. after passing an order, he holds compliance hearings. 4. Then why is compliance of his orders so low? This is because repeated compliance hearings tire out appellants. In some cases, several hearings spanning over several months have taken place. After a few hearings, when the appellant does not turn up for hearings, the case is closed with remarks that the appellant might have got all information. Mr Misra would need to act tough to ensure compliance and avoid repeated hearings. If the order remains uncomplied with, Mr Misra may like to invoke powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3), as is being done by Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission, to ensure compliance. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Misra in 1,810 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 267 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued only in these 267 cases and not in the balance 1,543 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. In 14 show cause notices, explanations offered by PIOs were accepted and penalty proceedings were dropped. Penalty was imposed in just 22 cases. 231 out of 267 notices remained pending at the end of the year. This seems to be a problem area that action on penalty show cause notices remain pending for several months. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (1 notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mr Misra, therefore, is 1.2%. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 1.2% cases.

154

H.N. Krishna
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 146 cases per month (This includes orders passed by the commissioner as a single bench as well as a part of the combined bench). Average pendency per commissioner: 1,629 cases (Total pendency of 4,887 divided by 3 commissioners). Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was four months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 79.7% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 57 1,753 1,398 (79.7%) 355 (20.3%) 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 50 to 60%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

50 to 60% of 1,398 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 1.5%

National Average: 2%

National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 40 Penalty show cause notices issued: 673 (48.1% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 18 (2.7% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 634 (94.2% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 21 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 21 (1.5% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 40 to 50%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were given in 80 cases. Out of these, 40-50 people finally got information.

155

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Krishna directed disclosure of information in 79.7% cases, denying information in 20.3% cases. He did not remand back any case. Therefore, he stands at 57th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 50 to 60% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 40 to 50% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr Krishna does not close a case without ensuring compliance. He follows the practice of continuing mandamus i.e. after passing an order, he holds compliance hearings. 4. Then why is compliance of his orders so low? This is because repeated compliance hearings tire out appellants. In some cases, several hearings spanning over several months have taken place. After a few hearings, when the appellant does not turn up for hearings, the case is closed with remarks that the appellant might have got all information. Mr Krishna would need to act tough to ensure compliance and avoid repeated hearings. If the order remains uncomplied with, Mr Krishna may like to invoke powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3), as is being done by Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission, to ensure compliance. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Krishna in 1,398 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 673 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 673 cases and not in the balance 725 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. In 18 show cause notices, explanations offered by PIOs were accepted and penalty proceedings were dropped. Penalty was imposed in just 21 cases. 634 out of 673 notices remained pending at the end of the year. This seems to be a problem area that action on penalty show cause notices remain pending for several months. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (1 notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mr Krishna, therefore, is 1.5%. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 1.5% cases.

156

K.A. Thippeswamy
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 193 cases per month (This includes orders passed by the commissioner as a single bench as well as a part of the combined bench). Average pendency per commissioner: 1,629 cases (Total pendency of 4,887 divided by 3 commissioners). Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was four months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 96% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 10 2,310 2,218 (96%) 87(3.8%) 5 (negligible percentage) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 50 to 60%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

50 to 60% of 2,218 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0.8%

National Average: 2%

National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 47 Penalty show cause notices issued: 450 (20.3% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 24 (5.3% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 408 (90.7% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 18 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 18 (0.8% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 50 to 60%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were given in 96 cases. Out of these, 50 to 60 people finally got information.

157

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Thippeswamy directed disclosure of information in 96% cases. He denied information in 3.8% cases and remanded back only 0.2% cases. Therefore, he stands at 10th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures. He is one among the 34 commissioners who passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 50 to 60% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 40 to 50% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr Thippeswamy does not close a case without ensuring compliance. He follows the practice of continuing mandamus i.e. after passing an order, he holds compliance hearings. 4. Then why is compliance of his orders so low? This is because repeated compliance hearings tire out appellants. In some cases, several hearings spanning over several months have taken place. After a few hearings, when the appellant does not turn up for hearings, the case is closed with remarks that the appellant might have got all information. Mr Thippeswamy would need to act tough to ensure compliance and avoid repeated hearings. If the order remains uncomplied with, Mr Thippeswamy may like to invoke powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3), as is being done by Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission, to ensure compliance. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Thippeswamy in 2,218 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 450 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 450 cases and not in the balance 1,768 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. In 24 show cause notices, explanations offered by PIOs were accepted and penalty proceedings were dropped. Penalty was imposed in just 18 cases. 408 out of 450 notices remained pending at the end of the year. This seems to be a problem area that action on penalty show cause notices remain pending for several months. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (1 notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mr Thippeswamy, therefore, is 0.8%. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 0.8% cases.

158

Combined Benches of Karnataka

Summary Sheet
PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 92% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 26 87 80 (92%) 6 (6.9%) 1 (1.1%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

The effectiveness could not be calculated due to insufficient feedback. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0% National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 12 (15% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 1 (8.3% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 11 (91.7% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 0 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 0 (0% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS)

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

The Overall Public Satisfaction could not be calculated due to insufficient feedback.

159

Detailed Findings
1. The combined bench of Karnataka issued pro-disclosure orders in 92% cases. It denied information in 6.9% cases and remanded back 1.1% cases. Therefore, it stands at 26th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures. 2. The compliance of the bench could not be calculated due to insufficient feedback. 3. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there was a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by the bench in 80 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Show cause notices were issued in only 12 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 12 cases and not in the balance 68 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 4. In 1 show cause notice, explanation offered by the PIO was accepted and penalty proceeding was dropped. Penalty was not imposed in any case. 11 out of 12 notices remained pending at the end of the year. This seems to be a problem area that action on penalty show cause notices remain pending for several months. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (1 notice remained pending). 5. Deterrence Impact of the bench, therefore, is zero. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was not imposed in any case.

160

Kerala
STATE FACTSHEET
State Chief Information Commissioner State Information Commissioners Palat Mohandas Dr K Rajagopal P Faziluddin P N Vijayakumar V V Giry 1,560 114 953 Not available Rs. 1,50,25,000

Total Number of Cases Analysed by us (as provided to us) Pendency as on January 1, 2008 Pendency as on December 31, 2008 Time Taken Between Filing of Appeal and First Hearing Total Funds Spent by the Commission (FY 2008-09)

STATE OF RECORDS
After two RTIs and several letters and phone calls, we finally got copies of 1,560 orders. However, Col NR Kurup (Retd.) informed us that in a letter (No. 9039-SIC-PIO/2008 dated 6-9-2008) the SIC had communicated to him the monthwise receipts and disposals of the Commission from January 2006 till August 2008, which does not match the figures provided to us by the commission. For example, the pendency figure provided to us was 114 as of January 1, 2008, while the pendency figure provided to Col Kurup was 365. This raises doubts about the correctness of the data provided by Kerala state information commission.

RANKINGS BY PARAMETERS
Name Prodisclosure Factor (Rank) 86% (10th) Effectiveness (%) Deterrent Impact (Rank) 1.4% (17th) Overall Public Satisfaction (%)

State Rankings

40 to 50%

40 to 50%

Rankings of Individual Commissioners Palat Mohandas P Faziluddin Dr K Rajagopal P N Vijayakumar V V Giry Combined Benches of Kerala 89.7% (34th) 89.2% (35th) 90.4% (29th) 95.0% (14th) 87.6% (43rd) 75.7% (64th) 50-60% 50-60% 50-60% 40-50% 40-50% 40-50% 2.76% (24th) 2.27% (30th) 0 (57th) 0 (57th) 0.92% (46th) 0.62% (50th) 40-50% 40-50% 40-50% 40-50% 30-40% 30-40%

161

PERFORMANCE OF COMMISSION ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS

DISPOSALS An average of 29 cases per commissioner per month (During calendar year 2008, Kerala Information Commission disposed 1,560 cases. While four commissioners Mr. Palat Mohandas, Mr. P Faziluddin, Mr. P N Vijayakumar and Mr. V.V. Giryworked for 12 months each, Dr K Rajagopal worked for 5 months. So, calculating on that basis, it comes to roughly 29 cases per commissioner per month.) Pendency increased from 114 to 953 cases during the year. Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 86% National Average: 68% Rank amongst states on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partially or fully denied Remanded Back 10 1,560 1,342 (86%) 204 (13.1%) 14 (0.9%) National Best: 98.3%

EFFECTIVENESS: 40 to 50%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 40 to 50% of 1,342 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 1.4% National Average: 2%

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 25%

Rank amongst states: 17 Penalty show cause notices issued: 229 (17.1% of pro-disclosure orders) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 21 (9.2% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 189 (82.5% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 19 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 19 (1.4% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 40 to 50%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approach Kerala Information Commission, pro-disclosure orders were done in 86 cases. Out of these, 40 to 50 people finally got information.

162

PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS

Palat Mohandas (Chief Information Commissioner)

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 40 cases per month (This includes orders passed by the commissioner as a single bench as well as combined benchs). Average pendency per commissioner: 191 cases (Total pendency of 953 divided by 5 commissioners). Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 89.7% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partially or fully denied Remanded Back 34 485 435 (89.7%) 48 (9.9%) 2 (negligible percentage) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 50 to 60%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 50 to 60% of 435 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 2.8% National Average: 2%

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

Rank amongst states: 24 Penalty show cause notices issued: 107 (24.6% of pro-disclosure orders) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 11 (10.3% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 84 (78.5% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 12 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 12 (2.8% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 40 to 50%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 90 cases. Out of these, 40 to 50 people finally got information.

163

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Mohandas directed disclosure of information in 89.7% cases. He denied information in 9.9% cases and remanded back only 0.4% cases. Therefore, he stands at 34th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 50 to 60% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 40 to 50% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr. Mohandass compliance seems to be low because he closes a case after passing orders in favor of disclosure without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Mohandas in 435 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 107 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 107 cases and not in the balance 328 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued notices in more than 50% cases. 6. In 11 show cause notices, explanations offered by PIOs were accepted and penalty proceedings were dropped. Penalty was imposed in just 12 cases. 84 out of 107 notices remained pending at the end of the year. This seems to be a problem area that action on penalty show cause notices remain pending for several months. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (1 notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mr Mohandas, therefore, is 2.8%. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed in 2.8% cases. 8. Disposals seem to be very low despite a huge pendency. Only 40 orders are passed per month due to which the commissions disposal increased during the year. Nationally, there were 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month, and 18 commissioners who disposed more than 100 cases per month. Waiting time for first appeal of Mr. Mohandas could not be ascertained from orders as the date of filing appeal and date of first hearing were not mentioned in orders. However, it is learnt that it takes several months to be heard. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

164

P. Faziluddin
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 12 cases per month (This includes orders passed by the commissioner as a single bench as well as a part of the combined bench). Average pendency per commissioner: 191 cases (Total pendency of 953 divided by 5 commissioners). Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 89.2% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partially or fully denied Remanded Back 35 148 132 (89.2%) 16 (10.8%) 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 50 to 60%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 50 to 60% of 132 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 2.3% National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 30 Penalty show cause notices issued: 11 (8.3% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 2 (18.2% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 6 (54.5% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 3 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 3 (2.3% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 40 to 50%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 89 cases. Out of these, 40 to 50 people finally got information.

165

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Faziluddin directed disclosure of information in 89.2% cases, denying information in 10.8% cases. He did not remand back any case. Therefore, he stands at 34th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 50 to 60% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 40 to 50% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr. Faziluddins compliance seems to be low because he closes a case after passing orders in favor of disclosure without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-disclosure orders were passed by Mr Faziluddin in 132 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 11 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 11 cases and not in the balance 121 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued notices in more than 50% cases. 6. In 2 show cause notices, explanations offered by PIOs were accepted and penalty proceedings were dropped. Penalty was imposed in just 3 cases. 6 out of 11 notices remained pending at the end of the year. This seems to be a problem area that action on penalty show cause notices remain pending for several months. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (1 notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mr Faziluddin, therefore, is 2.3%. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed in 2.3% cases. 8. Disposals seem to be very low despite a huge pendency. Only 12 orders are passed per month. Therefore, the commissions disposal increased nine-fold during the year. Waiting time for first appeal could not be ascertained from orders as the date of filing appeal and date of first hearing were not mentioned in orders. However, it is learnt that it takes several months to be heard. Nationally, there were 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month, and 18 commissioners who disposed more than 100 cases per month. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

166

Dr. K Rajagopal
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 23 cases per month Average pendency per commissioner: 191 cases (Total pendency of 953 divided by 5 commissioners). Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 90.4% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partially or fully denied Remanded Back 29 114 103 (90.4%) 9 (7.9%) 2 (1.8%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 50 to 60%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 50 to 60% of 103 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0 National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 29 (28.2% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 3 (10.3% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 26 (89.7% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 0 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 0 Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 40 to 50%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 90 cases. Out of these, only 40 to 50 people finally got information.

167

Detailed Findings
1. Dr. Rajagopal directed disclosure of information in 90.4% cases. He denied information in 7.9% cases and remanded back as many as 1.8% cases. Therefore, he stands at 29th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures. He is one among the 34 commissioners who passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 50-60% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 40-50% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% orders implemented. 3. Dr. Rajagopals compliance seems to be low because he closes a case after passing orders in favor of disclosure without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Dr Rajagopal in 103 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 29 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 29 cases and not in the balance 74 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued notices in more than 50% cases. 6. In 3 show cause notices, explanations offered by PIOs were accepted and penalty proceedings were dropped. Penalty was not imposed in any case. 26 out of 29 notices remained pending at the end of the year. This seems to be a problem area that action on penalty show cause notices remain pending for several months. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (1 notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Dr. Rajagopal, therefore, is zero. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was not imposed in any case. 8. Disposals seem to be very low despite a huge pendency. Only 23 orders are passed per month. Therefore, the commissions disposal increased nine-fold during the year. Nationally, there were 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month, and 18 commissioners who disposed more than 100 cases per month. Waiting time for first appeal of the commissioner could not be ascertained from orders as the date of filing appeal and date of first hearing were not mentioned in orders. However, it is learnt that it takes several months to be heard. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission. The commissions disposal increased nine fold during the year.

168

P. N Vijayakumar
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 12 cases per month Average pendency per commissioner: 191 cases (Total pendency of 953 divided by 5 commissioners). Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 95% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partially or fully denied Remanded Back 14 140 133 (95%) 6 (4.3%) 1 (0.7%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 40 to 50%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 40 to 50% of 133 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0 National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 28 (21.1% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 2 (7.1% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 26 (92.9% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 0 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 0 Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 40 to 50%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 95 cases. Out of these, only 40 to 50 people finally got information.

169

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Vijayakumar made an important observation in one of his orders (488(4)/2008/SI). In this case, the PIO claimed that the applicant was his subordinate and was asking for information just to harass him. The Commission did not accept this as a legitimate plea for denial of information. He observed: It may be true that, the requester may be a subordinate. It may be true that, he wanted all the questions to trouble the officer concerned. It may be true that the person who had access to the records itself is making the request. But these are not grounds to withhold the information. Therefore, the information should have been furnished by the Public Information Officer within the time limit. There was a delay of more than 4 months. But the delay was limited to 100 days. Therefore, the Commission is compelled to award the maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- to the Public Information Officer. The Public Information Officer shall remit the amount within 30 days the receipt of this order. 2. Mr Vijayakumar directed disclosure of information in 95% cases. He denied information in 4.3% cases and remanded back as many as 0.7% cases. Therefore, he stands at 14th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures. He is one of the 34 commissioners who passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 3. However, only 40 to 50% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 50 to 60% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 4. The compliance of the commissioner seems to be low because he closes a case after passing orders in favor of disclosure without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 5. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 6. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Vijayakumar in 133 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 28 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 28 cases and not in the balance 105 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases.

170

7. In 2 show cause notices, explanations offered by PIOs were accepted and penalty proceedings were dropped. Penalty was not imposed in any case, and the balance 26 notices remained pending at the end of the year. This seems to be a problem area that action on penalty show cause notices remain pending for several months. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (1 notice remained pending). 8. Deterrence Impact of Mr Vijayakumar, therefore, is zero. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was not imposed in any case. 9. Disposals seem to be very low despite a huge pendency. Only 12 orders are passed per month, due to which the commissions disposal increased nine fold during the year. Nationally, there were 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month, and 18 commissioners who disposed more than 100 cases per month. Waiting time for first appeal could not be ascertained from orders as the date of filing appeal and date of first hearing were not mentioned in orders. However, it is learnt that it takes several months to be heard. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission. The commissions disposal increased nine fold during the year.

171

V V Giry
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 21 cases per month Average pendency per commissioner: 191 cases (Total pendency of 953 divided by 5 commissioners). Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 87.6% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partially or fully denied Remanded Back 43 249 218 (87.6%) 29 (11.6%) 2 (0.8%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 40 to 50%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 40 to 50% of 218 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0.9% National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 46 Penalty show cause notices issued: 7 (3.2% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 1 (14.3% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 4 (57.1% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 2 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 2 (0.9% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 88 cases. Out of these, only 30 to 40 people finally got information.

172

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Giry directed disclosure of information in 87.6% cases. He denied information in 11.6% cases and remanded back only 0.8% cases. Therefore, he stands at 43rd position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Nationally, 3 commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 40-50% of the pro-disclosure orders passed by the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 50-60% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% orders implemented. 5 commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% orders implemented. 3. The compliance of Mr Girys orders seems to be low because he closes a case after passing orders in favor of disclosurewithout ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Giry in 218 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 7 cases. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 7 cases and not in the balance 211 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued notices in more than 50% cases. 6. In 1 show cause notice, explanation offered by the PIO was accepted and penalty proceeding was dropped. Penalty was imposed in 2 cases, and 4 of the 7 notices remained pending at the end of the year. This seems to be a problem area that action on penalty notices remain pending for several months. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (1 notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mr Giry, therefore, is 0.9%. Out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 0.9% cases. 8. Disposals seem to be very low despite a huge pendency. Only 21 orders are passed per month. The commissions disposal increased nine fold during the year. Nationally, there were 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month, and 18 commissioners who disposed more than 100 cases per month. Waiting time for first appeal could not be ascertained from orders as the date of filing appeal and date of first hearing were not mentioned in orders. However, it is learnt that it takes several months to be heard. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

173

Combined Benches of Kerala

SUMMARY SHEET
PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 75.7% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partially or fully denied Remanded Back 64 424 321 (75.7%) 96 (22.6%) 7 (1.7%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 40 to 50%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 40 to 50% of 321 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0.6% National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 50 Penalty show cause notices issued: 47 (14.6% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 2 (4.3% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 43 (91.5% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 2 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 2 (0.6% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 76 cases. Out of these, only 30 to 40 people finally got information.

174

Detailed Findings
1. The combined bench of Kerala directed disclosure of information in 75.7% cases. It denied information in 22.6% cases and remanded back 1.7% cases. Therefore, it stands at 64th position amongst all commissions on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. Only 40 to 50% of the pro-disclosure orders passed by the bench could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 50 to 60% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. The compliance of the combined bench seems to be low because it closes a case after passing orders in favor of disclosure without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commission may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by the bench in 321 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 47 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 47 cases and not in the balance 274 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. In 2 show cause notices, explanations offered by PIOs were accepted and penalty proceedings were dropped. Penalty was imposed in 2 notices. 43 out of the 47 cases remained pending at the end of the year. This seems to be a problem area that action on penalty show cause notices remain pending for several months. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (1 notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of the bench, therefore, is 0.6%. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 0.6% cases.

175

Madhya Pradesh
STATE FACTSHEET
State Chief Information Commissioner State Information Commissioners P P Tiwari D C Jugran Iqbal Ahmed Mahesh Pandey 1,633 2,893 3,841 11-14 months Rs 96,96,000

Total Number of Cases Analysed by us (as provided to us) Pendency as on January 1, 2008 Pendency as on December 31, 2008 Time Taken Between Filing of Appeal and First Hearing Total Funds Spent by the Commission (FY 2008-09)

STATE OF RECORDS
Despite several letters, phone calls and visit to Bhopal, we could obtain copies of only 1,633 orders as against a total of 2,161 orders claimed to be passed by the commission.

RANKINGS BY PARAMETERS
Name Prodisclosure Factor (Rank) 88.6% (7th) Effectiveness (%) Deterrent Impact (Rank) 0.2% (21st) Overall Public Satisfaction (%)

State Rankings

30-40%

30-40%

Rankings of Individual Commissioners P.P.Tiwari D.C. Jugran Mahesh Pandey Iqbal Ahmed Combined Bench Of MP 94.5% (18th ) 86.9% (45th) 93.4% (22nd) 78.1% (61st) 88.9% (38th) 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 20-30% Inadequete feedback 0.4 (54th) 0 (57th) 0.5 (51st) 0 (57th) 0 (57th) 30-40% 30-40% 40-50% 20-30% Inadequete feedback

176

PERFORMANCE OF COMMISSION ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS

DISPOSALS An average of 27 cases per commissioner per month (4 commissioners working for 12 months each disposed 1685 cases) Pendency increased from 2,893 to 3,841 cases during the year. Average time taken for a case to come up was 11 to 14 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 88.6% National Average: 68% Rank amongst states on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 7 1,633 1,447(88.6%) 184 (11.3%) 2 (negligible percentage) National Best: 98.3%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 30 to 40% of 1,447 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0.2% National Average: 2%

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 25%

Rank amongst states: 21 Penalty show cause notices issued: 272 (18.8% of pro-disclosure orders) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 21 (7.7% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 248 (91.2% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 3 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 3 (0.2% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approach Madhya Pradesh Information Commission, pro-disclosure orders were done in 89 cases. Out of these, 30 to 40 people finally got information.

177

PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS

P.P. Tiwari (Chief Information Commissioner)

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 53 cases per month. (This includes 531 cases disposed off by the commissioner as a single bench as well as 102 cases as part of combined benches.) Average pendency per commissioner: 960 cases (Total pendency of 1867 divided by 4 commissioners). Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 11 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 94.5% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 18 531 502 (94.5%) 28 (5.3%) 1 (negligible percentage) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 30 to 40% of 502 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0.4% National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 54 Penalty show cause notices issued: 101 (20.1% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 5 (5% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 94 (93.1% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 2 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 2 (0.4% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 95 cases. Out of these, 30 to 40 people finally got information.

178

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Tiwari directed disclosure of information in 94.5% cases. He denied information in 5.3% cases and remanded back 0.2% cases. Therefore, he stands at 18th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures. He was one among the 34 commissioners who passed pro-disclosure orders in more than 90% cases. 2. However, only 30-40% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 60-70% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% orders implemented. 3. The compliance of Mr. Tiwaris orders is low because he closes a case after passing orders in favor of disclosure without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Tiwari in 502 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Show cause notices were issued in 101 cases. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 101 cases and not in the balance 401 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 5 show cause notices were dropped subsequently. Only 2 cases translated in penalties. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (1 notice remained pending). 7. A major problem with Madhya Pradesh Commission is that they do not act upon show cause notices and keep them pending for several months. Mr Tiwari kept 94 out of 101 notices pending at the end of the year. 8. Deterrence Impact of Mr Tiwari, therefore, is 0.4%. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 0.4% cases. 9. Disposals seem to be low despite a huge pendency. Only 53 orders are passed per month. Nationally, there were 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month, and 18 commissioners who disposed more than 100 cases per month. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission. 10. At the present rate of disposal of 53 cases per month and a pendency of 960 cases, it would take almost 18 months for a case to come up for hearing if filed today.

179

Mahesh Pandey
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 26 cases per month. (This includes 197 cases disposed off by the commissioner as a single bench as well as 115 cases as part of a combined bench.) Average pendency per commissioner: 960 cases (Total pendency of 1867 divided by 4 commissioners). Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 14 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 93.4% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 22 197 184(93.4%) 13 (6.6%) 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 50 to 60%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 50 to 60% of 184 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0.5% National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 51 Penalty show cause notices issued: 85 (46.2% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 15 (17.6% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 69 (81.2% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 1 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 1 (0.5% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 40 to 50%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were given in 93 cases. Out of these, 40 to 50 people finally got information.

180

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Pandey directed disclosure of information in 93.4% cases, denying information in 6.6% cases. He did not remand back any case. Therefore, he stands at 22nd position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures. 2. However, only 50-60% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 40-50% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% orders implemented. 3. Mr Pandeys compliance seems to be low because he closes a case after passing orders in favor of disclosure without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Pandey in 184 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Show cause notices were issued in only 85 cases. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 85 cases and not in the balance 99 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 15 show cause notices were dropped. Only one translated in penalty because the remaining 69 show cause notice remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. A major problem with the Madhya Pradesh Commission is that they do not act upon show cause notices and keep the notices pending for several months. Mr Pandey kept 69 notices pending out of 85 notices at the end of the year. 8. Deterrence Impact of Mr Pandey, therefore, is 0.5%. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 0.5% cases. 9. Disposals seem to be low despite a huge pendency. Only 26 orders are passed per month. Nationally, there were 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month, and 18 commissioners who disposed more than 100 cases per month. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission. 10. At the present rate of disposal of 26 cases per month and a pendency of 960 cases, it would take almost 3 years for a case to come up for hearing if filed today.

181

Iqbal Ahmed
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 37 cases per month. (This includes 338 cases disposed off by the commissioner as a single bench as well as 100 cases as part of a combined bench.) Average pendency per commissioner: 960 cases (Total pendency of 1867 divided by 4 commissioners). Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 12 months.

PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 78.1% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 61 338 264 (78.1%) 74 (21.9%) 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 20 to 30%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 20 to 30% of 264 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0 National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 29 (11% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 0 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 29 (100% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 0 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 0 (0% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 20 to 30%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 78 cases. Out of these, 20 to 30 people finally got information.

182

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Ahmed directed disclosure of information in 78.1% cases, denying information in 21.9% cases. He did not remand back any case. Therefore, he stands at 61st position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 20 to 30% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 70 to 80% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr. Ahmeds compliance is low because he closes a case after passing orders in favor of disclosure without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Ahmed in 264 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Show cause notices were issued in only 29 cases. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 29 cases and not in the balance 235 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Though no notices were dropped, no penalties were imposed either. They remained pending at the end of the year. Therefore, deterrence Impact of Mr Ahmed is zero. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was not imposed in any cases. 7. It seems to be a major problem with the Madhya Pradesh Commission that they do not act upon Show Cause notices and keep the notices pending for several months. Mr Ahmed kept all 29 notices pending at the end of the year. 8. Disposals seem to be low despite a huge pendency. Only 37 orders are passed per month. Nationally, there were 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month, and 18 commissioners who disposed more than 100 cases per month. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission. 9. At the present rate of disposal of 37 cases per month and a pendency of 960 cases, it would take more than 2.1 years for a case to come up for hearing if filed today.

183

D.C. Jugran
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 38 cases per month. (This includes 359 cases disposed off by the commissioner as a single bench as well as 101 cases as part of a combined bench.) Average pendency per commissioner: 960 cases (Total pendency of 1,867 divided by 4 commissioners). Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 14 months.

PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 86.9% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 45 359 312(86.9%) 47(13.1%) 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 40 to 50%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 40 to 50% of 312 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0 National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 45 (14.4% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 0 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 45 (100% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 0 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 0 (0% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 87 cases. Out of these, 30 to 40 finally got information.

184

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Jugran directed disclosure of information in 86.9% cases, denying information in 13.1% cases. He did not remand back any case. Therefore, he stands at 45th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 40 to 50% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 50 to 60% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr. Jugrans compliance is low because he closes a case after passing orders in favor of disclosure without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Jugran in 312 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Show cause notices were issued in only 45 cases. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 45 cases and not in the balance 267 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Though no notices were dropped, no penalties were imposed either as the notices remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. It seems to be a major problem with the Madhya Pradesh Commission that they do not act upon Show Cause notices and keep the notices pending for several months. Mr Jugran kept all 45 notices pending at the end of the year. 8. Deterrence Impact of Mr Jugran, therefore, is zero. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was not imposed in any case. 9. Disposals seem to be low despite a huge pendency. Only 38 orders are passed per month. Nationally, there were 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month, and 18 commissioners who disposed more than 100 cases per month. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission. 10. At the present rate of disposal of 38 cases per month and a pendency of 960 cases, it would take almost 2.1 years for a case to come up for hearing if filed today.

185

Combined Benches of Madhya Pradesh

Summary Sheet
PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 88.9% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 38 208 185 (88.9%) 22 (10.6%) 1 (0.5%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

The effectiveness could not be calculated due to insufficient feedback. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0 National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 12 (6.5% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 1 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 11 (91.7% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 0 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 0 (0% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS)

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

The Overall Public Satisfaction could not be calculated due to insufficient feedback.

186

Detailed Findings
1. The combined bench directed disclosure of information in 88.9% cases. It denied information in 10.6% cases and remanded back only 0.5% cases. Therefore, it stands at 38th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. The compliance of the Combined Bench could not be calculated due to insufficient feedback. 3. Honble Commission may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 4. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by the combined bench in 185 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 12 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 12 cases and not in the balance 173 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. 3 commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 5. While one show cause notice was dropped, none translated in penalties as all the cases remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 6. It seems to be a major problem with the Madhya Pradesh Commission that they do not act upon Show Cause notices and keep the cases pending for several months. 11 out of 12 notices remained pending at the end of the year. 7. Deterrence Impact of the bench, therefore, is zero. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was not imposed in any case.

187

Maharashtra
STATE FACTSHEET
State Chief Information Commissioner State Information Commissioners Suresh V Joshi Naveen Kumar Ramanand Tiwari Vijay Baburao Borge Vijay V. Kuvalekar Vilas Patil 13,477 Not Available Not Available Not available (these dates are not mentioned in orders) Not Available

Total Number of Cases Analysed by us (as provided to us) Pendency as on January 1, 2008 Pendency as on December 31, 2008 Time Taken Between Filing of Appeal and First Hearing Total Funds Spent by the Commission (FY 2008-09)

STATE OF RECORDS
In the state of Maharashtra, records are maintained by each commissioner separately: Suresh V Joshi: He did not respond to our letters. After several phone calls, we were informed that all their orders were on the website. The Commissioner himself confirmed this. After two RTI applications asking for copies of all orders, they provided us with a reply in Marathi about the total number of orders passed by them. They still did not give us copies of orders. When we tried to contact the Commissioner on phone again informing him that his own office was not responding to the RTI query, he rudely disconnected the phone saying he was not interested in awards. Despite our telling him that he should honour our RTI request in his office even if he was not interested in awards, we did not get any reply to our RTI application. Naveen Kumar: He said all their orders are on their website, which we downloaded and they confirmed that these are complete orders. They responded to our RTI query in Marathi saying that they had rejected/remanded back 1,004 cases without a hearing. Copies of these orders were not provided. We have simply added these orders in rejection/remand back category. Ramanand Tiwari: We were told that all his orders are on the website. We found that orders for March and April were missing. We wrote to them and called them up several times. They said they would get back to us. However, we did not hear anything from them. We have not received any reply to RTI queries filed in his office.

188

Vijay Baburao Borge: He sent us all his orders in a CD. In response to our RTI, he informed us that he had rejected/remanded back 3,266 cases without a hearing. Vijay V. Kuvalekar: He provided us copies of all his orders in a CD. He confirmed that he does not remand/reject any cases without a hearing. Vilas Patil: We collected 1,073 orders from his office in hard copies. He also informed us that he had rejected/remanded back 802 cases without hearings.

RANKING OF COMMISSIONERS BY PARAMETERS

Name Prodisclosure Factor % (Rank) 43.6 (23rd) Effectiveness (%) Deterrent Impact % (Rank) 4.2% (9th) Overall Public Satisfaction (%)

State Rankings

30 to 40%

10 to 20%

Rankings of Individual Commissioners Suresh V Joshi Naveen Kumar Ramanand Tiwari Vijay Baburao Borge Vijay V. Kuvalekar Vilas Patil 94.7 (16th) 13.7 (86th) 91.3 (27th ) 21.5 (84th ) 85.6 (47th ) 46.2 (81st) 20 to 30% 20 to 30 % 20 to 30% 30 to 40% 30 to 40% 30 to 40 % 1.5 (39th) 0.4 (53rd) 0.1 (57th) 10.3 (7th) 2.9 (23rd) 9.6 (9th) 20 to 30% Less than 10% 20 to 30% Less than 10% 30 to 40% 10 to 20%

189

PERFORMANCE OF COMMISSION ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS

DISPOSALS An average of 187 cases per commissioner per month. Despite letters, an RTI application and several phone calls, we were not able to obtain the correct figures of pendency from all the Benches of Maharashtra Information Commission Time taken between filing of an appeal and first hearing was not available as these dates were not mentioned in orders. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 43.6% National Average: 68% Rank Among States on this Parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 23 13,477 5,875 (43.6%) 6,083 (45.1%) 1,519 (11.3%) National Best: 98.3%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

30 to 40% of 5,875 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 4.2%

National Average: 2%

National Best: 25%

Rank amongst states: 9 Penalty show cause notices issued: 253 (4.3% of pro-disclosure orders) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 2 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 82 (32.4% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 249 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 5 o Net penalties imposed: 244 (4.2% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 10 to 20%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approach Maharashtra Information Commission, pro-disclosure orders were given in 44 cases. Out of these, 10 to 20 people finally got information.

190

PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS

Dr. Suresh V Joshi (Mumbai)

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 85 cases per month Despite repeated requests, Mr. Joshi did not provide us with his pendency figure. Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 13 months (This 13 months was during 2008. It appears it has gone up substantially after that.) PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 94.7% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 16 1,019 965 (94.7%) 54 (5.3%) 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 20 to 30%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 20 to 30% of 965 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 1.5% National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 39 Penalty show cause notices issued: 22 (2.3% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 0 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 5 (22.7% of the notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 17 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 2 o Net penalties imposed: 15 (1.5% of the pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 20 to 30%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were given in 95 cases. Out of these, only 20 to 30 people finally got information.

191

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Joshi directed disclosure of information in 94.7% cases, denying information in 5.3% cases. He did not remand back any case. Therefore, he stands at 16th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures. He is among the 34 commissioners who passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. Nationally, on an average, 68% orders were passed in favor of disclosures. 2. However, only 20 to 30% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 70 to 80% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr. Joshis compliance seems to be low because he closes a case after passing orders in favor of disclosure without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Joshi in 965 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 22 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 22 cases and not in the balance 943 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. The commissioner did not drop any case and imposed penalties in 15 cases. 5 out of 22 cases remained pending at the end of the year. Therefore his deterrence impact is 1.5%. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 1.5% cases. 7. Disposals seem to be low despite a huge pendency. Only 85 orders are passed per month, and it takes more than 13 months for the first hearing to take place. Nationally, there were 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month, and 18 commissioners who disposed more than 100 cases per month. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

192

Naveen Kumar (Navi Mumbai)

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 333 cases per month The pendency of Mr. Kumar was 1,386 at the end of the year. Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available because these dates are not mentioned in the orders. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 13.7% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 86 2,996 410 (13.7%) 1,092 (36.4%) 1,494 (49.9%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 20 to 30%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 20 to 30% of 410 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0.49% National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 53 Penalty show cause notices issued: 36 (8.8% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 0 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 32 (88.9% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 4 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 2 o Net penalties imposed: 2 (0.49% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): Less than 10%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 14 cases. Out of these, less than 10 people finally got information.

193

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Kumar remanded back approximately 50% of the cases received by him. Many of these cases were remanded back more than a year after being received in his office. This has caused huge hardships to the people. a. In many cases, where more than a year had passed since the appeal was filed in commissioners office, the commissioner rather than deciding the case himself remanded it back to the First Appellate Authority with following observations: Much time has passed since the original application was made and therefore, it would be necessary to know the present status of this case. I, therefore, remand this case to the First Appellate Authority for inviting and giving a hearing to the appellant for examining the points raised by him in his appeal with a view to provide maximum information if due under the act and give appellant better satisfaction by issuing a reasoned order. This may be done even if the First Appellate Authority may have given an earlier decision which would automatically stand modified by the First Appellate Authoritys new decision. A compliance report should be sent within 45 days by the First Appellate Authority to me. In many cases, when the first appellate authority does not take any action for a long time even after remanding back and the citizen complains to the commission, more time is given to the first appellate authority rather than the commissioner passing the order in that case. Many cases are remanded back with following observations, despite the fact that first appellate authority has already given its decision: Appellant filed the first appeal u/s 19 (1) of the Right To Information Act 2005 and The First Appellate Authority gave a decision. The appellant says that he has not got all the information. I, therefore, remand this case to the First Appellate Authority for inviting and giving one more hearing to the appellant for examining the points raised by him in his appeal with a view to provide maximum information if due under the act and give appellant better satisfaction by issuing another reasoned order to the supercession of the earlier order.A compliance report should be sent within 45 days by the First Appellate Authority to me. When First appellate authority reports compliance, most cases are then closed, again without a hearing, with just one line order that the first appeal order has been passed without discussing whether the information had been supplied or not. Many cases have been disposed off with remarks: Whatever information is available should be supplied. Mr Kumar directed disclosure of information in only 13.7% cases, denying information in an alarming 36.4% cases besides remanding back 49.9% cases. Therefore, he stands at the bottom at 86th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. Nationally, on an average, 68% orders were passed in favor of disclosures. Only 20 to 30% of the pro-disclosure orders of Mr. Kumar could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 70 to 80% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. Mr. Kumars compliance seems to be low because he closes a case after passing orders in favor of disclosure without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with.

2.

3. 4.

5.

6.

194

Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 8. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Kumar in 410 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 36 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 36 cases and not in the balance 374 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 9. Of this, though no cases were dropped but penalties were imposed in only 4 cases. 32 out of 36 cases remained pending at the end of the year. Therefore, Deterrence Impact of Mr Kumar is 0.4%. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 0.4% cases. 10. Disposals are quite high at 333 orders per month. However, Mr. Kumar has achieved this disposal by remanding back 50% cases and rejecting 36% cases without any hearings. The commissioner may like to revist this practice. The time taken for an appeal to come up for hearing at Maharashtra Commission was 11 to 13 months due to huge pendency during 2008. It is learnt that this has increased subsequently. Therefore, there is a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission. 11. RTI Act specifically states that a penalty of Rs 250 per day of delay would be imposed. However, penalty amounts were not calculated as per this formula.

7.

195

Ramanand Tiwari (Mumbai)

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 158 cases per month Pendency figure of Mr. Ramanand Tiwari was not available. Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available because these dates are not mentioned in their orders. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 91.3% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 27 1,420 1,297 (91.3%) 102 (7.2%) 21 (1.5%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 20 to 30%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

20 to 30% of 1,297 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0.1%

National Average: 2%

National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 46 (3.5% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 1 (2.2% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 42 (91.3% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 3 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 1 o Net penalties imposed: 2 (0.1% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 20 to 30%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were given in 91 cases. Out of these, 20 to 30 people finally got information.

196

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Tiwari directed disclosure of information in 91.3% cases. He denied information in 7.2% cases and remanded back 1.5% cases. Therefore, he stands at 27th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures. He is among the 34 commissioners who passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 20 to 30% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 70 to 80% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr. Tiwaris compliance seems to be low because he closes a case after passing orders that information be provided - without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Tiwari in 1,297 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 46 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 46 cases and not in the balance 1,251 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. In 1 show cause notice, explanation offered by the PIO was accepted and penalty proceeding was dropped. Penalty was imposed in two cases. 42 out of 46 notices remained pending at the end of the year. This seems to be a problem area that action on penalty show cause notices remain pending for several months. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (1 notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mr Tiwari, therefore, is 0.1%. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 0.1% cases. 8. Mr. Tiwaris disposals are relatively higher at 158 per month. However, the time taken for an appeal to come up for hearing at Maharashtra Commission was 11 to 13 months due to huge pendency during 2008. It is learnt that this has increased subsequently. Therefore, there is a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

197

Vijay Baburao Borge (Aurangabad)

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 383 cases per month Pendency of Mr. Vijay Baburao Borge increased from 3,940 to 5,438 during the year. Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 21.5% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 84 4,593 989 (21.5%) 3,604 (78.5%) 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 30 to 40% of 989 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 10.3% National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 7 Penalty show cause notices issued: 22 (2.2% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 0 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 0 (0% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 102 (Since the Commissioner has imposed a significant number of penalties without issuing show cause notices, the penalties imposed figure is much higher than the notices issued figure.) o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 102 (10.31% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: NIL OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): Less than 10%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 22 cases. Out of these, less than 10 people finally got information.

198

Detailed Findings
1. Under RTI, we received information from him stating that he had rejected 3,263 cases without any hearings. He had denied information in 341 cases after hearing. This totals to 3,604, which means that he rejected 78% of the cases received by him. He did not remand back any case. Therefore, he has one of the lowest Pro-Disclosure Factor at 22%, which means that out of all the orders passed, Mr Borge ordered disclosure of information in 22% cases. Therefore he stands at 84th position on this parameter. 2. However, only 30 to 40% of these orders got implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, the appellants did not get information in the balance 60 to 70% cases. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr. Borges compliance seems to be low because he closes a case after passing orders in favor of disclosure without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there was a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Borge in 989 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. Notices were issued in only 22 cases to explain reasons for delay. However, Mr. Borge claimed that he does not issue show cause notices before imposing penalties. As per the data provided by the Commissioner, he has imposed penalties in 102 cases and issued notices only in 22 cases. 6. The Deterrent Impact at 10.3% is much higher than many other commissioners in the country. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed in 10.3% cases. 7. Disposals are quite high at 383 orders per month. However, 78% of these disposals were in the form of rejections without hearings. The commissioner may like to revist this practice. There is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

199

Vijay V Kuvalekar (Pune)

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 131 cases per month Pendency of Mr. Vijay V Kuvalekar increased from 2,909 to 4,116 during the year. Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 85.6% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 47 1,574 1,347 (85.6%) 223 (14.2%) 4 (negligible percentage) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

30 to 40% of 1,347 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 2.9%

National Average: 2%

National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 23 Penalty show cause notices issued: 42 (3.1% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 1 (2.4% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 2 (4.8% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 39 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 39 (2.9% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were given in 86 cases. Out of these, 30 to 40 people finally got information.

200

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Kuvlekar directed disclosure of information in 85.6% cases. He denied information in 14.2% cases and remanded back 0.3% cases. Therefore, he stands at 47th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. Mr Kuvlekar follows the practice of continuing mandamus. Cases are not closed after passing orders that information be provided. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. Till that time, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. 3. If the case is not closed till appellant reports satisfaction, then how does one explain low compliance rate. Only 30 to 40% of the pro-disclosure orders could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 60 to 70% appellants still did not get information. It is found that repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. After a few hearings, when an appellant does not turn up for hearings, the case is closed assuming that he would have got all information. Therefore, if the order remains uncomplied with, Mr Kuvalekar may like to invoke powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3), as is being done by Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission, to ensure compliance. 4. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Kuvlekar in 1,347 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 42 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 42 cases and not in the balance 1,305 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 5. In 1 show cause notice, explanation offered by the PIO was accepted and penalty proceeding was dropped. Penalty was imposed in 39 cases. Two out of 42 notices remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (1 notice remained pending). 6. Deterrence Impact of Mr Kuvlekar, therefore, is 2.9%. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 2.9% cases. 7. Disposals are quite high. 131 written orders were passed per month. He also passed oral orders in almost 700 cases during the year, due to shortage of staff. Compliance of these orders was recorded in a separate register. Written orders were passed in many of these cases next year. 8. In order to tackle pendency, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

201

Vilas Patil (Nagpur)

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 156 cases per month Pendency of Mr. Vilas Patil increased from 2,358 to 3,367 cases during the year. Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 46.2% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 81 1,875 867 (46.2%) 1,008 (53.8%) 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 30 to 40% of 867 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 9.6% National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 9 Penalty show cause notices issued: 85 (9.8% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 0 (0% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 1 (1.2% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 84 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 84 (9.6% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 10 to 20%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 46 cases. Out of these, 10 to 20 people finally got information.

202

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Patil directed disclosure of information in only 46.2% cases, denying information in an alarming 53.8% cases. He did not remand back any case. Therefore, he stands at 81st position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. Nationally, on an average, 68% orders were passed in favor of disclosures. 2. However, only 30 to 40% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 60 to 70% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr. Patils compliance seems to be low because he closes a case after passing orders in favor of disclosure without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Patil in 867 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 85 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 85 cases and not in the balance 782 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Mr. Patil has been strict with the cases in which show cause notices are issued. Out of 85 show cause notices issued, penalties were imposed in 84 cases. Therefore, the Deterrence Impact of Mr Patil was 9.7%. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 9.7% cases. 7. Though Mr. Patils disposals are relatively higher at 156 per month, the pendency increased to 3,367 cases at the end of the year. The time taken for an appeal to come up for hearing at Maharashtra Commission was 11 to 13 months due to huge pendency during 2008. It is learnt that this has increased subsequently. Therefore, there is a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

203

Manipur
STATE FACTSHEET
State Chief Information Commissioner Total Number of Cases Analysed by us (as provided to us) Pendency as on January 1, 2008 Pendency as on December 31, 2008 Time Taken Between Filing of Appeal and First Hearing Total Funds Spent by the Commission (FY 2008-09) R.K. Angousana Singh 82 39 75 Not available (these dates are not mentioned in orders) Rs. 66,94,32

STATE OF RECORDS
On our request, they provided us with hard copies of 82 orders against 99 claimed to have been passed by them.

RANKINGS BY PARAMETERS
Name Prodisclosure Factor % (Rank) 89% (6th) Effectiveness (%) Deterrent Impact % (Rank) 0 (22nd) Overall Public Satisfaction (%) 50-60%

State Rankings

60-70%

Rankings of Individual Commissioners R.K. Angousana Singh 89% (36th) 60-70% 0 (57th) 50-60%

204

PERFORMANCE OF COMMISSION ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS Summary Sheet

DISPOSALS An average of 7 cases per month. Pendency of Manipur Information Commission increased from 39 to 75 at the end of the year. Average time taken between filing of an appeal and first hearing was not available.

PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 89% National Average: 68% Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back Rank of Manipur Information Commission Rank of Information Commissioner 82 73 (89%) 1 (1.2%) 8 (9.8%) 6 36 National Best: 98.3%

EFFECTIVENESS: 60 to 70%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

60 to 70% of the 73 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0

National Average: 2%

National Best: 25%

Penalty show cause notices issued: 6 (8.2% of pro-disclosure orders) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 0 (0% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 6 (100% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 0 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 0 Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 50 to 60%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approach Manipur Information Commission, pro-disclosure orders were done in 89 cases. Out of these, 50 to 60 people finally got information.

205

Detailed Findings
1. The Manipur Information Commissioner R.K. Angousana Singh directed disclosure of information in 89% cases. He denied information in 1.2% cases and remanded back as many as 9.8% cases. Therefore, he stands at 36th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. Nationally, on an average, 68% orders were passed in favor of disclosures. 2. Of this, 60 to 70% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 30 to 40% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. The compliance of Mr. Singh is low because he closes a case after passing orders in favor of disclosure without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Singh in 73 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 6 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 6 cases and not in the balance 67 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. All those six notices remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mr Singh, therefore, is zero. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was not imposed in any case. 8. Disposals seem to be quite low at just 7 orders per month. Therefore, pendencies are mounting. Pendency at the end of the year was 75, almost equal to one years disposal. Nationally, there were 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month, and 18 commissioners who disposed more than 100 cases per month. There is therefore a need to increase disposals and also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

206

Meghalaya
STATE FACTSHEET
State Chief Information Commissioner Total Number of Cases Analysed by us (as provided to us) Pendency as on January 1, 2008 Pendency as on December 31, 2008 Time Taken Between Filing of Appeal and First Hearing Total Funds Spent by the Commission (FY 2008-09) G.P Wahlang 52 1 5 12 days Rs. 17,54,515

STATE OF RECORDS
They provided us with hard copies of 52 orders against 54 orders they claim to have passed in 2008.

RANKINGS BY PARAMETERS
Name Prodisclosure Factor % (Rank) 48.1% (22nd) Effectiveness (%) Deterrent Impact % (Rank) 8% (12th) Overall Public Satisfaction (%) Insufficient feedback

State Rankings

Insufficient feedback

Rankings of Individual Commissioners G.P Wahlang 48.1% (78th) Insufficient feedback 8% (7th) Insufficient feedback

207

PERFORMANCE OF COMMISSION ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS Summary Sheet

DISPOSALS An average of 4 cases per month Pendency of Meghalaya Information Commission increased from 1 to 5 cases at the end of the year. Average time taken between filing of an appeal and the first hearing was 12 days. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 48% National Average: 68% Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back Rank of Mehagalaya Information Commission) Rank of Mehagalaya Information Commissioner) 52 25 (48.1%) 16 (30.8%) 11 (21.2%) 22 78 National Best: 98.3%

EFFECTIVENESS
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

The effectiveness could not be calculated due to insufficient feedback. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 8%

National Average: 2% Penalty show cause notices issued: 5 (20% of pro-disclosure orders) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 3 (60% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 0 (0% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 2 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 0 (8% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0

National Best: 25%

OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS) National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90%

The Overall Public Satisfaction could not be calculated due to insufficient feedback.

208

Detailed Findings
1. This is one of those few commissions that dispose many cases without hearings. That is also one of the reasons why many cases get disposed within 10 to 15 days of being filed. 2. Mr Wahlang directed disclosure of information in only 48.1% cases. He denied information in 30.8% cases and remanded back as many as 21.2% cases. Therefore, he stands at 78th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. Nationally, on an average, 68% orders were passed in favor of disclosures. 3. Compliance of Mr. Wahlangs orders could not be calculated due to insufficient feedback. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Wahlang in 25 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 5 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 5 cases and not in the balance 20 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 3 show cause notices were dropped subsequently. The remaining 2 cases translated in penalties. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mr Wahlang, therefore, is 8%. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 8% cases. 8. Disposals seem to be low but that is also due to the fact that the commission receives very few appeals.

209

Mizoram
STATE FACTSHEET
Chief Information Commissioner Information Commissioner Total Number of Cases Analysed by us (as provided to us) Pendency as on January 1, 2008 Pendency as on December 31, 2008 Time Taken Between Filing of Appeal and First Hearing Total Funds Spent by the Commission (FY 2008-09) Robert Hrangdawla I.A.S (Rtd.) K. Tlanthanga I.B.P.S.(Rtd.) 10 2 2 Not Available Rs. 92,00,000

STATE OF RECORDS
They provided copies of all the 10 orders passed by them in a CD.

RANKINGS BY PARAMETERS
Pro-disclosure Factor % (Rank) 80% (15th) Effectiveness (%) Insufficient feedback due to language barrier Deterrent Impact % (Rank) 25% (1st) Overall Public Satisfaction (%) Insufficient feedback due to language barrier

Name State Rankings

Rankings of Individual Commissioners Joint Bench* 80% (55th) Insufficient feedback due to language barrier 25% (2nd) Insufficient feedback due to language barrier

(*All the orders were passed by Mizoram Information Commission in benches. Therefore, the performance of joint benches would be the same as the entire commission. However, rankings within states and within commissioners would be different)

210

PERFORMANCE OF COMMISSION ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS Summary Sheet

DISPOSALS An average of 1 case per month Pendency of Mizoram Information Commission remained the same at 2 cases at the end of the year. Average time taken between filing of an appeal and the first hearing was not available. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 80% National Average: 68% Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partially or fully denied Remanded Back Rank of Commission Rank of Combined Bench 10 8 (80%) 2 (20%) 0 15 55 National Best: 98.3%

EFFECTIVENESS
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

The effectiveness of Mizoram Information Commission could not be calculated due to language barrier. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 25% National Average: 2% Penalty show cause notices issued: 2 (25% of pro-disclosure orders) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 0 (0% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 0 (0% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 2 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 2 (25% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS) National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90% National Best: 25%

The overall public satisfaction of Mizoram Information Commission could not be calculated due to language barrier.

211

Detailed Findings
1. All the orders were passed by Mizoram Information Commission in benches. This is because the commission receives very few appeals. They passed only 10 orders during the year but still had a pendency of two cases at the end of the year. 2. The combined bench directed disclosure of information in 80% cases, denying information in 20% cases. The commission did not remand back any case. Therefore, the combined bench stands at 55th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 3. Compliance of Mizoram Information Commission could not be calculated due to language barrier. 4. Honble Commission may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by the combined bench in 8 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 2 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 2 cases and not in the balance 6 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Of these, penalties were imposed in both these cases. Therefore, the deterrence impact of the combined bench was 25%. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed in 25% cases.The commission held the top slot in terms of this parameter.

212

Nagaland
STATE FACTSHEET
State Chief Information Commissioner State Information Commissioners Total Number of Cases Analysed by us (as provided to us) Pendency as on January 1, 2008 Pendency as on December 31, 2008 Time Taken Between Filing of Appeal and First Hearing Total Funds Spent by the Commission (FY 2008-09) P. Talitemjen Ao Rev. Dr. W. Pongsing Konyak Dr. Kuhoi K. Zhimomi 12 2 3 Not Available

Rs 56,35,000

STATE OF RECORDS:
We downloaded all their orders from the website.

RANKINGS BY PARAMETERS
Name Prodisclosure Factor % (Rank) 75% (18th) Effectiveness (%) Deterrent Impact % (Rank) 22.2% (2nd) Overall Public Satisfaction (%) 50-60%

State Rankings

70-80%

Rankings of Individual Commissioners Joint Benches* 75% (65th) 70-80% 22.2% (3rd) 50-60%

(*All the orders were passed by Nagaland Information Commission in benches. Therefore, the performance of joint benches would be the same as the entire commission. However, rankings within states and within commissioners would be different)

213

PERFORMANCE OF COMMISSION ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS Summary Sheet

DISPOSALS An average of 1 case per month Pendency of Nagaland Information Commission increased from 2 to 3 cases at the end of the year. Average time taken between filing of an appeal and first hearing was not available. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 75% National Average: 68% Rank amongst states on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 18th 12 9 (75%) 0 3 (25%) National Best: 98.3%

EFFECTIVENESS: 70 to 80%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

70 to 80% of the 9 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 22.2%

National Average: 2%

National Best: 25%

Penalty show cause notices issued: 2 (22.2% of pro-disclosure orders) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 0 (0% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 0 (0% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 2 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 2 (22.2% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 50-60%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approach Nagaland Information Commission, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 75 cases. Out of these, 50 to 60 people finally got information.

214

Detailed Findings
1. All the orders were passed by Nagaland Information Commission in benches. They disposed 12 cases during the year. This is because the commission receives very few appeals. They had a pendency of three cases at the end of the year. 2. The combined bench of Nagaland directed disclosure of information in 75% cases. Information was not denied in any case. However, 3 cases were remanded back. Therefore, the bench stands at 65th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. Nationally, on an average, 68% orders were passed in favor of disclosures. 3. 70 to 80% of the pro-disclosure orders of the combined bench were finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 20 to 30% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by the bench in 9 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 2 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 2 cases and not in the balance 7 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Of these, penalties were imposed in both these cases. Therefore, the deterrence impact of the combined bench was 22.2%. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed in 22.2% cases.

215

Orissa
STATE FACTSHEET
State Chief Information Commissioner State Information Commissioners Total Number of Cases Analysed by us (as provided to us) Pendency as on January 1, 2008 Pendency as on December 31, 2008 Time Taken Between Filing of Appeal and First Hearing Total Funds Spent by the Commission (FY 2008-09) D N Padhi IAS (Retd.) Jagadananda Radhamohan 643 2,305 3,973 13 months Rs. 27,767,000

STATE OF RECORDS
The Commission provided us with copies of all their orders in a CD.

RANKING BY PARAMETERS
Name Prodisclosure Factor % (Rank) 85.1% (11th) Effectiveness (%) Deterrent Impact % (Rank) 11.1% (4th) Overall Public Satisfaction (%)

State Rankings

40-50%

30-40%

Rankings of Individual Commissioners DN Padhi Jagadananda Radhamohan Combined Benches of Orissa 85.3% (48th) 82.2% (51st) 82.1 (52nd) 88.2 (39th) 50-60% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 10.5 (5th) 1.14 (45th) 0 (57th) 29.33 (1st) 30-40% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50%

216

PERFORMANCE OF COMMISSION ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS

DISPOSALS An average of 36 cases per commissioner per month. The pendency of the commission increased from 2,305 to 3,973 cases during 2008. Average time taken between filing of an appeal and first hearing was 13 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 85.1% National Average: 68% Rank amongst states on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partially or fully denied Remanded Back 11 643 547 (85.1%) 80 (12.4%) 16 (2.5%) National Best: 98.3%

EFFECTIVENESS: 40 to 50%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

40 to 50% of the 547 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 11.1%

National Average: 2%

National Best: 25%

Rank amongst states: 4 Penalty show cause notices issued: 82 (15% of pro-disclosure orders) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 17 (20.7% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 4 (4.9% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 61 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 61 (11.1% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approach Orissa Information Commission, pro-disclosure orders were given in 85 cases. Out of these, 30 to 40 people finally got information.

217

PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS

D N Padhi IAS (Retd.) (Chief Information Commissioner)

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 42 cases per month (This includes 423 orders passed by the commissioner as a single bench as well as 85 orders passed by the commissioner in combined benches) Average pendency per commissioner: 1,987 cases (Total pendency of 3,973 divided by 2 commissioners). Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 13 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 85.3% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partially or fully denied Remanded Back National Best: 100% 48 423 361 (85.3%) 54 (12.8%) 8 (1.9%)

EFFECTIVENESS: 50 to 60%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

50 to 60% of the 361 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 10.5%

National Average: 2%

National Best: 30%

Rank amongst states: 5 Penalty show cause notices issued: 48 (13.3% of pro-disclosure orders) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 8 (16.7% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 2 (4.2% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 38 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 38 (10.5% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were given in 85 cases. Out of these, 30 to 40 people finally got information.

218

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Padhi directed disclosure of information in 85.3% cases. He denied information in 12.8% cases and remanded back 1.9% cases. Therefore, he stands at 48th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 50 to 60% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 40 to 50% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr Padhi does not close a case without ensuring compliance. He follows the practice of continuing mandamus i.e. after passing an order, he holds compliance hearings. 4. Then why is compliance of his orders so low? This is because repeated compliance hearings tire out appellants. In some cases, several hearings spanning over several months have taken place. After a few hearings, when the appellant does not turn up for hearings, the case is closed with remarks that the appellant might have got all information. Mr Padhi would need to act tough to ensure compliance and avoid repeated hearings. If the order remains uncomplied with, Mr Padhi may like to invoke powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3), as is being done by Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission, to ensure compliance. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Padhi in 361 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 48 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 48 cases and not in the balance 313 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. In 8 show cause notices, explanations offered by PIOs were accepted and penalty proceedings were dropped. Penalty was imposed in 38 cases. 2 out of 48 notices remained pending at the end of the year. This seems to be a problem area that action on penalty show cause notices remain pending for several months. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (1 notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mr Padhi, therefore, is 10.5%. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 10.5% cases. Mr. Padhi is at the 5th position amongst commissioners on this parameter. 8. Disposals seem to be very low despite a huge pendency. Only 42 orders are passed per month. It takes more than 13 months for the first hearing to take place after filing of appeal. Nationally, there were 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month, and 18 commissioners who disposed more than 100 cases per month. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

219

Jagadananda
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 38 cases per month (This includes 107 orders passed by the commissioner as a single bench as well as 85 orders passed in combined benches) Average pendency per commissioner: 1,987 cases (Total pendency of 3,973 divided by 2 commissioners). Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 13 months.

PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 82.2% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partially or fully denied Remanded Back 51 107 88 (82.2%) 14 (13.1%) 5 (4.7%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 20 to 30%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 20 to 30% of 88 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 1.1% National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 45 Penalty show cause notices issued: 5 (5.7% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 3 (60% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 1 (20% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 1 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 1 (1.1% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 20 to 30%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 82 cases. Out of these, 20-30 people finally got information.

220

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Jagdananda directed disclosure of information in 82.2% cases. He denied information in 13.1% cases and remanded back as many as 4.7% cases. Therefore, he stands at 51st position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 20 to 30% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 70 to 80% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. The Commission follows the practice of continuing mandamus. Cases are not closed after passing orders that information be provided till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. Till that time, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. If cases are not closed till appellant reports satisfaction, then how could the compliance rate be low? It is found that repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. After a few hearings, when an appellant does not turn up for hearing, his case is closed with assumption that he would have got all information. Therefore, if the order remains uncomplied with, Mr Jagadananda may like to invoke powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3), as is being done by Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission, to ensure compliance. 4. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Jagdananda in 88 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 5 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 5 cases and not in the balance 83 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 5. In 3 show cause notices, explanations offered by PIOs were accepted and penalty proceedings were dropped. Penalty was imposed in only one case. 1 out of 5 notices remained pending at the end of the year. This seems to be a problem area that action on penalty show cause notices remain pending for several months. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (1 notice remained pending). 6. Deterrence Impact of Mr Jagdananda, therefore, is 1.1%. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 1.1% cases. 7. Disposals seem to be very low despite a huge pendency. Only 38 orders are passed per month. It takes more than 13 months for the first hearing to take place after filing of appeal. Nationally, there were 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month, and 18 commissioners who disposed more than 100 cases per month. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

221

Radhamohan
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 28 cases per month Average pendency per commissioner: 1,987 cases (Total pendency of 3,973 divided by 2 commissioners). Average time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 13 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 82.1% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partially or fully denied Remanded Back 52 28 23 (82.1%) 3 (10.7%) 2 (7.1%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 30 to 40% of 23 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0 National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 0 (0% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 0 (0% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 0 (0% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 0 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 0 (0% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 82 cases. Out of these, only 30 to 40 people finally got information.

222

Detailed Findings
Mr Radhamohan worked only for one month during this year and retired thereafter.

223

Combined Benches of Orissa

PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 88.2% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partially or fully denied Remanded Back 39 85 75 (88.2%) 9 (10.6%) 1 (1.2%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 40 to 50%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 40 to 50% of 75 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 29.33% National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 1 Penalty show cause notices issued: 29 (38.7% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 6 (20.7% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 1 (3.4% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 22 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 22 (29.3% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 40 to 50%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached the Combined Bench of Orissa, pro-disclosure orders were done in 88% cases. Out of these, only 40 to 50 people finally got information.

224

Detailed Findings
1. The combined bench directed disclosure of information in 88.2% cases. It denied information in 10.6% cases and remanded back as many as 1.2% cases. Therefore, it stands at 39th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 40 to 50% of the pro-disclosure orders of the bench could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 50 to 60% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. The combined bench does not close a case without ensuring compliance. It follows the practice of continuing mandamus i.e. after passing an order, he holds compliance hearings. 4. Then why is compliance of the benchs order so low? This is because repeated compliance hearings tire out appellants. In some cases, several hearings spanning over several months have taken place. After a few hearings, when the appellant does not turn up for hearings, the case is closed with remarks that the appellant might have got all information. The bench would need to act tough to ensure compliance and avoid repeated hearings. If the order remains uncomplied with, the bench may like to invoke powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3), as is being done by Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission, to ensure compliance. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by the bench in 75 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 29 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 29 cases and not in the balance 46 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. In 6 show cause notices, explanations offered by PIOs were accepted and penalty proceedings were dropped. Penalty was imposed in 22 cases. 1 out of 29 notices remained pending at the end of the year. This seems to be a problem area that action on penalty show cause notices remain pending for several months. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (1 notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of the combined bench, therefore, is 29.33%. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed in 29.33% cases. The combined benches of Orissa were at number one position amongst all commissioners in the country on this parameter. 8. Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was 13 months.

225

PUNJAB
STATE FACTSHEET
State Chief Information Commissioner State Information Commissioners Ranjan Kashyap Kulbir Singh Lt Gen (Retd) P K Grover P P S Gill P K Verma R K Gupta Ravi Singh Rupan Deol Bajaj Surinder Singh 3,207 Not Available Not Available Not available (these dates are not mentioned in orders) Not Available

Total Number of Cases Analysed by us (as provided to us) Pendency as on January 1, 2008 Pendency as on December 31, 2008 Time Taken Between Filing of Appeal and First Hearing Total Funds Spent by the Commission (FY 2008-09)

STATE OF RECORDS
They said all their orders were available on their website, which we downloaded for our analysis.

RANKING OF COMMISSIONERS BY PARAMETERS

Name Prodisclosure Factor (Rank) 92.6% (4th) Effectiveness (%) Deterrent Impact (Rank) 1.45% (16th) Overall Public Satisfaction (%) 40 to 50%

State Rankings

40 to 50%

Rankings of Individual Commissioners Kulbir Singh P K Grover Lt Gen (Retd) P P S Gill P K Verma R K Gupta Ravi Singh Rupan Deol Bajaj Surinder Singh Combined Benches of Punjab 89.9% (31st) 94.6% (17th) 96.4% (9th) 87.7% (42nd) 95.1% (13th) 97% (8th) 94% (21st) 95.3% (12th) 88.1% (40th) 40 to 50% 50 to 60% 40 to 50% 30 to 40 % 40 to 50% 50 to 60% 30 to 40% 40 to 50% 30 to 40% 2.7% (25th) 1.2% (42nd) 1.7% (37th) 0 (57th) 2.6% (26th) 3% (22nd) 2.2% (32nd) 0.3% (55th) 0 (57th) 40 to 50% 40 to 50% 40 to 50% 30 to 40% 40 to 50% 50 to 60% 30 to 40 % 40 to 50% 30 to 40%

226

PERFORMANCE OF COMMISSION ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS

DISPOSALS An average of 33 cases per commissioner per month (8 commissioners working for 12 months each disposed 3,207 cases). Pendency figures were not available for the state. Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available because these dates are not mentioned in their orders.

PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 92.6% National Average: 68% Rank amongst states on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 4 3,207 2,969 (92.6%) 224 (7%) 14 (0.4%) National Best: 98.3%

EFFECTIVENESS: 40 to 50%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

40 to 50% of 2,969 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 1.45%

National Average: 2%

National Best: 25%

Rank amongst states: 16 Penalty show cause notices issued: 284 (9.6% of pro-disclosure orders) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 121 (42.6% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 118 (41.5% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 45 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently:2 o Net penalties imposed: 43 (1.4% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 40 to 50%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approach Punjab Information Commission, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 93 cases. Out of these, only 40 to 50 people finally got information.

227

PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS

RANJAN KASHYAP (Chief Information Commissioner)

His figures are same as the Combined Bench figures as he has not passed any orders individually.

228

KULBIR SINGH
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 28 cases per month (This includes 327 cases disposed by the commissioner as a single bench as well as 9 cases disposed off as combined benches) Pendency figure for the commissioner was not available. Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available because these dates are not mentioned in their orders. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 89.9% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 31 327 294 (89.9%) 32 (9.8%) 1 (negligible percentage) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 40 to 50%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 40 to 50% of 294 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 2.7% National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 25 Penalty show cause notices issued: 50 (17% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently:24 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 18 (36% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 8 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 8 (2.7% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 40 to 50%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were given in 90 cases. Out of these, 40 to 50 people finally got information.

229

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Singh directed disclosure of information in 89.9% cases. He denied information in 9.8% cases and remanded back only 0.3% cases. Therefore, he stands at 31st position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 40 to 50% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 50 to 60% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr Singh does not close a case without ensuring compliance. He follows the practice of continuing mandamus i.e. after passing an order, he holds compliance hearings. Then why is compliance to his orders so low? This is because repeated compliance hearings tire out appellants. In some cases, several hearings spanning over several months have taken place. After a few hearings, when the appellant does not turn up for hearings, the case is closed with remarks that the appellant might have got all information. Mr Singh would need to act tough to ensure compliance and avoid repeated hearings. If the order remains uncomplied with, Mr Singh may like to invoke powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3), as is being done by Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission, to ensure compliance. 4. Mr. Kulbir Singh follows an interesting and useful practice. If an appellant objects to the information provided by the PIO as false and misleading, many commissioners in the country dismiss the case saying that whatever information was available has been provided. However, Mr. Singh summons these records to his court and verifies the correctness of the information himselfCC No. 2321 of 2007 is one such case. There are many such cases where this practice was observed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr. Singh in 294 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 50 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 50 cases and not in the balance 244 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 24 show cause notices were dropped. Only 8 notices translated in penalties. The remaining 18 cases remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mr Singh, therefore, is 2.7%. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 2.7% cases. 8. Disposals seem to be very low. Only 28 orders are passed per month by the commissioner. Nationally, there were 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month, and 18 commissioners who disposed more than 100 cases per month. Waiting time for first appeal could not be ascertained from orders as the date of filing appeal and date of first hearing were not mentioned in orders. However, it is learnt that it takes several months to be heard. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission. 9. RTI Act specifically states that a penalty of Rs 250 per day of delay would be imposed. However, penalty amounts were not calculated as per this formula in some cases.

230

RAVI SINGH
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 28 cases per month Pendency figure for the commissioner was not available. Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available because these dates are not mentioned in their orders. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 97% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 8 336 326 (97%) 10 (3%) 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 50 to 60%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 50 to 60% of 326 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 3.1% National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 22 Penalty show cause notices issued: 54 (16.6% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 16 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 28 (51.9% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 10 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 10 (3.1% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 50 to 60%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 97 cases. Out of these, 50 to 60 people finally got information.

231

Detailed Findings
1. Mrs Singh directed disclosure of information in 97% cases. She denied information only in 3% cases and did not remand back any cases. Therefore, she stands at 8th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures. She is one among the 34 commissioners who passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. Nationally, on an average, 68% orders were passed in favor of disclosures. 2. However, only 50 to 60% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 40 to 50% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mrs Singh does not close a case without ensuring compliance. She follows the practice of continuing mandamus i.e. after passing an order, she holds compliance hearings. 4. Then why is compliance of her orders so low? This is because repeated compliance hearings tire out appellants. In some cases, several hearings spanning over several months have taken place. After a few hearings, when the appellant does not turn up for hearings, the case is closed with remarks that the appellant might have got all information. Mrs Singh would need to act tough to ensure compliance and avoid repeated hearings. If the order remains uncomplied with Mrs Singh may like to invoke powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3), as is being done by Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission, to ensure compliance. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mrs Singh in 326 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 54 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 54 cases and not in the balance 272 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 16 show cause notices were dropped. Only 10 cases translated in penalties, whereas the remaining 28 cases remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mrs Singh, therefore, is 3.1%. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 3.1% cases. 8. Disposals seem to be very low. Only 28 orders are passed by the commissioner per month. Nationally, there were 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month, and 18 commissioners who disposed more than 100 cases per month. Waiting time for first appeal could not be ascertained from orders as the date of filing appeal and date of first hearing were not mentioned in orders. However, it is learnt that it takes several months to be heard. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission. 9. RTI Act specifically states that a penalty of Rs 250 per day of delay would be imposed. However, penalty amounts were not calculated as per this formula in some cases.

232

LT. GEN. (RETD.) P.K. GROVER

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 36 cases per month (This includes 334 cases passed by the commissioner as a single bench and 97 cases passed as combined benches). Pendency figure for the commissioner was not available. Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available because these dates are not mentioned in their orders. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 94.6% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed on this 17 334 316 (94.6%) 18 (5.4%) 0 National Best: 100%

Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back

EFFECTIVENESS: 50 to 60%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 50 to 60% of 316 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with.

National Best: 90 to 100%

DETERRENCE IMPACT: 1.2% National Average: 2% National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 42 Penalty show cause notices issued: 28 (8.9% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 14 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 10 (35.7% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 4 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 4 (1.2% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 40 to 50%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 95 cases. Out of these, 40 to 50 people finally got information.

233

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Grover directed disclosure of information in 94.6% cases, denying information in 5.4% cases. He did not remand back any case. Therefore, he stands at 17th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures. He is among the 34 commissioners who passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 50 to 60% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 40 to 50% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr Grover does not close a case without ensuring compliance. He follows the practice of continuing mandamus i.e. after passing an order, he holds compliance hearings. 4. Then why is compliance of his orders so low? This is because repeated compliance hearings tire out appellants. In some cases, several hearings spanning over several months have taken place. After a few hearings, when the appellant does not turn up for hearings, the case is closed with remarks that the appellant might have got all information. Mr Grover would need to act tough to ensure compliance and avoid repeated hearings. If the order remains uncomplied with Mr Grover may like to invoke powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3), as is being done by Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission, to ensure compliance. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Grover in 316 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 28 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 28 cases and not in the balance 288 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 14 show cause notices were dropped. Only 4 cases translated in penalties, whereas the remaining 10 cases remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mr Grover, therefore, is 1.2%. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 1.2% cases. 8. Disposals seem to be very low despite a huge pendency. Only 36 orders are passed per month. Nationally, there were 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month, and 18 commissioners who disposed more than 100 cases per month. Waiting time for first appeal could not be ascertained from orders as the date of filing appeal and date of first hearing were not mentioned in orders. However, it is learnt that it takes several months to be heard. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission. 9. RTI Act specifically states that a penalty of Rs 250 per day of delay would be imposed. However, penalty amounts were not calculated as per this formula in some cases.

234

P.P.S. GILL
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 37 cases per month (This includes 359 cases passed by the commissioner as a single bench and 85 cases passed as combined benches). Pendency figure for the commissioner was not available. Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available because these dates are not mentioned in their orders. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 96.4% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back National Best: 100% 9 359 346 (96.4%) 13 (3.6%) 0

EFFECTIVENESS: 40 to 50%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

40 to 50% of the 346 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 1.7%

National Average: 2%

National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 37 Penalty show cause notices issued: 26 (7.5% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 5 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 14 (53.8% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 7 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 1 o Net penalties imposed: 6 (1.7% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 40 to 50%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 96 cases. Out of these, 40 to 50 people finally got information.

235

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Gill directed disclosure of information in 96.4% cases, denying information in 3.6% cases. He did not remand back any case. Therefore, he stands at 9th position amongst all commissioners on ProDisclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures. He was one among the 34 commissioners who passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 40 to 50% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 50 to 60% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr Gill does not close a case without ensuring compliance. He follows the practice of continuing mandamus i.e. after passing an order, he holds compliance hearings. 4. Then why is compliance to his orders so low? This is because repeated compliance hearings tire out appellants. In some cases, several hearings spanning over several months have taken place. After a few hearings, when the appellant does not turn up for hearings, the case is closed with remarks that the appellant might have got all information. Mr Gill would need to act tough to ensure compliance and avoid repeated hearings. If the order remains uncomplied with Mr Gill may like to invoke powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3), as is being done by Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission, to ensure compliance. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Gill in 346 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 26 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 26 cases and not in the balance 320 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 5 show cause notices were dropped. Seven cases translated in penalties, whereas 14 out of the 26 cases remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mr Gill, therefore, is 1.7%. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 1.7% cases. 8. Disposals seem to be very low despite a huge pendency. Only 37 orders are passed per month. Nationally, there were 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month, and 18 commissioners who disposed more than 100 cases per month. Waiting time for first appeal could not be ascertained from orders as the date of filing appeal and date of first hearing were not mentioned in orders. However, it is learnt that it takes several months to be heard. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission. 9. RTI Act specifically states that a penalty of Rs 250 per day of delay would be imposed. However, penalty amounts were not calculated as per this formula in some cases.

236

P.K. VERMA
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 64 cases per month Pendency figure for the commissioner was not available. Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available because these dates are not mentioned in their orders. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 87.7% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 42 773 678 (87.7%) 93 (12%) 2 (negligible percentage) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

30 to 40% of the 678 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0

National Average: 2%

National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 27 (4% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 19 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 8 (29.6% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 0 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 0 (0% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were given in 88 cases. Out of these, 30 to 40 people finally got information.

237

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Verma directed disclosure of information in 87.7% cases. He denied information in 12% cases and remanded back 0.3% cases. Therefore, he stands at 42nd position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 30 to 40% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 60 to 70% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr Verma does not close a case without ensuring compliance. He follows the practice of continuing mandamus i.e. after passing an order, he holds compliance hearings. 4. Then why is compliance to his orders so low? This is because repeated compliance hearings tire out appellants. In some cases, several hearings spanning over several months have taken place. After a few hearings, when the appellant does not turn up for hearings, the case is closed with remarks that the appellant might have got all information. Mr Verma would need to act tough to ensure compliance and avoid repeated hearings. If the order remains uncomplied with, Mr Verma may like to invoke powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3), as is being done by Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission, to ensure compliance. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Verma in 678 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 27 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 27 cases and not in the balance 651 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 19 show cause notices were dropped subsequently. None translated in penalties as the balance cases remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mr Verma, therefore, is zero. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was not imposed in any case. 8. Disposals seem to be very low despite a huge pendency. Only 64 orders are passed per month. Nationally, there were 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month, and 18 commissioners who disposed more than 100 cases per month. Waiting time for first appeal could not be ascertained from orders as the date of filing appeal and date of first hearing were not mentioned in orders. However, it is learnt that it takes several months to be heard. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

238

R.K. GUPTA
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 24 cases per month Pendency figure for the commissioner was not available. Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available because these dates are not mentioned in their orders. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 95.1% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 13 283 269 (95.1%) 14 (4.9%) 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 40 to 50%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

40 to 50% of the 269 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 2.6%

National Average: 2%

National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 26 Penalty show cause notices issued: 24 (8.9% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 10 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 7 (29.2% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 7 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 7 (2.6% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 40 to 50%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 95 cases. Out of these, 40 to 50 people finally got information.

239

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Gupta directed disclosure of information in 95.1% cases, denying information in 4.9% cases. He did not remand back any case. Therefore, he stands at 13th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures. He is among the 34 commissioners who passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 40 to 50% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 50 to 60% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr Gupta does not close a case without ensuring compliance. He follows the practice of continuing mandamus i.e. after passing an order, he holds compliance hearings. 4. Then why is compliance to his orders so low? This is because repeated compliance hearings tire out appellants. In some cases, several hearings spanning over several months have taken place. After a few hearings, when the appellant does not turn up for hearings, the case is closed with remarks that the appellant might have got all information. Mr Gupta would need to act tough to ensure compliance and avoid repeated hearings. If the order remains uncomplied with, Mr Gupta may like to invoke powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3), as is being done by Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission, to ensure compliance. 5. The RTI act clearly states that the intentions of the applicant will not be questioned. However, in some cases Mr. Gupta has stated that It is obvious that the complainant is not coming out with clean hand and his application seems to be motivated to harassment and embarrasment to the public authority. The complainant is warned to avoid filing of such applications in future. 6. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Gupta in 269 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 24 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 24 cases and not in the balance 245 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 7. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 10 show cause notices were dropped subsequently. Only 7 translated in penalties, whereas the remaining 7 remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 8. Deterrence Impact of Mr Gupta, therefore, is 2.6%. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 2.6% cases. 9. Disposals seem to be very low despite a huge pendency. Only 24 orders are passed per month. Nationally, there were 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month, and 18 commissioners who disposed more than 100 cases per month. Waiting time for first appeal could not be ascertained from orders as the date of filing appeal and date of first hearing were not mentioned in orders. However, it is learnt that it takes several months to be heard. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission. 10. RTI Act specifically states that a penalty of Rs 250 per day of delay would be imposed. However, penalty amounts were not calculated as per this formula in some cases.

240

RUPAN DEOL BAJAJ

Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 28 cases per month Pendency figure for the commissioner was not available. Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available because these dates are not mentioned in their orders. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 94% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 21 331 311 (94%) 19 (5.7%) 1 (negligible percentage) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

30 to 40% of the 311 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 2.2%

National Average: 2%

National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 32 Penalty show cause notices issued: 47 (15.1% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 11 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 28 (59.6% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 8 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 1 o Net penalties imposed: 7 (2.2% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 94 cases. Out of these, 30 to 40 people finally got information.

241

Detailed Findings
1. Mrs Bajaj directed disclosure of information in 94% cases. She denied information in 5.7% cases and remanded back only 0.3% cases. Therefore, she stands at 21st position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures. She is among the 34 commissioners who passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 30-40% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 60 to 70% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score, and could get more than 90% orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% orders implemented. 3. Mrs Bajaj does not close a case without ensuring compliance. She follows the practice of continuing mandamus i.e. after passing an order, she holds compliance hearings. 4. Then why is compliance of her orders so low? This is because repeated compliance hearings tire out appellants. In some cases, several hearings spanning over several months have taken place. After a few hearings, when the appellant does not turn up for hearings, the case is closed with remarks that the appellant might have got all information. Mrs Bajaj would need to act tough to ensure compliance and avoid repeated hearings. If the order remains uncomplied with, Mrs Bajaj may like to invoke powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3), as is being done by Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission, to ensure compliance. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mrs Singh in 311 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 47 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 47 cases and not in the balance 264 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and all 11 show cause notices were dropped subsequently. Only seven cases translated in penalties. 28 out of 47 cases remained pending at the end of the year. For example, in case no 592 of 2008, penalty had been withdrawn by Mrs. Bajaj against an erring PIO. The same PIO then refused to appear in the court for another case, after which she had to issue show cause repetedly. 7. Deterrence Impact of Mrs Bajaj, therefore, is 2.2%. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 2.2% cases. 8. Mrs. Bajaj prefers to award compensation instead of penalty. In fact in case No 1373 of 2008, when the appellant refused to take any compensation, she forced the same upon him by directing the PIO to send it to him through registered post. Similarly, in another case No. 2181 of 2007, the information was not provided despite nine hearings in ten months. Still Mrs. Bajaj, rather than imposing penalty awarded compensation against the complainants wishes. 9. Disposals seem to be very low despite a huge pendency. Only 28 orders are passed per month. Nationally, there were 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month, and 18 commissioners who disposed more than 100 cases per month. Waiting time for first appeal could not be ascertained from orders as the date of filing appeal and date of first hearing were not mentioned in orders. However, it is learnt that it takes several months to be heard. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission. 10. RTI Act specifically states that a penalty of Rs 250 per day of delay would be imposed. However, penalty amounts were not calculated as per this formula in some cases.

242

SURINDER SINGH
Summary Sheet
DISPOSALS An average of 24 cases per month (This includes 279 cases disposed off by the commissioner as a single bench as well as 5 cases disposed off as combined benches.) Pendency figure for the commissioner was not available. Time taken between filing of appeal and first hearing was not available because these dates are not mentioned in their orders. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 95.3% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 12 279 266 (95.3%) 13 (4.7%) 0 National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 40 to 50%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

40 to 50% of the 266 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0.3%

National Average: 2%

National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 55 Penalty show cause notices issued: 15 (5.6% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 11 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 3 (20% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 1 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 1 (0.3% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 40 to 50%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were done in 95 cases. Out of these, 40 to 50 people finally got information.

243

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Singh directed disclosure of information in 95.3% cases, denying information in 4.7% cases. He did not remand back any case. Therefore, he stands at 12th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures. He is among the 34 commissioners who passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 40 to 50% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 50 to 60% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr Singh does not close a case without ensuring compliance. He follows the practice of continuing mandamus i.e. after passing an order, he holds compliance hearings. 4. Then why is compliance of his orders so low? This is because repeated compliance hearings tire out appellants. In some cases, several hearings spanning over several months have taken place. After a few hearings, when the appellant does not turn up for hearings, the case is closed with remarks that the appellant might have got all information. Mr Singh would need to act tough to ensure compliance and avoid repeated hearings. If the order remains uncomplied with, Mr Singh may like to invoke powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3), as is being done by Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission, to ensure compliance. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Singh in 266 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 15 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 15 cases and not in the balance 251 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 11 show cause notices were dropped. Only one case translated in penalties, whereas the balance 3 cases remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mr Singh, therefore, is 0.3%. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 0.3% cases. 8. Disposals seem to be very low despite a huge pendency. Only 24 orders are passed per month. Nationally, there were 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month, and 18 commissioners who disposed more than 100 cases per month. Waiting time for first appeal could not be ascertained from orders as the date of filing appeal and date of first hearing were not mentioned in orders. However, it is learnt that it takes several months to be heard. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

244

COMBINED BENCHES OF PUNJAB

SUMMARY SHEET
PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 88.1% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissioners on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 40 185 163 (88.1%) 12 (6.5%) 10 (5.4%) National Best: 100%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38% 30 to 40% of the 163 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0 National Average: 2%

National Best: 90 to 100%

National Best: 30%

Rank amongst commissioners: 57 Penalty show cause notices issued: 13 (8% of Pro-Disclosure cases) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 11 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 2 (15.4% of notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 0 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 0 (0% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 30 to 40%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approached this Commissioner, pro-disclosure orders were given in 88 cases. Out of these, 30 to 40 people finally got information.

245

Detailed Findings
1. The combined bench directed disclosure of information in 88.1% cases. It denied information in 6.5% cases and remanded back as many as 5.4% cases. Therefore, it stands at 40th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 30 to 40% of the pro-disclosure orders of the bench could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 60 to 70% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. The combined bench does not close a case without ensuring compliance. He follows the practice of continuing mandamus i.e. after passing an order, he holds compliance hearings. 4. Then why is compliance to its orders so low? This is because repeated compliance hearings tire out appellants. In some cases, several hearings spanning over several months have taken place. After a few hearings, when the appellant does not turn up for hearings, the case is closed with remarks that the appellant might have got all information. The combined bench would need to act tough to ensure compliance and avoid repeated hearings. If the order remains uncomplied with, the combined bench may like to invoke powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3), as is being done by Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission, to ensure compliance. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by the combined bench in 163 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 13 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 13 cases and not in the balance 150 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 11 show cause notices were dropped subsequently. None translated in penalties as the remaining 2 cases remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of the combined bench, therefore, is zero. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was not imposed in any case.

246

RAJASTHAN
STATE FACTSHEET
Information Commissioner Total Number of Cases Analysed by us (as provided to us) Pendency as on January 1, 2008 Pendency as on December 31, 2008 Time Taken Between Filing of Appeal and First Hearing Total Funds Spent by the Commission (FY 2008-09) M D Kaurani 2,005 515 1,041 Not Available Rs. 52,56,000

STATE OF RECORDS
We received only 2,017 orders from them, despite the Commissions claim that it had passed 2,106 orders in 2008.

RANKINGS BY PARAMETERS
Name Prodisclosure Factor % (Rank) 82.3% (13th) Effectiveness (%) Deterrent Impact % (Rank) 2% (14th) Overall Public Satisfaction (%) 20-30%

State Rankings

20-30%

Rankings of Individual Commissioners: MD Kaurani 82.3% (50th) 20-30% 2% (36th) 20-30%

247

PERFORMANCE OF COMMISSION ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS Summary Sheet

DISPOSALS An average of 167 cases per month Pendency of Rajasthan Information Commission inreased from 515 to 1,041 cases at the end of the year. Average time taken between filing of an appeal and the first hearing was not available. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 82.3% National Average: 68% National Best: 98.3%

Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partially or fully denied Remanded Back Rank of Commission Rank of Commissioner

2,005 1,650 (82.3%) 335 (16.7%) 20 (1%) 13 50

EFFECTIVENESS: 20 to 30%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

20 to 30% of the 1,650 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 2%

National Average: 2%

National Best: 25%

Penalty show cause notices issued: 94 (5.7% of pro-disclosure orders) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 22 (23.4% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 39 (41.5% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 33 (2% of pro-disclosure orders) o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 33 (2% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 20-30%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approach Rajasthan Information Commission, pro-disclosure orders were given in 82 cases. Out of these, 20-30 people finally got information.

248

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Kaurani directed disclosure of information in 82.3% cases. He denied information in 16.7% cases and remanded back 1% cases. Therefore, he stands at 50th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 2. However, only 20 to 30% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 70 to 80% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. The compliance of Mr. Kaurani is low because he closes a case after passing orders in favor of disclosure without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Kaurani in 1,650 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 94 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 94 cases and not in the balance 1,556 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 22 show cause notices were dropped subsequently. Thirty-three cases translated in penalties. 39 out of 94 cases remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. Deterrence Impact of Mr Kaurani, therefore, is 2%. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 2% cases. 8. Disposals seem to be reasonable at 167 orders per month. However, the pendency at the commission is increasing. Waiting time for first appeal could not be ascertained from orders as the date of filing appeal and date of first hearing were not mentioned in orders. However, it is learnt that it takes several months to be heard. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

249

TRIPURA
STATE FACTSHEET
Chief Information Commissioner Information Commissioner Total Number of Cases Analysed by us (as provided to us) Pendency as on January 1, 2008 Pendency as on December 31, 2008 Time Taken Between Filing of Appeal and First Hearing Total Funds Spent by the Commission (FY 2008-09) B K Chakraborty DK Daschan 88 13 13 1.5 months Rs. 22,67,166

STATE OF RECORDS
In response to our letter requesting for copies of all orders, we were informed that the Commission had passed 102 orders, which were present on their website. They provided us with hard copies of 32 orders, which they said were not on their website. However, even after downloading all orders and including these 32 orders, we had only 74 orders. When we informed them about this, they sent us another 14 orders. So, finally we have 88 orders, which have been analyzed.

RANKING BY PARAMETERS
Name Prodisclosure Factor % (Rank) 80.7% (14th) Effectiveness (%) Deterrent Impact % (Rank) 0 (22nd) Overall Public Satisfaction (%) 50-60%

State Rankings

60-70%

Rankings of Individual Commissioners Joint Bench* 80.7% (54th) 60-70% 0 (57th) 50-60%

(*All the orders were passed by Tripura Information Commission in benches. Therefore, the performance of joint benches would be the same as the entire commission. However, rankings within states and within commissioners would be different)

250

PERFORMANCE OF COMMISSION ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS Summary Sheet

DISPOSALS An average of 7 cases per month Pendency of Tripura Information Commission remained stagnant at 13 cases at the end of the year. Average time taken between filing of an appeal and first hearing was 1.5 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 80.7% National Average: 68% Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partially or fully denied Remanded Back Rank of Commission Rank of Commissioner 88 71 (80.7%) 9 (10.2%) 8 (9.1%) 14 54 National Best: 98.3%

EFFECTIVENESS: 60 to 70%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

60 to 70% of the 71 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 0

National Average: 2% Penalty show cause notices issued: 0 Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 0 Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 0 Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 0 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 0 Number of arrest warrants issued: 0

National Best: 25%

OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 50 to 60% National Average: 26% National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approach the Tripura Information Commission, pro-disclosure orders were given in 81% cases. Out of these, 50-60 people finally got information.

251

Detailed Findings
1. All the orders were passed by both the commissioners as a combined bench. 2. The combined bench of Tripura directed disclosure of information in 80.7% cases. It denied information in 10.2% cases and remanded back as many as 9.1% cases. Therefore, it stands at 54th position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. 3. 60 to 70% of the pro-disclosure orders passed by the bench were implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 30 to 40% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 4. The compliance of the benchs orders is low because he closes a case after passing orders in favor of disclosure without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 5. Wherever PIO reported that records were missing, an enquiry and appropriate disciplinary action by the department concerned was ordered. However, it was said that PIO is under obligation to supply only such information which is in his custody, since missing records are not in his custody, they cannot be disclosed. However, no FIR was ordered. 6. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 7. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by the bench in 71 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. However, the bench did not issue any show cause notice. It did not even enquire into the reasons for delay in providing information in all these cases. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 8. Therefore the Deterrence Impact of the bench was zero. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was not imposed in any case. 9. Disposals are low because the commission receives very few appeals. There was a pendency of 13 cases at the end of the year.

252

Uttarakhand
STATE FACTSHEET
State Chief Information Commissioner Total Number of Cases Analysed by us (as provided to us) Pendency as on January 1, 2008 Pendency as on December 31, 2008 Time Taken Between Filing of Appeal and First Hearing Total Funds Spent by the Commission (FY 2008-09) R.S. Tolia 1,048 Not Available Not Available 2.5 months

Rs. 85,77,479

STATE OF RECORDS
The commission provided us copies of all the orders passed by them in a CD. The commission informed (through their letter) that the CD contained orders passed in 557 appeals and 600 complaints during 2008. However, the CD actually contained only 452 orders. On approaching the commission again, we were informed that all the 600 complaints received in the commission were remanded back to the First Appellate Authority. They also enclosed a prototype of a standard order, through which all 600 complaints were remanded back to the First Appellate Authority without a hearing. They sent us another CD for the orders in balance appeals. However, this CD also contained only 452 orders. Therefore, we have analyzed orders in only 452 appeals and have put 600 complaints under the heading remanded back.

RANKING BY PARAMETERS
Name Prodisclosure Factor % (Rank) 34.7% (24th) Effectiveness (%) Deterrent Impact % (Rank) 8.5 (6th) Overall Public Satisfaction (%) 10-20%

State Rankings

30-40%

Rankings of Individual Commissioners RS Toliya 34.7% (83rd) 30-40% 8.5 (11th) 10-20%

253

PERFORMANCE OF COMMISSION ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS Summary Sheet

DISPOSALS An average of 87 cases per month Pendency of Uttarakhand Information Commission was not available. Average time taken between filing of an appeal and first hearing was 2.5 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 34.7% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissions on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 24 1,048 364 (34.7%) 50 (4.8%) 634 (60.5%) National Best: 98.3%

EFFECTIVENESS: 30 to 40%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

30 to 40% of the 364 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 8.5%

National Average: 2%

National Best: 25%

Penalty show cause notices issued: 56 (15.4% of pro-disclosure orders) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 24 (42.9% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 1 (1.8% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 31 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 31 (8.5% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 10 to 20%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

So, if 100 people approach Uttarakhand Information Commission, pro-disclosure orders were given in 35 cases. Out of these, only 10-20 people finally got information.

254

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Tolia directed disclosure of information in only 34.7% cases. He denied information in 4.8% cases and remanded back as many as 60.5% cases. Therefore, he stands at 83rd position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. Nationally, on an average, 68% orders were passed in favor of disclosures. 2. The Commission remanded back 634 (60% of the cases received at the commission) complaints, in which first appeal had not been filed, back to first appellate authority without any hearing. Information was denied in 5% cases. Therefore, the Pro-Disclosure Factor is 35%, which means that out of all the orders passed, the commission ordered disclosure of information in 35% cases. 3. Uttarakhand follows an important practice of continuing mandamus i.e. they generally do not close a case till an appellant reports satisfaction i.e. after directing the PIO to provide information, they continue fixing hearings for compliance. 4. Then why is compliance of his orders so low? This is because repeated compliance hearings tire out appellants. In some cases, several hearings spanning over several months have taken place. After a few hearings, when the appellant does not turn up for hearings, the case is closed with remarks that the appellant might have got all information. Mr Tolia would need to act tough to ensure compliance and avoid repeated hearings. If the order remains uncomplied with, Mr Tolia may like to invoke powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3), as is being done by Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission, to ensure compliance. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Tolia in 364 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 56 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 56 cases and not in the balance 308 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Even in those cases where show cause notices were issued, the explanations or excuses offered by PIOs were accepted as reasonable causes and 24 show cause notices were dropped. Thirty one cases translated in penalties. One out of 56 cases remained pending at the end of the year. Compare this with Mr Vilas Patil of Maharashtra who imposed penalties in 84 out of 85 notices issued and did not let off a single officer (one notice remained pending). 7. Therefore, Deterrence Impact of Mr Tolia is 8.5%. This means that out of those cases in which prodisclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 8.5% cases. 8. Mr Tolia responded to our interim report. His reaction and our response thereto are annexed at Annexure C.

255

WEST BENGAL
STATE FACTSHEET
State Chief Information Commissioner Total Number of Cases Analysed by us (as provided to us) Pendency as on January 1, 2008 Pendency as on December 31, 2008 Time Taken Between Filing of Appeal and First Hearing Total Funds Spent by the Commission (FY 2008-09) Arun Kumar Bhattacharya 102 237 856 6 months Not Available

STATE OF RECORDS
In our first interaction, West Bengal information commission seemed confused about the number of orders passed in the year 2008, claiming in a letter that it allowed 966 appeals and also stating in the same letter that it disposed 112 cases that had been posted on its website. We found only 102 orders on their website. To our subsequent RTI application, they said they had passed orders in 355 complaints and appeals in the year 2008. Our efforts to get a clarification drew a blank. We have, therefore, analyzed only 102 orders of West Bengal information commission.

RANKING BY PARAMETERS
Name Prodisclosure Factor % (Rank) 76.5% (16th) Effectiveness (%) Deterrent Impact % (Rank) 3.8% (10th) Overall Public Satisfaction (%) 10-20%

State Rankings

20-30%

Rankings of Individual Commissioners Arun Kumar Bhattacharya 76.5% (63rd) 20-30% 3.8% (20th) 10-20%

256

PERFORMANCE OF COMMISSION ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS Summary Sheet

DISPOSALS An average of 9 cases per month Pendency of West Bengal Information Commission increased from 237 to 856 cases at the end of the year. Average time taken between filing of an appeal and first hearing was 6 months. PRO-DISCLOSURE FACTOR: 76% National Average: 68% Rank amongst commissions on this parameter Total Number of Orders Analysed Orders in Favour of Disclosure Orders in which information was partly or fully denied Remanded Back 16 102 78 (76.5%) 24 (23.5%) 0 National Best: 98.3%

EFFECTIVENESS: 20 to 30%
(How many of the pro-disclosure orders were actually complied with?)

National Average: 38%

National Best: 90 to 100%

20 to 30% of the 78 Pro-Disclosure orders were complied with. DETERRENCE IMPACT: 3.8%

National Average: 2%

National Best: 25%

Penalty show cause notices issued: 12 (15.4% of pro-disclosure orders) Show cause notices dropped subsequently: 0 (0% notices) Show cause notices pending at the end of the year: 9 (75% notices) Penalties imposed: o Penalties imposed: 3 o Penalties withdrawn subsequently: 0 o Net penalties imposed: 3 (3.8% of pro-disclosure orders) Number of arrest warrants issued: 0 OVERALL PUBLIC SATISFACTION (OPS): 10 to 20%

National Average: 26%

National Best: 80 to 90%

If 100 people approached West Bengal Information Commission, pro-disclosure orders were passed in 76 cases. Out of these only 10 to 20 people finally got the information requested.

257

Detailed Findings
1. Mr Bhattacharya directed disclosure of information in 76.5% cases, denying information in 23.5% cases. He did not remand back any case. Therefore, he stands at 63rd position amongst all commissioners on Pro-Disclosure Factor. Compare this with the highest in the country. Three commissioners from different parts of India passed 100% orders in favor of disclosures and 34 commissioners passed more than 90% pro-disclosure orders. Nationally, on an average, 68% orders were passed in favor of disclosures. 2. However, only 20 to 30% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favorable and pro-disclosure orders, 70 to 80% appellants still did not get information. Arunachal Pradesh has done quite well on this score. They could get more than 90% of their orders implemented. Five commissioners in the country also could get more than 70% of their orders implemented. 3. Mr. Bhattacharyas compliance seems to be low because he closes a case after passing orders in favor of disclosure without ensuring compliance thereof. If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint. Many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants. Even in that hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. Mostly, the order is again not complied with. 4. Honble Commissioner may like to adopt the following best practices from other states to improve compliance of orders: a. Continuing mandamus: This practice is followed by more than seven state commissions like Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Karnataka etc. The case is not closed till such time as the appellant informs satisfaction. After directing the officer to provide information, hearings are fixed to ensure compliance. b. Issue of arrest warrants: Repeated compliance hearings also tire out appellants. Therefore, if the order is not complied with as per commissions directions, Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission invokes its powers of arrests and production of documents under section 18(3) to ensure compliance. A sample copy of arrest warrant issued by Arunachal Information Commission is annexed. 5. According to RTI Act, it is mandatory to impose penalty on an officer who does not provide complete and correct information within prescribed time unless there were a reasonable cause. Pro-Disclosure orders were passed by Mr Bhattacharya in 78 cases, which means that information was not provided in time in all these cases. A large number of these officers, who did not provide information in time, were not even questioned about the reasons for delay. Notices were issued in only 12 cases to explain reasons for delay. In the balance cases, reasons for delay were not even enquired. Why were notices issued in these 12 cases and not in the balance 66 cases? We could not understand the basis of this discrimination from a reading of the orders. In Bihar, the commissioners issued penalty notices in more than 90% cases. In fact, Mr Narayanan of Bihar issued penalty show cause notices in 98% cases. Three commissioners from other parts of the country issued show cause notices in more than 50% cases. 6. Of these, penalties were imposed in 3 cases. The balance cases remained pending at the end of the year. This means that out of those cases in which pro-disclosure orders were passed and delays were detected, penalty was imposed only in 3.8% cases. 7. Disposal is very low despite a huge pendency. Only 9 orders are passed per month. It takes almost six months for an appeal to be heard. Nationally, there were 4 commissioners who disposed more than 200 cases per month, and 18 commissioners who disposed more than 100 cases per month. Whereas on one hand, there is a need to improve disposals to increase output, there is also a need for strong deterrence (in the form of penalties for every RTI violation and arrests if Commissions orders are repeatedly violated) to reduce inflow of appeals and complaints to the commission.

258

Annexure A:
Ranking By Parameters

259

1. Pro-disclosure Factor
a) Ranking of Commission by Pro-disclosure Factor
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 State Assam Chattisgarh Arunachal Pradesh Punjab Karnataka Manipur Madhya Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Haryana Kerela Orissa Jharkhand Rajasthan Tripura Mizoram West Bengal Bihar Nagaland Gujarat Central Information Commission Goa Meghalaya Maharashtra Uttarakhand Andhra Pradesh Pro-Disclosure Factor (%) 98.3 95.3 93.0 92.6 91.1 89.0 88.6 88.6 87.5 86.0 85.1 83.4 82.3 80.7 80.0 76.5 76.1 75.0 71.6 64.8 62.2 48.1 43.6 34.7 32.1

260

b) Ranking of Commissioner by Pro-disclosure Factor

Rank 1 1 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 19 21 22 23 24 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 31 33 34 35 36 36 38 39 40 41 Name of Commissioner Anil Joshi Bench of Anil Joshi & Vijayavargia Gangotri Kujur Combined Benches of Assam B K Gohain Ashok Mehta Shrishtidhar Mahato Ravi Singh P P S Gill K A Thippeswamy K K Misra Surinder Singh R K Gupta P N Vijayakumar A K Vijayavargia Dr Suresh V Joshi P K Grover Lt. Gen. (Retd.) P P Tiwari Prof Praful Kumar Mahato Asha Sharma Rupan Deol Bajaj Mahesh Pandey Combined Benches of Arunachal Pradesh G Madhavan Harishankar Prasad Combined benches of Karnataka Ramanand Tiwari Harishchandra Pattar Munda Dr K Rajagopal M R Ranga Combined benches of Jharkhand Kulbir Singh P S Rana Palat Mohandas P Faziluddin R K Angousana Singh Prem Veer Singh Combined benches of MP Combined benches of Orissa Combined Benches in Punjab S S Parmar State Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh Jharkhand Assam Assam Haryana Jharkhand Punjab Punjab Karnataka Karnataka Punjab Punjab Kerela Chhattisgarh Maharashtra Punjab Madhya Pradesh Jharkhand Haryana Punjab Madhya Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Haryana Jharkhand Karnataka Maharashtra Jharkhand Kerela Haryana Jharkhand Punjab Himachal Pradesh Kerela Kerela Manipur Haryana Madhya Pradesh Orissa Punjab Himachal Pradesh Pro-Disclosure Factor (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.8 98.0 97.6 97.1 97.0 96.4 96.0 95.7 95.3 95.1 95.0 94.8 94.7 94.6 94.5 94.2 94.2 94.0 93.4 93.0 92.3 92.3 92.0 91.3 90.7 90.4 90.0 89.9 89.9 89.8 89.7 89.2 89.0 89.0 88.9 88.2 88.1 87.9

261

42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

P K Verma V V Giry Dr Shakil Ahmed D C Jugran Justice Shashank Singh Vijay Kuvlekar D N Padhi O P Kejariwal Kumar

Punjab Kerela Bihar Madhya Pradesh Bihar Maharashtra Orissa Central Information Commission Rajasthan Orissa Orissa Central Information Commission Tripura Mizoram Haryana Karnataka Central Information Commission Goa Haryana Madhya Pradesh Jharkhand West Bengal Kerela Nagaland Central Information Commission Gujarat Jharkhand Andhra Pradesh Central Information Commission Andhra Pradesh Central Information Commission Bihar Central Information Commission Goa

87.7 87.6 87.1 86.9 86.3 85.6 85.3 85.0

50 51 52 53

M D Kaurani Jagadananda Radhamohan M L Sharma

82.3 82.2 82.1 81.1

54 55 56 57 57

Combined Benches of Tripura Combined Bench in Mizoram Meenaxi Anand Chaudhry H N Krishna Shailesh Gandhi

80.7 80.0 79.9 79.7 79.7

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

G G Kambli Lt Gen (Retd) JBS Yadav Iqbal Ahmed Baijnath Mishra Arun Kumar Bhattacharya Combined benches of Kerela Combined Bench of Nagaland M M Ansari

79.6 79.3 78.1 76.9 76.5 75.7 75.0 71.7

67 68 69 70

R N Das Ram Bilas Gupta R. Dileep Reddy Wajahat Habibullah

71.6 68.6 67.6 66.7

71 72

K Sudhakara Rao Annapurna Dixit

66.0 65.6

73 73

P N Narayanan Combined benches of CIC

63.6 63.6

75

Combined Benches of Goa

58.2

262

76 77

A Venkataratnam Satyananda Mishra

78 79 80

G P Wahlang A Subba Rao Padma Balasubramaniam

81 82

Vilas Patil A N Tiwari

83 84 85 86

R S Tolia Vijay Baburao Borge C D Arha Naveen Kumar

Goa Central Information Commission Meghalaya Andhra Pradesh Central Information Commission Maharashtra Central Information Commission Uttarakhand Maharashtra Andhra Pradesh Maharashtra

57.5 48.3

48.1 47.9 46.5

46.2 41.1

34.7 21.5 18.1 13.7

263

2. Deterrent Impact
a) Ranking of Commission by Deterrent Impact
Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 22 22 State Mizoram Nagaland Arunachal Pradesh Orissa Goa Uttarakhand Meghalaya Chattisgarh Maharashtra West Bengal Haryana Bihar Gujarat Rajasthan Central Information Commission Punjab Kerela Karnataka Assam Himachal Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Jharkhand Andhra Pradesh Manipur Tripura Deterrent Impact 25.00 22.22 17.50 11.15 8.86 8.52 8.00 4.46 4.15 3.85 3.75 2.16 2.13 2.00 1.76 1.45 1.42 1.11 0.44 0.41 0.21 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00

264

b) Ranking of Commissioner by Deterrent Impact

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Name of Commissioner Combined benches of Orissa Combined Bench in Mizoram Combined Bench in Nagaland Combined Benches of Arunachal Pradesh D N Padhi Combined Benches of Goa Vijay Baburao Borge M R Ranga Vilas Patil A Venkataratnam R S Tolia G P Wahlang Bench of Anil Joshi & Vijayavargia Lt Gen (Retd) J B S Yadava A N Tiwari G G Kambli Wajahat Habibullah A K Vijayavargia Meenaxi Anand Chaudhry Arun Kumar Bhattacharya Anil Joshi Ravi Singh Vijay Kuvlekar Palat Mohandas Kulbir Singh R K Gupta G Madhavan Ashok Mehta O P Kejariwal P Faziluddin Dr Shakil Ahmed Rupan Deol Bajaj Justice Shashank Kumar Singh R N Das P N Narayanan M D Kaurani P P S Gill Prem Veer Singh Dr Suresh V Joshi H N Krishna Padma Balasubramaniam P K Grover Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Combined Benches of Assam K K Misra Jagadananda V V Giry K A Thippeswamy State Orissa Mizoram Nagaland Arunachal Pradesh Orissa Goa Maharashtra Haryana Maharashtra Goa Uttarakhand Meghalaya Chhattisgarh Haryana Central Information Commission Goa Central Information Commission Chhattisgarh Haryana West Bengal Chhattisgarh Punjab Maharashtra Kerela Punjab Punjab Haryana Haryana Central Information Commission Kerela Bihar Punjab Bihar Gujarat Bihar Rajasthan Punjab Haryana Maharashtra Karnataka Central Information Commission Punjab Assam Karnataka Orissa Kerela Karnataka Deterrent Impact 29.33 25.00 22.22 17.50 10.53 10.42 10.31 10.19 9.69 8.70 8.52 8.00 7.45 6.85 6.09 5.13 4.90 4.22 4.09 3.85 3.45 3.07 2.90 2.76 2.72 2.60 2.55 2.50 2.41 2.27 2.26 2.25 2.16 2.13 2.07 2.00 1.73 1.65 1.55 1.50 1.28 1.27 1.25 1.22 1.14 0.92 0.81

265

48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 57

Shailesh Gandhi S S Parmar Combined benches of Kerela Mahesh Pandey Combined benches of Jharkhand Naveen Kumar P P Tiwari Surinder Singh M M Ansari Ramanand Tiwari R. Dileep Reddy A Subba Rao C D Arha K Sudhakara Rao B K Gohain Annapurna Dixit Combined benches of CIC M L Sharma Satyananda Mishra Asha Sharma P S Rana Baijnath Mishra Gangotri Kujur Harishankar Prasad Harishchandra Pattar Munda Prof Praful Kumar Mahato Ram Bilas Gupta Shrishtidhar Mahato Combined benches of Karnataka Dr K Rajagopal P N Vijayakumar Combined benches of MP D C Jugran Iqbal Ahmed R K Angousana Singh Radhamohan Combined Benches in Punjab P K Verma Combined Benches of Tripura

Central Information Commission Himachal Pradesh Kerela Madhya Pradesh Jharkhand Maharashtra Madhya Pradesh Punjab Central Information Commission Maharashtra Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Assam Central Information Commission Central Information Commission Central Information Commission Central Information Commission Haryana Himachal Pradesh Jharkhand Jharkhand Jharkhand Jharkhand Jharkhand Jharkhand Jharkhand Karnataka Kerela Kerela Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Manipur Orissa Punjab Punjab Tripura

0.78 0.65 0.62 0.54 0.51 0.49 0.40 0.38 0.24 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

266

3.

Effectiveness

a) Effectiveness of Information Commissions

Effectiveness: More than 90% Arunachal Pradesh Effectiveness: 70 to 80% Nagaland Effectiveness: 60 to 70% Tripura Manipur Effectiveness: 50 to 60% Karnataka Effectiveness: 40 to 50% Assam Kerela Gujarat Punjab Orissa Bihar Effectiveness: 30 to 40% Jharkhand Madhya Pradesh Himachal Pradesh Chattisgarh Uttarakhand Goa Haryana Maharashtra Effectiveness: 20 to 30% Andhra Pradesh Central Information Commission Rajasthan West Bengal Inadequate Data Meghalaya Mizoram

267

b) Effectiveness of Information Commissioners Name of Commissioner

Effectiveness: More than 90% Combined Benches of Arunachal Pradesh Effectiveness: 70 to 80% Combined Bench in Nagaland A Venkataratnam Gangotri Kujur Combined Benches of Assam Effectiveness: 60 to 70% Combined Benches of Tripura R K Angousana Singh Effectiveness: 50 to 60% Ravi Singh K K Misra K A Thippeswamy Harishankar Prasad Wajahat Habibullah Palat Mohandas H N Krishna P K Grover Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Dr K Rajagopal P Faziluddin Mahesh Pandey D N Padhi Effectiveness: 40 to 50% Combined benches of Orissa Surinder Singh Justice Shashank Kumar Singh R N Das Kulbir Singh R K Gupta Combined benches of Kerela Ashok Mehta V V Giry Ram Bilas Gupta P N Vijayakumar P P S Gill P S Rana Harishchandra Pattar Munda K Sudhakara Rao D C Jugran Combined benches of Jharkhand Effectiveness: 30 to 40% P N Narayanan

State
Arunachal Pradesh

Nagaland Goa Jharkhand Assam

Tripura Manipur

Punjab Karnataka Karnataka Jharkhand Central Information Commission Kerela Karnataka Punjab Kerela Kerela Madhya Pradesh Orissa

Orissa Punjab Bihar Gujarat Punjab Punjab Kerela Haryana Kerela Jharkhand Kerela Punjab Himachal Pradesh Jharkhand Andhra Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Jharkhand

Bihar

268

Dr Shakil Ahmed Vijay Baburao Borge Radhamohan Combined Benches in Punjab P K Verma A K Vijayavargia Lt Gen (Retd) J B S Yadava B K Gohain P P Tiwari Shrishtidhar Mahato Prem Veer Singh R S Tolia Vijay Kuvlekar Anil Joshi Meenaxi Anand Chaudhry S S Parmar Rupan Deol Bajaj Bench of Anil Joshi & Vijayavargia Asha Sharma Vilas Patil Annapurna Dixit

Bihar Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Punjab Chhattisgarh Haryana Assam Madhya Pradesh Jharkhand Haryana Uttarakhand Maharashtra Chhattisgarh Haryana Himachal Pradesh Punjab Chhattisgarh Haryana Maharashtra Central Information Commission

Effectiveness: 20 to 30% G Madhavan A Subba Rao Prof Praful Kumar Mahato Jagadananda Naveen Kumar O P Kejariwal Iqbal Ahmed M D Kaurani Dr Suresh V Joshi Ramanand Tiwari Combined Benches of Goa Padma Balasubramaniam A N Tiwari Baijnath Mishra Shailesh Gandhi Arun Kumar Bhattacharya Effectiveness: Less than 20% M M Ansari Satyananda Mishra C D Arha M R Ranga M L Sharma

Haryana Andhra Pradesh Jharkhand Orissa Maharashtra Central Information Commission Madhya Pradesh Rajasthan Maharashtra Maharashtra Goa Central Information Commission Central Information Commission Jharkhand Central Information Commission West Bengal

Central Information Commission Central Information Commission Andhra Pradesh Haryana Central Information Commission

269

R. Dileep Reddy Inadequate data: G G Kambli Combined Bench in Mizoram Combined benches of Karnataka Combined benches of MP G P Wahlang

Andhra Pradesh

Goa Mizoram Karnataka Madhya Pradesh Meghalaya

270

4. Overall Public Satisfaction (OPS)

a) OPS of Information Commissions
OPS: 80 to 90% Arunachal Pradesh OPS: 50 to 60% Nagaland Manipur Tripura Karnataka OPS: 40 to 50% Assam Punjab Kerela OPS: 30 to 40% Orissa Chattisgarh Madhya Pradesh Gujarat Jharkhand Himachal Pradesh Bihar OPS: 20 to 30% Haryana Rajasthan Goa OPS: 10 to 20% Central Information Commission West Bengal Maharashtra Uttarakhand OPS: Less than 10% Andhra Pradesh Inadequate Data Meghalaya Mizoram

271

b) OPS of Information Commissioners Name of Commissioner

OPS: 80 to 90% Combined Benches of Arunachal Pradesh OPS: 70 to 80% Gangotri Kujur OPS: 60 to 70% Combined Benches of Assam OPS: 50 to 60% Combined Bench in Nagaland R K Angousana Singh Ravi Singh K K Misra K A Thippeswamy Combined Benches of Tripura Harishankar Prasad OPS: 40 to 50% Palat Mohandas P K Grover Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Mahesh Pandey Surinder Singh Dr K Rajagopal P Faziluddin Combined benches of Orissa Ashok Mehta H N Krishna A Venkataratnam R K Gupta P P S Gill P N Vijayakumar Justice Shashank Kumar Singh Kulbir Singh OPS: 30 to 40% D N Padhi Harishchandra Pattar Munda V V Giry P S Rana Wajahat Habibullah B K Gohain Combined benches of Jharkhand Shrishtidhar Mahato A K Vijayavargia D C Jugran P P Tiwari Combined benches of Kerela

State
Arunachal Pradesh

Jharkhand

Assam

Nagaland Manipur Punjab Karnataka Karnataka Tripura Jharkhand

Kerela Punjab Madhya Pradesh Punjab Kerela Kerela Orissa Haryana Karnataka Goa Punjab Punjab Kerela Bihar Punjab

Orissa Jharkhand Kerela Himachal Pradesh Central Information Commission Assam Jharkhand Jharkhand Chhattisgarh Madhya Pradesh Madhya Pradesh Kerela

272

Dr Shakil Ahmed Anil Joshi Combined Benches in Punjab R N Das P K Verma Bench of Anil Joshi & Vijayavargia Prem Veer Singh Radhamohan Ram Bilas Gupta Rupan Deol Bajaj Vijay Kuvlekar OPS: 20 to 30% Asha Sharma Lt Gen (Retd) J B S Yadava S S Parmar K Sudhakara Rao Prof Praful Kumar Mahato Meenaxi Anand Chaudhry G Madhavan P N Narayanan Dr Suresh V Joshi Jagadananda Ramanand Tiwari O P Kejariwal M D Kaurani Iqbal Ahmed Annapurna Dixit

Bihar Chhattisgarh Punjab Gujarat Punjab Chhattisgarh Haryana Orissa Jharkhand Punjab Maharashtra

Haryana Haryana Himachal Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Jharkhand Haryana Haryana Bihar Maharashtra Orissa Maharashtra Central Information Commission Rajasthan Madhya Pradesh Central Information Commission

OPS: 10 to 20% Baijnath Mishra Shailesh Gandhi Arun Kumar Bhattacharya Vilas Patil Combined Benches of Goa M M Ansari A Subba Rao M R Ranga R S Tolia Padma Balasubramaniam A N Tiwari

Jharkhand Central Information Commission West Bengal Maharashtra Goa Central Information Commission Andhra Pradesh Haryana Uttarakhand Central Information Commission Central Information Commission

OPS: Less than 10% Satyananda Mishra M L Sharma Vijay Baburao Borge

Central Information Commission Central Information Commission Maharashtra

273

Naveen Kumar C D Arha R. Dileep Reddy Inadequate Data: G G Kambli Combined benches of Karnataka Combined benches of MP G P Wahlang Combined Bench in Mizoram

Maharashtra Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh

Goa Karnataka Madhya Pradesh Meghalaya Mizoram

274

4. Disposals and Pendencies

a) Disposals and Pendencies of Information Commissions
Commission Total Number of Orders passed 13477 5951 6041 2005 1443 7626 1272 1048 643 1685 3207 1560 1633 1586 230 897 272 254 102 88 82 52 43 12 10 Number of Man Months 72 34 36 12 12 69 14 12 18 48 96 53 60 68 12 78 24 24 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Number of Orders Per Commission Per Month 187 175 168 167 120 111 91 87 36 35 33 29 27 23 19 12 11 11 9 7 7 4 4 1 1 Pendency of Commission on 31st Dec 14307 4884 4887 1041 4561 9593 984 0 3973 1867 0 953 3841 409 42 502 48 112 856 13 75 5 0 3 2

Maharashtra Bihar Karnataka Rajasthan Gujarat Central Information Commission Chattisgarh Uttarakhand Orissa Andhra Pradesh Punjab Kerela Madhya Pradesh Haryana Assam Jharkhand Himachal Pradesh Goa West Bengal Tripura Manipur Meghalaya Arunachal Pradesh Nagaland Mizoram

275

b) Disposals and Pendencies of Information Commissioners

Name of Commissioner Total Number Of Orders Passed 4593 2996 801 2734 2310 1513 2005 1420 1891 1877 1875 442 1753 1726 1340 1574 1443 1243 1048 1030 1024 1019 254 878 826 774 123 633 151 514 509 508 244 485 192 460 444 438 431 430 Working Months Disposal Per Month Pendency Per Commissi oner 5438 1386 1066 1628 1629 1066 1041 NA 1629 1628 3367 1066 1629 1066 1628 4116 4561 492 NA 467 1066 NA 1066 1066 1066 NA 492 960 1066 NA 58 1987 NA 191 1987 960 NA 960 NA 467

Vijay Baburao Borge Naveen Kumar Shailesh Gandhi P N Narayanan K A Thippeswamy Padma Balasubramaniam M D Kaurani Ramanand Tiwari K K Misra Dr Shakil Ahmed Vilas Patil Annapurna Dixit H N Krishna M M Ansari Justice Shashank Kumar Singh Vijay Kuvlekar R N Das A K Vijayavargia R S Tolia C D Arha O P Kejariwal Dr Suresh V Joshi M L Sharma A N Tiwari Wajahat Habibullah P K Verma Anil Joshi P P Tiwari Satyananda Mishra Baijnath Mishra G Madhavan D N Padhi Harishankar Prasad Palat Mohandas Jagadananda D C Jugran P P S Gill Iqbal Ahmed P K Grover Lt. Gen. (Retd.) A Subba Rao

12 9 3 12 12 9 12 9 12 12 12 3 12 12 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 3 12 12 12 2 12 3 12 12 12 6 12 5 12 12 12 12 12

383 333 267 228 193 168 167 158 158 156 156 147 146 144 134 131 120 104 87 86 85 85 85 73 69 65 62 53 50 43 42 42 41 40 38 38 37 37 36 36

276

Meenaxi Anand Chaudhry Combined benches of Kerela Harishchandra Pattar Munda Radhamohan Kulbir Singh Ravi Singh Rupan Deol Bajaj Mahesh Pandey R K Gupta Surinder Singh Dr K Rajagopal Ram Bilas Gupta V V Giry Lt Gen (Retd) J B S Yadava B K Gohain G G Kambli Combined benches of MP A Venkataratnam K Sudhakara Rao Ashok Mehta Prem Veer Singh S S Parmar Rajan Kashyap M R Ranga P Faziluddin P N Vijayakumar Prof Praful Kumar Mahato Asha Sharma Arun Kumar Bhattacharya Gangotri Kujur P S Rana Shrishtidhar Mahato Combined Benches of Tripura R K Angousana Singh R S Mooshahary G P Wahlang Combined Benches of Arunachal Pradesh R. Dileep Reddy Combined Bench in Nagaland Combined Bench in Mizoram

428 424 416 28 336 336 331 312 283 284 114 271 249 184 230 214 208 205 188 123 136 174 173 120 148 140 132 86 102 99 98 93 88 82 81 52 43 37 12 10

12 12 12 1 12 12 12 12 12 12 5 12 12 9 12 12 12 12 12 8 9 12 12 9 12 12 12 9 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

36 35 35 28 28 28 28 26 24 24 23 23 21 20 19 18 17 17 16 15 15 15 14 13 12 12 11 10 9 8 8 8 7 7 7 4 4 3 1 1

58 191 NA 1987 NA NA NA 960 NA NA 191 NA 191 58 42 56 960 56 467 58 58 24 NA 58 191 191 NA 58 856 NA 24 NA 13 75 42 5 0 467 3 2

277

278

Annexure B:
Copy of Arrest Warrant Issued by Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission

279

280

281

282

ANNEXURE C:
Reaction of Some Information Commssioners to Interim Report and Our Response

283

Prof Ansaris Reaction and Our Response

(E-mail Circulated by Prof. Ansari Sometime in Mid-November 2009)

AN ANALYSIS OF THE REPORT OF PCRF (AUTHORS OF RTI AWARDS) -- FLAWED LOGIC AND SPECIOUS CONCLUSIONS
Lately, the media was flooded with stories about the functioning of Information Commissioners all over the country based upon analysis done by a group going by the name and style Public Cause Research Foundation. The chief protagonists of this group are Shri Arvind Kejriwal, Shri Manish Sisodia and Shri Abhinandan Sekhri. The media has lapped up these stories without pausing to critically assess whether these were worth reporting, or rather, whether these were at-all true. The following analysis would show that the Report presented by the above group as authentic and scientific analysis of the performance of the Commissioners was nothing more than eye-wash for purposefully and deliberately promoting some at the cost of others. The Report is so flawed that it is not worth even the paper on which it was written and the following analysis would show how it was so:1. Wrong Projection About Success Rate of RTI-petitions: This Study gives an impression quite erroneously and perhaps, deliberately as if the appeals decided by the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions are all that is there to RTI disclosure. It notes rather hides that the Central Information Commission receives only 4-5% of all cases filed before the central public authorities. According to the statistics compiled by the Central Information Commission for 2007-2008, 2,63,261 RTI-petitions were filed before all CPIOs in the 1597 central public authorities. Out of these, only 11,261 were taken to second-appeal / complaint before the Central Information Commission. This constitutes only a minuscule 4.27% percent of all RTIapplications filed. In other words, it would be safe to assume, that in more than 95% of the applications filed, all requested information was disclosed to the applicants. Our response: The scope of our study was limited to assessing what happens to an appeal or complaint that reaches Information Commission. In any case, is it not too simplistic to assume that anyone who did not file an appeal is satisfied? Many people do not file appeals because they do not have the capacity to do so. Most people from lower income groups and disadvantaged sections do not have the capacity to file appeals. Besides, the appeal rules at CIC have been made so complicated that many appeals filed at CIC are rejected on technical grounds (in 2007-08, 63% appeals filed at CIC were rejected on technical grounds, by registry only i.e. without being heard at all, which is not reflected anywhere). During our analysis of some PIOs this year, we came across many cases (in some cases almost 50% cases handled by a PIO) who were dissatisfied but did not file appeal. Prof. Ansari: Out of the balance 11,261 cases, which ended up being second-appeals or complaints, a very large number were decided in favour of the appellants / complainants and those in which appeals / complaints were rejected, grounds for rejection were clearly spelt-out. Several of these were challenged before High Courts and the decisions of the Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions were upheld in most cases. This shows that all the rejections by the Central Information Commission were within the four-corners-of-law. In fact, giving out information when the law clearly prohibited it, would have been illegal and would have invited strictures from superior courts. Our response: We have tried to quantify how many were decided in favor and how many against appellants. At CIC, 65% cases were decided in favor of appellants. We have not questioned the judgments of Honble Information Commissioners wherever they have rejected appeals.

284

Prof. Ansari: The statistics projected by the Public Cause Research Foundation (organizers of RTI Awards) makes it appear as if disclosure of information was a necessary good, whereas non-disclosure was a necessary evil. This presumption is not only flawed, it is misleading and designed deliberately to present a wrong picture about the work of the Commissioners. Our response: Nowhere in the report have we implied that disclosure is good or that non-disclosure is bad. Our overarching goal is to be objective and unbiased. We have nothing to gain whatsoever by presenting a wrong picture! In fact, we are trying to recognize the best among the commissioners. We have merely presented the top percentages and bottom percentages based on well-defined parameters. If one commissioner passes orders in favor of appellants in 100% cases and another commissioner passes orders in favor of appellants in just 14% cases, would you treat them equally? Dont you think that it is worth enquiring into the reasons for the large number of rejections? Besides, we have found many instances, where one commissioner orders disclosure but another one rejects that information. If no harm is caused because of disclosure of information in one case, why arent all commissioners disclosing the same? For instance, many state commissions have allowed disclosure of answer sheets but CIC refuses to do that in certain cases? If no harm happened when answer sheets were disclosed by Pune University, then why should it not be disclosed in Delhi University and other Universities, which comes under CIC? Prof. Ansari: One would have understood, if on an examination of the orders of the Commissioners, the organization which conducted this Study would have faulted, or critiqued, it on grounds of the legal position expounded in those orders. They should have also examined whether those orders were in conformity with the decisions made by High Courts all over the country. Our response: We have never questioned the judgments of the commissioners. However, we have identified certain issues as mentioned earlier and we wish to initiate a debate on such issues, where some commissioners are ordering disclosure but others are ordering against it. Within CIC, whereas some commissioners have rejected large number of cases saying it does not fall within the definition of information, some commissioners did not reject a single case on this ground. Should we not discuss what constitutes information? Prof. Ansari: Far from it, they have chosen to malign and indict the Commissioners on the basis of false statistics, erroneous facts and fallacious conclusions. There appears to be a deep-seated design to make the institution appear to be a failed one. Our response: We are organization that has been closely involved with the RTI efforts even before it came into law. Our commitment to successful implementation of the law is whole hearted and unconditional. Doesnt it seem far-fetched that we would put in all this effort just to discredit an institution that was meant to implement a law that so many have worked so hard for? We can only assure you that we have no hidden design but to strengthen RTI movement. Prof. Ansari: 2.Credentials of the organizers conducting the Study: According to what has been put out on their website, it is seen that the authors of this widely-publicized Report are Shri Arvind Kejriwal, Shri Manish Sisodia and Shri Abhinandan Sekhri. It is unclear as to who these authors are, what their research background is, what methodology they have followed and what were the limitations of the study they have conducted. Our response: We appreciate the Commissioners response to our study. But to start questioning the credentials of the team and organization is clearly a case of trying to shoot the messenger when you dont like the message. We request you to stick to the facts rather than get into a personal battle of words. We have never claimed that this study is perfect or flawless. In fact, we view it as the start of a long and evolving process. Hence, we have actively sought feedback and in the true spirit of transparency made the results of our study fully open to review and critique by anyone who might be interested. We are grateful to many who came forward with their inputs and helped iron out errors and inaccuracies. The

285

processes and procedures are constantly being improved as we learn each and every day from our experiences. I have personally been involved in overseeing the entire effort. The methodology and background about the study have been clearly outlined on the website. Besides, we are no strangers. You and I have met several times and you are fully aware of our efforts, so it is not like this report materialized all of a sudden out of thin air with malicious intent. I wonder had the results of the study been more to your liking perhaps your reaction might have been more favorable? In any case, our brief details about our backgrounds are available on our site www.pcrf.in. Prof. Ansari: While their website leaves no one any wiser about the background and the credentials of the authors of the Report, most surprisingly and perhaps quite cunningly, these authors have not informed the public as to what were the limitations of their Study. For example, the sample sizes which have been taken, either to commend or to denigrate the work of Commissioners, vary widely. In fairness, the authors ought to have acknowledged that if a larger sample size was taken for all Commissioners or more or less identical sample sizes were taken for each Commissioner, the conclusions would have been radically different. It is important to note that this Report was driven by an urge to commend few and denigrate many. 3. Flawed methodology: We have been informed that the Commissioners have been evaluated by the authors of the Report against four parameters, which were:A. Overall Public Satisfaction: The authors of the Report claim that the Overall Public Satisfaction has been measured by examining and evaluating over 6000 responses from those who approached various Commissions including the Central Information Commission.

B. Effectiveness: The above yardstick has also been used for measuring Effectiveness. C. Deterrent Impact: This has been measured on the basis of a study of the number of penalties imposed on officers of the public authority by various Commissioners. D. Pro-disclosure Factor: This has been measured on the basis of affirmative orders by the Commissioners in favour of appellants. In other words, pro-disclosure factor is high when a Commissioner allows a large number of appeals. Now let us look at how they have gone about their task. Take for instance the methodology for evaluating parameters A and B, viz. Overall Public Satisfaction and Effectiveness. According to the authors, these two traits have been measured on the basis of the public response received by them from 6000 persons whose cases came up before the various Commissions. It has been stated that 39% of these 6,000 addressees expressed satisfaction in favour of the Commissioners. Now consider this: How these 6,000 cases were distributed Commissioner-wise for the 94 Commissioners across the country has neither been presented nor explained by the authors. An aggregate figure of 6,000 cases cannot become the basis for deciding the performance against these two parameters of individual Commissioners. This is a grave methodological error which the authors have committed. Second, in presenting the Commissioner-wise statistics of Overall Public Satisfaction and Effectiveness, these 6,000 cases have been conveniently forgotten. It doesnt take much intelligence to see that the

286

total number of cases which have been used for grading Effectiveness and Overall Public Satisfaction for each Commissioner is at variance with the 6,000 which the authors have used to elicit public response. Third, authors have quite simplistically and, equally erroneously, gone by affirmative orders in favour of appellants as an index of a Commissioners effectiveness and public satisfaction in regard to his work. It is quite obvious that the valuation of Commissioners against these two parameters has been done by adopting what can best be described as voodoo statistics and methods which will not stand scientific scrutiny even for a moment. What emerges from it is as follows:A. By taking only 6,000 cases out of over 54,000 decided by CIC and the State Information Commissions, the sponsors and the authors of the Study have only taken about 10% of cases as their basis for commenting on public satisfaction and effectiveness of Commissioners. This number, i.e. 6000 is far too small a sample for the entire country one Central Information Commission and 27 State Information Commissions and for 94 Commissioners. Do the authors want us to believe that on the basis of 6,000 case studies, or rather telephonic responses received by them, they can draw any fair conclusion about the effectiveness of Commissioners? Our response to all the above paras: The methodology is already there on our website. However, let me reiterate the process: We collected all the orders passed by various Information Commissions across the country. Some orders were on their websites. For many commissions, we had to file RTI applications and sometimes make multiple trips to them to collect orders. For instance, despite two trips to Lucknow, we did not get any orders from them. We could collect roughly 52,000 orders. Each of these orders was read and analyzed by a team of 12 persons for over six months. 34,000 orders were pro-disclosures. So, we wrote letters to all these 34,000 people asking them whether they received complete and satisfactory information after the order. These letters were prepared and handled by a team of almost 25 people working for over three months. Many letters came back undelivered due to wrong or incomplete address. But we received written response from roughly 6000 people. For a population size of 34,000 we believe that this a reasonable and acceptable sample size for data, though by no means perfect. However, this was not uniformly distributed over all commissioners. Response in some cases was inadequate. We therefore, contacted these commissioners and requested them if we could get phone numbers of appellants from their appeal files. Barring a few, most commissioners agreed to provide that. So, our teams visited several states and collected phone numbers of appellants. In the case of Arunachal Pradesh, the phone numbers did not work due to bad connectivity. So, our team personally met as many appellants as possible in Arunachal Pradesh to get their feedback. We have tried to ensure that we have feedback from at least 20% of the people in whose case pro-disclosure orders were passed for each commissioner. However, despite all efforts, in the case of a few commissioners we could not reach 20% (though we received more than 40% feedback in some cases). Our statistical expert is now helping us identify what could be the error margin in the case of each commissioner with the available sample size and population size. I also need to specify that two of the parameters i.e. Pro-disclosure factor and deterrent impact are straight from analysis and do not depend upon feedback. The other two parameters i.e. Overall Public Satisfaction and Effectiveness depend upon public feedback. We put all our raw data on our website more than a month before the final data was to be presented to jury. This was to request people to cross check our analysis and point to our mistakes so that we can correct them. We also wanted more feedback on Information Commissioners performance. We have received very enthusiastic response from people. We would also like to discuss figures related to Prof Ansaris performance. He passed 1726 orders. Out of that he passed orders in favor of disclosure in 1238 cases (72% cases, 66th position on Pro-Disclosure Factor). He imposed penalties in 3 cases (57th position on Deterrent Impact). 22% of his orders were

287

complied with (58th position on Effectiveness Parameter) and overall public satisfaction is 15% (53rd position on OPS parameter). Prof Ansari, do you agree with these figures about your performance? The detailed worksheets are on our website. If you find any mistakes, kindly let us know. We will rectify them. If you wish, we can scan and put all the feedback that we have received from various people about your performance on our website. Prof. Ansari: The authors state that all these 6,000 cases were those who were authorized to receive information by the Commissions, but many of them did not receive it. Two observations need to be made:(a) Once a Commissioner passes an order for disclosing an information and if that information remains undisclosed, the appellants usually approach the Commission in complaint for denial of information (or against non-compliance of Commissions order) by public authority. The Commission makes a decision, thereafter, about whether the information was denied or it was disclosed based upon submissions from both sides. Quite frequently, and in fact in a majority of cases, it is the appellant who turned out to be the one who was presenting facts wrongly and not the CPIO or the public authority. If such petitioners tell the authors of the RTI Award that they were unhappy with the information disclosed, it was required of the authors to make a critical scrutiny about what these appellant had asked for and what they had received, rather than draw a facile conclusion that if somebody said that he has not received information, he was bound to be right. Our response: Just as you disregard this as a facile conclusion one could easily argue the opposite view. At many forums, you have said that the people are wrong and officers are right. We do agree that this might be the case sometimes, but we disagree with this observation of yours as this being true in majority of the cases. In fact, most people in this country would not share your assumption either. Prof. Ansari: (b)In our experience, the cases where information was not disclosed after an order of the Commissioner were far and few between and not as enormous as the authors of this Report (RTI Awards) have attempted to demonstrate. Our response: It would be best if we stick to specific data rather than make broad generic claims which are not backed by data of any sort. We have presented specific figures. Please tell us how are our figures are wrong? Prof. Ansari: B. It is too simplistic to say that effectiveness of the Commissioner is the function of how many appeals he allows in favour of appellants. In fact, true effectiveness of a Commissioner is to be evaluated on the basis of whether he has contributed to the opening-up of the public authoritys systems and ushering in transparency where there was none earlier. Our response: We have never said that effectiveness of a commissioner is based on how many appeals he allows in favor of appellants. We have defined Effectiveness as percentage of cases in which he is able to get his orders implemented. Again, we are not questioning your judgment. But if in a case you order that information be provided, then we are assessing, in how many such cases information was actually received by appellants. Prof. Ansari: C. In some cases, not giving information is more in harmony with the avowed objective of the RTI Act than giving out information. As per the Preamble of the RTI Act, it is the purpose of this legislation to combat corruption and to improve efficiency in governance. A large number of cases which come before the Central Information Commission as well as the State Commissions are brought by public employees facing disciplinary cases, vigilance enquiries, anti-corruption actions and criminal prosecutions. These use the RTI Act as a tool to delay or defeat the extant process which seeks to make them answerable for

288

their acts of omission and commission. Central Information Commission and the State Commissions in most such cases favour denial of information than disclosure, principally under Section 8(1) of RTI Act. Our response: We do not sympathize with the officers facing corruption charges. However we strongly believe that transparency in the whole process is necessary to prevent victimization and harassment of honest officers and genuine whistleblowers. In any case, RTI Act does not debar any officer from using RTI. You are perhaps the only commissioner in the country who passed an order debarring government employees from using RTI. We feel this is completely illegal. Prof. Ansari: It is for the informed public to ask itself whether by judging a Commissioner on the basis of bland statistic of how many cases he decides in favour of appellant and how many cases he decides against him, can be a fair evaluation of the functioning of the Commissioner. The authors of this Report have been not only unfair, they have been downright cussed and negligent in performing the task they had set out for. Our response: Pro-Disclosure factor i.e. number of cases in which commissioner ordered in favor of disclosure is just one of the four parameters. All these parameters have to be viewed in their entirety rather than individually. Being at the top on one parameter will not make the commissioner effective. Prof. Ansari: Further, the following also need some reflection and show how lopsided this Study has been. According to the authors of the study, out of the total number of cases they evaluated, in as many as 70%, the decisions were in favour of complete disclosure of information. It follows from it that only in 30% of the cases the Commissions directed non-disclosure. These latter cases also include decisions authorizing part-disclosure. It defies understanding as to how part-disclosure and non-disclosure can be one and the same. This is one glaring instance of the authors lopsided technique. Our response: We have the break up. If you want, we can provide it to you. In any case, we will put the break up figures in our final report. We just didnt think it was important to include this in the draft report. Prof. Ansari: Again, according to the authors, all non-disclosures are such a bad thing that it must cast a stigma on the Commissioners. These authors should be asked the question if every single appeal were to be allowed by the Commissioners, then why have Commissions at-all. Further, they also need to be asked as to what is the meaning and implication of Section 8(1) and Section 9 of the RTI Act, which clearly spell-out the conditions under which an information can be denied to an applicant. Is it the case of the authors that even when a Commission decided that a certain information came within the scope of the exemption-Sections, the information should have been disclosed if for nothing else for elevating the merit of the Commissioner in the eyes of the flawed authors of this flawed report. Our response: We have already replied to this issue in great detail above. Prof. Ansari: Another glaring instance of the authors inscrutable ways is the manner in which they have evaluated Commissioners to be ranked as best five or the worst five. One example would suffice. Mr.V.V. Bhorge has disposed of 4,593 second-appeals, out of which in 989 cases, he had issued affirmative orders in favour of the appellants. He had imposed 126 penalties on errant public officials. Mr.Bhorge has been ranked as one of the five worst Commissioners. Our response: How do you say that he is at the bottom? We have clearly defined four different parameters and ranked people according to these criteria. On Deterrent Impact, Mr. Bhorge is at the 7th position for imposing penalties in 10% cases. But he is quite low on Pro-Disclosure, because he passed only 989 cases in favor of disclosure out of 4593. He rejected 78% of the cases and passed pro-

289

disclosure orders in just 21% cases in comparison there are some commissioners who passed prodisclosure orders in 100% cases. Prof. Ansari: Now contrast this with the indulgence with which the authors have treated Mr.D.N. Padhi of Orissa. Mr.Padhi has decided 423 cases, out of which in 361 cases, he has decided the appeal in favour of the appellant. He has imposed 40 penalties. Mr.Padhi has been ranked as one of the best five Commissioners. Our response: Who says Mr Padhi is at the top? Once again, please review Mr. Padhis record (or for that matter of any Commissioner) against the key parameters. For imposing penalties in 11% cases, he is at 5th position on Deterrent Impact. He is at 48th position in Pro-Disclosure and 13th/14th positions in Effectiveness and Overall Public Satisfaction. (Please be aware that these two parameters are going to change as much more valuable feedback has come in after the release of the draft report). Prof. Ansari: Now contrast Mr.Padhis performance with the performance of Mr.Bhorge and you will find how lopsided and erratic have been the self-appointed evaluators of the performance of the Commissioners. Mr.Bhorge has decided a much larger number of cases than Mr.Padhi. He has imposed a far larger number of penalties than Mr.Padhi and the number of cases in which he has decided in favour of the appellants are about as many as Mr.Padhis own. And yet in the estimation of the authors, Mr.Padhi is one of the five best Commissioners and Mr.Bhorge is one of the five worst under Prodisclosure category and Overall Public Satisfaction category. Our response: Mr Borge rejected 78% cases. Do you celebrate this? Once again, we wish to reiterate the fact that we have defined key parameters so that all Commissioners can be evaluated on these specific criteria. In the case of Mr. Bhorge and Mr. Padhi, please review their standings based on these parameters as outlined in our earlier responses above. Prof. Ansari: Mr.P.Faziluddin, Information Commissioner of Kerala has been rated as best among all Commissioners, and he has decided only 148 cases in the whole year which works out to roughly one case every two days. Did not the absurdity of this determination made by the authors strike them? There are Commissioners who have decided more than 1500 cases in a year and the total number of yes factor of those cases far exceeds the total number of cases decided by Mr.Faziluddin, but the latter category figures nowhere in the appreciation of the authors. Our response: Once again, please review any Commissioners record on the basis of the key parameters. The mere disposal of a large number of cases is of no consequence if the people remain dissatisfied. On the basis of feedback received from a number of people, we are introducing another factor which would reflect pendency and disposals. This will be outlined in the final report. Prof. Ansari: Certain other relevant points about the absurd nature of the Report are as follows:1. Award has been given to RTI-applicants for creating avenues for significant disclosures and transparency. But no credit has been given to the Commissioner or Commissioners who authorized such disclosure. Example Subhash Agarwal is given a prize for active RTI-applicant citing examples of cases brought by him before the Commission but denying to the Commissioner or Commissioners the credit for having given those orders which made Shri Subhash Agarwals efforts prize-worthy. Our response: So you believe the Commissioner should get credit for Subhash Aggarwals work? That way, all credit for all RTI work should go to commissioners and not to citizens! Prof. Ansari: 2. No credit has been given to the Commissioners for awarding compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act. The deterrent effect of compensation is no less than that of penalties. Disproportionate onus has been put on penalties to evaluate effectiveness and deterrent effect of the Commissioners orders.

290

Our response: In our opinion, compensation is to be given rarely whereas penalty is mandatory. However, some commissioners opt for compensation because they wish to favor the officer as penalty goes from his pocket. At a recent seminar, one retired judge said that compensation should be awarded very rarely because it creates a perverse incentive for non-disclosure of information. The PIO and citizen can actually collude. PIO may not provide information and ask citizen to file appeal. Then they could share the compensation amount! Prof. Ansari: 3. It is seen that under the category Pro-disclosure, the least pro-disclosure-oriented Commissioners figure at Sl.Nos.87 to 91. For the category Effectiveness, the least effective five Commissioners are listed at Sl.Nos.59 to 62. Considering the fact that the total number of Commissioners is 94, it is entirely unexplained as to how the least effective in one category shall be at Sl.Nos.87 to 91, while in another category they shall not go below Sl.No.62. This shows that the authors have not adopted any uniform criterion but have picked and chosen those whom they wish to hurt the most. Their mala-fide is more than manifest. Our response: This is because Effectiveness depends upon public feedback. In those cases of commissioners where we did not received adequate feedback, their data was not reflected in effectiveness table. However, in final report, you will find all of them. Prof. Ansari: 4. The Goa Information Commissioner, Shri A. Venkatratnam, who disposed of only 40 cases in the entire year and imposed 2 penalties, was rated one of the Top 5 Commissioners under the Deterrent category. There are a large number of Commissioners who imposed more than 2 penalties in the year under reference. Yet, they were nowhere in the ranking from any account. Our response: You imposed penalties in 3 cases out of 1,238 orders passed by you in favor of disclosure. Mr A Venkatratnam imposed penalties in 2 cases out of 23 pro-disclosure orders. Would you still claim that on an objective scale your performance exceeds that of Mr. Venkatratnam? Prof. Ansari: 5. Out of 6 Top Commissioners under the category Overall Public Satisfaction, at least 4 disposed of less than 500 cases. In contrast, there are at least 3 Commissioners out of 6 who are rated as Worst Performing Commissioners who disposed of more than 1000 cases in the year under reference. The examples cited at Sl.Nos. 4 and 5 above show how the authors have totally disregarded a key variant, i.e. the number of cases decided by Commissioners. For them, if a Commissioner decides 20 cases in a year and imposes 20 penalties, and gives 20 affirmative orders in favour of appellants, he shall be rated better than another Commissioner who decides 500 cases, imposes 100 penalties and gives 100 affirmative orders. Sample-size, in authors convoluted logic, does not matter. Can anything be more absurd than this? Our response: We strongly feel that people do not file RTI applications just to get an order. They file RTI applications to get information. You may be happy passing thousands of orders. But that is completely futile if it does not translate into flow of information to the citizens. In short, its quality that matters and not just quantity, though quantity combined with quality would be ideal. Prof. Ansari: IV. About Remanding of cases: The authors have, with characteristic carelessness, described remanding of cases by the Commissioners to the First Appellate Authorities as a negative point against the Commissioners. They could not have been more wrong and ill-informed about the procedures under the RTI Act and the quasi-judicial bodies which the Commissioners are.

291

Most of the remand orders were in cases where the petitioners either did not approach the First Appellate Authority, or approached the First Appellate Authority in first-appeal and simultaneously came before the Commission in complaint proceeding. To save multiple proceedings in the same matter at the same time and, to avoid contradictory orders being passed, cases were remanded to the First Appellate Authority with a direction that after the AA decided the matter, the appellant would be free to approach the Commission in second-appeal as well as complaint, if any. In fact, not remanding such cases would be blatantly illegal and would amount to virtually abolishing the very vital tier of RTI, viz. the First Appellate Authority. Cases were also remanded with specific direction to the First Appellate Authority that he, being the officer closest to where the information is held, should study the records and make a determination about whether the information could be disclosed. Commissions had no other alternative, but to remit such cases to the First Appellate Authority to save time and effort, which otherwise would be involved in carrying voluminous records to the Commissions office for it examine whether the information requested was extant / held. Several remands were given on the appellants own requests. Since they would have filed similar firstappeals before the same First Appellate Authority, remanding of the instant case before the Commission to the First Appellate Authority would enable the latter to examine and take the matter (which may be germane to the multiple RTI-applications and first-appeals of the appellants) to its logical conclusion. Now, for the authors, these reasons for remand did not matter. According to them, all remands were bad because that was what they thought and knew about remand. As in all their inferences, they are wrong here too and, one can dare say, that they are poorly informed about the nuances of the Act. Our response: We received an interesting response from Mr Tolia on the issue of remand back. We provided him a detailed reply. The same is in news section of our website. It is quite detailed. Therefore, we are not including it here. Please refer to http://www.rtiawards.org/news/2009/10/25/our-response-touttarkhand-commission/ (Enclosed in Appendix C) Prof. Ansari: It can be said, on the basis of above, that the authors of RTI Awards were seeking nothing more than sensationalism. Their purpose was to extol few and that too wrongly and denigrate many. With full help from the Media, they appear to have succeeded. Now is the time that people should be made to know how they have been taken for a ride by this nefarious group in the name of RTI-activism. Our response: We can only assure you that our objective is to promote the cause of transparency. We are grateful to you for your detailed response. Thank you so much and we hope you will continue to provide us with your inputs no matter how critical they maybe.

292

A Critique of PCRFs RTI Awards

- M.M. Ansari
(E-mail circulated by Prof. Ansari sometime in first week of
In spite of our detailed comments on the PCRF Report on RTI Awards, in which we pointed serious methodological and technical deficiencies and grossly erroneous conclusions in preparation of the Report and its flawed conclusions, the PCRFs Jury has announced the award in favour of Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission (APIC). The rationale for judging this Commission as the best, among all Commissions, requires an objective evaluation in the backdrop of the citation, which reads as under: Information Commissioner Category: Winner: Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission Award: Rs.2 lakhs, Trophy and Citation Arunachal Pradesh received a very high Overall Public Satisfaction (OPS) of 85%. This means that if 100 people approached Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission, 85 of them finally got the information they were seeking. This is almost three times the national average of 26%. The State is very high on getting its orders implemented. In 91% of the orders passed by Arunachal Pradesh Commission, people got the information. The Commission does not close a case till the appellant registers his/her satisfaction. So, they follow the practice of continuing mandamus. The Commissions is very strong on enforcement. In 45 cases that it disposed, penalties were imposed on 25 officers in 2006-07. In the calendar year 2008, they imposed penalties in 18% cases. Most of the people that we spoke to were full of praise for their commission. The PIOs are scared of violating RTI provisions. In the year 2009, the commission became the only commission to issue bailable arrest warrants against an officer who did not comply with commissions orders. During 2008, the commission issued 43 orders, out of which 40 orders were passed in favour of disclosures. On an average, it takes four months time between filing an appeal and getting information after all the hearings in this state. The commission, with just 43 cases, has four commissioners. Certainly, the commission does not need so many commissioners. However, the commissioners are appointed by the state government and the commission has little role in it. The commissioners rarely pass orders as a single bench. Most of the orders are passed by them collectively as one bench. Therefore, they are being honoured collectively as a commission. It may be argued that since they have such small number of cases, it is possible for them to monitor cases and ensure satisfaction. However, the data does not support this. There are more than 25 commissioners in the country who disposed less than one order per day. However, their compliance and satisfaction ratios are pretty low. The commission had zero pendency at the end of the year (http://www.rtiawards.org/) Now, let us consider the following: First: The APIC, comprising four ICs, disposed of a meagre 43 cases in a year, which comes to less than one decision per month per Commissioner. Against this, the corresponding figure for the CIC and some other State Commissions is hundred times more, between 100 to 200 cases per month per Commissioner. This fact has been deliberately rather designedly ignored by the evaluators, possibly because factoring in sample sizes would not have helped them support predetermined conclusions, and extol virtues of their favourites and denigrate others. The laboured effort to underplay the deficiencies of the winner, is far too obvious to be ignored.

293

Surprisingly, the Jury has sailed along with these evaluators whose methods and approaches would fail the most elementary scrutiny. Our response: Mere quantity is not a measure of quality. In other words, just because a commissioner has passed hundreds of orders it does not automatically make him a good commissioner. People approach information commissioners to get information, not orders. If the compliance of a commissioner is very low, but he passes hundreds of orders, it is of no benefit to the people. This exact same issue was discussed at length amongst our jury. To be more specific your argument is invalid for the following reasons: APICs pendency at the beginning and the end of the year was NIL. It is unfair to penalize them because they were receiving fewer appeals. It was not that these commissioners were not doing their jobs. It was just that they were receiving fewer appeals. Clearly, this cant be held against them. As far as the number of commissioners was concerned, it can be argued that the commission does not need so many commissioners. However, the commission does not have any role in it. The state government appoints information commissioners. The argument that because they did so few cases, they were able to perform better is also invalid when you look at the data. There are more than 25 commissioners in the country who disposed less than one case per day, and even then, their compliance and public satisfaction ratios were very low.

Prof Ansari has alleged that we are trying to extol the virtues of our favourites and underplay the deficiencies of the winner. After the release of our interim report, Prof Ansari alleged that we were trying to favour Orissa commission. Now, he alleges that we are favouring Arunachal Information Commission. We find such allegations without evidence completely baseless. The fact of the matter is that our effort was an independent, unbiased attempt at studying the state of RTI in the country and recognizing those who have excelled. We have no vested interest whatsoever in favouring one commission over another. Second: The APIC has to its credit 85% of affirmative decision (35 - 40 cases only), which form the basis for Overall Public Satisfaction (OPS). Against this meagre figure of 35 - 40 or so, the CIC has over 2000 decisions in this category, as per PCRFs own estimates. Likewise, other Commissions like Maharashtra Information Commission have passed a large number of favourable decisions to ensure maximum disclosure of information. But, the Jury chose not only to ignore such an important quantitative dimension, but also relied on subjective feed back about peoples satisfaction as provided by the PCRFs staff. More, surely, was expected of the Jury giving away what was described tongue in cheek as national awards. Our response: We have gone by percentages. Prof Ansari is presenting numbers. Let us review the numbers in a different fashion. Arunachal Information Commission denied information in just 3 cases. Prof Ansari denied information in 430 cases. Can Prof Ansaris performance be argued as being better just because he had more cases? Third: The APIC imposed 25 penalties whereas CIC imposed over 100 penalties on PIOs as well as awarded compensation to a large number of appellants. The CIC and many SICs indeed scrupulously enforced the RTI Act provisions, which has resulted in ensuring entitlements of the citizens. Media reports have so much to say on this. The PCRFs Jury has again, conveniently, and in keeping with their eager endorsement of all they were fed by the so-called evaluators ignored these vital facts. Our response: APIC imposed penalties on 25 officers in 45 cases. Prof Ansari imposed penalties on 3 cases out of 1726 cases disposed by him. The entire CIC imposed penalties in 92 cases out of 7626 case done by them. Is the CIC performance better? APIC issued an arrest warrant to get its orders implemented. As a result, more than 90% of its orders were implemented. CIC did not dare to issue even a single arrest warrant, when more than 70% of its orders were not complied with. 80% of Prof Ansaris orders were not complied with and he did little to address this glaring record.

294

Fourth: No attempt has been made to assess the quality of decisions passed by APIC vis--vis other Commissions, including CIC, in terms of the impact of the Commissions decisions in promoting transparency, accountability and containing corruption, which are the major objectives of the Act. Why have these aspects been ignored and not factored in the evaluation process and criteria? The evaluators who seem to have been driven by an insane urge to use statistics blindly, to prove and disprove, according to what they believed RTI Act comprised, scarcely realized that statistics can lie too. A true test of the validity of the Commissioners decisions would be whether these were made within the four corners of law. Many of these decisions of the Commissions, which were challenged in High Courts, were upheld testifying to their validity. The manner in which the evaluators have gone about their job leads to an inference that the Commissioners would do well to allow an appeal even if the law would not permit it. Are the evaluators trying to suggest that the role of the Commission was that of a bull in the China Shop? If there are strictures from superior courts, it is the Commissioner who shall be the sufferer. In any case, it is a chimera that those Commissioners who allow most appeals contribute to promotion of the RTI Acts objectives and those who reject some or many such appeals even on valid grounds, do it a disservice. We are surprised that the jury eminent persons as these are called turned a blind-eye to this important aspect and were led up the garden path by the authors of this flawed report. Our response: Let us be very clear about the facts. Nowhere have we questioned the decisions of commissioners as this is their quasi-judicial power. We have merely presented a comparative analysis. Prof Ansari is wrong when he says that High Courts have endorsed all decisions of the CIC. There are several decisions when the orders of CIC have been reversed. Recently, one order passed by Prof Ansari has been reversed by the Delhi High Court, where Prof Ansari was found to be protecting the privacy of a ghost employee of the Delhi Government! Fifth: There are umpteen number of success stories, which indicate significant improvement in governance, owing to the various Commissions decisions. The question is: In how many cases APICs decisions have been cited as landmark orders opening up information long held confidential compared to CICs and other SICs decisions? The criterion of the quality of the decisions which contributed to evolution of the information regime has been grossly ignored and neglected, either because the authors lacked ability to accomplish the task they set-out for, their prejudices or because they were presenting misleading information for mala-fide reasons. Who will explain this? Our response: We do not dispute the fact that CIC has passed some very good orders. But these orders were passed in the cases which came before them. If no such case came before APIC, it simply cant be held against them. The underlying purpose of the study was to get straight answers to fundamental questions -- Can a common man seeking very ordinary information relating to his day to day get justice at an information commission? True, some commissioners have passed very good orders on issues which make national headlines, but the sum total of their records could signify that in several of their cases citizens were not delivered their due justice. Sixth: Consider the cost of disposal of appeals and complaints. While the monetary compensation paid to ICs, including other supporting facilities, are comparable, there is wide difference in the work burden shared by the Commissioners. An IC of APIC, for instance, has disposed of less than one decision per month whereas an IC of the CIC and several SICs have disposed of hundred times more that many cases per month. Has the PCRF Jury considered this point? Is it not proper to take into consideration such aspects as cost-effectiveness of delivery of justice under the RTI Act? The Jury owes an explanation to the country for disseminating false and un-scientific analysis and views to promote vested interests of those who are associated with the PCRF.

295

Our response: This specific issue that you have raised here was discussed extensively with several eminent jurists. One question that came up in these discussions was -- If a High Court receives less number of cases, should we not have a High Court there? Should the performance of that High Court be considered inferior to any other High Court? While it is arguable whether APIC actually needs 5 commissioners, the fact of the matter remains that it is the prerogative of the state government to appoint commissioners. The commission has no role in it and should not be penalized in any form of shape when it comes to an analysis of the kind we have undertaken. We have chosen to go strictly by the data and in this case we strongly believe that it is unfair to penalize the APIC for something beyond their control. Seventh: The PCRF Jury has patted the APIC for disposing of all the 43 cases in a year through full bench hearings, with zero pendency in the Commission. Now consider the work load of other Commissions like CIC & Maharashtra Commission, which are receiving over 1500 appeals per month. If all the Commissions dispose of cases in the same manner as APIC, as apparently, recommended by the Jury, the backlog of cases would be so huge as to make a mockery of RTI. Has the Jury reflected on the sheer absurdity of their position? Or their so-called eminence is sufficient ground for their off-loading of this grotesque banality of a report on the nation. Our response: APIC passes all orders as combined benches. This fact has not contributed in any way to their winning the award. The claim here is that quantity affected quality of other commissions i.e., the performance of a certain commission was hampered because of the work load. It is a case of quantity over quality. If the argument here is that quality was compromised because of quantity, then we appreciate the organizational and operational challenges involved but it simply cant be factored in as a favourable criteria for an award over another commission that has a superior record on the basis of quality. Eighth: None of the PCRF Jury members have had any opportunity to, or cared to, interact with the major stakeholders the information-seekers, the PIOs as information provider and the ICs, whose performance they were evaluating for these so-called national RTI awards. The citation spoke about the satisfaction of the appellants. What was the basis of their satisfaction, or for that reason, their being dissatisfied? Was it to be concluded that if a legally defensible order denying information left an appellant dissatisfied, his dissatisfaction was sufficient reason to tar the Commissioner who made that order? Or conversely, if appellant expressed satisfaction even if denied information wrongly under the Act, will that satisfaction be a ground for extolling the Commissioner? What is this satisfaction all about? Is it just a feeling, or is it something grounded in the reality of the Commissioners decision? How have the evaluators evaluated satisfaction? What was their methodology? Nothing is clear. A phone-call to a person asking him, Are you satisfied? and his answering in yes or no seems to have been the basis of this supercilious evaluation. It is a pity that this jury claiming eminence has conveniently chosen not to ask any such questions. Is it not an act of irresponsibility? They owe an explanation. They have hardly had any direct feel of the matter, which was the subject of their evaluation. The Jury Members have hardly had any chance to make an independent analysis of what was presented before them by PCRF. They have put their signatures on the dotted lines drawn for them by the organisers. Can such a flawed award procedure even remotely be described as transparent, objective or scientific in its approach and analysis? Is this the TRANSPARENCY their eminencies so glibly commend for everyone else and become so loudly judgemental about? Our response: We wrote letters to 35,000 people. We have written responses from 6,000 people. We also interviewed several people on the phone. We wrote only to those appellants, in whose case the commissioner passed a positive order directing disclosure of information. We asked each appellant a simple question Did you finally get information after the order. If Prof Ansari so desires, we can send him copies of all the responses received specifically in his case. We had offered to do this earlier but the fact remains that he did not respond. Ninth: The PCRF has inappropriately called the awards as National RTI Awards without any thought to the legality of an NGO describing the awards it unilaterally gives, as National. Should not the jury

296

members their grand eminencies queried PCRF regarding their use of the word national for these so-called awards? On a general point, should not the NGO PCRF practice what it preaches i.e. transparency? Why cant PCRF voluntarily accede to RTI Act and accept all obligations thereto? What does the country know about this NGOs funding including its foreign funding? Why should its affairs remain opaque when it demands transparency from all others? The jury failed to ask this elementary question before allowing PCRF to use its (jurys) members shoulders to fire its guns. The episode has all trappings of an unholy alliance. Our response: When you dont like the message please dont try and shoot the messenger. We do not claim that this study is the ultimate in its methodology. It is a process that we hope to evolve over time. We have been fair and balanced and let the data be the primary driver of these final decisions. We welcome criticisms because it helps us fine tune the study over time and we are deeply indebted to Prof. Ansari and his team for their repeated attempts to criticize the study. While we welcome criticism we deeply disagree with your attempt to discredit the study and cast aspersions on our motivations. We have embarked on this study with a genuine desire to assess the state of the landmark RTI Act after four years of its existence and help establish a long term framework for an environment of overall improved efficiency and to ensure that meritocracy does not go unrecognized. We do not receive any foreign funding. Some people did file RTI applications before us. We answered to all of them in the true spirit of RTI Act, though legally, the Act does not apply to us. In any case, we believe in practicing what we preach. We have written about our sources of funding on our site. We will also publish year end accounts on our website for anyone and everyone to view.

297

Uttarakhand Commissioners Response to Our Interim Report

Dear Shri Kejriwal, Uttarakhand Information Commission welcomes the release of the Draft Report on the Functioning of Information Commissions across the Country by the Public Cause Research Foundation (PCRF). While this Commission has no comments to offer on the (i) Overall Public Satisfaction, (ii) Effectiveness and (ii) Deterrent Impact metrics, it would like to submit its comments on the findings as given in the Draft Report under (iv) Pro disclosure Factor. 2. In the Pro disclosure Factor it has been stated that Uttarakhand Information Commission has remanded back a large number of cases without any hearings. The cases which were remanded back to the First Appeal Officers are those in which direct second appeals u/s 19(3) / complaints u/s 18 were filed with the Commission and where this Commission on examination of the details came to the conclusion that the complainant / appellant should have had exhausted the provisions as contained in section 19(1) of the RTI Act. It is apparent that section 18 and 19(1) have certain areas overlapping and in case the First Appeal Officers, who are departmental officers, are not provided the opportunity as given u/s 19(1), it would result in enfeebling the mechanism of First Appeals, deprive the departmental officials the opportunity and experience of disposal of requests filed under the RTI Act through First Appeals and in the long run destabilize and make ineffective a practical regime which provides a minimum of two opportunities to every Public Authority for suitably disposing off the application filed under the RTI Act. 3. This Commission strongly believes that the First Appeal mechanism in almost all Public Authorities is extremely weak, if not altogether ineffective, and in case Second Appeals are directly entertained without allowing the Public Authorities exercising the opportunity provided to them u/s 19(1) mechanism; or all kinds of complaints are directly entertained by the Commission; the very fabric of the supply side would collapse. 4. To reiterate, Uttarakhand Information Commission has remanded back only those cases which were submitted to it u/s 18 or 19(3) without any evidence of having exhausted the provisions contained u/s 19(1). It must be fully realized that Uttarakhand Information Commissions wants to ensure that while applicants are afforded maximum liberty, no injustice is done to the Public Authorities either, by denying them outright the opportunity they have been provided u/s 19(1) of the RTI Act. Only those complaints u/s 18 are directly entertained which do not get covered by section 19(1) or where even after both appeal provisions have been exhausted, admissible information has either not been made available or delay has been caused in compliance of Commissions orders. 5. Every stakeholder under the RTI Act has to perform ones duty and it is equally the responsibility of the Information Commissions that the Public Authorities are also not denied the opportunities which are very much part of the RTI Act. Uttarakhand Information Commission will continue to remand back those appeals u/s 19(3) which have not exhausted the provision u/s 19(1) which they should have had or complaints u/s 18 which are properly covered u/s 19(1) and not u/s 18. Section 18 provisions are to be applied only in those cases which are not covered under either any provisions of the RTI Act or post section 19 as explained. Uttarakhand Information Commission while appreciating the release of the Draft Report would like the PCRF secretariat to review its interpretation under the Pro disclosure Factor as it is purely a matter of interpretation of the Act and decision of the Information Commission where it feels where the grey area of section 18 read with section 19(1) of the RTI Act needs to be looked at in it entirety and under long practical considerations or improving the practical regime.

298

6. Uttarakhand Information Commission on the above basis accordingly fails to concur with conclusions drawn by the PCRF secretariat under the Pro Disclosure Factor. This Commission is also circulating this rejoinder alongwith a copy of the Draft Report to the local press / media, as it does every Saturday. 7. Finally, if the Pro Disclosure Factor has any bearing on the rating Overall Public Satisfaction, that rating has also to be accordingly harmonized. As said earlier, on the OPS, otherwise i.e. other than the explanation offered this Commission has no particular comments / opinion. 8. Incidentally, this Commission has also got conducted a physical External Evaluation of all State Level and major District Level Public Authorities recently and the results have shown that Uttarakhand being a new state, most of the public offices have their infrastructure and logistics which are far from being satisfactory, which is not surprising in view of the state being only 8 years old. For long term effectiveness an Action Plan has also been circulated for improvement in disposal of First Appeals, the soft belly of the RTI Act, which has not been assessed by any institution, so far. A copy each of this External Review Report and Action Plan for improving the First Appeals is also being dispatched separately for the consideration of the PCRF secretariat. With warm regards. Yours sincerely, (R. S. Tolia)

299

Our Response to Uttarakhand Commissioner

Dear Sir, We are extremely grateful to your response! We completely agree with you that there is an overlap in the law. Section 19(1) of RTI Act and section 18(1)(c) and 18(1)(e) talk of exactly similar situations i.e. if a person does not receive any response or receives an unsatisfactory response within prescribed time period, he can either approach the Commission directly under section 18 or he can file first appeal under section 19. Interestingly, we have observed a range of practices across the country. On one extreme are Commissioners like Mr Naveen Kumar of Maharashtra who remanded back as much as 50% of his cases whereas his own colleague Mr Vijay Kuvlekar did not remand back any case. Mr C D Arha of Andhra Pradesh remanded back 34% of the cases received by him. However, within the same Commission, Mr Dileep Reddy and Mr K S Rao did not remand back even a single case. In Haryana, on one hand, Mrs Meenaxi Anand remanded back 47% cases, her colleagues Mr M R Ranga and Mrs Asha Sharma did not remand back even a single case. The entire Commissions of Assam, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand, including all its Commissioners, did not remand back even a single case. Karnataka, Punjab and Kerala remanded back negligible number of cases. At Central Information Commission, Mr S N Mishra remanded back as many as 26% cases followed by Mr Wajahat Habibullah and Mr A N Tiwari who remanded back 18% cases. Commissioners have forwarded interesting arguments depending upon the practice that they follow. One argument is that the law gives an option to the appellant whether the appellant wishes to invoke section 18 or section 19. Section 19 says that the appellant may file first appeal. Section 18 says that it shall be the duty of the Information Commission to receive and enquire into a complaint received. Section 18 casts very strong duty upon the Commissions to act upon complaints received under section 18. Therefore, it is argued, that the Commission should respect the decision of the appellants, which section they wish to invoke, as this option has been given to the appellants by the Parliament. The other extreme argument is that any complaint filed under section 18 should be returned back if there were no first appeal filed. That argument, however would render section 18 completely ineffective. A middle path has been chosen by some commissioners. If an appellant does not receive any response from the PIO within 30 days, they entertain a complaint under section 18. But if an appellant is dissatisfied with the response received, they treat it an issue of adjudication or appeal and require first appeal to be filed in such cases. There is a huge confusion in the minds of the people. What is the right practice? Within the same Commission, the Commissioners are following completely different practices. We are very happy that you have initiated this debate. That was the purpose of this entire exercise. That was also one of the objectives of instituting these awards to initiate public debate on certain issues affecting RTI implementation regime, through concrete data. We are also very happy that you are releasing your response to the media. If you permit us, may we also put your response and our response on our website and initiate a debate on the same? We assure you that the debate would be moderated to ensure that frivolous response is adequately edited. You have mentioned that you are sending us copies of External Review Report and Action Plan for improving First appeals. We are really grateful to you for that. We will explore the possibility of including assessment of First Appellate mechanism also in our study next year.

300

So that the Pro-Disclosure word does not cause any confusion in the minds of the people, we will be putting up complete break up of each Commissioner on our website by Monday or Tuesday. Though we have all the data, due to some last moment technical snag, the data could not be displayed on the site. We look forward to your active participation in this exercise. The final Awards ceremony would take place on 1st December. Honble Vice President of India has kindly agreed to be the Chief Guest. Please treat this as an advance intimation and invitation and kindly block your dates. We would separately be sending you a formal invitation. With warm regards Arvind Kejriwal

301

Uttarakhand Commissioners Follow-up Response

Dear Sri Kejriwal, Thanks for your communication of the 24th instant. Sorry for this delayed response as I was away from hqs. That there exist certain grey areas as well as some overlap in the Act, about that there hasnt been any doubt at all. However, like all enactments of first generation, especially a statute with clear emphasis on practical solutions for any unforseen hurdles in its implementation, both the Commissions and the Commissioners had their jobs cut out for them. This is precisely one of the areas where ones own experience of quasi-judicial work handling was expected to be applied. The fact that there are different interpretations about a particular provision ought to be taken note of and as the entire exercise is subject to a judicial review the right course would be to wait for that kind of resolution and not adjudicate extrajuridically, as some are prone to. Of course, one is always welcome to interpret it the way one wishes to. It has verily been said that the Indian jurisprudence is interpretational i.e the law being the majority interpretation of a given law. This course is yet to be traversed fully, in so far as RTI Act is considered, as it is yet early days, as they say. Those, especially the Commissions, who could see that this Act deserved to be tackled in a multipronged way, and not purely as mere court cases to be decided in courts, looked at the larger picture. In this context I would like to separately send you all the literature which was systematically developed to address these various dimensions of both i.e. the supply side as well as the demand side. That the PIOs deserved to be attended to immediately led me to attempt a Handbook for the PIOs, first in English way back in 1907, followed in Hindi, contextualising Uttarakhands own experience, would prove the point. This issue of so-called overlap has been adressed in the Chapter dealing with Complaints and Appeals and an attempt has also been made to differentiate between the two Appeals i.e. one under 19(1) and the Appeal proper under section 19(3). If you would care to go through Chapter 9 on Complaints, Appeals and Penalties, the way this Commission has handled section 18 and 19, may become clearer (p 141 164). What might interest you is to go through how this Commission has graded various kinds of Complaints, which may come a Commissions way. When one grades the Complaints, one is trying to grade them from the point of view of separating the logistics from the substantive, the latter deserving action under section 18(2). Even this grading of Complaints could be an interesting point of discussion! Then this Commissio has distinguished between the so-called Appeal under section 19(1) and the regular one, supported by a regular set of Rules notified by the State govet. This Commission very strongly holds that this 19(1) mechanism is not only a crucial stage of this Act but also recomendes that all out effort need to be made, in the larger interest of the aplicants and end of the RTI Act in mind, to gear up the entire buraucracy. Going by the overall frame work of the existing Act (which need not be tinkered with for at least another 5 years, till we unanimously agree as to the areas which really ought to be made more clear or stronger in favour of transparency and accountability) the emphasis on improving the First Appeal mechanism must receive a very high priority as this would cover the level of bureaucracy which so far has remained either indfferent or unaffected. Uttarakhand High Court has even directed the State Govt to inform it as to how many First Appeal Officers are the Secretaries or the Principal Secretaries of the Govt, as the PAs have by and large nominated relatively junior officers and not covered the higher levels of the bureaucracy. Improving First Appeal mechanism is required immediately on many counts, apart from the fact that those who have been nominated First Appeal Officers generally have had no experience of dealing with quasijudicial cases.

302

I am happy to learn that you have appreciated the need of including assessment of First Appelate mechanism, in you study next year. This Commission believes that no objective assessment of implementation of RTI Act, including this present one, is possible unless you have a fair idea what has been happening at this stage i.e. end of 4 years of the RTI Act notification. I hope you appreciate that remanding back a case also serves the purpose of ensuring that an application made under the RTI Act does get considered by the First Appeal Officer, as directed by a Commission, and it actually opens up two options for the appellant i.e. a Complaint under section 18, as well as a second appeal under section 19(3). There is no overlap in such cases, as such non-compliances could be taken up either as a Complaint or a second appeal. My views, which were also Commissions views as early as 2007, are covered in the Hnadbook for the PIOs and ceratinly our understanding of the Act has further improved during the past two years. Coming to a few points you have made in your communication, my replies are as follows: (a) You will kindly appreciate that I am in no position to explain as to why in a single Commission two Commissioners were interpreting a particular provision differently. Uttarakhand Commission,as you may be aware, continues to be a single member Commission. This in itself, I may like to add, is subject to two different interpretations. Notwithstanding this fact as many as four Commissions remain single member Commission, even after four years of the RTI Act. All I may venture to say at this stage is had this been the case in Uttarakhand, certainly we would have made an effort to ensure that there is a single interpretation of a particular provision. Certainly this should not be difficult to achieve. Yet another issue which is engaging attention of some is the issue of constituting benches in the Commission vrs there being no express provision to do so, (b) The Draft report and Commissions response has already been released to the media, as this Commission does every Saturday, as a practice to engage all stake-holders, including the press and media. This Commission has no problem at all if its reply of 22nd October 2009 ( N0 5188/CIC/2009) and your reply to the same, and even this rejoinder is included on your website and a healthy debate is initiated on the same. Please go ahead and do kindly moderate it in such a manner that useful outputs come out of it. This Commission, as is its practice, would also release all relevant exchanges which are of importance from the point of view of advancing the understanding of the RTI Act to the local press and media, which in turn would also be helpful in expanding the arena of the intended public debate, (c) In case you have not received copies of the External Review Report and the Action Plan for Improving First Appeals, sent though courier service, additional copies are being ordered. In addition a copy each of 23 other publications which have been brought out by this Commission during the past four years are also being despatch. All these publications have also been sent to all Information Commissions of the country and many of them have ordered additional copies for their own state. We believe that various aspects of RTI implementation deserve to be covered through suitable publications, so that all public authorities are aware of their importance and incorporate them in their day to day handling. (d) Pro-Disclosure word has been discussed and how UIC has been dealing with the so-called overlap, from the very beginning, has also been included in the Handbook. How the Secretariat interprets it is entirely up to it and this Commission has already expressed its difference of opinion througnh its previous response. (e) Incidently, while this Commission would not like to be included in any competition, as what is does is also subject to a judicial review, it would be quite willing to contribute towards any exercise which further strengthens and improves the practical regime which is ultimately proposed to be put in place to achieve the ends of the RTI Act. An effective RTI mechanism is the soul of good-governance and a lot still remains to be done and we all have to work towards that supreme goal in a co-operative and collaborative manner.

303

I would like to assure you of an active participation by UIC wherever and in whatever way it may be required, With warm regards, RS Tolia Dehra Dun

304