A STRUCTUAL REVIEW BY TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL INDIA Rama Nath Jha Executive Director Transparency International India edtransparencyindiaorg Purandhya Vij Research Associate Transparency International India ID: 935321
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Emerging Issues in Implementation of RTI..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Emerging Issues in Implementation of RTI Act,2005
A STRUCTUAL REVIEW BY TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL INDIA
Rama Nath Jha
Executive DirectorTransparency International Indiaed@transparencyindia.org
Purandhya VijResearch AssociateTransparency International Indiapurandhyavij@transparencyindia.org
Slide2About the research
The litmus test for the successful implementation of RTI Act, is its functioning at the state level. This research anchored in actual experience will help in identifying the strengths and weaknesses in each of the 28 states (excluding Telangana, though SIC has been constituted but is yet to start functioning) and act as an eye opener in strengthening of the RTI Act.
Central Information Commission, setting an example, has also been analyzed, bringing out the best practices for the respective state commissions to follow.
Scope of study :
Number of RTI Applications Received
Number
of Second Appeals & Complaints
ReceivedCases of Penalties Imposed on Public Authorities/Disciplinary ActionStatus of Vacancy in Union/State Information commissionsChallenges faced by different stakeholders ( Source: Annual Report/Information Sent by State Information Commission : Year 2005 -2016)
Slide3Total RTI Applications received
Source: Annual Report/Information Sent by State Information Commission
Slide4Governments
Number of RTI as Recorded from the year 2005 to 2016 (As case may be)
No. of years for which data is available
Average RTI/ Per Year (A/B =C)
Central Govt.
5743471
11
87407.25
Andhra Pradesh
699258
8
2080.88
Arunachal Pradesh187289 11617.09Assam12778811 96024.67Bihar8642229 522133.70Chhattisgarh60272811 54739.45Goa322835 6456.60Gujarat103650511 94227.72Haryana1826217 26088.71Himachal Pradesh42425211 38568.37Jammu & Kashmir734525 14690.40Jharkhand213277 3046.71Karnataka227808210 227808.20Kerala219257111 199324.64Madhya Pradesh18411211 16737.45Maharashtra549578810 549578.80Manipur22679 251.88Meghalaya1330811 1209.81Mizoram1030810 1030.80Nagaland160269 1780.66Odisha2859619 31773.44Punjab5947099 66078.78Rajasthan85567710 85567.70Sikkim37943 1264.66Tamil Nadu19233889 213709.70Tripura213059 2367.22Uttar Pradesh00 0Uttarakhand6137181155792.54West Bengal7730211 663.80Total24394951
Source: Annual Report/Information Sent by State Information Commission
Slide5Second Appeals and Complaints
TOP 5 RECEPIENTS
Source: Annual Report/Information Sent by State Information Commission
Central Information Commission
MaharashtraBihar
Karnataka
Gujarat
Slide6Vacancy (As on December 2, 2017)
The sanctioned strength of Chief Information Commissioner(Union & State) is
30, out of which 1 are vacant
The sanctioned strength of Information Commissioners(Union & State) is 160, out of which 61 are vacant
S.NO
Information Commissions
Chief Information Commissioner
Information Commissioner
Sanctioned strengthVacancySanctioned strengthVacancy1Central Information Commission1
0
10
3
2
Andhra Pradesh
101023Arunachal Pradesh10414Assam10 205Bihar10416Chhattisgarh11317Goa101088Gujarat10309Haryana1010110Himachal Pradesh102 111Jammu & Kashmir102112Jharkhand10 7 513Karnataka10 (not more than 10)514Kerala10 5515Madhya Pradesh10Not more than 10616Maharashtra10 Not more than 10417Manipur10Not more than10018Meghalaya10 0019Mizoram101120Nagaland101021Odisha10 20 22Punjab109123Rajasthan10 2024Sikkim 100025Tamil Nadu10 5026Telangana101027Tripura102228Uttar Pradesh1010229Uttarakhand 105330West Bengal10108Source: Annual Report/Information Sent by State Information Commission
Slide7Penalty and Compensation
S.NO.
STATES
NO. OF CASES
PENALTY
COMPENSATION
Central Information Commission
537
19176325-
1
Andhra Pradesh
1329
15038252
-
2Arunachal Pradesh46519186501620003Assam541145500-4Bihar4632712750-5Chhattisgarh9824926200-6Goa335--7Gujarat3273625000-8Haryana22952285348963978379Himachal Pradesh202233195082874210Jammu & Kashmir21300900-11Jharkhand3281085000*-12Karnataka130747204608-13Kerala-2743250-14Madhya Pradesh2553633250-15Maharashtra140414319373-16Manipur101377504600017Meghalaya46415475-18Mizoram368000-19Nagaland49657250-20Odisha83311000259-21Punjab2023770870119148022Rajasthan280334947250 *78940023Sikkim 21--24Tamil Nadu---25Telangana---26Tripura557500-27Uttar Pradesh---28Uttarakhand 7888103842-29West Bengal157187750-Source: Annual Report/Information Sent by State Information Commission
Slide8Challenges faced by different stakeholders
Information Seeker Low awareness level, particularly among marginalized section.Unsupportive attitudes of PIOs are leading to unsatisfactory and poor quality replies by PIOs.
Ritualistic approach by First Appellate Authority, huge pendency and leniency towards PIOs at Information Commission level.
Slide9Cont...
Public Information Officer (PIO)Ineffective record management system particularly in state field offices/ departments including poor digitalizationInadequate training to PIO & FAAs particularly on key order/judgments of Information commissions and courts
Limited use of IT like in Case Management System and 'e reply' during processing RTI applications.
Slide10Cont…
State Information CommissionAbsence of Infrastructure and Inadequate human resources in Commission.High Level of Pendency and vacancy in Information Commission.Absence of culture of Suo Moto disclosure of information.
Slide11Recommendations
TECHNOLOGY: use of innovative technology to disclose more information through the government websites across all platforms including vast mobile connectivity and mobile applications, in multiple languages will in itself make the system transparent
TRAINING: A dedicated center to give training to the PIOs and civil society will go a long way and will equip them with desired skills.
SUO MOTO DISCLOSURES: Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005 makes it mandatory for the respective commissions to disclose information.AWARENESS: Lack of awareness among the stakeholders of the RTI Act, will prove detrimental to the objective of having a wide reach. THANK YOU !!!