Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has reminded public authorities about maintaining and publishing relevant information under Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005, while stating that power and accountability go hand-in-hand and public accountability is a crucial feature that governs the relationship between ‘duty bearers’ and ‘right holders’.

A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud directed the central information commission (CIC) and the state information commissions (SIC) to ensure proper implementation of the provisions of the Right to Information Act.

"The Right to Information established by the statute under Section 3 in the context of the obligations of public authorities under Section 4, we are of the opinion that the purpose and object of the statute will be accomplished only if the principle of accountability governs the relationship between ‘right holders’ and ‘duty bearers’,” the bench, also comprising Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala, said. 

A PIL was filed by Kishan Chand Jain seeking a direction to the authorities to implement the mandate of Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The statutory obligations of public authorities under Section 4(1) relate to: (a) maintenance of all public records, duly catalogued and indexed for easy accessibility of the information; (b) publishing particulars of the organisational structure, functions and duties of officers, procedures that are followed for decision-making, salary structure, budget allocation, publication of facts relating to policies and announcements which includes providing reasons for quasi judicial decisions. Sub-section (2) mandates the public authority to take steps for providing information under clause (b) of sub-section (1) suo motu and further to disseminate the said information for easy accessibility to the public.

In its judgement, the bench said, "We direct that the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions shall continuously monitor the implementation of the mandate of Section 4 of the Act as also prescribed by the Department of Personnel and Training in its Guidelines and Memorandums issued from time to time”.

The bench said the circle of representative democracy connects supremacy of the Parliament with the rights of the citizen by ensuring that the state performs its obligations.

The bench said the central and state information commissions have a prominent place, having a statutory recognition under Chapters III and IV of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and their powers and functions all enumerated in detail in Section 18 of the Act.

“We have also noted the special power of ‘monitoring and reporting’ conferred on the Central and State Information Commissioners which must be exercised keeping in mind the purpose and object of the Act, i.e., ‘to promote transparency and accountability in working of every public authority'," the bench said.

In this regard, the bench also said that power and accountability go hand in hand. 

“While declaring that all citizens shall have the ‘right to information’ under Section 3 of the Act, the co-relative ‘duty’ in the form of obligation of public authorities is recognized in Section 4. The core of the right created under Section 3 in reality rests on the duty to perform statutory obligations. Public accountability is a crucial feature that governs the relationship between ‘duty bearers’ and ‘right holders’,” the bench said.

“At the beginning of the chain is the citizen exercising her right to information. The Public Authority obligated to provide the information is accountable to the Department. The Department, shall, in relation to the public authorities within their jurisdiction, collect and provide such information to the CIC or SIC (see Section 25(2))”, said the bench.

The petitioner contended that only 33% of the public authorities have got transparency audits conducted in the last four years. He also claimed that apart from the poor implementation of third-party audit, 33% of public authorities which had their transparency audits conducted performed badly, clearly evidences that quality and quantity of proactive disclosure were not in accordance with Section 4 of the Act. 19. 

“From the information made available to us, one thing is evident. The system needs the concerned authority’s complete attention, followed by strict and continuous monitoring. It is in this context that the functioning and duties of the Central and State Information Commissions assume utmost importance,"  the bench said.

Case Title: Kishan Chand Jain Vs Union of India & Ors.

Click here to read more