The Karnataka High Court has issued a slew of directions to the State Information Commission to prescribe a uniform format for the collection, maintenance and disclosure of information relating to the implementation of the RTI Act by public authorities in the State. 

The petitioner an RTI applicant had sought names of the Public Information Officer or Public Information Officers against whom penalty had been imposed under Section 20(1), the amount of penalty imposed and the amount recovered pursuant to such penalty.

For context, Section 20 prescribes the penalty imposed on PIOs who refuse to receive application seeking information within the time specified or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly give incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroy information which was the subject of the request or obstruct in any manner the furnishing of information. 

The petitioner had also sought information about PIOs against whom disciplinary action had been recommended under Section 20(2). The PIO declined to furnish the information on the ground that the information sought was not maintained by the office in the form in which it had been requested. The First Appellate Authority did not grant the relief sought neither did the Karnataka Information Commission. Against this the petitioner moved the high court.

Justice Suraj Govindraj in his order was considering whether information sought by an RTI applicant if not maintained in a consolidated form is, by itself, a sufficient reason to reject the request, particularly when the information relates to the implementation of the RTI Act itself.

The court noticed that in a particular proceeding six applicants had filed nearly 22,000 applications out of approximately 45,000 applications pending before the Karnataka Information Commission.

It thus said that, if such information is not maintained in a consolidated form, responding to the request may require examination of a large number of individual proceedings, identification of the relevant orders and recommendations, extraction of the particulars sought and preparation of a fresh compilation.

Referring to the RTI Act, the court said that it not only contemplates a reactive system in which information is supplied after an application is made, but also places an obligation upon public authorities to maintain their records properly and to place information in the public domain to the extent required by the Act. The scheme is therefore both reactive and proactive, the court said. 

It thus issued the following directions:

a. The Karnataka Information Commission shall, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, prescribe a uniform format for the collection, maintenance and disclosure of information relating to the implementation of the RTI Act by public authorities in the State.

b. The format will provide for year-wise information under the following heads:

    i. number of RTI applications received;

     ii. number of applications disposed of and pending;

     iii. number of applications rejected and the provisions of the Act relied upon for such rejection, categories under each such provision;

     iv. number of first appeals received and disposed of, with nature of disposal;

    v. number of second appeals and complaints received by the Karnataka Information Commission and their disposal with nature of disposal; vi. number of proceedings initiated under Section 20(1);

    vii. number of cases in which penalty was imposed under Section 20(1);

    viii. name and designation of the Public Information Officer against whom penalty was imposed, subject to the provisions of the Act;

     ix. amount of penalty imposed and amount recovered;

    x. number of recommendations made under Section 20(2);

    xi. status of such recommendations, to the extent the information is available and is legally disclosable;

    xii. amount of charges collected under the Act;

    xiii. particulars relating to compliance with the proactive disclosure requirements under Section 4; and

    xiv. such other information as may be necessary for effective monitoring of implementation of the Act and preparation of the annual report under Section 25.

c. The format prescribed by Commission shall, as far as practicable, be uniform across Departments and public authorities. 

d. Every State Department shall identify the public authorities under its administrative control or jurisdiction and shall ensure that the information required for the purposes of Section 25 is collected from such public authorities in the prescribed format. (for context, Section 25 requires CIC or State Commission to prepare a report at the end of the year on implementation of the Act and forward a copy to the government) 

e. Every public authority shall designate an officer responsible for ensuring that the information required to be maintained under these directions is kept up to date and is furnished to the concerned Department and the Karnataka Information Commission within the time stipulated by the Commission.

f. The information shall, as far as practicable, be maintained in electronic form. 

g. The Commission shall maintain on its official website a clearly identifiable section relating to RTI Implementation and Compliance. Information relating to the functioning of the Commission, including information concerning appeals, complaints, penalties and recommendations under the Act, shall be placed there in the prescribed format, subject to the provisions of the Act.

h. Every Department and public authority shall similarly maintain a clearly identifiable section on its official website for RTI – Proactive Disclosure / RTI Implementation, or such uniform heading as may be prescribed by the Karnataka Information Commission. 

i. The requirement of publication on the website shall be understood as an implementation of the obligations arising from Section 4, particularly Sections 4(1)(b), 4(2), 4(3) and 4(4), read with the monitoring and reporting mechanism under Section 25. It shall not be construed as a finding that Section 25, by itself, expressly requires publication of every item referred to in that provision.

j. The information shall be updated at least once every year; Commission may require more frequent updating where the nature or volume of the information makes such updating necessary.

k. As far as practicable, the information shall be made available in a searchable and machine readable form.

l. The Commission shall, as far as practicable, establish on its website a central electronic repository or index through which a citizen can locate the relevant RTI disclosures of different Departments and public  authorities without having to search each website separately.

m. The Commission shall monitor compliance with these directions and with the requirements of Section 4. Where it finds that the practice of a public authority does not conform to the provisions or spirit of the Act, it shall consider taking appropriate steps, including making recommendations under Section 25(5).

n. The State Government shall issue appropriate instructions to all Departments and public authorities to facilitate implementation of these directions and to ensure timely collection and furnishing of the information required under Section 25(2).

o. The  Commission shall indicate in its annual report under Section 25 the extent to which Departments and public authorities have complied with the requirements relating to maintenance, collection and proactive disclosure of information, and the steps taken in cases of non-compliance.

The court however clarified that the directions shall not mandate creation of information which does not exist or the preparation of an entirely new analysis by reconstructing information from individual records.

"Nothing contained in these directions shall require disclosure of information which is exempt under Sections 8 or 9 of the Act. Where a record contains both exempt and non-exempt information, the concerned authority shall apply Section 10 and disclose the remaining information wherever permissible. It is made clear that these directions do not require an applicant to disclose the reason for seeking information or to establish any personal interest in the information sought. Section 6(2) of the Act continues to operate in its full effect. Nor do these directions create a new exemption from disclosure. They are intended to ensure that information which is required to be maintained and which can appropriately be disclosed suo motu is maintained in an accessible form," the court clarified.

The court said that the burden of administering the RTI Act should not be increased by requiring public authorities repeatedly to reconstruct the same information from scattered records. At the same time, the burden cannot simply be shifted to the citizen by stating that the information is not maintained. The directions were thus issued to  address both concerns.

The court partly allowed the petition and set aside the orders passed by PIO, First Appellate Authority and the Karnataka Information Commission, insofar as they reject the petitioner's request merely on the ground that the information sought is not maintained in a consolidated form.

The court asked the Commission to examine the information specifically sought by the petitioner, presently available in its records, including its annual reports and other records maintained in relation to Sections 20 and 25, and furnish the information it to the petitioner subject to the provisions of the Act, within 8 weeks.

Case title: RAMESH BABU N v/s STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION & Ors.  

WRIT PETITION NO. 13373 OF 2024 (GM-RES)