Ensure proper implementation of provisions of the RTI Act, Supreme Court directs the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions

While hearing a plea seeking effective implementation of Section 4 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, filed by Kishan Chand Jain, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court directed the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions to ensure proper implementation of provisions of the RTI Act. The bench hearing the matter includes Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice PS Narasimha. The bench was headed by CJI who said that public accountability is an important aspect of governing the relationship between ‘duty bearers’ (public authorities) and ‘right holders’ (citizens). 

Along with this, the bench also stated that power and accountability are interrelated and go hand-in-hand. Further, the Supreme Court pointed out that Section 3 of the RTI Act acknowledges the fundamental "right to information" for all citizens. In tandem, Section 4 of the Act recognizes the corresponding "duty" of public authorities, emphasizing their obligation to provide information. In this context, the  bench ordered, “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.”

Section 4 of the RTI Act deals with the obligations of public authorities which distinguish between the information that should be disclosed to the public. The information which should be disclosed on a proactive or suo motu basis is listed in Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. The method of disseminating proactive information is mentioned in Section 4(2) and Section 4(3) of the Act. The plea addressed while giving the order contended that without the provision, the RTI would remain an ornamental law. 

Along with this, the plea also highlighted the Central Information Commission’s reports which reflect poor compliance with Section 4. It mentioned that an Office Memorandum was issued by the Department of Personnel and Training for a third-party audit that resulted in poor compliance. The decision given by the top Court illustrated the importance of proactive disclosure. It stated that proactive disclosure of information with citizens prompts accountability, transparency, and citizen engagement.