In a landmark move to uphold transparency and accountability, the Kerala State Information Commission has strongly criticized several state departments for their failure to comply with the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The commission has declared that departments causing delays or withholding information are liable to pay compensation to applicants affected by these lapses.
This development comes amid rising concerns about bureaucratic inefficiencies and increasing complaints regarding RTI delays in Kerala, a state otherwise known for its progressive governance model.
Background: Understanding the RTI Act
The Right to Information Act, 2005, empowers citizens to request information from any public authority, promoting transparency in governance. Public Information Officers (PIOs) are required to respond within 30 days of receiving an application. Failure to do so without valid reasons is considered a violation of the law.
Despite the legal framework, several departments in Kerala have been routinely ignoring or delaying RTI replies, prompting the intervention of the State Information Commission.
What the Kerala State Information Commission Said
In its latest observations, the Kerala Information Commission emphasized:
- Departments cannot evade responsibility by claiming ignorance or blaming junior officials.
- Applicants are entitled to compensation when they suffer due to delayed or denied responses.
- The commission will take strict action, including recommending penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act, if non-compliance continues.
The commission also reminded departments that under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, the authority is empowered to order compensation for loss or other detriment suffered by the applicant.
Cases That Prompted the Warning
The commission cited multiple instances where departments failed to respond to RTI applications even after months:
- In one case, an applicant seeking information about a land acquisition case waited over 120 days with no response.
- Another applicant requesting details on public works projects in his panchayat was denied information, causing financial and personal inconvenience.
- In many cases, officials were found misusing technicalities or offering vague responses, defeating the purpose of the Act.
Why This Matters: The Bigger Picture
The Kerala Information Commission’s directive is a strong message to state departments that the RTI Act is not optional, and violations will not go unpunished.
Key implications:
- Reinforces citizen rights and democratic values.
- Acts as a deterrent for bureaucratic delay and corruption.
- Encourages institutional accountability.
With India witnessing a significant number of RTI applications each year (over 15 lakh annually), ensuring timely and accurate responses is critical to good governance.
Legal Framework for Compensation
The RTI Act does provide room for compensating applicants, but very few commissions have actively enforced it. Kerala’s move could set a precedent for other states. Here’s how compensation can work:
- Section 19(8)(b): The Information Commission may require the public authority to compensate the complainant.
- Section 20(1): Officials may be penalized ₹250 per day (up to ₹25,000) for delays.
- Applicants can file an appeal or complaint to the State Information Commission if dissatisfied with the initial response.
Challenges in RTI Implementation
While the RTI Act is a powerful tool, it faces several hurdles in implementation:
- Lack of awareness among citizens and officials.
- Inadequate training for PIOs.
- Fear of backlash among whistleblowers and activists.
- No effective grievance redressal in many states.
Kerala’s action could inspire a renewed focus on RTI compliance training, digital tracking of applications, and stricter penalties.
Conclusion: A Step Towards Transparent Governance
The Kerala State Information Commission’s warning is a significant development in the fight for transparency. By making departments accountable for RTI lapses, it reinforces the idea that public information belongs to the people — not the government.
This move sends a clear signal: if departments cannot honor the people’s right to know, they must be prepared to face legal and financial consequences. In a democracy, access to information is not a privilege — it’s a right.