GAUTAM BUDDHA UNIVERSITY

School of Law, Justice & Governance

COMPOSITION, POWER AND FUNCTION OF

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION.

SUBMITTED BY: PRITI PRIYADARSHI SUBMITTED TO:

ROLL NO. : 20/ILB/095 (SEC. B) DR. RAM GULAM
PROGRAMME: BA LLB (2020-25) (Assistant Professor)

COURSE: Right to Information and Public Accountability SOLJ&G

COURSE CODE: LB411

1
 Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .............................................................................................................................. 3
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 4
COMPOSITION OF CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION ........................................................... 4
POWER AND FUNCTIONS OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONS ................................................ 5
POWER TO RECEIVE COMPLAINTS: ..................................................................................................... 5
NON-APPOINTMENT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICERS: .......................................................... 6
REFUSAL TO ACCEPT APPLICATION .................................................................................................... 6
REFUSAL TO ACCEPT APPEAL................................................................................................................ 7
CASE LAW: ................................................................................................................................................... 8
POWER TO RECEIVE APPEALS ............................................................................................................... 9
POWER TO CONDUCT INQUIRY ............................................................................................................ 11
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................. 12
REFERENCES:............................................................................................................................................ 13
BOOK REFERED:......................................................................................................................................... 13
1. AWASTHI, SHAILENDRA KUMAR. THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 (ACT NO. 22 OF 2005).
ALLAHABAD: DWIVEDI LAW AGENCY, 2008. ................................................................................................... 13
WEBSITES REFERRED: ............................................................................................................................. 13
STATUES REFERRED:................................................................................................................................ 13
CASE LAW REFERRED: ............................................................................................................................. 13

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my instructor, DR. RAM GULAM ( Asst.
Proff.) Faculty of Law for their guidance, expertise, and unwavering commitment to teaching
and mentoring. Their profound knowledge of the subject matter and willingness to clarify
doubts and provide constructive feedback has been instrumental in shaping my understanding
of medical coding principles and practices.
I would also like to extend my heartfelt thanks to my classmates who collaborated with me
throughout this assignment. Our discussions, brainstorming sessions, and collective efforts
have undoubtedly enhanced my learning experience.
The knowledge and skills acquired during this process of wonderful project of Right to
Information and Public Accountability on the topic COMPOSITION, POWER AND
FUNCTION OF CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION will undoubtedly serve as
a strong foundation for my future endeavors.
Thank you once again to all those who have played a part in this assignment.

Sincerely,
PRITI PRIYADARSHI.

Date: Teacher’ Signature

Place: School of Law, Justice & Governance (Dr. Ram Gulam)
( Asst. Proff.) SOLJ&G

3
 Introduction
The Central Information commission was established in 2005 by the Government of India
under the provisions of the Right to Information Act (2005). The Central Information
Commission is playing an important role in maintaining transparency in the system of the
governance which is essential in the democracy. Such kind of transparency is necessary to
check corruption, nepotism, oppression and misuse or abuse of the authority.

Composition of Central Information Commission

Section 12 of the RTI Act reads:

"The Central Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute a body to be
known as the Central Information Commission to exercise the powers conferred on, and to
perform the functions assigned to, it under this Act.

The Central Information Commission shall consist of--

1. The Chief Information Commissioner; and

2. Such number of Central Information Commissioners, not exceeding ten, as may be deemed
necessary.

3. The Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners shall be appointed

by the President on the recommendation of a committee consisting of-

4. The Prime Minister, who shall be the Chairperson of the committee;

5. The Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha; and

1. A Union Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Prime Minister.

2. He Prime Minister, who shall be the Chairperson of the committee; the Leader of
Opposition in the Lok Sabha; and

3. A Union Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Prime Minister

From the above section it is evident that the Central Information Commission consists of the
Central Information Commissioner and more than ten Information commissioners. The
President of India appoints the Chief Information commissioner and the information
commissioners on the recommendation of the committee consisting of the Prime Minister as
chairperson, the leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha and union cabinet ministers
nominated by the Prime Minister.

4
They should be persons of eminence in public life with experience and knowledge & Law,
management, journalism, science & technology, administration & governance, mass media and
social service. They should not be members of legislative assembly of any state or Union
territory. They should not be connected with any political party or carrying any business, they
should not hold any office of profit or pursuing any other profession.

Power and Functions of the Information Commissions

To understand the working of the Information Commissions in the real sense, there is a need
to analyses the powers enjoyed by these Commissions under the RTI Act and their exercise
while discharging their duties. Specifically, Information Commissions are responsible for

1. Handling Complaints and Appeals and

2. Monitoring Implementation;

3. Promoting the Act

The powers of the Central Information Commission can be elaborated under following heads:

Power to Receive Complaints:

The Central Information Commission or State Information Commissions cannot receive
applications for information directly from the citizens. Application for any information shall
be filed before the Public Information Officer or the Assistant Public Information Officer. It is
only when the citizen finds that there is any deficiency of service or refusal on the part of the
latter to render the service that the applicant can file a complaint before the Information
Commission.

The Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions are the second and
the final appellate authorities under the RTI Act for the purposes of the public authorities under
the Central Government or the State Governments as the case may be. Petitions can be filed
before the Information Commissions in two ways, one as a complaint and another by way of
an appeal.

Complaints are filed under section 18 and appeals under section 19(3) of the Act respectively.
Section 18 provides for the duty of the Information Commissions to inquire into the complaints
made to it. There is no prescribed format for filing complaints. A single letter addressed to
Information Commission, Central or State as the case may be, narrating the circumstances

5
leading to the grievance is sufficient. If there are any documentary evidences, these should be
attached to establish the reasonableness of the complaint.

There is no fee for filing any complaint. Complaint is a kind of grievance filed before the
Information Commission by the person, who had requested information under the RTI Act but
has not been able to get it because of one or the other reason.

Non-Appointment of Public Information Officers:

A Public Information Officer has to be appointed by every public authority. As per Section
5(1) of the RTI Act, every public authority has to designate as many officers as may be
necessary so as to provide information to the persons requesting for information under the Act.
As per Section 5(2), it is mandatory for each public authority to designate an officer at each
sub- divisional or at other sub-district level as the Central Assistant Public Information Officer
or a State Assistant Public Information Officer. Although, it is mandatory to designate such
Public Information Officer within one hundred days of the enactment of the RTI Act, but there
are many public authorities which have not designated Public Information Officer within the
prescribed time-frame. No penalty has been prescribed for such a lapse. For this lapse, a lot of
inconvenience has to be suffered by the information seekers. In order to save them from this
harassment, they have been given another alternative, that is, to apply to the Information
Commission.

However, the complaint procedure does not relieve the public authorities from their duties.
While deciding the complaint cases, the Central Information Commission or the State
Information Commission, under section 19(a), has the power to require the public authority to
appoint the Public Information Officer (PIO) or the Assistant Public Information Officer
(APIO) where none exists. This power to the Information Commissions to order the public
authorities to appoint PIOs can help in the effective implementation of the Act. 163

Refusal to Accept Application

If the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or the State Assistant Public Information
Officer, as the case may be, has refused to accept the application for information for forwarding
the same to the Public Information Officer, one can approach the Commissions concerned.
Therefore, the stress of this provision of the RTI Act is that the Public Information Officer
should not refuse to accept the application. A Public Information Officer cannot refuse even if
multiple Public Information Officers are appointed by the same public authority. There is no
scope either to ask the information seeker to approach another Public Information Officer

6
within the same public authority. It has been held by the Central Information Commission that
if Public Information Officer receives the request regarding the information which lies in the
domain of any other public authority even then the Public Information Officer can, instead of
returning the application, transfer the request to that public authority for furnishing the
information to the applicant directly'.

It shall be the duty of the public authority to which such application is made, to transfer that
application or part of it to that public authority as soon as practical and in no case later than
five days from the date of receipt of that application and the information of such transfer should
be given to the information seeker. Public Information Officer may later on refuse to give the
information if reasonable grounds to do so exist. It has also been provided under the Act that
the Central Public Information Officer can take the assistance of any other officer from his
department in order to exercise his duties effectively.

Refusal to Accept Appeal

If the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information
Officer, as the case maybe, has refused to accept an appeal of the information seeker under this
Act for forwarding the same to the senior officer specified in the sub section (1) of Section 19,
a complaint may be filed with the Central Information Commission or the State Information
Commission, as the case may be.

Another ground on which a complaint can be filed is provided under section 18(1) (b) of the
Act. As per this section, a complaint can be filed where the complainant has been refused access
to any information under this Act. The term 'access to information' under the RTI Act means
that either the information seeker has been given the opportunity to examine the records or has
been provided with the copy thereof. When access is provided by means of examination, the
public authority shall provide reasonable facilities for the examination of the records and set a
time for examination that is convenient to the public authority and to the information seeker.
When access is provided through the copy, then it is the duty of the public authority to see that
the information supplied is complete in each aspect, as asked by the informant.

The Central Information Commission, in its decisions, has held that the right to seek
information from public authorities by citizens extends only to information held in material
form and thus, by implication, does not extend to questioning the public authority about the
nature of that information and the process of decision-making. In. other words, the public

7
authorities are not obliged to manufacture information for the information-seekers but are
obliged to provide only that information which is held by them, or which is under their control.

Section 7 of the RTI Act provides that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public
Information Officer shall supply the information or the ground of rejection as expeditiously as
possible and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, provided where the
information sought concerns the life or liberty of the person, the same shall be provided within
forty eight hours of the receipt of the request and if the information sought relates to third party.
Then a period of ten days shall be added to the period within which the information is to be
supplied. This period shall be given to the third party to make representation. Where the
application is given to the Central or the State Assistant Public Information Officer, a period
of five days shall be added to a period of thirty days in view of the proviso to sub section 2 of
section 5 of the Act.

If the information sought is important for life and liberty, forty-eight hours would be too long
for a person confined or a person under the threat of death. If any person is arrested or is not
recorded to have been arrested, any of his friends or relatives can ask for the information about
his whereabouts and the reasons for detention. This is a very significant provision, though
forty-eight hours is too long a time period, the executive should treat the forty-eight hours limit
as an upper limit and they should try to give the information as soon as possible.

The expression within' has to be interpreted to be 'as soon as possible' to protect human rights.
There is no provision for extension in time limit for disposal of request beyond the period
prescribed in section 7(1). Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public
Information Officer fails to provide such information within the prescribed period, then it shall
amount to a deemed refusal. On such a deemed refusal, there are certain rights available to the
person seeking the information and there are certain obligations on the part of the Public
Information Officer.

Case Law:
In the case of Shekhar Singh and Others v. Prime Minister's Office CIC/WB/C/2006, the
appellants had applied for information about the recommendations of the Group of Ministers
for the rehabilitation of the project affected persons of the Narmada Project, according to the
provisions of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.

Section 7(1) deals with providing information within forty-eight hours in case of threat to life
and liberty of a person applicants contended that there was an immediate threat as the protesters

8
were on an indefinite hunger strike. The Central Information Commission directed that the
report of the ministers which was made public be supplied to the applicants. The information
commission, however, held that for an application to be treated as one concerning life and
liberty under section 7(1), it must be accompanied by substantive evidence that a threat to life
and liberty exists.

In the present case, the Central Information Commission rejected the application under section
7(1). However, the Commission held that agitation with the use of 'ahimsa' or non-violence
must be recognized as a bona fide form of protest and, therefore, even if the claim of concern
for life and liberty is not accepted in a particular case by the public authority, the reasons for
not doing so must be recorded in writing before disposing off the application.

Section 18(1) (d) of the RTI Act provides the right to file the complaint if the information
seeker has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she considers unreasonable.
According to section 6(1) of the RTI Act, an application for information must be accompanied
by the prescribed fee. The fixation of amount of fee has been left to the discretion of the state’s
Fee for sacking of information can be of three kinds:

The Application fee, as mentioned under section 7(1) is the fee to be paid by the information
seeker for obtaining the information as prescribed under the Act.

The Information fee, as mentioned under section 7(3), is the fee which is decided by the Public
Information Officer, representing the cost of providing the information in addition to the
application fee. Hence, the fee mentioned in section 7(3) is part and parcel of the fee mentioned
in section 7(1).

The Media fee, as provided in section 7(5), is the fee for providing the information in the
printed format or in any electronic format.

The period between asking for further fee and payment is excluded while calculating the time
limit of thirty days. It has also been held by the Central Information Commission that if
information is not provided within the prescribed time limit, it should be provided free of
charge.

Power to Receive Appeals

The structure created by the RTI Act for receiving and disposing of the applications for
information is that they are to be received by the Public Information Officer or the Assistant
Public Information Officer and this application is to be disposed of in thirty days. If the disposal

9
of the application is averse to the applicant then the applicant can file an appeal within thirty
days to the first appellate authority, that is, the officer holding a superior rank. If the orders
made by such. authority are averse to the applicant, then he can file the second appeal to the
second appellate authority, that is, the Central Information Commission or the State
Information Commission, as the case may be.

The Central Information Commission has held that the appeal should be drafted in a simple
and a direct manner. It should not be long, detailed and repetitive. No fresh grounds for
information can be allowed to be urged at the appellate level unless found to be of a nature that
would warrant their admittance, if the same has not been brought up at the primary level.

Section 19 provides for the two levels of appeal. The first appeal lies to such officer who is
senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer
as the case may be, in each public authority. This appeal lies if any person does not receive the
decision in the time specified, that is, sub section (1) and clause (a) of sub section 7 provides a
time frame for deciding an application submitted under the Act or by any person who is
aggrieved by the decision of a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information
Officer, as the case may be.

Hence, the first appeal lies in case of not taking decision in time by a Central Public Information
Officer or a State Public Information Officer and also in case of being aggrieved by decision
of a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer. This appeal is to
be preferred within thirty days from the expiry of time limit prescribed or from receipt of
decision.

Delay in filing appeal may be condoned by the appellate authority if sufficient cause is shown.
Section 19(2) provides right of appeal to the third party also, in case where an appeal is
preferred against an order made by a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public
Information Officer under Section 11 to disclose third party information Here also the appeal
by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order.
Although, for the third party, no provision for relaxation in this period of thirty days has
specifically been provided in section 19(2), however, keeping in view the provision contained
in section 1911), it appears that the appellate authority may admin the appeal in this case also
after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that an appellant was
prevented by a sufficient cause for filing the appeal in time.

10
Time for disposal of appeal has also been prescribed in section 19, that is, the first appeal shall
be disposed of within thirty days from the date of its receipt. The period may be extended by
the appellate authority by fifteen days, if necessary, for which the reasons are to be recorded in
writing.

Power to Conduct Inquiry

Under section 18(2) of the RTI Act, the Information Commission has been empowered to
initiate inquiry where it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter.
For the purposes of inquiry, if the Information Commission requires any documents or records,
then the Public Authority must provide to the Information Commissioner, for examination, any
record requested by the Commission 17 This overriding power of the Information Commission
is irrespective of anything inconsistent contained in any other Act of Parliament or State
Legislature, as the case may be. This section makes it further clear that no material shall be
withheld from the Information Commission on any ground, whatsoever. This is necessary to
conduct inquiry under section 18(2) of the Act.

The Information Commissioner is bound to report to the complainant concerning the results of
his or her inquiry but where a time limit has been specified for a Public Authority to report on
compliance with a recommendation resulting from an inquiry the Information Commissioner
may not report to the complainant until the notification period has expired. However, after the
expiration of the time limit, if the Public Authority does not comply with the recommendations
or its response is, in the view of the Commissioner, inadequate, inappropriate or will not be
taken in a reasonable time, the Commissioner must include in the report to the complainant his
or her findings and the recommendations, the response of the public authorities to the
recommendations and may include in such report any comments he or she sees fit on the matter
under consideration and may impose any of the penalties provided under the Act. Information
Commission may also inquire the Public Authority to compensate the complainant for any loss
or detriment suffered.

Besides the above there are several other powers held by the Central Information Commission
such as power to summon the attendance of a person, power to examine record under the
control of Public Authority, power to ensure compliance with RTL, power to provide access to
information in a particular form, power to seek annual reports from public authorities, power
to compensate for loss, power to impose penalties, and many other related powers such as
monitoring implementation and promotion of the RTI act

11
 Conclusion
From the above discussion, it is evident that the Information Commissions are functionally and
administratively independent as has been provided under the RTI Act Nevertheless, financially
it is totally within the control of the concerned governments. The Governments at the centre as
well as the state level should render all their support to ensure that the work of these
Information Commissions do not suffer on any count either financially or in terms of
manpower. As per the provisions of the RTI Act, monitoring the implementation of the Act is
the responsibility of the government, however, experience of the past years shows that this
monitoring cannot be left in the hands of the government alone. It shall only be the efforts of
the Information Commission that shall ensure proper monitoring of this law.

12
REFERENCES:
BOOK REFERED:
1. Awasthi, Shailendra Kumar. The Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act no. 22 of
2005). Allahabad: Dwivedi Law Agency, 2008.
2. India. The Right to information Act, 2005: A non-technical exposition. [New Delhi:
s.n.], 2006.
3. India. Right to Information Act, 2005: A primer. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill
Pub. Co., 2006.

WEBSITES REFERRED:
1. http://www.cci.gov.in/
2. https://ccijournal.in/
3. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/the-competition-commission-of-india/
4. https://ssrana.in/corporate-laws/competition-law/competition-commission-india/

STATUES REFERRED:
1. THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005

CASE LAW REFERRED:

1. Shekhar Singh and Others v. Prime Minister's Office CIC/WB/C/2006

13