The Erosion of Transparency: A Call for CIC Reform

The recent verdict by the Central Information Commission (CIC) in case number CIC/EPFOG/A/2024/637762 is more than just a procedural ruling; it is a concerning testament to the erosion of transparency and accountability within India’s bureaucratic framework. The appeal, filed by Shri Rajnish Ratnakar, was a straightforward request for information regarding an email sent to the Labour Secretary concerning EPF benefits for honorary workers and Section 7A compliance. What transpired, however, was a masterclass in bureaucratic evasion, culminating in a CIC decision that raises serious questions about the very institution designed to uphold the Right to Information Act.

The initial stages of this case highlight a systemic reluctance to provide information. The Ministry of Labour and Employment (MoLE) and EPFO offices engaged in a "chain of transfers without accountability", with the RTI application being shunted from MoLE to EPFO HQ, and then to EPFO RO Patna. This avoidance of "custodial responsibility" set a troubling precedent. The procedural irregularities were glaring: a failure to verify email receipt, no tracing of action by the Secretary, a disregard for Section 6(3) transfer protocols, and a clear delay in the CPIO’s reply. These are not minor oversights; they are fundamental violations of the spirit and letter of the RTI Act.

However, the most egregious aspect of this case lies with the CIC itself. Presided over by Shri Heeralal Samariya, a former Labour Secretary of India , the very department whose "non-action" was challenged by the RTI, the CIC's handling of the appeal was deeply flawed. The Commission "failed to examine whether the email was received" , "ignored the annexed evidence" , and conspicuously "avoided invoking Section 20 (penalty) despite delay and misdirection". Furthermore, the CIC "skipped Section 25(5) recommendations for systemic reform", thereby missing a crucial opportunity to address underlying issues. To dismiss the queries as “not related to public authority” when the core of the RTI was about official communication and governmental action, is to engage in a "denial by dispersion", deliberately scattering the truth across departments rather than assembling it.

The conflict of interest is undeniable and deeply unsettling. Shri Samariya's past role as Labour Secretary, directly linked to the subject matter of the appeal, necessitated recusal or at the very least, full disclosure of his prior affiliation. His failure to do so, and the subsequent decision that appears to "shield his former department" , fundamentally undermines the principles of "bias, proximity, and adjudicatory independence". When the highest transparency tribunal appears compromised, public faith in the system is inevitably eroded.

Shri Rajnish Ratnakar, through his persistent efforts, has not merely highlighted a single case of bureaucratic failure but has exposed a more profound crisis. His work lays bare the "evasion of responsibility across government tiers" and, more alarmingly, the "collapse of transparency inside the CIC itself". This case is a stark reminder of the "urgent need for doctrinal reform" within the RTI framework and, crucially, within the Central Information Commission. Without a truly independent and impartial CIC, the right to information risks becoming a mere theoretical construct, rendering citizens powerless against a system designed to be accountable. It is imperative that these issues are addressed to restore the integrity of India's transparency mechanisms.