The Fight for Transparency: Unmasking Failures at ESIC and CIC

In a country where the Right to Information (RTI) Act is a cornerstone of transparency, a public-spirited citizen and RTI activist, Rajnish Ratnakar, is shining a harsh light on alleged systemic failures within key public authorities: the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) and the Central Information Commission (CIC). His ongoing battle highlights a worrying trend of obscured information and questionable judicial conduct that severely impacts citizens' rights, particularly vulnerable workers.

The saga began with a crucial RTI application filed on April 13, 2024. Mr. Ratnakar sought vital clarifications regarding contradictory statements issued by ESIC officials concerning the applicability of the ESI Act to Anganwadi workers. This isn't just about administrative details; it's about the social security rights of a significant workforce. However, instead of clarity, what followed was a frustrating exercise in evasion. The CPIOs and the FAA of ESIC allegedly provided "vague, misleading and contradictory replies" and failed to deliver a reasoned order, seemingly in gross violation of fundamental provisions of the RTI Act, including Sections 2(f), 7(1), and 19(6).

Undeterred, Mr. Ratnakar escalated the matter to the Central Information Commission (CIC), filing a second appeal bearing

File No. CIC/ESICO/A/2024/637323. This was a critical juncture, where a quasi-judicial body is expected to uphold justice and transparency. However, the decision, issued on

March 28, 2025, by CIC Shri Heera Lal Samariya, has been vehemently criticized. The activist contends that the appeal was decided in a "mechanical and cryptic manner," with the CIC allegedly failing to summon key officials, ignoring crucial contentions, and passing an order "devoid of reasoning or reference to law".

This isn't merely a procedural grievance; it strikes at the heart of the right to information. The activist argues that such a "one-sided cryptic decision" by the CIC violates the fundamental right to information enshrined under Article 19(1)(a). Furthermore, the interpretation adopted by the CPIO, suggesting that opinion or advice based on records is not 'information' under Section 2(f), is highlighted as being contrary to established legal precedents.

The profound adverse impact of these alleged failures is clear:

• Undermining Natural Justice: The CIC's reported failure to frame issues, record arguments, and summon essential parties directly violates principles of natural justice.
• Erosion of Accountability: The FAA's alleged arbitrary actions and failure to discharge statutory obligations under Section 19(6) leave decisions unchallenged and accountability unaddressed.
• Impunity for Non-Compliance: Questions arise about holding willfully negligent CPIOs accountable under Section 20 of the RTI Act when the CIC itself reportedly fails to act.
• Delayed Justice is Denied Justice: A significant delay, with the CIC allegedly taking one year to decide the matter, amounts to a constructive denial of information, rendering the RTI process ineffective.

This unfolding situation underscores a critical need for scrutiny of the very institutions entrusted with upholding transparency. When public authorities provide contradictory information and oversight bodies deliver cryptic, unreasoned orders, the public's right to know, and the social security rights of workers like Anganwadi staff, are gravely jeopardized. The persistent efforts of activists like Rajnish Ratnakar are vital in pushing for the accountability and transparency that our democratic system demangs.

 

The Fight for Transparency: Unmasking Deliberate Patterns of Failure at ESIC and CIC

In a country where the Right to Information (RTI) Act is a cornerstone of transparency, a public-spirited citizen and RTI activist, Rajnish Ratnakar, is shining a harsh light on alleged systemic failures within key public authorities: the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) and the Central Information Commission (CIC). His ongoing battle highlights a worrying trend of obscured information and questionable judicial conduct that severely impacts citizens' rights, particularly vulnerable workers.

The saga began with a crucial RTI application filed on April 13, 2024. Mr. Ratnakar sought vital clarifications regarding contradictory statements issued by ESIC officials concerning the applicability of the ESI Act to Anganwadi workers, a matter directly impacting their social security rights. However, instead of clarity, what followed was a frustrating exercise in evasion. The CPIOs and the FAA of ESIC allegedly provided "vague, misleading and contradictory replies" and failed to deliver a reasoned order , seemingly in gross violation of fundamental provisions of the RTI Act, including Sections 2(f), 7(1), and 19(6).

Undeterred, Mr. Ratnakar escalated the matter to the Central Information Commission (CIC), filing a second appeal bearing

File No. CIC/ESICO/A/2024/637323. This was a critical juncture, where a quasi-judicial body is expected to uphold justice and transparency. However, the decision, issued on

March 28, 2025 , by

CIC Shri Heera Lal Samariya, has been vehemently criticized.

A Deliberate Pattern of Obfuscation?

Beyond the initial failures, Mr. Ratnakar points to a deeply concerning, deliberate pattern in the CIC's functioning. The activist contends that the appeal was decided in a "mechanical and cryptic manner," with the CIC allegedly failing to summon key officials, ignoring crucial contentions, and passing an order "devoid of reasoning or reference to law".

Even more alarming is the alleged practice within CIC decisions themselves. It's reported that these orders often fail to mention the original RTI reference number, the first appeal reference number, or even the specific contentions raised by the petitioner in their second appeal or written submission. This omission is not trivial; it's a critical impediment to informed citizenry. By excluding these vital details, the CIC effectively makes it impossible for concerned citizens to easily cross-reference and review the complete context of the RTI application and the arguments presented, thereby hindering public oversight and accountability. This practice, if widespread, turns the very purpose of the RTI Act on its head, making transparency a mere illusion.

The profound adverse impact of these alleged failures is clear:

• Undermining Natural Justice: The CIC's reported failure to frame issues, record arguments, and summon essential parties directly violates principles of natural justice.
• Erosion of Accountability: The FAA's alleged arbitrary actions and failure to discharge statutory obligations under Section 19(6) leave decisions unchallenged and accountability unaddressed.
• Impunity for Non-Compliance: Questions arise about holding willfully negligent CPIOs accountable under Section 20 of the RTI Act when the CIC itself reportedly fails to act.
• Delayed Justice is Denied Justice: A significant delay, with the CIC allegedly taking one year to decide the matter, amounts to a constructive denial of information, rendering the RTI process ineffective.

This unfolding situation underscores a critical need for scrutiny of the very institutions entrusted with upholding transparency. When public authorities provide contradictory information, and oversight bodies deliver cryptic, unreasoned orders, especially while omitting crucial contextual details, the public's right to know, and the social security rights of workers like Anganwadi staff, are gravely jeopardized. The persistent efforts of activists like Rajnish Ratnakar are vital in pushing for the accountability and transparency that our democratic system demands.