RTI Data During the Pandemic: Many Departments Show dip in the Number of Applications, but Some Record Steep Rise in Rejections

WITH a 2.95 per cent dip in the number of applications under the Right to Information [RTI] Act filed across central public authorities during the pandemic year, it is only obvious that the proportion of RTI applications being rejected will also go down. Ergo, several Union Ministries have reported significant dips in rejections. However, while looking at the woods, it is also important to not miss out on the trees. After all, in the absence of trees, there would be no woods to look at.

A micro-level examination of the rejection related data, including clause-wise rejection statistics, provides a more complex picture of the manner in which RTI applications were handled across ministries and departments during the pandemic year.

For example, merely focusing on total figures with regard to rejections, will make a reader completely oblivious to the fact that the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution rejected 401 RTI applications in the pandemic year by invoking the national security exemption provided for in Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. Overall, the use of the national security exemption to reject RTI applications increased by more than 83 per cent during the pandemic year.

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare employed several exemption clauses, including the exemption to Cabinet papers, which it hardly used in the past, to reject scores of RTI applications in 2020-21. The Ministry of Labour and Employment recorded a doubling of rejections under Section 24 of the RTI Act, despite not having any exempt intelligence or security organisation under its jurisdiction. Similarly, the National Capital Territory [NCT] of Delhi recorded more than 644 per cent increase in rejections during the pandemic year in comparison with its performance in 2019-20, even though the proportion of rejections was only 1.79 per cent of the total number of RTI applications processed that year.

The narrative portion of the Central Information Commission’s [CIC] Annual Report for 2020-21 [AR] does not contain any discussion about these developments noticeable from the data submitted by these ministries and departments. Hence, the need for this in-depth examination of the data relating to rejections. The following trends are noticeable from the rejections-related data.

Also read: Highest Judicial Office Under RTI Purview: An examination of the Positives and Creative Tensions in the Constitution Bench’s Opinion

Rejection trends across key Ministries and public authorities (covering only permissible exemptions under Sections 8, 9, 11 and 24 of RTI Act, and excluding ‘Others’ category)

If one takes into account those ministries and departments with a significant number of rejections, only seven indicate considerable reduction whereas 11 have actually reported a hike in the number of rejections during the pandemic year as compared with the 2019-20 figures.

For example, the seven ministries which reported a fall in rejections are as follows: the Ministry of Finance – from 17,928 in 2019-20 to 13,657 in the pandemic year; the Ministry of Defence – from 2,022 in 2019-20 to 1,854 during the pandemic year; the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, which is the nodal ministry for implementing the RTI Act at the Central level – from 1,288 in 2019-20 to 1,023 in 2020-21. The proportion of rejections reduced by around 50 per cent in the following: the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas – from 1,127 in 2019-20 to 545 during the pandemic year, and the Ministry of Human Resource Development – from 874 in 2019-20 to 496 in 2020-21.

The number of rejections in the Supreme Court of India also more than halved – from 381 cases in 2019-20 to 152 in the pandemic year. The Delhi Police reported a much lower figure of 1,489 rejections in 2020-21 as compared with 1,778 cases in the previous year.

However the Ministries which reported a significant rise in the number of rejections are as follows: The Ministry of Steel recorded a 2,457 per cent increase in rejections – from only 14 cases in 2019-20 to 358 cases during the pandemic year; The Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution reported a 2,003 per cent increase in rejections – from 26 cases in 2019-20 to 547 cases during the pandemic year; the Ministry of Railways reported more than 767 per cent rise in rejections in the pandemic year – from 84 cases in 2019-20 to 729; the Ministry of External Affairs recorded a 356 per cent rise in rejections in the pandemic year – from 198 cases in 2019-20 to 904 cases.

Other Ministries which reported a significant increase in rejections but of a lesser magnitude than those mentioned immediately above are: the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare with 76 per cent increase in rejections – from 412 cases in 2019-20 to 727 cases during the pandemic year; the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, which recorded only 129 rejections in 2019-20 that increased to 213 cases during the pandemic year; the Ministry of Power, which reported only 102 rejections in 2019-20 but which went up to 159 cases in the pandemic year. Other Ministries which recorded a marginal increase in rejections are: the Ministry of Labour and Employment – from 368 cases in 2019-20 to 375 cases in 2020-21, and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting – from 44 cases in 2019-20 to 60 cases during the pandemic year. Similarly, the Prime Minister’s Office reported a higher number – 82 rejections in the pandemic year whereas there were only 58 rejections in 2019-20.

Overall, the use of the national security exemption to reject RTI applications increased by more than 83 per cent during the pandemic year. 

Also read: Pegasus is such a deep secret that even RTI fails to crack it!

Trends with regard to rejections under ‘others’ category

The dubious category ‘Others’ continues to be used by ministries, departments and public authorities for rejecting RTI applications during the pandemic year as well. However, the macro-level figures show a decline of 28.15 per cent in the use of ‘Others’ category – while it was used in 24,059 cases in 2019-20, it was used in only 17,286 cases during the pandemic year. However, to remain complacent with these macro-trends also amounts to missing the trees for the woods. The following trends are visible across ministries, departments and key public authorities with regard to the use of the ‘Others’ category for rejecting RTI applications:

A large number of ministries, departments and public authorities reported a significant decline in the use of ‘Others’ category to reject RTI applications during the pandemic year. This is a welcome development indeed. Notable among them are: the Ministry of Finance – from 10,081 cases in 2019-20 to 5,278 cases during the pandemic year; the Ministry of Railways – from 1,607 cases in 2019-20 to 577 cases in 2020-21; the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas – from 460 cases in 2019-20 to 202 cases in the pandemic year; the Ministry of Home Affairs – from 737 cases in 2019-20 to 441 cases in 2020-21; the Ministry for Defence – from 1,694 cases in 2019-20 to 1,375 cases in the pandemic year; the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions – from 633 cases in 2019-20 to 489 cases in 2020-21; Delhi Police – from 563 cases in 2019-20 to 364 cases in the pandemic year; the Prime Minister’s Office – from 550 cases in 2019-20 to 423 cases in 2020-21; the Supreme Court – from 248 cases in 2019-20 to 160 cases in 2020-21; the Ministry of Communications – from 1,034 cases in 2019-20 to 797 cases in the pandemic year; and the Ministry of Commerce – from 85 cases in 2019-20 to only 12 cases in 2020-21.

However, several Ministries and public authorities reported a significant increase in the use of “Others’ category to reject RTI applications during the pandemic year. For example, the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation reported a 1,410 per cent increase – from 10 cases in 2019-20 to 151 cases in 2020-21; the Ministry of External Affairs recorded a 537 per cent increase – from a mere 61 cases in 2019-20 to 389 cases in 2020-21; the Comptroller and Auditor General reported an almost three-fold increase in the use of this category – from 108 cases in 2019-20 to 303 cases in 2020-21; the Ministry of Labour and Employment – from 1,871 cases in 2019-20 to 2,429 cases during the pandemic year; the Ministry of Textiles – from 111 cases in 2019-20 to 147 cases during the pandemic year; the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution – from 64 cases in 2019-20 to 88 cases during the pandemic year; the Ministry of Panchayati Raj – from 36 cases in 2019-20 to 79 cases in 2020-21; the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology – from 62 cases in 2019-20 to 109 cases during the pandemic year; the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs – from 22 cases in 2019-20 to 85 cases in 2020-21; and the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports – from 15 cases in 2019-20 to 39 cases during the pandemic year. The use of this category in the NCT of Delhi is examined separately below.

The CIC has not bothered to examine this phenomenon of the continued use of ‘Others’ category to reject RTI applications, year after year, in the narrative portion of its AR.

Also read: Delhi HC asks CIC to decide within eight weeks appeal against MHA’s refusal to give info on e-surveillance

Trends with regard to clause-wise rejections

Section 8(1)(j)

As has always been the case, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act which protects personal information of an individual and prohibits disclosure that may cause unwarranted invasion of the individual’s privacy, is the most frequently used of permissible exemptions during the pandemic year. Central level public authorities invoked this clause to reject 34.44 per cent of the RTI applications in 2020-21- a marginal increase over the 2019-20 figure of 34.01 per cent;

Most Ministries reported a major decline in the use of section 8(1)(j) during the pandemic year. For example, its use fell by almost 50 per cent in the Supreme Court of India (from 142 cases in 2019-20 to 72 cases in 2020-21). Public authorities under the Ministry of Finance, which accounts for the most frequent use of this exemption year after year, also reported a drastic reduction in usage – from 7,528 cases in 2019-20 to 5,210 cases in 2020-21. Delhi Police also reported a major reduction in the employment of this exemption – from 641 cases in 2019-20 to only 470 cases in 2020-21. The use of this exemption halved in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas – from 415 cases in 2019-20 to 208 cases during the pandemic year.

Bucking this trend, public authorities under the Ministry of External Affairs reported a five-fold increase in the use of section 8(1)(j) during the pandemic year. It rose to 681 cases from 107 in 2019-20. Similarly, the Ministry of Steel had invoked this exemption in two cases only in 2019-20, but in the pandemic year it was invoked in 199 cases. The use of this exemption went up to 576 cases in 2020-21 in the Ministry of Railways, whereas it had been used only in 20 cases during the previous year. The Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution also reported the use of this exemption in 142 cases during the pandemic year as compared to only 18 cases in 2019-20. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare used this exemption in 184 cases during the pandemic year whereas it was used in only 107 cases in 2019-20.

Section 24

The next more frequently used ground for rejecting RTI applications was section 24 of the RTI Act, under which the Union Government has exempted 25 security and intelligence organisations from ordinary obligations of transparency under the RTI Act, unlike other public authorities. They are, however, required to disclose information relating to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Section 24 constituted 27.92 per cent of the rejections during the pandemic year- an increase by more than 5.6 per cent over the proportion reported in 2019-20 (22.31 per cent);

Public authorities under the Union Home Ministry [MHA], such as the Intelligence Bureau, and Central Paramilitary Forces like Assam Rifles, Indo-Tibetan Border Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Central Industrial Security Force and so on contributed 75.4 per cent of instances of the use of section 24 to reject RTI applications during the pandemic year. This amounts to a 166 per cent increase in the use of this exemption by public authorities under MHA during the pandemic year (7,631 cases) as compared to 2019-20 (2,869 cases). The CIC is silent about this development in the narrative portion of the AR.

Public authorities under the Union Ministry of Finance also reported a 52.40 per cent jump in the use of section 24 during the pandemic year (1,015 cases) as compared with the previous year (666 cases). However, the Ministry of Labour and Employment, which does not have any organisation exempt under Section 24 of the RTI Act under its jurisdiction, reported a 120 per cent increase in the use of this provision during the pandemic year. 331 RTI applications were rejected in 2020-21 as compared with only 150 cases the previous year. The CIC does not make any comment on this trend in the narrative portion of its AR.

Interestingly, the Ministry of Defence reported a reduction in the use of section 24 during the pandemic year (518 cases) as compared with the previous year (626 cases).

Section 8(1)(d)

This is the third most frequently used of exemptions during the pandemic year, accounting for 11.78 per cent of the total number of rejections. This is a 1.8 per cent dip from the previous year (13.62 per cent). Section 8(1)(d) protects from disclosure, information which is in the nature of commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property where disclosure may harm the competitive position of a third party.

Public authorities under the Ministry of Finance invoked Section 8(1)(d) the most among all others during the pandemic year (3,129 cases), but this was much lower than the 2019-20 figure of 3,990 cases. Similarly, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas used this exemption in fewer cases during the pandemic year (226 cases) as compared with 2019-20 (395 cases).

However, the use of Section 8(1)(d) by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare nearly doubled from 39 cases in 2019-20 to 76 in 2020-21. In all probability, this Ministry was employing this exemption to deny access to information relating to COVID-19 vaccine and purchase related issues. Interestingly, the Ministry of Steel invoked this exemption in 98 cases during the pandemic year whereas it was used only once in 2019-20. Similarly, NITI Aayog invoked Section 8(1)(d) to reject 13 RTI applications during the pandemic year whereas it was used only five times in 2019-20.

Section 8(1)(e)

Section 8(1)(e) is the fourth most frequently used of exemptions during the pandemic year, accounting for 11.13 per cent of the total number of rejections. This is a 1.54 per cent dip from the previous year’s figure of 12.67 per cent. Section 8(1)(e) protects information available with a person in his fiduciary relationship (that is, a trust-based relationship, such as that between lawyer-client, doctor-patient, and spouses, among others.) This is also one of the most frequently misused of exemptions because Central Public Information Officers have a tendency of invoking it to protect all kinds of information held in confidence by the public authority or which is marked “top secret”, “secret” or “confidential”.

The use of section 8(1)(e) was most frequent among public authorities under the Ministry of Finance during the pandemic year. However, its use fell from a high of 3,447 cases in 2029-20 to 2,918 cases in the pandemic year. Similarly, the use of this exemption fell from 167 cases in 2019-20 to 67 cases in the pandemic year in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. Its use more than halved in the Ministry of Human Resource Development – from 122 cases in 2019-20, it came down to 50 cases in the pandemic year. Its use fell drastically in the Ministry of Communications also – from 193 in 2019-20 to 63 cases in the pandemic year. The use of this exemption in the Supreme Court of India also reduced by more than half during the pandemic year – from 115 cases in 2019-20, it came down to only 42 in 2020-21.

However, the use of section 8(1)(e) witnessed a significant increase in the Ministry of Steel. While it was not invoked at all in 2019-20, it was used to reject 15 RTI applications in the pandemic year. The use of this exemption more than doubled in the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs – from 21 cases in 2019-20 to 50 cases in the pandemic year. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare also reported an increase in the use of this exemption- from 199 cases in 2019-20 it went up to 231 cases in the pandemic year. Its use increased from 89 cases in 2019-20 to 110 cases in the pandemic year in the Ministry of Defence as well.

Also read: Amid Covid-19, citizens deprived of democratic right to seek information from government

Section 8(1)(h)

Section 8(1)(h), which exempts the disclosure of information to prevent impediments to investigation, fair trial and apprehension of offenders, was invoked in 5.90 per cent of the cases during the pandemic year. Interestingly, the use of this exemption clause almost halved from the level of 11.36 per cent in 2019-20.

The Ministry of Finance, which recorded the highest use of Section 8(1)(h) among public authorities under its jurisdiction, actually witnessed a significant reduction in actual figures, that is, from 798 in 2019-20 to 706 cases in the pandemic year. The Ministry of Home Affairs also saw a noticeable fall in the use of this exemption – from 686 cases in 2019-20 to 609 cases in the pandemic year. The Delhi Police also reported a fall from 680 cases in 2019-20 to 608 cases in 2020-21. In the Ministry of Defence, the use of this exemption fell by a third, from 102 cases in 2019-20 to 31 cases in the pandemic year. The Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare also reported a reduction – from 57 cases in 2019-20 to 12 cases in the pandemic year. The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension also reported a fall from 198 cases in 2019-20 to 161 cases in 2020-21.

However, some Ministries reported a significant rise in the use of section 8(1)(h) to deny access to information in the pandemic year. For example, the use of this exemption more than doubled in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs – from 17 cases in 2019-20 to 36 in the pandemic year. The Ministry of Railways invoked this exemption only once in 2019-20 but it did so in 16 cases in the pandemic year. The use of this exemption increased from five cases in 2019-20 to 18 cases in the Ministry of External Affairs during the pandemic year. The Ministry of Power also reported a doubling of use from 7 cases in 2019-20 to 16 cases in 2020-21.

Section 8(1)(a)

Despite accounting for less than three per cent of the total number of rejections, the exemption related to national security in section 8(1)(a) of the RTI reported a significant rise in use during the pandemic year. While the national security exemption accounted for only 1.46 per cent cases in 2019-20, it accounted for 2.82 per cent cases in the pandemic year. This exemption was invoked in 1,024 cases in 2020-21 as compared to only 557 cases in 2019-20 – an increase of more than 83 per cent.

With 401 cases, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution accounted for almost 40 per cent of the use of section 8(1)(a) during the pandemic year, across central public authorities. This Ministry had not invoked this exemption even once in 2019-20. Unlike the Ministries of Home, Defence and External Affairs, this Ministry’s work allocation does not include national security-related matters. In its narrative report, the CIC has not bothered to examine why this Ministry has reported such a high number of rejections under this clause.

The use of section 8(1)(a) more than doubled in the Ministry of Defence – from 157 cases in 2019-20 to 317 in the pandemic year. Similarly, the Ministry of External Affairs also reported a big jump in the use of this exemption – from 36 cases in 2019-20 to 122 in 2020-21. The Ministry of Railways used this exemption in seven cases in the pandemic year, but had not invoked it at all in 2019-20. The Department of Space invoked this exemption in 14 cases in 2020-21 as compared to six cases during the previous year.

The Ministry of Finance reported an almost 50 per cent reduction in the use of this exemption in the pandemic year, registering a fall from 141 cases in 2019-20 to 79 cases in 2020-21. The Department of Space reported a reduction – from 43 cases in 2019-20 to 19 during the pandemic year. The Ministry of Home Affairs also reported reduced use of this exemption in 2020-21. It fell to 12 cases from 38 reported in 2019-20.

Also read: We Must Fight for Right To Information

Section 8(1)(g)

The exemption under Section 8(1)(g), which relates to endangering the life and safety of an individual or revealing the identity of informants who assist law enforcement agencies, was used in 1.69 per cent cases during the pandemic year. This is a significant fall from the level of 2.47 per cent reported in 2019-20.

The Ministry of Finance reported a fall in the use of section 8(1)(g) from 378 cases in 2019-20 to 260 cases in the pandemic year. The Ministry of Home Affairs also reported a fall from 167 cases in 2019-20 to 70 cases in 2020-21. Delhi Police invoked this exemption in 156 cases only in 2020-21 as compared to 61 cases during the previous year. The use of this exemption fell by more than a third in the Ministry of Defence – from 28 cases in 2019-20 to 10 cases in 2020-21. The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions also reported almost 50 per cent reduction in the use of this exemption – from 81 cases in 2019-20 to 43 cases in the pandemic year. The Ministry of Human Resource Development also reported a more than 50 per cent reduction in the use of this exemption – from 79 cases in 2019-20 to 31 cases in 2020-21.

Key Ministries at the frontline of the efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic reported a major increase in rejections. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution are notable illustrations of this trend. The latter invoked the national security exemption in hundreds of cases during the pandemic year. … It is not possible to predict whether even a significant fraction of these cases will land up at the CIC in the form of appeals and complaints.

The Ministry of External Affairs reported an increase- from six cases in 2019-20 to 18 in the pandemic year. So did the Ministry of Power- from 7 cases in 2019-20 to 16 cases in the pandemic year and the Ministry of Railways- from 1 case only in 2019-20 to 16 cases in 2020-21. The Ministry of Steel invoked this exemption in 7 cases during the pandemic year but had not used it even once in 2019-20. The Department of Atomic Energy also reported an increase- from 10 cases in 2019-20 to 14 cases in 2020-21.

Section 8(1)(i)

The exemption relating to Cabinet papers and deliberations of officials involved in the decision making process covered by Section 8(1)(i) was also used fewer times in the pandemic year. Its use fell from 1.82 per cent of the cases in 2019-20 to 1.05 per cent of the cases in 2020-21.

The use of section 8(1)(i) more than halved down in the Ministry of Finance – from 394 cases in 2019-20 to 124 cases in the pandemic year. Similarly, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions reported a drastic reduction in the use of this exemption – from 110 cases in 2019-20 to 56 cases in the pandemic year. The Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers did not use this exemption at all in the pandemic year whereas it had invoked it 23 times during the previous year. In the Ministry of Communications, the use of this exemption fell from 59 cases in 2019-20 to 28 cases during the pandemic year;

The use of section 8(1)(i) increased considerably in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare – from no cases in 2019-20 to 36 cases in the pandemic year. So also with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting – from none in 2019-20 to nine cases in 2020-21. Both the Steel Ministry and the Department of Atomic Energy used this exemption in two cases each in 2019-20, but invoked it in 14 cases each in the pandemic year to deny access to information. Finally, the use of this exemption went up from one case in 2019-20 to seven cases during the pandemic year in the Ministry of Human Resource Development.

Also read: CIC demands transparency during pandemic; highlight the importance of data in an uncertain time

Section 8(1)(f)

The use of the exemption in Section 8(1)(f) relating to information received in confidence from foreign governments also fell from 1.10 per cent in 2019-20 to 0.80 per cent in 2020-21. Its use fell by more than 63 per cent from 214 cases in 2019-20 to 78 cases in the Ministry of Finance. Similarly, the use of this exemption fell from 31 cases in 2019-20 to 20 in the pandemic year in the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs did not use this exemption even once during the pandemic year though it had invoked it in 10 cases to deny information in 2019-20.

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare reported a three-fold increase in the use of section 8(1)(f) in the pandemic year – 107 cases, as compared to 33 cases in 2019-20. Strangely, the CIC’s AR is silent on this significant development. The Ministry of Defence reported use of this exemption in 21 cases in 2020-21 as compared with 12 cases only in 2019-20. The use of this exemption in the Ministry of External Affairs also increased from nine cases in 2019-20 to 20 cases in the pandemic year.

Section 8(1)(b)

The use of this exemption relating to contempt of court or where the disclosure of information is expressly barred by Courts fell from 0.51 per cent in 2019-20 to 0.2 per cent in the pandemic year.

The Supreme Court of India invoked this exemption in only six cases in the pandemic year, as compared with 97 cases in 2019-20. Similarly, the Ministry of Finance used this exemption only nine times in 2020-21, though it has invoked it in 60 cases in 2019-20. The use of this exemption in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs also fell from 15 cases in 2019-20 to five cases in 2020-21. However, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare was a significant exception to this trend as the use of section 8(1)(b) increased from just one case in 2019-20 to 28 cases in the pandemic year.

The CIC has chosen not to comment on this significant development in its AR.

Section 8(1)(c)

The use of this exemption, intended to protect parliamentary privilege, fell from 0.31 per cent in 2019-20 to 0.12 per cent in the pandemic year. The Ministry of Finance did not invoke this exemption even once in the pandemic year, though it has used it in 36 cases in 2019-20. The use of this exemption fell from 20 cases in 2019-20 to only three during the pandemic year in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions. Interestingly, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare which had not used this exemption even once in 2019-20 invoked it in 30 cases to deny access to information in the pandemic year. The Ministry of Railways also invoked this exemption in two cases while it had not availed of this category at all in 2019-20.

The CIC has not chosen to comment on this significant development in its AR.

Also read: Officials misusing Section 8 of RTI Act to deny information

Section 11

Section 11 of the RTI Act relates to procedures for dealing with requests for third party information which is treated as being confidential by such third party. This is not a standard exemption clause, unlike those listed under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, and applies only to information in the nature of trade or commercial secrets. Yet public authorities invoke it to reject RTI applications by simply claiming that the information sought relates to third parties without fully understanding the import of that provision.

During the pandemic year, the use of Section 11 fell across central public authorities to 1.47 per cent from 1.88 per cent reported in 2019-20. The use of this clause nearly halved in the Ministry of Finance – from 182 in 2019-20 to 93 in the pandemic year. Similarly, the Ministry of Labour reported use of this clause in only two cases as compared with 81 rejections in 2019-20. The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas used this clause in seven cases only in the pandemic year as compared with 26 rejections in 2019-20.

However, the use of this clause spiked in the Ministry of Railways to 31 in the pandemic year, though it was zero in 2019-20. The Ministry of Home Affairs reported rejections under this clause in 98 cases in 2020-21 while it was used in 65 cases only during the previous year. In the Ministry of Communications, the use of this clause more than doubled to 43 cases in the pandemic year as compared with 21 cases in 2019-20. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology also reported increased use of this clause – from 17 cases in 2019-20 to 26 in the pandemic year.

Section 9

Section 9 is a standalone exemption clause which protects private copyright. The use of this clause fell marginally, from 0.68 per cent in 2019-20 to 0.63 per cent in the pandemic year. The use of this clause fell drastically in the Ministry of Finance – from 94 cases in 2019-20 to 36 cases in the pandemic year. Similarly, the Ministry of Defence rejected RTI applications under this clause in only 39 cases in 2020-21 as compared with 50 cases during the previous year. However, the Delhi Police reported a significant spike in the use of this clause during the pandemic year – up to 70 cases from 54 in 2019-20. The use of this clause increased from 11 in 2019-20 to 16 cases in the Department of Atomic Energy. The Ministry of Steel, which had not invoked this clause even once in 2019-20, used it in ten cases in the pandemic year. The Ministry of Railways invoked this clause in nine cases in 2020-21 whereas it was used only once during the previous year.

Trends with regard to rejections in the Union Territories

Among the Union Territories [UTs], Delhi reported the highest proportion of rejections. At 1,816 rejections, this constitutes 1.79 per cent of the total number of RTI applications that were to be disposed of in the pandemic year (this includes the backlog plus fresh receipts). While row number 7 of the CIC’s data table in Annexure I of the AR mentions 2,589 rejections accounting for three per cent of the total, the breakups at the end of the data table add up to only 1,816 cases of rejections.

That being said, it is important to note that the proportion of rejections under permissible categories of the RTI Act increased by 674.88 per cent during the pandemic year. While the public authorities under the Delhi administration had rejected only 211 RTI applications in 2019-20, they reported rejections in 1,635 cases during the pandemic year. The CIC is silent about this significant development in the narrative portion of its AR.

94.4 per cent of the rejections under permissible exemptions of the RTI Act were linked to section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act which protects personal information of an individual from unwarranted invasion of his or her privacy. Interestingly, the frequency of use of the dubious ‘Others’ category came down from 444 cases in 2019-20 to 181 cases during the pandemic year – a drop of almost 60 per cent.

Puducherry is the only UT which reported a marginal increase in rejections in the pandemic year – from 116 in 2019-20 to 132 in 2020-21. All other UTs reported a significant decline in their respective rejection rates. Lakshadweep did not report any rejection despite receiving 40.14 per cent more RTI applications in the pandemic year as compared with 2019-20. Despite receiving more than 1,600 RTI applications during the pandemic year, Jammu and Kashmir reported rejections in six cases only, all of which were under the dubious ‘Others’ category. Interestingly, Chandigarh invoked section 8(1)(h), which exempts disclosure of information to prevent impediments to investigation, fair trial and apprehension of offenders, more than section 8(1)(j), which protects personal information, in the pandemic year: section 8(1)(h) was invoked in 205 cases, while section 8(1)(j) was invoked in 137 cases only.

Also read: Will the Right to Information Act Become the Right to Denial of Information Act?

End Note

Despite the marginal dip in the number of RTI applications during the pandemic year, the manner of use of exemptions does not appear to follow this trend in all cases. While public authorities under the Ministries of Finance, which are conventionally known to invoke exemptions to reject RTI applications more than others, reported reduction in rejections, key Ministries at the frontline of the efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic reported a major increase in rejections. Some of them used exemption clauses which they used in earlier years to deny access to information. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution are notable illustrations of this trend. The latter invoked the national security exemption in hundreds of cases during the pandemic year. The Delhi Government reported a massive increase in the number of rejections during the pandemic year as compared with 2019-20.

It is not possible to predict whether even a significant fraction of these cases will land up at the CIC in the form of appeals and complaints. Hence, there is a strong reason for the CIC to hold consultations with such Ministries and also public authorities under their jurisdiction to examine this trend and explore the correctness of such decisions to deny access to information.

The main datasheet used for this analysis can be accessed by clicking here.

(Venkatesh Nayak is the Programme Coordinator at Access to Information Programme, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative. The views expressed are personal.)

Related Posts