A toothless tiger? How Gujarat’s Information Commission lost its bite

By Prof. Hemantkumar Shah* 

The Right to Information Act (RTI), introduced by Manmohan Singh’s government in 2005, was conceived to ensure that citizens in a democracy can access how the government functions at every level. The law aimed to bring transparency and accountability into governance. Each state was mandated to form its own Information Commission to hear citizen complaints and ensure information access. Unfortunately, the Gujarat Information Commission appears to have failed to perform this duty effectively or with due integrity. Several troubling aspects illustrate this decline.

A circular issued by the General Administration Department under the Governor’s order on December 29, 2015, remains largely unimplemented even after a decade. This non-compliance undermines the credibility of official information and financially harms applicants seeking data. For example, the circular mandated that every Public Information Officer (PIO) must provide their name, address, phone number, and email ID in their response to an applicant. However, most departments ignore this rule, and the Commission turns a blind eye. As a result, citizens cannot easily contact PIOs to clarify or contest details, forcing them into time-consuming, costly correspondence by post or in person.

The circular also required that if an applicant is dissatisfied with a reply, they must be informed of their right to file a first appeal within thirty days, along with the name and contact information of the appellate authority. Yet PIOs often omit these details. Consequently, applicants are unable to file appeals electronically or follow up on their status. Moreover, even when an appellate authority issues an order, PIOs frequently disregard it, and the Commission fails to act when citizens complain about such defiance.

Another stipulation in the same circular was that any record or document provided under the RTI Act should bear a stamp certifying it as “Information furnished under the RTI Act.” In most cases, this too is ignored—raising doubts about the authenticity of information supplied.

Even more disturbing is the Commission’s discriminatory conduct toward citizens exercising their rights. The Gujarat Information Commission has reportedly blacklisted certain applicants who actively expose administrative irregularities by filing multiple RTI requests. By placing them on a “blacklist,” the Commission effectively bars them from seeking further information—an act with no legal basis in the RTI Act. This practice not only violates the law but also punishes those who strive for transparency.

The Commission has gone a step further by imposing limits on how many RTI applications a person can file in a year—something the Act never authorizes. This arbitrary rule curtails citizens’ constitutional right to information.

While the Commission keeps detailed records of applicants and their appeals, it appears curiously indifferent to data about errant PIOs or appellate officers who repeatedly defy the law. Even when fines or departmental action are recommended, there is no follow-through. Take, for instance, the case of Laghurishbhai Patel, Town Development Inspector of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation’s Daryapur Ward No. 21. The Commission fined him in five out of seven cases and even twice ordered departmental proceedings against him. Yet, no serious disciplinary action followed.

The Commission has full authority to recommend suspension or stricter punishment for such repeated offenders, but it rarely does. Meanwhile, it seems far more eager to penalize or blacklist applicants than to discipline defaulting officials. Why this double standard? Shouldn’t there be a rule that if an officer is found guilty of withholding information more than once, strict fines and employment-related consequences follow immediately? Only then will officials stop deceiving citizens and start respecting their legal right to information.

---

*Senior economist based in Ahmedabad