Tamil Nadu to have two more State Information Commissioners

The decision by the Tamil Nadu government to appoint two additional State Information Commissioners (SICs) is a significant move that underscores the evolving landscape of transparency and accountability in India. This expansion, increasing the total number of State Information Commissioners to eight, alongside the Chief Information Commissioner, directly impacts the efficiency and efficacy of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, at the state level.

**Background Context and Historical Evolution:**

The genesis of the Right to Information Act, 2005, lies in a global movement for greater governmental transparency and accountability, coupled with persistent advocacy by civil society organizations in India. Before 2005, access to government information was largely governed by the archaic Official Secrets Act, 1923, which often hindered public scrutiny. The demand for a robust RTI law gained significant momentum through movements like the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in Rajasthan, which championed the right to know concerning development expenditures. This public pressure led to the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act, 2002, which was largely ineffective due to its weak provisions. Recognizing its shortcomings, the RTI Act, 2005, was subsequently enacted, replacing the 2002 Act and fundamentally altering the relationship between citizens and the state by empowering individuals to demand information from public authorities. The Act mandates the establishment of a Central Information Commission (CIC) at the national level and State Information Commissions (SICs) in each state to hear appeals and complaints.

**What Happened in Tamil Nadu:**

The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission was initially constituted in 2005, in line with the provisions of the RTI Act. At its inception, it comprised one State Chief Information Commissioner and two State Information Commissioners. Recognizing the growing volume of RTI applications and appeals, the Tamil Nadu government, in 2008, proactively increased the number of State Information Commissioners from two to six. The current decision to appoint two more commissioners will further augment its strength, bringing the total number of SICs to eight, in addition to the Chief Information Commissioner. This expansion reflects a continuous effort to strengthen the institutional mechanism for RTI implementation in the state.

**Key Stakeholders Involved:**

Several key stakeholders are involved in this development. The **Tamil Nadu Government** is the primary decision-maker, responsible for the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners as per Section 15 of the RTI Act, 2005. It also provides the necessary administrative and financial resources for the Commission's functioning. The **State Information Commission (SIC)**, comprising the Chief IC and the ICs, is the statutory body empowered to receive and inquire into complaints from persons unable to submit an RTI request, hear second appeals against decisions of public information officers (PIOs), and impose penalties. **Citizens** are the ultimate beneficiaries and the driving force behind the RTI regime; their ability to access information is directly facilitated by the SIC. Finally, **Public Information Officers (PIOs)** and **First Appellate Authorities** within various government departments are also crucial, as their initial responses to RTI applications are often the subject of appeals to the SIC.

**Significance for India and Future Implications:**

This decision by Tamil Nadu holds significant implications for good governance and democratic functioning in India. Firstly, increasing the number of commissioners directly addresses the issue of **pendency of cases**. A higher number of commissioners means more benches can operate simultaneously, leading to faster disposal of appeals and complaints. This is crucial as delays in information delivery undermine the very spirit of the RTI Act. Secondly, it strengthens **accountability and transparency** in state administration. An efficient SIC acts as a powerful check on arbitrary decision-making and corruption, compelling public authorities to adhere to the principles of openness. Thirdly, it reinforces the **fundamental right to information**, which, while not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as an integral part of **Article 19(1)(a)**, the freedom of speech and expression. The Court has repeatedly held that for citizens to express themselves freely, they must have access to information about government functioning.

Looking ahead, the increased capacity of the Tamil Nadu SIC is expected to lead to a more robust and responsive RTI mechanism. However, challenges remain. The quality of appointments, adequate infrastructure, and the willingness of public authorities to comply with SIC directives will be crucial for the success of this expansion. This move by Tamil Nadu could also serve as a model for other states grappling with backlogs in their respective Information Commissions, fostering a broader trend towards strengthening these vital transparency institutions across the country. It signals a commitment to administrative reforms and citizen-centric governance, which are essential for a healthy democracy.

**Related Constitutional Articles, Acts, or Policies:**

* **Right to Information Act, 2005:** This is the foundational legislation. Specifically, **Section 15** details the constitution of State Information Commissions, including the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners. **Sections 18, 19, and 20** outline the powers, functions, and penalty provisions of the Information Commissions.

* **Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution:** Guarantees freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court, in landmark judgments like *State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975)* and *S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)*, has interpreted this article to include the 'right to know' or 'right to information' as a fundamental right.

* **Article 19(2):** Allows for reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights conferred by Article 19(1)(a).

* **Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) Reports:** Various ARC reports have provided recommendations for strengthening governance, transparency, and accountability, which often inform legislative and administrative changes like the expansion of Information Commissions.