KISHAN CHAND JAINversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                   [2023] 11 S.C.R. 198 : 2023 INSC 741



                               CASE DETAILS

                           KISHAN CHAND JAIN
                                         v.
                         UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                   (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 990 of 2021)
                              AUGUST 17, 2023
           [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI,
            PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND
                    J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]

                                HEADNOTES

     Issue for consideration : Direction sought by Writ Petitioner to
implement the mandate of s.4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
     Right to Information Act, 2005 – ss. 3 and 4 – Obligation of public
authorities – Principle of accountability:
        Held : Power and accountability go hand in hand – While declaring
that all citizens shall have the ‘right to information’ u/s.3 of the Act, the co-
relative ‘duty’ in the form of obligation of public authorities is recognized in
s.4 of the Act – The core of the right created u/s.3 in reality rests on the duty to
perform statutory obligations – The purpose and object of the statute will be
accomplished only if the principle of accountability governs the relationship
between ‘right holders’ and ‘duty bearers’ – The Central Information
Commission and the State Information Commissions have a prominent
place and statutory recognition – The Central Information Commission and
the State Information Commissions directed to continuously monitor the
implementation of the mandate of s.4 of the Act as also prescribed by the
Department of Personnel and Training in its Guidelines and Memorandums
issued from time to time – Commissioners entitled to issue recommendations
under sub-section (5) of s.25 to public authorities for taking necessary steps
for complying the provisions of the Act. [Paras 22, 25 and 26]
     Right to Information Act, 2005 – s.25 – Mechanism of ‘Monitoring
and Reporting’ – Discussed.


                                       198
          KISHAN CHAND JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                    199



        LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

       Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya and
others (2011) 8 SCC 781 : [2011] 14 SCR 328; Government (NCT of Delhi)
v. Union of India (2018) 8 SCC 501 : [2018] 7 SCR 1; Vijay Rajmohan v. CBI
(2023) 1 SCC 329 – relied on.
      Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya
Bandopadhyay and others (2011) 8 SCC 497 : [2011] 11 SCR 1028; Verhoeven,
Marie -Emmanuelle v. Union of India and others (2016) 6 SCC 456 : [2016] 3
SCR 48; Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash
Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481 : [2019] 16 SCR 424 – referred to.

        OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
               ORDER AND APPEARANCES

        CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.990 of
2021.
        (Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
        Appearances:
       Kishan Chand Jain, Rajesh Kumar, E. C. Agrawala, Advs. for the
Petitioner.
      Tushar Mehta, SG, Mrs. Madhavi Divan, ASG, P.V. Yogeshwaran,
A.A.G., V K Shukla, Sr. Adv., Anmol Chandan, Ms. Nidhi Khanna,
Rajat Nair, S S Rebello, P V Yogeswaran, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adarsh
Upadhyay, Pallavi Kumari, Dr. Monika Gusain, Abhinav Mukerji,
Akshay Shrivastava, Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Saket Singh,
Mrs. Sangeeta Singh, Mrs. Niranjana Singh, Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee,
Ms. Urmila Kar Purkayastha, Annant, Ms. Arushi Mishra, Sandeep,
Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Polanki Gowtham, T Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy,
Ms. Niti Richhariya, K V Girish Chowdary, Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Sriharsha
Peechara, Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Ms. Pallavi, Duvvuri Subrahmanya Bhanu,
Yashraj Singh Bundela, Sunny Choudhary, Ms. Abha Sharma, Ms. Deepanwita
Priyanka, Sumeer Sodhi, Ms. Tanya Verma, Abhay Anil Anturkar, Dhruv Tank,
M/s. Dr. R.R. Deshpande & Associates Abhimanyu Tewari, Ms. Eliza Bar, Ms.
K. Enatoli Sema, Ms. Limayinla Jamir, Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. Chubalemla
200             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 11 S.C.R.


Chang, Prang Newmai, Rajiv Shankar Dwivedi, Ms. Madhusmita Bora, Pawan
Kishore Singh, Dipankar Singh, Ms. Pavithra V, Dr. Ravindra Chingale,
Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav
Singh, Som Raj Choudhury, Ms. Shrutee Aradhna, Anand Shankar, Sameer
Abhyankar, Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Ms. Vani Vandana Chhetri, Ms. Sugandh
Rathore, Vishnu Sharma, Ms. Anupama Sharma, V.N. Raghupathy, Manendra
Pal Gupta, Mrs. Ansha Varma, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Sharma,
Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Krishnam Mishra, Param Kumar Mishra, Jayant Mohan,
Ms. Adya Shree Dutta, Advs. for the Respondents.

         JUDGMENT/ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

                                       JUDGMENT
       PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
        1. This Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
filed by way of a public interest litigation seeking multiple reliefs, running
into three pages, the gist of which is only for a direction to implement the
mandate of Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.1 As the prayer
is only for implementing the various obligations enlisted under Section 4,
it is necessary to reproduce the Section for ready reference:
      “4. Obligations of public authorities-
      (I) Every public authority shall—
      (a) maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner
      and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act
      and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised
      are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources,
      computerised and connected through a network all over the country
      on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;
      (b) publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment
      of this Act,—
      (i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties;
      (ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees;

1   Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’
   KISHAN CHAND JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                          201
      [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J. ]

(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including
channels of supervision and accountability;
(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions;
(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or
under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions;
(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or
under its control;
(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation
with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the
formulation of its policy or implementation thereof
(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies
consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the
purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards,
councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the
minutes of such meetings are accessible for public;
(ix) a directory of its officers and employees;
(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and
employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its
regulations;
(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars
of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made;
(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the
amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations
granted by it;
(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it,
reduced in an electronic form;
(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining
information, including the working hours of a library or reading room,
if maintained for public use;
202           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2023] 11 S.C.R.


      (xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public
      Information Officers;
      (xvii) such other information as may be prescribed; and thereafter update
      these publications every year;
      (c) publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or
      announcing the decisions which affect public;
      (d) provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to
      affected persons.
      (2) It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps
      in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-section (1) to
      provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals
      through various means of communications, including internet, so that the
      public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.
      (3) For the purposes of sub-section (1), every information shall be
      disseminated widely and in such form and manner which is easily
      accessible to the public.
      (4) All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the
      cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of
      communication in that local area and the information should be easily
      accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central
      Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the
      case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost
      price as may be prescribed.
      Explanation.—For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4), “disseminated”
      means making known or communicated the information to the public
      through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media
      broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices
      of any public authority.”
        2. The statutory obligations of public authorities under Section 4(1) relate
to: (a) maintenance of all public records, duly catalogued and indexed for easy
accessibility of the information; (b) publishing particulars of the organisational
structure, functions and duties of officers, procedures that are followed for
decision-making, salary structure, budget allocation, publication of facts
          KISHAN CHAND JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                              203
             [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J. ]

relating to policies and announcements which includes providing reasons for
quasi-judicial decisions. Sub-section (2) mandates the public authority to take
steps for providing information under clause (b) of sub-section (1) suo motu and
further to disseminate the said information for easy accessibility to the public.
The scope and ambit of Section 4 has already been considered by this Court in
a number of decisions.2
      3. We may note the observation of this Court in just one of the cases,
namely Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya and
others (2011) 8 SCC 781:
      “23. The information to which the RTI Act applies falls into two
      categories, namely, (i) information which promotes transparency and
      accountability in the working of every public authority, disclosure of
      which helps in containing or discouraging corruption, enumerated
      in clauses (b) and (c) of Section 4(1) of the RTI Act; and (ii) other
      information held by public authorities not falling under Sections 4(1)
      (b) and (c) of the RTI Act. In regard to information falling under the
      first category, the public authorities owe a duty to disseminate the
      information widely suo motu to the public so as to make it easily
      accessible to the public. In regard to information enumerated or
      required to be enumerated under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) of the
      RTI Act, necessarily and naturally, the competent authorities under
      the RTI Act will have to act in a proactive manner so as to ensure
      accountability and ensure that the fight against corruption goes on
      relentlessly. But in regard to other information which do not fall
      under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act, there is a need to proceed
      with circumspection as it is necessary to find out whether they are
      exempted from disclosure.
      24. One of the objects of democracy is to bring about transparency
      of information to contain corruption and bring about accountability.
2   Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and
    others (2011) 8 SCC 497,
    Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya and others (2011) 8
    SCC 781,
    Verhoeven, Marie -Emmanuelle v. Union of India and others. (2016) 6 SCC 456 and
    Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agar-
    wal (2020) 5 SCC 481
204          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 11 S.C.R.


      But achieving this object does not mean that other equally important
      public interests including efficient functioning of the governments
      and public authorities, optimum use of limited fiscal resources,
      preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information, etc. are to be
      ignored or sacrificed. The object of the RTI Act is to harmonise the
      conflicting public interests, that is, ensuring transparency to bring
      in accountability and containing corruption on the one hand, and
      at the same time ensure that the revelation of information, in actual
      practice, does not harm or adversely affect other public interests
      which include efficient functioning of the governments, optimum
      use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of
      sensitive information, on the other hand. While Sections 3 and 4 seek
      to achieve the first objective, Sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 seek to achieve
      the second objective.”
       4. Having noted the scope and ambit of the obligations imposed on
public authorities under Section 4, as elucidated by this Court, we may
now refer to the prayer made by the petitioner in the Writ Petition. The writ
petitioner seeks a direction:
       (a)   to ensure that public authorities comply with the mandatory
             suo motu disclosures under Section 4 on a proactive basis;
       (b)   to ensure that website disclosures of public authorities are
             complete, easily accessible as required by Clause No. 2.2 of
             the O.M. dated 07.11.2019;
       (c)   to ensure compliance of proactive disclosure package audited
             by third party under Section 4 of the Act read with Clause 4.4
             of O.M. dated 07.11.2019;
       (d)   to appoint senior officer as nodal officer for being accountable
             for compliances with respect to proactive disclosure guidelines
             as per Clause 5.1 of the O.M. dated 07.11.2019;
       (e)   direct Central Information Commission/State Information
             Commissions to examine third party audit reports as per Clause
             4.5 of the O.M. dated 07.11.2019;
            KISHAN CHAND JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                      205
               [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J. ]

      (f)     to ensure that details of disclosure guidelines are reflected in the
              Annual Report as per Clause 6.1 of the O.M. dated 07.11.2019;
              and
      (g)     to send ‘Action Taken Report’ to the concerned Information
              Commission as per Clause 4.3 of O.M. dated 07.11.2019.
      5. In other words, the prayers in the Writ Petition are for implementation
of Section 4 of the Act, coupled with the instructions for its execution as
provided in the O.M. dated 07.11.2019.
       6. Union of India has filed a ‘Note on Submissions’ explaining the
steps that have been taken for implementation of the statutory mandate of
Section 4. We will refer to some of these before giving necessary directions.
       7. In order to implement the provisions of the Act, the Department
of Personnel and Training constituted a Task Force on 06.05.2011 to
improve quality and quantity of disclosure contemplated under Section 4.
Pursuant to the report submitted by the Task Force, the Department issued
certain Guidelines through its O.M. dated 15.04.2013. These guidelines
relate to various issues including suo motu proactive disclosures under
Section 4 and also to put in place a mechanism for compliance and
monitoring.
      8. As per the Guidelines each Public Authority must undertake the
following steps:
     “(a) Comply with the guidelines and send an action taken report
     to the CIC; (b) Get the proactive disclosure package [Section
     4(1)(b) of the RTI, Act] audited by a third party audit every
     year. This should be communicated to the CIC annually through
     publication on their own websites. This requirement to publish
     the needful information on the website of each public authority
     would fully take care of the grievances of the petitioner; (c)
     The CIC should examine the third-party audit reports for each
     Ministry/Public Authority and offer advice/ recommendations
     to the concerned Ministry/Public Authority; (d) The CIC should
     carry out sample audits for a few of the Ministries/Public
     Authorities each year with regard to adequacy of the items
     included as well as compliance of the Ministry/Public Authority
206          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 11 S.C.R.


      with these guidelines; (e) An officer, not below the rank of a Joint
      Secretary, should be appointed as the Nodal officer in the Central
      Ministry/Public Authority to ensure compliance with the proactive
      disclosure guidelines, and (f) Every Ministry/Department to include a
      chapter on RTI Act in its Annual Report submitted to the Parliament,
      mandatorily containing the details about compliance with proactive
      disclosure guidelines.”
      9. It is relevant to refer to Clause 4 of O.M. dated 15.04.2013 which
deals with the compliance mechanism:
      “4.0    Compliance with Provisions of suo motu (proactive)
              disclosures under the RTI Act.
      4.1     Each Ministry/Public Authority shall ensure that these
              guidelines are fully operationalized within a period of 6
              months from the date of their issue.
      4.2     Proactive disclosure as per these guidelines would require
              collating a large quantum of information and digitizing it.
              For this purpose, Ministries/Public Authorities may engage
              consultants or outsource such work to expeditiously comply
              with these guidelines. For this purpose, the plan/non-plan
              funds of that department may be utilized.
      4.3     The Action Taken Report on the compliance of these
              guidelines should be sent, along with the URL link, to the
              DoPT and Central Information Commission soon after the
              expiry of the initial period of 6 months.
      4.4     Each Ministry/Public Authority should get its proactive
              disclosure package audited by third party every year. The
              audit should cover compliance with the proactive disclosure
              guidelines as well as adequacy of the items included in
              the package. The audit should examine whether there are
              any other types of information which could be proactively
              disclosed. Such audit should be done annually and should
              be communicated to the Central Information Commission
              annually through publication on their own websites. All
              Public Authorities should proactively disclose the names of
              the third party auditors on their website. For carrying out
         KISHAN CHAND JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                       207
            [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J. ]

              third party audit through outside consultants also, Ministries/
              Public Authorities should utilize their plan/non-plan funds.
      4.5     The Central Information Commission should examine the
              third-party audit reports for each Ministry/Public Authority
              and offer advice/recommendations to the concerned
              Ministries/Public Authorities.
      4.6     Central Information Commission should carry out sample
              audit of few of the Ministries/Public Authorities each
              year with regard to adequacy of items included as well as
              compliance of the Ministry/Public Authority with these
              guidelines.
      4.7     Compliance with the proactive disclosure guidelines, its
              audit by third party and its communication to the Central
              Information Commission should be included as RFD target.”
      10. The ‘Note on Submissions’ discloses that the Department
continued to follow the mandate of Section 4 and sought compliance of the
Guidelines by issuing further O.M.’s such as O.M. issued on 10.12.2013,
22.09.2014 and 09.07.2015.
       11. Proceeding further, in its endeavour to make information more
accessible, the Department constituted two more Committees which made
recommendations for effective implementation of Section 4. The first
Committee headed by Shri A. N. Tiwari, CIC (Retd) made recommendations
with respect to (a) making online access to information more user-friendly
and (b) setting up of grievance redressal mechanism, amongst others.
These recommendations were accepted by the Department vide O.M. dated
29.06.2015.
       12. The second committee headed by Dr. Devesh Chaturvedi, former
Joint Secretary also made certain recommendations and some of them were
accepted through O.M. dated 30.06.2016. Some of the recommendations
that were accepted relate to (a) setting up of Consultative Committees by
public authority for systematic and regular interaction with its officials and to
advise public authorities on information which can be uploaded suo motu, (b)
setting up of Information and Facilitation Centres to educate citizens about
information available, (c) providing searchable and retrievable database of
information on the website of the public authorities; and importantly (d)
208            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2023] 11 S.C.R.


to undertake transparency audits by training institutes under the Ministry/
Department/Public Authority.
         13. The Note also indicated that by O.M. dated 15.10.2019, the
Department relaxed the audit criteria by allowing the public authorities to give
the transparency audits conducted by any Government Training Institutes,
i.e., in cases where there is no institute existing in the Ministry/Department/
Public Authority.
        14. As many Central Authorities faced difficulties on account of, (a)
substantial difference in the audit cost charged by different auditing training
institutes, (b) shortage of manpower/adequately trained manpower, and (c)
pre-engagement of the training institute with its scheduled training activities,
a further relaxation through O.M. dated 20.09.2022 was given as per which
the task of transparency audits was permitted to be given to any Government
Training Institute by the Ministry/Department/Public Authority under the
Central or State Governments.
       15. It is clarified that if a Training Institute is in itself a public authority,
then it may give its audits conducted by Government Training Institute
(O.M. 07.09.2021). The Note also states that the department issued O.M.
dated 14.09.2022 directing all Ministries/Departments/Public Authorities
to (a) nominate Training Institute for third party audit; (b) furnish other
requisite details to the CIC as per the Exhaustive Guidelines issued vide OM
dated 07.11.2019; (c) adhere to the timelines set by the CIC for conducting
transparency audits; and (d) observe the earlier guidelines issued vide OMs
dated 13.04.2013 and 07.11.2019.
      16. On 07.11.2019, the Department of Personnel and Training issued
an O.M. reiterating the 15.04.2013 Guidelines. Clause 4.4 was revised in the
following terms:
      “4.4 Each Ministry/Public Authority should get its proactive disclosure
      package audited by third party every year. The audit should cover
      compliance with the proactive disclosure guidelines as well as adequacy
      of the items included in the package. The audit should examine whether
      there are any other types of information which could be proactively
      disclosed. Such audit should be done annually and should be
      communicated to the Central Information Commission annually through
      publication on their own websites. Further the task of undertaking
         KISHAN CHAND JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                        209
            [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J. ]

     transparency audits may be given to the respective Training Institutes
     under each Ministry/Department/Public Authority and across the States
     and Union Territories. “However in cases where no training institute
     exists under the Ministries/Departments/Public Authorities the tasks
     of undertaking transparency audits may be given to any Government
     Training Institute.” All Public Authorities should proactively disclose
     the names of the third party auditors on their website. For carrying out
     third party audit through outside consultants also. Ministries/Public
     Authorities should utilize their plan/non-plan funds.”
       17. It is important to extract the ‘present status’ of compliances as
indicated in the Note filed on behalf of Union of India. Para 17 to 20 of the
affidavit is as follows:
     “17. Every public authority registered with the CIC is required to submit
     four quarterly returns for assessment of its performance in respect of
     the implementation of the RTI Act.
     18. Out of total 2278 Public Authorities, 2173 of them i.e., 95% public
     authorities have submitted their all four quarterly returns to the
     Commission in the reporting year i.e., 2021-22 (Annual Report 2021-
     22 of the CIC).
     19. The suo motu disclosure under Section 4 of the Act by the public
     authorities and undertaking the transparency audit of the disclosure are
     two different provisions. Whereas the former is a mandatory provisions
     stipulated in the RTI Act, the latter was introduced vide OM date
     15.04.2013 and is directory.
     20. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that those public authorities which
     have not obtained an audit of their proactive disclosure packages by
     a third party cannot be construed to be in violation of Section 4 of the
     RTI Act.”
      18. On the other hand, the written submission filed on behalf of
the petitioner disclosed that only 33% of the public authorities have got
transparency audits conducted in the last four years. It is stated that the poor
implementation of third-party audit is adversely commented upon even by the
Department in its O.M. dated 14.09.2022. It is further averred that apart from
the poor implementation of third-party audit, 33% of public authorities which
had their transparency audits conducted performed badly, clearly evidences
210          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 11 S.C.R.


that quality and quantity of proactive disclosure were not in accordance with
Section 4 of the Act.
       19. From the information made available to us, one thing is evident.
The system needs the concerned authority’s complete attention, followed
by strict and continuous monitoring. It is in this context that the functioning
and duties of the Central and State Information Commissions assume utmost
importance.
      20. It is necessary to take note of the statutorily incorporated
‘monitoring and reporting’ mechanism in section 25 of the Act. This is an
important feature of ‘accountability’ of statutory authorities.
      “25. Monitoring and reporting.
      (1) The Central Information Commission or State Information
      Commission, as the case may be, shall, as soon as practicable after
      the end of each year, prepare a report on the implementation of the
      provisions of this Act during that year and forward a copy thereof to
      the appropriate Government. (2) Each Ministry or Department shall,
      in relation to the public authorities within their jurisdiction, collect
      and provide such information to the Central Information Commission
      or State Information Commission, as the case may be. as is required to
      prepare the report under this section and comply with the requirements
      concerning the furnishing of that information and keeping of records
      for the purposes of this section. (3) Each report shall state in respect
      of the year to which the report relates,— (a) the number of requests
      made to each public authority; (b) the number of decisions where
      applicants were not entitled to access to the documents pursuant to the
      requests, the provisions of this Act under which these decisions were
      made and the number of times such provisions were invoked; (c) the
      number of appeals referred to the Central Information Commission
      or State Information Commission, as the case may be, for review, the
      nature of the appeals and the outcome of the appeals; (d) particulars
      of any disciplinary action taken against any officer in respect of the
      administration of this Act; (e) the amount of charges collected by
      each public authority under this Act; (J) any facts which indicate an
      effort by the public authorities to administer and implement the spirit
      and intention of this Act; (g) recommendations for reform, including
         KISHAN CHAND JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                    211
            [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J. ]

     recommendations in respect of the particular public authorities, for
     the development, improvement, modernisation, reform or amendment
     to this Act or other legislation or common law or any other matter
     relevant for operationalising the right to access information. (4)
     The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may
     be, may, as soon as practicable after the end of each year, cause
     a copy of the report of the Central Information Commission or
     the State Information Commission, as the case may be, referred
     to in sub-section (1) to be laid before each House of Parliament
     or, as the case may be, before each House of the State Legislature,
     where there are two Houses, and where there is one House of the
     State Legislature before that House. (5) If it appears to the Central
     Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the
     case may be, that the practice of a public authority in relation to
     the exercise of its functions under this Act does not conform with
     the provisions or spirit of this Act, it may give to the authority a
     recommendation specifying the steps which ought in its opinion to
     be taken for promoting such conformity.”
       21. Section 25 gloriously integrates ‘the right to information’ of
a citizen with the collective responsibility of the Government to the
Legislature under Article 75(3) or 164(2) of the Constitution. At the
beginning of the chain is the citizen exercising her right to information.
The Public Authority obligated to provide the information is accountable
to the Department. The Department, shall, in relation to the public
authorities within their jurisdiction, collect and provide such information
to the CIC or SIC (see Section 25(2)). The CIC or SIC shall then prepare
a ‘Report’ on the implementation of the provisions of the Act during
the year and forward a copy to the appropriate Government (see Section
25(1)). The ‘Report’ prepared by the CIC or SIC is mandated to comprise
all details specifi ed in Clauses (a) to (g) of Section 25(3). The Central
or the State Government shall cause a copy of the Report of the CIC/
SIC be laid before Parliament/Legislative Assembly (Section 25(4)). It
is then for the House, representing the will of the people, to ensure that
the confidence reposed by it in the Council of Ministers (Government)
is affi rmed. Thus, the circle of representative democracy connects
supremacy of the Parliament with the right of the citizen by ensuring
212           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2023] 11 S.C.R.


that the State performs its obligations. This is the primary principle of
accountability.
       22. Power and accountability go hand in hand. While declaring that all
citizens shall have the ‘right to information’ under Section 3 of the Act, the
co-relative ‘duty’ in the form of obligation of public authorities is recognized
in Section 4. The core of the right created under Section 3 in reality rests on
the duty to perform statutory obligations. Public accountability is a crucial
feature that governs the relationship between ‘duty bearers’ and ‘right
holders’. Recognizing the importance of accountability as a measure of
administrative law, this Court in Vijay Rajmohan v. CBI,3 held as follows:
      “34. Accountability in itself is an essential principle of administrative
      law. Judicial review of administrative action will be effective and
      meaningful by ensuring accountability of the officer or authority in
      charge.
      35. The principle of accountability is considered as a cornerstone of
      the human rights framework. It is a crucial feature that must govern the
      relationship between “duty bearers” in authority and “right holders”
      affected by their actions. Accountability of institutions is also one of
      the development goals adopted by the United Nations in 2015 and is
      also recognized as one of the six principles of the Citizens Charter
      Movement.
      36. Accountability has three essential constituent dimensions :
      (i) responsibility, (ii) answerability, and (iii) enforceability. Responsibility
      requires the identification of duties and performance obligations of
      individuals in authority and with authorities. Answerability requires
      reasoned decision-making so that those affected by their decisions,
      including the public, are aware of the same. Enforceability requires
      appropriate corrective and remedial action against lack of responsibility
      and accountability to be taken. Accountability has a corrective function,
      making it possible to address individual or collective grievances. It
      enables action against officials or institutions for dereliction of duty.
      It also has a preventive function that helps to identify the procedure or
      policy which has become non-functional and to improve upon it.”
3   (2023) 1 SCC 329
          KISHAN CHAND JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                      213
             [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J. ]

       23. In Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Union of India4 referring to
the direct relationship between principles of collective responsibility and
Government accountability, this Court held:-
      “325. There is a direct relationship between the principle of collective
      responsibility and Government accountability. This relationship is
      conceptualised in The Oxford Companion to Politics in India:
      Accountability can be defined in terms of outcomes rather than
      processes of Government….. It also includes the criterion of
      responsiveness to changes in circumstances that alter citizen needs
      and abilities… In other words, accountability refers to the extent
      to which actual policies and their implementation coincide with a
      normative ideal in terms of what they ought to be… In this broad sense,
      accountability amounts to evaluating the nature of governance itself,
      in outcome-oriented terms.”
      24. Apart from the obligation of monitoring and reporting, the
Central and State Information Commissioners are also given the power to
recommend steps which the public authority ought to take in implementing
the Act. Sub-Section (5) of Section 25 is in the following terms:
      “(5) If it appears to the Central Information Commission or State
      Information Commission, as the case may be, that the practice
      of a public authority in relation to the exercise of its functions
      under this Act does not conform with the provisions or spirit of
      this Act, it may give to the authority a recommendation specifying
      the steps which ought in its opinion to be taken for promoting
      such conformity.”
       25. Having examined the Right to Information established by the
statute under Section 3 in the context of the obligations of public authorities
under Section 4, we are of the opinion that the purpose and object of the
statute will be accomplished only if the principle of accountability governs
the relationship between ‘right holders’ and ‘duty bearers’. The Central
and State Information Commissions have a prominent place, having a
statutory recognition under Chapters III and IV of the Act and their powers

4   (2018) 8 SCC 501
214            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 11 S.C.R.


and functions all enumerated in detail in Section 18 of the Act. We have
also noted the special power of ‘Monitoring and Reporting’ conferred on
the Central and State Information Commissioners which must be exercised
keeping in mind the purpose and object of the Act, i.e., ‘to promote
transparency and accountability in working of every public authority’.
       26. For the reasons stated above, we direct that the Central Information
Commission and the State Information Commissions shall continuously
monitor the implementation of the mandate of Section 4 of the Act as also
prescribed by the Department of Personnel and Training in its Guidelines
and Memorandums issued from time to time. The directions will also include
instructions under O.M. dated 07.11.2019 issued by the Department. For this
purpose, the Commissioners will also be entitled to issue recommendations
under sub-Section (5) of Section 25 to public authorities for taking necessary
steps for complying with the provisions of the Act.
       27. The Writ Petition (C) No. 990 of 2021 is disposed of with the
direction to the Central Information Commission and the State Information
Commissions to ensure proper implementation of the mandate of Section 4
of the Act, by following the directions as indicated above.
       28. There shall be no order on costs.

Headnotes prepared by:                                          Directions issued.
Ankit Gyan
(Assisted by : Shevali Monga, LCRA)