File size: 8,208 Bytes
1ee623e
 
75c49e5
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1ee623e
75c49e5
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
---
license: cc-by-4.0
language:
- en
tags:
- legal
- india
- rti
- right-to-information
- administrative-law
- nlp
- classification
- dataset
- civic-ai
pretty_name: RTI-Bench
size_categories:
- 1K<n<10K
task_categories:
- text-classification
- summarization
- question-answering
---

# RTI-Bench: A Structured Dataset for Indian RTI Decision Analysis

## Dataset Description

RTI-Bench is the first structured dataset of Central Information Commission (CIC) decisions under India's Right to Information Act, 2005. It supports research in legal NLP, civic AI, and AI-assisted access to justice.

**Total cases: 1,516** across two sources:
- **1,218** annotated instruction-response pairs (Source A)
- **298** structured CIC PDF decisions spanning 5 commissioners and 3 document format generations, 2023–2026 (Source B)

**Overall label coverage: 82.8%** of 1,457 primary cases, extracted using a fully reproducible rule-based pipeline — no LLM annotation.

---

## Dataset Structure

### Source A — Instruction-Response Corpus (`hf_annotated`)

Derived from `jatinmehra/RTI-CASE-DATASET` with structured fields added via rule-based extraction.

| Field | Type | Description |
|-------|------|-------------|
| `hf_id` | int | Original row index |
| `title` | string | RTI case subject line |
| `instruction` | string | Background: information sought, PIO response, hearing |
| `response` | string | Commission's final direction |
| `public_authority` | string | Government department/body |
| `information_sought` | string | What the RTI requested (1 sentence) |
| `exemptions_cited` | list[string] | RTI Act sections invoked e.g. `["8(1)(j)"]` |
| `outcome` | string | See outcome labels below |
| `penalty_inr` | float | Penalty amount if imposed |
| `compensation_inr` | float | Compensation awarded if any |
| `final_direction` | string | Last directive sentence from Commission |

### Source B — CIC PDF Corpus (`cic_annotated`)

Extracted from 298 CIC decision PDFs collected from dsscic.nic.in.

| Field | Type | Description |
|-------|------|-------------|
| `filename` | string | Original PDF filename |
| `doc_subtype` | string | PRIMARY_DECISION / ADJUNCT_COMPLIANCE / FULL_BENCH |
| `doc_format` | string | 2023a / 2023b / 2026 |
| `case_no` | string | CIC case number e.g. `CIC/CSWRI/A/2021/136051` |
| `commissioner` | string | Information Commissioner name |
| `public_authority` | string | Respondent department |
| `issue` | string | Information sought (IRAC Issue component) |
| `application` | string | Submissions during hearing (IRAC Application) |
| `rules_cited` | list[string] | RTI Act sections referenced |
| `conclusion` | string | Commission's decision text (IRAC Conclusion) |
| `outcome` | string | See outcome labels below |
| `exemptions_cited` | list[string] | Section 8(1)(x) exemptions invoked |
| `rti_filed_on` | string | Date RTI application filed |
| `cpio_replied_on` | string | Date CPIO replied |
| `first_appeal_on` | string | Date first appeal filed |
| `date_of_hearing` | string | Date of CIC hearing |
| `adjunct_outcome` | string | For ADJUNCT_COMPLIANCE: SCN_DROPPED / PENALTY_IMPOSED etc. |

---

## Outcome Labels

| Label | Description | Count (A) | Count (B) |
|-------|-------------|-----------|-----------|
| `INFORMATION_DIRECTED` | Commission directed disclosure | 524 | 15 |
| `APPEAL_DISMISSED` | Appeal dismissed, PIO upheld | 380 | 69 |
| `UNKNOWN` | Requires human review | 134 | 117 |
| `PENALTY_IMPOSED` | Penalty under Section 20 | 92 | 10 |
| `PARTIAL_RELIEF` | Partial information directed | 76 | 0 |
| `COMPLAINT_S18` | Section 18 complaint disposed | 0 | 18 |
| `REMANDED` | Referred back to PIO/FAA | 11 | 5 |
| `WITHDRAWN` | Appellant withdrew | 0 | 5 |
| `ADJOURNED` | Adjourned sine die | 1 | 0 |

---

## Exemption Distribution

467 total exemption citations across both sources:

| Section | Description | Count |
|---------|-------------|-------|
| 8(1)(j) | Personal information | 158 |
| 8(1)(d) | Commercial confidence | 77 |
| 8(1)(e) | Fiduciary relationship | 76 |
| 8(1)(h) | Impeding investigation | 71 |
| 8(1)(g) | Life/safety of person | 31 |
| 8(1)(a) | Sovereignty/security | 25 |
| 8(1)(i) | Cabinet papers | 16 |
| 8(1)(c) | Parliament privilege | 6 |
| 8(1)(b) | Contempt of court | 5 |
| 8(1)(f) | Fiduciary (foreign govt) | 2 |

---

## Benchmark Tasks

RTI-Bench supports four benchmark tasks:

**Task 1 — Outcome Prediction**
Given the background narrative, predict the Commission outcome (multi-class classification). Evaluate with macro-F1. Majority baseline: 44.7% accuracy, 14.3% macro-F1.

**Task 2 — Exemption Classification**
Given narrative and decision text, identify which RTI Act exemptions were invoked (multi-label). Evaluate with micro-F1 and per-section F1.

**Task 3 — Compliance Outcome Prediction**
Given the original CIC directive and respondent's compliance submission, predict compliance outcome (SCN_DROPPED / SCN_CONTINUED / PENALTY_IMPOSED). Uses adjunct decision subset (n=17 in v1.0).

**Task 4 — Plain-Language Summarisation**
Given the full decision text, generate a citizen-accessible summary. Reference summaries available in Source A `response` field. Evaluate with ROUGE-L, BERTScore, and human faithfulness rubrics.

---

## Document Format Generations (Source B)

A notable finding is the evolution of CIC document templates:

- **Format 2023a** (n=111): `O R D E R / Facts / Decision:` headings; bilingual Hindi-English headers; party blocks on separate lines.
- **Format 2023b** (n=21): `Observations:` + `Decision:` sections; `Date of Decision` in header.
- **Format 2026** (n=166): `DECISION` all-caps block; explicit `INFORMATION COMMISSIONER: Name` label; inline party names; slash-separated dates.

---

## Data Collection and Extraction

**Source A:** Rule-based extraction from `jatinmehra/RTI-CASE-DATASET` using regex patterns for public authority, exemption sections, outcome language, penalty amounts, and final direction. Runs in ~30 seconds for 1,218 rows.

**Source B:** CIC decision PDFs collected from dsscic.nic.in (manual download with CAPTCHA). Text extracted using PyMuPDF. Format-aware rule-based extractors applied per document generation. Full pipeline runs in ~90 seconds for 298 PDFs. No LLM annotation used anywhere.

All scripts available at: [GitHub link — add after upload]

---

## Commissioners Represented (Source B)

| Commissioner | Count |
|---|---|
| Amita Pandove | 75 |
| Jaya Varma Sinha | 40 |
| Sudha Rani Relangi | 35 |
| Ashutosh Chaturvedi | 30 |
| Vanaja N. Sarna | 14 |

---

## Limitations

- 17.2% of primary cases carry `UNKNOWN` outcome labels (49% in CIC PDF subset), reflecting indirect Commission language not captured by current patterns; these require human review before use in supervised classification.
- CIC PDF corpus concentrated among 5 commissioners; may not represent the full diversity of Information Commission adjudication across India.
- Appellant name field has low coverage (<25%) due to format variation; not required for the four benchmark tasks.
- Does not include State Information Commission decisions.
- Exemption extraction relies on explicit section citations; implicit reasoning about exemptions is not captured.

---

## Ethical Considerations

All data is drawn from publicly available sources. CIC decisions are public records under Indian law. Personal names of appellants appear as part of the public record; researchers should apply appropriate de-identification for downstream applications involving sensitive matters.

Intended use: improving AI-assisted access to justice for Indian citizens. Not intended for use in discouraging legitimate RTI appeals.

---

## Citation

```bibtex
@dataset{bose2025rtibench,
  title     = {RTI-Bench: A Structured Dataset for Indian Right-to-Information Decision Analysis},
  author    = {Bose, Joy},
  year      = {2025},
  publisher = {HuggingFace},
  url       = {https://huggingface.co/datasets/joybose/rti-bench}
}
```

---

## License

CC BY 4.0. Source data from CIC portal is public domain under Indian government open data policy. Source A derived from `jatinmehra/RTI-CASE-DATASET` (original license applies to that subset).