| --- |
| 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). |
| |