joyboseroy commited on
Commit
75c49e5
·
verified ·
1 Parent(s): 1ee623e

Update README

Browse files
Files changed (1) hide show
  1. README.md +200 -0
README.md CHANGED
@@ -1,3 +1,203 @@
1
  ---
2
  license: cc-by-4.0
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3
  ---
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
  ---
2
  license: cc-by-4.0
3
+ language:
4
+ - en
5
+ tags:
6
+ - legal
7
+ - india
8
+ - rti
9
+ - right-to-information
10
+ - administrative-law
11
+ - nlp
12
+ - classification
13
+ - dataset
14
+ - civic-ai
15
+ pretty_name: RTI-Bench
16
+ size_categories:
17
+ - 1K<n<10K
18
+ task_categories:
19
+ - text-classification
20
+ - summarization
21
+ - question-answering
22
  ---
23
+
24
+ # RTI-Bench: A Structured Dataset for Indian RTI Decision Analysis
25
+
26
+ ## Dataset Description
27
+
28
+ 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.
29
+
30
+ **Total cases: 1,516** across two sources:
31
+ - **1,218** annotated instruction-response pairs (Source A)
32
+ - **298** structured CIC PDF decisions spanning 5 commissioners and 3 document format generations, 2023–2026 (Source B)
33
+
34
+ **Overall label coverage: 82.8%** of 1,457 primary cases, extracted using a fully reproducible rule-based pipeline — no LLM annotation.
35
+
36
+ ---
37
+
38
+ ## Dataset Structure
39
+
40
+ ### Source A — Instruction-Response Corpus (`hf_annotated`)
41
+
42
+ Derived from `jatinmehra/RTI-CASE-DATASET` with structured fields added via rule-based extraction.
43
+
44
+ | Field | Type | Description |
45
+ |-------|------|-------------|
46
+ | `hf_id` | int | Original row index |
47
+ | `title` | string | RTI case subject line |
48
+ | `instruction` | string | Background: information sought, PIO response, hearing |
49
+ | `response` | string | Commission's final direction |
50
+ | `public_authority` | string | Government department/body |
51
+ | `information_sought` | string | What the RTI requested (1 sentence) |
52
+ | `exemptions_cited` | list[string] | RTI Act sections invoked e.g. `["8(1)(j)"]` |
53
+ | `outcome` | string | See outcome labels below |
54
+ | `penalty_inr` | float | Penalty amount if imposed |
55
+ | `compensation_inr` | float | Compensation awarded if any |
56
+ | `final_direction` | string | Last directive sentence from Commission |
57
+
58
+ ### Source B — CIC PDF Corpus (`cic_annotated`)
59
+
60
+ Extracted from 298 CIC decision PDFs collected from dsscic.nic.in.
61
+
62
+ | Field | Type | Description |
63
+ |-------|------|-------------|
64
+ | `filename` | string | Original PDF filename |
65
+ | `doc_subtype` | string | PRIMARY_DECISION / ADJUNCT_COMPLIANCE / FULL_BENCH |
66
+ | `doc_format` | string | 2023a / 2023b / 2026 |
67
+ | `case_no` | string | CIC case number e.g. `CIC/CSWRI/A/2021/136051` |
68
+ | `commissioner` | string | Information Commissioner name |
69
+ | `public_authority` | string | Respondent department |
70
+ | `issue` | string | Information sought (IRAC Issue component) |
71
+ | `application` | string | Submissions during hearing (IRAC Application) |
72
+ | `rules_cited` | list[string] | RTI Act sections referenced |
73
+ | `conclusion` | string | Commission's decision text (IRAC Conclusion) |
74
+ | `outcome` | string | See outcome labels below |
75
+ | `exemptions_cited` | list[string] | Section 8(1)(x) exemptions invoked |
76
+ | `rti_filed_on` | string | Date RTI application filed |
77
+ | `cpio_replied_on` | string | Date CPIO replied |
78
+ | `first_appeal_on` | string | Date first appeal filed |
79
+ | `date_of_hearing` | string | Date of CIC hearing |
80
+ | `adjunct_outcome` | string | For ADJUNCT_COMPLIANCE: SCN_DROPPED / PENALTY_IMPOSED etc. |
81
+
82
+ ---
83
+
84
+ ## Outcome Labels
85
+
86
+ | Label | Description | Count (A) | Count (B) |
87
+ |-------|-------------|-----------|-----------|
88
+ | `INFORMATION_DIRECTED` | Commission directed disclosure | 524 | 15 |
89
+ | `APPEAL_DISMISSED` | Appeal dismissed, PIO upheld | 380 | 69 |
90
+ | `UNKNOWN` | Requires human review | 134 | 117 |
91
+ | `PENALTY_IMPOSED` | Penalty under Section 20 | 92 | 10 |
92
+ | `PARTIAL_RELIEF` | Partial information directed | 76 | 0 |
93
+ | `COMPLAINT_S18` | Section 18 complaint disposed | 0 | 18 |
94
+ | `REMANDED` | Referred back to PIO/FAA | 11 | 5 |
95
+ | `WITHDRAWN` | Appellant withdrew | 0 | 5 |
96
+ | `ADJOURNED` | Adjourned sine die | 1 | 0 |
97
+
98
+ ---
99
+
100
+ ## Exemption Distribution
101
+
102
+ 467 total exemption citations across both sources:
103
+
104
+ | Section | Description | Count |
105
+ |---------|-------------|-------|
106
+ | 8(1)(j) | Personal information | 158 |
107
+ | 8(1)(d) | Commercial confidence | 77 |
108
+ | 8(1)(e) | Fiduciary relationship | 76 |
109
+ | 8(1)(h) | Impeding investigation | 71 |
110
+ | 8(1)(g) | Life/safety of person | 31 |
111
+ | 8(1)(a) | Sovereignty/security | 25 |
112
+ | 8(1)(i) | Cabinet papers | 16 |
113
+ | 8(1)(c) | Parliament privilege | 6 |
114
+ | 8(1)(b) | Contempt of court | 5 |
115
+ | 8(1)(f) | Fiduciary (foreign govt) | 2 |
116
+
117
+ ---
118
+
119
+ ## Benchmark Tasks
120
+
121
+ RTI-Bench supports four benchmark tasks:
122
+
123
+ **Task 1 — Outcome Prediction**
124
+ Given the background narrative, predict the Commission outcome (multi-class classification). Evaluate with macro-F1. Majority baseline: 44.7% accuracy, 14.3% macro-F1.
125
+
126
+ **Task 2 — Exemption Classification**
127
+ Given narrative and decision text, identify which RTI Act exemptions were invoked (multi-label). Evaluate with micro-F1 and per-section F1.
128
+
129
+ **Task 3 — Compliance Outcome Prediction**
130
+ 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).
131
+
132
+ **Task 4 — Plain-Language Summarisation**
133
+ 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.
134
+
135
+ ---
136
+
137
+ ## Document Format Generations (Source B)
138
+
139
+ A notable finding is the evolution of CIC document templates:
140
+
141
+ - **Format 2023a** (n=111): `O R D E R / Facts / Decision:` headings; bilingual Hindi-English headers; party blocks on separate lines.
142
+ - **Format 2023b** (n=21): `Observations:` + `Decision:` sections; `Date of Decision` in header.
143
+ - **Format 2026** (n=166): `DECISION` all-caps block; explicit `INFORMATION COMMISSIONER: Name` label; inline party names; slash-separated dates.
144
+
145
+ ---
146
+
147
+ ## Data Collection and Extraction
148
+
149
+ **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.
150
+
151
+ **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.
152
+
153
+ All scripts available at: [GitHub link — add after upload]
154
+
155
+ ---
156
+
157
+ ## Commissioners Represented (Source B)
158
+
159
+ | Commissioner | Count |
160
+ |---|---|
161
+ | Amita Pandove | 75 |
162
+ | Jaya Varma Sinha | 40 |
163
+ | Sudha Rani Relangi | 35 |
164
+ | Ashutosh Chaturvedi | 30 |
165
+ | Vanaja N. Sarna | 14 |
166
+
167
+ ---
168
+
169
+ ## Limitations
170
+
171
+ - 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.
172
+ - CIC PDF corpus concentrated among 5 commissioners; may not represent the full diversity of Information Commission adjudication across India.
173
+ - Appellant name field has low coverage (<25%) due to format variation; not required for the four benchmark tasks.
174
+ - Does not include State Information Commission decisions.
175
+ - Exemption extraction relies on explicit section citations; implicit reasoning about exemptions is not captured.
176
+
177
+ ---
178
+
179
+ ## Ethical Considerations
180
+
181
+ 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.
182
+
183
+ Intended use: improving AI-assisted access to justice for Indian citizens. Not intended for use in discouraging legitimate RTI appeals.
184
+
185
+ ---
186
+
187
+ ## Citation
188
+
189
+ ```bibtex
190
+ @dataset{bose2025rtibench,
191
+ title = {RTI-Bench: A Structured Dataset for Indian Right-to-Information Decision Analysis},
192
+ author = {Bose, Joy},
193
+ year = {2025},
194
+ publisher = {HuggingFace},
195
+ url = {https://huggingface.co/datasets/joybose/rti-bench}
196
+ }
197
+ ```
198
+
199
+ ---
200
+
201
+ ## License
202
+
203
+ 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).