Update README
Browse files
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).
|