Moneylife: Pune: Saturday,
April 20, 2013.
Individual
decisions are randomly criticized and this does not give a picture of the
overall trend of a Commissioner’s decisions. If we have a transparent process
for selecting Commissioners and put continuous pressure on them for
accountability, we will get much better results from our cherished Right to
Information
There is
considerable discontent amongst RTI users against the Information Commissions
and Commissioners for not delivering the fruits of the RTI (Right to
Information) Act. We have a law which directly empowers individual citizens and
they are understandably concerned about getting its proper implementation. The
political team mandated by the law PM/CM, leader of the opposition and one
minister is not performing its function with diligence and is using the
appointment of Information Commissioners as one more avenue for dispensing
patronage. Perhaps they also lack the time required for such an exercise.
The political
and bureaucratic establishment have been doing this for years in appointments
for various commissions and many other positions of high ranks and is unable to
understand this sudden outcry and anger of citizens against appointments of
Information Commissioners.
Some
activists have gone to courts and the Supreme Court’s order in the Namit Sharma
case may institutionalize the Information Commissions as senior citizen’s
clubs. It mandated that the Information Commissions must decide in benches of
two, one of whom shall be a retired judge. This decision will have a huge
negative impact on the Information Commissions, and lead to a further decline
in their performance.
Presently,
the order has been stayed. One positive outcome of this decision is its lament
about the lack of a fair and transparent process for selection of Information
Commissioners. There is a great need to introduce a transparent process for
selecting Information Commissioners, who are expected to oversee transparency.
There should
be an insistence on public exposure for those who are interested in becoming
Information Commissioners. Many Information Commissioners have no understanding
or interest in transparency, or the RTI Act. This is an affliction which is
true for many people in power. I agree with the Supreme Court’s suggestion for
a transparent process of selection made in the Namit Sharma case and hope that
citizens would lend their voice for such a process. This would lead to a better
environment for the RTI Act implementation.
The
process I am suggesting is as follows:
A.
The
Information Commissions should set a target for disposals: I suggest 5000 per
Commissioner per year. An attempt should be made to increase this target number
(around 85% of the matters do not require any legal interpretations as per a
study of four months of CIC decisions).
B.
Every
six months they should review their actual performance per Commissioner and
forecast the expected receipts and disposals for the next two years, factoring
the retirements. This information should be displayed on their websites. This
forecast would show the requirements for new commissioners to be appointed by
taking into account the expected retirements.
C.
The
government should advertise its intention to appoint a certain number of
Information Commissioners depending on the need, four months in advance.
Eminent people could apply or be nominated by others.
D.
A
search committee perhaps consisting of two members of Parliament, Chief
Information Commissioner, one vice-chancellor, one Supreme Court judge and two
RTI activists, could be formed to shortlist a panel which could be three times
the number of Commissioners to be selected. These could be announced with the
minutes of the meeting at which the shortlisting was done.
E.
An
interview should be held by the search committee in public view to give
citizens and media the opportunity to hear the views and commitment to work of
the candidates. Citizens could give their feedback and views to the search
committee. After this the search committee could give its recommendation for
two times the number of Commissioners to be appointed. Based on these inputs,
the final decision to select the Commissioners could be taken by the committee
as per the Act consisting of PM, LOP and one minister. (A similar process could
be adopted for State Commissions with MLAs instead of MPs and high court judge
instead of Supreme Court judge).
Citizens will
benefit if they could get the Commissions to publish data on the performance of
each Commissioner monthly, and also build public opinion to lower the average
age of the Commissioners. Atleast half the Information Commissioners should be
less than sixty years. There are many RTI activists who have gained
considerable understanding of the nuances of the law, and have a natural
empathy for transparency. Some of these should be appointed as Information
Commissioners. Another useful function which civil society groups could perform
is to analyze all the decisions of each Information Commissioner each month
continuously in a transparent manner. This would build pressure on those who
may be giving errant decisions.
Presently,
individual decisions are randomly criticized and this does not give a picture
of the overall trend of a Commissioner’s decisions. If we can get a transparent
process for selecting Commissioners and put continuous pressure on them for
accountability, we will get much better results from our cherished Right to
Information. If this works well, it could be used as a model for selecting
commissioners for various commissions. The commissions are designed as our
checks and balances of democracy. Presently, most of them are not delivering
their expected functions effectively.
(Shailesh
Gandhi is a former Central Information Commissioner,)
.JPG)
.JPG)
