Moneylife: Pune: Friday,
June 14, 2013.
The union
government has issued an advertisement, calling applications from the civil
society to fill up the posts of central information commissioners. How genuine
will be the exercise this time on the backdrop of BJP leader Sushma Swaraj
having pulled the rug on transparency last time?
The
intention is good but what will be the outcome?
Recently, the
Department of Posts & Telegraph (DoPT) published advertisements seeking
applications for the posts of central information commissioners. The
advertisement stated, as required by the RTI Act that: “…the Information
Commissioners (ICs) shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide
knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service,
management, journalism, mass-media or administration and governance.’’
While it is a
good move towards transparency (the last time a similar appeal had been made in
2011), the advertisement has appeared only in a prominent English newspaper.
Perhaps, inserting them in several well-circulated regional newspapers would
have brought out a wider choice. Nevertheless, here’s urging those who are
eligible to please apply for the posts, so that the domination of babus would
be overpowered by strong civil society leaders – examples having been set by
former CICs, social activist Shailesh Gandhi and eminent journalist Vijay
Kuvalekar.
This step by
the DoPT comes after the furore over the Supreme Court judgment in the Namit
Sharma case, which has ordered that the information commissioner’s office
should comprise a two-member bench, with one of them having judicial
background. What followed was a complete stagnation in the functioning of
information commissions, as they awaited implementation of one more IC from
judicial background.
However, in
the review petition on 16 April 2013, it was made clear that, “… subject to
orders that may be finally passed after hearing the Review Petitions, the
competent authority will continue to fill up the vacant posts of Information
Commissioners in accordance with the Act and in accordance with the judgment in
W.P.(C) No. 210 of 2012 except sub-paras 108.8 and 108.9 which we have stayed.
This is to ensure that functioning of the Information Commissioners in
accordance with the Act and the Judgment is not affected during the pendency of
the Review Petitions…We further make it clear that the Chief Commissioners
already functioning will continue to function until the disposal of the Review
Petitions.’’
The move has
been welcomed by RTI activist Krishnaraj Rao who says, “It is a great victory
and opportunity for civil society; we must take full advantage of it! I urge
all serious-minded and knowledgeable activists apply in large numbers. Kindly
motivate all suitable candidates to apply, to ensure that favourite government
officials are not their only choice.’’
For those
interested, 28th June is the last date and here are the relevant details:
“Persons fulfilling the criteria for appointment as Information Commissioner
and interested for appointment to the post, may send their particulars in the
enclosed pro-forma by post to Under Secretary (RTI), Department of Personnel
and Training, North Block, New Delhi or through e-mail to usrti-dopt@nic.in by
June 28th, 2013.”
The rider
though is that, “It may be noted that these appointments would be subject to
the outcome of Review Petition (C) no. 2309 of 2012 pending before the Supreme
Court.’’
RTI activist
Commodore Lokesh Batra (retd), has campaigned for transparency rigorously in
appointment of Information Commissioners through persistently filing RTI
applications with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). As a result, the PMO
directed that IC posts be advertised and a select committee be set up to scrutinise
and shortlist candidates. However, Batra
is cynical this time round, when he says
that, “I hope it is not a sham/ eyewash like last time where Leader of
Opposition (Sushma Swaraj from BJP) insisted on her candidates at the cost of
civil society candidates shortlisted for selection’’.
In 2012,
journalists, Sona Jha and Dr Anuradha Verma along with social activist
Venkatesh Nayak, were three of the nine candidates selected out of the 214
applications that came in from citizens. A committee headed by Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh had shortlisted two bureaucrats, Rajiv Mathur and Vijai Sharma
besides Sushma Swaraj had recommended Basant Seth as information commissioners.
A RTI reply
to Batra revealed that Swaraj also recommended another IAS officer, Raghu Menon
who was not in the nine shortlisted candidates, thus making a mockery of the
names that were shortlisted by a screening committee headed by Cabinet
Secretary Ajit Seth. Thus, all the three civil society members were unfairly
rejected. Says Batra. “So, at the end of it, the selection committee’s efforts
became null and void as Swaraj bullied herself through.’’
Now, this
time round will there be some other attempt of `favouritism’ or will the
`selected’ civil society candidates will have to be sacrificed after the SC
judgment which is pending orders that one of the two bench comes from the
judicial background?
Besides, what
are the parameters by which the select committee shortlists the applicants? In
absence of a written criterion, the level of transparency is not as
satisfactory. Well-known RTI activist, Vijay Kumbhar adds that, “the scrutiny
committee should be stringent and should make their selection more transparent
by allocating marks for the knowledge of RTI and calibre of the candidate. We
have been observing that most information commissioners study RTI only after
they are posted as information commissioners, or worse, do not care to do so.
This has largely destroyed the quality of orders by information commissioners,
across the country.’’
Quite
clearly, only a superficial attempt at transparency is not enough. It has to be
clear of political intervention and vested interest.
.JPG)
.JPG)
