Moneylife:
Pune: Friday, 26 June 2015.
Information
commissioners DB Deshpande and MB Shah are under a cloud now. Will the
Maharashtra government now frame proper rules for selection of ICs, as ordered
by the state’s Administrative Tribunal?
That DB
Deshpande had to be asked to resign by Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis is a
shame not only to this information commissioner (IC) but also to the state
government, which turned a Nelson’s Eye to Deshpande’s (and MB Shah’s)
credibility as officers, a mandatory clause for selection of an information
commissioner.
It is only
when the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) filed a first information report (FIR)
against former PWD minister Chhagan Bhujbal for financial irregularities in
construction of Delhi’s Maharashtra Sadan that Deshpande’s name also emerged.
ACB raids at Deshpande’s house proved he had amassed disproportionate wealth
manifested through land, real estate property, gold, shares, fixed deposits and
so on. Raids conducted in former IC MB Shah’s residence also proved that he had
illegal assets.
This had
triggered off anger amongst Right to Information (RTI) activists who have time
and again questioned the opaqueness of selection of Central Information
Commissioners (CICs) and ICs under the Act. Pune-based RTI activist Vijay
Kumbhar was the first one to send a letter to the Maharashtra Governor,
demanding Deshpande’s resignation. On 19th June, CM Fadnavis approved
suspension of Deshpande. On 24th June, Deshpande submitted his resignation.
The point is
that the selection of an information commissioner is sacrosanct and the RTI Act
has stringent rules for the same. Besides, it is compulsory for the selection
committee to thoroughly scrutinize credentials of the candidate, which include
clear report from agencies like Intelligence Bureau (IB) and Vigilance. Not
only, did the Maharashtra government not follow this crucial norm or ignored it
deliberately, it has also not responded to the Maharashtra Administrative
Tribunal (MAT). The MAT while passing strictures on process of appointing
information commissioners, had asked the state government to frame rules for
selection of State Chief Information Commissioner SCICs and CIC, the deadline
for which is end June.
In fact, the
appointments of Deshpande and Shah are murky and reveal how little the state
government cares for transparency. MAT’s hard-hitting order was a sequel to the
complaint filed by Ahmednagar resident John Kharat who had also applied for
post of information commissioner. He had challenged the selection of the SCIC
as well as Information Commissioners PW Patil (Nagpur), DB Deshpande
(Aurangabad) and MS Shah (Nashik) in 2010.
The MAT order
dated 16 April 2015 had directed the chief secretary of Maharashtra to frame
Rules for the selection of the post of State Chief Information Commissioner and
Information Commissioners within eight weeks of the order, the deadline of
which was 15th June. Besides, it has made some strong observations of the
prejudiced and casual manner in which the High Powered Committee that is
responsible for selecting information commissioners, functions.
Following are
the Tribunal’s observations:
•
We are of the view that while scouting for the said
posts, the High Powered Committee will have to make sure that the area of
resources is sufficiently large so as to attract and ensure the appointment of
the best talent for these important posts
•
We find that 72 applicants were considered or so the
respondents claim they were. PW Patil was a retired Joint Registrar of
Cooperative Societies. MS Shah was a retired secretary in PWD having retired on
30 April, 2009. DB Deshpande was also a senior most officer in PWD. He has also
retired… However, we must note that the kind of wider source from the fields of
law, science and technology etc. were apparently not taken into account with
the kind of seriousness that they should have been
•
Citing the recommendations of the Supreme Court in the
Namit Sharma case, the Tribunal observed, “…in so far as the present facts are
concerned, there is no material to show as to what the state of affairs was
with regard to the 68 candidates other than the 4 selected…it seems on the
basis of record such as it is that the High Powered Committee did not frame any
rules as such for the purposes of making appointments in the said posts…”
Following is
the order by MAT
•
There is an urgent need to make rules consistent with the
provisions of Right To Information Act, 2005 especially Section 15 thereof for
selections to the posts of Chief Information Commissioner and Information
Commissioners. It will be desirable to have the rules in place much before the
next selection is taken up for consideration by the High Powered Committee
under the Information act. The directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Namit
Sharma’s case (reviews judgment) be carefully perused and implemented.
•
It will be within the discretion of the Committee to fix
the eligibility criteria for the said posts. But there again, the provisions of
the Information Act may be strictly followed and it be ensured that the
legislative mandate to have eminent persons from all the various disciplines
like Law, Science and Technology etc should be given full scope to complete
• The criteria should be duly publicised well in advance
before the selection process begins. Sufficiency and mode of publicity of the
said criteria will be within the discretion of the Committee
• The selection process must be transparent and definitive
without any scope for apprehension of partiality, favouritism and such other
vices. There must be a definitive time frame from the commencement of the said
process till its conclusion without submission of the recommendations to His
Excellency, the Governor
• The Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra is
requested to bring this judgment of the notice of the Hon’ble Chairman and
Hon’ble members of the Committee for information and action. …the Chief
Secretary of the Government of Maharashtra may report compliance herewith
within eight weeks from today (16 April 2015).
.JPG)
.JPG)
