Huffington
Post India: New Delhi: Wednesday, 14 October 2015.
There is
considerable discontent amongst RTI users towards the Information Commissions
and commissioners for not delivering the fruits of the RTI Act. We have a law
which directly empowers individual citizens and they are understandably
concerned about its proper implementation.
The political
team mandated by the law for the appointment of information commissioners --
the Prime Minister/Chief Minister, Leader of Opposition and one minister --
cannot do this job by itself. For one, they lack the time for such an exercise and,
two, are using the appointment of Information Commissioners as one more avenue
for dispensing patronage. The political and bureaucratic establishments have
been doling out favours in this manner for years in appointments for various
commissions, lokayuktas, police complaints authorities et al and are unable to
understand this outcry and anger of citizens against appointments 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 the post. Many
information commissioners have no understanding or interest in transparency, or
in the RTI Act. This is an affliction which is true for many people in power. A
transparent process for selection would lead to a better environment for the
implementation of the RTI Act.
The process
I am suggesting is as follows:
1.
A detailed list of eligibility should be made available
giving essential and desirable qualifications.
2.
The information Commissions should set a target for
disposals - more than 5000 per commissioner per year. An attempt should be made
to increase this target number. A detailed list of eligibility should be made
available giving essential and desirable qualifications.
3.
Every six months, the actual performance of each
commissioner must be reviewed. A forecast should be prepared for the expected
receipts and disposals for the next two years, also factoring in 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.
4.
The government should advertise its intention to appoint
a certain number of information commissioners, depending on the need, six
months in advance. Eminent people could apply or be nominated by others.
5.
A search committee, perhaps consisting of two Members of
Parliament, 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
short-listing was done, and the evaluation.
6.
An interview should be held by the search committee in
public view, to give citizens and the media the opportunity to hear the views
and commitment to work of the candidates. Citizens could give their feedback 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 the PM, Leader of Opposition and
one minister. (A similar process could be adopted for state Information
Commissions with MLAs instead of MPs and a High Court judge instead of one from
the Supreme Court.)
Presently,
most commissioners have no passion for their work which leads to their output
and quality being seriously affected. During 2011, six central information
commissioners disposed 22351 cases, whereas in 2014 seven commissioners of the
same commission disposed an underwhelming16006 cases. The Maharashtra
Commission has set a target of 4800 cases per year for each commissioner. The
Commission's proceedings should be recorded and made available to the
participants.
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. At least half the information commissioners should be
less than 60 years old.
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 analyse all the
decisions of each information commissioner each month in a transparent manner.
This would build pressure on those who may be giving errant decisions.
Presently, individual decisions are randomly criticised and this does not give
a picture of the overall trend of a commissioner's decisions.
If we can set
in place 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 other commissions as well human rights,
women's, lokayuktas and so on. After all, these are designed as our checks and
balances of democracy. Presently, most of them are not delivering their
expected functions effectively. We must ensure a proper process for their
selection and vigilantly monitor their performance.
.JPG)
.JPG)
