How India must select information
commissioners
There is a great need to introduce a transparent
process to select information commissioners, who are expected to oversee
transparency, says former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi.
Delhi Police Commissioner B S Bassi was almost certain to be made
a Central Information Commissioner since he was to retire at the end of
February. Considerable opposition from civil society has managed to stall this.
Bassi is not perturbed since he could get some other reward for the service he
rendered of not acting against the lawyers who resorted to hooliganism in the
precincts of the Patiala House court.
This again raises the issue of the method or lack of it in
appointing information commissioners and other such commissioners and Lok
Ayuktas. Most of these positions are filled without any process and hence
getting someone who performs his duty without fear or favour is not very
common. Readers may wonder how I got selected, if I am critical of the process.
This is the story:
In the first week of August 2008, Arvind Kejriwal learnt that the
government had decided on the names of four persons whom they would appoint as
Central Information Commissioners. These were Satyananda Mishra, M L Sharma,
Annapurna Dixit and R B Sreekumar.
Kejriwal discussed with me that though we had been fighting for
the appointment of good commissioners and transparency in the selection process
we were not making any headway. He therefore suggested that we propose four
names from civil society.
We got together a list of credible persons and Kejriwal arranged
to get letters sent to the prime minister, L K Advani, then the Leader of the
Opposition, and Prithvraj Chavan by some prominent civil society members
recommending these on August 17.
On August 20, Chavan, then a central minister, asked for a meeting
of the selection committee to be called on August 21 at 6 pm. The previous
night, the four names were shown to L K Advani.
Advani strongly objected to Sreekumar's name since he had been a
senior police officer in Gujarat at the time of the Godhra riots and had openly
criticised Narendra Modi.
He said he would oppose Sreekumar's selection and casually said,
'Why not one of the names suggested by civil society in their letter?' The selection
committee meeting was not held on August 21.
I did not know Chavan nor did he know me. Whether he made any
checks about the other three members of our panel I do not know. As for me, he
called up a business person in Mumbai and asked him what kind of person I was.
This person had never met me, but based on what he had read in the
newspapers he said I would be a good choice. After this Chavan called me and
asked if I would accept if I was selected as a Central Information
Commissioner, and I said yes.
On August 27, a meeting was called and my name was put in R B
Sreekumar's place.
Though there was no political patronage involved, there was no
logical process and my selection was a random occurrence. There is a great need
to introduce a transparent process to select the 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 Right
to Information 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 RTI Act implementation. The Central Information Commissioners
are selected as per the law by a committee consisting of the prime minister,
the Leader of the Opposition and one minister. This committee has no time to
understand and evaluate the applicants. Hence, the recommendations and
shortlisting is generally done based on political and bureaucratic patronage.
The
process I am suggesting is as follows:
1. The
information commissions should set a target for disposal of cases -- over 5,000
per commissioner per year. Presently the annual disposal varies from 1,000 to
6,000, with most commissioners disposing around 2,000 to 3,000.
2. Every six
months they should review the actual performance per commissioner and forecast
the expected receipts and disposals for the next two years. This information
should be displayed on their Web sites. This forecast would show the
requirements for new commissioners to be appointed by taking into account the
expected retirements.
3. The
government should advertise its intention to appoint a certain number of
information commissioners depending on the need, six months in advance. A
detailed list of eligibility criteria should be made available giving essential
and desirable qualifications. Eminent people could apply or be nominated by
others.
4. 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 shortlisting was done.
5. 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 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 the
PM, LoP and one minister. (A similar process could be adopted for state
commissions with MLAs instead of MPs and a high court judge instead of Supreme
Court judge).
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 22,351
cases, whereas in 2014 seven commissioners disposed only 16,006 cases.
The Maharashtra commission has set a target of 4,800 cases per
year for each commissioner. Accountability must be the hallmark of the
transparency commission's working.
Commissions must publish data on the performance of each
commissioner monthly. At least half the information commissioners should be
less than 60 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 analyse 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 criticised and this does
not give a picture of the overall trend of a commissioner's decisions.
If we can get a transparent process to select commissioners and
put continuous pressure on them for accountability, we will get much better
results from our cherished RTI Act.
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.
We must ensure a proper process for their selection and vigilantly
monitor their performance if we desire a better India.
No comments:
Post a Comment