Posted on October 16, 2005 by Subhas Chandra Pattanayak
Subhas Chandra Pattanayak
Freedom
from bureaucratic machiavellianism was the sole purpose behind enactment of the
Right to Information Act, 2005. But Orissa Government has made it a farce by
recommending only two persons to form the first Information Commission of the
State in which the corrupt bureaucracy shall see its rampart well protected.
A
committee constituted under Sub-Section 3 of Section 15 of the Act, comprising
Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik, Leader of Opposition J.B.Pattanaik and Damodar
Raut, a member of the Cabinet nominated by the Chief Minister, has recommended
the names of D.N.Padhi and Radhamohan for the post of Chief Information
Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioner (IC) respectively. Padhi is
currently working as the Union Power Secretary when Radhamohan has retired from
Orissa Education Service. When the former has spent almost entire span of his
career in Orissa administration, the later, whose recruitment was meant for
teaching economics in Colleges, has spent almost all the years of his career
not in any College, but in the State Secretariat as a scientist!
If
these two fellows did not commit any corruption during their tenure in Orissa
then it must be assumed that there is no corruption in Orissa.
But
everybody knows Orissa administration is full of corruption. And, the
bureaucrats know where and when who of them committed or commits what sort of
corruption.
Corruption
is a vicious game played by bureaucrats under the canopy of their mutual
cooperation. So there must be many people in Orissa bureaucracy, starting from
clerks to Secretaries, who must be knowing what were the corruptions committed
by Padhi and Radhamohan during their long tenure in Orissa. How these fellows
constituting the only two-member-Commission can come up against the same
persons who must know their questionable conducts, if any, in course of their
career, is a question to which no answer is known to anybody.
A
suspicion is still nagging in the minds of many that Padhi, had he not been a
senior IAS officer, could not have been free from the blemish that had soiled
his cloths in the matter of official purchases following the 1999 killer
cyclone. If somebody now invokes the Act to dig out what really had happened
and if the concerned Office refuses him access, what would be inferred?
Similarly, when some one will want to know if using his Secretariat position,
Radhamohan had provided benefits to the NGO called Sambhav with which he is
associated, what would be its impact?
Therefore, a lot of precaution
should have been taken in selecting the CIC or IC. I do not know if the
selection flew from free choice or from a guided choice. But there is reason to
apprehend that information blockers against whom the Act has stringent
provisions may bargain for leniency through blackmail, if these two persons are
appointed.
This
apprehension would never have arisen had the legislative intention behind the
Act been properly understood before the selection. Meant to grant access to the
citizens to information under the control of public authorities, in order to
promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public
authority the Act was from the beginning considered to be an instrument
against bureaucracy. Hence bureaucracy as a whole had heightened its lobby
against the Act and politicians who benefit from collaboration with bureaucracy
were opposing it. Many concerns and questions were raised during discussion on
the Bill in the Parliament.
Putting
forth the legislative intention, the Prime Minister had to call upon the civil
servants to see the Bill in a positive spirit; not as a draconian law for
paralysing Government, but as an instrument for improving Government-citizen
interface resulting in a friendly, caring and effective Government functioning for
the good of our people.
So
saying, the P.M. had further said, “I appeal all civil servants to see this
Bill in the right spirit and hope they will only be spurred towards better
performance”. The Prime Minister’s emphasis on the very words “civil Servants”
eventually proceeded to specification when he stressed that “the passage of
this Bill will see the dawn of a new era in our processes of governance, an era
of performance and efficiency, an era which will ensure that benefits of growth
flow to all sections of our people, an era which will eliminate the scourge of
corruption, an era which will bring the common man’s concern to the heart of
all processes of governance, an era which will truly fulfil the hopes of the
founding fathers of our Republic”. (Lok Sabha debates, 11 May 2005)
Hence
it is clear that the right to information given by the Act to the citizens of
India is meant for curbing corruption in bureaucracy.
It is
therefore shocking that in Orissa an incumbent bureaucrat, whose integrity in
public perception is still shrouded by nagging suspicions and a retired
economic teacher who deceived the State for many years donning the attire of a
’scientist’, have been chosen as the Chief Commissioner and Commissioner of the
State’s first Information Commission. What a mockery!
The three-member committee of
power-politicians, by selection of these
two fellows, have individually as well as collectively played a fraud upon the
people of Orissa.
Governor
Rameswar Thakur would do a wrong if he accepts this selection. Before
proceeding to accept the recommendation of the committee it would be better for
him to peruse Sub-Section 5 of Section 15 of the Act. It says: THE STATE CHIEF
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONERS 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.
So the
Committee should have selected PERSONS OF EMINENCE IN PUBLIC LIFE, which
necessarily means PERSONS OF UNQUESTIONABLE INTEGRITY WHO HAVE EARNED
RESPECTABLE PLACE IN THE LIFE OF THE PUBLIC and in whom the public have grown
and shown confidence. Such people of eminence in public life, the Act
stipulates, should have wide knowledge and experience in Law, Science &
Technology, Social service, management, Journalism, Mass media, or
Administration & governance.
But
the Committee of three politicians that made the selection did not want to make
a choice from all these segments even though Orissa has many eminent persons of
impeachable place in public life having wide knowledge and experience in all
these segments.
Misled
by officialdom it has erred in accepting official employment as ‘Administration
and governance’ and equated government service with public life.
The
Act has never equated official employment with administration and governance.
Had by ‘administration and governance’ official employment was to be meant,
then instead of these three words, the Act would have noted a single word
‘bureaucracy’. So the words ‘administration and governance’ must be construed
as Company, Banking, Industrial, University or NGO management, or can be taken
as erstwhile Ministers who are no more with any political party or outfit. But
by no stretch of imagination, these words can be accepted as employment in any
government office.
Under
these interpretations, Padhi and Radhamohan are not eligible to hold the
offices of CIC and IC respectively and hence selection and recommendation of
their names for the said posts by the Committee of three politicians is devoid
of legality.
It
would be proper therefore for the Governor of Orissa to turn down the
recommendation and to refuse to appoint them.
The
farce that is being enacted in Orissa in the name of Right to Information Act
must not be allowed to proceed.
