I n the aftermath of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed at the Supreme Court by Anjali Bharadwaj, Anjali Johri and Retd. Commodore Lokesh Batra, the Government of India seemingly fast-tracked the appointment of four new information commissioners as well as the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC), Sudhir Bhargava.
On Monday, RTI activists filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court alleging that former Law Secretary Suresh Chandra was appointed as a member of the Central Information Commission without applying for it which was “in complete violation of the prescribed process”.
Some proactive disclosures by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) regarding the recent appointments to the Central Information Commission have brought to light several irregularities with the process.
However, an examination of the proactive disclosures made by DoPT show that the government was in direct violation of the Supreme Court’s Orders in Namit Sharma v. Union of India (2014).
“The judgment states that “persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience” from varied fields such as law, science and technology, social service and journalism should be considered by the Selection Committee for appointment to the Commission.”
According to Section 12(3) of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, the Search Committee is to consist of the Prime Minister, a nominated cabinet minister (currently the finance minister), and the leader of the single largest party in Opposition in the Lok Sabha, while the Selection Committee is led by the cabinet secretary, four government officials and an independent member. However, both have apparently overlooked the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.
Also read: RTI activists oppose the Amendment Bill; Demand Transparency
An analysis of the documents released by the DoPT, carried out by Venkatesh Nayak of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), Delhi, has shown the scale and extent of these irregularities in appointment.
Preference to Retired Bureaucrats
The documents have shown that the process of appointment of the CIC began on October 12, 2018, and 64 applications were received for the post, and three were recommended by the Search Committee. The six-member Search Committee finally shortlisted four applicants for consideration to the post of the CIC by the Selection Committee, even as only four members of the committee attended the meetings for the same.
All four of these applicants were retired IAS officers, including the newly appointed CIC. In fact, no candidate with the specialisations highlighted by the RTI Act, and subsequently the Supreme Court in Namit Sharma v. Union of India were shortlisted for the posts. Several members of civil society who had applied for the post were entirely ignored.
Even more shockingly, three of the four people shortlisted had not even applied for the post of the CIC. Two of the currently serving information commissioners, who had applied for the job were also not considered, despite their experience.
“The meeting for the finalisation of the appointment took place on December 11, 2018, and this was done before appointing any of the four vacant posts for information commissioners.”
The Supreme Court’s criterion of people with ‘eminence in public life’ thus seems to have been entirely ignored, as per Nayak’s analysis of the minutes of the meetings revealed. This portrays a serious oversight on part of the government, and a preference towards retired bureaucrats.
Appointments of Information Commissioners – Civil Society applicants ignored?
The Search Committee met September 28, 2018 and then again on the November, 24 2018 for finalising appointments of the information commissioners. However, it again shortlisted 13 serving and retired bureaucrats, as well as a retired judge of the Allahabad High Court. Of the four final appointees, one had not even applied for any of the posts.
Also read: Gulf Deaths: Parliament responds with MADAD portal, RTI Activist urges for detailed study
A total of 282 applications were received for the posts of the information commissioner – however, no one in the final shortlist was from civil society. “The bio data and the process for selection and rejection of candidate is entirely shrouded in secrecy, thus raising doubts over the efficiency and transparency of the process of appointments to the Information Commissioner as per the RTI Activists.
The DoPT will thus have to face the uncomfortable questions of why no civil society candidate was found eligible over the bureaucrats, and what criteria is used for rejection of candidature.
Nayak told Delhi Post, “The documents disclosed indicate that the PIL suit filed acted as a major push factor in moving the wheels within Government to make these appointments.”
It is widely believed that several more vacancies have since been notified with the CIC, and it is unlikely that appointments will take place until after the General Elections in 2019.
“It is hoped that greater transparency and accountability is achieved in this regard to ensure impartial appointments to the Commission,” said Nayak.
