New Delhi: At a time when the Supreme Court is seized with the matter of appointing the chairperson and members of Lokpal, information commissioners and the CBI director, Right to Information activists and lawyers have proposed a series of steps to make the processes more transparent.
Pointing out that “the purpose of having independent and empowered agencies is undermined if the government influences the appointment process,” they said screening or selection committees should function in a timely and fair manner.
At a discussion organised by Satark Nagrik Sangathan and National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, the activists proposed that the selection process for routine vacancies should begin at least six months before their occurrence.
Also Read: RTI Activists Protest Attempts to Dilute Law, Criticise BJP For ‘Weakening’ Institutions
They also wanted the procedure for making appointments to be publicly disclosed and the eligibility criteria should be spelled out. The procedure of shortlisting candidates should also be disclosed and conducted on the basis of a rational criteria, as directed by the Supreme Court in the case of the Central Vigilance Commissioner, the activists said.
The composition, mandate and decisions of the screening or search committee should be revealed and the names of short-listed candidates be disclosed so that objections – if any – can be filed. An “appropriate mechanism” should be put in place to look into such objections.
‘All decisions be put in public domain’
During the discussion, it was proposed that records of deliberations and criteria should be maintained so that citizens can access them in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Finally, the reasons for selecting a particular candidate over others should also be disclosed, the activists said.
During the discussion RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj of NCPRI said governments try not to make appointments. Even if they do, it is often in an opaque manner. “As there is no perfect formula for making appointments, public scrutiny is the best safeguard,” she said.
Referring to the tendency of governments to hide information, she said that in one instance, the Centre refused to respond to an RTI query on the appointment process of the Lokpal citing a non-existent secrecy clause.
Nominations should also be allowed
Former chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said appointments should not always be on the basis of application and nominations should be welcomed too.
The best people must be chosen as information commissioners, he said. As a career bureaucrat, Habibullah said before demitting office, he recommended that while the first CIC should be from the bureaucracy, people from other walks should also be appointed after him.
That all the three serving CICs were retired bureaucrats, he said, is a “failure” of the system. As a remedy, Habibullah demanded that the screening process should be transparent right from the initial stages. The decision on the selections should be debated in the public domain.
The Supreme Court is monitoring the process of appointing members to the Lokpal. Credit: PTI/Ravi Choudhary
‘Commissions, tribunals have failed in delivering quick decisions’
Former central information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said tribunals and commissions were constituted to reduce the time in dispensing justice or information. However, he said, they have large failed in this objective.
Gandhi a CIC is mandated to clear at least 3,200 cases per year, but very few actually do. He said ten commissioners in Punjab cleared just 6,000 cases between them during a full year.
One of the most pro-active CICs of his time, Gandhi said the criteria for appointment of commissioners should be spelled out clearly. Calling “eminent persons” to be appointed is not enough as it the term is vague. Most appointments, he said, continue to be made on the basis of political patronage or bureaucratic networking.
Also Read: In RTI Replies, Evidence of How Modi Dragged His Feet on Lokpal Appointment
He also pointed out that some former intelligence officers, including an Intelligence Bureau head, have served as CICs. This is detrimental to the commission’s functioning. A journalist who spoke at the meet demanded that certain officials, like those from agencies exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, should not be allowed to vie for a post on the panel.
‘Panels need to curb arbitrariness, cryptic orders’
Another RTI activist, Shekhar Singh, said that commissioners tend to break the law when it is convenient. He said during the drafting of the RTI Act, efforts to make the commission’s functioning arbitrary were thwarted. The information commissioners should not be allowed to give cryptic orders, he said.
While advocating the need for a detailed set of criteria for appointment of information commissioners, Singh also stressed the need to follow up and verify appointments or orders.
He there no longer is any transparency in selecting candidates for information commissioners.
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan spoke about the proceedings in the Supreme Court on the appointment of the Lokpal. He also guided the discussion in drafting a final set of recommendations for ensuring transparency in appointments.