The controversy over the ongoing
selection and imminent announcement of five Central Information
Commissioners raises issues that extend beyond their calibre,
qualifications and selection. Right to Information (RTI) activists
wrote to the Prime Minister and the UPA Chairperson demanding their
voice be heard. Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha L.K. Advani
refused to go to the selection committee meeting on the ground that he
was not properly consulted in advance. This controversy mirrors similar
debates in various States at the time of selection of State Information
Commissioners. The selection committee meeting has been postponed.
While the government decides on another date, and perhaps another
panel, the debate on the selection and appointment has got livelier and
richer.
For some time, we have been collectively grappling with the challenge
of ensuring that these autonomous bodies and their functionaries meet
the high standards and expectations of commitment, ethics, fearlessness
and autonomy. These challenges exist for the selection and appointment
of important functionaries such as the Comptroller and Auditor-General,
the Election Commissioners, the Human Rights Commissioners, the Women’s
Commissioners, the SC/ST Commissioners, the Chief Vigilance
Commissioner and judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court.
The debate on the Information Commissioners illustrates the main issue:
should the focus be on the individuals on the panel, their
qualification, or the process of selection? Who decides? Does one
define the other?
When the RTI Act was being drafted, the need for a powerful and
independent Information Commission was acknowledged as a key component
of strong and effective legislation. The Act created the post of up to
10 Commissioners at the State and Central levels with the State
Commissioners equal in seniority to the Chief Secretary, and the Chief
Information Commissioner senior to the highest official in the State. A
Commissioner can be removed only by the Governor or the President after
making a reference to the Supreme Court and getting an enquiry report
from it. . When you create a powerful and independent post, how do you
choose the person? What should his or her qualification be? Who would
be involved in the selection process? How open and transparent is it?
The RTI Act states the 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.” It makes ineligible anyone
who has connections with a political party or holds an office of profit
or carries on a business. It sets up an Appointment Committee
consisting of the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister, the Leader of
the Opposition, and a Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister
or the Chief Minister.
At first glance, this seems a fairly good set of criteria. However,
experience in the States and at the Centre has shown that there has
been strident criticism, and fairly widespread dissatisfaction with the
appointments and the selection process. The major change made from the
people’s draft of the RTI to the Bill and the law passed by Parliament
was replacement of the proposed membership of the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court on the Committee by a Cabinet Minister. This has
certainly created an imbalance in favour of the ruling party. However,
even if this change had not been made, it is unlikely that public
satisfaction with the appointments would have been greatly enhanced. In
fact, there is a lot of criticism about the lack of transparency and
accountability in appointment of judges to the High Courts and the
Supreme Court.
So what is the solution for all these watchdog Commissions which, taken
together, represent the conscience of governance? The truth is there
are many suggestions but very few tried, tested or obvious solutions.
We might be able to lay down criteria but qualification and experience
for these posts are not as important as commitment, autonomy and
ethics. These are qualities that can rarely be measured or projected
into the future.
So far, it has been a fairly arbitrary hit and miss process of
selection. Some people with a fairly poor track record have done very
well when they are given the guarantee of tenure and no future that can
be ruined. There are others with an impeccable record, who have failed
to display the confidence, daring and creative application that would
convert these posts into the lynchpins that would make the lofty
provisions of law and its rights actually work.
If we really want to convert this controversy into an opportunity for
change, we must move our focus from individual names to the process of
appointment. We must take some of the very valuable suggestions that
have been made, and try and put some of them to use. We must use the
space the law gives us, and involve people in the selection process. If
it is tough to be removed from the post, it should be even tougher to
get appointed. People being considered for these posts should be
willing to subject themselves to intense public scrutiny before they
are appointed, and be prepared for even more scrutiny of every act in
office. We must open up this debate. The government must ask for
suggestions, hold open hearings, use its website to communicate and
elicit suggestions, draw from the process of parliamentary committee
hearings, and try and ensure that our huge pool of public-spirited
citizens is used for our collective good. Eventually, no one can
guarantee the performance of someone else. But we can ensure that the
people feel confident that they have had a chance to be heard.
The RTI Act itself will actually help to drive this process. Soon after
the appointment of the first set of Central Information Commissioners,
an RTI application was submitted to ask about the basis of appointment
and the minutes of discussions of the Appointment Committee. This set
of questions has now got sharper, and the questions are beginning even
before the appointments are made. If nothing else, the RTI Act will not
allow the government to make arbitrary appointments. Any citizen can
ask a question and will have to be given an answer. The government
would be wise to involve the citizens and convert this into a positive
exercise of participation and democratic governance.
(The authors work with the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan and the
National Campaign for the Peoples Right to Information. They can be
contacted at mkssrajasthan@ gmail.com)
http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/05/stories/2008090553281100.htm
Copyright © 2008, The Hindu.
