Email
Print
ShareBangalore activist N Vikramsimha has an analogy to describe the hierarchy within the Central Information Commission, the body that monitors complaints from people who have not received a response to pleas filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
"If you have a problem getting information, here's how the chain of command for complaints goes. At the first level is the Public Information Officer, who may not be a bureaucrat but is certainly a government servant. After that, is the First Appellate authority, also a government official. And above them is the Information Commissioner, who is almost always a bureaucrat." Then, he adds: "It's like Brahma. Three heads, but with the same brain and bureaucratic mindset."
Vikramsimha's apt parallel foregrounds an issue that RTI activists -- and some invested citizens -- are grappling with: how to de-bureaucratise the Central Information Commission by making the appointment of its office-bearers more transparent and open. Earlier this week, a group of them got together to suggest that former top cop Kiran Bedi be appointed the next Chief Information Commissioner (CIC).
The timing is right. With current CIC Wajahat Habibullah quitting his position and taking up an assignment in Jammu and Kashmir, the Centre is primed to announce a replacement. "We're not saying it has to be her, but Kiran Bedi is a symbol for the sort of officer we want," says Delhi activist Arvind Kejriwal, who leads the charge. "A no-nonsense officer to facilitate things is what the CIC's position calls for."
Bad track record
This is because, as Kejriwal puts it, information commissions are "currently in bad shape".According to him, only 27 per cent of those who file appeals end up getting information; of the 100 orders passed by the commission, only about 30 are implemented. And the penalty for not following through on a petition -- Rs25,000 to be deducted from the salary of the errant officer -- is not being enforced enough either. "Of every 100 violations, penalties are imposed in only about two cases," says Kejriwal.
"The current officers in the information commission are very soft on their stand. That's why we need someone like Bedi, who has a track record of implementing laws without fear or favour." (The former IPS officer has said she is not particularly interested in the post, but if given a chance, she will take it up as a mission and not accept the Rs30,000 salary either.)
This move, however, merely points to a bigger campaign for bringing transparency in a body that was -- ironically -- set up to promote transparency and accountability. "The RTI Act and the information commissions were set up to empower citizens against the state," says Mumbai activist SK Nangia. "Not allowing openness and citizen participation in the appointment of the commission's officials becomes an antithesis to this idea. We want ordinary people to play a much greater role." So far, activists say, this has not been happening.
Since the Central Information Commission was set up in 2005, its office-bearers (including Habibullah and his eight subordinates, the Information Commissioners) have been bureaucrats. "Nothing wrong with that, except bureaucrats will always tend to be pro-establishment. How can we expect them to be unbiased?" asks Nangia. By pushing for someone like Bedi, activists are hoping that at least the top position in the Central Information Commission is in the hands of a neutral, uncompromised and citizen-friendly arbitrator.
Past incidents show there is some reason to be concerned. Activists say the government has turned information commission positions into 'reward postings'. Earlier this year, a bureaucrat, alleged to be a protege of a Congress minister, was appointed an information commissioner. As soon as the UPA government returned, she quit and took up a job in the new administration.
"This shows that the Centre has made a mockery of information commission positions," says Vikramsimha. Similarly, the present head of Karnataka's information commission, KK Mishra, was allegedly appointed "just hours after he retired as chief secretary". With Habibullah headed out, activists see this as the first opportunity to redress a long-standing grievance.
Citizens' participation
The way to get more people participation, many of them feel, is for the government to invite applications and suggestions through advertisements in public fora -- and later also seek consent before fixing on a candidate. "That way citizens can either nominate a candidate, or express their objections to one," says Venkatesh Naik, of the watchdog group Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, that was called in by the government to provide inputs when the Act was being drafted.
RTI is imperative to democracy, adds Kejriwal. "If you don't have information, how do you participate in a democracy? If you don't know anything about a candidate, how do you vote for him or her in an election? Dissemination of information is absolutely necessary."
The Act is surprisingly vague about the candidature of the CIC, merely saying the person should be an eminent one. Drafters of the Act (including Kejriwal) had borrowed the best practices of information-accessing legislation in other countries. For instance, extending the purview to include the private sector, albeit in a roundabout way, in the RTI Act, has been borrowed from South Africa. The definition of information and the method of seeking it is a derivative from Canada. Strangely, there are no global points of reference for appointing the chief information commissioner or its equivalent. But as Kejriwal puts it:
"There are many things in our RTI Act that have inspired other countries, like our system of penalties. By insisting on transparency and citizens' participation in appointments, we will be creating a precedent."
