The Central Information Commission is headless, again 

Good governance requires continuous monitoring and the presence of staff. Unfortunately, the story with Central Information Commission has been of missing officers at the helm due to delayed appointments. Venkatesh Nayak, from the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, writes on the importance of smooth functioning governance machinery in the realisation of the right to information.

——–

IT'S happened again. For the fourth time in a row, the office of the Chief Information Commissioner (Chief IC) of India's Central Information Commission (CIC) has fallen vacant with no successor in sight. Bimal Julka demitted office on August 26 upon reaching the age limit stipulated in the 15-year old Right to Information Act (RTI Act). 

Last year, while deciding a petition about undue delays in the filling up of vacancies in Information Commissions across the country, the Supreme Court of India opined, "…it would be apposite that the process for filling up pf a particular vacancy is initiated 1 to 2 months before the date on which the vacancy is likely to occur so that there is not much time lag between the occurrence of vacancy and filling up of the said vacancy." By failing to complete the process of selecting the next Chief Information Commission well in time, the government has done just the opposite. 

The CIC joins the ranks of six Information Commissions which remain headless in the States of Bihar, Goa, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Tripura, and Uttar Pradesh, as on date.

Although he headed the CIC for a little more than six months, due credit must be given to the outgoing Chief Information Commissioner for ensuring resumption of work in right earnest after the initial phase of the COVID-19 lockdown imposed by the Government. 

At the time of writing, most other Information Commissions have shut their doors on citizens seeking greater transparency in the manner in which the public health emergency is being handled across the country. 

According to the information compiled from monthly progress reports, list of show cause notices and decisions displayed on the CIC's website, between April 15 to August 26, the CIC heard 6,527 matters. It issued interim decisions, final orders, compliance related directives or penalty show cause notices in 7,012 appeals and complaint cases, some of which had been heard before the lockdown was imposed on 25th March. That is a remarkable achievement indeed, considering the fact that most of these cases were taken up using digital communication platforms.

Unfortunately, the pendency figures displayed on the CIC's website give no joy as it is five times higher than the cases disposed since mid-April. A total of 35,849 appeals and complaints are currently pending disposal. 

Another Information Commissioner will retire in less than a month from now and bring down the CIC's strength to five, as it was when it was constituted 15 years ago, unless fresh appointments are made in the interim. The RTI Act provides for 11-member Information Commissions at the Centre and State level.

Only on two occasions in the past have Chief Information Commissioners been appointed to ensure that the office did not remain vacant for even a day. 

Both occurred during the tenure of the UPA Government which piloted the law through Parliament. Since mid-2014 every appointment to the CIC has been made only after activists moved the Courts to demand explanations from the government about the vacancies. 

The CIC functioned without a Chief IC for more than nine months in 2014-15, during the first year of NDA-2 which rode to power on the electoral planks of greater transparency in government and corruption-free governance.

Being headless can seriously hamper the day-to-day working of Information Commissions. The RTI Act vests the responsibility of general superintendence, direction and management of their affairs in the respective Chief Information Commissioners. 

While other Information Commissioners may continue to hear cases, administrative decision making gets adversely affected by the absence of the Chief Information Commissioner. The Bihar Information Commission has reportedly not been able to renew service agreements with its contractual employees because it has remained headless for several months. So, they either do not get paid while continuing to work for that Commission, or they may elect to stop working altogether for not being paid their salaries.

Information Commissions play a mediatory role between the heightened aspirations of the citizenry for transparent government and the bureaucracy's tendency to disclose as little information as possible, especially that which shows them in poor light. 

Over the decade and a half of its existence, the RTI Act has served the citizenry as a tool to secure better governance and, for the most marginalised in society, to obtain their rightful entitlements. 

Information Commissions are not only institutions that ensure the protection and fulfilment of a citizen's fundamental right to access information, before the constitutional courts are approached for redressal, but also serve to deepen democracy and ensure the accountability of babus for their actions and omissions. 

While NDA's promise of minimum government is laudable, when institutions like Information Commissions are weakened then the governance will also get minimised and turn the Constitution's vision of rule of law into a distant dream. 

The Government must complete forthwith the process of filling up the vacancies in the CIC which was initiated last month. The Search Committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary and the Selection Committee headed by the Prime Minister must identify well-qualified candidates to recommend to the President of India for an appointment without any delay. All of this must be done in accordance with the 2019 Supreme Court guidelines which require transparency and strict adherence to the selection criteria and appointment process laid down in the RTI Act.

(Venkatesh Nayak is Programme Coordinator at Access to Information Programme of Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative. Views are personal.)