To strive for transparency and accountability in public life, we are bestowed with a very potent weapon by way of the Right To Information Act. This weapon is however handicapped without competent and honest Information Commissioners in place.
The last three attempts to appoint Information Commissioners in Goa have invariably run into rough weather. One reason for this is that the requirements for the post have not been properly understood by those who matter – the appointing authorities as well as the contenders and their endorsers. This lack of clarity is reflected in improper procedures adopted and the consequent accusations of improper selections, thus making the entire process vulnerable to challenges in Courts. The negative publicity that follows leads to either the appointee himself/herself quitting or having to be removed. The Government is effectively seen as blundering about in the dark and losing face. And, collaterally, the sad part is, the Government learns no lessons from fiasco after fiasco. But let us not blame those who highlight the wrong or improper procedure. After all, somebody needs to discharge the function of watchdogs in society and act as its conscience keepers, albeit self-appointed ‘pro bono publico’. The Sufi sage Kabir, one of the few saints acclaimed by followers of all religions said: “Let my most ardent critic become my neighbour”, the idea being that it is in one’s own interest that one’s deviation from the straight and narrow path of correctness is pointed out, and that one should be willing to accept criticism and use it constructively for improvement. It is so often seen that a person who starts with good intentions, becomes opinionated and autocratic when in power and surrounded by sycophants who do not dare to tell him what he would not like to hear. As is famously said, “Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely”. Most of us have the ‘NIMBY” attitude… “Why bother as long as the problem is ‘Not In My Back Yard’? It does not affect me. If it affects somebody else, let him tackle it”! This is where someone needs to step in. He should be one who does not think in this fashion and fights for the common good. If requirements for the Information Commissioner’s job are properly understood, the correct selection procedure followed, and candidates selected accordingly, there will be no scope for controversy. If, strictly in such manner, the best possible candidate available is selected then no Court case will stand. Otherwise, how can one remain silent if the authorities select someone who had failed in SSC (and more importantly, failed to disclose this fact), or who has a vigilance enquiry ongoing or someone who has falsely claimed to have a law degree? But who would be such an ideal, perfect candidate? We are not discussing individuals here; only drawing up a profile of such a candidate. And, before we proceed, let us also remember that the ideal is often unattainable. Hence the objective should be to determine what type of person would be the perfect choice and then strive to reach as close to it as possible. To determine this, let us examine the requirements as drawn up in the Act, which are the same for both the SCIC (State Chief Information Commissioner) & the SIC (State Information Commissioner): Section 15 (5) of the RTI Act says: The SCIC and SICs 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. Section 15 (6) of the RTI Act states: The SCIC and SIC shall not be a Member of Parliament or Member of the Legislature of any State or Union Territory, as the case may be, or hold any other office of profit or connected with any political party or carrying on any business or pursuing any profession. Scrutiny of the above reveals that the Act desires a person who is fairly well versed in many fields, a versatile professional, one capable of wearing many hats, a ‘Jack of all Trades’ in the positive connotation of this term and not in a derogatory sense. Expertise or specialized knowledge, qualifications & experience in one single field, without concomitant exposure whatsoever (or inadequate exposure) to other fields, is NOT what is desired. If that were so, Parliament, in its wisdom, would have specified it in the RTI Act itself, for e.g., “A Masters in Law and over 25 years of legal experience”; in which case only Senior Judges & outstanding lawyers would qualify and none others would. The Supreme Court was pleased to correct, earlier this month, its earlier view that only retired or sitting Supreme/High Court judges should head Information Commissions. That is obviously not the objective of the Act. Section 15 (5) specifies “…..wide (not deep!) Knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance. If a person is indeed such a Master in Law, a Specialist or expert in one field, then very likely his knowledge & experience in Science & Technology or in Administration & Management could be negligible. If, on the other hand, he is a Ph.D in Science, then his knowledge and experience in, say, Social Welfare or Journalism could be minimal. So, the ideal candidate would be one who is simultaneously a L.L.B. i.e. a Lawyer (Law); B.E, an Engineer (Science & Technology); BSW, (Bachelor of Social Welfare), a Social Worker (Social Service); MBA, (Management, Administration & Governance); and a B.J. (Mass Media & Journalism). Apart from these qualifications, he/she would need to have sufficient experience in all these fields. It is obvious that such a person would be practically impossible to find. So the best person for the job would then be one who has qualifications in AT LEAST ONE OF THE ABOVE, and adequate knowledge and experience (in addition to that in his own field) in a maximum number of the other fields mentioned. e.g. A law graduate, who (in addition to legal experience) has spent years in Social Service & Journalism; OR, a B.J. (journalism experience) who has Administration & Technology experience; or, an Engineer who has Legal experience. *Recommendation versus Application:* The Recommendation letter should be an appendage by way of a supplement to the application. For example, if a person is working as an Administration Manager for 20 years, then the recommendation by the C.E.O. of his or her Company will be relevant and appropriate, for here is a competent Authority who has supervised and monitored your work. If he has a high opinion of you, it certainly increases your credibility. But, the Recommendation cannot be stand-alone. It cannot substitute the Application. Recommendation without an Application is a meaningless inconsistency. Still worse, it can become a route for nepotism and favouritism, when professionals in one technical field recommend their personal favourites or friends for a task in totally unrelated fields and areas of public life. Let us say a Recommendation declares that a candidate is a Chartered Accountant (C.A.) and it is later revealed that he is not one after all. The Candidate can claim innocence since he, himself never claimed to be one. Which document has he signed stating that he is a C.A.? None! He cannot be accused of falsehood. So who are you going to hold responsible? The person who made the recommendation? But this person could be in category of revered holy cows. Recommendation without the Candidate’s signed application is akin to a loan application to a bank signed only by the Guarantor and not by the Borrower. A Guarantor’s signature is no doubt of help to secure the loan. But the absence of the Borrower’s signature means that there is no commitment from the person as to the truthfulness of information supplied and also no commitment from the applicant to repay the loan. Will any bank lend to such a Borrower, however prominent be the Guarantor? Obviously not. Can such a recommendation be considered as an ‘application’ in the eyes of law? Evidently not! After all the earlier gaffes, let us hope that the Goa Government will now sincerely endeavor to select Information Commissioners strictly in keeping with the directions of the Supreme Court and in a very transparent manner. The best and brightest, who will be independent minded and not be caged parrots. Any lobbying or canvassing for the post should be a straight disqualification. Such high and crucial constitutional posts cannot be considered as rewards for some loyalists. Aires Rodrigues T1 - B30, Ribandar Retreat Ribandar - Goa - 403006 Mobile: 9822684372
