Some say that the biggest qualification is the loyalty to the ruling dispensation in any important appointment, may be Director, CBI CVC, EC. In future, I perceive this to prevail in the appointment of CAG.
From: Justice Kamleshwar Nath <justicekn@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, 3 September 2012 11:59 AM
Subject: RE: [HumJanenge] WHAT BASIS FOR INFO COMMISSIONERS APPOINTMENT IN TAMIL NADU?
Dear Friends,
The same grievance was laid by us before State Govt. of Uttar Pradesh. An extract of our representation is set out below for your consideration. It is heard that some appointments are in the offing in U.P., but it is not heard that Criteria for appointments have been determined by the Government. A Writ Petition is pending in Lucknow Bench of High Court on this question. We are watching the developments.
Regards,
KN
"We the undersigned Petitioners, finding that the appointments of Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (IC) in U.P., by and large, have not been done in accordance with the provisions of Right to Information Act 2005 (the Act), causing violation of the Laws and serious injustice to the people, approach you and Government of Uttar Pradesh to ensure that all such future appointments are made strictly in accordance with law and, in particular, with the mandatory provisions of Section 15(5) of the Act.
2. The exalted Status of CIC/IC, their Emoluments, the stipulated high achievements of prospective incumbents and the sweep of their powers under the Act may be appreciated:
(a) Salaries, allowances and terms of Conditions of Service of CIC are equivalent to those of an Election Commissioner of India , and those of IC are equivalent to those of Chief Secretary of the State under Section 16(5).
(b) By Section 15(5), both must ("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'.
(c) Information Commission is an autonomous Apex body not subject to directions from any other Authority under Section 15(4) of the Act in all matters relating to Right to Information. Under Section 19(7), its decisions 'shall be binding' on all concerned. It has authority to issue certain directions to every Public Authority under the Act, which includes High Court and Governor u/s 2(h). It has Monitoring role u/s 25, and may require the Public Authority to take necessary steps to secure compliance with the provisions of the Act or to require it to compensate the Complainant for any loss or detriment suffered or to impose penalties on Public Information Officer u/s 19(8).
2
3. Unfortunately for the People, the expression 'persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience …………' in Section 15(5) has not been elaborated. Each one of the terms in this expression is weighty, and the rationale for stated high achievements and exalted status of CIC & IC lies in the statutory powers exercisable by them on the highest Public Authority in the State as indicated above. No Government, Central or State, has framed Rules u/s 27 of the Act 'to carry out the provisions contained' in Section 15(5).
4. In the absence of Rules or Guidelines, the Citizen shall have to rely on Law Lexicons and English Dictionaries to find the meaning of the terms/expression as understood in common parlance, i.e., by the People for whom the Act has been framed to give effect to Constitutional Right of Information. A study has revealed the following:
(a) Collins English Dictionary & Thesaurus UK (Major New Edition 1994):
· P.365 'Eminence' = a person of superiority or fame; 'Eminent' = above others in rank, merit or reputation, distinguished; noteworthy or outstanding.
· P. 924 'Public' = of or concerning the people as a whole; well-known or a public figure
(b) Chambers 20th Century Dictionary (1977): P. 423 'Eminent' = rising above others; conspicuous, distinguished, exalted in rank or office. 'Eminence' = distinction.
(c) The New Lexicon Websters Dictionary of English Language (1987) New York :
· P.308 'Eminence' = distinction in Society or in profession. 'Eminent' = 'distinguished', 'widely thought of as superior in some way', 'outstanding', 'conspicuous'.
· P. 807 'Public' = 'of or pertaining to the community as a whole', 'prominent in public life', 'often receiving publicity, a public figure'.
(d) The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1933) Vol 1:
· P. 600 'Eminence' = Distinguished superiority as compared with others in rank, station, character, attainments or the possession of any quality good or bad. 'Eminent' = exalted in rank or station, distinguished in character or attainments.
· Vol 2 : P. 1613 'Public' = pertaining to or engaged in the affairs or service of the community; devoted or directed to promotion of general welfare; public spirited.
(e) The Compact Edition of Oxford English Dictionary (1971) Vol 1:
· P. 853 'Eminence' = Distinguished superiority, elevated rank as compared with others in social or official position, wealth or power. 'Eminent' = Exalted, distinguished in rank or station.
5.The universally accepted essence of the expression 'person of eminence in public life', thus, demands that person to be of distinction in attainments, widely thought of as being exalted, superior and prominent in Society/people as a whole, and devoted to promotion of general welfare. Added to these, the specific requirement of Section 15(5) is that he must have 'wide knowledge and experience' of any of the specified fields of learning.
6. On Ground Reality, these mandatory provisions for appointment have not been observed, with the result that quite a few ICs do not satisfy the appointment criteria and the work of the Commission greatly suffers both in quality and quantity, and numberless applicants for Information fail to get justice. To mention a few on the basis of data/information furnished by PIO of U.P. Prashashanik Sudhar Anubhag-2 or State Information Commission ……………"…[We are not setting out the details of certain ICs who we referred as illustrations in support of our point]
We have referred to the decision of your High Court dealing with a case of appointment of 3 ICs under Section 15 of RTI Act in WP No. 5741 of 2011, S.Vijaya Lakshmi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others (decided on 25.11.2011), relying on Supreme Court directions in Chief Vigilance Commissioner P.J.Thomas appointment case as CVC, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 1, and have demanded the Government to spell out appropriate and transparent criteria for selection/appointments under Section 15 by framing Rules or Guidelines and publish them for public awareness to enable aspirants to apply for the post and may include:
i. Length of Public Service & Experience: Since CIC is on parity with Election Commissioner, and IC is on parity with State Chief Secretary, the proper period should correspond to the average length of service preceding those appointments; this may be 25 to 30 years.
ii. Test of Eminence in public life: The incumbent for CIC or IC should be a personality of outstanding merit with high integrity, well known and admired for distinction in attainments in the field of his activity. These could be reflected from his service record or by confidential inquiry from seniors in his field or intelligence agency. He should be known as one devoted to promotion of General Welfare. He should also be payer of significant amount of Income Tax for at least 10 years.
iii. An appropriate Empanelling Authority (or Screening Committee) should be constituted to prepare a panel of suitable persons amongst aspirants (as indicated earlier) and forward the same, with complete material and data of each name on the panel, for consideration of the Selection Committee u/s 15(3).
iv. The Selection Committee must have an Agenda consisting of adequate documentation. All the Members of the Selection Committee must meet at the selection process. Minutes of the proceedings, including dissenting notes, must be recorded.
From the Desk of :
Justice Kamleshwar Nath
| Retd. | : | Up-Lokayukta ( Karnataka ), Vice Chairman – C.A.T ( Allahabad ), Judge – High Court ( Lucknow & Allahabad ) |
| Address | : | `Gunjan', C - 105, Niralanagar, Lucknow : 226 020. Uttar Pradesh , India |
| Phone(s) | : | +91-522-2789033 & +91-522-4016459. Mobile : +91-9415010746 |
From: humjanenge@googlegroups.com [mailto: humjanenge@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Venkatraman NS
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2012 10:05 AM
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Subject: [HumJanenge] WHAT BASIS FOR INFO COMMISSIONERS APPOINTMENT IN TAMIL NADU?
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2012 10:05 AM
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Subject: [HumJanenge] WHAT BASIS FOR INFO COMMISSIONERS APPOINTMENT IN TAMIL NADU?
To
RTI Group
WHAT BASIS FOR INFO COMMISSIONERS APPOINTMENT IN TAMIL NADU?
It is good that the Tamil Nadu government has at last appointed five new information commissioners . Until now, there have been one chief information commissioner and only one information commissioner in Tamil Nadu , resulting in huge backlog of work and several representations to the information commissioner from RTI activists remaining unanswered.
In the recent interactive meeting of RTI activists organized by Nandini Voice for Deprived, a Chennai based NGO , the importance of filling up the posts of information commissioners was stressed repeatedly and the above decision of the Tamil Nadu government would certainly satisfy the RTI activists. This is a long pending matter.
However, it is not clear about the selection procedure adopted by government of Tamil Nadu to fill these vacancies. It is necessary for the Tamil Nadu government to explain the procedure adopted , so that there would not be an impression that the selections have been made in an arbitrary manner.
RTI Act is a very important tool available to the common man to get vital information from the government agencies. There have been many complaints in recent times that several government departments either do not respond to the RTI queries or direct the question to some other departments thus wasting time or provide incomplete details. The RTI activists have no alternative other than approaching the information commissioners to redress their grievances. Under the circumstances, the post of information commissioners have become very crucial and they should enjoy high level of public confidence.
It is high time that proper and transparent guidelines for the selection of information commissioners should be adopted. One would hope that Tamil Nadu government has adopted such procedure in appointing the five information commissioners and it is necessary that the Tamil Nadu government would explain the procedure adopted to the public.
N.S.Venkataraman
Trustee
Nandini Voice for the Deprived
Chennai
Email:- nsvenkatchennai@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.