Law_Qualification_for_Information_Commissioner

LAW QUALIFICATION FOR INFORMATION COMMISSIONER My contention in this note is that committee should consider a person who has law qualification and Judicial experience. This should be the case for Central ICs and State CIC and ICs. RTI Application I am a legal and Financial Consultant and a civil activist from Dombivli (Mumbai) and had made an application to Central information commission requesting following information: • How many Commissioners are having Law qualification i.e. graduation or post graduation in Law of recognized University • How many Commissioners are having judicial experience • Nature and number of years of such experience • How many Commissioners out of above have been in the service of Central Govt. or State Government. • How many of them belong to IAS/IFS/IRS etc. • How many of them have been in Central Govt./State Govt. service immediately before being appointed as Commissioners Reply of CPIO The CPIO of GOI, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training has vide his reply letter No. 12/56/2009-IR dated 8th April 2009 has informed that none of the Information Commissioners have a degree in Law or have Judicial experience. The CPIO also replied that barring Prof. M.M.Ansari and Mr. Shailesh Gandhi all other ICs were in Central Government ministries before being appointed as ICs. As per bio datas provided by the Information Officer, Mr. Wajahat Habibullah, Chief Information Commissioner and Mr.A.N. Tiwari, Mrs.Annapurna Dixit, and Mr. Satyanand Mishra all Information Commissioners, are IAS. Mr.Habibullah was a member of IAS from 2nd July 1968 to 30th September 2005. His last position with GOI was Secretary, Ministry of Panchayati Raj till 30th September 2005.He has been Chief Information Commissioner from 25th October 2005 till date. Mr.A.N.Tiwari retired from GOI service on 26th December, 2005, as Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and pensions. He has been Information Commissioner from December 2005 till date. Mrs.Annapurna Dixit born in 1948, worked closely with various ministries of GOI and State Governments and has been appointed Information Commissioner in 2008. Mr. Satyananda Mishra worked for various Central and State Govt. departments like Culture, Information and Public Relations, Urban Development, Town planning Small scale industry etc. He has been appointed Information Commissioner in 2008. None of the above IAS officers any time worked in Law Ministry. Information Commissioner Prof. M.M. Ansari is an Economist and Education Specialist. Information Commissioner Shri M.L.Sharma is an IPS officer and held various positions in police service and was Special Director in CBI w.e.f. November 2006. He has been appointed Information Commissioner in 2008. Information Commissioner Shri Shailesh Gandhi is an Engineer and entrepreneur. He has been appointed Information Commissioner in 2008. Qualification of CIC and Ics: As per Sec. 12(5) CIC and ICs 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. The Information Commission is clothed with powers of Civil court. The Information commissioners, while inquiring into any matter under the act have the same powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to summon and enforce the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things; require the discovery and inspection of documents; receive evidence on affidavit; issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents etc. They also have the power to impose penalties on Information officers. While imposing the penalties the CIC/SIC has to form an opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application or malafiedly denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information. The Central Information Commissioner (CIC) and other ICs and State Chief Information Commissioner and other State ICs take an oath to, among other things, uphold the Constitution and the laws. Considering the fact that the predominant function of the commission is hearing appeals and complaints, interpretation of the act and taking decisions, it is quasi judicial in nature. All this requires legal temper and legal bent of mind to understand and implement legal provisions. In view of this possession of legal qualification and/or judicial experience should be made mandatory. The relevant clause may be amended in right earnest. Appointment of CIC and ICs: As per Sec.12(3) of the RTI Act 2005 (the Act) The Chief information Commissioner (CIC) and Information commissioners (ICs) shall be appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee consisting of – (i) the Prime Minister, who shall be the Chairperson of the committee; (ii) the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha; and (iii) a Union Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Prime Minister. State ICs are appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the Chief Minister, Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly and a cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Chief Minister. There are large numbers of appeals pending with the CICs. There have been complaints that there are technical errors in the decision and there are omissions to consider certain material facts relevant for the decision. In many cases ICs are misled by Information officers particularly when the Applicant citizen is unable to attend hearing in person at Delhi for reasons of financial constraints and facility of video conferencing is denied to him citing administrative reasons almost as a matter of routine. This is against interest of justice and has resulted in miscarriage of justice on number of occasions. To top it all CIC has withdrawn the right to seek review of the decision. There is a big unrest in people’s mind about errant Information officers being allowed to go scot free without being penalized as provided in the law. There is a growing perception that information Commissioners are shielding them. This raises a big question mark on the survival of RTI Act. State of Affairs at State Information Commissions. The state of affairs at various State Information Commissions is no different. In Maharashtra Chief Information Commissioner Dr. Suresh Joshi, ICs Navin Kumar and Ramanand Tiwari are serving or retired bureaucrats. Mr.Vijay Kuvalekar is a noted journalists. All of them had nothing to do with law in their official assignments in the past. Mr. Navin Kumar and Mr. Ramanand Tiwari were Secretaries in the Maharashtra Government’s service immediately before their appointment as Information Commissioners. Commitment of Congress, a single largest component of UPA The enactment of RTI Act 2005 finds first place in the list of accomplishments in the Congress manifesto under the head “The Major Accomplishments: 2004-2009” It is described thus : “It has restored secular and Constitutional values in governance. It has also made administration markedly more transparent. The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a historic legislation. It is enabling lakhs of our citizens in villages, towns and cities to demand responsiveness and accountability from public officials and government at all levels”. Other Acts As per Consumer Protection Act One member at the District level is Retired District Judge, at State level Commissions President of the forum is a Retired or sitting Judge of the High Court and at National level he should be sitting or retired Supreme court Judge. Similarly State or Central commission should have more than 50% should have Judicial experience. The selection of Chairman of these commissions is to made in consultation with Chief justice of the High Court and Chief justice of the Supreme court respectively. There is a provision that a committee appointing District and State level Chairman should have Secretary of the Law department in addition to Chairman of State Commission.Similarly a committee appointing Chairman of Central Commission consists of justice of the Supreme Court and Secretary of the Law department of the Central Government. It may be noted that A chairman of Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) has to be sitting or retired Justice of the Supreme Court or sitting or retired Chief Justice of the high Court. It may further be noted that Chairman of Central Administrative tribunal (CAT) or State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) is retired or sitting Justice of the High Court. Both also have Judicial Members. It must be importantly noted that Chairman, Vice chairman are selected in consultation with Chief Justice of the supreme Court. All the above decision making authorities are also clothed with powers of Civil Court like Information Commissioners and there is a collective decision making process. As against this Information Commissioners take decisions all alone thus, berefiting it of collective wisdom. As of today barring perhaps few exceptions (') all information Commissioners have become so immediately after retiring from the government Service. They are not given any judicial training. This is affecting public interest. .Adv.V.T. Gokhale Parvati Nivas, Savarkar Road, Dombivli (East) 421 201 Tel: 0251-2451288 (M) 9819287584