'Government Is Constantly Trying To Subvert RTI'

'The government does not want to be transparent or accountable. Therefore, they do not want to appoint information commissioners.'

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday, January 7, 2025, expressed its displeasure over vacancies in state and central information commissions.

The apex court in a hard-hitting statement to central as well as state governments said, 'Right to Information Act cannot be made redundant by not appointing information commissioners.'

In its 2019 judgment the Supreme Court had laid down guidelines on transparency in the appointment of chief information commissioners and information commissioners on a petition filed by activist Anjali Bhardwaj.

Six years later, nothing seems to have changed.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court again rapped the governments saying the situation in the appointments of information commissioners had worsened.

Syed Firdaus Ashraf/Rediff.com spoke to Anjali Bhardwaj on the lacunae in the appointment of the CIC and information commissioners.

What is your reaction to the Supreme Court's stinging observation on the appointments of the CIC and information commissioners?

RTI has been one of the most powerful legislations in the history of Independent India for the people of the country. It has helped people access information on their basic rights, issues of corruption and human rights violation.

Under the law, the information commissioner plays a very significant role because if government denies the information people can go to the information commission and file an appeal or complaint. So the authority in RTI is the information commissioner and he has wide-ranging powers.

This power includes (the authority) to direct the government to give information because many times the government does not want to give information as it exposes their corruption and wrongdoing.

Is that why you filed a case as without the information commissioners there will be no information on the government's functioning?

Yes, if there is no information commissioner then we will get the information that only the government wants to give us.

The governments have understood this and what we are seeing is that the government is not appointing information commissioners in a timely and transparent manner.

Each information commissioner when they are appointed, it is known when they are going to retire. But upon their retirement new commissioners are not appointed.

Appointments are not done in a timely manner which leads to vacancy in the information commissioner's office.

Under the law there is one chief information commissioner and 10 information commissioners. And the number of commissioners is decided on the workload as to how many appeals the commission has. If there are not adequate information commissioners appointed, the cases do not get heard.

Is there an example you can substantiate this with?

In Maharashtra, for example, there are seven vacancies for information commissioners' posts. There is only one chief information commissioner and he has three information commissioners. This is a big problem as pendency of cases (backlog) is more than 1.15 lakh (150,000) in numbers.

1.15 lakh cases are pending in the Maharashtra information commissioner's office, and this is happening because there are not enough information commissioners so the cases are languishing and not being heard or disposed of. People have to wait for very long.

How long?

I feel it will take two years for these 1.15 lakh case to be heard and disposed of because the number of commissioners is so few.

In 2019, the Supreme Court had stated that if information commissioners are not appointed RTI will become a dead letter. Even now we do not have appointments being made.

In the Central Information Commission office there is only one chief information officer and two information commissioners. There is a vacancy of eight information commissioners in the central information commission office.

The Supreme Court of India looked at this matter on Tuesday and found that there are no information commissioners in some states.

Which ones?

Jharkhand and Telangana are examples. The apex court took note of the fact that the government is not doing its function of ensuring the appointment of information commissioners.

Who appoints the information commissioners?

For the central government, the prime minister, one Cabinet minister and the Leader of the Opposition appoint the Chief Information Commissioner and 10 information commissioners.

In states, it is the chief minister, one cabinet minister and Opposition leader in the assembly.

The court on Tuesday gave a timeline to all states and the central government to appoint all commissioners. The apex court also said that while the appointment is being done, transparency in their appointment is needed according to the guidelines laid by them.

This means the applicants for the post of information commissioners, the name of the search committee members, the search committee shortlisting criteria should be objective and transparent.

What happens if in a state like Maharashtra there is no Leader of the Opposition because no Opposition party has enough numbers to claim the post of Leader of thge Opposition?

The law is very clear. In that case the Opposition party which has largest number of MLAs, their leader can be on the selection committee to appoint election commissioners. There can be no grounds not to appoint election commissioners.

What is the reason that no government wants to appoint information commissioners, be it Congress-ruled Telangana or Jharkhand Mukti Morcha-ruled Jharkhand or the central government which is ruled by the NDA?

This shows a lack of political will not to be transparent and accountable to the people of India.

RTI is being used to hold the government to account. And what seems to be clearly happening is the government does not want to be transparent or accountable. Therefore, they do not want to appoint information commissioners. And when there are no information commissioners, right to information is non-functional.

What has been the biggest achievement of the RTI in the 20 years of its existence?

All the corruption cases or scams that were exposed were almost due to the RTI. Be it the Commonwealth Games scam or the Vyapam scam or any other scam, people filed RTI pleas and exposed corruption.

People have exposed so many corruption cases via the RTI like housing schemes, public distribution systems or MNREGA (the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act).

RTI questions the highest offices in the country and it is a very vibrant law. It holds the government accountable and perhaps this is the reason the government does not want to provide information.

We had an RTI plea on PM Cares Fund but nothing came of it as the government said it does not come under purview of the RTI. In such times do you feel the RTI has no meaning because you cannot question the government?

No. You check the electoral bonds scheme, all the information that came out was because of the RTI. Lot of information has been taken out because of the RTI but yes, the government is constantly trying to subvert RTI.

There are many ways they are trying to do this out of which one way is not to appoint information commissioners or by stating the PMCARES fund is not a public authority at all. The government makes this kind of excuses but then this is also being challenged in the courts.

What do you do when the appointments of information commissioners is done on the basis of the people who are ideologically committed to the ruling party? How will it help those who want to question the government?

The only way to get the right people is if there is transparency in the process. Unfortunately, what we have seen is that there is lot of lack of transparency even in the appointments of transparency watchdogs. Therefore, there is a problem as there are 'x' bureaucrats close to the ruling party who are made information commissioners or chief election commissioners.

People who are very pliant are selected and one way to prevent that is if there is transparency in their appointments. There has to be an open advertisement for the appointments as the Supreme Court has said, who has applied for the post, how the shortlisting of candidate was done, and how was the appointment made.

Are you hopeful after the Supreme Court's concern on the appointment of information commissioners?

The Supreme Court judgment (external link) came in February 2019.

It has been more than five years since then and the states and central government are not complying with the judgment. We hope that better sense will prevail and since the court has given them a clear-cut timeline by when the appointments have to be made, they will make them and not do contempt of court.