Transparent Intentions

Transparent Intentions : CIC is the custodian of transparency. Shouldn’t it then be a little more transparent itself? GovernanceNow, May 16-31, pp.36-37 The central information commission (CIC) deserves to be commended for its transparency in putting up complete minutes of its meetings on its website ( http://cic.gov . in/). A curious exploration of the minutes revealed an interesting ambivalence about transparency and accountability, the two defining foundations of the Right to Information (RTI) Act of which the commission is supposed be the major implementing authority. The minutes of a meeting of the CIC held on April 10, 2012 show an intriguing sequence of events. The first item in the minutes reads as follows: “Agenda-1: Follow up on the Citizen Charter as decided in its meeting dated 13.03.2012. The Commission discussed the proposed citizen charter in detail. The Commission felt the necessity of a grievance redressal mechanism for the Commission; to be headed by the Secretary to the Commission. It was directed that a draft detailing Grievance Redressal Mechanism and structural arrangement for operationalising the same shall be presented in the next meeting for consideration. It took on record the draft citizen charter dated 15.01.2012 and the note of IC (SG) (copy enclosed).” The “draft citizen charter dated 15.01.2012” and the “note of IC (SG)”, taken on record, are also accessible on the CIC website. A reading of the “draft citizen charter dated 15.01.2012” reveals it to be a fairly standard document, generally following the format suggested at the government of India’s website on citizen’s charters, mentioned above. It has the standard headings such as Vision and Mission Statement, Our Key Commitments to the Stakeholders of RTI Act, Services to attain Vision and Mission Statement, Expectations from Citizens, Objectives to be achieved by 2015. The “note of IC (SG)” reveals an almost rare insight into the inner workings of the CIC. Since it is the note of “IC (SG)”, after going through the list of those attending the meeting one assumes that “IC (SG)” is the information commissioner, Shailesh Gandhi, the first non-bureaucrat to have been appointed in that position. Possibly the most revealing statement in the note is, “There appears to be a reluctance to prepare and commit to a Citizens’ Charter.” The note then goes on to reveal that “There are three points on which the drafting committee had a sharp divergence of opinion,” and then it goes on to describe the three points and gives the views of IC (SG) as to why the three reservations appear to be without any real basis. My own sense is that the overwhelming majority of information commissioners who are former bureaucrats might be hesitating to agree to the specificity of “Objectives to be achieved by 2015” which include the following: — To ensure that over 95% of appeals and complaints are adjudicated within 120 days of reaching CIC. — Ensure that non-compliance of CIC’s orders is brought to less than 5%. — All public authorities are routinely complying with their obligation to disclose certain categories of information suo motu. — Digitisation of records and use of eprocesses in the working of CIC. In addition, it is also a possibility that former bureaucrats might have an inherent dislike to making commitments to public, whom they might have considered as “subjects” during their long service careers where they were quite likely thought of as mai-baap of the general public. Some background The country is passing through a difficult phase. Even the well-established institutions are facing a crisis of credibility, the media and even parliament being two shocking examples. In such a scenario, creating a new institution is obviously a huge challenge. The CIC is a relatively new institution and needs to be nurtured in its initial years. The supreme court has a well-deserved reputation for judicial innovations. Two sterling examples are the ‘basic structure doctrine’ for the constitution, enunciated in the Kesavananda Bharti case, and creating the institution of public interest litigation (PIL). The most recent is the concept of ‘institutional integrity’, an innovation in administrative law enunciated in what is popularly known as the PJ Thomas case, though its official citation is Centre for PIL & another versus Union of India and another, Writ Petition No. 348 of 2010, with WP (C) No. 355 of 2010, the judgment of which was pronounced on March 3, 2011. The attempt to establish a citizens’ charter for the CIC seems to be an appropriate step to build institutional integrity of the institution of CIC. The much hailed RTI Act was passed by parliament on June 15, 2005, and came into effect on October 13, 2005. The opening paragraph of the preamble to the RTI Act says: “An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”. Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act defines a public authority to be “any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted— (a) by or under the constitution; (b) by any other law made by parliament; (c) by any other law made by State legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate government, and includes any— (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.” Section 12 (1) of the Act says, “The Central government shall, by notification in the official gazette, constitute a body to be known as the central information commission to exercise the powers conferred on, and to perform the functions assigned to, it under this Act.” A simple reading of the above two sections together with the preamble, should leave no one in doubt that the CIC is itself a public authority, and the preamble also establishes that transparency and accountability is to be promoted in the working of the CIC too. A government of India website, http://goicharters.nic.in/chartermain.htm , says: “A citizens’ charter represents the commitment of the Organisation towards standard, quality and time frame of service delivery, grievance redress mechanism, transparency and accountability”. Given that the CIC is a public authority which has been set up for the explicit purpose of implementing an Act exclusively meant to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, and that citizens’ charter is an accepted mechanism to promote transparency and accountability in public bodies, it stands to reason that the CIC should have a citizens’ charter. Conclusion As the first item of the minutes reveals, after discussing the “proposed citizen charter in detail”, the CIC “felt the necessity of a grievance redressal mechanism”, and the meeting concluded by “directing” the preparation of another document “for consideration” at the next meeting! Possibly a classic case of C. Northcote Parkinson’s favourite law on the working (or non-working) of public bureaucracies: Delay is the deadliest form of denial. This should also make us think about the mysterious process of appointment of information commissioners on which repeated requests for information by Commodore (retd) Lokesh Batra (Hindustan Times, April 27, 2012, also profiled in Governance Now, June 1-15, 2010) have failed to elicit any specific response, leading to the inescapable conclusion that either there are no criteria set for appointment of information commissioner or the government does not want to reveal them: a sad commentary on the body whose sole purpose for existence is to usher in transparency! Chhokar is former professor, dean, and director in-charge of IIM, Ahmedabad, and a founding member of Association for Democratic Reforms and National Election Watch.