<p>Last week’s appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and an Information Commissioner in posts lying vacant for months will not help to counter the criticism that the Narendra Modi government is not a great supporter of the idea of the Right to Information (RTI). The government appointed one of the five commissioners, Yashvardhan Kumar Sinha, as the CIC and journalist Uday Mahurkar as a commissioner. Five vacancies in the Commission, which is the top RTI appellate body, continue to exist. The selection of Sinha and Mahurkar has also been criticised. Sinha is considered to be lacking experience and is not the senior-most in the Commission. Mahurkar, who is known to be pro-BJP and has written a book on Prime Minister Narendra Modi, had not applied for the position. Both were appointed ignoring the objections of the Congress nominee on the selection panel.</p>.<p>After the retirement of Bimal Julka, the last CIC, the Commission has been headless for two months. He had himself been appointed two months after his predecessor had retired. The government refused to reveal any details about the candidates and the shortlisting criteria, though the Supreme Court had told it to make the information public. The failure to make appointments when the vacancies arise handicaps the Commission, which actually needs more commissioners. In the last four years, the Commission has never had its full complement of commissioners, and appointments have always been delayed. The number of cases pending before it has increased to about 36,000 now, and it will soon be overwhelmed, like the courts. The Supreme Court has ruled that delays in clearing appeals would frustrate the right to information and had also said that the government should look for persons outside the bureaucracy. When it selected a non-bureaucrat now, the choice was on a person is thought to be partisan. Appointments to positions like those on the Information Commission should be by consensus. The posting of partisan persons would affect the credibility of the institution, which should function above politics and partisanship.</p>.<p>The Supreme Court has held that the right to information is a fundamental right. It has empowered the citizens and sought to deepen democracy. But the government has tried to weaken it. It amended the RTI Act, diluted its provisions and has shown scant regard for the right. It has refused to give information, as in the case of the Arogya Setu app’s origin, to the Commission when it was sought, but has disclosed it to the media. Transparency and accountability of the government are essential features of democracy, and the RTI system is an important tool to ensure them. But the government’s approach and actions have done much damage to it. </p>
<p>Last week’s appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and an Information Commissioner in posts lying vacant for months will not help to counter the criticism that the Narendra Modi government is not a great supporter of the idea of the Right to Information (RTI). The government appointed one of the five commissioners, Yashvardhan Kumar Sinha, as the CIC and journalist Uday Mahurkar as a commissioner. Five vacancies in the Commission, which is the top RTI appellate body, continue to exist. The selection of Sinha and Mahurkar has also been criticised. Sinha is considered to be lacking experience and is not the senior-most in the Commission. Mahurkar, who is known to be pro-BJP and has written a book on Prime Minister Narendra Modi, had not applied for the position. Both were appointed ignoring the objections of the Congress nominee on the selection panel.</p>.<p>After the retirement of Bimal Julka, the last CIC, the Commission has been headless for two months. He had himself been appointed two months after his predecessor had retired. The government refused to reveal any details about the candidates and the shortlisting criteria, though the Supreme Court had told it to make the information public. The failure to make appointments when the vacancies arise handicaps the Commission, which actually needs more commissioners. In the last four years, the Commission has never had its full complement of commissioners, and appointments have always been delayed. The number of cases pending before it has increased to about 36,000 now, and it will soon be overwhelmed, like the courts. The Supreme Court has ruled that delays in clearing appeals would frustrate the right to information and had also said that the government should look for persons outside the bureaucracy. When it selected a non-bureaucrat now, the choice was on a person is thought to be partisan. Appointments to positions like those on the Information Commission should be by consensus. The posting of partisan persons would affect the credibility of the institution, which should function above politics and partisanship.</p>.<p>The Supreme Court has held that the right to information is a fundamental right. It has empowered the citizens and sought to deepen democracy. But the government has tried to weaken it. It amended the RTI Act, diluted its provisions and has shown scant regard for the right. It has refused to give information, as in the case of the Arogya Setu app’s origin, to the Commission when it was sought, but has disclosed it to the media. Transparency and accountability of the government are essential features of democracy, and the RTI system is an important tool to ensure them. But the government’s approach and actions have done much damage to it. </p>