Transparency activists cry foul as bureaucrats dominate Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioner picks

Delhi: Eighteen of the 20 people shortlisted by a Search Committee led by the Cabinet Secretary for the posts of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioner for appointments in December last year were from the bureaucracy, prompting transparency activists to once again raise questions about the skewed appointment process.

Of the 20, a Chief Information Commissioner and eight Information Commissioners were appointed.

Seven of them were former or serving civil servants while two were journalists, even as the RTI Act, 2005 mandates that people with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance should be chosen for the posts.

Documents placed by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) placed in public domain showed that the Search Committee shortlisted four civil servants, including three of them retired, for the consideration of the Selection Committee headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The three-member panel chose former Law Secretary Raj Kumar Goyal as the CIC while Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi submitted a dissent note suggesting that former IAS officer Sumita Dawra should be chosen in his place. He also suggested that Justice (retired) Muralidhar and legal academician Faizan Mustafa could also be considered.

The Search Committee shortlisted 16 people – including 14 serving or retired civil servants and two journalists who have not applied for the post – for being appointed as Information Commissioners. From the shortlist, the Selection Committee omitted 12 names and chose four while opting another four from outside the list.

According to the ‘Report Card of Information Commissions 2024-25’ prepared by Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS), 85% of the 157 Chief Information Commissioners appointed so far were retired government servants and of the 551 Information Commissioners, 56% were retired government officials.

“One explanation could be that these posts are sought after by retiring civil servants, who often enjoy political patronage and are perhaps seen by governments as being more pliant,” transparency activist Anjali Bhardwaj of SNS told DH.

She said the Information Commissions need to be better balanced bodies having greater gender parity and a mix of different types of professionals. "Even if decisions are taken by individual members, diversity would strengthen the working of commissions and help ensure that the final orders are a manifestation of all the experience and expertise that a commission, with a varied membership, would be privy to," she added.

The SNS report said, “many argue that civil servants know best what information is available with the government…they have an advantage over others when it comes to ordering governments to be transparent. On the other hand, there has been a very strong apprehension that they are likely to have much greater sympathy and affiliation with their erstwhile colleagues than with the general public and therefore, are unlikely to act against violations of the Act."

Venkatesh Nayak, Director of Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, said the Search Committee continues to think that retired bureaucrats are the only repository of eminence in public life.

“The composition of the shortlist is in complete contravention of the directions of the Supreme Court that efforts must be made to identify qualified candidates from other fields of expertise. Sadly, there is nothing in the public domain which showcases  the track record of these  ex-bureaucrats of making earnest efforts to embed the regime of transparency in their departments when they were in service,” he said.