<p>A recent appointee to the post of Information Commissioner in the Karnataka Information Commission is tainted, and this when the government is already being ridiculed as a “40% commission government” and new allegations of bribery and corruption are coming thick and fast at it from every direction. The appointee is a former junior-rank government official who has been charge-sheeted in a disproportionate assets case. Set up under the Right to Information Act, the State Information Commission is an autonomous body that decides on disputes over access to public information between citizens and public authorities. Curbing corruption is one of the main objectives of this 16-year-old law. To appoint tainted individuals to such a body and expect citizens to trust that they will impartially decide on requests for access to official records containing evidence of wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of authority is a travesty.</p>.<p>By law, only persons of eminence in public life with wide experience and knowledge in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism or administration and governance may be appointed Information Commissioners. It is surprising that the Selection Committee comprising the Chief Minister, the Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly zeroed in on a person of doubtful integrity from over 180 applicants, many of them of proven expertise and integrity. Did the government obtain vigilance clearance against the tainted individual upon receiving the Selection Committee’s nomination? It is also not clear whether the Leader of the Opposition recorded his dissent against the appointment. Irregularities in previous SIC appointments have been questioned before the Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka High Court. Some candidates have alleged that bribes were paid to get candidates shortlisted for the Selection Committee’s consideration.</p>.<p>These developments do not augur well for the citizens’ Right to Information. The continuation of the appointee will tarnish the image of the SIC, which is increasingly seen as adopting a citizen-unfriendly approach in recent years. The government must forthwith advise the Governor to immediately recall the appointment. In accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions of 2019, the government must publish all records relating to this appointment process, including the particulars of candidates, eligibility criteria adopted for shortlisting, minutes of meetings of the Selection Committee and the reasons for nominating such candidates for appointment. Further, as these and other vacancies in the Commission must be filled up, the Selection Committee must re-examine not only the qualifications of other applicants but also their track record in promoting transparency and accountability in the public sphere.</p>
<p>A recent appointee to the post of Information Commissioner in the Karnataka Information Commission is tainted, and this when the government is already being ridiculed as a “40% commission government” and new allegations of bribery and corruption are coming thick and fast at it from every direction. The appointee is a former junior-rank government official who has been charge-sheeted in a disproportionate assets case. Set up under the Right to Information Act, the State Information Commission is an autonomous body that decides on disputes over access to public information between citizens and public authorities. Curbing corruption is one of the main objectives of this 16-year-old law. To appoint tainted individuals to such a body and expect citizens to trust that they will impartially decide on requests for access to official records containing evidence of wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of authority is a travesty.</p>.<p>By law, only persons of eminence in public life with wide experience and knowledge in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism or administration and governance may be appointed Information Commissioners. It is surprising that the Selection Committee comprising the Chief Minister, the Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly zeroed in on a person of doubtful integrity from over 180 applicants, many of them of proven expertise and integrity. Did the government obtain vigilance clearance against the tainted individual upon receiving the Selection Committee’s nomination? It is also not clear whether the Leader of the Opposition recorded his dissent against the appointment. Irregularities in previous SIC appointments have been questioned before the Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka High Court. Some candidates have alleged that bribes were paid to get candidates shortlisted for the Selection Committee’s consideration.</p>.<p>These developments do not augur well for the citizens’ Right to Information. The continuation of the appointee will tarnish the image of the SIC, which is increasingly seen as adopting a citizen-unfriendly approach in recent years. The government must forthwith advise the Governor to immediately recall the appointment. In accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions of 2019, the government must publish all records relating to this appointment process, including the particulars of candidates, eligibility criteria adopted for shortlisting, minutes of meetings of the Selection Committee and the reasons for nominating such candidates for appointment. Further, as these and other vacancies in the Commission must be filled up, the Selection Committee must re-examine not only the qualifications of other applicants but also their track record in promoting transparency and accountability in the public sphere.</p>
