Posts
Dear All,
The following way for selection of Information Commissioners which is given by:Shailesh Gandhi is a former Central Information Commissioner, I Think the proposed way is enough to make this tool powerful,
A. The Information Commissions should set a target for disposals: I suggest 5000 per Commissioner per year. An attempt should be made to increase this target number (around 85% of the matters do not require any legal interpretations as per a study of four months of CIC decisions).
B. Every six months they should review their actual performance per Commissioner and forecast the expected receipts and disposals for the next two years, factoring the retirements. This information should be displayed on their websites. This forecast would show the requirements for new commissioners to be appointed by taking into account the expected retirements.
C. The government should advertise its intention to appoint a certain number of Information Commissioners depending on the need, four months in advance. Eminent people could apply or be nominated by others.
D. A search committee—perhaps—consisting of two members of Parliament, Chief Information Commissioner, one vice-chancellor, one Supreme Court judge and two RTI activists, could be formed to shortlist a panel which could be three times the number of Commissioners to be selected. These could be announced with the minutes of the meeting at which the shortlisting was done.
E. An interview should be held by the search committee in public view to give citizens and media the opportunity to hear the views and commitment to work of the candidates. Citizens could give their feedback and views to the search committee. After this the search committee could give its recommendation for two times the number of Commissioners to be appointed. Based on these inputs, the final decision to select the Commissioners could be taken by the committee as per the Act consisting of PM, LOP and one minister. (A similar process could be adopted for State Commissions with MLAs instead of MPs and high court judge instead of Supreme Court judge).
Citizens will benefit if they could get the Commissions to publish data on the performance of each Commissioner monthly, and also build public opinion to lower the average age of the Commissioners. Atleast half the Information Commissioners should be less than sixty years. There are many RTI activists who have gained considerable understanding of the nuances of the law, and have a natural empathy for transparency. Some of these should be appointed as Information Commissioners. Another useful function which civil society groups could perform is to analyze all the decisions of each Information Commissioner each month continuously in a transparent manner. This would build pressure on those who may be giving errant decisions.
Presently, individual decisions are randomly criticized and this does not give a picture of
the overall trend of a Commissioner’s decisions. If we can get a
transparent process for selecting Commissioners and put continuous
pressure on them for accountability, we will get much better results
from our cherished Right to Information. If this works well, it could be
used as a model for selecting commissioners for various commissions.
The commissions are designed as our checks and balances of democracy.
Presently, most of them are not delivering their expected functions
effectively.
http://www.moneylife.in/article/transparent-process-will-help-in-selection-of-information-commissioners/32282.html
The following way for selection of Information Commissioners which is given by:Shailesh Gandhi is a former Central Information Commissioner, I Think the proposed way is enough to make this tool powerful,
A. The Information Commissions should set a target for disposals: I suggest 5000 per Commissioner per year. An attempt should be made to increase this target number (around 85% of the matters do not require any legal interpretations as per a study of four months of CIC decisions).
B. Every six months they should review their actual performance per Commissioner and forecast the expected receipts and disposals for the next two years, factoring the retirements. This information should be displayed on their websites. This forecast would show the requirements for new commissioners to be appointed by taking into account the expected retirements.
C. The government should advertise its intention to appoint a certain number of Information Commissioners depending on the need, four months in advance. Eminent people could apply or be nominated by others.
D. A search committee—perhaps—consisting of two members of Parliament, Chief Information Commissioner, one vice-chancellor, one Supreme Court judge and two RTI activists, could be formed to shortlist a panel which could be three times the number of Commissioners to be selected. These could be announced with the minutes of the meeting at which the shortlisting was done.
E. An interview should be held by the search committee in public view to give citizens and media the opportunity to hear the views and commitment to work of the candidates. Citizens could give their feedback and views to the search committee. After this the search committee could give its recommendation for two times the number of Commissioners to be appointed. Based on these inputs, the final decision to select the Commissioners could be taken by the committee as per the Act consisting of PM, LOP and one minister. (A similar process could be adopted for State Commissions with MLAs instead of MPs and high court judge instead of Supreme Court judge).
Citizens will benefit if they could get the Commissions to publish data on the performance of each Commissioner monthly, and also build public opinion to lower the average age of the Commissioners. Atleast half the Information Commissioners should be less than sixty years. There are many RTI activists who have gained considerable understanding of the nuances of the law, and have a natural empathy for transparency. Some of these should be appointed as Information Commissioners. Another useful function which civil society groups could perform is to analyze all the decisions of each Information Commissioner each month continuously in a transparent manner. This would build pressure on those who may be giving errant decisions.
http://www.moneylife.in/article/transparent-process-will-help-in-selection-of-information-commissioners/32282.html
