General Administration Department admits to violation of rules
State flouts SC guidelines for State Information Commission appointments
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The general administration department has virtually admitted that the appointments to the State Information Commission had been made with scant regard to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in 2012.
By revealing that appointments were done “without proper advertisement”, the department has conceded that the selection was carried out in a non-transparent manner.
“The previous appointments of information commissioners were not through the publishing of advertisements,” the additional secretary and appeal authority said in reply to an RTI query filed by RTI activist M.T. Thomas. Other conditions laid down by the apex court too were blatantly violated by the state.
The SC guidelines are only being considered and not yet implemented. The RTI reply states: “Now the subject in the light of the judgment of the High Court is under the examination of the Law Department and the right action will be taken on the advice of the department.”
The main stipulations of the Supreme Court judgement in the Namit Sharma vs Union of India case are four. One, the panel of prospective commissioners should be prepared only after due advertisement through popular media.
Two, the panel has to be placed before a high-powered committee which has to adopt a fair and transparent method of recommending the names for appointment to the competent authority.
Three, the names proposed should be three times the existing vacancies. Four, the selection process should commence at least three months prior to the creation of the vacancy. None of these were complied with.
Intriguingly, the GAD also said that it does not possess the biodata of two of the serving commissioners, the chief information commissioner Sibi Mathews and information commissioner K. Natarajan (who is now under suspension). “Their biodata was not readily available,” the RTI reply said.
However, here is what a circular issued by the GAD this year states: “A missing file cannot be read into as exception prescribed by RTI Act. It amounts to breach of Public Records Act 1993 and punishable with imprisonment up to a term of 5 years or with fine or both.”