The Right to Information (RTI) Act is a powerful tool for citizens to seek transparency from government bodies. But can you use it to understand how high-ranking officials, like Information Commissioners themselves, are appointed? This case explores precisely that, highlighting how RTI can shed light on processes even when specific rules aren’t readily available.
Background: What Information Was Sought
An RTI applicant approached the Cabinet Secretariat, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), and the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) with several questions. The core of his query revolved around the selection and appointment process of Information Commissioners. Specifically, he was interested in the consideration of a particular individual, Smt Ranjana Kumari, for such a post, even though she hadn’t formally applied. The PIO provided some information, but the First Appellate Authority (FAA) pointed out that there was no record indicating Smt Ranjana Kumari was ever considered Selection Committee. This lack of documented consideration sparked further inquiry.
How the Public Authority Responded
The Public Information Officers (PIOs) from the DoPT and PMO provided initial responses to the applicant. However, the information furnished did not fully satisfy the applicant’s curiosity, particularly concerning the inclusion of Smt Ranjana Kumari’s name in a list presented to the Selection Committee. The First Appellate Authority, after reviewing the case, noted the absence of any official record confirming her consideration Selection Committee, which was a significant point of contention.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant clarified his RTI application. He emphasized that his concern was about Smt Ranjana Kumari being considered for the post of Information Commissioner despite not being an applicant. The respondent from the government department maintained that she was never considered Selection Committee. They explained that initially, a list of 11 names was presented to the Committee, from which three recommendations were made for appointment. Smt Ranjana Kumari’s name was not on this initial list. Subsequently, another list of 9 names, which included hers, was presented to the Selection Committee, but this second list was never actually considered Committee. The appellant sought clarity on how her name appeared on this second list and the rules governing such inclusions, especially when she hadn’t applied.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The CIC, after hearing both sides, made a crucial observation. The Commission stated that the RTI Act itself does not prescribe a specific procedure for the appointment of Central Information Commissioners. Furthermore, the central government had not, at that time, framed any explicit rules detailing the exact method for selecting and appointing Information Commissioners. In light of this, the CIC ruled that it was beyond the scope and duty of the PIO to speculate on any rules or basis for including Smt Ranjana Kumari’s name in a list put before the Selection Committee. The Commission concluded that there was no further information to be disclosed in this regard and rejected the appeal. This decision underscores that while RTI can seek information, it cannot compel authorities to create or interpret rules that do not exist.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Understand the Scope of RTI: The RTI Act allows you to seek information that *exists* within public authorities. It does not compel authorities to create new information, speculate on unwritten rules, or provide information that is not on record.
- Lesson 2: Be Specific with Your Queries: While broad questions can be asked, focusing on specific individuals or events, as the appellant did, can help the PIO understand the exact information you are seeking. However, be prepared for the possibility that the information might not exist or might be based on uncodified processes.
- Lesson 3: Absence of Rules is Not Always a Refusal: In cases where specific rules for a process are absent, the CIC will not force the department to invent them. The PIO’s duty is to provide existing information and explain the process as it is, not as it *should be* according to hypothetical rules.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Correct Public Authority: Determine which government department or office is responsible for the appointment process you are inquiring about. In this case, it was the Cabinet Secretariat, DoPT, and PMO.
- Draft Your RTI Application Clearly: State your questions precisely. Reference the RTI Act, 2005. For instance, you could ask about the established procedure for shortlisting candidates for the post of Information Commissioner, or for details on the criteria used Selection Committee.
- Specify What Information You Need: If you are interested in a specific appointment or a particular candidate’s consideration (as in the case above), mention it clearly but be aware of privacy clauses under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
- Submit and Pay the Fee: Submit your application to the designated PIO and pay the nominal RTI fee. Keep a copy of your application and the receipt for your records.
Sample RTI question you can use:
“Please provide details of the established procedure followed for the selection and appointment of Central Information Commissioners. If specific rules or guidelines are not in place, please provide details of any documented process or criteria used Selection Committee for shortlisting candidates.”
Conclusion
This case demonstrates that while RTI is a powerful tool for transparency, its effectiveness is also bound existence of records and established procedures. Even when seeking information about the appointment of high-ranking officials, the RTI Act empowers citizens to ask questions and seek clarity. However, it’s crucial for applicants to understand that if no specific rules or documented procedures exist for a particular process, the CIC cannot compel a public authority to create them. Nevertheless, filing an RTI in such situations can still bring to light the existing practices and highlight areas where rule-making might be necessary for greater transparency and accountability.
