Have you ever wondered how people get nominated to important government committees or advisory councils? It’s a question many citizens ponder, especially when they see appointments that seem to lack transparency. The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, empowers you to seek such information and bring clarity to government processes. This case highlights how an RTI applicant successfully sought details about recommendations for various committee nominations, offering valuable lessons for all aspiring RTI users.
Background: What Information Was Sought
An RTI applicant, seeking to understand the process behind nominations to key government bodies, filed three separate RTI applications. These applications were directed towards the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). The core of the request was to obtain information regarding recommendations received from various sources, including VIPs, for nominations to the National Committee for Promotion of Social and Economic Welfare (NCPSEW), the National Advisory Council (NAC), and as non-official Directors on the Boards of Public Sector Banks, including the State Bank of India and its local boards. The Public Information Officer (PIO) at the PMO initially responded that letters received with recommendations had been filed without further action. Portions of these applications were also transferred to the Department of Revenue (DoR) and the Department of Financial Services (DFS), who then provided their own responses.
How the Public Authority Responded
The initial response from the PMO’s PIO indicated that recommendation letters were simply filed away. This suggested a lack of a defined process for acting upon or rejecting these recommendations. The transfer of parts of the application to the DoR and DFS meant that the applicant had to engage with multiple departments to gather the complete picture. The PIOs from these departments provided separate responses, offering some information but also highlighting limitations. The Department of Revenue stated that names were presented to the Finance Minister, whose decision dictated the final committee composition, without explicitly recording reasons for selection or rejection. The Department of Financial Services indicated that while they had guidelines for selecting non-official directors, providing information from 2001 onwards might be challenging but they could offer data for current incumbents.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
During the hearing at the Central Information Commission (CIC), the representatives from the PMO presented guidelines that explained why certain recommendations were filed without further action. This provided a procedural context for their actions. The Department of Revenue’s representative reiterated that the Finance Minister made the final decisions, but crucially, admitted that no written reasons were recorded for selecting or not selecting individuals. This highlighted a significant gap in transparency. The Department of Financial Services confirmed their selection process was based on departmental guidelines and approvals, but acknowledged limitations in providing historical data for all institutions since 2001, agreeing to provide available information for current directors.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
The CIC delivered a decisive order aimed at enhancing transparency and accountability. The PIO of the PMO was directed to provide the applicant with a copy of the guidelines under which recommendations were filed, along with the relevant file noting that indicated approval competent authority. This was significant as it brought the internal decision-making process into the public domain. Regarding the Department of Revenue, the CIC acknowledged that since no material records existed to justify the selection or non-selection of individuals, such information could not be provided. However, the Commission strongly suggested that authorities should improve and streamline these appointment processes greater rigor and objectivity. For the Department of Financial Services, the PIO was instructed to gather all available information regarding part-time non-official Directors on the Boards of Public Sector Banks, including the State Bank of India and its local boards, and forward it to the appellant. If complete information for the entire desired period was not available, the CIC directed that information for whatever period was available should be provided. The CIC also noted that since the records did not specify the sector represented non-official director, the provided list would enable the appellant to deduce this information themselves.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Lesson 1: Be Specific in Your RTI Application: Clearly state the information you are seeking, including the names of committees, the period, and the type of information (e.g., recommendations, guidelines, selection criteria). This helps the Public Information Officer (PIO) understand your request and transfer it to the correct department if necessary.
- Lesson 2: Understand the Role of Different Departments: Recognize that information might reside with multiple public authorities. Be prepared to follow up with different PIOs if your application is transferred, as seen in this case where the PMO, Department of Revenue, and Department of Financial Services were all involved.
- Lesson 3: Focus on Process and Guidelines: When seeking information about appointments or decisions, focus on obtaining the rules, guidelines, and file notings that govern these processes. Even if specific reasons for individual selections are not recorded, understanding the framework is crucial for transparency.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Relevant Public Authority: Determine which government department or office is responsible for the committees or nominations you are interested in. For national-level committees, the PMO or specific ministries are often the starting point.
- Draft Your RTI Application Clearly: State your request using simple language. Specify the exact information you need, the period it pertains to, and the names of the committees or positions.
- Submit Your Application and Fee: Fill out the prescribed RTI application form and submit it along with the required fee (usually ₹10) to the PIO of the identified authority. You can file this online or offline.
- Follow Up and Appeal if Necessary: If you do not receive a satisfactory response within the stipulated 30 days (or 35 days if transferred), you can file a First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act. If the First Appellate Authority’s decision is also unsatisfactory, you can approach the Central Information Commission (CIC) or the State Information Commission.
Sample RTI question you can use:
“Please provide a copy of the guidelines and the relevant file notings detailing the process followed for recommending and appointing members to the [Name of Committee/Council] for the period [Start Year] to [End Year].”
Conclusion
This case powerfully illustrates how the RTI Act can be a tool for citizens to peel back the layers of government processes and demand accountability. While not all information may be available, especially if reasons for decisions are not recorded, the RTI Act can still shed light on the procedures and guidelines in place. these rights and following the steps outlined, you too can use RTI to seek information and contribute to a more transparent and accountable governance system in India. Remember, informed citizens are the bedrock of a strong democracy.
