[Assam] Udok Bheta-rokhiya Pota Kotha

[Chan Mahanta]

EW DELHI: You fight them to get information and 
in just one day they become custodians of your 
Right to Information.

  The State Information Commissions, the final 
appellate bodies for RTI Act 2005, have become a 
favoured retirement option for babus in most 
states.

  In just one year of implementation of RTI Act 
2005, former bureaucrats have taken over reins of 
State Information Commissions in all the states.

  In states like Chhattisgarh, Punjab and Haryana, 
the urgency to name a former bureaucrat as the 
State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC) is 
more than evident.

  In these states, the current SCICs were named 
for the post the very next day of their 
retirement from service. The present State Chief 
Information Commissioner of Chhattisgarh, for 
instance, served as the state's chief secretary 
from July 1, 2004 to November 6, 2005. He retired 
and took up the post on November 7, 2005.

  Haryana reflects exactly the same pattern. G 
Madhavan retired as the state's chief secretary 
on October 31, 2005 and was sworn in as the SCIC 
on November 1, 2005.

  Madhavan's successor â¤" Meenaxi Anand Chaudhary 
â¤" retired as Haryana's chief secretary on April 
30, 2006 and was sworn in as the State 
Information Commissioner on May 9, 2006. Rajan 
Kashyap retired as Punjab's chief secretary on 
October 11, 2005 and was named the SCIC on 
October 18, 2005.

  Orissa is a unique case. IAS officer D N Padhi 
had taken voluntary retirement from service. And 
he landed himself a job as the SCIC.

  Other states also show a similar pattern wherein 
bureaucrats are favoured for the top job. Goa, 
Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Uttar 
Pradesh State Information Commissions have former 
bureaucrats as the information commissioners.

  Even the Central Information Commission's four 
of five information commissioners are former 
bureaucrats. The remaining six have not been 
named so far.

  RTI activists have been pointing out that this 
is a wrong trend because the same bureaucrats who 
have been in service would never part with 
information about their decisions or any corrupt 
practices. This has, however, become a norm 
despite the fact that the Act itself gives a wide 
choice in naming a state's information 
commissioners.

  Section 12 (5) of the RTI Act says: "The Chief 
Information Commissioner and the Information 
Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in 
public life with wide knowledge and experience in 
law, science and technology, social service, 
management, journalism, mass media or 
administration and governance."

  The same criteria has been set for SCICs under Section 15 of the Act.