Opinion - Interviews   

"The Information Commission's role is to act as a non-government arbiter"

Siddharth Narrain

Wajahat Habibullahheads the Central Information Commission constituted under the Right to Information (RTI) Act that came into force on October 13, 2005. In an interview, he explains the role he sees for the Commission, addresses criticism of its composition, and states his position on file-notings. Excerpts:

— Photo: V.V. Krishnan

Wajahat Habibullah: "I would like to see it [the RTI Act] being used extensively at the grassroots level."

What is the role of the Central Information Commission?

The role of the Central Information Commission should develop in the manner that has been charted in the [RTI] Act itself. The rules governing the RTI Act are extremely flexible. They have left a lot to the Commission itself to decide upon. Initially it will be a reactive programme. The Act provides 30 days to respond to an application — even if a person has put in an application on the 30th of October, no case is going to reach here before the 13th of November. There is also an appellate stage within the government before the matter comes to the Commission.

The Commission's role is to act as a non-government arbiter which is not an interested party; an entity which could be expected to take a neutral and disinterested decision on the basis of the facts and the law. Initially the Commission has been kept fairly compact. Other than me, there are four Information Commissioners of whom three have joined. The role of the Commission will develop on the basis of the interaction between the Commissioners themselves, on the interaction between the Commission and the elected representatives, NGOs, and the media.

Are there any specific areas that you would like to see the Right to Information mechanism used in?

I do not have any fixed ideas on that front. I would, of course, because of my own experience as Secretary, Panchayati Raj, like to see it being used extensively at the grassroots level, at the level of the Panchayats.

How have you divided work within the Central Information Commission?

We have made an informal division of work to ensure the smooth functioning of the Commission and a clear demarcation of responsibilities.

The allocation is in terms of hearing appeals of Ministries with departments and for interaction with States to ensure coordinated implementation of the Right to Information Act. Each Information Commissioner will have his own assigned work, but the Information Commissioner concerned may wish for another Information Commissioner to sit in with him or her for a particular case.

To start with cases are received at the office of the registrar [who will be the joint secretary] and the deputy registrar. They will assign the cases according to an informal division that will be laid down. The concerned registrar may also find that the case does not qualify to go before the Commission and has a right to reject it, but that will be subject to the approval of the concerned Information Commissioner looking after the particular Ministry or Department.

Do you feel that appointing persons who have already been in the government as Information Commissioners, despite the RTI Act providing for others to be appointed, is inappropriate? Won't the appointment of ex-bureaucrats lead to a conflict of interest?

I know there has been criticism from certain sections with regard to the composition of the both the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions. Within the bureaucracy or those having served in government, it is made up of individuals. To preclude a certain branch from exercising a responsibility under this law is a trifle unfair. A blanket criticism of this nature is not justified in my view.

A suggestion was made that a person who has served in a particular Ministry should not be made the Information Commissioner responsible for that Ministry because there would be a conflict of interest. That is a suggestion that I am looking at. The advantage of having people who have served in government in the Commission is that they know how the government functions and therefore they will be in better position to be able to gauge if something has been concealed or openly stated, which is what is required by the Act.

Are file-notings under the Act's purview?

It is a question of how Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which defines information, is interpreted. I will on the basis of any case that comes up interpret it accordingly.

Do you think there has been reluctance on the part of the institutions of government to accept the right to information? The President is said to have asked the government to keep his communication out of the purview of the Act. Has there been any communication to you on this?

There has been no communication with me on that. But there would be hesitations in the beginning in a number of areas. The role of an independent Information Commission is to ensure that there is a sense of responsibility in the exercise of the right to information.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Large borrowers call the tune
Time of troubles for Bush administration
"Forgotten children of the French Republic"
Inside the bunker of President Bush
Tony Blair is running out of true believers
The doctrine of "national interest"
Poland's patriotic Tartars
Chidambaram responds
Volcker report
Srinagar blasts
Welcome verdict
Fighting terror
Amrita Pritam
"The Information Commission's role is to act as a non-government arbiter"

Copyright © 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu