RTI undermined as C’garh panel posts lie vacant

Recently, the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board (CSEB) refused to abide by an order passed by Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) A K Vijayvargiya, moving the high court against his jurisdiction on the ground of lack of “statutory quorum” as required under the Right to Information Act. The CSEB contended that a single member couldn’t pass the order, as the CIC has to delegate his powers under the Act.

The issue came up when Mohan Aunty filed an application under the RTI, seeking the report of the Sohani Committee on wage revision of the CSEB staff. Subsequently, the matter reached the CIC, which directed the CSEB to provide the information sought by the applicant.

However, the CSEB refused to comply and moved the high court, pointing out that the RTI Act clearly states that the State Information Commission (SIC) should have one CIC and not more than 10 Information Commissioners, to be appointed by the Governor.

Apart from the electricity board, the Bilaspur-based Guru Ghasidas University and four other institutions have also filed petitions in the high court, challenging the authority of the CIC to pass orders on various grounds, including “lack of statutory quorum”.

Admitting the lack of numbers, SIC Secretary S P Trivedi said: “It’s up to the state Government to appoint Information Commissioners. The commission has no say in such matters… There are many other states where the CIC or the Information Commissioners are yet to be appointed.”

Trivedi added that the RTI Act was clear that the CIC could hear appeals and pass orders. “If anyone challenges this, it is up to the state Government to defend in court.”

The situation in the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog, constituted to fight corruption, is no different. While Justice K M Agrawal is the Chief Lok Ayukta, the post of Lok Ayukta has been vacant since the beginning. Agarwal is already on an extension, and his tenure is due to end this August.

With nearly 500 odd cases pending with the Lok Aayog, questions are now being raised over the effectiveness of the anti-corruption commission.

Says senior advocate Kanak Tiwari: “The Lok Ayukta of undivided Madhya Pradesh had vast powers. The scope of the Lok Aayog in Chhattisgarh is much less and it lacks the powers to get complaints investigated by its own team. The state bureau of economic offences and anti-corruption bureau are not under the Lok Aayog. Besides, the composition of the Lok Aayog is also different from that of the one in Madhya Pradesh.”

The Chhattisgarh State Human Rights Commission is also on the same track. The Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 stipulates that the panel shall consist of a chairperson who has been the chief justice of a high court. However, it has been headed by an acting chairman for the past more than four years.

Retired district judge L J Singh, who is officiating, is also due to retire later this year. The commission receives an average of 2,200 complaints from across the state every year.

During the last three years, the State Public Service Commission, its two chairmen and even members have been in the midst of controversies over irregularities in examinations and charges of corruption.

Trouble began in the PSC after the commission declared the results of the state civil services preliminary examination 2003. As irregularities in examination came to light, PSC member Chandrashekhar Sahu quit his post, demanding a probe.