RTI activists oppose bid to appoint info officials

Governor urged to put his foot down

Right to Information (RTI) activists are up in arms against the two names recommended for the post of State Information Commissioner (SIC) by the government.

The government has reportedly proposed the names of Ilapuram Raja, president of the Vijayawada Hoteliers’ Association and son of former MLC Ilapuram Venkaiah, and Eerla Srirama Murthy, former revenue employee and also former personal secretary of HRD Minister Ganta Srinivasa Rao.

The activists of the Andhra Pradesh chapter of the United Forum of RTI (UFRTI) said they had been opposing the move ever since the names started doing the rounds. But unmindful of the series of protests, the government went ahead and submitted the file for the Governor’s approval.

Citing Section 15, in which sub-sections 5 and 6 talk about the qualifications of the SICs, Chakradhar Budda, co-convenor of the forum, pointed out that as per the rule, the SICs should 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.

“Sub-Section (6) makes it clear that the SIC should not be a Member of Parliament or Member of Legislature or hold any other office of profit or connected with any political party or carrying on any business or pursuing any profession,” Mr. Buddha says.

‘Lack of transparency’

Concurring with him, Emmanuel Dasari, also co-convener of UFRTI, AP, said while the process of appointments of the commissioners should be carried out in the most transparent manner, the government seems to be in a hurry to push their case.

In a letter addressed to Governor E.S.L. Narasimham, the forum members have urged him not to go by the government’s recommendation as “they are not suitable candidates for the post.”

It may be recalled that in the past, four SICs —Thanthiya Kumari, Imtiyaz Ahmed, Vijaya Nirmala and V. Venkateswarlu — had to vacate their position after the Supreme Court ruled their appointment as invalid.

Ironically, the ruling came almost at the fag end of their five-year tenure.