The appointments of Vijai Sharma as Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and K.V. Chowdary as Chief Vigilance Commissioner (CVC), which have been a long time coming, also raise some concerns about the Narendra Modi government’s level of engagement with institutions that form the life breath of Indian democracy. The CIC presides over the Right to Information, crucial to a participatory democracy in making institutions accountable, while the CVC is tasked with overseeing the vigilance administration. As watchdogs, both are premised on the principles of transparency and autonomy. For this reason, utmost transparency is called for in these appointments, and it is imperative that the processes by which the names are arrived at are in the public domain. Yet, in the last one year, amid all the achievements of the Modi government, the delay in appointing suitable candidates to these posts had been a matter of some concern, flagged by political parties, informed citizen groups and others. At last count, the Central Information Commission, which has been functioning without a chief for the last 10 months, has nearly 37,788 cases to clear. Three posts of information commissioners in the CIC are vacant. The CIC bench is authorised to hear appeals with respect to the PMO, the Department of Personnel, the CVC, the CAG, and crucial government Ministries.
Democracy is also about processes. Here, the government’s intentions cannot be said to have been strictly above board. If the purpose was to appoint Mr. Sharma, the seniormost Information Commissioner, as the chief anyway, why did the 10-month-long delay occur? After all, the convention so far had been to appoint the seniormost Commissioner as CIC. More important, in March the PMO decided to take away the financial autonomy of the CIC by delegating the powers to a government-appointed secretary, prompting many citizen groups to say the government had weakened the CIC and trampled on its autonomy. In the case of Mr. Chowdary, the process of appointment started after the Supreme Court gave the go-ahead, directing the government to ensure transparency by providing the selection committee headed by the Prime Minister the details of all 130 applicants who applied for the CVC’s post (according to media reports), and not just of those shortlisted by a panel of three bureaucrats. The court is yet to complete hearings on a public interest litigation petition questioning the process of appointment of the CVC. The Opposition, whose role is crucial in the process of appointment of the CVC, may have become an ally of the government in this instance. But unless the government addresses concerns over whether it has gone through all the processes and procedures laid down under law, questions and doubts will remain.
