SIC: Stop this disgrace

Institutions such as the State Information Commission, State Election Commission, State Public Service Commission, State Human Rights Commission, State Consumer Redressal Commission and the State Lok Ayukta are statutory bodies which are supposed to function in a fair and independent manner. They are not the official organs of the government like government departments.The statute under which they are constituted guards their freedom and independent character. The government should maintain the minimum decorum and decency whilst making appointments on such bodies. The process followed by the government to make appointments on such bodies should not in any way degrade the standing of persons appointed on such institutions.
Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar and the Committee constituted to make final selections on the State Information Commission has made a mockery of the selection process. This amounts to making fun of the people of eminence who are supposed to function as Information Commissioners. The State Information Commission is a quasi-judicial body and should be treated with respect. Whilst making appointments, the Chief Minister and his team should realize that they are not hiring persons or providing a job. They are in fact inviting people of eminence to take up the seats on such bodies so as to maintain the independence and dignity of such institutions.
Incidentally, let me put on record that my name was also recommended for SIC in an earlier selection process. However, it did not draw the pleasure of the government. As such, there is a possibility that my observations may be viewed as "sour grapes" by some and so be it. I cannot change this accident but my observations are to maintain the dignity of the institution.
The BJP government has bungled for the fourth time whilst making appointments to the State Information Commission. This speaks of the poor value the government accords to such institutions. In every new attempt to fill the posts to the Information Commission, the government has set bad precedents. Later, the government had to withdraw and cancel the selections for fear of inviting strictures from the High Court.
In the fourth attempt, the government followed the procedure of calling for applications from interested candidates. Such posts need to be filled by a process of search and recommendation rather than people of eminence being forced to apply as if they are vacancies in government departments. But, the government made people of eminence in their respective field to file their applications. Later, a committee under the chairmanship of the chief secretary short-listed ten candidates from the 45 applications received. No intelligible and identifiable criteria seem to have been followed for short-listing. If followed, the criteria were not placed before the final three-member committee of chief minister, deputy chief minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
It is the job of the three-member committee to finally select two from either the list of ten placed before it or from the list of 45 applicants. However, the three-member committee is setting another hopeless and appalling precedent of calling four people of eminence in their respective field to appear before the committee. If the three member committee cannot come to a decision after discussions, they should meet again. Under no circumstances, they should call applicants before them. There is something seriously wrong with this approach. It is a bad precedent and humiliating for people of eminence. This approach wherein ministers officially meet persons who will head quasi-judicial bodies as a part of selection process is unheard of in government administration.
People of eminence are people who should be otherwise known to the three member committee due to their contributions in their respective fields. It is wrong to parade them before a committee of ministers and legislators. Posts in statutory bodies should not be reduced to vacancies in government departments.
What is the purpose of such a meeting even if it is not an interview as claimed by the Chief Minister? Do the three politicians want to learn about the eminence of the shortlisted from the mouth of the candidates? What is the source which gives the power to the three politicians to have a formal interview?
This could be the attempt of the know-all Chief Minister to hide his stubborn arrogance because of which the three member committee could not arrive at a unanimous selection. This could also possibly be a cover up for opaque decision making by faking transparency. The Leader of the Opposition should put his foot down and should not be a party for such bad precedents in filling quasi-judicial posts of independent statutory bodies. If at all the three member committee needs additional information and inputs of the applicants they should get it from their official administrative channel.
The writer is an educationist, legal expert and former state election commissioner