The Uttar Pradesh government has accused Chief Information Commissioner M A Khan of serious misconduct and irregularities in appointments to the commission. Khan says the accusations are false and politically motivated

The Supreme Court has issued a notice to “suspended” Uttar Pradesh Chief Information Commissioner M A Khan, setting in motion a probe into charges of misconduct against him. Khan, a former Allahabad High Court judge, is the first authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005 to be suspended and to face a Supreme Court probe.

Acting on a report from Uttar Pradesh Governor T V Rajeswar, seeking an investigation into specific allegations of misconduct against the commissioner, a Supreme Court bench issued the notice on August 29 seeking a response within six weeks.

Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices P Sathasivam and J M Panchal earlier heard Additional Advocate-General Shail Diwedi who explained the allegations against Khan.

The Uttar Pradesh government has accused Khan of serious misconduct and irregularities in appointments to the commission. The governor suspended him on July 9 on the state government’s recommendation, and referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India.  

The Uttar Pradesh governor had written to the chief justice stating that a prima facie case existed for an inquiry into three charges under Section 17 (1) of the RTI, and asked that Khan be removed on grounds of misconduct and incapacity. 

Under Section 17 of the Act, a governor can remove an information commissioner or even suspend him if the Supreme Court, in an inquiry made on the governor’s reference, finds the charges to be true. Until the probe is over, however, Khan can only be barred from entering office.  

Suspension of the commissioner followed a series of run-ins with the government and RTI activists. Khan had made adverse observations against the government and had summoned senior officials like the chief secretary and the Cabinet secretary for an explanation.  

A group of social activists, including Magsaysay Award winner Sandeep Pandey, who is associated with the Save RTI Campaign, have also filed complaints against Khan. 

Violating norms for recruiting employees into the commission, financial irregularities, mistreating complainants and non-cooperation with colleagues are some of the charges levelled against Khan. 

It is alleged that he made direct recruitments of 40 Class 3 and 4 employees without following the norms for reservation. Khan has also been charged with financial irregularities. 

“Social activists in one of their complaints have stated that penalties were imposed by Khan in a majority of cases when the information was not provided during the stipulated time. However, the penalty was realised only in a few cases,” said a state government official. 

The former commissioner, who has now moved the high court against his suspension, claims that all the charges against him are baseless. “As far as recruitment is concerned, I have all the papers ready to prove that recruitments were made on the directions of the government only,” he said. 

Likewise, the charges pertaining to anomalies in realising penalties are also baseless and illogical, he said. “Realising the penalty amount comes under the ambit of the district administration. In cases of anomalies, although I directed the organisations concerned to pay up the fine, its recovery has to be ensured by district magistrates and other government officials,” he elaborated. 

The suspended commissioner says all the charges against him are politically motivated.

“My suspension stems from a 2005 ruling in an anti-defection case, in which I, as a high court judge, recognised the merger of 40 rebel Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) legislators with the Samajwadi Party,” he said in an interview with a news agency. 

After retiring from the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court in November 2005, Khan was appointed chief information commissioner during the last days of the Mulayam Singh Yadav government. The appointment was seen by many as a ‘reward’ for Khan. 

The latest action against Khan has evoked mixed reactions from activists, with India’s Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah asserting that nobody could “harass” information commissioners. “There is a written process of law on how action against an information commissioner can be taken. There is no point in harassing commissioners, and nobody can stop them from completing their five-year term in office,” said the topmost information official in the country. 

Habibullah, however, said the inquiry by the Supreme Court into Khan’s alleged misconduct was according to the letter of the law. “There is nothing objectionable to certain checks and balances in the system, but they should not lead to any harassment,” he said. 

Prominent RTI activist Aruna Roy called the incident “most unfortunate” if the suspension was instigated by “political motives”. “If the incident is politically shaped rather than based on genuine facts, this would amount to a gross misuse of the law,” she said.  

Asked if an independent inquiry into the allegations against Khan should be held within the RTI framework instead of by the Supreme Court, Roy said: “The RTI Act calls for an inquiry by the Supreme Court. The choice of the institution of authority may not be perfect, but it is technically correct.” 

Information Commissioner O P Kejriwal with the Central Information Commission (CIC) revealed that he and his colleagues were often targeted with allegations, mainly from litigants. “Each of us, including Wajahat, is accused of various types of misconduct like caste bias, giving undue favours, and gender discrimination. I am myself blamed for gender bias. You see, the CIC is the apex body, and it is only natural that our decision in a case being final will harm one party or the other. We cannot make everyone happy, can we,” he asked. 

Kejriwal insisted that action against Khan would set a “bad precedent” since information commissioners would now be subjected to a “spate of allegations”. The information commissioner added that the Uttar Pradesh incident should be treated as an “isolated case”. 

Source: The Telegraph, September 1, 2008
           IANS, August 31, 2008
          The Hindu, August 30, 2008"
          The Indian Express, July 12, 2008
          The Hindu, July 10, 2008