Alleging that there was lack of transparency and accountability in the managing of the centre, Adv. Rodrigues has lamented that a Public Information Officer has yet not been appointed though eight long years have passed since the enactment of the Right to Information Act.
Adv. Rodrigues has stated that the ICG being substantially funded by the central and state governments it was a ‘public authority’ in terms of the Right to Information Act
Adv. Rodrigues has further stated that it was an irony that though the Director of ICG Mrs. Nandini Sahai was also the President of Goa RTI forum she had herself failed to comply with the mandate of the RTI Act at the ICG.
Demanding that every paisa spent on programmes organized or sponsored by ICG needed to be judiciously spent, Adv. Rodrigues has stated that the ICG could not be used as a vehicle to entertain or promote the interests of friends and family.
Adv. Rodrigues has also stated that though the ICG is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 it was not functioning in accordance with law.
Adv. Rodrigues has expressed surprise that the General body of the ICG is composed of only the Trustees of the Centre which include 10 life trustees while disregarding the other over 2000 members.
Pointing out that the 10 life trustees who will continue till the age of 80 includes amongst others Advocate General of Goa Atmaram Nadkarni, Adv. Rodrigues has expressed surprise as to how the legal luminary Atmaram Nadkarni had allowed such a blatant anomaly to go on.
Stating that the General body of any registered society should comprise of all its members, Adv. Rodrigues has stated that it could not be a conclave of the privileged trustees.
Adv. Rodrigues has stated that as a Life member of ICG he wanted that every member should have a say in the working and functioning of the Centre.