SC refuses to ask govt to disclose CIC candidates

THe sublime margaret court on mon refused to prescribe the Centre to expose names of candidates being considered by a selection committee headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the post of Central Information Commission (CIC).The court was hearing a petition filed by RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj and two others who informed the court that despite the court directing the list of shortlisted candidates to be disclosed on the website, there is no information available on the persons sought to be made CIC and ICs at the Central Information Commission.The plea alleged that, on January 7, three months was granted for filling up the post of CIC and 8 ICs at the central information panel. However, 10 months have since lapsed and the posts remain vacant, causing case pendency to rise to almost 30,000 cases.The bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said, “Let us not doubt everything,” as it allowed further time of three weeks for the selection committee to finalise the appointments. The order of the court said, “We have no reason to doubt that the Union government shall follow the guidelines laid down in Anjali Bhadwaj judgment (2019) and finalise the process at the earliest.”The order followed a statement made by additional solicitor general (ASG) KM Nataraj who assured that the Search Committee has completed the process of short-listing the candidates and the names will be shortly considered by a Selection Committee comprising the PM, the Leader of Opposition and a Union Minister. He sought three more weeks for completing the process and reporting compliance.Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for the petitioners told the court that the 2019 judgment clearly requires the composition of the Search Committee and the candidates being considered for appointment to be disclosed prior to the selection being made. He referred to the January 7 order which reiterated this direction and set timelines for Centre, states and union territories to fill up vacant posts of CIC and ICs in state information commissions.Bhushan said that this is vital in the interest of transparency as people have a right to know who is getting appointed. He cited a past instance where a journalist who was supposed to be close to the government was made IC without having applied for the post.The bench said, “No doubt, there is delay but they (Centre) are asking for a short time…If we start having judicial scrutiny for every stage, the selection will not happen. Let the right time come.”ASG Nataraj said that the petitioners cannot dictate who is to be appointed as the Centre has maintained that it can appoint persons who may necessarily not have applied as per the advertisement issued.The court favoured the idea citing the difficulty faced by the Supreme Court and high courts in conferring senior advocate designation to those who refuse to apply. “This can sometimes create problems. There may be a person of eminence who may not apply. We face it in Supreme Court and high courts as there are lawyers who do not apply for senior designation. It is then when we exercise the power to suo motu confer the designation.”Bhushan felt that states were following the Supreme Court’s order and there can be no exception for the Centre. He said, “Pendency is sky-rocketing. The whole RTI Act is being destroyed by not making appointments. These things later become fait accompli. Let the names of persons who applied be available in public domain. This court’s order says so.”Figures presented by the petitioners stated that the information commissions in Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh are defunct. In other states with vacancies, the pendency of cases is huge, with Maharashtra (90,000), Karnataka (50,000), Tamil Nadu (41,000), Bihar (about 30,000) and Odisha (20,000), a note supplied by Bhushan said.The court said, “Transparency must be there and we will make sure they disclose. There can’t be an exception to citizens’ right to know…The appointment made is not fait accompli. If any illegible person is being considered, we will examine it.”The court was informed that states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal have initiated the process of filling up the vacant posts. The bench directed this process to be completed in three weeks. The court further directed all states to file a status report with regard to the sanctioned posts, the posts remaining to be filled and the timeline to fill the same.In addition, the court directed the states with huge pendency to consider sanctioning more posts for handling the load of cases. In addition, the court granted 45 days for Jharkhand to complete the appointment and revive the state information commission, lying defunct since May 2020.In its 2019 judgment, the top court held, “This Right to Information Act is enacted not only to sub-serve and ensure freedom of speech. On proper implementation, it has the potential to bring about good governance which is an integral part of any vibrant democracy.”