The Supreme Court declined to direct the Centre to disclose the Leader of Opposition’s dissent note on appointments to the Central Information Commission. The Court stressed that its limited role is to ensure vacancies are filled and confirmed that all CIC posts have now been filled.
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday made it clear that it will not order the government to disclose the dissent note given by the Leader of Opposition during the appointment process of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners of the Central Information Commission (CIC).
The observation came after the Central Government informed the Court that all vacant posts in the CIC have now been filled.
A Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N V Anjaria, directed the Centre to file a detailed status report in compliance with the Supreme Court’s 2019 judgment on appointments to the CIC and State Information Commissions (SICs).
In its 2019 ruling, the apex court had laid down clear directions for timely filling of vacancies in the CIC and SICs to ensure that the transparency framework under the Right to Information law continues to function effectively.
As per Section 12(3) of the Right to Information Act, the selection committee for appointing the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners includes the Prime Minister as Chairperson, the Leader of Opposition, and a Union Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
The present case was being heard on a plea seeking directions to fill long-pending vacancies in the CIC and SICs across the country.
During the hearing, the Court also reviewed the situation relating to vacancies in various State Information Commissions and directed state governments to speed up their appointment processes. The Bench further asked states to consider whether the sanctioned strength of SICs should be increased, especially in view of heavy pendency of cases.
Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, told the Court that all vacant posts in the CIC have now been filled.
However, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners including Anjali Bhardwaj, argued that the Centre has not made public the details of applicants and shortlisted candidates for these appointments.
“They have to disclose who are the people who have applied,”
Bhushan submitted.
The Bench responded by noting that the names of the appointed Information Commissioners are already available in the public domain.
Bhushan then argued,
“The names are in public domain but not their qualifications. There is a dissent note by the leader of opposition. That is not published”.
Rejecting this contention, the Chief Justice said,
“We will not go into that. There is no question of holding a trial here”.
Bhushan maintained that citizens have a right to know the reasons behind the dissent expressed by the Leader of Opposition in the selection committee.
The Bench, however, expressed confidence in the appointment process and stated that it cannot presume that unqualified individuals would be appointed to such important constitutional positions.
Bhushan countered this by saying that in the past, a person without any experience related to the RTI Act had been appointed.
When Bhushan complained that details of applicants were not available in the public domain, the Bench clarified the limited scope of the proceedings, stating,
“the scope of this proceedings is to ensure that posts are filled up”.
Bhushan then requested that the minutes of the selection committee meetings be placed on record, which was opposed by the law officer representing the Centre.
Responding to the broader issue of public accountability, the Bench observed,
“People are the most powerful entity in a democracy. They know their powers,”.
The Court then turned its attention to vacancies in State Information Commissions. Several states informed the Bench that their selection processes were ongoing. The Court granted two months’ time to many states to complete appointments and urged others to make sincere efforts to fill the posts at the earliest.
After being informed about massive backlogs in certain SICs, the Court asked states to seriously consider increasing the sanctioned strength of Information Commissioners to ensure effective disposal of RTI appeals and complaints.
The matter has now been listed for further hearing after two months.
It may be recalled that on December 1 last year, the Centre had informed the apex court that the Prime Minister-led selection panel headed by Narendra Modi was likely to meet on December 10 to finalise names for appointment to the CIC.
The Supreme Court has consistently monitored the functioning of information commissions since 2019 and has repeatedly emphasised that delays in appointments weaken the Right to Information framework.
Earlier, the Court had also refused to issue directions for public disclosure of shortlisted candidates’ names for CIC appointments.
On October 30, 2023, the apex court had warned that the 2005 Right to Information law would become a “dead letter” if vacancies were not filled in time.
ALSO READ: Rahul Gandhi Walks Out in 30 minutes! ‘Power Grab’ Over Election Commission Exposed?
In December 2019, the Court had directed the Centre and state governments to complete appointments to the CIC and SICs within three months and mandated publication of details relating to the selection committee and appointments on official websites.
The Court had also underlined that Information Commissioners should be persons of eminence drawn from diverse fields to preserve the credibility and effectiveness of the transparency watchdog.
Click Here to Read More Reports On LoP’s Dissent
