The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it clear that it would not compel the Central government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to place in the public domain the dissent note recorded by Leader of the Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi regarding appointments to the Central Information Commission (CIC).
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria, said the court would not expand the scope of the present proceedings to examine the reasons behind the dissent. “We will not go into that. There is no question of holding a trial here,” CJI Kant observed when the issue was pressed during the hearing.
Scope of the petition
The matter came up in a plea seeking expeditious filling of vacancies in the CIC and various State Information Commissions (SICs).
The bench underlined that the limited purpose of the case was to ensure that vacant posts were filled, not to scrutinise the internal deliberations of the selection committee.
When advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioners including Anjali Bhardwaj and others, argued that citizens were entitled to know the basis of the Opposition leader’s disagreement, the court declined to intervene.
It remarked that it could not presume that the government and the selection panel would appoint “unqualified” persons.
CJI Kant further indicated that if any appointment violated the provisions of the Right to Information Act (RTI Act), it could be challenged independently, as the present petition was confined to the issue of vacancies.
Appointments and transparency concerns
The Centre, represented by Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, informed the bench that appointments to the vacant positions in the CIC had already been made and that all posts now stood filled.
The court directed the government to submit a status report with details in terms of its 2019 judgment on the matter.
Bhushan, however, submitted that the government had not revealed who had applied for the posts or who had been shortlisted.
“They have to disclose who are the people who have applied,” he said, adding that although the names of appointees were publicly known, “The names are in public domain but not their qualifications. There is a dissent note by the leader of opposition. That is not published”.
When he pressed for the minutes of the selection committee meeting to be placed on record, the law officer responded with a firm “no”.
The bench reiterated that it would not convert the proceedings into an evaluative exercise, observing, “the scope of this proceedings is to ensure that posts are filled up”.
Composition of the selection panel
Under Section 12(3) of the RTI Act, the Prime Minister heads the committee tasked with recommending names for appointment as Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners.
The panel also includes the Leader of the Opposition and a Union minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
The court had previously, in its 2019 ruling, directed both the Centre and the states to ensure timely appointments to the CIC and SICs, warning that the transparency law could otherwise become ineffective.
Vacancies in states and backlog
Turning to the situation in the states, the bench was informed that the selection process was underway in several jurisdictions. The court granted two months to some states to complete the exercise and asked others to make efforts to fill their vacant positions promptly.
In light of reports of heavy pendency in certain SICs, the bench also advised states to examine the desirability of enhancing the sanctioned strength of commissioners to address the backlog. The matter is scheduled for further hearing after two months.
(With inputs from PTI)
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
Find the best of Al News in one place, specially curated for you every weekend.
Stay on top of the latest tech trends and biggest startup news.
