The Supreme Court has opted not to compel the central government to disclose the names of individuals under consideration for the Central Information Commission (CIC) and Information Commissioner (IC) posts. This decision came during a hearing on a petition filed by RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj and others, who argued that the court’s previous directives to publish the shortlist had not been followed, leading to vacant positions and a backlog of nearly 30,000 cases.
The court, presided over by Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, acknowledged a delay in the appointment process but chose not to interfere too deeply at each stage, stating, “Let us not doubt everything.” The bench granted the selection committee, headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, an additional three weeks to finalize the appointments. The court expressed confidence that the government would adhere to the guidelines previously set in the Anjali Bhardwaj judgment from 2019 and complete the process promptly.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj informed the court that the shortlisting process is complete and the Selection Committee, which includes the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and a Union Minister, will soon consider the candidates. He requested three more weeks to finalize the process and report compliance.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, highlighted that the 2019 judgment mandates the disclosure of the Search Committee’s composition and the shortlisted candidates’ names before the selection is made. He pointed out that a recent order on January 7 had reiterated these directions and set timelines for filling vacant posts across the country.
Bhushan stressed the importance of transparency, stating that the public has a right to know who is being appointed, especially citing a past instance where a journalist close to the government was appointed as an IC without even applying for the post. The court, while acknowledging the delay, indicated that excessive judicial scrutiny at every step could hinder the selection process.
The ASG argued that the government has the prerogative to appoint individuals who may not have applied as per the initial advertisement, a point the court seemed to understand, drawing a parallel to the process of designating senior advocates where eminent individuals might be appointed suo motu even if they haven’t applied.
Bhushan countered that states were generally following the court’s orders and that the Centre should not be an exception, emphasizing the dire consequences of pending appointments on the functioning of the RTI Act and the escalating case pendency in various states, some of which have defunct information commissions.
The court affirmed the need for transparency and the citizens’ right to know, stating, “Transparency must be there and we will make sure they disclose. There can’t be an exception to citizens’ right to know…” It also assured that any appointment of an ineligible person would be examined.
The court was informed that several states, including Maharashtra, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and West Bengal, have begun the process of filling vacancies. The bench directed these states to complete the process within three weeks and asked all states to submit status reports on sanctioned posts and timelines for filling them.
Furthermore, states with high case pendency were advised to consider creating more posts. Jharkhand was given 45 days to complete appointments and revive its information commission, which has been non-functional since May 2020.
The Supreme Court reiterated the significance of the Right to Information Act, recalling its 2019 judgment that stated the Act has the potential to foster good governance, an essential component of a vibrant democracy.