A Controversial Decision: The Supreme Court's Take on CIC Appointments
The Supreme Court's recent ruling on the disclosure of candidates for CIC appointments has sparked debate and left many questioning its implications.
In a surprising move, the Supreme Court of India has declined to order the Union Government to reveal the names of shortlisted candidates for the Central Information Commission (CIC). This decision, made by the bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, has raised eyebrows and prompted discussions on transparency and accountability.
But here's where it gets controversial...
The petitioners, led by activist Anjali Bhardwaj, argued that the Court had already settled this issue in 2018, emphasizing the need for transparency in the appointment process. However, the Court chose to leave the matter open, stating that disclosure might be counter-productive.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, urged the Court to disclose the candidates' names, believing it would encourage public participation and ensure a thorough vetting process. Justice Kant acknowledged the 2018 order but expressed concerns about potential counter-allegations and delays in the appointment process if names were made public.
And this is the part most people miss...
Bhushan highlighted a critical point: challenging a candidate's credentials after their appointment would be a post-facto exercise, rendering it less effective. He stressed the importance of transparency before the appointment to allow the public to scrutinize and provide valuable insights.
The Court, however, seemed reluctant to intervene further, stating that it would issue directions if necessary but wanted to handle the crisis first. Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj was asked to provide instructions.
In January, the Court had called on the Union and states to provide data on appointments and the selection process for Information Commissions. The Union indicated a completion timeline of three months, but appointments remained pending, leaving the CIC with only two Information Commissioners.
As of September, the petitioners informed the Court that the post of Chief Information Commissioner was vacant, and eight out of ten information commissioner posts were unfilled. The State Information Commission of Jharkhand, non-functional since 2020, remained so.
A Delayed Process, A Lack of Progress
In October, the ASG assured the Court that a selection committee, comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition, and a Union Minister, had shortlisted names and would complete the appointments within two to three weeks. However, yesterday's update revealed a delay, with the committee meeting scheduled for October not taking place.
Bhushan strongly criticized the government's lack of seriousness regarding the right to information, alleging excuses like elections and foreign trips as reasons for delays. He emphasized the absence of a Chief Information Commission and the non-functional or vacant State Information Commissions.
During interactions with state counsels, the bench learned that Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Karnataka had broadly filled vacancies, while Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh had non-functional Commissions.
The senior counsel for Jharkhand assured the Court that vacancies would be filled within 45 days as per an earlier order. Counsel for Himachal Pradesh also urged for action within two months.
For Tamil Nadu, the Court ordered the Governor to approve the appointment for the vacant post out of seven sanctioned posts. It also directed the state government to consider increasing the strength of Information Commissioners based on the total pendency of cases.
In Chhattisgarh, the High Court had imposed a stay on the appointment process, and the counsel sought six weeks for the state to address the issue.
Madhya Pradesh was informed of seven vacancies, and the Court ordered the Chief Secretary to initiate the process immediately and submit a compliance report. The bench warned that the Chief Secretary might be required to appear in court if the needful was not done.
The Court indicated it would address Bihar's issue later, given its recent elections. Justice Kant humorously suggested, "Let them settle down."
A Complex Issue, A Delicate Balance
The Supreme Court's decision not to disclose the shortlisted candidates' names for CIC appointments has sparked a debate. While some argue for transparency, others highlight the potential challenges and delays it might cause. What do you think? Should the Court have ordered disclosure, or is there a valid reason for keeping the process confidential? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
