New Delhi, Feb 10 The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would not direct for disclosure of dissent note of the leader of opposition on the issue of appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner and information commissioners of the Central Information Commission (CIC).
After the Centre said it has filled up the vacant posts in CIC, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and N V Anjaria directed the government to file a status report providing the details in terms of the apex court's 2019 judgement.
In its 2019 verdict, the apex court issued directions for filling the posts in the CIC and state information commissions (SICs).
Under Section 12 (3) of the Right to Information Act, the prime minister is the chairperson of the committee, which also comprises the leader of opposition and a Union minister nominated by the prime minister, that selects and recommends names for appointment as Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners.
The top court was hearing a plea seeking filling up of vacant posts of CIC and SICs.
During the hearing, the apex court also dealt with the issue of filing up of vacant posts in SICs and directed the states to complete the selection process soon.
The bench also asked the states to consider the desirability of increasing the sanctioned strength of SICs keeping in mind the backlog of cases there.
Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, said that appointments to the vacant posts in CIC have been made and all posts have been filled up.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioners including Anjali Bhardwaj and others, said the Centre has not disclosed details about who had applied and who were short-listed for the appointments.
"They have to disclose who are the people who have applied," he said.
The bench observed the names of persons who have been appointed are in the public domain.
Bhushan said, "The names are in public domain but not their qualifications. There is a dissent note by the leader of opposition. That is not published".
To this, the CJI said, "We will not go into that. There is no question of holding a trial here".
Bhushan argued that people are entitled to know what was the reason for the dissent by the leader of opposition.
The bench said it can't expect that the government of India and the committee will appoint any unqualified persons to these posts.
Bhushan argued that in the past, a person who had no experience about the RTI Act was appointed.
When Bhushan said details of persons who have applied for the posts were not available, the bench said, "the scope of this proceedings is to ensure that posts are filled up".
When Bhushan argued that the Centre should place the minutes of the meeting of the committee, the law officer said "no".
"People are the most powerful entity in a democracy. They know their powers," the bench said.
The bench then dealt with the issue of filling up of vacancies in the SICs.
Many of the states said the process for filling up of the vacancies were going on.
The bench granted two months time to several states to complete the process and asked others to make an endeavour to fill up the vacant posts soon.
When the top court was informed about the huge pendency of cases in some SICs, it asked the states to consider the desirability of increasing the sanctioned strength.
It posted the matter for hearing after two months.
On December 1 last year, the Centre informed the top court that Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led panel was likely to meet on December 10 to select and recommend names for the post of Chief Information Commissioner and information commissioners of the CIC.
The apex court had earlier refused to issue a directive for public disclosure of the names of candidates shortlisted for the post of chief information commissioner and information commissioners in the CIC.
Since February 2019, the apex court has passed several directions on the need for timely appointments to the transparency watchdog by the Centre and states.
On October 30, 2023, the top court issued a similar directive, noting the 2005 Right to Information law would become a "dead letter" otherwise.
The top court in December 2019 directed the Centre and state governments to appoint information commissioners in CIC and SICs within three months and asked authorities concerned to publish the names of members of the committee on the selection panel and appointment of information commissioners at the CIC on their websites.
The apex court said information officers should include people of eminence from varied fields.
