The Supreme Court last week edged out "eminentpeople" from heading information commissions under the Right toInformation Act. It ordered that only sitting or retired justices of highcourts and SC would be appointed as chief information commissioners at both thecentre and the States. But activists, who are using the RTI Act as a tool forenforcing rights, have expressed fear that the SC’s directions might lead todelays in disposal of cases.
The court said that only sitting or retired HC judges shouldbe preferred in appointment of information commissioners. It said thatappointments of legally qualified, judicially trained and experienced personwould certainly manifest in more effective serving of the ends of justice aswell as ensuring better administrationof justice by the commission.
This decision has provoked a debate whether retired judgeswould do a better job as compared to others. Shailesh Gandhi, formerinformation commissioner at the Central Information Commission calls it a baddecision and says that SC does not hold any authority to decide the appointmentof the commission. He adds that court can give recommendations but cannot makethings mandatory like Parliament does.
“There is a lot of problem with the commission. But we needto understand that it does not work like a court. We know that a transparentmethod to appoint commissioners is required but filling all the posts with theretired judges is definitely not a right approach.”
Gandhi says that court’s order to have two people in a benchwill reduce the output and it must be opposed. “Today the major problem withthe commission is the pendency of cases. If the SC judgment was to beimplemented, it would require each appeal to be heard by two commissionersrather than one. This will drop the output by 50% and pendency will furtherincrease. It is an extremely dangerous move and it will kill RTI.”
Venkatesh Nayak, one of the conveners of National Campaignfor Peoples’ Right to Information, has mixed thoughts about the order. He saysthe positive aspect is that if there is at least one judicial member, it willensure greater say of law in decision-making. But, he adds, the downside isthat it will reduce the output of the commission. “The order says that work ofthe commission will now be done in benches of two each, one of who will be ajudicial member. The cases heard and disposed of would be drastically reducedand it will become an expensive process.” He added, “The judiciary caninterpret the law or can expand it if there is no clarity. They cannot indulgein law making when it is clearly mentioned.”
Well known lawyer and social activist Prashant Bhushan saysthough a transparent method for appointment of information commissioners isneeded, to say half of them will be judges is not the right approach.
“It’s not that only judges can understand this law. Anyonewho has worked on it can understand it as it is not a complex act. In fact mostof those who drafted it are not lawyers.”
Bhushan also says that if only judges are appointed as thecommissioners then most of the posts will remain vacant. “We don’t have enoughjudges to fill all the posts. And if there will be a two-member bench, then itwill also delay the process disposal.”
RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal says SC’s verdict onappointment of information commissioners has virtually signed a death-warrantfor RTI Act.
“Implementation of SC verdict will practically andeffectively find approaching central information commission totallyimpractical. Admittedly my passion to use RTI Act in larger national and publicis not mandatory. But I cannot remain a mute spectator to irregularities andscams in system in presence of an effective tool available in present form ofRTI Act, which is going to be practically eliminated ‘prospectively’ after thecourt’s verdict is implemented.”
