Are the appointments in the information commission as per law?
27 Jan, 2014In the Namit Sharma Review petition (Link in the site - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/circular/2309.pdf), certain observations were made by the Supreme Court. It is worthwhile to examine how many of them have been implemented.
27. In the judgment under review, this Court has also held that if Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act are not read in the manner suggested in the judgment, these Sections would offend the doctrine of equality. But on reading Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act, we find that it does not discriminate against any person in the matter of appointment as Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners and so long as one is a person of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance, he is eligible to be considered for appointment as Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner. However, to ensure that the equality clause in Article 14 is not offended, the persons to be considered for appointment as Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner should be from different fields, namely, law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance and not just from one field.
32
iv) We further direct that persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in all the fields mentioned in Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act, namely, law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance, be considered by the Committees under Sections 12(3) and 15(3) of the Act for appointment as Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioners.
v) We further direct that the Committees under Sections 12(3) and 15(3) of the Act while making recommendations to the President or to the Governor, as the case may be, for appointment of Chief
Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners must mention against the name of each candidate recommended, the facts to indicate his eminence in public life, his knowledge in the particular field and his experience in the particular field and these facts must be accessible to the citizens as part of their right to information under the Act after the appointment is made.
It is apparent that there is a contempt of court as:
1. Largely ex-bureaucrats are being appointed to these posts and people from different walks of life are not given due representation. The judgment requires that people from ALL fields should be considered and appointed.
2. The facts are not accessible to the citizens as a part of their pro-active disclosure.
Hans Raj