Disclosure Of Candidates Shortlisted For CIC Appointments Might Be Counter-Productive : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court yesterday again declined to direct the Union Government to publicly disclose the names of candidates shortlisted for appointments to the Central Information Commission (CIC), saying that the same may be counter-productive to the appointment process.

Though the petitioners emphasized that the issue was settled by the Court in 2018 itself and a mandamus be issued for disclosure of candidates' names, the bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was inclined to leave the issue open. Earlier, on November 17 as well, the Court had turned down the plea of the petitioners to divulge the names of shortlisted candidates. 

It also refused to summon at this stage the Secretary of the Department of Personnel & Training to explain the delay in the appointment process. "If need be, we will do that", said the bench.

"We have impressed upon Mr Nataraj (ASG) to speak to DoPT and apprise them of the total vacancies which are lying unfilled. We have no reason to doubt that the competent authority will take necessary initiative to fill up vacancies", the order recorded.

The Court was hearing a PIL filed by activist Anjali Bhardwaj regarding delays and lack of transparency in appointments to the Central and State Information Commissions.

On the plea by Advocate Prashant Bhushan (for petitioners) that the names of the candidates be disclosed so that anyone who knows anything crucial about them may come forward, Justice Kant said, "We are aware order (of 2018) is there. But disclosure may be counter-productive to appointment. If allegations, counter-allegations, etc. start, State will have justification to say keep it (appointment) in abeyance. If a wrong person is appointed, you can point out".

Bhushan however stressed that in said scenario, challenge to a candidate's credentials would become a post-facto exercise. "Prior to appointment, this transparency is essential to ensure people know who is being considered", the counsel said.

At last, Justice Kant adjourned the matter saying, "We are not saying anything. If need be, we will issue direction for compliance of that also. Let's handle this crisis first". Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj was asked to come back with instructions.

It may be recalled that in January, the Court called on the Union and states to furnish data regarding appointments and selection process for the Information Commissions (including proposed timelines) as well as total pendency of cases/appeals before them.

In its counter, the Union indicated that the appointment process will be completed within 3 months, that is, by April, 2025. However, the appointments remained pending and the CIC kept functioning with only 2 Information Commissioners. Infact, according to the petitioners, there are over 26,800 appeals/complaints pending before the Commission.

In September, the petitioners informed the Court that the post of Chief Information Commissioner was unfilled and out of 10 information commissioner posts, 8 were lying vacant. It was further pointed out that the State Information Commission of Jharkhand, which has been defunct since May, 2020, continued to remain non-functional.

In October, the ASG informed the Court that the search committee had short-listed the names, and the appointments would be done by a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition and a Union Minister nominated by the PM. He also assured that the entire appointment process will be completed within two to three weeks.

Yesterday, it was informed that a meeting of the Committee was scheduled in October, but could not take place. Taking strong objection, Bhushan claimed that the government is not serious about the right to information and every time there is an excuse to justify delay - such as elections, foreign trips, etc. He further alleged that there is still no Chief Information Commission and many State Information Commissions are either lying defunct or having multiple vacancies. "Until this Court cracks the whip, nothing is going to happen", Bhushan said.

In interaction with the State counsels, the bench was apprised that states of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Karnataka have broadly filled up vacancies and their Commissions are working in full capacity. On the other hand, in Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh, the Commissions are defunct.

Senior counsel for Jharkhand stated that vacancies would be filled up within 45 days granted by the court by an earlier order. Hearing him, the Court recorded, "we have no reason to doubt that the competent authority will look into the matter and do the needful as early as possible."

Counsel for Himachal Pradesh also urged that the needful shall be done in 2 months.

With regard to Tamil Nadu, it was informed that 1 post (out of 7 sanctioned posts) was lying vacant and approval of the appointment was pending with the Governor. As such, the court ordered, "Necessary approval be accorded at earliest to fill up the vacancy". It also directed the state government to consider the desirability of increasing the strength of the Information Commissioners keeping in view the total pendency. An appropriate decision in this regard be taken in 2 months, the court said.

Counsel for Chhattisgarh informed that the High Court had imposed a stay on the appointment process and the matter before it got decided on November 11. He sought time of 6 weeks for the state to do the needful.

In the context of Madhya Pradesh, the bench was informed that there are 7 vacancies. As the state was not represented, it ordered that the Chief Secretary, MP shall start the process immediately, if not already done, and submit compliance report. If needful is not done, the Chief Secretary may be required to remain present in court, the bench warned.

The Court also indicated that it will deal with Bihar's issue later (as it has just gone through elections). "Let them settle down", Justice Kant said in jest.

Case Title: ANJALI BHARDWAJ AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., MA 1979/2019 in W.P.(C) No. 436/2018

Click Here To Read/Download Order