Supreme Court Refuses To Direct Disclosure Of Opposition Leader's Dissent Regarding CIC Appointments

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to direct the publication of the dissent note of the Leader of Opposition regarding the appointment of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria did not accept the argument made by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, on behalf of RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj, that the Opposition Leader's dissent must be published.

"We will not go into that part, there is no question of holding this kind of trial here," CJI Kant said. Bhushan asserted that the people have the right to know why the Opposition Leader dissented against the proposal(s) in the selection committee.

CJI however said that the Court cannot expect that the Government of India will appoint unqualified persons.

"Do we expect the Government of India, this Selection Committee will appoint an unqualified person?" CJI asked. Bhushan said that the Government has in the past appointed a person, who had no experience with the RTI Act and had not even applied, as the CIC. The CJI responded that if there is any illegality in an appointment, then it has to be specifically and separately challenged.

The CICs and ICs are selected by a Selection Committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and a Union Minister.

Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj informed the bench that the appointments to the Central Information Commission have already been made. The bench asked the ASG to file a status report regarding the CIC appointments, along with details as to how many candidates had applied and how many were shortlisted.

Bhushan also drew the bench's attention to the status of vacancies and pending appeals in State Information Commissions. The bench gave 2 months' time to the states to fill the vacancies and in some cases, asked them to consider the desirability of increasing the strength of sanctioned posts to tackle the pendency.

Previously, the Court had refused to direct that the candidates short-listed for CIC appointments must be disclosed.

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