Vacancies in Information Commissions | Day 2: Fundamental right to information is being “defeated”, argued Bhushan
Vacancies in Information CommissionsJudges: Surya Kant J, Joymalya Bagchi J
Today, a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi took up the matter of vacancies in the Central and State Information Commissions. Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for petitioner Anjali Bharadwaj and argued that the Union is delaying the process for appointing commissioners in the Central Information Commission. Counsel also appeared for state governments where the commissions were either defunct or functioning with significant vacancies.
Nine vacancies in Central Information Commission
Natraj, appearing for the Union, submitted that the appointing committee consisting Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition, and a Union cabinet member, had a scheduled meeting for 28 October to finalise appointments in the Central Commission. This meeting was deferred. Bhushan argued that out of 11 positions, nine remain vacant. He argued that the right to information is “not at all a priority of the government”. He stated that there would be no change in vacancies unless the court “cracks the whip”. Moreover, over 25,000 appeals are pending before the commission.
Bhushan said that the Court in 2018 had directed the publication of the selection criteria, the names of the candidates, and the name of the search and selection committee. Justice Kant pointed out that it would be “counter-productive” to publish the names of the shortlisted candidates. Bhushan was quick to respond that the selection process should be transparent and the publication of names would allow stakeholders to raise objections to the names of the candidates. He reiterated that a binding judgement had directed the publication of shortlisted candidates. Justice Kant, however, recommended that the Court can take up challenges after the appointment process concludes, stating that judicial scrutiny would apply.
States of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Karnataka nearly filled vacancies
Bhushan pointed out that the state commissions in Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh are currently defunct. In the previous hearing, the Court had granted 45 days to Jharkhand to conclude the selection process. In the case of Himachal Pradesh, the Court granted two months’ time to fill the vacancies.
The counsel appearing for Tamil Nadu pointed out that there is only one vacancy pending in the state and the recommended candidate is pending approval from the Governor. Bhushan stated that the present sanctioned strength of Tamil Nadu was not sufficient to tackle the 41,000 pending cases. He recommended that the sanctioned strength be increased from six to 11. Similarly, Bhushan submitted that Chattisgarh also requires an increase in its sanctioned strength. The Court granted it six weeks time to fill up its vacancies.
Bhushan then submitted that the state of Maharashtra had over one lakh pending cases and three vacancies. He also flagged vacancies in Madhya Pradesh (7) and Odisha (6).
Lastly, the Court was informed that states such as Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Karnataka had nearly filled vacancies. The Bench directed Bhushan to submit a chart containing details of vacancies, pendencies and sanctioned strength of each state.