Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling on appointments to the Central and State Information Commissions has shaken the world of Right to Information with activists and information commissioners wondering if the order will effectively halt the functioning of the Commissions.
Asked Chief Information Commissioner Satyananda Mishra: “Does the ruling mean that the RTI Act stands amended suo motu?” He has convened an emergency meeting for Friday to understand the import of the ruling, which seeks a complete overhaul of the system of Information Commissions. Mr. Mishra also wants the Law Ministry to immediately advise the CIC on whether or not it can continue to function.
Among other things, the court ruled that all Commissions must henceforth work in benches of two members each, one of whom will be a “judicial member” defined as a person “having a degree in law, having a judicially trained mind and experience in performing judicial functions.”
Two, the Chief Information Commissioner at the Centre must necessarily be a person “who is or has been the Chief Justice of a High Court or a judge of the Supreme Court.”
Three, the judicial members “shall be” appointed in “consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justices of the High Courts of the respective States.”
The first person to be affected by this is Mr. Mishra himself. The CIC can no longer be a retired bureaucrat which is what he is.
Mr. Mishra is unsure where he stands: “The court says the ruling is to come into effect prospectively but we do not know if this means we have to wait until the existing commissioners retire or the changes will come into effect immediately.”
The Central Information Commission now has 11 posts, none of which is held by a member with a judicial background. Three posts are vacant. For the Commission to work in benches of two, it has to have at least 12 members. Of the 12, six have to be judicial members, which means a minimum of two of the existing members have to be replaced. But there are two problems here. All the members do not retire at the same time. Besides, it is nearly impossible under the RTI Act to remove an incumbent commissioner. Said Mr. Mishra: “If the ruling can come into effect only after the members retire, what happens in the interim?”
This is not all. Supreme Court judges retire at 65 which is also the retirement age for Chief Information Commissioners. As veteran RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal asked: “How can a retired judge be appointed CIC?”
There seems to be a lot of misinformation.
RTI act is a law and CIC/SICs are quasi judicial bodies. SC judgement has dealt on this with great detail and scholarship and said that these are tribunals/quasi judicial bodies.
After all law is law and social work to fight for establishing and upholding the right is a different thing. Implementation of law must be kept in the hands of legal persons and not social workers. One can argue that this is also not foolproof arrangement but in a democracy this is the best possible arrangement. By the same token then Courts also should be manned by non legal persons.
By the same token activists fighting for health issues and dwelling for poor will say that they should appointed as medical professionals or builders. Activists play a very important role in a democracy. They should protest, give their views etc. but they cannot wear the clothing of a professional.
Apex Court has rightly decided that Central and State Information Commission should be headed only by former or serving Chief Justices of the High Court or a judge of the Supreme Court because of quasi judicial nature of function. If we look at constitution of various Tribunals the bench must have a judicial member with like qualification and an expert as a member of the bench. Bureaucrats may not have the judicial skills; hence, it is imperative to have persons having judicial skills and experience in such forums.
Please Email the Editor