Plea in SC for urgent hearing of PIL for filling up of vacancies in CIC and SICs

On December 16, last year, the top court had directed the Centre and state governments to appoint information commissioners within three months in the CIC and the SICs, and said there was a need to evolve guidelines to stop misuse of the Right to Information Act.

A plea has been moved in the Supreme Court seeking urgent hearing of the PIL seeking directions to government authorities for implementing top court's directions regarding appointment of Information Commissioners within a stipulated time and in a transparent manner. An application has been filed by RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj for urgent listing of the PIL filed by her on filling up of vacancies in Central Information Commission (CIC) and the State Information Commissions (SICs), in view of top court's December 16, 2019 order. On December 16, last year, the top court had directed the Centre and state governments to appoint information commissioners within three months in the CIC and the SICs, and said there was a need to evolve guidelines to stop misuse of the Right to Information Act. The urgent hearing application of Bhardwaj said that the December 16, last year order has not been complied with and the number of vacancies at the CIC have now increased to six and even the post of the Chief Information Commission has been vacant since August 27, 2020, "frustrating the order of this Court as well as citizens fundamental right to information". It said that as of October 15, 2020, the number of pending appeals/complaints before the CIC is more than 36,600. The application said, "It is further submitted that it appears the UOI is resorting to issuing fresh advertisements instead of filling all the advertised vacant posts in a bid to cause undue delay in the appointments thereby frustrating peoples' right to information". It said that no reasons have been furnished by the Centre as to why four vacancies were not filled pursuant to the advertisement dated December 12, 2019 and the order of this court dated December 16, 2019. It claimed that Centre after filling one vacancy at the CIC has now put out a new advertisement dated July 12

The application claimed that even the State governments failed to comply with the directions given by this court vide Judgment dated February 15, 2019. "The State Information Commission (SIC) of Maharashtra is functioning with only five commissioners and there is a backlog of nearly 60,000 appeals/complaints as of July 31, 2020", it said, adding that these vacancies were not filled despite direction from the top court given in its February 15, last year verdict. The apex court, in its February 15, last year verdict, had said that selection of information officers should include people of eminence from various other fields and not be limited to bureaucrats and the exercise be conducted in a transparent manner. It had also directed the Centre and eight states -- West Bengal, Orissa, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Nagaland, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Karanataka -- to fill up the vacancies of ICs in the CIC and SICs without any delay within a period of one month to six months. It had asked Maharashtra to have one State Chief Information Commissioner and 10 information Commissioners looking at the huge pendency of complaints and appeals. The application said that the Odisha government was also directed by the top court in its verdict on February 15, last year to fill all the vacancies of the sanctioned posts within two months (four sanctioned posts, including that of the Chief) and also take a decision regarding sanctioning three additional posts. The application filed through advocate Prashant Bhushan said that the Odisha SIC is functioning with four commissioners despite having a large pendency of nearly 15,000 appeals and complaints and it is "in these dire circumstances the matter is therefore required to be listed urgently before this court for directions". On December 16, last year, the top court had also directed the authorities concerned to put on the website the names of members of the search committee, meant for selection and appointment of CIC's information commissioners (ICs), within two weeks. The top court had directed the Centre and the states to conclude the appointment within three months and said that a contempt petition may be filed if its order is not complied with. The top court on December 16, last year had also raised concern over abuse of transparency law and said that there was a need to evolve guidelines to stop misuse of the Right to Information Act. It had said the RTI has been mostly used by those who have no relation to the information sought for. The top court, in its last year judgement, had also observed that Parliament intended persons of eminence in public life to be taken as CIC and ICs but a "strange phenomenon is happening", that those persons who have been selected belong to only one category which is public service. It had also said that to bring transparency in selection of ICs, states should adopt the process adopted by the Centre in which it uploads on the web-site the names of the Search Committee, the names of the candidates who have been shortlisted as well as the criteria which is followed for selection. It had said that the RTI is enacted not only to sub-serve and ensure freedom of speech but on proper implementation, "it has the potential to bring about good governance which is an integral part of any vibrant democracy".