© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Journalism of Courage
Premium
Top court refuses to direct disclosure of LoP’s dissent on Chief Information Commissioner appointment
The CJI pointed out there are states which have exclusively earmarked Information Commissioner posts for mediapersons and journalists
Supreme Court of India
THE SUPREME Court on Tuesday refused to direct the government to disclose the dissent note of the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner.
“We will not go into that part. There is no question of this kind of trial here,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said as Advocate Prashant Bhushan appearing for RTI Activist Anjali Bhardwaj, told the bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N V Anjaria, that the government had not published the Opposition leader’s dissent.
The CJI asked, “If somebody has attended the meeting, whether its assenting note or dissenting note, how does it matter?” Bhushan said, “It matters for the reason that the people are entitled to know what was the reason for the dissent, whether it was because they were not qualified…” CJI Kant asked, “Can we expect this much that the government of India selection committee, which has the Prime Minister and Leader of Opposition, will appoint an unqualified person?”
Bhushan said, “They have done it in the past, appointed a journalist. He had no other qualification regarding RTI.” The CJI pointed out there are states which have exclusively earmarked Information Commissioner posts for mediapersons and journalists.
Bhushan said the candidate had not even applied for it, yet he was appointed. The CJI pointed out that there may be eminent persons who may not apply.
Agreeing with the submission that RTI is a fundamental right, the CJI said: “No doubt it is, and there must be a robust mechanism to enforce that right so that timely information is provided to the people.”
Bhushan said this calls for all information to be made public. Appearing for the Centre, Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj said all the posts have been filled up and all the applicants’ names have been uploaded on the website, including the final selection list.
Story continues below this ad
The CJI said, “The scope of these proceedings is to ensure the posts are filled up by eligible and qualified persons. We can’t run a parallel trial that someone else is more meritorious.” Bhushan said the purpose of the petition was not merely to ensure that the appointments are made but also that they are in accordance with the directions of the court.
“This court has held that people of the country are entitled to know what is being done by those who are in authority on their behalf,” he said.
The Bench then directed the Centre to file a status report on how many candidates applied and how many were shortlisted before final selection.
Bhushan also said the government should file the minutes of the meeting and that this was also part of the direction in the 2019 SC judgment to ensure effective implementation of the RTI Act. The CJI pointed out that it was not part of the direction.
Story continues below this ad
The court further directed that a status report be filed in terms of the 2019 judgment.
Advertisement
Loading Recommendations...
- 01
- 02
- 03
- 04
- 05
Live Blog