Centre asks SC to review info panel order

Claiming that the September 13 judgment “sought to complicate a simple statute,” it said that certain directions were in violation of provisions of the RTI Act,thus damaging the smooth functioning of the act.

“These contrary directions have the potential to create disarray in the functioning of the central and state information commissions. Such directions amount to a clear error apparent on the face of the record,being in absolute disregard of the provisions of the act,” said the petition,drafted by counsel Anoopam N Prasad,for the Department of Personnel and Training.

The petition referred to the RTI Act,according to which the chief information commissioner and a information commissioner can hold office for a five-year term until he or she turns 65 years. However,the court’s verdict said that only a serving or retired Supreme Court judge or HC chief justice could head a info panel.

“The retirement age for a judge of the Supreme Court being 65 years,it naturally follows that no retired judge of the Supreme Court can be considered for appointment to the post of chief information commissioner. This direction,contrary to the provision in the act,is a patent error on the face of the record,” the plea said.

The DoPT said that the court ought to have clarified whether two-member benches,comprising one judicial and one expert member,had to start functioning immediately,or when the necessity arises since there were no judicial members in the CIC or state panels.

Also disputing the court’s mandate that information commission could be equated with a judicial tribunal,it said that the commissions can,at best,said to be quasi-judicial bodies,carrying on primarily administrative work.

The plea further said that if the status of the commissions was altered to that of a judicial tribunal,and a court attached system of justice,this would only result in a delay at various levels.