The Supreme Court's Decision: A Potential Barrier to Transparency?
The Supreme Court's recent ruling has sparked a debate on the delicate balance between transparency and efficiency in the appointment process. The Court declined to order the Union Government to reveal the shortlisted candidates for the Central Information Commission (CIC), citing potential counter-productivity.
The petitioners, led by activist Anjali Bhardwaj, argued that the Court had previously settled the matter in 2018, and a mandamus should be issued for the disclosure of candidates' names. However, Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi preferred to keep the issue open, even after rejecting a similar plea in November.
But here's where it gets controversial: The Court refused to summon the Secretary of the Department of Personnel & Training to explain the appointment delay, stating they would do so if necessary. Instead, they impressed upon the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) to communicate with the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) about the unfilled vacancies.
The petitioners' counsel, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, urged the Court to disclose the candidates' names to allow for public scrutiny. Justice Kant acknowledged the 2018 order but cautioned that disclosure might lead to allegations and counter-allegations, giving the State a reason to delay appointments. He suggested that any challenges to a candidate's credentials could be addressed post-appointment.
Bhushan countered that this approach would make the process less transparent, as the public should know who is being considered beforehand. Despite this, Justice Kant adjourned the matter, stating they would issue directions for compliance if needed, but the current crisis must be addressed first.
The background of this case reveals a history of delays and vacancies in Information Commissions. In January, the Court requested data from the Union and states regarding appointments and selection processes, with the Union promising to complete appointments by April 2025. However, the CIC still operates with only 2 Information Commissioners, and over 26,800 appeals/complaints remain pending.
In September, the petitioners highlighted that the Chief Information Commissioner post was vacant, and 8 out of 10 Information Commissioner positions were unfilled. The State Information Commission of Jharkhand, non-functional since May 2020, remained so. The ASG later assured the Court that appointments would be made by a selection committee, including the Prime Minister and Leader of Opposition, within two to three weeks.
However, the government's commitment to transparency has been questioned. Advocate Bhushan argued that the government keeps finding excuses for delays, and many State Information Commissions are either defunct or severely understaffed. The Court was informed that some states have filled vacancies, while others, like Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh, still have non-functional Commissions.
The Court ordered states to address vacancies and consider increasing the strength of Information Commissioners. As the case unfolds, the question remains: Is the Court's decision a necessary precaution or an obstacle to much-needed transparency in the appointment process? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
