The Supreme Court on Thursday admitted Centre’s plea seeking a review of its recent judgement which had directed the government to amend the Right to Information Act and had laid down that only sitting or retired chief justices of high courts or an apex court judge can head the Central and state information commissions.
A bench of justices A.K. Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar, however, made it clear that its verdict for appointment of people from judicial background in information commissions was not aimed at rehabilitating judges but to make information panels independent of the government’s influence. “Idea is not to rehabilitate judges but to ensure independence of the institutions,” the bench said, adding that “commissions must be headed by independent persons.”
The bench remarked that governments usually appoint their favoured individuals in the commissions and such favourites of governments don’t pass orders against their appointing authority. “You have to ensure that the body is independent. You find people, who are in good books of the government, are appointed. How would those person pass order against the same authority who has appointed him,” the bench remarked. “If Right to Information is to be effectively implemented then the commissions must be headed by a person independent of all authorities,” the bench said.
Agreeing to hear the Centre’s review petition, the bench issued notice to Namit Sharma, on whose plea the apex court had delivered its September 13 verdict.
The Centre had moved the apex court for review of its verdict saying it is against the provisions of the RTI Act. The top court held in its verdict that like other quasi judicial bodies, people from judicial background should be appointed as members of the Central and state information commissions and this should be done after consulting the CJI and chief justices of high courts. It directed the government to amend RTI Act for it.
“Chief information commissioner at the Centre or state level shall only be a person who is or has been a chief justice of the high court or a judge of the Supreme Court of India,” the court had said.
The bench had passed the order on a PIL challenging sections 12 and 15 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 enumerating the qualifications needed for the appointment of members of the commissions.