Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Erred in order on RTI panel heads, SC says -Dhananjay Mahapatra

Erred in order on RTI panel heads, SC says -Dhananjay Mahapatra

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Sep 4, 2013   modified Modified on Sep 4, 2013
-The Times of India


NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday admitted that it had erred by directing the government to appoint only retired apex court judges and high court chief justices as heads of information commissions at the central and state levels.

Restoring the position provided under the Right To Information Act for appointment of chiefs of information commissions, a bench of Justices A K Patnaik and A K Sikri erased the court's September 13, 2012 judgment which directed that "the 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".

Allowing the Centre's review petition filed in the wake of widespread protests against the SC judgment, which many termed as an attempt to give post-retirement assignments to judges, the bench said, "As Sections 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act do not provide for appointment of judicial members in the information commissions, this direction was an apparent error. It is for Parliament to consider whether appointment of judicial members in the information commissions will improve their functioning."

The bench, however, lamented that an unfortunate experience had emerged over the years where information commissions were not able to harmonize the right to information under the Act and the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

This inability to harmonize two important yet conflicting interests could be because of two reasons: first, persons appointed as CIC or information commissioners did not meet the qualification prescribed under the Act, or second, "they do not have the required mind to balance the interests indicated in the Act and restrain themselves from acting beyond the provisions of the Act".

Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Patnaik said, "This experience of the functioning of the information commissions prompted this court to issue the directions in the judgment under review to appoint judicial members in the information commissions."

It hoped that henceforth, persons with wide knowledge and experience in law would be appointed to information commissions at the Centre and the states.

"Wherever chief information commissioner is of the opinion that intricate questions of law will have to be decided in a matter coming before the information commissions, he will ensure that the matter is heard by an information commissioner who has such knowledge and experience in law," the bench said.

It also said that there was no bar in appointing an MP, MLA, a politician or a person from any walk of life as chief information commissioner or information commissioner. "But after such a person is appointed as CIC or IC, he has to discontinue as MP or MLA or discontinue to hold any other office of profit or remain connected with any political party or carry on any business or pursue any profession during the period he functions as CIC or IC," the bench added.

In another important direction, the court said the selection committee, while recommending to the President or the governor the appointment of CIC or IC "must mention against the name of each candidate recommended, the facts to indicate his eminence in public life, his knowledge in the particular field and his experience in the particular field and these facts must be accessible to the citizens as part of their right to information under the Act after the appointment is made".


The Times of India, 4 September, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Erred-in-order-on-RTI-panel-heads-SC-says/articleshow/22272853.cms


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close