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 | RTI panels headed by people who've been close to govt: Supreme Court -Dhananjay Mahapatra

RTI panels headed by people who've been close to govt: Supreme Court -Dhananjay Mahapatra

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Nov 23, 2012   modified Modified on Nov 23, 2012
-The Times of India

The Supreme Court on Thursday said it had directed appointment of retired judges as heads of information commissions at the Centre and state level to ensure their independence as many were headed by persons who "have been in the good books of government".

"You will find the chief information commissioners, both at the Centre and state level, are persons who have been in the good books of the government. When these persons get appointed, and when information is sought mostly against the governments, you see the orders. They must act independently," a bench of Justices A K Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar said.

"If the Right to Information Act is to be given some meaning, then the authorities (information commissions) must be independent in letter and spirit. But if he (the head of the commission) is choosy about giving information on the persons who have appointed him, then it is meaningless," it said.

It entertained the Union government's petition seeking review of its September 13 judgment but not before clarifying that the judgment was aimed to ensure independence of the commissions under the RTI Act and not to rehabilitate retired judges. It posted final hearing on the petition on November 29.

The bench made no attempts to hide its disappointment at the "unfair" criticism of the judgment that it indirectly aimed to rehabilitate retired judges. In turn, the bench criticized appointment of "government-friendly" bureaucrats as heads of information commissions.

Additional solicitor general A S Chandiok said as an officer of the court, he felt that "time has come to say that there should be no rehabilitation of retired judges or bureaucrats".

But the bench was keen on expressing itself fully on the importance it attached to the independence of the information commissions. It felt that adjudication requests under RTI Act had many legal fallouts, requiring the heads of information commissions to have some legal background.

"These bodies have to be independent of the government and public authorities. The idea behind the judgment is not to rehabilitate chief justices of the high courts or Supreme Court judges. The idea is to bring in independence to these commissions. Unless you (the governments) have problem in appointing independent persons," the bench reiterated.

When Chandiok said persons other than retired judges could also be independent, the bench said, "But there appears to be a need for some legal background in addition to inherent requirement of independence of the top man. We are not concerned with the rehabilitation of Supreme Court or high court judges. We are concerned with independence of the information commissions."

Rajasthan government's additional advocate general Manish Singhvi said the state has also challenged the September 13 judgment as it had made it difficult for the government to find retired judges to fill vacancies in the state information commission resulting in complete stoppage of work.

The bench agreed to hear Singhvi on November 29 but said the September 13 judgment was to operate prospectively and it was wrong on the state government's part to create an erroneous impression that the judicial mandate had brought work of the information commission to a standstill.

In the review petition, the Centre had pointed out the fallacies in the Supreme Court's judgment in Namit Sharma's case and said it was settled principle that the court could not direct the legislature to amend the law, the RTI Act, except where the law was silent on a particular subject.

"That is not the case here. Section 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act clearly lays down the norms relating to the qualification of chief information commissioner and information commissioners at the Centre and the state level respectively. Various directions given by the Supreme Court in paragraph 106 of the judgment are contrary to the provisions of the RTI Act," the petition said.

The judgment had given a number of directions including asking the Centre and state governments to consult the Chief Justice of India or chief justice of the high court concerned while selecting retired judges for information commissions as chairpersons or members.

"The directions issued by the Supreme Court in paragraph 106 of the judgment are directly in the teeth of certain provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, thus rendering the smooth functioning of the Act unworkable," the Centre had said.

In paragraph 106 of the judgment, authored by Justice Kumar for the bench, the court said, "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 of India."

The Times of India, 23 November, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/RTI-panels-headed-by-people-whove-been-close-to-govt-Supreme-Court/articleshow/17329439.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