NEW DELHI, Sept 13: The Supreme Court today held that only sitting or retired Chief Justices of High Courts or a Supreme Court Judge can head the Central and State Information Commissions and asked the Government to amend RTI Act for it.
The apex court also said that like other quasi judicial bodies, people from judicial background be also appointed as members of the Central and State Commissions which is to be done after consulting with CJI and Chief Justice of the respective High Courts.
“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,” a bench of Justices A K Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar said.
The bench further said that the Government should prefer “a person who is or has been a Judge of the High Court for appointment as Information Commissioners” and the Commission should sit in benches comprising of a judicial member and an expert member to decide any case under the transparency law.
The bench passed the order on a PIL challenging Section 12 and 15 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 enumerating the qualifications needed for the appointment of members to the commissions.
The bench, however, refused to quash the sections but asked the Government to modify it so that people from judicial background are also preferred for the post.
Currently, none of the eight members of the Central Information Commission (CIC), including the Chief Information Commissioner are from judicial background.
The CIC comprises one Chief Information Commissioner and 10 Information Commissioners.
“The Information Commissions at the respective levels shall henceforth work in Benches of two members each. One of them being a judicial member, while the other an expert member. The judicial member should be a person possessing a degree in Law, having a judicially trained mind and experience in performing judicial functions.
“A Law officer or a lawyer may also be eligible provided he is a person who has practiced law at least for a period of 20 years as on the date of the advertisement. Such lawyer should also have experience in social work. We are of the considered view that the competent authority should prefer a person who is or has been a Judge of the High Court for appointment as Information Commissioners,” the bench said.
Holding that information commissions are a judicial tribunal, the apex court said that they must be headed and manned by a person of judicial mind to ensure complete faith and confidence of the public in its independent functioning.
“The Information Commission is performing quasi-judicial functions and essence of its adjudicatory powers is akin to the Court system. It also possesses the essential tappings of a Court and discharges the functions, which have immense impact on the rights/obligations of the parties. Thus, it must be termed as a judicial Tribunal which requires to be manned by a person of judicial mind, expertise and experience in that field,” the bench said.
The apex court referred to Information Acts of the USA, UK and Canada while justifying its decision.
“The requirement of legal person in a quasi-judicial body has been internationally recognized. We have already referred, amongst others, to the relevant provisions of the respective Information Acts of the USA, UK and Canada,” the bench said in its 107-page judgement, which will change the composition of commissions which till day comprised mostly people from administrative background.
“The various provisions of this Act are clear indicators to the unquestionable proposition of law that the Commission is a judicial tribunal and not a ministerial tribunal. It is an important cog in and is part of court attached system of administration of justice unlike a ministerial tribunal which is more influenced and controlled and performs functions akin to machinery of administration,” the bench said.
The apex court said that the RTI Act should be amended so that appointments be made in consonance with its order.
“There is an absolute necessity for the legislature to reword or amend the provisions of Sections 12(5), 12(6) and 15(5), 15(6) of the Act. We observe and hope that these provisions would be amended at the earliest by the legislature to avoid any ambiguity or impracticability and to make it in consonance with the constitutional mandates.
It also enumerated the procedure for appointment of Information Commissioners and said that the selection process should be commenced at least three months prior to the occurrence of vacancy.
“The appointment of the Information Commissioners at both levels should be made from amongst the persons empanelled by the DoPT in the case of Centre and the concerned Ministry in the case of a State. The panel so prepared by the DoPT or the concerned Ministry ought to be placed before the High-powered Committee for final recommendation to the President of India,” the bench said. (PTI)
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel