‘SC order will kill RTI, must be reviewed’

Disappointed with a recent Supreme Court (SC) order that only retired judges can be appointed information commissioners, RTI activists want the government to file a review petition against the SC order.

“We are asking the government to file a review petition soon and I think the Union department of personnel & training (DoPT) will do that. We are seeking advice from senior advocates about what else can be done,” said Venkatesh Nayak, member of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.  

Ahmed Abdi, president of the Bombay Lawyer’s Association, is organising a seminar in Mumbai and Delhi in mid-October on the issue. “I feel that the very spirit of the RTI Act is that the legislation (while drafting the Act) never intended that ex-judicial officers be appointed. They wanted to make a body different from the other four systems (four estates),” he said.

Abdi said having a retired judge as information commissioner would be difficult because of the age parameter. “A judge retires at the age of 65 which is also the retirement age of information commissioners. I fail to understand how they can take over that position,” he said.  

In its order on September 13, 2012, the SC also said hearings must be dealt with by two members – one with a judicial background and the other, an expert. It added that since the information commissioner’s function is judicial and quasi-judicial in some ways, it is necessary that the first appellate authority, too, should have a legal background and  some experience in the field.

RTI activists fear that the SC order will delay the process of disbursing information to the public. Already, a number of commissions, including the Maharashtra Information Commission, shut down daily business after the SC order. The appeals continue to pile up.  

Having a two-member bench, would end up making the commission like any consumer movement, said RTI activist Shailesh Gandhi, who was also central information commissioner. “It will die down slowly if the pending appeals increase,” he said, adding that legal interpretation is not required in more than 20 per cent of the cases.

A sitting state chief information commission agrees with Gandhi. He said the first set of people who give information –  public information officers – also do not have any legal understanding or background. However, Vilas Patil, former state chief information commissioner, supports the SC order. “It was time the SC gave such an order. If there are judicial interpretations required, you ought to have someone who has some knowledge of the law,” he said.

DNA tried contacting Manoj Joshi, joint secretary of DoPT, but he did not get back.