Only judges must head info panels, says top court

Denuding the government of its power to select information commissioners and chief information commissioner, the Supreme Court on Thursday said the transparency panels would be headed by retired high court judges and the central panel would be led by a retired judge of the top court.

The judgment that’s taken with a huge chunk of salt, however asserts that the freedom of speech is the “lifeblood of democracy” and it’s a “safety valve”.

In a 105-page verdict, a bench of Justice AK Patnaik and Justice Swatanter Kumar issued a slew of directions to the Union government and said the information benches must include a legally qualified person with at least 20 years of experience, besides a technical member drawn from other field.

Upholding the constitutionality of the Right to Information Act, which has become a sort of eyesore for some sections of bureaucracy, governance and judiciary, the top court underscored the “absolute necessity” for the legislature to reword or amend the provisions of Section 12(5), 12(6) and 15(5), 15(6) of the Act and frame new rules accordingly within six months.

Holding that the information commission is unquestionably a ‘judicial tribunal’, the court ordered that the CIC at the central 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 appointment of judicial members “shall be made in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and Chief Justices of the high courts of the respective States’’, the bench said while disposing a writ petition filed by one Namit Sharma who had sought filling up of the vacant posts of information commissions.

The Union government had strongly contested filling up the CIC and state commissions with judges as it felt that people from other walks of life were best suited to the people’s transparency panel.

While examining the entire scheme of right to information, the court also observed that the states which are “governed by policing and have a policy of greater restriction and control obviously restrict the enjoyment of such freedoms”.

“That, however, does not necessarily imply that this freedom is restriction-free in the states where democratic governance prevails,” it added.

The present judgment also raises certain concerns regarding its efficacy in view of the fact that there are at least 271 posts of judges vacant in different high courts.