Information Commissioners play a pivotal role in the implementation of the RTI Act 2005 (the Act). However, the Act or the Rules framed thereunder do not lay down any detailed guidelines on the selection of the Information Commissioners. The Act only specifies the method of appointment and the qualifications of the Information Commissioners as under:
| Mode of appointment | Qualifications |
| Central Information Commissioners to be appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee consisting of— the Prime Minister, who shall be the Chairperson of the committee; the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha; and a Union Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Prime Minister. State Information Commissioners to be appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of a committee consisting of- (i) the Chief Minister, who shall be the Chairperson of the committee; (ii) the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly; and (iii) a Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Chief Minister | To be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in: (i)Law (ii) Science and technology (iii)Social service, (iv)Management, (v)Journalism, (vi)Mass media or (vii)Administration and governance. They shall not be a Member of Parliament or Member of the Legislature of any State or Union territory and shall not hold any other office of profit or be connected with any political party or carry on any business or profession |
Supreme Court’s directions on CIC’s selection:
Supreme Court (SC) addressed the topic of the selection of Information Commissioners in the cases of : (1) Union Of India vs Namit Sharma [1] and (2) Anjali Bhardwaj and others vs. UOI[2]
Union Of India vs Namit Sharma:
In the Namit Sharma case, SC directed that the Committees while making recommendations to the President or to the Governor, for appointment of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners must mention against the name of each candidate recommended:
(i) the facts to indicate his eminence in public life,
(ii)his knowledge in the particular field,
(iii)his experience in the particular field and
(iv) these facts must be accessible to the citizens as part of their right to information under the Act after the appointment is made.
Anjali Bhardwaj and others vs. UOI :
In Anjali Bhardwaj, SC has given certain more directions on the criteria of short-listing and the time-frame for the selection of an Information Commissioner:
- The terms and conditions on which the appointments of the Information Commissioner are to be made are to be specifically stipulated.
- The criteria for shortlisting the candidates is to be made public by the Search Committee, so that it is ensured that shortlisting is done on the basis of objective and rational criteria.
- The selection of the Information Commissioners not to be limited only to the Government employee/ex government employee. Information Commissioners to be appointed from other streams.
- The vacancies of Information Commissioner to be filled up without delay and the process for filling up of a particular vacancy is to be initiated 1 to 2 months before the date on which the vacancy is likely to occur so that there is not much time lag between the occurrence of vacancy and filling up of the vacancy.
- In case of appointment of Information Commissioners, the Central Government is now placing all necessary information including issuance of the advertisement, receipt and applications, particulars of the applicants, composition of Selection Committee etc, on the website. All States shall also follow this system.
These directions of the Supreme Court address to a large extent, the lacunae in the Act with regard to the selection of the Information Commissioners. If adhered to, they can definitely make the selection process of the Information Commissioners more objective and transparent.
[1] Review Petition (C) No.2675 of 2012 in WP (C) No.210 of 2012 dated 3.9.2013. [2] Writ Petition (Civil) No. 436 of 2018 dated 15.2.2019
26 Comments
Comments are closed.