SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(SC) 165

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
ANJALI BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS – PETITIONER
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS – RESPONDENT(S)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 436 of 2018
Decided on : 15-02-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. Rahul Gupta, Adv. Ms. Neha Rathi, Adv. Mr. Jatin Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR,
For the Respondent: Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Prashant Mathur, Adv. Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, AOR M/S. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, AOR Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv. Ms. Vishakha, Adv. Mr. G. Prakash, AOR Mr. Jishnu M.L., Adv. Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Adv. Mrs. Beena Prakash, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, AOR Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Adv., Ms. Madhvi Dewan, ASG Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Adv. Ms. Pooja Dhar, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
States asked to fill up the vacancies and create new posts as per requirement.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 19(1)(a) – Transparency – Key to functioning of a healthy democracy – Right to information – A fundamental right, a constitutional right – Section 3, Right to Information Act, 2005. (Para 10, 19)

       (1975) 4 SCC 428; (1981) Supp SCC 87; (1988) 4 SCC 592; (2002) 5 SCC 294; (2016) 3 SCC 525 – Relied upon

       (b) Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 4 – Appointment of Information Commissioners – Procedure held adequately transparent. (Para 35, 36)

       (c) Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 12(5) – Eligibility of Information Commissioner – Act providing wide range of suitability – However, search committee consisting of bureaucrats selecting only government servants – Not finding any candidate from any other category suitab.le for the posts – Held, official bias writ large. (Para 39)

       (d) Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 13(5) – Condition of service – Section 13(5) providing for specific salary and allowances – Held, it is always advisable to make express stipulation of terms and conditions of service in the public notice/Notification and also on website. (Para 41, 42)

       (e) Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 15(4) – Inadequacy of Information Commissioners – Either posts lying vacant or posts are less than required – States asked to fill up the vacancies and create new posts as per requirement. (Para 47, 50, 54, 57, 58, 60, 63, 65, 66)

       Facts of the case:

       The petitioners state that this PIL is filed with the aim to have effective implementation of the Right to Information Act, 2005 so that fundamental rights of citizens to access information from public authorities are secured. Under the RTI Act, the Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions have been created as statutory bodies to decide appeals and complaints against public authorities for non-compliance with the RTI law. On that basis, the petitioners assert that it is essential to have proper functioning of these institutions for effective implementation of the RTI Act. As per the petitioners, neither the Central Government in respect of CIC nor the State Government in respect of SICs, are filling the vacancies for the appointment of Commissioners in a timely manner. As a result the functioning of RTI Act is stifled. It is leading to huge backlogs of appeals and complaints in many Commissions across the country. The focus of the petition, thus, is to impress upon the respective governments to fill up such vacancies as and when they arise, without any delays.

       Finding of the Court:

       SCICs found having inadequate strength.

       Result: Writ petition disposed of.

JUDGMENT

A.K. Sikri. J.

This writ petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, as a Public Interest Litigation. The petitioners state that it is filed with the aim to have effective implementation of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'RTI Act') so that fundamental rights of citizens to access information from public authorities are secured. Under the RTI Act, the Central Information Commission (for short, 'CIC') and State Information Commissions (for short, 'SICs') have been created as statutory bodies to decide appeals and complaints against public authorities for non-compliance with the RTI law. On that basis, the petitioners assert that it is essential to have proper functioning of these institutions for effective implementation of the RTI Act. As per the petitioners, neither the Central Government in respect of CIC nor the State Government in respect of SICs, are filling the vacancies for the appointment of Commissioners in a timely manner. As a result the functioning of RTI Act is stifled. It is leading to huge backlogs of appeals and complaints in many Commissions across the country. The focus of the petition, thus, is to impress upon the respective governments to fill up such vacancies as and when they arise, without any delays.

2. It is averred by the petitioners in the petition that the RTI Act is a time-bound legislation and prescribes statutory timelines for providing the information. When that is not provided, or the applicant is aggrieved by the nature of response received, she/he is also entitled to file a first appeal with the designated First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority is obligated to dispose of such an appeal within maximum period of 45 days. The reading of Sections 7 and 19 of the RTI Act makes it clear that the RTI Act is a time-bound legislation for effectively exercising the fundamental right to information guaranteed in Article 19 of the Constitution of India. However, the CIC and SICs which are the final appellate authorities under the RTI Act, andare the guardians of the Act are taking many months, and in some cases even years, to decide appeals and complaints due to accumulation of pending appeals/complaints. The main cause for such a delay is large number of vacancies in SICs across India.

3. The petition points out that a report published in March, 2018 titled, 'Report Card on the Performance of Information Commissions in India' found that eight information commissions had a waiting time of more than one year for an appeal/complaint to be heard, which was calculated on the basis of the number of appeals and complaints pending as on October 31, 2017 and the monthly disposal rate. Further, several Information Commissioners thereby undermine the autonomy of the Commission which hampers its smooth functioning including its ability to comply with the directions of the Supreme Court regarding the power of the Chief Information Commissioner to decide formation of special benches to hear matters involving complex questions of law. By not filing up vacancies in information commissions in a timely manner, the Central and State Governments are frustrating the very purpose of the RTI Act as receiving information in a time-bound manner is the essence of the law.

4. Insofar as vacancy position and workload of CIC as well as SICs are concerned, the petitioners have given the following information:

5. As on the date of filing of the petition, four posts of Information Commissioners were lying vacant in the CIC. More than 23500 appeals and complaints were pending as on April 04, 2018, before the CIC. However, no effective steps have been taken for filling up of the vacancies. Though, the Central Government had invited applications for the post of two Information Commissioners vide Circular dated 2nd September, 2016 in anticipation of vacancies occurring in December, 2016 and February, 2017, these vacancies have not been filled.

6. In respect of various





























































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top