New Delhi: The petitioners in the case before the Supreme Court for seeking timely and expeditious appointment of Information Commissioners to the Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs) have now filed an application before the apex court seeking urgent listing of the matter.
The petitioners, Anjali Bhardwaj and others, represented by senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, have submitted before the Chief Justice of India and other Supreme Court judges that they had filed a writ petition in 2018 to draw light to the fact that delayed or non-appointment of Information Commissioners to the CIC and SICs had resulted in increased backlog in the disposal of appeals and complaints. This, they had said, effectively frustrated citizens’ Right to Information.
In February 2019, SC directed filling up of all vacancies in CIC, SICs
The petition also noted that accepting this contention, the Supreme Court had, in its judgment on February 15, 2019, issued various directions to the Central and state governments to fill vacancies across Central and State Information Commissions in a transparent and timely manner.
Also read: Vacancies, Pending Cases Threaten to Take the Wind Out of RTI’s Sails as it Turns 15
However, the petition said, since the “respondents failed to comply with directions of judgment”, they were constrained to file an interlocutory application (139361/2019) before the apex court. Further, it said at the time of at the time of filing of the application, four posts of Information Commissioners were lying vacant in the Central Information Commission and nearly 32,500 appeals and complaints were pending before the commission.
Centre was told to file status report
Responding to the interlocutory application, the Supreme Court had on November 6, 2019 issued a notice and directed respondents, including the Centre, to submit a status report regarding filling up of the vacancies in question and a compliance report with regard to the directions issued by it on February 15, 2019.
The petition said the Department of Personnel and Training under the Centre issued fresh advertisements for four vacant posts on December 12, 2019. It added that while these posts had been advertised in January 2019 the vacancies were not filled.
Centre told to fill all vacancies
The apex court on December 16, 2019, then gave three months to the Central government to fill the vacancies that existed in the Central Information Commission and directed that the matter be listed before the court on March 25, 2020.
Also read: Centre ‘Trying to Undermine RTI’: Activists Question Delay in Appointing CIC Chief
Subsequently, the petition said, on January 11, 2020 the Chief Information Commissioner finished his tenure and demitted office and the total number of vacancies rose to five.
On March 6, 2020, the appointment of one new information commissioner, Amita Pandove, and the selection of an existing commissioner, Bimal Julka, as the Chief Information Commissioner, was notified.
‘Centre filed patently false, misleading affidavit’
The petition said even though the advertisement had invited applications for four vacant posts of information commissioners and the apex court had on December 16, 2019 completion of appointment process “in respect of Information Commissioners in CIC within a period of three months”, the Union of India appointed only one information commissioner.
It added that “the number of vacancies in the CIC remained at 4 as one of the commissioners was appointed as Chief.”
Thereafter, the petition said though the Centre failed to complete the appointment process as promised, it filed an affidavit on April 24, 2020 in which it claimed that “the process of appointment in response of Information Commissioners in Central Information Commission has been completed within three months as directed by this Hon’ble Court in its Order dated 16.12.2019”.
Also read: Transparency Activists Question Centre’s ‘Compliance Report’ on CIC Appointments
The petition charged that “this assertion is patently false and misleading as the respondent was to fill all the vacancies which were advertised on 12.12. 2019 and not merely appoint one information commissioner and a Chief.”
250 applications received for four posts, only one filled
It added that this “affidavit notes that 250 applications were received pursuant to the advertisement for 4 posts of information commissioners, however, no reason is given as to why only one vacant post was filled, instead of filling all 4.”
Moving ahead, the petition pointed out that on July 9, 2020, the DoPT issued a fresh advertisement for appointment of up to six information commissioners. Another advertisement was issued advertisement inviting applications for post of Chief of CIC which was scheduled to fall vacant on August 27, 2020.
Highlighting why there was an urgent need to appoint Information Commissioners, the petition further said with the retirement of the Chief of CIC on August 26, 2020 and another commissioner demitting office in the end of September, 2020, as many as six posts, including that of the Chief are now lying vacant and the pendency of appeals and complaints has risen to over 36,600.
Also read: Headless Once Again, CIC Faces Massive Backlog of Cases
‘Ploy to delay appointments’
The petition charged that “it appears the UOI is resorting to issuing fresh advertisements instead of filling all the advertised vacant posts in a bid to cause undue delay in the appointments thereby frustrating peoples’ right to information.”
It also said that “no reasons have been furnished by the respondent as to why 4 vacancies were not filled pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.12.2019” and following the December 16, 2019 order of the apex court and why “instead after filling only one vacancy now this new advertisement dated 12.7.2020 has been put out.”
Apart from the CIC, the petition has also highlighted the vacancies in State Information Commissions.
Maharashtra, Odisha SICs also suffering due to vacancies, pendency of cases
Apart from the CIC, the petition has also highlighted the vacancies in State Information Commissions. It said the State Governments have also failed to comply with the February 15, 2019 directions of the apex court.
Also read: The Right to Information Is Dead. Here Is its Obituary.
In the case of Maharashtra SIC, the petition said it is functioning with only five commissioners and there was a backlog of nearly 60,000 appeals and complaints as of July 31, 2020 despite the Supreme Court stating that “going by the pendency” it would be “appropriate” if Maharashtra SIC had a total strength of 11 Information Commissioners, including a chief.
Similarly, in case of Odisha, the petition noted that the February 2019 judgment had directed filling up of all the vacancies within two months and also directed taking of a decision on sanctioning three additional posts. The SIC, the petition said, is functioning with four commissioners despite have a pendency of nearly 15,000 appeals and complaints.
In view of this situation, the petition has sought that the matter be listed urgently before the Supreme Court for directions.