New Delhi, Oct 27 (UNI) The Supreme Court today refused to direct the union Government to publicly disclose the names of candidates shortlisted for appointment to the Central Information Commission (CIC), stating that it saw “no reason to doubt” the Centre’s adherence to transparency norms earlier laid down by the Court.
A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj, represented by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, seeking greater transparency and timely appointments to the Central and State Information Commissions under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Bhushan argued that despite earlier Supreme Court directions to disclose the details of search committee members and the list of applicants, the union Government had failed to comply.
“They have not put out the shortlisting criteria or names of candidates shortlisted for the CIC. People have a right to know who is being considered,” he submitted. He further alleged that some individuals without any experience in the RTI regime had been “air-dropped” into the Commission, citing an instance where a journalist was allegedly appointed because of his writings favourable to the government.
Appearing for the Union, Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj informed the Court that the search committee had already completed its task, and the selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition, and a union Minister nominated by the PM would finalise appointments within two to three weeks. Justice Surya Kant acknowledged the petitioner’s concerns but noted that the process was nearing completion.
“You are right there’s a delay, but they are asking for a short time. Let the right time come,” he remarked. Bhushan pressed for disclosure before appointments were made, saying, “Transparency must precede the appointments, not follow them.”
However, ASG Nataraj argued that any grievance regarding ineligible appointments could be raised after the process was concluded. Justice Kant observed that constant judicial oversight during every stage of selection might paralyse administrative functioning.
“If we start judicial scrutiny at every step, there will be no selection. Transparency will be ensured, and the right to know will not be compromised,” he said. Assuring the petitioner, Justice Kant added, “If any ineligible person is appointed, we will examine it. Appointment is not a fait accompli.”
In its order, the Bench recorded: “As regards the CIC, we are informed that the Search Committee has completed the exercise and that the Selection Committee comprising the Prime Minister of India, Leader of Opposition, and a union Minister will consider the applicants within three weeks.
We have no reason to doubt that the union shall follow the guidelines laid down in Anjali Bhardwaj v. union of India and finalise the process at the earliest.” Before the hearing concluded, Bhushan also drew the Court’s attention to the Jharkhand State Information Commission, which has remained non-functional since May 2020.
Counsel for Jharkhand assured the Court that steps were being taken to fill the vacancies and sought 45 days’ time to complete the process.
