Prashant Bhushan, Indira Jaising bat for transparency in CIC appointments

Vacant posts in the Central Information Commission, including that of the CIC, may soon become a thing of the past. A Division Bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and RS Endlaw reserved judgment on a writ petition that questioned the Centre’s laxity to fill up these posts..During the last hearing, ASG Sanjay Jain, had undertaken that the selection process would be expedited. Today, Jain submitted that various intelligence reports had been received, and that the candidates had been shortlisted on the basis of these reports. Jain also said that the meeting of Selection Committee would be held shortly, pursuant to which the appointments would be made..Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the Petitioner, argued that this was a two-pronged dispute – one of expeditious appointments as well as a more transparent method of selection of candidates..“There should be some transparency to the entire appointment process. Short-listing of candidates should be made known to people as this would allow for a free and fair selection of suitable candidates. Under the Act, the Government can’t seek exemption from disclosing information relating to appointment of CIC and other Information Commissioners.”.Citing a recent example on how vigilance reports validating the credentials of individuals could be misleading, Bhushan said.“Your Lordships maybe aware of this one instance where intelligence gathered about a particular individual who was due to be elevated to [the Bench], that he was an alcoholic whereas in reality, he was not!” .Bhushan further argued reliance on vigilance reports alone would not solve the issue, and therefore inducing transparency was essential. Chief Justice Rohini objected to this prayer and said that ‘such disclosure at every step was not necessary’ and if at a later stage, there were some aspersions over the qualifications of a particular candidate, that could be dealt with in a separate writ petition..Senior Advocate Indira Jaising also appeared in the matter on behalf of three RTI activists, as an intervener. She invoked provisions of the RTI Act, pointing out that there existed no fixed procedure of appointments in the Act which prompted Justice Endlaw to comment,.“None of these Acts give out a detailed process of appointment. So the void is filled up by DoPT circulars which outline the procedure.”.Negating that observation, Jaising argued that ‘circulars did not have the power to override an Act.’ She further submitted that she sought a system whereby all applications, after due scrutiny, were forwarded to one Committee..The purpose of this exercise, she said, was that there existed no scope of short-listing any candidates and would also ensure that there is no secrecy over the manner of short-listing. Supporting the argument of transparency advanced by Bhushan, Jaising also put forth a solution to tackle pendency of cases that had piled up since August last year due to the vacancies..“Presently, there are 38,496 pending cases and 14, 416 appeals pending before the Chief Information Commissioner alone as he has sole jurisdiction to entertain queries on higher offices such as Ministry of Defence, Finance etc.”.Criticising the delay, she said.“To say that they [Union] are awaiting IB clearance is a delaying tactic. If there is no CIC, then who will exercise superintendence and financial powers as per the Act? Let them satisfy the Bench that they have forwarded all the names to the Selection Committee. They can carry on with their vigilance exercises but meanwhile let there be a temporary person who can be assigned to dispose of the growing pendency.”.Jain opposed the suggestion saying that a temporary member may hear an issue but what would happen once the regular appointments were made? This would lead to a situation where some matters will remain part-heard by one Information Commissioner and cause more confusion..The Bench noted that it will take into consideration all these submissions and proceeded to reserve its judgment in the matter.