A controversial decision by the Supreme Court has sparked debate and left many questioning its implications. The Court's recent stance on the disclosure of candidates for Central Information Commission (CIC) appointments has divided opinions.
Petitioners, led by activist Anjali Bhardwaj, argued for transparency in the appointment process, emphasizing the Court's previous ruling in 2018. However, the Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, chose to leave the issue unresolved, stating that public disclosure might hinder the process.
But here's where it gets interesting...
The Court's decision not to direct the Union Government to reveal the shortlisted candidates' names has raised concerns. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, highlighted the importance of transparency before appointments, allowing potential insights from the public. Justice Kant acknowledged the 2018 order but expressed concerns about potential counter-productivity, suggesting that allegations and counter-allegations could justify delaying appointments.
Bhushan countered, stressing that challenging a candidate's credentials post-appointment would be too late. He emphasized the need for transparency to ensure the public knows who is being considered.
And this is the part most people miss...
The Court's order also addressed the delay in the appointment process, with Justice Kant stating, "If need be, we will issue direction for compliance... Let's handle this crisis first." This hints at potential future action if the situation remains unresolved.
The petitioners' plea for disclosure was further supported by the revelation that the CIC had been functioning with only two Information Commissioners, and over 26,800 appeals and complaints were pending before the Commission.
In October, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) informed the Court that a selection committee, including the Prime Minister and the Leader of Opposition, had shortlisted names, promising appointments within two to three weeks. However, yesterday's update revealed that the committee meeting scheduled in October had not taken place, leading Bhushan to claim that the government was not taking the right to information seriously.
The interaction with state counsels revealed a mixed picture, with some states filling vacancies and their Commissions working at full capacity, while others, like Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh, had defunct Commissions.
The Court's orders varied for different states, with some given timeframes to fill vacancies and increase the strength of Information Commissioners based on pending cases.
The case, titled "ANJALI BHARDWAJ AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., MA 1979/2019 in W.P.(C) No. 436/2018," highlights the ongoing battle for transparency and efficient governance.
So, what do you think? Is the Supreme Court's decision a necessary measure to protect the appointment process, or does it hinder accountability and transparency? We'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments!
