Govt of India, state govts "stifling" RTI Act: Supreme Court told

Arguing before a Supreme Court bench on controversial appointment of information commissioners, petitioners Anjali Bhardwaj, Lokesh Batra and Amrita Johri have argued that the “Government of India and state governments have attempted to stifle the functioning of the Right to Information (RTI) Act by failing to do their statutory duty of ensuring appointment of commissioners in the Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions, in a timely manner”. 
Represented through senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, Pranav Sachdeva and Rahul Gupta, the petitioners underlined the need for transparency in the appointment of commissioners, insisting, “Lack of transparency in the appointment of information commissioners, and the violation of directions of the Supreme Court regarding the procedure for appointment of information commissioners, is undermining the institution of the information commission”.
Heard by the apex court bench consisting of Justices AK Sikri, S Abdul Nazeer and MR Shah, the petitioners pointed that the appointment process of information commissioners to the Central Information Commission had happened in an arbitrary manner, as the search committee had, in violation of its mandate, short-listed persons who had not even applied for the post in response to advertisements.
The petition further said, the minutes of the search committee revealed that no rational criteria was adopted on the basis of which the short-listing was done. Also, the minutes showed the completely ad-hoc manner of functioning of the search committee, wherein people who were appointed members of the committee, also applied for the post and had to be subsequently replaced and were finally even short-listed. One of the persons who has been appointed, Suresh Chandra, had not even applied for the post.
The petitioners said, the government had once again issued a defective advertisement on January 4, 2019 for the remaining 4 vacant posts in the CIC. The advertisement/notification did not specify the salaries and tenure of information commissioners, even though these are defined in the RTI Act.
The court directed that the petitioner should file a reply and the government should also file a report on all the issues and listed the matter for January 29, 2019. All the states were also directed to file their reports before the hearing.

Comments

ParthRaj said…
A good blog always comes-up with new and exciting information and while reading I have feel that this blog is really have all those quality that qualify a blog to be a good one. panseva

ALSO READ...

Police raid 40 minority houses in Gujarat village, beat up women, children: Complaint to district admin

Gujarat IAS cadre ex-bureaucrat regrets poor state performance in education, health

Sexual harassment: NAPM extends support to protesting Jamia students

SC order may be made pretext to attack lakhs of forest dwellers across the country

Dams on Ganga are no less than "ticking" time bombs: NAPM

Facebook page dedicated to farmers' cause "hacked", complaint filed with Morbi police

Protest demonstration: Dalit solidarity with Prof Teltumbde in Ahmedabad

Gujarat, Central govt "mess" over poisonous Narmada waters

Union budget allocation for minorities "reduced", is discriminatory: MCC

First Dalit literature festival seeks to include all deprived sections under the word 'Dalit'

ARCHIVE

Show more