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...

Human rights violations: Jharkhand election official refuses to meet civil society delegation

Narmada water remains contaminated, Gujarat govt "changed norms" to declare it fit to drink

BJP manifesto follows Savarkar's two-nation theory, ignores minorities: MCC

Book on seven interconnected "political" murders, including Haren Pandya, Justice Loya, released

Study documents 34 smart city projects forcibly displacing 17,700 people last year

GDP growth is not the true indicator people's well being: Gujarat activists release manifesto

Saurashtra topcop "threatens" Dalit builder his mustache would be forcibly plucked

Call to make education a major issue during 2019 election campaign

Amit Shah earns just Rs 56 lakh annually, owns Rs 40 crore assets, faces four serious charges: Affidavit

Future MPs being told to take a pledge to ensure sufficient budget for rape free India