C.J. KARIRA AND G. BHARGAVI Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INTRODUCTION : 1. This is an issue brought before the court ostensibly pro bono publico challenging the appointment of Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 as State Information Commissioners (S/Cs or ICs) through G.O.Ms. No. 252, General Administration Department (R.T.I.A/GPM and AR) Department, dated 10.05.2012, as being contrary to the procedure laid down in Section 15(3)(4) and (5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 ("the RTI Act" for brevity), the principles laid down in "Namit Sharma Vs. Union of India" (W.P.(Civil) No. 210 of 2012) dated 13.09.2012 : (2013) 1 SCC 745, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indian, as well as the Constitutional mandate. II. The Credentials of the Petitioners: To establish their credentials, the first petitioner states that he is an R.T.I. Activist, having educational qualifications in Engineering and Management, with 30 years of work experience in various countries. He states that since 2006, he has taken special interest in the R.T.I. and has presently devoted all his time to this Act. The first petitioner claims to be a global moderator of a particular website, which is said to be India's leading online Community Portal on the R.T.I. Act. He further claims that he has guided and trained large number of people regarding R.T.I. process and that he has given more than 200 guest lectures on the enactment in various forums. He also claims to have successfully argued several second appeals and complaints before various Information Commissions (ICs). The second petitioner is also said to be an R.T.I. and social activist. III. The Plea of the Petitioners:

(2.) UNDERLINING the objective of R.T.I. Act, the petitioners have averred that the present process of selecting and appointing the State Information Commissioner (SCIC) is not transparent and lacks the element of accountability. Due to this lack of accountability, the citizen's right to know is defeated, especially since revealing the information would be detrimental to the personal and political future of the persons who appoint the State Information Commissioners, who are not willing to displease their political masters and jeopardise their future career growth. Stressing the need that the State Information Commissioner must be an independent person, the petitioners assert that he should be bold enough to take strong decisions even if it means facing up to the displeasure of the political class. It is expedient and of vital importance that the procedure is followed in course of decision making process. The channels of supervision and accountability for selecting SCICs are transparent so as to inspire confidence in the said office. It is alleged that in view of the attitude adopted by the Executive and the appointees, the citizens have felt that this empowering the act is being throttled. Adumbrating the selection process as contained in Section 15 of the R.T.I. Act, the petitioners submit that, as per the wording of this provision, it is clear that SCIC and ICs should be drawn from persons of wide ranging professional backgrounds, with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism and mass -media etc. It has been specifically pleaded by the petitioners that, since the persons from a variety of backgrounds ore being eligible for appointment as SCIC and ICs, and since the fields include technical subjects, such as science and technology, law, etc., the committee to whom the selection is entrusted, being non -expert in nature is not competent to assess the relative merits of the persons, whose names may be considered for appointment. Stranger and unintelligible as it may sound, the petitioners have alleged that as neither the Constitution nor the Representation of the People Act, 1951 prescribes any educational qualification for the persons to be elected to the Legislative Assembly of the State, even under R.T.I. Act, the holding of post or position or any other public office is not a prerequisite for being eligible to be appointed as SCIC and ICs.

(3.) THE petitioners have referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Namit Sharma (supra) and have further pleaded that as on December, 2011, the 2nd respondent Commission was consisting of only SCIC, that the first respondent/State proposed to appoint eight Information Commissioners, and that, in order to select eight Information Commissioners to the 2nd respondent Commission, the committee consisting of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and the leader of the opposition met on 31.01.2012 and concluded the selection process in a haphazard manner. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that before considering the name of the Commissioner, no advertisement was issued calling for applications. It is alleged that majority of the appointed Information Commissioners are the leaders of the ruling party for several years and some of them have been recommended by the ministers. Though many civil organizations, including the petitioners', have raised objection to the appointment of these persons, all the objections have been brushed aside without any justification. In the end it is alleged that some of the names were sent back to the Government by his Excellency the Governor with serious doubts about their eligibility.