C.J.KARIRA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(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 & AR) Department, dated 10.05.2012, as being contrary to the procedure laid down in Section 15(3)(4) & (5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 ("the RTI Act" for brevity), the principles laid down in "Namit Sharma Vs. Union of India", 2013 1 SCC 745 (W.P.(Civil) No. 210 of 2012) dated 13.09.2012 , by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indian, as well as the Constitutional mandate.

(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.

(3.) 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 & 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.