NAGRIK ADHIKAR MANCH THROUGH ITS SETTLER NAMELY SHEO PRAKASH RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Public Interest Litigation, the appointment of respondent No 5 Arun Kumar Verma as the State Information Commissioner under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity, RTI Act), has been challenged. What has been submitted is that, there was no public advertisement calling for applications to be appointed as State Information Commissioner, there was no transparency by notifying the names so received for public objections. There was no transparency in matter of selection and, hence, the selection and appointment, as made, is bad. It was also urged that the provisions of the RTI Act contemplates a person having wide knowledge of law to be appointed as State Information Commissioner but the respondent, though a Law Graduate and had practiced in the High Court for about a year and a half, has no other knowledge of law and, thus, was incompetent to be considered for such appointment.

(2.) On the other hand, learned Principal Additional Advocate General I, appearing for the State submits that the procedure, as provided by the RTI Act, has been followed. There is no infraction so far as the statutory procedure is concerned. He submits that it is wrong to suggest that it is only a person, who has wide knowledge of law, is to be appointed, inasmuch as there can be 10 Information Commissioners in the State coming from various fields. All do not have to be proficient in law. The concerned respondent was a senior Member of an All India Service that is "Indian Information Service" having wide experience in public administration and management who had superannuated as Director (Media and Communication) with additional charge as Director (News) of Press Information Bureau. He was, thus, competent to be selected and the procedure, as prescribed by the RTI Act having been followed, the same cannot be challenged.

(3.) On behalf of petitioner, it is submitted, as noted above, that the procedure has to be transparent. The first thing we would like to point out is that what procedure should be prescribed by the Legislature is their primary function. If the procedure does not meet the parameters of Article 14 of the Constitution, then the procedure, as prescribed by law, can be attacked but such is not an attack in the present case. Thus, we have to proceed on the basis that the procedure, as prescribed by the law, is adequate and not in violation of any constitutional norms. If that be so, the only enquiry that is open to the Court is, whether or not the person is competent or incompetent to be selected and whether the procedure, as prescribed by law, has been followed or not. The procedure in this regard is contained in Chapter IV, Section 15 of the RTI Act and, in particular Section 15 (2), 15 (3), 15 (5) and 15 (6) which is quoted hereunder: