Summary
The Court issued directions for timely and transparent appointments to information commissions so that vacancies and inadequate staffing did not frustrate access to information. It required publication of appointment information, objective shortlisting criteria and service terms, consideration of eligible persons beyond government service, and advance initiation of selection. It also prescribed State-specific steps and timelines for vacancies and consideration of additional posts, with liberty to seek further directions.
Issues
- Whether delayed appointments and inadequate commission strength frustrated effective implementation of the RTI Act.
- What transparency, eligibility and advance-planning measures should govern appointments.
Provisions considered
- Sections 12(2), 12(5), 15(2) and 15(5), Right to Information Act, 2005Linked commission strength to workload within the statutory ceiling and required consideration of eminent eligible persons from the full range of listed fields. (¶¶ 21, 38, 39, 40, 47, 67)
- Section 4, Right to Information Act, 2005Applied the statutory commitment to proactive disclosure and transparency to the appointments process. (¶¶ 22, 35, 36, 67)
- Section 13(5), as then in force, Right to Information Act, 2005Required clarity about the statutory service conditions in appointment advertisements and on the website. (¶¶ 41, 42, 67)
Held
- Adequately staffed commissions are essential to meaningful, timely access to information. Commissioner numbers within the statutory maximum should reflect workload, and chronic vacancies or insufficient strength can defeat the Act’s purpose. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 47, 68)
- The Central Government’s disclosure of applications, search-committee details and proceedings provided transparency; all States were to follow that system. Shortlisting criteria should be made public and appointment terms expressly stated in advertisements and online. (¶¶ 35, 36, 41, 42, 67)
- Eligibility is not confined to serving or retired government employees. Selection bodies should consider eminent candidates from all statutory fields and record facts establishing each recommended candidate’s eminence, knowledge and experience, accessible after appointment. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40, 67)
- For future vacancies, the Court considered initiation of selection one to two months before the expected vacancy appropriate to minimise delay. (¶¶ 34, 67)
- Andhra Pradesh was to fill the Chief and remaining commissioner posts within three months; Gujarat’s two vacancies within one month; Karnataka’s advertised posts within two months; Odisha’s vacancy within two months; and Nagaland’s Chief post within six months. (¶¶ 51, 58, 62, 64, 66)
- West Bengal was to decide within one month on additional posts, with at least three suggested and appointments within six months thereafter. Telangana was to consider at least four additional commissioners, and Maharashtra and Karnataka full statutory strength, with decisions within one month and completion within six months of judgment. Odisha was to consider at least three additional posts within one month and fill newly created posts within four months of judgment. (¶¶ 47, 54, 57, 63, 65)
- The Court stressed timely future Kerala appointments and disposed of the petition with liberty to return by interlocutory application or a fresh writ petition if necessary. (¶¶ 60, 69)
Result
Writ petition disposed of with general transparency and appointment directions, State-specific vacancy measures and timelines, and liberty to seek further relief if required.