The
Times of India: New Delhi: Friday, October 12, 2012.
The Centre on
Thursday said the Supreme Court's judgment directing appointment of retired SC
and HC judges as heads of Central Information Commission and State Information
Commissions appeared to violate the Right to Information Act and settled
principles of law.
Moving a
petition seeking review of the court's September 13 judgment interpreting the
nature and function of CIC and SICs as well as the qualifications needed for
candidates heading them, the government said before rendering the judgment, the
apex court did not consider the arguments advanced on behalf of the Centre or
its written submissions on the issue.
Mincing no
words while pointing out the fallacies in the judgment in Namit Sharma's case,
the government said it was settled principle that the court could not direct
the legislature to amend the law, the RTI Act, except where the law was silent
on a particular subject.
"That is
not the case here. Section 12(5) and 15(5) of the Act clearly lays down the
norms relating to the qualification of chief information commissioner and
information commissioners at the Centre and the state level respectively.
Various directions given by the Supreme Court in paragraph 106 of the judgment
are contrary to the provisions of the RTI Act," the review petition
prepared by advocate Anoopam N Prasad said.
The September
13 judgment, delivered by Justices A K Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar, had given a
number of directions including asking the Centre and state governments to
consult the Chief Justice of India or chief justice of the high courts
concerned while selecting retired judges for information commissions as
chairpersons or members.
"The
directions issued by the Supreme Court in paragraph 106 of the judgment are
directly in teeth of certain provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, thus rendering
the smooth functioning of the Act unworkable," the Centre said.
In paragraph
106 of the judgment, authored for the bench by Justice Kumar, the court said,
"The chief information commissioner at the Centre or state level shall
only be a person who is or has been a chief justice of the high court or a
judge of the Supreme Court of India."
The apex
court had also directed that "appointment of judicial members to any of
these posts shall be made 'in consultation' with the Chief Justice of India and
chief justices of the high courts of the respective states, as the case may
be".
The Centre
said the principle under RTI Act was of maximum disclosure and minimum
exemptions and the role of principal information officer was to release the
information. "No educational qualification has been prescribed for the
officer performing the role of PIO. The rule of law requires the authorities
under the Act to take decisions in a just and judicious manner," it said.
"The
functions of PIO, first appellate authority and the commissions are not of
judicial nature, and the requirement is of knowledge regarding administrative
working. None of the officers is required to possess a legal background. The
decision whether to disclose the information sought under RTI Act is not
judicial in the least and is taken according to the provisions of the
Act," it added.
.JPG)
.JPG)
