THE LEAFLET: National: Thursday,
30 July 2020.
The
Central Information Commission (CIC) on July 24 directed the Department of
Justice (DoJ) to provide a clear, cogent and precise response to an RTI application
filed by a transparency activist Venkatesh Nayak seeking copies of the
proposals sent by the Government of India to the Chief Justices of High Courts
for ensuring due consideration to be given to suitable candidates belonging to
SCs, STs, OBCs, Minorities, and Women while sending proposals for appointment
as Judges.
The CIC
also took serious note of DoJ’s failure to respond to the RTI application and
the first appeal within specified time limits and directed as follows:
“Keeping
in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant and in
the light of the decisions cited above as also the provisions of the Act as per
which a clear, cogent and timely response ought to be provided by the Central
Public Information Officer (CPIO) and the First Appellant Authority (FAA)”.
This
followed an appeal filed by RTI applicant Venkatesh Nayak after not receiving a
reply from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of
Justice.
Even in
its 5-month late reply, DoJ cited “confidentiality” for all communication
between the Central Government and the Chief Justices and a 10-year old RTI
case that was pending in the Supreme Court of India at that time to refuse to
part with any information.
Speaking
to The Leaflet, Venkatesh Nayak said, “It appears, citizens have to struggle
for several years to realise their right to know about the action taken to
represent societal diversity in the High Courts and the Supreme Court. Despite
clear case law that has emerged on the issue of people’s Right to Know, even
basic information about the process of selecting individuals who will wield the
power over a matter concerning life and death is unavailable despite long years
of struggle”.
In the
CIC, Nayak contended that the reference made by the DoJ to the order of the
Supreme Court in SLP (C) No 32855/2009 dated December 4, 2009, in CPIO and Anr
vs Subhash Chandra Agrawal to deny information under section 8 (1)(b) of the
RTI Act, 2005 was not tenable at this stage since the said matter had been
finally decided by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No 10044/10045/2683 of 2010
vide judgment dated November 13, 2019, wherein the CPIO, Supreme Court of India
was directed to re-examine the matter after following the procedure under
Section 11(1) of the RTI Act as the information related to third parties.
During
the hearing, the Appellant also stated that at this stage he would be satisfied
if the total number of proposals relating to SC, ST, OBC, Minorities, and Women
candidates is provided to him.
After
hearing the appellant, the CIC last week remanded a two-and-a-half-year-old RTI
query back to the DoJ for fresh consideration.
Nayak
told The Leaflet “The recommending authorities from HCs and the Collegium,
which has the final say regarding such appointments, would do well to become
more transparent about their actions. Remanding such maters back to the
executive again and again which resists transparency as happened in the
Constitution Bench case in November 2019 does not serve much purpose. The duty
of transparency is not a football to kick around in the game of block and
tackle”.
The
Commission also instructed the DoJ to convene periodic conferences/seminars to
sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant
provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and
responsibilities.
.JPG)
.JPG)
