Supreme Court Declines to Order Disclosure of Opposition Leader's Dissent on CIC Appointment
The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on Tuesday, refused to direct the government to disclose the dissent note of the Leader of the Opposition concerning the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and N V Anjaria, dismissed the plea for transparency in this matter, highlighting the complexities of appointment processes under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Court's Stance on Dissent Disclosure
During the hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj, argued that the government had failed to publish the Opposition leader's dissent note. He emphasized that the public is entitled to know the reasons behind any dissent, particularly regarding qualifications for the position. However, CJI Kant questioned the necessity of such disclosure, stating, "We will not go into that part. There is no question of this kind of trial here." He further inquired, "If somebody has attended the meeting, whether its assenting note or dissenting note, how does it matter?"
Bhushan countered by pointing out past instances where unqualified individuals, such as journalists without RTI expertise, were appointed. In response, the CJI noted that some states have specifically reserved Information Commissioner posts for mediapersons and journalists, suggesting that qualifications can be interpreted broadly. He also raised the possibility that eminent persons might not apply for such positions, yet still be considered suitable candidates.
Emphasis on Qualified Appointments and RTI Rights
The CJI acknowledged that RTI is a fundamental right, stating, "No doubt it is, and there must be a robust mechanism to enforce that right so that timely information is provided to the people." However, he clarified that the court's role is limited to ensuring appointments are made by eligible and qualified persons, rather than conducting a parallel trial on merit. Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, assured the court that all posts have been filled and applicant details, including the final selection list, are available on the government website.
Bhushan reiterated that the petition aimed not only to ensure appointments are made but also that they comply with court directions, arguing that transparency is crucial for public accountability. The bench then directed the Centre to file a status report detailing the number of candidates who applied and were shortlisted before final selection, in line with a 2019 Supreme Court judgment. However, the court declined to order the disclosure of meeting minutes, noting it was not part of the previous directive.
Broader Implications for Governance and Transparency
This ruling underscores the ongoing tension between governmental discretion and public transparency in appointments under the RTI Act. While the court emphasized the importance of qualified appointments, it stopped short of mandating full disclosure of internal deliberations, potentially setting a precedent for future cases involving dissent notes in high-level selections. The decision highlights the balance between operational efficiency and the public's right to information, a key aspect of democratic governance in India.
