The bench only took appointments from a specific category of CIC and SIC, and criticized the commission not only the people of all levels but also taking a court note on the presence of bureaucrats.
“We can take note that the entire commission is filled with people in just one category. Why should the bureaucracy should be appointed only and why people of different life are not appointed. We do not have to say more but need to pay attention,” Judge Surya Kant said.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who appeared for the petitioner Anjali Bhardwaj and others, said that in 2019, the Apex court issued a final direction to fill the posts in CIC and SIC but the states delayed the selection process and literally killed the right to the law.
While appealing to the concerned secretary to the concerned secretary, Bhushan made a huge harassment of the people by using the vacancies and the state governments failed to appoint people.
Bhushan said the top court issued instructions for the appointment of people in different fields. The bench directed the Center to explain the status report on the selection process which was started on August 224 for such posts. The Joint Secretary of the Employees and Training Department was asked to file the affidavit, showing that the names of the 19 candidates applied for the post of Information Commissioner will be processed. The bench further asked the Center to announce the names of the candidates who applied for the post and within two weeks the criteria for them.
The top court took a serious note of Jharkhand, who did not appoint the Information Commissioner despite the repetitive instructions for the reason why there was no leader of the opposition in the Legislative Assembly.
The bench said the advertisements for the appointment of the Information Commissioner at Jharkhand SIC were issued on June 224, but there was no progress.
He directed the largest opposition party in the Jharkhand universe to nominate one of the selected committees for the limited purpose of selecting the Information Commissioner and for the limited purpose that he could start appointments.
The bench directed the other states with vacancies in their respective commissions to indicate the list of applicants within a week without the structure of the selection committee, the criteria and interviews and appointments of the shortlist candidates.
The bench directed the Chief Secretary of the state to inform the vacant seats and asked them to file a compliance affidavit on the appointment made.
“The states that have been appointed will submit the compliance affidavit of the states that will be a list of the candidates who have applied for the list of candidates, the design of the search committee, shortlisting and appointment notification,” he said.
On November 26, 2022, the bench took a tough opinion on the issue and asked to inform the Center and the states about the steps taken to fill the posts.
From February 7 Since, the Supreme Court has directed the Center and States to have a timely visit to the transparency watchdog.
The court observed in Jharkhand, Tripura and Telangana, and the SIC was virtually disrupted because there was no information commissioner.
October, October 1, on October 22, gave the same directive that the Right to the Information Act of the Information Act of 2005 will be “dead letter”.
Bhardwaj’s petition states that the central and states, including timely posts in CIC and SICS, did not comply with the Supreme Court’s 2019 results.
On December 3, the Supreme Court directed the Central and State Governments to appoint information commissioners within three months in CIC and SICs within three months, and the concerned authorities have been asked to appoint the members of the selection committee’s committee and information commissioners at their website on their website.
Supreme officials said that the information officers should include renowned people in different fields.
.