Keeping in view provisions of the RTI Act, the Supreme Court on Monday stayed a portion of its earlier judgment which had made it mandatory for only sitting or retired chief justices of high courts or an apex court judge to head the central and state information commissions.
The top court judgment of September 13, 2012 had also stipulated that information commissions should work in benches of two members and each bench should comprise of a legally trained member, who is to be appointed in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and chief justices of the high courts of states concerned.
While passing the interim order on Tuesday, a bench of justices A.K. Patnaik and A.K. Sikri, however, made it clear that during pendency of the pleas challenging its judgement, authorities can continue to fill up vacant positions in information commissions in accordance with the RTI Act and its verdict, except the portion which has been stayed.
The bench also directed “that wherever a Chief Information Commissioner is of the opinion that intricate questions of law have to be decided in a matter..., he will ensure the matter is heard by a bench of which at least one member has knowledge and experience in the field of law.” The apex court said the interim order will be subject to the outcome of the petitions filed by the Centre and others seeking review of its verdict on appointment of information commissioners.
The bench also clarified in its order that “the chief commissioners already functioning will continue to function until the disposal of the review petitions”.
The interim order came on the plea of former information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi and National Advisory Council (NAC) member Aruna Roy who had sought stay on the operation of the verdict on appointment of information commissioners. In their interim application, Mr Gandhi and Ms Roy had also sought that the pleas against the apex court judgement be decided “expeditiously”, as their pendency was creating a lot of uncertainty and many information commissions have stopped working in absence of clarity on how they can function in view of the judgment. They had also contended that due to the pendency of the review petitions, there had been a “freeze” on fresh appointments of commissioners.