CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/01129
Dated, the 30th January, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Sushil Sharma
Respondents : Department of Justice
This matter was heard on 15.01.2009 in the presence of the appellant and
the respondents ⎯ represented by Shri S.Twickly, Deputy Secretary & CPIO.
2. It is seen from the records submitted before the Commission by both
parties and the submissions made during the hearing, that the crux of the
information requested by the appellant is about the modalities of the appointment
of the Judges of the higher judiciary and related matters. CPIO, through his
communications dated 02.05.2008 and 02.07.2008 (after the directive of the
Appellate Authority in AA’s order dated 24.06.2008) provided a narrative about
that process as requested by the appellant, which was summarized by the
Appellate Authority in his order as follows:-
“i) The procedure for appointment of Judge.
ii) The eligibility criteria for such appointments,
iii) All details leading to posting of last three Judges appointed in
Supreme Court including roles of all authorities.
iv) Total names in each recommendation from the Chief Justice of
India for appointment of three Judges assuming charge upto 7th
April, 2008, and
v) Reason for non-appointment of women Judges.”
3. What comes out from these communications sent to the appellant is that
there has been an attempt by the respondents to explain the various aspects of the
appointment of the Judges of the High Court and the Supreme Court to the
appellant. What was necessary, however, was that appellant’s request was dealt
with within the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act read with Section 2(j).
It would be necessary to identify documents, decisions and records which answer
appellant’s queries. Explanatory Notes of the CPIO about the various queries of
the appellant were no substitute for authentic information.
4. It is important, therefore, that appellant is given a proper hearing closest to
the point where the information is held, i.e. the level of the Appellate Authority
in order to determine very clearly the type of the information and documentation
AT-30012009-24.doc
Page 1 of 2
which the appellant wishes to access and then decide the disclosure liability of
those items of information. It would be better if the respondents refrained from
providing to the appellant their own explanations regarding hows and whys of
the appointments to the higher judiciary. All disclosures should relate to extant
information as held by the public authority.
5. Accordingly, it is directed that the matter be remitted back to the
Appellate Authority, Shri Ramesh Abhishek, Joint Secretary, who shall give a
hearing to the appellant within four weeks of the receipt of this order and
ascertain from him precisely the type of information which the appellant wishes
to have in terms of Section 2(f) and Section 2(j) of the Act. Having done so,
Appellate Authority will decide on whether any or all of the requested
information be disclosed to the appellant within the provisions of the RTI Act.
6. Matter is accordingly remanded to the Appellate Authority for de-novo
consideration.
7. Appeal disposed of with the above directions.
8. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-30012009-24.doc
Page 2 of 2