1|Page

SUBJECT CODE- 3002

SUBJECT NAME- LAW AND MEDIA

SUBMITTED BY- ANTARIKSH SINGH

JAMWAL

SUBMITTED TO- PROF. ABSAR AFTAB

BATCH- 2019-2024

SEMESTER- B
2|Page

ANJALI BHARDWAJ V. UNION OF INDIA- THE INSIGHTS TO RIGHT TO

INFORMATION ACT

-ANTARIKSH SINGH JAMWAL

INTRODUCTION.

Abraham Lincoln said, “Democracy is for the people, of the people and by the people”.
In a democratic country like India where citizens play a vital role, it becomes very necessary
to provide people with adequacy, transparency and accountability to the government. One of
the most important aspects of the fair democracy is transparency. Right to Information
Act,2005 plays a prime role in maintaining the transparency between citizens and government
authorities. The judgement of this case emphasised on the importance of Right to Information
Act, 2005 in relation to good governance.

FACTS OF THE CASE

➢ Miss Anjali Bhardwaj (an Indian Social activist working on the agenda of
Accountability and transparency) was the petitioner in the case.
3|Page

➢ The Central Information Commission (CIC) of Indian along with State Information
Commission (SIC) of eight different states were the respondents in the case.
➢ According to the petitioner, there were several faults regarding appointment of
Information commissioners in CIC and SIC such as non-transparency in appointment,
unclear criteria for shortlisting candidates, delay in appointment etc.
➢ The writ petition was filed under Article 321 as a Public Interest Litigation, with an aim
of effective implementation of Right to Information Act, 2005.

ISSUES

Based on the facts is evident that the issues were raised regarding the appointment of
Information Commissioners, the issues were:

1. Whether selection process for selecting Information Commissioner is transparent?

2. Whether the selection process is biased in favor of its own class (public services)?
3. Whether there are or should be specific criteria for the selection of the candidates?
4. Whether there is unreasonable delay in filling the vacancies.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme court of India held

1. All state government shall place all necessary information including issuance of the
advertisement, receipt and applications, particulars of the applicants, composition
of Selection Committee etc. on the website.2
2. All conditions on which appointments are to be made shall be specifically
stipulated in the advertisement and put-on website as well.3
3. Search Committee shall make the criteria for shortlisting the candidates, public, so
that it is ensured that shortlisting is done on the basis of objective and rational
criteria.4

1
INDIA CONST. art. 32.
2
Anjali Bhardwaj v, Union of India, (2019) 18 SCC 246, ¶ 66.1.
3
Id. ¶ 66.2.
4
Id., ¶ 66.3.
4|Page

4. Information Commissioners should also be appointed from other streams, as

mentioned in the Act and the selection should not limited only to the Government
employee/ex- government employee.5
5. The vacancies shall be filled without any delay , in the future . For this purpose, it
would be apposite that the process for filling up of a particular vacancy is initiated
1 to 2 months before the date on which the vacancy is likely to occur so that there
is not much time lag between the occurrence of vacancy and filling up of the said
vacancy.6
6. The writ petition stood disposed of on aforesaid terms, moreover the petitioner was
given the liberty to approach the court through the interlocutory application or
another writ petition.7

ANALYSIS/COMMENTS

ANALYSIS

POSITION OF RTI IN INDIA

Indian Constitution guarantees every citizen right to information under Article 19(1)(a).8
The transparency of information apprises political growth and checks the misuse of power by
the public officials.9 It is right of citizens to have information regarding the acts of the public
authorities, right to get information is flowing through the natural rights of the democracy.10
Right to Information has its roots in right to freedom of speech and the concept of open
government.11 The SC observed that people have a right to get information in order to be able
to take part in a participatory growth in the industrial life and democracy. Right to know is
basic right to live in this age under Article 21 of our Constitution12

5
Id. ¶ 66.4
6
Id. ¶ 66.5.
7
Id. ¶ 68.
8
INDIA CONST. art 19(1)(a).
9
Namit Sharma v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 745.
10
Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms, (2002) 5 SCC 294
11
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 71
12
Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Indian Express Newspapers Bombay (P) Ltd, (1988) 4 SCC 592.
5|Page

In 2005 RTI act was passed n Act to establish practical regime of right to information for
citizens to access to information under the control of public authorities, for improved
transparency and accountability in the operation of every public authority.13

IMPORTANCE OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION IN GOOD GOVERNANCE.

The principle Right to information exists long before the RTI act came into existence. In
India citizens have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way, by
their public functionaries. They have right to know the particulars of every public transaction
in all its because transparency is an important tool for healthy democracy.14 The disclosure of
information in regard to the functioning of government must be the rule and secrecy an
exception justified only where the strictest requirement of public interest so demands.15
Informed citizen has the ability to reason his action and also to assess the actions of the
legislature and executives.16

The ideal of “Government by the people” makes it sure that people have access to
information on the issues of public concern. The free flow of information about the matters of
Government surfaces way for debate in public policy and fosters answerability in Government.
It creates a condition of “open governance” which is the basis of democracy.17 There is a direct
link between right to information and effective governance.

In fact, the RTI Act itself rests emphasis on good governance and recognises that it is one
of the objectives which the said Act seeks to achieve. The RTI Act would disclose that four
major elements are required to ensure good governance which are: (i) Maximum possible
transparency in functioning of public authorities. (ii) Informed citizens for promotion of
partnership with the Government in decision-making process. (iii) Improvement in
answerability and performance of the Government. (iv) Reduction in corruption in the
government departments.18

COMMENTS ON THE JUDGEMENT

When the aforementioned case was filed in the hon’ble court, 4 posts were vacant in
Central Information Commission, moreover approx. 23,500 cases and complaints were

13
Right to Information Act, 2005. PREAMBLE.
14
State of U.P. v. Raj Narain, (1975) 4 SCC 428. ¶ 74.
15
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 87. ¶ 67.
16
BI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525. ¶ 74.
17
BI v. Jayantilal N. Mistry, (2016) 3 SCC 525. ¶ 75.
18
M.M. Ansari, “Impact of Right to Information on Development : A Perspective on India's Recent Experiences”,
an invited lecture delivered at Unesco Headquarters, Paris, France, on 15-5-2008
6|Page

pending.19 In the state of West Bengal there was only 1 information commissioner, 7680 cases
were pending as on November 2018.20 In the state of Telangana only 1 SCIC and 1 Information
commissioner was appointed, 10102 cases were pending as on 21st Jan 2019.21 In the state of
Maharashtra 7 information commissioners were appointed, however one of them was working
as CSIC, more than 40000 complaints were pending.22 In the state of Gujrat 3 posts of
Information commissioners were vacant.23 In the state of Kerala, only 1 CSIC was appointed
and 5 post of information commissioner were vacant, more than 14000 appeals and complaints
were pending as of 31st August 2018.24 Karnataka SIC was operating with 1 CSIC and 4
commissioners with more than 33000 pending appeals.25 SIC of Odisha was operating with
just 1 SCIC and 3 Information Commissioner with more than 10000 appeals and complaints
pending as on 18 Jan 2019.26 State of Nagaland was working without SCIC since sept 201627

There was no transparency regarding the criteria for shortlisting the candidates. Moreover,
it was observed by SC that all the shortlisted candidates belonged to same category i.e. public
services.

In respect of CIC, a provision is contained in Section 1228 which stipulates that CIC shall
consist of the Chief Information Commissioner and “such number of Central Information
Commissioners not exceeding 10 as may be deemed necessary”. Similarly, provision for SIC
is contained in Section 15(2)29 of the RTI Act. There is a cap/upper limit of 10 Central
Information Commissioners and State Information Commissioners with respect to each State
respectively. The number of CICs/SICs should depend upon the workload used is “as may be
deemed necessary”.

After analysing the stats of the case, more than 170000 complaints and appeal were
pending in CIC and SIC of eight states in other word 170000 were people were deprived of
their right to information, de facto there was lack employees considering all these facts the
Supreme court passed several directions regarding the speedy fulfilment of the vacancies,

19
Id. ¶ 29.
20
Id. ¶¶ 43,44,45.
21
Id. ¶ 53.
22
Id. ¶56.
23
Id. ¶57.
24
Id. ¶59.
25
Id. ¶61.
26
Id. ¶64.
27
Id. ¶65.
28
Right to Information Act, 2005, § 12.
29
Right to Information Act, A2005, § 15(2
7|Page

however the PIL was disposed of on the mentioned terms, however the hon’ble court should
have passed the writ of mandamus as prayed by the petitioner.

The delay in filling of vacancies didn’t just led to pending complaints, however, it
indirectly led to poor governance because inform citizenry make stronger and efficient opinion
and delay in resolving the complains led to poor function of the very committee which is
responsible for keeping the citizens informed. The SC followed the principle and passed several
directions to SIC and CIC for the better implementation of RIT act.
CONCLUSION
The right to information is one of the pillars of democracy, informed citizens make
stronger and effective opinion which lead to rational opinion when it comes to electing the
government, the right to information is a right given to the citizens so that they could make
stronger and efficient decisions. The ECHR was of the view that without the adequate
information of government the citizen participation in public affairs and accountability of the
Government would not be meaningful.30 Therefore Right to Information plays a significant role
in effective governance and efficient democracy.

30
Lingens v. Austria, (1986) 8 EHRR 407.