Petitioner's counsel submitted before the Court that provisions of RTI Act states about mandatory appointment of 10 State Information Commissioners but the Information Commissioner had not made suitable recommendations for any such appointment to the appointing authority, the Governor of Madhya Pradesh.
Section 15(2) of the RTI Act states that The State Information Commission shall consist of—
(a) the State Chief Information Commissioner, andSo I am curious as to the basis of the reported claim by Petitioner's Counsel that the RTI Act requires the mandatory appointment of 10 SICs. Is he claiming that because of the backlog, all 10 have to be definitely "deemed necessary"?
(b) such number of State Information Commissioners, not exceeding ten, as may be deemed necessary.
Further, the statement about "the Information Commissioner" failing to recommend names is so far off from the stipulations of section 15(3) that it has to be a gross transcription error at the newspaper.