HC judges’ recruitment letters under review

[karira]

As reported in thestatesman.net on 02 October 2008:
The Statesman

HC judges’ recruitment letters under review

BHUBANESWAR, Oct. 2: Should proceedings and correspondence relating to consideration of names for appointment of High Court Judges be made public under the RTI or not is a question in front of the Information Commission here.

Mr Janardan Samantray, the applicant strongly feels that the process, the names and the correspondence between the government and the Chief Justice should be provided to him. It will only help usher transparency and more so in the light of the recent steps and statements made by the Chief Justice of India.

Mr Samantray had moved the home department here in February seeking copy of the procedure for consideration of appointment of Orissa High Court Judges during the period 2006-08.

The home department transferred the matter to the parliamentary affairs department which in turn rejected the application on grounds of confidentiality in March this year.

Mr Samantray went on first appeal stating that the information sought by him does not come under the ‘exempt category’of RTI and he was therefore entitled to get it.

The subsequent developments in the matter are rather interesting. The first appeal was heard and since it involved correspondence between the government and the Chief Justice enquiries were made at the CM’s office which in turn suggested to the parliamentary affairs department to seek the advise of the court.

Consequently, the advise was reportedly sought from the public information officer of the High Court.

The first appeal was rejected and Mr Samantray was denied the information that he had sought.

Moving the information commission with his second appeal on 11 September, Mr Samantray has quoted apex rout observations like darkness does no good, light never causes any harm and certain recent remarks of the CJI. He asserts that there was no validity in the rejection of his first appeal and there was no provision of seeking ‘advise’ from the public information officer of the high court. Under what procedure of the RTI has the advise been sought and given and when the party concerned has not been heard by the PIO, he said.

The second appeal is pending with the information commission. But it has certainly raised a debate on the entire issue of whether such information needs to be made public or not.