In a significant judgment underscoring the importance of transparency and due process in public appointments, the Kerala High Court has set aside the appointment of the State Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) made by the state government. The court found the appointment to be arbitrary and lacking adherence to the statutory procedure and constitutional mandates, particularly those concerning the independence of quasi-judicial bodies such as the State Information Commission. The case was filed in response to concerns that the selection process was opaque and failed to uphold the principles established by the Supreme Court in previous rulings governing such appointments.
The petitioner challenged the appointment on the grounds that the process lacked fairness, transparency, and broad-based consultation. It was argued that the final selection was made without public notification or providing an opportunity for eligible candidates to apply, and that the government had essentially handpicked the appointee. The High Court examined the records and noted that no open advertisement had been issued for the post, nor had a structured and competitive evaluation process been undertaken. This, the court held, was contrary to the spirit of democratic functioning and ran afoul of both the Right to Information Act and binding precedents laid down by the Supreme Court.
The court placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India, which emphasized that transparency and public participation are essential in the appointment of Information Commissioners. The High Court observed that the position of Chief Information Commissioner carries quasi-judicial powers and functions, making it imperative that the process be free from executive overreach and political favoritism. It further emphasized that such appointments must inspire public confidence and reflect merit, not merely political allegiance or bureaucratic loyalty.
Critically, the High Court also rejected the state’s argument that such appointments fall solely within the discretion of the government, highlighting that discretion must operate within the confines of constitutional norms and statutory frameworks. The judgment reiterated that even though the government is empowered to make appointments, such power is not absolute and is subject to judicial review when exercised arbitrarily.
The verdict marks a strong reaffirmation of the judiciary’s role in safeguarding institutional integrity and ensuring that public offices, especially those meant to uphold transparency, are filled through fair and accountable processes. The Kerala High Court’s ruling thus stands as a reminder that public trust can only be maintained when democratic values and procedural fairness are given precedence over political convenience.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.