Kerala HC Quashes Appointment Of Five State Information Commissioners [Read Judgment]

The Kerala High Court has quashed the appointment of five State Information Commissioners (SICs), holding that the entire decision-making process from beginning to the end stood vitiated.

The candidates for appointment as SICs were shortlisted by the statutory committee comprising the Chief Minister and another Cabinet Minister of the previous government. The then leader of Opposition had opposed the short-list. One of the candidates who got excluded from the short-list challenged the process. The shortlisted candidates also filed writ petitions seeking expeditious completion of appointment process. The delay in the appointment process was attributable to the fact that the Governor had returned the file seeking documents to support the claim of eminence in public life of candidates. The single judge allowed the writ petitions filed by the shortlisted candidates, holding that the Governor had no discretion in the matter and was bound to act as per aid and advice of council of ministers. The government was directed to expedite the appointment process. The writ petition challenging the selection process was dismissed.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Navaniti Prasad Singh and Justice Raja Vijaya Raghavan disagreed with the findings and conclusions of the single judge. Firstly, it was held that the Governor was not acting as a mere rubber stamp of the government while exercising functions under the Right to Information Act. As per Section 15(3) of the RTI Act, the Governor had to choose from the select list of the committee. This was a statutory function as opposed to a constitutional function under Article 163 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the Governor is not to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, but on the recommendations of the Committee under Sec.15(3). It was clarified that the Governor is not a rubber stamp and that though he is not entitled to go into the question of suitability, he is surely entitled to go into the question of eligibility.

Further, on merits, the court held that the candidates shortlisted were not found to be possessing eminence in public life. It was observed as follows: To illustrate, one person was a primary school teacher, the other a practicing lawyer at District Court and yet another was a Development Officer at LIC. By no stretch of imagination, they would qualify as persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience. Thus, they lacked the basic eligibility which the Governor was seeking.