They submitted that information commissions are not judicial tribunals and its members are not required to be judicially and legally trained.
"The judgement has the potential of seriously impairing the RTI Act. The commissions are not judicial tribunals as they are not administering justice, but are only providing access to information to make administration transparent. The work being done by them do not require them to be judicially and legally trained, but only expects that they be persons of intelligence, common sense and integrity," they said in an application to the court.
They said the apex court verdict is welcome on aspects of ushering transparency in appointments in info panels but the court should review other part of its order which said only sitting or retired chief justices of high courts or a Supreme Court judge can head the Central and state information commissions.
"It is true that under the present system, there is no transparency in the method of selection and several appointments have been made on arbitrary basis. Also, most of the ICs are from bureaucratic background which is not in line with the true spirit of the Act. Therefore, applicants welcome the directions of the Court in so far as it relates to transparency and filling up of vacancies.
"However, the direction that the Commission should work in benches where one of the Commissioner is a judicial member would create several problems that have the potential of defeating the objective of the Act itself," the application said. (More)