The apex court also said the appointment of a person with judicial background is an "additional requirement" as that member in the panel would be consulted as an expert for protecting the fundamental rights of the citizens.
"In the tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies, appointments of members are made in consultation with the Chief Justice of India or Chief Justices of High Courts. This is done to maintain the independence of the panel and there is no political patronage or other patronage. It is also to protect the integrity of such bodies," a bench comprising justices A K Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar said.
"For everything can there be a political patronage," the bench said and added that otherwise people would not hesitate to come out with remarks like "apna admi lagaya hai (you have put your own people)".
It said appointment of people with judicial background would help in protecting the fundamental rights of right to privacy and freedom to practice any profession under Article 21 and 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution.
"We are harping on Article 21 and Article 19 (1)(g). The right to information has to be balanced with Article 21 and Article 19 (1)(g) and other rights," the bench said when advocate Manish Singhvi, appearing for Rajasthan Government, was arguing that right to information cannot be brought under the civil dispute requiring adjudication.
The counsel was making the submission that right to information was a fundamental right and there was no need of a member with judicial requirements as his role would be akin to an adjudicator. (MORE)
