Live
- UP Govt Agrees to Protesters’ Demand, PCS Exam to Be Held in One Day
- Trump’s Social Security Tax Promise Faces Hurdles: What Retirees Need to Know
- Hyundai Motor India Limited Announces 2024 Edition of ‘Hyundai Always Around’ Campaign
- World Quality Day: Hindustan Zinc Reaffirms Commitment to Superior Product Quality & Innovation
- Samsung TV Plus Announces the Launch of Four New FAST Channels From Viacom18 Exclusively on Samsung Smart TVs
- Arun Pandey 3.0 set to revolutionise lottery industry with Great Goa Games (GGG)
- How Organisations Can Support Mobile Workforces with Diabetes - From Prevention to Management
- Google Rolls Out Real-Time Spam Detection Feature for Pixel Users
- Marriott international and Samhi hotels announce strategic expansion, sign agreement to open three more properties in india
- Telangana Group-4 Results Declared: 8,084 Candidates Selected for 8,180 Posts
Supreme Court to hear plea against 4 SICs
Apex court on Thursday will take up final hearing of the petition challenging the appointment of four State Information Commissioners (SICs) Varre Venkateshwarlu, Thanthiya Kumari, Imtiyaz Ahmad and M Vijaya Nirmala in two Telugu States.
​Hyderabad: Apex court on Thursday will take up final hearing of the petition challenging the appointment of four State Information Commissioners (SICs) Varre Venkateshwarlu, Thanthiya Kumari, Imtiyaz Ahmad and M Vijaya Nirmala in two Telugu States.
Way back in September, 2013, the Division Bench of the Hyderabad High Court set aside their appointments as SICs after the then AP government was found to have flouted the appointment rules enshrined in the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The present SLP was filed against the High Court judgement. In 2013, a public interest litigation (PIL) was filed in the AP High Court by K Padmanabhaiah, former Union Home Secretary, V B J Chelikani and N Padmanabha Reddy challenging their appointments on the ground that these four SICs had political connections.
Besides, the petitioners also found fault with the selection committee for flouting provisions under sections 15(3), (5) and (6) of Right to Information Act. Their appointment was also found to be violative of judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in Namit Sharma case.
The petitioners cited the case of Imtiyaz Ahmad, claiming that he had TDP links as he contested on TDP ticket in the 2009 general elections against Chief Minister N Kiran Kumar Reddy, while Vijaya Nirmala contested from Nuziveedu constituency on Prajarajyam party ticket.
