Introduction:

The Supreme Court, on January 6, 2025, directed the Union and State governments to provide detailed reports on the status of appointments and the selection process for Information Commissions under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, expressing dissatisfaction over widespread vacancies. The order was passed in a PIL filed by Anjali Bhardwaj and others, represented by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, challenging the non-appointment of Information Commissioners in the Central Information Commission (CIC) and various State Information Commissions (SICs). Despite the Court’s landmark 2019 judgment and subsequent directions mandating proactive measures for timely appointments, the continued prevalence of vacancies has severely affected the functioning of these commissions. A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh emphasized the urgency of filling vacant posts, noting the detrimental impact on citizens’ right to information and the RTI Act’s effectiveness.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioners, represented by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, highlighted the dire state of the CIC and SICs, where vacancies have left many commissions defunct. He argued that this non-appointment renders the RTI Act ineffective, depriving citizens of their fundamental right to access information. Bhushan cited the 2019 Supreme Court judgment, which had explicitly directed timely appointments to prevent such scenarios. He accused the governments of deliberately stalling the selection processes to weaken the RTI framework, asserting that without functional commissions, the Act’s purpose stands defeated. Bhushan further argued that the state government’s failure to appoint Information Commissioners reflects a calculated disregard for transparency and accountability.

The Union government and state counsels, while providing status updates, maintained that steps were being taken to fill the vacancies. The Centre informed the Court that advertisements for CIC posts had been issued in August 2024 and that the selection process was underway. However, no firm timeline was provided for completing the appointments. Similarly, state governments claimed to have initiated selection processes but cited procedural delays, such as the lack of a Leader of Opposition in Jharkhand, as reasons for the delay. They contended that these issues were administrative and did not indicate an intent to undermine the RTI framework.

Court’s Judgment:

After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court expressed deep concern over the persistent vacancies in Information Commissions. The bench underscored the importance of these commissions in upholding citizens’ right to information and criticized the casual approach of governments toward filling the posts. The Court remarked that creating institutions without appointing personnel to execute their functions defeats their very purpose. It noted that the delays in appointments were contrary to the principles laid down in the 2019 judgment, which emphasized timely appointments and the inclusion of candidates from diverse professional backgrounds.

The Court issued specific directions to the Union government, instructing the Joint Secretary of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to file an affidavit within two weeks. The affidavit must include a detailed timeline for completing the selection process, processing recommendations of the Selection Committee, and notifying appointments. The Centre was also directed to disclose the composition of the Search Committee and ensure transparency by publishing the list of applicants for the advertised posts. Additionally, the Court reiterated that no candidate who did not apply in response to the advertisement should be considered for appointment.

Regarding the State of Jharkhand, the Court addressed the delay caused by the absence of a Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly, which had stalled the selection process for appointing the CIC and six Information Commissioners. To resolve this, the Court directed the largest opposition party in the Vidhan Sabha to nominate one of its elected members to serve as a member of the Selection Committee for this specific purpose. The Selection Committee was ordered to complete the process within six weeks, and the appointments were to be finalized within one week of receiving the Committee’s recommendations. The Chief Secretary of Jharkhand was instructed to file a compliance affidavit.

For other states, the Court observed that while selection processes had been initiated, there were no firm timelines for completion. It directed all state governments to adhere to the following steps: (i) notify the list of applicants within one week, (ii) publish the composition of the Search Committee and criteria for shortlisting candidates within the following week, (iii) conclude interviews within six weeks of notifying the Search Committee composition, and (iv) finalize appointments within two weeks of receiving the recommendations. Additionally, states were required to provide data on the total pendency of cases before their Information Commissions. States where appointments had already been made were asked to submit compliance affidavits detailing the list of applicants, the Search Committee’s composition, the shortlisting criteria, and the appointment notifications.

The Court emphasized the need to ensure representation from diverse professional backgrounds in Information Commissions, as stipulated in the 2019 judgment. It took judicial notice of the over-representation of bureaucrats in these commissions and called for adherence to the mandate of inclusivity. The bench also highlighted the urgent need to address the pendency of cases in Information Commissions, which is exacerbated by the vacancies.

In conclusion, the Court’s order seeks to expedite the appointment process for Information Commissions, holding governments accountable for their inaction and ensuring the RTI Act’s effective implementation. The judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to preserving citizens’ right to information and safeguarding transparency and accountability in governance.