The Supreme Court on Monday heard the matter concerning the non-appointment of Information Commissioners in the Central and State Information Commissions. The case was placed before a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Bagchi.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, highlighted the alarming state of vacancies and backlogs across commissions. He pointed out that the Central Information Commission is currently functioning without a Chief, and 8 out of 10 posts of commissioners remain vacant. The Chief’s post has been unfilled for over two months, resulting in a backlog of nearly 30,000 cases.
The petitioners drew attention to the deteriorating situation in several State Information Commissions. In Jharkhand, the commission has been defunct for more than five years and has stopped registering new cases. Himachal Pradesh has been defunct for over four months. Chhattisgarh is operating with a single commissioner despite 35,000 pending appeals and complaints. Maharashtra has eight commissioners in place, but three posts are vacant and the backlog is close to one lakh cases. Tamil Nadu has sanctioned only seven posts despite 41,000 pending cases, among the highest in the country. Madhya Pradesh is functioning with four commissioners while 20,000 matters remain pending.
It was emphasized that governments are undermining citizens’ Right to Information by failing to appoint commissioners in a timely and transparent manner. This has led to delays exceeding one year in disposal of appeals and complaints. The petitioners also stressed the need to adhere to the Anjali Bhardwaj judgment of 2019, which laid down principles for transparency in appointments.
Since the last hearing on October 27, 2025, Karnataka has filled all vacancies, and the State Information Commission is now functioning at full strength with 11 commissioners. The counsel for the Union of India assured the Court that the selection committee meeting will be convened at the earliest to complete pending appointments. Himachal Pradesh was directed to fill vacancies within two months, while Jharkhand was directed to complete the appointment process within one month.
The Supreme Court directed concerned states to expedite the filling of vacancies. The bench stated that the matter will be heard again in the coming days to monitor compliance.
The case was argued by Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Rahul Gupta on behalf of petitioners Anjali Bhardwaj, Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.), and Amrita Johri.
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: While there is no bar on viewpoint, comments containing hateful or abusive language will not be published and will be marked spam. -- Editor