The Supreme Court questioned the Centre and States over delays and lack of transparency in filling vacancies in Information Commissions, stressing that RTI bodies must function effectively. The Court directed all governments to file detailed status reports on appointments and pendency within two months.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday continued hearing a long-pending matter concerning the failure of the Union and several State governments to fill vacancies in the Central Information Commission (CIC) and various State Information Commissions (SICs), a situation that has led to massive pendency of Right to Information (RTI) appeals across the country.
The case highlights systemic delays that have severely affected the functioning of information commissions meant to ensure transparency under the RTI Act.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India along with Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice N.V. Anjaria.
ALSO READ: PM-Led Panel to Meet on Dec 10 for CIC Appointments, Centre Tells Supreme Court
Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan informed the Court that despite repeated directions, the government has failed to place complete information on record regarding the appointment process. He submitted,
“We have prepared an updated chart of what is the situation as of today. The government has appointed, but they have not disclosed anywhere.”
He further pointed out the lack of transparency in the selection process, stating,
“They have not filed the status report, nor disclosed who were the people who applied, who were the people who were shortlisted, who were the people who were selected, what was the shortlisting criteria.”
Responding to this, the Chief Justice observed that the Court’s primary concern was to ensure that the institutions function properly, remarking,
“idea is institution should become functional.”
Prashant Bhushan then emphasised why disclosure of the selection process was important, saying,
“it matters for the reason that the people are entitled to know as to what was the reason for the dissent, whether the dissent was because they were not qualified or whether the dissent was because they were”.
At this point, the Chief Justice questioned the presumption of wrongdoing, stating,
“You will find out and you will tell us whether they are qualified or unqualified. But you know what, that’s… that’s… Tell me, do we expect this much misbehavior that government of India has election committee headed by what is the leader of… Have you appointed an unqualified person?”
The Additional Solicitor General, K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the Union of India, responded by assuring the Court,
“All the posts filled up and all the names were provided.”
When the Court sought clarity on the position in States, Prashant Bhushan informed the Bench about Jharkhand, stating,
“Pursuant to that, Milords, in so far as the State of Jharkhand is concerned, an affidavit was filed yesterday stating that applications have been received and that the appointments are likely to be completed by the end of this month.”
Recording its order, the Chief Justice noted,
“Coming to the Union of India, Milords, the Chief Information Commissioner and other Information Commissioners have since been appointed, and the appointments have been notified in the Official Gazette.”
However, Bhushan pressed for further compliance with earlier directions and submitted,
“In continuation of Your Lordships’ earlier directions, it is respectfully submitted that a status report be placed before this Hon’ble Court, indicating how many candidates had applied, how many were shortlisted, and the process followed prior to finalisation of the selected names.”
The Chief Justice then clarified the Court’s position, stating,
“We are saying they will submit status report in terms of judgment.”
Turning to the State of Himachal Pradesh, counsel appearing for the State informed the Court,
“728 appeal pending. advertised many time.”
Thereafter, Prashant Bhushan placed the status of several other States before the Court, beginning with Maharashtra.
He submitted,
“Milords, if I may first place the position with respect to certain States—Bihar, Rajasthan, and Maharashtra.”
He informed the Court,
“In so far as Maharashtra is concerned, there were three vacancies. All three posts have now been filled as of March 2025.”
Highlighting administrative steps taken to reduce pendency, Bhushan added,
“Milords, given the magnitude of pendency, a circular has also been issued on 31st January for the appointment of support staff. That process is presently underway.”
On the issue of backlog, he said,
“As regards pendency, we were earlier informed that nearly one lakh appeals were pending. After the sanctioned posts were filled, the pendency has come down to approximately 65,000 appeals.”
Despite this improvement, Bhushan pointed out continuing vacancies, stating,
“As of today, Milords, only eight are functional. Despite the direction, three additional posts have not yet been sanctioned.”
Passing directions, the Chief Justice ordered,
“the State of Maharashtra be directed to sanction three additional posts of Information Commissioners within four weeks and file a compliance.”
Moving to Bihar, Bhushan informed the Court,
“Coming to the State of Bihar, Milords—there are four sanctioned posts, out of which one is vacant. The pendency is approximately 30,000 appeals.”
On Uttar Pradesh, he submitted,
“In so far as Uttar Pradesh is concerned, Milords, there are eleven sanctioned posts, out of which only four are presently occupied. Seven vacancies exist.”
Regarding Tamil Nadu, Bhushan stated,
“Then two additional posts were sanctioned and they say that the process for filling up these posts has been initiated and the backlog is 40,000 in Tamil Nadu.”
He then apprised the Court of the position in Odisha, saying,
“In Odisha, my lord, one post is lying vacant and backlog is 10,000 plus. One post and because we have invited the applications, there are 89 applications, it will be filled soon, probably within two weeks, and our pendency has come down from 20,000 in December to 10,000 in January.”
Concluding the hearing with further directions, the Chief Justice ordered,
“Let the status report will be filled in 2 months by all.”
The case continues to underline how prolonged vacancies and lack of transparency in appointments have weakened the RTI framework, even as the Supreme Court presses both the Union and States to ensure that information commissions function effectively and in accordance with law.
Case Title:
Anjali Bhardwaj vs Union of India
(MA 1979/2019 in W.P.(C) No. 436/2018)
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here to Read More Reports On RTI Vacancies
