The Supreme Court questioned the Centre and States over huge vacancies and massive pendency in Information Commissions, calling for urgent action. Prashant Bhushan criticised repeated delays, warning that the Right to Information system is collapsing.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday heard a group of petitions questioning how Information Commissioners are appointed across the country, with concerns being raised about transparency, long-pending vacancies, and the impact on the public’s Right to Information.
The case came before a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi.
At the start of the hearing, the government submitted that although a meeting to fill vacancies at the Central Information Commission had been fixed,
“the meeting was fixed but it could not be held.”
Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, strongly opposed this explanation, saying,
“This has been happening since the last 2 years. They are making some excuse but right to information is not important for this government at all.”
Justice Kant responded to him by observing,
“They might be busy with election Mr. Bhushan.”
Bhushan then highlighted the severe pendency of cases in various Information Commissions, pointing out that
“There are 25000 cases and now people have stopped going there. Nothing will happen unless your lorships takes steps. Only Karnataka has filled all posts. This is a fundamental right and not just a statutory right.”
He added that vacancies should be anticipated and published early, saying,
“Advertisement should be issued before the vacancy arise. Jharkhand again defuncted.”
The Court reviewed the vacancy and pendency situation in multiple states. Bhushan pointed out that “Chattisgarh there is only one post filled,” but State counsel corrected him by saying,
“Thats incorrect there are two.”
Bhushan stressed the increasing pendency by stating,
“There is a pendency of 34000. They should increase the posts. In Maharashtra there is a pendency of 1,00,000.”
Counsel appearing for Uttar Pradesh informed the Bench,
“We have complied. There are 10 and I believe that one gentlemen has died.”
Bhushan also pointed out gaps in other states, stating,
“MP has seven vacancies. Orissa requires more sanctions post. There are six but pendency is a lot.”
Justice Kant then informed everyone that,
“We will take up again and you can give us the whole data of state, pendency and vacant posts.”
Bhushan urged the Court to act immediately, telling the Bench,
“Your lordship should pass some order because they are doing this since a very long time.”
The Bench then dictated its order regarding Central Information Commission vacancies, stating:
“As regard the appointment in the Govt of India the selection committee was scheduled to meet but the meeting didnt take place and the matter was deferred. We instruct Mr Nataraj to speak to the department and tell about the vacancies that remain unfilled. We dont doubt that the competent authority will take steps.”
On the issue of transparency in the selection process, Bhushan argued that
“They should tell about the candidates being considered so that any information good or bad can be brought forward.”
The government responded that this point had already been argued, with Mr. Nataraj stating,
“He has already argued this.”
Justice Kant assured that,
“If there is any issue in the appointment you can bring it up here.”
The Court also reviewed the situation in various states and recorded in its order:
“With respect to the various States, the Court notes that Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Karnataka have substantially filled their vacancies, and their Information Commissions are functioning at full strength. Counsel for Jharkhand submits that the remaining vacancies will be filled within the 45 day period earlier granted by this Court. We see no reason to doubt that the competent authority will act promptly and complete the process at the earliest.”
Regarding other states, the Bench further recorded:
“In Tamil Nadu, one post remains vacant, with the appointment awaiting the Governor’s approval. The Court directs that the necessary approval be granted expeditiously so the vacancy may be filled. The Chief Secretary of Madhya Pradesh is directed to immediately commence the appointment process, if it has not already begun, and to submit a compliance report. Failing compliance, the Chief Secretary may be required to appear before the Court.”
The debate over making shortlisted candidates public continued, with Justice Kant expressing caution. He remarked,
“Making the names public at this stage may actually delay appointments. If allegations start flying, the State may use that as a reason to put the process on hold. If someone unsuitable is appointed, you can flag it then.”
Bhushan disagreed, stressing that pre-appointment transparency is crucial, saying,
“But that becomes a post facto remedy. Transparency is required before appointments so the public knows who is under consideration.”
Justice Kant concluded this part of the hearing by stating,
“Let’s keep this question open for now. We are not refusing anything. If needed, we will also direct compliance with that earlier order. Let us first deal with the immediate crisis.”
The matter will be taken up again after the States and the Centre submit updated data about vacancies and pendency in Information Commissions.
Case Title:
Anjali Bhardwaj & Others v. Union of India & Others
(W.P.(C) No. 436/2018)
Read Live Coverage:
Read More Reports On Information Commissioner Appointments
