The Centre informed the Supreme Court that the PM-headed selection committee will meet on December 10 to choose the new Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners. The Court is monitoring delays as several CIC and SIC posts remain vacant nationwide.
New Delhi: The Central government told the Supreme Court on Monday that the high-level committee headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi is likely to meet on December 10 to select and recommend names for the posts of Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners in the Central Information Commission.
The matter came up before a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi during the hearing of a petition seeking the urgent filling of vacant posts in the CIC and the State Information Commissions (SICs).
Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, informed the Court that the meeting has already been scheduled and notices have been issued to all panel members.
Under Section 12(3) of the Right to Information Act (RTI Act), the selection committee is chaired by the Prime Minister. The committee also includes the Leader of Opposition and a Union Minister nominated by the Prime Minister.
They are responsible for selecting and recommending names for appointment as Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners.
The Supreme Court noted the ASG’s submission and postponed the hearing. It also directed the chief secretaries of all states to give complete details of the sanctioned strength of SICs, the number of vacant posts, and the pendency of appeals and complaints.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing petitioners including activist Anjali Bhardwaj, argued that the government has continued to delay appointments, which is leading to a huge build-up of pending cases.
He said many states have made only two or three appointments and are claiming that they do not need to fill the remaining vacancies, stating they have “sufficient strength” to handle the workload.
Bhushan also informed the Court that there are at least seven important orders from earlier cases where the Supreme Court had directed the government to fill CIC and SIC vacancies without delay.
On November 27, the Court had earlier deferred the matter after being informed that the selection committee had planned to meet on October 28, 2025, but could not proceed due to “other engagements of the members.”
At that time, the Court told the ASG to coordinate with the DoPT Secretary and provide exact vacancy numbers, stating:
“we have no reason to doubt that the Competent Authority will take the necessary initiative to fill the available vacancies”.
The Court also noted that states like Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Karnataka have broadly filled their vacant posts and that their Information Commissions are functioning normally, whereas Chhattisgarh is expected to fill its vacancies within six weeks.
On October 27, the Supreme Court refused to issue a direction requiring the Centre to publicly disclose the names of candidates shortlisted for the top posts in the CIC. It also directed states such as Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh to immediately fill all vacant posts in their State Information Commissions.
During earlier hearings, Prashant Bhushan had strongly criticised the government, saying authorities were “trying to kill the Right to Information Act” by leaving information commissions defunct.
He pointed out that the CIC currently has no Chief, and that eight out of ten Information Commissioner posts are vacant. He further told the Court that the backlog of cases before the CIC is nearly 30,000, which is a result of not following earlier court directions to fill all posts promptly.
On January 7, the Supreme Court had expressed dissatisfaction with the large number of vacancies in CICs and SICs and had directed the Centre to fill them “immediately.” The Court emphasised that these positions are essential for transparency and must be filled without delay.
It had also criticised the pattern of appointing only bureaucrats to these roles and noted that a judicial observation may be required since the law clearly says commissioners should be appointed from “all walks of life.”
Activist Anjali Bhardwaj and others have repeatedly highlighted that despite a major Supreme Court judgment in 2019 directing timely appointments, many states continued to delay the process, weakening the RTI framework.
On November 26, 2024, the Court had also taken a strict stand, asking the Centre and states to report the steps taken to fill vacancies. It noted that commissions in Jharkhand, Tripura, and Telangana had become “virtually defunct” because they had no commissioners at all.
The Supreme Court has issued similar warnings many times, including on October 30, 2023, when it said the RTI Act would become a “dead letter” if appointments were not made on time.
The 2019 judgment had also directed both the Centre and the states to appoint commissioners within three months and to publish the names of members of the selection committee on their official websites.
The Court stressed that information commissioners must be
“people of eminence from varied fields.”
Read More Reports On Information Commissioner Appointments
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
