Vacancies in Information Commissions | Day 1: The delay in filling vacancies is “killing the RTI Act”, petitioners argue
Vacancies in Information CommissionsJudges: Surya Kant J, Joymalya Bagchi J
Today, a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi briefly heard Anjali Bharadwaj’s petition on vacancies at the Central and State Information Commissions. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Bharadwaj, argued that the Union government had taken no steps to fill vacancies in the Central Information Commissions (CIC) for over 10 months.
Additional Solicitor General K.M. Natraj, appearing for the Union, submitted that the appointment process will be completed in two to three weeks.
Bhushan: “Destroying the RTI Act”
Bhushan referred to the Court’s direction on 7 January 2025, where a Bench of Justices Kant and N.K. Singh directed the Department of Personnel and Training to provide timelines for completing the CIC selection process and disclose the list of applicants. He argued that the Union filed an affidavit in defiance of the direction , and had sought extra time for the appointment process even after 10 months had passed.
Natraj submitted that the search-committee had shortlisted names and sent them to the selection committee, which consists of the Prime Minister (PM), the Leader of Opposition, and a Union minister nominated by the PM.
Bhushan retorted that the selection process lacked transparency and demanded that the names of the candidates be released to the public. He further stated that the Union intended to appoint persons outside of the application process, making it likely that an appointed person will not be competent to run the CIC. He hastily pointed out that pendency in information commissions had skyrocketed and the Union’s lack of enthusiasm to fill the vacancies was “killing the RTI Act.” The best way to destroy the RTI Act, he added, was by not appointing anybody.
Bhushan pushed for the Court to direct the release of selection criteria and the names of the applicants, expressing concerns that the process will be biased without transparency. He pointed out that transparency and the “right to know” was the whole purpose of the RTI Act. Natraj argued that the petitioners will tarnish the image of the shortlisted candidates if the names are released and file anonymous complaints against candidates they do not like. Bhushan responded that no transparency will exist if Natraj’s reasoning is accepted.
Justice Kant assured Bhushan that judicial scrutiny would remain open to any ineligible appointment. The Bench, in today’s Order, stated that it has no doubt that the Union will complete the appointment process promptly.
Bhushan: State vacancies remain unfilled
Bhushan next pointed out that the State Commission in Jharkhand had been defunct since 2020 and had not filed a status report. The Commission in Himachal Pradesh is similarly defunct, while Chhattisgarh has only one commissioner. A counsel pointed out that an interim order by the Chhattisgarh High Court had stayed the selection process there. The Bench directed for the case to be determined within four weeks so that the selection process can resume.
Bhushan then proceeded with his list. He stated that Maharashtra has 90,000 pending appeals and three vacancies. In Karnataka, there are 50,000 pending appeals and three vacancies. Madhya Pradesh has seven vacancies, West Bengal has three, and Andhra Pradesh has four. He added that Bihar has over 30,000 appeals pending.
Specifically including Tamil Nadu and Odisha as well, the Bench directed the states to initiate the selection process within three weeks and to submit a compliance report.It directed all the state governments to file status reports outlining vacancies, pendency, and the stages of the selection process.
The Court listed the matter to be heard on 17 November 2025.