The SC on Monday directed the central and state governments to complete the process of appointing Informative Commissioners within three weeks. (Anjali Bhardwaj & ors. vs. UOI & ors.).
Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, sitting as the Bench, expressed their belief that the Union government would follow the Anjali Bhardwaj v. UOI guidelines and complete the appointment of commissioners on time.
The directive required all states with pending vacancies to finalize their selection processes within three weeks and submit compliance reports by November 17. Notably, the court instructed the Chief Secretary of Jharkhand to complete that state’s process within45 days.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan contended that the government was “destroying the RTI” by failing to appoint commissioners to the severely understaffed or defunct CIC and SIC, a situation that had “effectively paralyzed the RTI regime.” He cited a backlog of nearly 30,000 pending cases at the CIC alone. Justice Kant responded by suggesting the issue might not always be the government’s fault, noting that sometimes suitable people do not apply, and therefore, the court could “not assume bad faith in every case.”
“Sometimes people don’t apply. We can’t doubt everything. We exercise suo motu powers in case of senior designations because people don’t apply,” he said.
Bhushan insisted that the only way to ensure credibility was to make the process transparent by disclosing the names of applicants and shortlisted candidates. The government was “destroying the RTI,” and the process lacked the fundamental “transparency” it required. He pressed appointments, citing a previous case of an unquaalified individual being “air-dropped” into a post.
ASG Nataraj gave assurances that the process was ongoing, with the selection committee yet to make a final decision, suggesting concerns be addressed later. Bhushan, however, pointed out that the Centre had ignored earlier orders to disclose shortlisting criteria and had a history of providing assurances without tangible progress.
Justice Kant intervened, clarifying that the immediate focus must be on completing the process according to the Anjali Bharadwaj guidelines, cautioning that transparency issues would be scrutinized for any appointments if an ineligible candidate was chosen, and saying, “Make sure they publish this information” eventually.
Concluding its order, the Court directed the Union’s selection committee to finalize the Chief Information Commissioner appointment within three weeks. It also mandated all states to complete their pending selection processes within three weeks (45 days for Jharkhand) and file compliance reports by November 17. Recognizing the severity of the vacancies, including defunct commissions in states like Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh, the bench decided to take up the matter for compliance monitoring every two weeks.
About Author
I am Nishu Lamba, a law graduate and a growing legal writer . I am building my career as a corporate lawyer with my skills in contract drafting and legal research. Through my writing, I aim to make legal topics clear and easy to understand for readers.