The Crossbill News Desk
A fresh hearing in the Supreme Court on Monday, November 17, brought renewed scrutiny to the persistent delays by the Union government and several states in filling vacant posts in the Central and State Information Commissions.
Expressing concern that the growing number of vacancies was eroding the Right to Information (RTI) framework, a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed Himachal Pradesh to appoint all members to its State Information Commission (SIC) within two months and asked Jharkhand to complete its long-pending appointment process within one month. The bench said it would take up the matter again in the coming days.
During the hearing, Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioners Anjali Bhardwaj, Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.) and Amrita Johri, pointed out that the Central Information Commission (CIC) has been functioning without a chief for over two months, while eight of the ten sanctioned posts of Information Commissioners remain vacant. The CIC is currently grappling with nearly 30,000 pending cases.
Bhushan also highlighted severe shortages across state commissions. According to data submitted by the petitioners, Jharkhand’s SIC has remained defunct for more than five years and is no longer registering new cases; Himachal Pradesh’s commission has been non-functional for over four months; Chhattisgarh is working with only one commissioner despite almost 35,000 pending matters; Maharashtra has three vacancies and nearly one lakh cases in backlog; Tamil Nadu has sanctioned only seven commissioners for a pendency of around 41,000 cases; and Madhya Pradesh is functioning with four commissioners while nearly 20,000 matters are pending.
The petitioners noted that Karnataka has filled all vacancies since the last hearing on October 27, bringing its commission to full strength with 11 commissioners. Counsel for the Union government informed the court that the selection committee would meet shortly and that appointments would be made as soon as possible.
Arguing that governments were “completely undermining” the RTI regime, the petitioners said delays in appointments were pushing disposal times for appeals and complaints to well over a year. They stressed the need for adherence to transparency norms laid down in the Supreme Court’s 2019 Anjali Bhardwaj judgment. Advocate Rahul Gupta also appeared for the petitioners.
Expressing concern that the growing number of vacancies was eroding the Right to Information (RTI) framework, a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed Himachal Pradesh to appoint all members to its State Information Commission (SIC) within two months and asked Jharkhand to complete its long-pending appointment process within one month. The bench said it would take up the matter again in the coming days.
During the hearing, Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioners Anjali Bhardwaj, Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.) and Amrita Johri, pointed out that the Central Information Commission (CIC) has been functioning without a chief for over two months, while eight of the ten sanctioned posts of Information Commissioners remain vacant. The CIC is currently grappling with nearly 30,000 pending cases.
Bhushan also highlighted severe shortages across state commissions. According to data submitted by the petitioners, Jharkhand’s SIC has remained defunct for more than five years and is no longer registering new cases; Himachal Pradesh’s commission has been non-functional for over four months; Chhattisgarh is working with only one commissioner despite almost 35,000 pending matters; Maharashtra has three vacancies and nearly one lakh cases in backlog; Tamil Nadu has sanctioned only seven commissioners for a pendency of around 41,000 cases; and Madhya Pradesh is functioning with four commissioners while nearly 20,000 matters are pending.
The petitioners noted that Karnataka has filled all vacancies since the last hearing on October 27, bringing its commission to full strength with 11 commissioners. Counsel for the Union government informed the court that the selection committee would meet shortly and that appointments would be made as soon as possible.
Arguing that governments were “completely undermining” the RTI regime, the petitioners said delays in appointments were pushing disposal times for appeals and complaints to well over a year. They stressed the need for adherence to transparency norms laid down in the Supreme Court’s 2019 Anjali Bhardwaj judgment. Advocate Rahul Gupta also appeared for the petitioners.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment