Delays in Appointing Information Commissioners

Source: The Hindu (Delays in Appointment)

Why in News?

On January 7, 2025, the Supreme Court of India strongly criticized the Centre and State governments for their continued delay in appointing Information Commissioners, which has resulted in a backlog of appeals under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Court noted that while the Right to Information Act aims to promote transparency and accountability, the vacancy of key positions in Information Commissions is undermining its effectiveness.

---

Key Observations and Directions

1. Vacancy in Central Information Commission:
   • Eight posts of Information Commissioners are vacant at the Central Information Commission, causing delays in processing over 23,000 appeals filed by citizens seeking information.
2. Defunct State Commissions:
   • Several State Information Commissions have been defunct since 2020, with some ceasing to accept petitions under the RTI Act. The Court expressed concern over the disfunctionality of these institutions and their inability to perform their duties.
3. Lack of Appointments:
   • Justice Surya Kant questioned the purpose of creating transparency institutions if the necessary personnel are not appointed to manage them. He emphasized that the institution of Information Commissioners was useless without individuals to oversee it.
4. Bureaucratic Appointments:
   • The Court also raised concerns about the lack of diversity in the appointments of Information Commissioners. Justice Kant noted that retired bureaucrats from a particular section of society were continuously being appointed, despite earlier Supreme Court judgments in 2019, which highlighted the need for appointments from a wider range of backgrounds.
5. Failure to Implement Previous Directions:
   • Prashant Bhushan, representing Anjali Bharadwaj, the petitioner-activist, highlighted that despite the Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling and subsequent orders in October 2023 and November 2024, there has been no real progress in the appointment process. Bhushan argued that the RTI Act is being undermined by government inaction and the defunctionalization of Information Commissions.

---

Court’s Instructions

1. Affidavit on Timelines:
   • The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) was directed to file an affidavit within two weeks specifying timelines for completing the appointment process for Information Commissioners at both the Central and State levels.
2. Action by States:
   • The Court ordered State governments to notify the list of applicants and the composition of the search committee for Information Commissioners within two weeks. The entire appointment process should be completed in eight weeks thereafter.
3. Compliance Reports:
   • The Chief Secretaries of States were directed to submit compliance reports to the Court, detailing the actions taken to fill the vacancies in the Information Commissions.

---

Implications and Relevance of delays in appointment

1. Transparency and Accountability:
   • The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores the importance of timely appointments to the Information Commissions to ensure that the RTI Act continues to promote transparency and accountability in government operations.
2. Importance of Diversity in Appointments:
   • The Court’s concerns about bureaucratic appointments reflect the need for diversity in the appointments of Information Commissioners. The broader public should have confidence in the independence and inclusivity of the institutions responsible for overseeing transparency.
3. Urgency of Action:
   • The Court’s deadlines for the government and States to act reflect the urgent need to revitalize the Information Commissions and restore their functional status so that citizens can access information and hold authorities accountable.

---