Supreme Court Demands Transparency in RTI Commission Appointments Amid Massive Vacancies

The Supreme Court on Monday declared its commitment to ensuring complete transparency in the appointment process for both Central and State Information Commissions.

The Centre has informed the court that the search committee has finalized its process for appointing the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC), with applications expected to be reviewed within a three-week timeframe.

This announcement followed petitioners highlighting that the CIC currently lacks a chief, with eight out of ten Information Commissioner positions remaining unfilled. They further emphasized that the CIC faces a substantial backlog of nearly 300,000 cases.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, contended that the extensive vacancies indicate a deliberate effort by both central and state governments to undermine the Right to Information Act.

While guaranteeing transparency in CIC appointments, the Supreme Court instructed all state governments to submit status reports regarding vacancy fulfillment by November 17.

Justice Surya Kant, who headed the Bench, stated there was no reason to believe the Centre would not adhere to previously established Court guidelines for CIC appointments. He added that if any unqualified individual were appointed, the Court would investigate and maintain transparency.

These statements came after Bhushan argued that applicant names had not been publicly disclosed as required by a previous Supreme Court ruling, and alleged that appointments favored individuals who support the government.

The Centre informed the Bench that the search committee had completed its work, and the selection committee—comprising the Prime Minister, Opposition Leader, and a Prime Minister-nominated Union Cabinet Minister—would evaluate applications within three weeks.

The petitioners presented data demonstrating that many State Information Commissions are similarly understaffed. Jharkhand's commission has been non-operational for over five years. Himachal Pradesh's commission is also non-functional, while Chhattisgarh's commission operates with just one commissioner despite approximately 35,000 pending appeals and complaints.

The plea noted that numerous other states experience significant backlogs while positions remain vacant.

The petitioners argued that failing to appoint commissioners in a timely and transparent manner effectively undermines the public's Right to Information, resulting in substantial delays—often exceeding one year—in resolving appeals and complaints.