The Supreme Court on Tuesday undertook a wide-ranging review of vacancies, appointments and mounting pendency in the central and state information commissions, reiterating that the right to information (RTI) is a fundamental right and that transparency in the appointment of information commissioners is intrinsic to its enforcement.
“When an institution becomes defunct, people stop filing appeals. That defeats the very purpose of the RTI Act,”, a bench led by chief justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, and comprising justice Joymalya Bagchi and justice NV Anjaria observed. The bench examined the functioning of commissions across the country and issued time-bound directions to states grappling with vacancies and heavy backlogs. The Court warned that institutional paralysis undermines the RTI regime and directly affects citizens seeking accountability from public authorities.
The hearing was held in a matter concerning the non-appointment and delayed appointment of the chief information commissioner and information commissioners. Senior counsel Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that following earlier directions of the court, all vacant posts in the central information commission (CIC) have now been filled. The additional solicitor general appearing for the Union government informed the Court that the appointments have been notified and placed in the public domain.
However, Anjali Bhardwaj, commodore Lokesh Batra (retd) and Amrita Johri, the petitioners, contended that deliberations of the search committee and selection committee, the shortlisting criteria, and the dissent note recorded by the leader of Opposition (LoP) had not been disclosed despite directions in the 2019 judgement. The bench clarified that the scope of the present proceedings is limited to ensuring that vacancies are filled and that commissions continue to function effectively.
“The scope of court proceedings is to fill the vacancies. We cannot have comparative cases here. It cannot be that we see that this person is better than the one appointed,” CJI Kant says.
When the issue was pressed further, the Court reiterated that it would not convert the hearing into an evaluative exercise assessing the comparative merit of candidates. “That kind of trial we cannot conduct here,” the bench says.
At the same time, the chief justice underscored the importance of maintaining the institutional character of information commissions. “This is a public centrist institution. We do not want a retiree’s haven also, remember. If the public is not coming forward, it ends,” he remarked.
The Court directed the Union government to file a status report in terms of its earlier judgements, particularly regarding compliance with transparency requirements in the appointment process.
The bench then examined the state-wise position on sanctioned strength, vacancies and pendency. It recorded that all 11 sanctioned posts in CIC, including the chief and information commissioners, have now been filled. However, CIC continues to face a backlog of more than 32,000 cases.
Serious concern is expressed over states where commissions have become defunct. In Jharkhand, all seven sanctioned posts remain vacant and the state information commission has been non-functional since May 2020, having reportedly stopped registering appeals and complaints. The state informed the Court that the selection process is nearing completion and that appointments will be finalised by 28 February 2026. The Court accepted the assurance. Himachal Pradesh is also facing a complete vacancy in its two-member commission which has been defunct since July 2025.
Maharashtra drew particular attention from the bench. Despite an earlier judgement directing that the commission’s strength should be 11, three posts remain vacant. The state is grappling with a backlog of over 80,000 appeals and complaints. Noting that only eight commissioners are currently functioning, the Court directed the state to sanction the remaining posts within four weeks and initiate the appointment process without delay, observing that pendency of such magnitude cannot be ignored.
In Bihar, one of four sanctioned posts remains vacant and the commission is dealing with nearly 30,000 pending cases. The state informed the court that a selection process initiated in December 2025 is expected to conclude by the end of February. The bench directed Bihar to also examine whether its sanctioned strength needs to be increased given the volume of pendency.
Madhya Pradesh has reduced its sanctioned strength from 11 to six despite a backlog of around 18,000 cases, with several posts currently vacant. While recording the state’s assurance that remaining vacancies would be filled within two months, the apex court cautioned that such pendency cannot be ignored.
In Andhra Pradesh, the state submitted that all eight sanctioned posts have now been filled and that pendency has begun to decline. The court granted time to assess whether the newly constituted commission is able to meaningfully reduce the backlog before issuing further directions.
In contrast, Chhattisgarh, though having filled all posts, continues to face a backlog exceeding 50,000 cases. The post of state chief information commissioner (SCIC) had remained vacant for three years before being filled recently.
Karnataka informed the court that the post of SCIC, currently vacant amid a pendency of over 36,000 cases, has been advertised and will be filled within two months. Tamil Nadu reported one existing vacancy and two newly sanctioned posts in the process of being filled, against a backlog of around 40,000 cases.
The Court also considered submissions from smaller states. In Goa, where the backlog is limited to around 300 cases, one sanctioned post remains vacant and the government has decided not to fill it in view of the low workload.
The bench observed that institutional strength must correspond to actual caseload and cautioned against treating information commissions as post-retirement placements rather than active public institutions.
The apex Court granted most states up to two months to complete pending appointments and directed those facing heavy pendency to reassess their sanctioned strength. It made clear that non-compliance with earlier directions would invite further scrutiny.
The matter will now be listed after the Union government files its status report.
