New Delhi: The Centre on Monday informed the Supreme Court that the panel chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi is scheduled to meet on December 10 to select and recommend names for the posts of Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners at the Central Information Commission (CIC). This development comes amid mounting concerns over the persistent vacancies at the CIC and State Information Commissions (SICs), which have led to a growing backlog of cases and delays in grievance redressal under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, which was hearing a public interest litigation seeking urgent filling of vacant posts in CIC and SICs, was apprised by Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, that the meeting of the selection committee has been fixed and notices have been sent to the committee members. The selection panel, constituted under Section 12(3) of the RTI Act, is chaired by the Prime Minister and also includes the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. Its mandate is to recommend appointments to the posts of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners of the CIC.

The Supreme Court recorded the submission and deferred further hearing on the plea. It also directed the chief secretaries of all states to submit detailed information regarding the total strength of SICs, vacant posts, and the number of appeals and complaints pending before the commissions.

Vacancies, Backlogs, and Alleged Negligence

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing petitioners including activist Anjali Bhardwaj, highlighted that the government has failed to fill vacant posts, causing a massive backlog at the commissions. He pointed out that some states have selectively made two to three appointments and claimed they have sufficient personnel to handle the pending cases, while ignoring other vacant positions. Bhushan also cited at least seven previous court orders directing the Centre to expeditiously fill CIC and SIC vacancies, which, according to him, were not fully complied with.

Bhardwaj and other RTI activists argued that the inaction of both the Centre and state governments was undermining the effectiveness of the RTI Act, rendering it “virtually defunct” in some jurisdictions. In their submissions, they highlighted that the CIC currently operates without a chief, and eight out of ten posts of information commissioners are vacant. According to the petitioners, the backlog of cases in the CIC is nearly 30,000, reflecting severe delays in transparency mechanisms intended to ensure citizen access to public information.

The Supreme Court has, over several hearings, expressed concern that the vacancies in both the central and state information commissions are hampering the very spirit of the RTI Act. In January 2025, the court had observed that states like Jharkhand, Tripura, and Telangana had almost defunct SICs due to a complete lack of information commissioners. The bench had warned that continued delay in appointments risks turning the 2005 law into a “dead letter,” depriving citizens of their fundamental right to information.

History of Delays and Court Directions

Since February 2019, the Supreme Court has repeatedly directed both the Centre and state governments to ensure timely appointments to CIC and SICs. In December 2019, the apex court mandated that information commissioners be appointed within three months and emphasized that the selection panel’s composition should be publicly disclosed. The court stressed that appointees should include eminent persons from diverse fields, rather than being limited to bureaucrats.

Despite these repeated orders, appointments have been delayed in multiple states and at the central level. For instance, in October 2023, the Supreme Court issued a directive reiterating the need to fill vacancies to prevent the RTI Act from becoming ineffective. Similarly, in November 2024, the court asked the Centre and state governments to provide status updates on filling posts. The repeated interventions underscore persistent concerns over administrative inaction and the erosion of institutional mechanisms meant to uphold transparency and accountability.

Selection Committee and Upcoming Meeting

The Prime Minister-led committee is set to deliberate on appointments on December 10. The process involves evaluating candidates for the posts of CIC and Information Commissioners based on merit, experience, and contributions to public life. While the committee is chaired by the Prime Minister, the presence of the Leader of Opposition and a nominated Union Minister is meant to ensure a balanced, bipartisan approach. Once the panel finalizes recommendations, the appointments are formalized by the President of India.

The apex court had previously noted concerns over the predominance of bureaucrats in these commissions and had indicated that a broader spectrum of experts—including academics, social activists, and professionals from various walks of life—should be considered for appointment. The selection process, therefore, carries not just administrative significance but also symbolic weight, reflecting the commitment of the state to uphold transparency and participatory governance.

Concerns About RTI Functioning and Citizen Access

Petitioners have argued that the prolonged vacancies have severely impacted the efficacy of the RTI regime. With thousands of appeals pending, citizens face prolonged delays in accessing information, undermining the law’s purpose of promoting accountability. Bhushan has claimed that the government’s selective filling of posts and delay in appointments is an attempt to weaken the RTI Act by making the commissions non-functional.

The apex court has consistently emphasized that the commissions are vital to enforcing the right to information. By not filling vacant posts, both at the Centre and state levels, the government risks creating a parallel crisis of governance, where citizens are unable to hold public authorities accountable.

State Information Commissions: Varied Status

While some states like Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Karnataka have broadly filled vacancies and have functioning commissions, others, including Chhattisgarh, were in the process of filling vacancies at the time of the hearing. The Supreme Court had sought detailed status reports from all states, aiming to ensure uniformity in the functioning of SICs and prevent regional disparities in the availability of information to citizens.

The apex court’s intervention underscores the critical role of both CIC and SICs in the democratic framework. These institutions not only provide redressal to citizens but also act as deterrents against bureaucratic opacity and institutional inertia. Timely appointments and efficient functioning of these commissions are therefore pivotal to the credibility of the RTI mechanism.

Looking Ahead: Implications of December 10 Meeting

The scheduled meeting on December 10 is expected to be a turning point in the long-pending appointments to the CIC. Legal experts suggest that once the Prime Minister-led panel finalizes its recommendations, the backlog of cases may be addressed more efficiently, restoring public faith in the commission’s ability to enforce transparency.

Observers note that the committee’s deliberations will likely consider not only bureaucratic experience but also diverse expertise and public service experience to ensure a balanced composition. This approach is in line with the Supreme Court’s repeated emphasis on appointing commissioners from varied backgrounds, rather than limiting the pool to career civil servants.

Conclusion

The pending vacancies in the Central and State Information Commissions have been a recurring concern, repeatedly highlighted by activists and the judiciary alike. The December 10 meeting of the Prime Minister-led selection committee represents a critical opportunity to restore functionality to the CIC and ensure that citizens’ right to information is protected in practice, not just in theory. The apex court’s sustained oversight, combined with timely action from the government, is expected to bring much-needed relief to thousands of citizens awaiting redressal and strengthen the transparency framework envisaged under the RTI Act of 2005.

With over 30,000 pending cases at the CIC alone and several state commissions operating at sub-optimal capacity, the upcoming appointments are crucial not only for administrative efficiency but also for upholding democratic accountability and the rule of law.