Context:
- The Supreme Court has criticized the delay by both the Centre and States in appointing Information Commissioners, which hampers the effective functioning of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
- The court emphasized the importance of ensuring that these commissions are staffed to uphold citizens’ rights to access information under the RTI.
Relevance : GS 2(Polity )
Key Points:
- Vacancies and Pendency:
- Central Information Commission (CIC): There are eight vacant posts for Information Commissioners, leading to a backlog of over 23,000 pending appeals from citizens seeking information from government departments.
- State Information Commissions: Several state commissions have been defunct since 2020, with some ceasing to accept RTI petitions.
- Supreme Court’s Criticism:
- Justice Surya Kant questioned the purpose of establishing transparency institutions if there are no personnel to enforce the law.
- The court expressed concern about the dominance of retired bureaucrats being appointed to the posts, excluding people from diverse backgrounds.
- Legal Precedents and Court’s Orders:
- Despite a February 2019 Supreme Court judgment urging appointments from various fields, there has been little progress in diversifying the pool of Information Commissioners.
- The court had previously issued orders in 2023 and 2024 to ensure timely and transparent appointments, but these have largely been ignored.
- Government Response:
- Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing petitioner-activist Anjali Bharadwaj, argued that the continued appointment of bureaucrats undermines the spirit of RTI and the law’s intent.
- The Centre has been asked to file an affidavit within two weeks detailing a timeline for filling the vacancies.
Court’s Directives:
- The Department of Personnel and Training has been ordered to provide a timeline for completing the appointments process.
- States that had initiated the process without clear timelines are directed to:
- Notify the list of applicants.
- Publish the composition of the search committee within two weeks.
- Complete the appointment process within eight weeks.
- Chief Secretaries are required to file compliance reports.
Implications:
- The court’s intervention is critical for ensuring that the RTI mechanism functions effectively and that citizens’ right to information is not hindered by administrative delays.
- The ruling reflects the ongoing concerns about the politicization of appointments and the need for greater transparency in the selection process for Information Commissioners.
- The government’s delayed response risks undermining public faith in transparency and accountability mechanisms set up under the RTI Act.
