Back
Must Reduce RTI Backlog, High Court Denies Set Timeline
The has issued a significant ruling addressing the chronic delays within the (). While the Court declined to exercise its power under a to force the to dispose of within a fixed 45-day window, it underscored that the Commission cannot allow public grievances to languish indefinitely.
The Backdrop: A Plea for Timely Justice The petition, filed by Junaid Javid, a resident of Uri, Baramulla, sought urgent intervention to address the rising backlog of in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir. The petitioner argued that the current state of delays effectively sabotages the , rendering the to seek information toothless. The plea requested that the Court mandate the to wrap up all pending appeals within 45 days and establish a permanent time-bound administrative mechanism for future filings.
The Legal Standstill: Jurisdiction vs. Legislation The division bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani, navigated a difficult constitutional boundary. During the proceedings, the highlighted its logistical hurdles, noting that limited infrastructure and an overwhelming volume of incoming complaints make strict adherence to rigid timelines unfeasible.
The Court ultimately held that it could not impose a deadline that the Parliament had not written into the
.
"The
does not lay down any timeline for deciding the
and complaints under the Act and, therefore, we cannot, by issuing a
, fix a timeline of 45 days for disposal of the
and complaints by the
,"
the bench noted.
Key Observations Despite refusing to set a legislative-style deadline, the Court was sharp in its critique of . The judgment serves as a stern reminder that does not grant the Commission a license for inaction.
-
On the duty of the :
"It cannot be said that the can sit over the appeals for an unduly long period and keep them undecided for years together."
-
On the mandate for reform:
"The needs to improve its working and put a mechanism in place so as to overcome the pendency of appeals and to tackle the inflow of fresh appeals and complaints."
-
On utilizing suggestions:
The Court encouraged the Commission to review the suggestions provided by the petitioner, stating that the
"may also do well to consider the suggestions made by the petitioner and make use of them for improving its working, provided they found genuine and realistic."
Implications for the RTI Framework By disposing of the petition with these directions, the High Court has threaded a fine needle: it respected the by refusing to legislate from the bench, yet it sent a clear message that the ’s internal "infrastructural constraints" are not a permanent shield against accountability.
The ruling shifts the burden back to the Commission, tasking it with auditing its own internal efficiency. While the 45-day goal remains an aspirational standard rather than a legal mandate, the Court’s intervention ensures that the must now account for its backlog as a matter of institutional responsibility, rather than merely an administrative inconvenience. Future litigation may well pivot on whether the Commission translates these judicial cues into tangible, systemic improvements.
