Supreme Court Addresses Crisis in Information Commissions Amidst Growing Vacancies

New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India is set to address a critical issue undermining the country's transparency framework, as it has scheduled a hearing for October 27, 2025, on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the persistent and widespread vacancies in the Central and State Information Commissions. The case, brought forth by petitioners including transparency activist Anjali Bhardwaj, highlights a systemic failure by governments to maintain the functional capacity of these crucial bodies established under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

The matter was urgently mentioned on September 26 before a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi by Advocate Prashant Bhushan. The court's intervention comes at a time when the Central Information Commission (CIC) is operating at a skeletal capacity, threatening to paralyze a cornerstone of Indian democracy.

---

The Alarming State of the Central Information Commission

Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Prashant Bhushan painted a stark picture of the crisis at the CIC. He informed the bench that the post of the Chief Information Commissioner remains vacant, and more alarmingly, "out of 10 information commissioner posts, 8 are lying vacant." This leaves the apex transparency watchdog with only two commissioners to handle a staggering backlog.

This situation directly contradicts the assurances previously given to the Court. In January, the Supreme Court had directed the Union and state governments to provide comprehensive data on the appointment processes, including timelines for filling vacancies. In response, the Union government had submitted a counter-affidavit indicating that the appointment process for the CIC would be completed within three months, setting a deadline of April 2025.

However, as Bhushan pointed out, this deadline has long passed without any appointments being finalized. The consequence of this executive inaction is a near-collapse of the appellate mechanism under the RTI Act. According to the petitioners, "there are over 26,800 appeals/complaints pending before the Commission," a figure that represents thousands of citizens waiting, often for years, for information that is rightfully theirs. This mounting pendency effectively nullifies the statutory timelines prescribed in the RTI Act for the disposal of appeals, thereby frustrating the very purpose of the legislation.

This protracted inaction raises significant questions regarding the government's commitment to the principles of transparency and accountability that the RTI Act enshrines. For legal professionals and citizens who rely on the Act to uncover facts, challenge administrative malfeasance, and ensure public accountability, a non-functional CIC represents a severe impediment to justice.

Judicial Intervention in State-Level Paralysis: The Jharkhand Example

The crisis is not confined to the central body. Bhushan also drew the Court's attention to the dire situation in Jharkhand, where the State Information Commission (SIC) has been entirely defunct since May 2020. This four-year paralysis exemplifies the administrative and political apathy that has crippled the RTI framework at the state level.

Earlier this year, in January, the Supreme Court had scrutinized an affidavit regarding the Jharkhand SIC. It was revealed that while an advertisement for the posts of a Chief Information Commissioner and six Information Commissioners was issued in June 2024, the selection process had hit a political roadblock. The Selection Committee, which is mandated to include the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Legislative Assembly, could not be convened. The reason cited was that an LoP had not been officially announced following the state's legislative assembly elections in November 2024.

Refusing to let a procedural technicality derail a statutory mandate, the Supreme Court had issued a proactive and constitutionally significant direction. The Court ordered the largest opposition party in the Vidhan Sabha to nominate one of its elected members to the Selection Committee specifically for the purpose of selecting the commissioners. This directive, which was to be complied with within two weeks, was a clear signal that the judiciary would not tolerate the weaponization of procedural lacunae to subvert the law. The upcoming hearing will likely assess the compliance with this order and the progress made in making the Jharkhand SIC functional again.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

The ongoing case, titled ANJALI BHARDWAJ AND ORS. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (W.P.(C) No. 436/2018) , has become a pivotal battleground for the survival of the RTI regime. The repeated failure to appoint commissioners constitutes a direct contravention of the RTI Act and undermines the series of Supreme Court judgments that have repeatedly affirmed the right to information as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

The legal community is closely watching the Court's approach. The judiciary's role has evolved from merely interpreting the law to actively overseeing its implementation, a phenomenon often described as a "continuing mandamus." By demanding timelines, scrutinizing compliance affidavits, and devising practical solutions to political deadlocks, the Court is enforcing the executive's statutory duties.

The core legal issues at stake include:

1. Executive Accountability: Can the executive branch indefinitely delay statutory appointments, thereby rendering a law passed by the legislature ineffective?
2. Enforcement of Judicial Orders: What are the consequences for the government's failure to adhere to undertakings and timelines submitted before the highest court of the land?
3. The Integrity of Statutory Bodies: The persistent vacancies erode the independence and efficacy of Information Commissions, reducing them to paper tigers and betraying the public's trust in these oversight institutions.

Conclusion: A Watershed Moment for Transparency

The hearing on October 27 is more than a routine procedural matter; it is a critical test of the resilience of India's transparency laws against systemic neglect. The Supreme Court's stance will be crucial in determining whether the Right to Information Act remains a potent tool for citizen empowerment or is allowed to fade into irrelevance due to administrative and political inertia.

For legal practitioners, the outcome will have far-reaching implications, affecting everything from public interest litigation and administrative law to corporate compliance and governance. As the judiciary once again steps in to safeguard the architecture of accountability, the nation watches to see if the right to know can be saved from a slow and silent demise.