Supreme Court Sets 3-Week Deadline for RTI Commissioner Appointments, Sidesteps Immediate Transparency Mandate

New Delhi – In a significant move to address the institutional paralysis crippling the country's transparency regime, the Supreme Court of India has directed the Central and State governments to finalize the appointment of Information Commissioners within a strict three-week timeframe. The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, emphasized the urgency of filling widespread vacancies that have rendered several Information Commissions defunct and created a massive backlog of appeals.

However, while mandating swift action on appointments, the Court deferred a decision on the petitioners' plea for greater pre-appointment transparency, opting to keep the issue "open" for future consideration. The ruling strikes a delicate balance, prioritizing the immediate functional restoration of the Right to Information (RTI) framework while postponing a deeper, more contentious debate on the selection process itself.

The Court was hearing a petition in the long-standing case of Anjali Bharadwaj & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. , which highlights the systemic crippling of the RTI Act through governmental inaction. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, delivered a stark assessment, arguing that governments were "destroying the RTI" by failing to appoint commissioners and shrouding the selection process in secrecy.

---

The Crisis of Vacancy and the Court's Firm Directive

The urgency of the Court's intervention was underscored by the grim statistics presented by Bhushan. He informed the bench that the Central Information Commission (CIC) alone has a backlog of nearly 30,000 appeals and complaints. Furthermore, several State Information Commissions, including those in Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh, are completely non-functional, while others like Chhattisgarh are operating with a single commissioner despite facing over 34,000 pending cases.

"No government wants transparency," Bhushan argued. "They say the best way to do it is not to appoint information commissioners. The Central government is also doing that."

Responding to this institutional crisis, the Supreme Court issued a clear and unambiguous deadline. The bench recorded that the search committee for the Chief Information Commissioner has completed its work. It directed the high-powered selection committee—comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and a Union Cabinet Minister—to finalize appointments within three weeks.

The order stated that the Court had “no reason to doubt” that the Union government would adhere to the guidelines laid down in its 2019 judgment in the Anjali Bharadwaj case. The directive extends to all states with pending vacancies, which must also complete their selection processes within the same three-week period and file compliance reports by November 17, when the matter is next scheduled for hearing. An extended deadline of 45 days was granted to Jharkhand.

---

The Unresolved Question of Transparency

While the Court's order on filling vacancies was decisive, its approach to the issue of transparency in the appointment process was more cautious. Advocate Bhushan forcefully argued that the credibility of the RTI regime depends on a transparent selection process. He insisted on the public disclosure of the names of all applicants, the shortlisting criteria, and the names of the shortlisted candidates before appointments are finalized.

“They should put out the names of people who have applied, and if people who have not applied are appointed, then at least their names should be put out," Bhushan contended. "RTI is all about transparency.”

He cited a past instance where an allegedly unqualified journalist, known for praising the government, was "air-dropped" into the post, arguing that such appointments undermine the institution. He stressed that post-facto judicial review is an inadequate remedy. “We are just asking for transparency," he said. "It’s the right of the people to know... This should be known before appointment."

The bench, however, was reluctant to stall the ongoing appointment process to enforce this. Justice Kant remarked, "We will keep these issues open. But let the process conclude." The Court assured the petitioners that transparency would be ensured at an "appropriate stage" and that any appointments of ineligible candidates could be challenged later through judicial review. "A person who is eligible who is not appointed and a less qualified person is appointed - that will be up for judicial review," the bench observed, adding that it would "make sure they publish this information" eventually.

This deferral leaves a critical aspect of the RTI machinery's integrity in limbo, signaling that while the Court is keen to ensure the commissions are staffed, it is not yet prepared to mandate a fundamental overhaul of the opacity surrounding how those commissioners are chosen.

---

Wider Jurisprudence: Urgency and Procedure in Commercial and IP Law

The Supreme Court's focus on procedural timelines and institutional functionality resonates with other recent judicial developments. A notable case from the Himachal Pradesh High Court, involving Danish company Novenco Building and Industry, illustrates a similar tension between the need for urgent judicial intervention and adherence to statutory procedures.

In Novenco v. Xero Energy , the plaintiff sought an urgent ad-interim injunction against a former distributor for alleged IP infringement. However, the suit was filed in June 2024, nearly two years after the alleged infringement was discovered in July 2022. The High Court dismissed the suit for non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, which mandates pre-institution mediation. The court held that the significant delay negated the claim of "urgency" required to bypass mediation. A Division Bench affirmed this, noting that "continuous infringement alone could not override statutory mediation requirements."

This ruling serves as a crucial reminder for IP and commercial litigators: the plea for urgent interim relief is not merely a matter of invoking the right words but is subject to rigorous judicial scrutiny of the party's conduct. A delay in approaching the court can be fatal to an application seeking to bypass mandatory procedural steps like mediation, reinforcing the principle that a party seeking equity must act equitably and promptly.

---

The Path Forward: A Functioning but Opaque System?

The Supreme Court's latest directive ensures that the lights will soon be on at Information Commissions across the country. By setting a firm deadline and scheduling frequent follow-up hearings, the Court has signaled its intent to end the period of administrative apathy that has plagued the RTI regime. For the millions of citizens who rely on the Act to ensure government accountability, this is a welcome step towards clearing the monumental backlog of cases.

However, the unresolved questions surrounding the transparency of appointments remain a significant concern. Critics argue that a system staffed through an opaque process, potentially favoring pliable candidates, may lack the independence and robustness necessary to enforce the RTI Act in its true spirit. While the doors of the Information Commissions may be reopening, the debate over who gets to hold the keys, and how they are chosen, is far from over. The Court's promise to revisit the issue will be closely watched by transparency advocates and the legal community alike.