RTI Act Strengthened: Supreme Court Directs Timely Appointments in Information Commissions

The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment, addressed the delays in appointing Information Commissioners under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The case was filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) by Anjali Bhardwaj and others under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking enforcement of citizens’ fundamental right to information.

Background of the Case

The petitioners argued that the Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs) were unable to function effectively due to prolonged vacancies. This led to a backlog of cases, frustrating the very purpose of the RTI Act.

According to the petition, as of April 2018, more than 23,500 appeals and complaints were pending before the CIC alone. Several State Information Commissions had similar backlogs, with delays of over a year in hearing appeals.

Key Issues Raised

• Non-appointment of Information Commissioners in a timely manner.
• Violation of statutory deadlines under the RTI Act.
• Lack of transparency in the appointment process.
• Limited diversity in appointments, with most appointees being retired government officials.

Arguments by the Petitioners

The petitioners emphasized that the RTI Act was a time-sensitive legislation that mandates responses within 30 days. They contended:

“The RTI Act is a time-bound legislation, and delay in appointing Information Commissioners leads to huge backlogs, effectively denying citizens their fundamental right to information.”

They also argued that the selection process lacked transparency and was skewed towards appointing retired government officers, ignoring eligible candidates from fields like law, journalism, and social service.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, while emphasizing the importance of the RTI Act, stated:

“The right to information is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Delays in appointing Information Commissioners frustrate the very objective of transparency and accountability in governance.”

The Court highlighted past judgments affirming the right to information and reiterated that timely appointments are crucial for good governance.

Directions Issued by the Supreme Court

• The Central and State Governments must fill all vacancies in the CIC and SICs within three months.
• Future vacancies must be filled at least one to two months before they arise.
• The appointment process must be transparent, with details of applicants, selection criteria, and search committee meetings made public.
• The selection process should consider candidates from diverse fields, not just retired bureaucrats.
• The backlog of pending appeals must be addressed by increasing the number of Information Commissioners where necessary.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling ensures that the RTI Act remains effective in upholding citizens’ right to information. By mandating timely appointments and transparency in selection, the Supreme Court has reinforced the commitment to open governance and accountability.

The judgment sets a precedent for better enforcement of the RTI Act, ensuring that citizens do not have to wait indefinitely for information that should be readily available. It also promotes diversity in appointments, making Information Commissions more representative and effective.

Petitioner Name: Anjali Bhardwaj and Others.
Respondent Name: Union of India and Others.
Judgment By: Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 15-02-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Anjali Bhardwaj and vs Union of India and O Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 15-02-2019.pdf