The Supreme Court today has undertaken a comprehensive review of vacancies, appointments and pendency in the Central and State Information Commissions, in line with the settled position that the Right to Information is a fundamental right and that transparency in the appointment of Information Commissioners is intrinsic to its enforcement.
Flagging mounting backlogs and non-functional commissions, the Bench directed States to reassess capacity where necessary, noting that “pendency of this magnitude cannot be ignored.” It also warned that institutional paralysis undermines the RTI regime, remarking that “when an institution becomes defunct, people stop filing appeals. That defeats the very purpose of the RTI Act.”
The Bench of Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice N.V. Anjaria emphasised that its earlier directions were not confined to filling vacancies, but were aimed at ensuring that appointments are made in accordance with law and through a transparent process. It noted that mere publication of final appointments in the Official Gazette does not fully satisfy the constitutional requirement of openness, particularly for institutions tasked with protecting citizens’ right to information.
“The purpose of the petition was not merely to ensure that posts are filled, but that they are filled in accordance with the directions of this Court and the law,” the Court observed.
State-wise Status and Directions
During the hearing, the Court examined the status of appointments and backlog across multiple States. It recorded that all posts in the Central Information Commission have now been filled and duly notified.
In Jharkhand, where all seven posts were earlier vacant, the State informed the Court that the selection process is nearing completion and that appointments will be finalised by 28 February 2026. The Court accepted the assurance.
The Bench expressed particular concern over Maharashtra, where nearly 80,000 appeals and complaints remain pending. Noting that only eight Information Commissioners are currently functioning, the Court recalled its earlier judgment directing an increase in strength to eleven. It consequently ordered the State to sanction three additional posts within four weeks and initiate the appointment process without delay.
In Bihar, where approximately 30,000 cases are pending and one post remains vacant, the State informed the Court that the selection process initiated in December 2025 is expected to conclude by the end of February. The Court directed the State to also examine the desirability of increasing the sanctioned strength, given the volume of pendency.
The Court was told that Madhya Pradesh has reduced its sanctioned strength from eleven to six despite a pendency of nearly 18,000 cases. While recording the State’s assurance that remaining vacancies would be filled within two months, the Bench cautioned that pendency of this magnitude cannot be ignored.
In Andhra Pradesh, the State submitted that all eight sanctioned posts were filled on 19 January 2026 and that pendency has since begun to decline. The Court granted time to assess whether the newly constituted Commission is able to meaningfully reduce the backlog before issuing further directions. In Assam, the post of Chief Information Commissioner remains vacant; while a notification has been issued, the Supreme Court granted the State two weeks to file a detailed status report.
Karnataka informed the Court that the post of Chief Information Commissioner, currently vacant amid a pendency of over 36,000 cases, has been advertised and the selection process will be completed within two months. Similar timelines were given by Tamil Nadu, where one vacant post and two newly sanctioned posts are in the process of being filled against a backlog of approximately 40,000 cases.
The Court also noted submissions from smaller States, including Goa, where the pendency is limited to about 300 cases. In such instances, the Bench observed that institutional strength must correspond to actual workload, cautioning against treating Information Commissions as post-retirement placements.
Conclusion
The Bench expressed concern over instances where Information Commissions had become defunct, effectively preventing citizens from even filing appeals.
“When an institution becomes defunct, people stop filing appeals. That defeats the very purpose of the RTI Act,” the Court remarked.
Concluding the hearing, the Court granted most States up to two months to complete pending appointments, directed States with heavy pendency to reassess their sanctioned strength, and made it clear that non-compliance with earlier directions will invite further scrutiny.