The Supreme Court on Tuesday expressed serious concern over delays by several States in appointing Chief Information Commissioners and Information Commissioners despite earlier directions, observing that statutory appointments cannot be indefinitely stalled on grounds such as the Model Code of Conduct or administrative delays.
Hearing a miscellaneous application in the long-pending matter concerning vacancies in Information Commissions, the Bench ofChief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana noted that while the Union Government had complied by appointing eight Information Commissioners and one Chief Information Commissioner, several States continued to function with vacant posts despite substantial pendency of RTI appeals.
The Court particularly questioned the State of Himachal Pradesh over its failure to notify appointments even after the selection process had been completed.
“
“The selection process for appointment of State Information Commissioner and State Chief Information Commissioner has been completed. But the result of this selection process could not be notified on account of the Model Code of Conduct due to municipal elections. As per our considered view, the Model Code of Conduct should not be an impediment in the matter of statutory appointments and that too when the same is required to be done under the Court’s directions.”
Rejecting the State’s justification that the appointments were delayed due to local body elections, the Bench directed Himachal Pradesh to notify the appointments within two weeks and file a compliance report.
The Court also examined the status of vacancies in Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Bihar, Assam and Tamil Nadu, questioning repeated delays despite earlier judicial directions. In Maharashtra, where a proposal to create three additional posts had remained pending, the Court directed that the posts be notified within a week and filled through the selection process within two months.
While discussing the mounting backlog of RTI appeals, the Bench underscored the importance of ensuring that Information Commissions function efficiently.
“
“Ideally you should have zero pendency in these matters, because these are only information issues. An appeal comes on that day, simultaneously it should be initiated.”
The Court further observed that whenever appointments of Information Commissioners are made, records relating to the selection process and appointments must be placed in the public domain in accordance with its earlier judgment. Petitioners submitted that despite the Court’s previous directions, several States had failed to upload such information on their websites.
Directions
The Court directed that:
● Himachal Pradesh shall notify the appointments of the State Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners within two weeks and file a compliance report.
● Maharashtra shall notify three additional posts of Information Commissioners within one week and complete the selection process within two months.
● Bihar shall complete the appointment process for the existing vacant post within one month and initiate the creation of three additional posts, which shall be completed within two months.
● Assam shall complete the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner within one month and file a compliance report.
● States shall upload records relating to the selection and appointment of Information Commissioners on the websites of their respective Information Commissions, in line with the Supreme Court’s earlier directions