The Supreme Court's recent stance on transparency has sparked a heated debate! In a surprising turn of events, the Court refused to order the government to reveal the shortlisted candidates for the Central Information Commission (CIC) appointments, citing potential disruption to the process.
But here's the twist: the petitioners argued that the Court had already settled this issue back in 2018, and a mandamus should be issued for the disclosure. However, the bench, led by Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, preferred to keep the matter open-ended. This decision came after the Court previously rejected a similar plea on November 17, refusing to disclose the names of the candidates.
The Court also declined to summon the Secretary of the Department of Personnel & Training to explain the appointment delays, stating they would do so if necessary. Instead, they urged Mr. Nataraj, the Additional Solicitor General, to communicate with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) about the unfilled vacancies. The Court expressed confidence in the competent authority's ability to address the issue.
The case originated from a PIL filed by activist Anjali Bhardwaj, who raised concerns about delays and a lack of transparency in appointments to the Central and State Information Commissions. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, requested the disclosure of candidate names to allow for public scrutiny. Justice Kant acknowledged the 2018 order but warned that disclosure could lead to allegations and counter-allegations, giving the State a reason to delay appointments. He suggested that any issues with appointees could be addressed post-appointment.
Bhushan countered that challenging credentials post-appointment would be too late. He emphasized the need for transparency before appointments to ensure public awareness of the candidates. Ultimately, Justice Kant deferred the matter, stating they would issue directions for compliance if needed, but the focus should be on resolving the current crisis first. Mr. Nataraj was instructed to return with further instructions.
This case has a long history. In January, the Court requested data from the Union and states regarding appointments and selection processes for Information Commissions, including timelines and pending cases. The Union promised to complete appointments within three months, but as of April 2025, the CIC was still operating with only two Information Commissioners, and over 26,800 appeals/complaints were pending, according to the petitioners.
The situation worsened in September when the petitioners informed the Court that the Chief Information Commissioner post was vacant, and eight out of ten Information Commissioner posts were unfilled. The State Information Commission of Jharkhand, non-functional since May 2020, remained so. In October, the Additional Solicitor General assured the Court that a selection committee, including the Prime Minister and Leader of Opposition, would make the appointments within two to three weeks.
However, the latest update revealed that a scheduled committee meeting in October did not occur. Advocate Prashant Bhushan accused the government of neglecting the right to information, citing various excuses for delays. He claimed that many State Information Commissions were either defunct or had multiple vacancies. The Court was informed that some states, like Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Karnataka, had filled vacancies, while Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh's Commissions remained non-functional.
The Court directed the states to address these issues, with Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh given specific timelines. Regarding Tamil Nadu, the Court ordered the Governor to approve a pending appointment promptly and consider increasing the number of Information Commissioners. Chhattisgarh's High Court stay on appointments was also addressed, and the state was granted time to comply. The Court also acknowledged vacancies in Madhya Pradesh and Bihar, instructing the respective authorities to take action.
This case raises essential questions about the balance between transparency and efficiency in the appointment process. Should the public be kept in the dark to avoid potential disruptions? Or is transparency a necessary safeguard against potential abuses of power? What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments below, and let's keep the conversation going!
