The Supreme Court of India on Monday refused to direct the Union Government to publicly disclose the names of candidates shortlisted for appointments to the Central Information Commission (CIC). The Court observed that there was “no reason to doubt” the Centre’s assurance that the appointments would be made in a transparent manner and completed within two to three weeks.
The bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by transparency activist Anjali Bhardwaj, represented by Advocate Prashant Bhushan, seeking greater accountability and timely appointments to the Central and State Information Commissions under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Centre Promises to Complete Appointments Soon
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj, appearing for the Union Government, informed the Court that the search committee had completed its shortlisting process. The appointments, he said, would soon be finalized by the selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition, and a Union Minister nominated by the PM.
Nataraj assured the bench that the entire appointment exercise would be wrapped up within two to three weeks, prompting the judges to defer any immediate directions.
Justice Kant remarked,
“You are right there has been a delay, but they are asking for a short time. Let the right time come.”
Prashant Bhushan Seeks Transparency Before Appointments
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, arguing for the petitioner, insisted that the names of shortlisted candidates and the criteria for selection must be made public before the appointments are finalized. He referred to the Supreme Court’s earlier directions in the Anjali Bhardwaj case, which had laid down detailed guidelines for transparent appointments to the Information Commissions.
Bhushan argued:
“People have a right to know who has applied, what the criteria are, and who has been shortlisted. This must be done before the appointment.”
He added that there have been instances of individuals being appointed to the CIC without adequate experience in transparency or public information—sometimes, he said, merely because of their proximity to the government.
“They are saying they can even appoint someone who has not applied. There was a case where a journalist with no background in the RTI Act was appointed simply because he wrote articles praising the government,” Bhushan alleged, claiming that candidates were being “air-dropped” into crucial positions.
Supreme Court Declines Pre-Appointment Disclosure
The bench, however, declined to pass any directive mandating pre-appointment disclosure of shortlisted names. Justice Kant observed that the judiciary cannot step in at every stage of an ongoing selection process.
“If we start having judicial scrutiny at every stage, there will be no selection,” the judge remarked. “Transparency will have to be there, and we will ensure that. The right to know is there, and there can’t be an exception to that.”
The Court emphasized that it would intervene later if any ineligible person is appointed, assuring Bhushan that the appointments would be subject to review if any irregularities were found.
“Appointment is not fait accompli. If any ineligible person is considered, we will examine it,” Justice Kant said.
Court’s Observations and Order
After hearing both sides, the Court recorded its order as follows:
“As regards the CIC, we are informed that the Search Committee has completed the exercise and the Selection Committee comprising the Prime Minister of India, Leader of Opposition and a Union Minister will consider the applicants within three weeks. We have no reason to doubt that the Union shall follow the guidelines laid down in Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India and finalize the process at the earliest.”
The bench thus placed its faith in the Union Government’s assurance and declined to issue any fresh directions at this stage.
Vacancies and Delays in Information Commissions
The PIL filed by Anjali Bhardwaj and others has been pending since 2018, drawing attention to chronic vacancies in both Central and State Information Commissions—bodies established under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to ensure transparency in governance.
Despite earlier Supreme Court directions to fill vacancies within fixed timelines, the CIC has continued to operate with severe staff shortages. According to the petitioners, as of September 2025, the CIC was functioning without a Chief Information Commissioner, and 8 out of 10 commissioner posts were lying vacant.
They also pointed out that the Jharkhand State Information Commission has remained defunct since May 2020, leaving citizens in that state without a functional mechanism to hear RTI appeals.
When Bhushan raised this issue again during Monday’s hearing, the Court directed the Chief Secretary of Jharkhand to ensure that the pending selection process was completed within 45 days, warning that failure to comply would invite “strict action.”
‘No Government Wants Transparency,’ Says Bhushan
After the hearing, Prashant Bhushan expressed frustration over what he called “systematic erosion” of the Right to Information regime.
“No government wants transparency. They are killing the RTI Act. The best way to destroy the Act is by not appointing Information Commissioners,” he remarked.
His comments reflect the broader concern among civil society and transparency advocates that delays in appointments and non-disclosure of candidate lists weaken the accountability framework envisioned by the RTI Act.
Earlier Directions in the Anjali Bhardwaj Case
In the landmark 2019 Anjali Bhardwaj judgment, the Supreme Court had issued clear directions to ensure transparency and fairness in the appointment process for Information Commissioners. The Court required that:
- The composition of the Search Committee and list of applicants be made public.
- The criteria for shortlisting candidates be clearly laid out and disclosed.
- Appointments must ensure diversity of background, including law, journalism, administration, and social service.
However, as Bhushan pointed out, these directions have not been consistently followed, leading to allegations of arbitrariness and opacity in recent appointments.
Why CIC Appointments Matter
The Central Information Commission plays a vital role in enforcing the RTI Act, deciding appeals and complaints when citizens are denied information by public authorities.
A fully functional CIC is essential to maintain transparency, accountability, and citizens’ trust in governance. With over 26,800 appeals and complaints pending, prolonged vacancies directly impact the effectiveness of the RTI framework.
Experts warn that delays in appointments risk turning the RTI Act into a “dead letter,” where citizens’ right to know is rendered meaningless by administrative inertia.
What Lies Ahead
The Union Government now has three weeks to complete the appointment process. If the Selection Committee adheres to the Supreme Court’s directions from earlier judgments, the CIC could soon return to full strength after a long period of stagnation.
However, the lack of pre-appointment transparency continues to trouble activists, who argue that secrecy in such processes undermines the very spirit of the RTI Act.
The Supreme Court has signaled that it will step in if any ineligible or unqualified candidates are appointed. Until then, it has chosen to trust the Union’s assurances—a stance that balances judicial restraint with the hope of administrative compliance.
Conclusion
The CIC appointments case once again highlights the delicate balance between transparency and executive discretion. While the Supreme Court has shown faith in the government’s promise to act swiftly and fairly, the larger concern remains—whether India’s transparency watchdogs are being allowed to function as envisioned under the RTI Act.
With the next few weeks crucial for the CIC’s future, citizens and activists alike will be watching to see whether the Union keeps its word—or whether the Court will be compelled to intervene again to safeguard the people’s right to information.
Also Read
NLU Students Demand Response from Consortium on CLAT Application and Counselling Fees
