The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Union government and states to submit detailed timelines for filling vacancies in the Central and State Information Commissions, noting that the institutions would be ineffective if vacant posts were not filled, reported Live Law.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh issued the directives while hearing a public interest litigation demanding that vacancies in information commissions be filled.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, argued that the commissions were becoming defunct due to unfilled posts and frustrating citizens’ ability to access information.

The court noted that the Central Information Commission is operating with just three members, including the chief information commissioner, despite having a sanctioned strength of ten members.

The Department of Personnel and Training was asked to submit an affidavit within two weeks detailing a timeline for filling the vacancies and ensuring that appointments are made based on responses to an August 2024 recruitment advertisement. The compliance affidavits are to include pending case data before the commissions.

The bench directed states to adhere to similar timelines. In Jharkhand, where the selection process has been stalled since the November Assembly elections, the court urged the largest Opposition party to nominate a leader to the selection committee within two weeks.

The court instructed all states to publicise applicant lists, the composition of their search committees, and their selection criteria within a week. Interviews to fill the posts must be completed within six weeks after that, and appointments must be finalised within the first two weeks of receiving recommendations.

Bhushan highlighted a ruling of the court from 2019 that mandated proactive measures to address vacancies before they arose. However, many posts remain unfilled across states, including in Maharashtra, Karnataka and West Bengal, with commissions in Jharkhand, Telangana and Tripura reportedly “defunct for years”.

“Everybody is interested in killing the Right to Information Act,” Bhushan argued, adding that summoning the chief secretaries of states may be necessary to ensure compliance.

Justice Kant stressed the urgency of appointments, asking, “What is the use of creating an institution if it does not have persons to perform the duties?”

The court also emphasised the importance of selecting information commissioners from diverse backgrounds and expressed concern over the dominance of bureaucratic appointees.