📱Test our Android app — free beta!Join Beta GroupYou'll receive the install link by email after joining.

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.


—important-decisions:court:anjali-bhardwaj-vs-union-of-india [2026/07/18 03:58] (current) – created - external edit 127.0.0.1
Line 1: Line 1:
 +====== Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India — RTI commissions accountability ======
 +
 +{{htmlmetatags>metatag-keywords=(anjali bhardwaj union of india,RTI commission vacancies case,Section 12 RTI Act,Information Commissioner appointments,transparent selection RTI,Supreme Court 2019)
 +metatag-description=(SC 2019 ruling forcing transparent + time-bound appointment of Information Commissioners. Issued binding directions on CIC + SIC vacancies, search-committee.)}}
 +
 +**The 2019 Supreme Court ruling that forced governments to fill Information Commission vacancies on time and to disclose the selection process. Anchored Section 12 of the RTI Act and put a clock on every CIC + State IC appointment.**
 +
 +**Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India**
 +{{tag>supreme-court information-commission vacancies appointment process}}{{like>}}
 +
 +===== The issue before the Court =====
 +
 +A long-running petition by RTI activists **Anjali Bhardwaj, Lokesh Kumar Batra and Amrita Johri** (all of the **National Campaign for People's Right to Information / NCPRI**) challenged two systemic problems with the **Right to Information Act, 2005**:
 +
 +  - **Chronic vacancies in the Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs)** — keeping seats unfilled meant 30,000+ pending appeals, defeating the §7(1) thirty-day reply right itself.
 +  - **Opaque appointment procedures under §12** — search committees met in secret, criteria were not public, names of applicants were withheld, and only retired bureaucrats were getting through.
 +
 +The petitioners asked the Supreme Court for **time-bound and transparent appointments** under §12(3) and §15(3) of the RTI Act, and for parity in pool diversity (not just "ex-civil servants").
 +
 +===== The directions issued by the Court =====
 +
 +On **15 February 2019**, the Supreme Court (Justice **AK Sikri** writing for the bench with Justice **S Abdul Nazeer**) issued **binding directions** under Article 142 of the Constitution. The key holdings:
 +
 +  - **Vacancies to be filled before they arise.** The process to fill any expected vacancy must commence **at least one to two months in advance** of the date the seat falls vacant. Sitting Information Commissioners may not be left without quorum.
 +  - **Search committee composition + criteria must be on the public domain.** The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) at the Centre, and corresponding state departments, must **publish the names and the qualifying criteria** of the search committee that shortlists candidates. The selection committee proceedings must be recorded and the criteria must be publicly available.
 +  - **Names of applicants must be public.** When a vacancy is advertised, **all applicants' names** are to be put on the official website. The shortlist of candidates considered by the search committee must also be public.
 +  - **Pool diversity.** The Court observed that overlooking other categories — eminent jurists, journalists, civil-society professionals — runs against §12(5) and §15(5) which expressly contemplate persons of eminence in **law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media, administration and governance**. The selection committee must apply its mind to all these categories.
 +  - **Time-bound disposal.** Information Commissions must publish their **monthly disposal data** to give citizens a yardstick on whether the system is working.
 +
 +===== The observations on transparency =====
 +
 +> "When the appointment of CICs and ICs is not done in a time-bound manner, those seats fall vacant and that defeats the very purpose of the RTI Act. The Government cannot be allowed to **drag its feet** in such appointments. The right of information would otherwise become illusory." — paragraph 38 of the judgment.
 +
 +> "The exercise of selection has to be **fair, just and transparent**. The criteria for selection have to be made public so that candidates and citizens know on what basis the selection is being made." — paragraph 41.
 +
 +===== Status as of May 2026 =====
 +
 +The directions remain good law and are routinely cited in RTI litigation across High Courts. The Supreme Court has heard contempt-style follow-up motions where the Centre or state governments delayed appointments — most recently in **August 2024** when the Court took strong exception to vacancies in the Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand and Telangana SICs.
 +
 +The **Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023** (in force from 14 November 2025) does not touch this ruling — the case is about **§12 procedure**, not §8 exemptions.
 +
 +===== Sections engaged =====
 +
 +  * **Section 12(3)** — Composition of the Central Information Commission, including the selection committee chaired by the Prime Minister.
 +  * **Section 12(5)** — Eligibility criteria; persons of eminence in eight specified fields.
 +  * **Section 13(1)** — Term of CIC + ICs (5 years or until 65, whichever is earlier).
 +  * **Section 15(3)** + **§15(5)** — Mirror provisions for State Information Commissions.
 +
 +===== Citation =====
 +
 +**Anjali Bhardwaj and Others v. Union of India and Others**, **(2019) 9 SCC 199**, Writ Petition (Civil) No 436 of 2018, decided **15 February 2019** by the Supreme Court of India. Bench: **A K Sikri** and **S Abdul Nazeer JJ**.
 +
 +===== How to use this ruling in your RTI =====
 +
 +If your state's SIC is sitting on appeals because of vacancies, this case is your weapon. File an RTI under **§6(1)** to the **State Department of Personnel** asking for:
 +
 +  - The dates of every SIC vacancy in the last 24 months and the date the selection process was initiated for each (test the "1-2 months in advance" direction)
 +  - The names and qualifications of the current search-committee members (test the "publish criteria" direction)
 +  - The complete list of applicants for the most recent vacancy (test the "names of applicants must be public" direction)
 +  - The minutes of the most recent search-committee meetings
 +
 +Use our [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/ai-rti-draft-app.html|AI RTI Drafter]] to auto-build the application, or [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html|First Appeal Builder]] if your RTI is dragging.
 +
 +===== Sources =====
 +
 +  - Supreme Court of India, judgment in Writ Petition (Civil) No 436 of 2018, Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India, dated 15 February 2019. [[https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/26793/26793_2018_Judgement_15-Feb-2019.pdf|Judgment PDF on sci.gov.in]].
 +  - **Right to Information Act, 2005**, Sections 12, 13, 15. [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/act|Full text of the RTI Act]].
 +  - **NCPRI Annual RTI Assessment 2025** — pendency data across SICs. [[https://snstm.org|Satark Nagrik Sangathan]] (run by the petitioner Anjali Bhardwaj).
 +  - Follow-up applications and Court orders 2020-2024.
 +
 +===== Related on RTI Wiki =====
 +
 +  * [[:important-decisions:court:cpio-supreme-court-v-subhash-agarwal|CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal — judicial accountability under RTI]]
 +  * [[:important-decisions:court:girish-ramchandra-deshpande|Girish Deshpande — the §8(1)(j) personal-information test]]
 +  * [[https://righttoinformation.wiki/tools/first-appeal-app.html|First Appeal Builder]] — for §19(1) appeals when SIC sits idle
 +  * [[:cases|RTI case-law database]] — 300+ CIC + Court decisions
 +  * [[:act|RTI Act, 2005 — full text]]
 +
 +//Last reviewed on: 4 May 2026 — RTI Wiki editorial team.//
 +
 +{{tag>supreme-court rti-case-law information-commission ic-vacancies section-12 section-15 anjali-bhardwaj ncpri 2019 transparency}}