Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, highlighted that despite a 2019 Supreme Court judgment mandating timely appointments to these commissions, the situation has deteriorated. He argued that the lack of appointments has effectively rendered the RTI Act non-functional, causing significant hardship to citizens seeking information.
The Court criticized the government's approach, noting a tendency to appoint only bureaucrats as Chief Information Commissioners and Information Commissioners. It emphasized the need for diversity in these roles, suggesting that individuals from various walks of life should be considered to enrich the functioning of the commissions.
Justice Surya Kant remarked, "These posts need to be filled at the earliest; otherwise, what is the use of having the institution if we don't have people working?" The bench directed the Centre and states to expedite the selection process and submit compliance reports detailing timelines for appointments.
The RTI Act, enacted in 2005, empowers citizens to request information from public authorities, promoting transparency and accountability. The Information Commissions at both central and state levels are pivotal in adjudicating appeals and complaints related to RTI requests. Vacancies in these bodies lead to delays in addressing grievances, undermining the Act's efficacy.
Data indicates that over 2.5 lakh RTI appeals and complaints are pending across 26 Information Commissions in India. Such backlogs impede citizens' access to timely information, defeating the RTI Act's purpose.
The Supreme Court's 2019 judgment had set specific timelines for appointments to these commissions, aiming to prevent delays. However, the current scenario reflects non-compliance, prompting the Court to reiterate the importance of adhering to its directives.
The Court also addressed concerns about the lack of diversity in appointments. It observed that appointing only retired bureaucrats limits the perspectives within the commissions. Advocates for transparency have long argued that including individuals from diverse backgrounds, such as journalists, activists, and legal professionals, could enhance the commissions' effectiveness.