CIC vacant posts

‘161 Applications Received for 8 Vacant Information Commissioner Posts at CIC’: RTI

At present the CIC is staffed with only the chief information commissioner and two ICs against the sanctioned strength of 10 commissioners.

New Delhi: The central information commission (CIC) has received 161 applications for 8 posts of information commissioners (ICs) lying vacant in the central government body, a Right to Information (RTI) query filed by transparency activist Commodore Lokesh Batra (retired) has revealed.

The CIC had invited applications for the posts in a notice dated August 14, 2024. At present, the CIC is staffed with only the chief information commissioner and two ICs against the sanctioned strength of 10 commissioners.

Regarding the process of appointment of the commissioners, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) in its response said that information of the applicants will be tabulated and sent to a search committee constituted by the prime minister.

“All the names as well [as] shortlisted names (along with their applications) are sent to the Committee constituted under Section 12(3) headed by the Honourable Prime Minister.

Persons recommended by the Committee under Section 12(3) are appointed by the Honourable President. The Search Committee devises its own modalities for shortlisting the candidates,” the RTI response reads.

While Batra had also requested the name of the applicants, the DoPT said that “the concerned file is under submission to senior officer, therefore, list of names of applicants is not available with the CPIO at this stage” adding that this file can be accessed after the appointment process has been completed.

Section 12(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 stipulates that the chief information commissioner and information commissioners of the CIC will be appointed by a search committee comprising of:

(i) The prime minister, who shall be the chairperson of the committee;
(ii) The leader of opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha; and
(iii) A Union Cabinet minister to be nominated by the prime minister.

Batra, a veteran transparency activist, said that as per his knowledge the LOP is also provided with details of the applicants in advance, prior to the meeting of the high-powered selection committee chaired by the prime minister. “The message has to reach the LoP [Rahul Gandhi] that he has to do his homework prior to attending [the] meeting,” he said.

CIC, SICs chronically understaffed

In July 2024, the National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRI) had written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and LoP Rahul Gandhi expressing concern about the vacancies in the CIC.

“NCPRI is extremely concerned to note that the Central Information Commission (CIC) is functioning with only the Chief Information Commissioner and two information commissioners. Eight posts of information commissioners are lying vacant, even as the backlog of appeals/complaints currently stands at nearly 23,000 and is steadily increasing,” the letter dated July 26, 2024 said.

“It is extremely worrying that for several months the CIC has been functioning at a reduced capacity. This negates the very purpose of the RTI Act, which is to ensure time-bound access to information,” the letter said.

The NCPRI has also written to the chief ministers and LoPs of 12 states regarding vacancies in their state information commissions (SICs).

Five SICs are lying completely defunct. These include Jharkhand (since May 2020), Telangana (since February 2023), Tripura (since July 2021), Madhya Pradesh And Goa (since March 2024), NCPRI pointed out in its letter.

Several other information commissions are functioning with a large number of vacant posts despite having a significant backlog of appeals and complaints.

SC Directs Centre to Make Appointments of Information Commissioners More Transparent

The two-judge bench also stated that people from professions other than the bureaucracy should also be considered.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today issued a slew of directions to the Centre and the state government to make the appointment process of information commissioners and chief information commissioners to the central and state information commissions more transparent and timely.

It also directed that the process of filling up the posts of information commissioners be initiated one to two-months before the vacancy arises.

‘CIC, ICs be appointed on terms similar to those of CEC, ECs’

The bench of Justices A.K. Sikri and S. Abdul Nazeer noted that the Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners of CIC be appointed on the same terms and conditions as applicable to the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners respectively.

It also stated that the terms and conditions on which such appointments are to be made should be specifically stipulated in the advertisement and put on the website as well.

In the “general directions for CIC and SCICs”, the apex court also stated that as far as transparency in appointment of information commissioners is concerned, “the Central Government is now placing all necessary information, including issuance of the advertisement, composition of Selection Committee, etc, on the website”. It directed that all the states to also follow this system.

Also read: Activists and Former Commissioners Slam Govt For Compromising CIC Appointment Procedure

‘Advertise posts well before vacancy takes place’

The apex court also held that the vacancies should be advertised well before an incumbent in due to retire and that the selection criteria adopted by the search committee should be made public. It also said that the Centre would “put on the website the names of the Search Committee, the names of the candidates who have been shortlisted as well as the criteria which is followed for selection”.

It also said that to ensure that “there is not much time lag between the occurrence of vacancy and filling up of the said vacancy”, the process for filling up of the post should be initiated one to two months in advance.

Appoint persons of eminence from specified steams as information commissioners

The court said as per the constitution of the CIC “the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance.”

Thus it held “any person of eminence in public life” from these steams was “qualified” for the post.

The Bench also came down on the bureaucracy for trying to monopolise the posts. It said: “Many persons who fit in the aforesaid criteria have been applying for these posts. However, a strange phenomenon which we observe is that all those persons who have been selected belong to only one category, namely, public service, i.e., they are the government employees.” Further, it said even the Search Committee which short-lists the persons consists of bureaucrats only and noted that “for these reasons, official bias in favour of its own class is writ large in the selection process.”

The Bench thus demanded that the Search Committee “pick up suitable candidates from other categories as well” to “ensure wider representative character in the composition of CIC”.

Also read: Short-Staffed Information Commission Suggests New Ways to Deal With ‘Frivolous’ Queries

Petition asked for transparent, timely appointments on the basis of a definite criteria

The Bench also took note of the fact that in their plea, RTI activists Anjali Bhardwaj, Amrita Johri and Commodore (Retd.) Lokesh Batra had through their counsel Prashant Bhushan primarily asked for three things. These were “timely filling up of the vacancies to ensure that the work of the information commissioners does not suffer; transparency in the mode of appointments; and terms and conditions on which these appointments are to be made should be clearly stated.”

The court said “the petitioners are right in their submissions that there have been undue delays in filling up of these vacancies” and said it expected these to be filled up “well in time” in future.

Petition sought timely filling up of vacant posts

Talking to The Wire, Bhardwaj said the public interest litigation was filed because due to the rising vacancies the pendency of cases was increasing. “As such people have to wait for a very long time to be heard and for their appeals to be disposed of.”

Giving details of the pendency level, she said “right now in the Central Information Commission there are close to 30,000 cases that are pending and therefore it would take close to a hear for the cases to come up for hearing after they are filed. Similarly, in West Bengal it is currently taking up to 10 years for someone who has filed an appeal or a complaint to get a hearing. So this leads to a violation of people’s right to information in many ways.”

Bhardwaj said the petition also pointed out before the apex court that in Andhra Pradesh there has been no functioning information commission for the past two years now.

“Therefore,” she said, “the prayer before the court was that timely appointments should be made even before a vacancy arises. Also, it was pleaded that the governments must ensure that the process of appointment starts well before the vacancy.”

Also read: With Four More Information Commissioners Set to Retire, Centre’s Deliberate Delay Continues

‘Fill up vacancies being processed in two months, rest in six months’

As for the remaining vacancies, she said, the Bench in its oral order stated that in all cases where the selection process has been initiated it should be completed within a couple of months and in all other cases the vacancies should be filled up within six months.

Reacting to the judgment said, Bhardwaj said: “What was read out was very positive. The court appeared to have basically agreed with all the prayers. We are very satisfied, especially what was read out in the court. It seems to be a landmark judgment.”

Another RTI activist and petitioner in the case, Commodore (Retd) Lokesh K. Batra also termed it a landmark ruling saying all the prayers have been accepted by the apex court. However, he expressed his apprehension on whether the government would implement the order in totality. He referred to how not a single appointment in the Central Information Commission was made by the Centre without court intervention.

Batra also stated that the six months’ time given to the government to fill up all the vacancies was too long. “By that time the pendency of cases would have gone up further,” he cautioned.

The former soldier reminded that between April 25, 2018, when the appeal was filed, and February 14, 2019, a day before the order, the pendency of cases in CIC alone rose by 5,348 from 23,500 to 28,848.

High Rejection of Complaints by CIC Detrimental to Transparency

The commission turned down over 16,000 cases in 2018 without ever launching an awareness campaign to teach appellants about how to avoid rejection.

New Delhi: For every six cases it accepted for hearing and investigation during 2018, the Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected four, an analysis of its functioning has revealed. March stood out in the annals of the institution constituted to uphold the transparency and flow of information, since it rejected more appeals than it accepted during the month.

High pendency and rejection worrying activists

This rejection of appeals, coming at a time when the CIC is working at a depleted strength of just three commissioners as against the sanctioned 11, has impacted the transparency movement. Not only do appellants have to wait longer to get their appeals addressed, they also face a higher rejection rate.

According to right to information activist, Commodore (Retd.) Lokesh Batra, the CIC’s refusal to accept so many complaints and appeals stood out because it did not initiate any action to increase awareness among the appellants to reduce these figures. The pendency of complaints and appeals at the commission stood at 27,544 cases at the end of the year.

‘No effort to create awareness’

To question the CIC is akin to acting like the “guardian of transparency in the country”, he said. “[The] CIC has made no effort to create awareness among citizens to ensure that not a single case is returned to the appellant or complainant.”

Data analysed by Batra revealed that the CIC registered a total of 24,197 cases in 2018. It also returned a total of 16,260 cases – constituting 40.20% of all complaints filed with it. Out of the cases returned, 13,683 were those which returned under RTI Rules 2012.

Right to Information Rules, 2012, stipulate that an appeal may be returned to the appellant, if it is not accompanied with the specified documents. Rule 8 specifies that this may be done for “removing the deficiencies and filing the appeal – complete in all respects.”

Also read: Centre Advertises Four Remaining Posts of Information Commissioners in CIC

Most appeals do not adhere to format

Many of the complaints are also getting rejected as they do not adhere to the specified format. The RTI rules also prescribe that an appeal to the commission needs to be made in a set style and should be accompanied with certain documents, which have been authenticated and verified by the appellant.

The documents that are required to be submitted with the appeal include: a copy of application submitted to the central public information officer; the reply received from the CPIO; copy of the order, if any, from the first appellate authority; copies of other documents relied upon and referred to by the complainant/appellant; and index of the documents referred to.

Some appeals also rejected for being premature, time-barred, duplicate

Apart from the complaints rejected under the 2012 Rules, another 2,577 were rejected under RTI Rule 9 as they fell in the category of either being premature, time-barred, multiple RTI applications, or duplicate cases.

In March 2018, the data revealed that, as against a total of 1,903 cases registered, a larger number – 2,277 cases – were rejected.

Batra said such a large rejection of complaints or appeals by the CIC did not send the right message. He said “A new category outside the purview of RTI Act and RTI Rules, 2012, was introduced to return cases.”

The activist said “ The CIC must realise they [are] accountable to the citizens of India and not the government.”

Also read: Centre’s ‘Big Talk, Small Moves’ on CIC Appointments Irks RTI Activists

Duty of CIC, state panels to receive complaints

Incidentally, Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, also lays downs that it is the duty of the central information commission or state information commission, as the case may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person under certain conditions.

It stipulates that the panels would receive such complaints from those who are unable to submit a request to a CPIO or state PIO if no officer has been appointed under the Act, or if they have refused to accept the application.

The CIC is also required to accept applications from people who have been refused access to any information requested under this Act; who had not been given a response to a request for information; or who have been asked to pay an amount of fee considered “unreasonable” by them. Likewise, it is required to accept an appeal from a person who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under the Act.

Centre Advertises Four Remaining Posts of Information Commissioners in CIC

The language of the advertisement issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, the nodal department for all Right to Information matters, has not enthused RTI activists.

New Delhi: Having long delayed the appointment of information commissioners to the Central Information Commission, the Centre today advertised four posts. With this, it has now put out advertisements for all the eight vacant positions in the panel, which has a total sanctioned strength of 11.

But the language of the advertisement issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, the nodal department for all Right to Information matters, has not enthused RTI activists. They claimed that by not announcing the salaries, the Centre has shown its intent to go ahead with the amendment to the Act despite strong opposition from activists. Also, they cautioned that this may keep good talent away.

The advertisement stated that “the powers and functions of the Information Commissioner in the Central Information Commission are as per the RTI Act, 2005”.

DoPT issues advertisement for four remaining positions in CIC

Stating that it “proposed to appoint four Information Commissioners in the Central Information Commission”, the Department noted the qualifications of the applicants.

It said the Act provides that the Information Commissioner shall be a person of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass-media or administration and governance.

Further, it noted that the IC cannot be a member of parliament or member of the legislature of any state or union territory or hold any other office of profit or connected with any political party or carrying on any business or pursuing any profession.

Also read: Centre’s ‘Big Talk, Small Moves’ on CIC Appointments Irks RTI Activists

It has also been clarified that “cessation/termination of holding of office of profit, pursuing any profession or carrying any business is a condition precedent to the appointment of a person as Information Commissioner.”

The DoPT has specified that only those below 65 years of age shall be eligible for appointment. It said “the salary, allowances and other terms and conditions of service of the Information Commissioner shall be as may be specified at the time of appointment of the selected candidate.” The applications have been sought till January 25.

‘Advertisement shows intent to go ahead with RTI Act amendment’

Reacting to the development, RTI activist Commodore (Retd.) Lokesh Batra, who is a petitioner in a case filed in the Supreme Court against the delay in appointments, said: “Shockingly, government has not given up its intent to amend RTI Act, 2005”.

It was in the monsoon session that the Centre had tried to introduce a Bill for amending the Act. It provided for stipulating the salary and tenure of the information commissioners, in the state as well as in CIC. This was opposed by RTI activists and opposition parties on the ground that it would compromise the autonomy of the state commissions and CIC. They said while the tenure of a IC, including the chief, is fixed, the salaries are at par with Election Commissioners and so there was no need to alter this arrangement.

RTI activists slam non-disclosure of salary, tenure

Batra too delved on this aspect saying, “in the absence of any amendment to RTI Act, 2005, the government’s failure to specify the tenure and salaries of commissioners, even though these are defined in the RTI Act, 2005, is considered violation to existing law of the land”.

Also read: Activists and Former Commissioners Slam Govt For Compromising CIC Appointment Procedure

Another activist Anjali Bhardwaj of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information tweeted that while the government has now advertised the remaining four posts of information commissioners of CIC, the advertisement was again defective as it did not specify their salary and tenure. “Why would eminent people apply without knowing the salary and tenure?” she asked.

‘Centre wants only pliant people to apply’

Bhardwaj quipped that it seems the BJP government at the Centre only wants pliant people to apply.

Incidentally, the Centre has not filled any post of IC in the Commission since 2016 despite repeated requests and reminders by activists, including Bhardwaj. The post of chief information commissioner has also been allowed to remain vacant thrice in the Narendra Modi regime.

In July this year, on the eve of a hearing in the Supreme Court the Centre advertised three positions of information commissioners. It followed up by advertising the post of Chief Information Commissioner the following month. But then too it did not specify the salary or tenure.

Also, while six months have lapsed since these posts were advertised, the appointments have not been made.

Centre’s ‘Big Talk, Small Moves’ on CIC Appointments Irks RTI Activists

The government told the Supreme Court that it has already decided on new chief and will take a decision on appointing four information commissioners soon.

New Delhi: Despite a month having passed since the term of Chief Information Commission R.K. Mathur ended, the Centre has not filled the post. This is also the third time in the present regime that the post has been allowed to lie vacant. What has also irked right to information activists is that the Centre is still giving confusing signals about by it would make the appointment.

Co-convener of National Campaign for People’s Right to Information Anjali Bhardwaj said the Centre is still not spelling out by when it would appoint the new CIC chief. Also, she said, no timeline has been provided for the appointment of the seven information commissioners to the panel. At the moment, the Commission is working with just three ICs.

Also read: Activists and Former Commissioners Slam Govt For Compromising CIC Appointment Procedure

No clarity on how many positions will be filled

She said Congress MP Mallikarjun Kharge earlier spoke about the Centre telling the panel that it has taken a decision on the appointment of the chief CIC but not on the four information commissioners. But later in the Supreme Court, it said that it was looking to fill all the four posts.

In fact, it was on Bhardwaj’s petition that the apex court on December 13 directed the Centre to “put on the website the names of the Search Committee, the names of the candidates who have been shortlisted as well as the criteria which is followed for selection”.

Centre told SC 64 applications received for chief’s post, appointment soon

During the hearing in the case, Additional Solicitor General submitted before the three-judge bench that “insofar as the post of Chief Information Commissioner is concerned, pursuant to the advertisement, 64 applications were received. It is further informed that insofar as the posts of Information Commissioners are concerned, 4 posts are advertised and 280 applications were received”.

The Centre also submitted that the advertisement was uploaded on the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) website. It also stated that the Selection Committee held a meeting on December 11. It said “the recommendation in respect of appointment of Chief Information Commissioner has been finalised and it is expected that the person shall be appointed soon”.

Also read: Information Panel Strength Hits All-Time Low in Modi Era

As for the post of information commissioners, it stated that “having regard to a large number of applications, process could not be completed on that day” and that this process would also be completed soon.

SC told Centre to issue advertisement for remaining vacancies too

The Supreme Court also noted that three more posts of information commissioners were lying vacant. “It would be appropriate to initiate the process of filling up these posts as well by issuing an advertisement at the earliest,” the Bench said.

However, with nearly two weeks having passed since and no action being taken by the Centre, RTI activists staged a protest outside the CIC building in Munirka on Wednesday.

Also read: With Four More Information Commissioners Set to Retire, Centre’s Deliberate Delay Continues

Pendency of appeals, complaints touches 27,000 mark in CIC

It was pointed out during the protest that vacancies of information commissioners, including the chief, were hindering peoples’ fundamental right to information. It was also increasing the pendency of appeals and complaints which has already reached the 27,000 mark. Moreover, many appellant have been waiting for orders in the cases for over two years.

The activists also accused the Narendra Modi government of not making any appointments to the Commission with a nudge from the courts. They said it has also not made any appointment to the Commission since 2016 leading to eight vacancies now.

Activists and Former Commissioners Slam Govt For Compromising CIC Appointment Procedure

By not disclosing the tenure and salaries of information commissioners, the Centre may have “dissuaded many people of eminence from applying”.

New Delhi: Former central information commissioners (CIC) and right to information (RTI) activists have accused the Narendra Modi government of compromising the selection procedure. The selection committee constituted to select commissioners to the panel is meeting on Tuesday, December 11.

Meanwhile, in a separate letter, former CIC M. Sridhar Acharyulu urged President Ramnath Kovind to ensure that the Act is strengthened by appointment of “right persons to the CIC from fields prescribed in that statute” and bureaucrats do not corner majority of the posts.

The activists and former CICs indicted the Centre for dragging its feet over appointment of CICs and not appointing any for the past two years, leading to eight vacancies in the Commission.

In a letter marked to the members of the selection committee, which is headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the group said it learnt from media reports that the panel was scheduled to meet on December 11 to finalise four names for information commissioners and the chief information commissioner of the CIC.

It charged that the process of inviting applications and shortlisting candidates followed by the government “compromised the appointment procedure”.

‘Advertisements not in accordance with law’

The letter said the government issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of four information commissioners on July 26 and another on October 23 for the post of the chief IC. “Both advertisements, and the accompanying notifications, were not in keeping with the RTI Act as they did not specify the salaries, allowances and other conditions of service and tenure of information commissioners as provided for in the law.”

Also read: With Four More Information Commissioners Set to Retire, Centre’s Deliberate Delay Continues

The signatories, who included the first chief IC Wajahat Habibullah and former IC Shailesh Gandhi, said the notifications stated that the salary, allowances and other terms and conditions of service “shall be as may be specified at the time of appointment of the selected candidate/s”.

This, they claimed, was at variance with the provisions of the RTI Act since Sections 13(2) and 13(5) provide that the salaries, allowances and other terms of service of the chief and other information commissioners of the Central Information Commission shall be the same as that of the chief election commissioner and election commissioners, respectively.

The chief and other election commissioners are paid a salary equal to the salary of a judge of the Supreme Court, which is decided by the Parliament, they added.

Further, the group wrote that RTI Act provides for a fixed tenure of five years for information commissioners, subject to a retirement age of 65 years. While the tenure has not been specified this time, it said that “previous notifications of vacancies specified the salary, terms of service and tenure of commissioners as per the provisions of the RTI Act.”

‘Information commissioners should be persons of eminence in public life’

The group pointed out that the Act also lays down that the chief information commissioner and information commissioners should be persons of eminence in public life. It expressed apprehension that by not disclosing the tenure and salaries of information commissioners, the Centre may have “dissuaded many people of eminence from applying.”

The signatories to the letter therefore demanded that “the government suitably rectify and re-issue the advertisement for the posts.” They also called for placing these advertisements urgently since eight out of eleven posts of information commissioners in the Central Information Commission were lying vacant.

Also read: Short-Staffed Information Commission Suggests New Ways to Deal With ‘Frivolous’ Queries

The concerned citizens – who include activists Anjali Bhardwaj, Aruna Roy, Shekhar Singh, Nikhil Dey, Rakesh Reddy Dubbudu, Venkatesh Nayak, Shaikh Ghulam Rasool, Pankti Jog, Pradip Pradhan, Commodore (Retd.) Lokesh K. Batra and Amrita Johri – have also charged that thus far the procedure of short-listing candidates has been shrouded in secrecy. Lack of transparency, they said, would “erode public trust in the institution” of CIC.

“Information sought under the RTI Act about applications received in response to the advertisements issued for the position of information commissioners and details about the functioning of the search committee was illegally denied by the Department of Personnel & Training,” they said.

Former bureaucrats should not fill up majority of CIC posts

Meanwhile, in a separate letter, former CIC Acharyulu urged President Kovind to ensure that only “right persons” were appointed to the CIC from diverse fields prescribed in the statute. He also urged that the Act be protected by him from the “attempts to dilute it by undesirable amendment and also from tactics like starving by non-appointment or filling it with majority of former bureaucrats.”

M. Sridhar Acharyulu. Credit: cic.gov.in

Acharyulu, who retired last month, said the Centre should have completed process of appointing the chief IC before the last incumbent, R.K. Mathur, retired last month. This would have ensured smooth functioning of the panel.

The former IC, who passed landmark orders during his tenure seeking release of information pertaining to Modi’s degree, demonetisation, return of black money and Reserve Bank of India’s action against major loan defaulters, said the Commission has eight vacancies now and this would lead to increase in the pendency of second appeals and complaints.

‘Appoint only non-bureaucrats to the panel, also as chief IC’

Acharyulu said the law lays down that information commissioners “shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance.”

He said while over the last 13 years, the Commission has always been headed by a former bureaucrat, this time an eminent person from another field “may be selected”. And in case a bureaucrat is selected, he urged President Kovind to ensure that the person “has credentials of integrity, commitment towards transparency and has never supported or promoted any kind of secrecy in administration.”

Also read: SC Directs Centre, States to Say By When They Will Fill Information Commission Posts

Acharyulu said that with the three sitting commissioners all being former bureaucrats, “as a principle” the selection committee “should not consider the persons from this field for this time”. This, he noted, would also leave “no scope for bureaucratic majority or domination”.

The former IC called upon the president to “insulate the office of chief information commissioner or individual commissioner from direct or indirect pressures or interferences from any of its offices such as PMO or the DoPT”.

He also said the Centre should not introduce the RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2018 and shelve it permanently in the interest of transparency of administration and good governance.