Govt Won’t Appoint Unqualified Individuals: CJI Backs Centre on Information Commission Appointments

The Supreme Court today refused a request seeking disclosure of dissent note of the Leader of Opposition (LoP) on the appointments made under the Right To Information Act.

Court defended the government's decision saying Government of India will not appoint unqualified persons. The bench added that any illegality in the appointment can be specifically and separately challenged.

A submission in this regard was made by Advocate Prashant Bhushan in a a public interest litigation filed by activist and Advocate Prashant Bhushan seeking directions for filling up the vacant posts in Information Commissions across the country, as mandated under the RTI Act, 2005.

CJI Surya Kant led bench refused the request saying,

"We will not go into that".

Notably Bhushan argued people have a right to know why the Opposition Leader dissented against the proposals in the selection committee.

In October 2025 while hearing the PIL Supreme Court had expressed concern over the continuing vacancies in the Central and State Information Commissions, observing that delays in appointments and lack of transparency in the selection process threaten to undermine the Right to Information (RTI) regime.

Bhushan had pointed out that despite five prior orders of the Supreme Court directing the Centre and State governments to fill the vacancies, little progress had been made. 

“They keep seeking time. There is no transparency. They have not put out the shortlisting criteria or the names of those shortlisted in the public domain. The public must know these details before appointments are made,” Bhushan argued.

He further alleged that the government’s current stance would allow it to appoint individuals who had not even applied, thereby violating the principles of fairness and openness mandated by the RTI Act. Chief Justice Surya Kant acknowledged the delay but observed that the Union government had sought two to three more weeks to complete the selection process. “You’re right there’s a delay, but they are asking for two or three more weeks. Let the right time come,” Justice Kant said

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the Union government, had countered that the petitioner was seeking premature judicial intervention. “They cannot make these arguments before the appointment is made. The appointment process must be completed first,” Nataraj submitted, adding that the petitioners were “mixing up eligibility and suitability.”

The Bench, while agreeing that excessive judicial interference at every stage could disrupt the selection process, assured that transparency and the citizens’ right to know would be safeguarded. “If we start having judicial scrutiny for every stage, there will be no selection. Transparency will have to be there, and we will ensure it. The right to know is there, there can’t be an exception to that,” Justice Kant remarked. He further assured Bhushan that the Court would examine the process if any ineligible person were appointed. “We will make sure they disclose the details,” the judge said.

Passing its order, the Bench had recorded that the Search Committee for the Central Information Commission (CIC) had completed its exercise and that the Selection Committee, comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition, and another member, would consider the shortlisted applicants within three weeks. “We have no reason to doubt that the Union shall follow the guidelines laid down in the Anjali Bhardwaj case and finalise the process at the earliest,” the Court had noted.

Case Title: Anjali Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

Hearing Date: February 10, 2026

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria