Who Watches The Watchdogs? The Silent Crisis Of India’s Information Commissions

-Surya Bhoria and Kirti Sehrawat*

1. INTRODUCTION 

   
   

The RTI Act is rightly seen as one of the most transformative laws passed by the Indian Parliament. The Act has significantly impacted Indian governance and citizens and has made the administration more transparent and accountable. Accountability for its actions has led the government to become more efficient and has, to some extent, helped curb corruption and arbitrary abuse of powers by the public authorities. Therefore, beyond safeguarding the right to information as a fundamental right, it is crucial to protect this right to ensure the preservation of the nation’s democratic framework, by holding the government accountable to the people.

The services of the government have been significantly improved and have provided a better delivery system of services to the citizens of the nation. To ensure the effective implementation of the Act and the protection of the fundamental right, a structured mechanism has been established. This includes the appointment of Public Information Officers (“PIOs”) and Central or State Information Commissions to facilitate the prompt and efficient redressal of citizens’ grievances. 

2. INFORMATION COMMISSIONS

   
   

The RTI Act, 2005, incorporates a two-tier appellate framework to safeguard citizens’ right to information. An initial appeal lies before the First Appellate Authority within the concerned public authority itself, while a second appeal may be preferred before the State or Central Information Commission, both vested with quasi-judicial powers. These Commissions play a pivotal role in reinforcing governmental accountability, not only by directing disclosure but also by penalising SPIOs/CPIOs for unjustified denial of information. Under the RTI framework, the State and Central Information Commissions function as the highest adjudicatory bodies, providing a conclusive remedy for citizens aggrieved by the denial of information.

Section 12 and 15 of the RTI Act mandates the creation of the Central and State Information Commissions. These bodies, comprising a Chief Information Commissioner and no more than ten Information Commissioners, oversee the day-to-day working of the Act and ensure that the right to information of citizens is effectively protected. However, a major challenge arises from the persistent non-appointment of Information Commissioners by the government, resulting in significant delays in adjudication and a steep rise in the pendency of appeals. As of 2025, reports indicate that several Information Commissions across the country remain effectively defunct due to vacancies, with a backlog exceeding four-lakh pending appeals.

3. QUALIFICATIONS OF INFORMATION COMMISSIONERS

   
   

Even after the government undertakes a lengthy and cumbersome selection process for appointing Information Commissioners, amid persistent backlogs and administrative delays, it often fails to select the most suitable individuals due to entrenched appointment practices. It has been observed that this provision has largely remained a formality, as appointments to the posts of Chief and State Information Commissioners are often confined to individuals with political or bureaucratic backgrounds. This trend stems from the composition of the Search Committee, which predominantly comprises bureaucrats, thereby limiting the inclusion of equally or better-qualified candidates from other walks of life. According to the 2018–19 SSN-CES Report Card, out of 115 Chief Information Commissioners appointed during the period, over 83% were retired government officials, of whom nearly 64 per cent belonged to the elite Indian Administrative Services (“IAS”).  

In Union of India v. Namit Sharma (2013), the Supreme Court ordered that Committees under Sections 12(3) and 15(3) of the Act should mention the candidate's prominence in public life, knowledge of a particular field, and experience in that field against the name of each recommended candidate. Such a practice gives rise to a legitimate concern that the most capable individuals are not always appointed, ultimately diminishing the effectiveness of the Commissions. While bureaucrats may possess administrative expertise, the functioning of the Information Commissions extends beyond governance, it requires a nuanced understanding of social realities at the grassroots level, where citizens seek redressal of their grievances. Hence, the role demands a perspective broader than that of mere administrative experience. 

4. INEFFICIENCY OF INFORMATION COMMISSIONERS

   
   

The functioning of the Information Commissions has fallen short of the objectives envisioned under the RTI Act. Intended to reduce the judiciary’s burden through a swift administrative mechanism, the system now suffers from chronic delays and inefficiencies due to non-appointments and inadequate administrative efficiency. Reports indicate the worsening plight of several State Commissions, for instance, that the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission may take over five years to dispose of a single appeal, while in Bihar it takes four and a half years, and nearly four years in Odisha. Such figures reveal a deep institutional inefficiency that undermines the very purpose of the Commissions and the citizens’ right to information.

Apart from the issue of non-appointments, a major concern lies in the administrative inefficiencies of the Information Commissions, particularly the limited capability of Commissioners to handle matters effectively. These shortcomings arise from inadequate training, insufficient engagement with the public, and a lack of understanding of principles of equity and good conscience, which are essential for adjudication. Furthermore, the reluctance of several Commissions to take disciplinary or penal action against erring public officials has weakened the enforcement of accountability under the RTI framework, thereby diminishing public confidence in the institution.

• Inadequate Training: The quality of orders issued by the Information Commissions has often fallen short of expectations, primarily due to the appointment of senior bureaucrats lacking specialized training, rather than individuals drawn from professionally diverse and legally proficient backgrounds. The Supreme Court in Anjali Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2018) expressly highlighted the absence of diversity and relevant expertise in such appointments. The apex court also sought for more transparency in the selection process of information commissioners. 

• 
  

Newly appointed officials under the RTI framework must undergo structured and comprehensive training to ensure effective adjudication. Numerous independent reports and legal commentators have similarly criticized the Commissions for their inadequate technical and legal competence, which has resulted in procedural delays and inconsistent or arbitrary decision-making. 

Many citizens from diverse backgrounds often struggle to frame RTI applications correctly, such as asking “why” instead of “what”. To better understand such situations and connect with the public, Information Commissioners should receive proper training that builds both legal understanding and public sensitivity.

• Equity, Justice and Good Conscience: Information Commissioners, often former bureaucrats, generally lack exposure to the “principles of equity”, leading them to apply the law mechanically. Here, the principle of equity implies adopting a fair and balanced approach between parties, emphasizing justice and reason over rigid adherence to statutory rules and procedural formalities. Many studies and administrative reports have emphasized the pressing need to embed the notion of equity within the functioning of public institutions, as it not only ensures fairness but also enhances the overall efficiency of bureaucratic organizations. Classic examples from bureaucratic institutions such as tax agencies, local governments, and military bodies, demonstrate that administrative processes are generally structured to produce standardized outcomes, often at the cost of ignoring situational inequities that affect vulnerable or marginalized populations. 

  
  

When it comes to the Information Commissions, it becomes imperative that they incorporate the principle of equity in their adjudicatory and administrative functions. Doing so will enable them to engage with the concerns of the public more effectively, in the same manner as other judicial and quasi-judicial bodies have historically done to advance fairness and accessibility within their systems.

• No penal actions against erring officials: Several Information Commissioners display a degree of empathy towards erring public officials, often refraining from imposing penalties even in cases of clear non-compliance. In certain instances, they have also shown reluctance to seek formal justifications from such officials for their failure to provide information within the prescribed time. This tendency may stem from their longstanding associations within the bureaucracy, leading to a lenient approach. Such conduct risks normalising administrative indifference and undermines the very objective of the RTI Act. Consequently, RTI applications are increasingly being treated as procedural formalities rather than as instruments for ensuring transparency and accountability in governance.

• 
  

This leniency further fosters a culture of impunity among PIOs, encouraging them to disregard their statutory obligations under the RTI Act. As a consequence, numerous applications remain unanswered, while many others are delayed or unjustifiably refused, leading to a surge in appeals and complaints before the Information Commissions. According to one report, nearly twenty Information Commissions across India imposed penalties in only about 3% of appeals/complaints, an alarming indicator of institutional complacency that undermines the very purpose of ensuring transparency and accountability in governance.

5. CONCLUSION

   
   

The RTI Act, 2005 has undoubtedly transformed the landscape of Indian governance, fostering a culture of transparency and heightened governmental accountability. Despite these laudable advancements, persistent structural and administrative challenges within the enforcement machinery threaten to erode the progressive gains achieved. Chronic delays resulting from the non-appointment of Information Commissioners and systemic inefficiencies within the Commissions have greatly hindered the timely dispersion of information to citizens. These inefficiencies are further magnified by the predominance of bureaucratic appointments lacking diverse professional perspectives or comprehensive training, which has led to inconsistent decision-making and insufficient public engagement. 

To uphold the democratic spirit enshrined in the RTI Act, it is crucial that reforms focus on ensuring transparency and diversity in the appointment process of Information Commissioners, combined with their rigorous legal and public-oriented training. The selection mechanism must prioritize competence, independence, and a demonstrable commitment to equity and justice, so that Commissions can operate in a manner aligned with the broader public interest. Only by addressing these foundational issues can the RTI Act continue to empower citizens, serve as an effective check against arbitrariness, and fulfil its intended purpose as a cornerstone of participative democracy in India.

*Surya Bhoria and Kirti Sehrawat are undergraduate law students at the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala.

The views expressed above are the author's alone and do not represent the beliefs of Pith & Substance: The CCAL Blog