CIC Vacancy Crisis Paralyses India’s RTI System

CIC Headless Yet Again: Key Vacancies Undermine Commission’s Functioning

The Central Information Commission (CIC), the apex body for adjudicating disputes under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, has long been mired in controversies over delayed appointments and mounting backlogs of cases. The situation, critics say, is only worsening. For the seventh time in the past eleven years, the CIC is functioning without a Chief Information Commissioner at its helm, raising serious concerns about transparency and accountability in governance.

Back in 2018, Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated the swanky new headquarters of the CIC at Baba Gangnath Marg in Munirka, New Delhi, built at a cost of several crores of taxpayers’ money. The sprawling office was envisioned as a hub of transparency, meant to be staffed with a Chief and at least ten Information Commissioners. Yet today, the Chief’s chair lies vacant and the Commission is functioning with a skeletal bench.

The most recent Chief Information Commissioner, Heeralal Samariya, demitted office on September 13, 2025, after attaining the age of 65. His exit was not unexpected—like the six instances before it, the vacancy arose due to routine retirements, either on reaching the age limit or completing the stipulated tenure. In each case, the date of retirement was known well in advance, yet the government failed to ensure a smooth transition by appointing a successor in time. The consequences of this delay are glaring: the Commission, which should have a Chief and up to ten Information Commissioners, is now reduced to functioning with just two commissioners, while nine posts, including that of the Chief, remain vacant.

CIC’s Leadership Vacuum Threatens the Core of India’s RTI System 

Transparency campaigners say the crisis goes beyond a matter of vacant chairs—it strikes at the very core of the RTI framework. The Chief Information Commissioner is not just another member of the bench, but the fulcrum of the entire institution, responsible for both adjudication and administration. Without a Chief, the CIC’s functioning is effectively paralysed.

“Activists have been warning about this for years,” said Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.), a noted transparency campaigner. “The law mandates one Chief Information Commissioner and up to ten Information Commissioners depending on workload. But only the Chief has administrative powers—others handle adjudication but not administration. That is why the CIC’s post cannot be left vacant.”

Citing a striking precedent, Batra recalled the tenure of the country’s first Chief Information Commissioner, Wajahat Habibullah. “When the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir requested him to spend a year in the state, Habibullah even submitted his resignation after speaking with the Prime Minister. But since no new CIC had been appointed, he eventually withdrew it and completed his term. This episode itself shows how critical the position of CIC is to the functioning of the Commission.”

CIC Backlog Soars Beyond 26,000 Cases as Vacancies Stall Justice 

The crisis at the CIC is not just symbolic—it is reflected in the mounting backlog of cases. More than 26,000 appeals and complaints are pending before the Commission, and applicants now wait over a year for their matters to even come up for hearing. Despite eight commissioner posts lying vacant since November 2023, the vacancies have dragged on without resolution, deepening the pendency.

The government, for its part, has made repeated promises to fill these posts but with little to show on the ground. An advertisement was issued in August 2024 inviting applications for Information Commissioners, and in January 2025, the Centre told the Supreme Court—through an affidavit in an ongoing case—that the selection process would be wrapped up within three months, by April 2025. Yet, no appointments have been made to date. Even the process of filling the Chief’s post has been delayed. Though an advertisement was finally floated on May 21, 2025, with June 30 as the deadline for applications, the chair continues to remain vacant.

This inaction stands in direct violation of a landmark 2019 judgment of the Supreme Court in Anjali Bhardwaj and Others v. Union of India. In that ruling, the Court had stressed the need to fill CIC and State Information Commission vacancies promptly and transparently. Observing that the RTI law itself requires speedy disposal of appeals and complaints, the bench noted that the absence of a Chief or adequate number of Commissioners could cripple the Commission’s functioning, “which may even amount to negating the very purpose for which this Act came into force.”

At The Probe, we have been consistently tracking and reporting on the state of affairs at the Central Information Commission. When we last covered the issue, the figures were alarming: as of October 5, 2023, a staggering 20,634 cases were pending before the CIC. Since then, the backlog has grown even further, crossing 26,000 cases, revealing how the situation has steadily deteriorated over time. The numbers tell a clear story—without timely appointments and proper functioning, the Commission is increasingly unable to fulfill its mandate of ensuring transparency and accountability.

The situation has become deeply ironic and troubling for citizens seeking information under the RTI Act. On one hand, obtaining information from government offices is becoming progressively difficult, with procedural delays and bureaucratic hurdles weakening the Act’s power. On the other hand, even when applicants escalate their grievances to the apex authority meant to enforce the law—the CIC—their cases are trapped in a sluggish system where hearings are delayed for months, sometimes over a year. The very body designed to safeguard citizens’ right to information is hamstrung by vacancies and administrative inertia, turning what was once a powerful tool of accountability into a forum where justice is continually deferred.

CIC Crisis Exposes Erosion of RTI and Administrative Weaknesses

For activists, the current crisis at the CIC is part of a broader erosion of the RTI regime. What was once hailed as a powerful tool for citizens to hold authorities accountable is now being seen as increasingly ineffective.

“Back in the early days of RTI, around 2005 or 2006, we witnessed its real strength,” recalled Commodore Batra. “I remember a case where a person had been repeatedly denied a ration card. After filing an RTI, the authorities were compelled to issue the card. That was the power the law held then. Unfortunately, over time that power has been diluted.”

The dilution, Batra pointed out, also came through legislative changes. “In 2019, the terms and conditions of Information Commissioners and the Chief Information Commissioner were reduced. Originally, the CIC was meant to enjoy the same status as the Election Commission or even a Supreme Court judge, while Information Commissioners were considered equivalent to High Court judges. Later, their tenure was cut from five years to three, and the government was given discretionary power over extensions. This created a problematic situation. If a Commissioner delivers a judgment against the government, there could be implications for their tenure or future appointments. I am not saying Commissioners are dishonest, but the system is structured in a way that can influence them indirectly.”

Observers argue that the government cannot plead ignorance about these vacancies. The tenure of every Chief Information Commissioner is known well in advance, and courts have made it clear that the selection process must begin three to six months before the incumbent’s retirement. Yet, in practice, this rarely happens. Commodore Batra explained why even short-tenure appointments are important: “By law and convention, the senior-most Information Commissioner is usually elevated as CIC because they already have hands-on experience with the system. Even if their remaining tenure is brief, they understand the functioning of the Commission far better than an outsider.”

The consequences of neglecting appointments are now visible in the Commission’s day-to-day functioning. With just two Commissioners handling a workload meant for eleven, nearly 26,000 cases remain pending. “The backlog is staggering,” Batra said. “In some states, pending cases are running into lakhs. How can a handful of Commissioners manage this volume?” He added that the quality of the system is also being undermined: “I’ve filed RTIs myself to track processes, such as the electronic postal order payment gateway, and often found officials lacking in basic understanding. Many simply forward applications without taking responsibility. This shows the need for proper training and orientation for new appointees, so they can handle the responsibility effectively.”

Judiciary Warns Vacancies Threaten RTI, Citizens Left in Limbo 

The judiciary has repeatedly flagged the dangers of leaving Information Commissions understaffed. In October 2023, the Supreme Court went so far as to warn that the Right to Information Act risked becoming a “dead letter” if vacancies were not promptly filled. The Court’s reminder came in response to petitions filed by transparency activists, highlighting that access to timely information is central to citizens’ fundamental rights.

Yet, the process of appointments has itself raised questions of propriety. The last round of inductions, carried out in November 2023, was done without the participation of the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha—despite the law mandating their presence in the three-member selection committee alongside the Prime Minister and a Union Cabinet Minister. Activists argue that bypassing this requirement not only flouts the spirit of the RTI Act but also casts a shadow over the legitimacy of those appointments.

By delaying and diluting the appointment process, critics say, the government is undermining the very architecture of the RTI framework. Without a full bench of commissioners, thousands of appeals and complaints are forced into limbo, eroding public faith in the law. Citizens who file RTIs often seek information that is urgent and time-sensitive—whether related to ration cards, pension payments, or government contracts. When hearings are scheduled a year or more later, the answers lose relevance.

“Information delayed is information denied” has become the lived reality for thousands of applicants across the country. Each unfilled post at the CIC adds to the backlog, pushing citizens further away from justice and accountability. For many, the RTI was the only accessible tool to question power; now, activists warn, the system is being slowly suffocated through neglect.