Why can’t Human Rights Commission become ‘ad hoc’ Information Commission in States with few RTI appeals, asks Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 10, 2026) mooted whether the Chairpersons of Human Rights Commissions of States with low traffic of Right to Information (RTI) appeals could be given additional responsibility of acting as Chief Information Commissioners (CICs) till there is an increase in workload.

“Suppose it is just 100 appeals pending in a State Information Commission… Any institution you create is a burden on the public exchequer. Taxpayers’ money must be spent on development activities or something… Why not in such States, as an ad-hoc mechanism, the power of the Information Commissions be given to the State Human Rights Commissions?” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, heading a three-judge Bench, asked advocates Prashant Bhushan and Rahul Gupta for the petitioners.

The court was hearing a petition filed by petitioners Anjali Bhardwaj, Commodore Lokesh Batra (retired) and Amrita Johri, seeking timely and transparent appointments to the Information Commissions under the RTI Act.

Chief Justice Kant remarked that State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) were headed by former judges, if not retired Chief Justices of the High Courts.

The Chief Justice said the “ad-hoc mechanism” could continue till the number of RTI appeals increases in “due course of time” and “justifies the creation of an independent Information Commission”.

The CJI said, in the meanwhile, for the interregnum when the total and overall pendency of RTI appeals was low, the “creation of a separate institution” may not be justified.

Mr. Bhushan said Information Commissions act as independent institutions enforcing the people’s fundamental right to know. These Commissions hold governments and its agencies accountable and demand transparency.

Information Commissions have been made defunct through vacancies in the post of Information Commissioners for years together. The number of RTI appeals have been reduced to a trickle, and in some States, to nothing as they are not being accepted. People have stopped filing appeals as there was no functioning Information Commission in their State, he submitted.

“When people see that their appeals cannot be decided, they naturally stop filing appeals,” Mr. Bhushan submitted.

A chart produced by the petitioners showed that State Information Commissions like in Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh have become “defunct” with neither Information Commissioners appointed nor any appeals being filed.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court ordered the Union government to file a status report on the recent appointments made to the Central Information Commission (CIC).

However, Mr. Bhushan pointed out that records like the minutes of meeting of the high-powered selection committee chaired by the Prime Minister and the dissent note of the Leader of Opposition of the Lok Sabha were not placed in the public domain.