Supreme Court declines to order disclosure of CIC candidates under PM-led panel
(New Delhi | October 28, 2025) — India’s Supreme Court on Monday declined to direct the central government to disclose the names of candidates under consideration by a selection committee headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi for appointments to the Central Information Commission (CIC). The move came during a hearing on pleas seeking greater transparency in the appointment process to the country’s top Right to Information (RTI) body.
Background
The Central Information Commission is the apex appellate authority under India’s RTI Act, 2005, adjudicating appeals and complaints when information is denied by public authorities. Under Section 12(3) of the RTI Act, the selection committee for the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners is chaired by the Prime Minister, and includes a Union Cabinet minister nominated by the PM and the Leader of the Opposition (or leader of the largest opposition party) in the Lok Sabha.
The appointment process has faced periodic scrutiny from civil society and transparency advocates, who have urged timely filling of vacancies and publication of criteria and shortlists. In earlier rulings, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for a transparent and time-bound appointment process, while acknowledging statutory frameworks and executive discretion.
Developing Situation
Petitioners had sought an order requiring the Centre to publish the names of candidates being considered by the selection committee before appointments are finalized. The Court declined to issue such a direction on Monday, indicating it would not mandate disclosure of candidates’ identities at this stage of the process. The matter arises amid recurring concerns about delays and backlogs at the CIC, and calls for openness in high-level appointments to bolster public trust in the RTI system.
Global Reactions
There were no immediate reactions from foreign governments. Domestic transparency advocates reiterated their demand for greater openness in selection procedures, while officials have previously cited confidentiality and procedural integrity during ongoing appointments. International free-expression groups and governance observers have broadly encouraged transparent public appointments in line with global best practices.
Analysis / Outlook
The Court’s refusal to compel disclosure underscores the balance it continues to strike between transparency interests and confidentiality safeguards in senior public appointments. While the RTI Act defines the selection architecture, it does not explicitly require pre-appointment publication of candidate names. The decision is likely to focus attention on whether the government updates its disclosure norms, publishes evaluation criteria, or provides post-appointment transparency reports as a middle path.
Operationally, sustained vacancies or delays at the CIC can impact the disposal of appeals and complaints, affecting the efficacy of India’s RTI regime. In the coming weeks, observers will watch for whether the Centre accelerates the appointment timeline, sets out clearer criteria, or whether Parliament or the executive issues guidelines to enhance transparency without compromising privacy or due process.
Image:
!Supreme Court of India building in New Delhi
Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons
— The Vagabond News
Sources: Reuters, BBC, AP, AFP
