Parties and roles: Anjali Bhardwaj is the petitioner who initiated or carried the matter to the Supreme Court. Union of India is the respondent opposing the relief or defending the challenged action, decision, law or proceeding. The labels “plaintiff” and “defendant” are generally not used here because this is a constitutional writ proceeding. Large vacancies in Information Commissions caused appeals and complaints under the RTI Act to accumulate, weakening a statute designed for timely disclosure. Petitioners argued that governments were frustrating the right to information by leaving posts empty and conducting opaque selections. The issue was institutional effectiveness rather than a single information request. Procedural and real-world context: 2018: RTI activists petitioned over vacancies and delayed appointments in Central and State Information Commissions. | 15 Feb 2019: Court imposed appointment timelines and transparency directions. In simple terms, the Court had to resolve can constitutional courts require fixed timelines and transparency for Information Commissioner appointments? What disclosure and planning duties do governments have to prevent recurring vacancies? The outcome mattered immediately because the Court directed the Union and States to initiate selection well before vacancies, complete pending appointments within specified periods, disclose search-committee composition, criteria and shortlisted names, and fill commissions with adequate sanctioned strength. It emphasized that administrative inaction cannot render the statutory right to information ineffective. Procedural setting: 2018: RTI activists petitioned over vacancies and delayed appointments in Central and State Information Commissions. | 15 Feb 2019: Court imposed appointment timelines and transparency directions. The central problem before the Court was can constitutional courts require fixed timelines and transparency for Information Commissioner appointments? What disclosure and planning duties do governments have to prevent recurring vacancies? The controversy was considered in the framework of Right to Information Act, 2005, ss.12-17 and 15-17, together with Constitution arts.19(1)(a), 32 and 226. The wider importance of the case lies in right to information; institutional independence; timely appointments; transparency; effective statutory remedies.

Petitioners: timely, transparent appointments are essential to Article 19(1)(a) and the RTI Act; search-committee details and applicant lists should be public. | Governments: appointment processes were underway and involved executive assessment, eligibility and federal differences. Competing positions in context: Anjali Bhardwaj's position: as the petitioner, Anjali Bhardwaj sought the relief indicated by the questions of law and challenged the opposing action or interpretation. The claim was that the Court should apply the governing provisions consistently with Right to information; institutional independence; timely appointments; transparency; effective statutory remedies. Union of India's position: as respondent, Union of India resisted that relief, defended the impugned measure or decision, or proposed a narrower interpretation of the Court's power and the applicable law. The Court therefore had to test these submissions against Right to Information Act, 2005, ss.12-17 and 15-17 and Constitution arts.19(1)(a), 32 and 226, the record of the proceedings and binding precedent. This summary states the principal controversy in accessible language; the official judgment remains authoritative for counsel-specific submissions and paragraph references.

The Court directed the Union and States to initiate selection well before vacancies, complete pending appointments within specified periods, disclose search-committee composition, criteria and shortlisted names, and fill commissions with adequate sanctioned strength. It emphasized that administrative inaction cannot render the statutory right to information ineffective. Effect of the decision: the ruling explains or applies Right to information; institutional independence; timely appointments; transparency; effective statutory remedies and binds the parties to the operative directions made in W.P.(C) No. 436/2018. It also guides lower courts and public authorities on materially similar questions under Right to Information Act, 2005, ss.12-17 and 15-17. Scope and caution: only the ratio decidendi and operative directions of the signed judgment are binding; summaries should not be treated as substitutes for the judgment, separate opinions, later review orders or subsequent precedent.

Right to Information Act, 2005, ss.12-17 and 15-17

Constitution arts.19(1)(a), 32 and 226

Right to information; institutional independence; timely appointments; transparency; effective statutory remedies