Srinagar: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has declined to direct the Central Information Commission (CIC) to dispose of second appeals within 45 days, even as it asked the Commission to take appropriate measures to improve its working.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Muhammad Yousuf Wani disagreed for a direction to the CIC, saying the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not lay down any timeline for deciding the second appeals and complaints under the Act.
The court said this while disposing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Junaid Javid of Uri in Baramulla. The PIL had sought court’s intervention for a direction upon the CIC to decide all pending appeals, particularly those filed by residents of Jammu and Kashmir, within 45 days. Furthermore, it had called for a mechanism to ensure time-bound disposal of second appeals and the petitioner had placed suggestions on record for improving the Commission’s functioning. In its response, the CIC indicated its difficulty in adhering to a particular timeline for deciding the appeals, keeping in view the infrastructure available and the number of second appeals and complaints received by it. “We are of the considered opinion that, in view of the reply submitted by the CIC, nothing more can be said by this Court,” the bench said.
Observing that the RTI Act does not prescribe any timeline for deciding second appeals and complaints, the bench held that it could not, through a judicial direction, mandate a 45-day disposal period as sought by the petitioner. However, the Court underscored that the CIC could not be allowed to sit over the appeals for an unduly long period and keep them undecided for years together. The Commission needs to improve its working and establish a mechanism to reduce the backlog while effectively handling fresh appeals and complaints, it said.
Disposing of the PIL, the Court directed the CIC to take appropriate measures to improve its functioning, subject to infrastructural constraints and the inflow of appeals. It also observed that the Commission may consider the petitioner’s suggestions if they are found to be genuine and practical. In the PIL, the petitioner had alleged that several RTI applications and first appeals were pending before different public authorities and the CIC in Jammu and Kashmir for unduly long periods. He submitted that after being dissatisfied with the responses of the first appellate authorities, he filed second appeals before the CIC in respect of three RTI applications dated November 13, 2024, January 9, 2025, and November 27, 2025. For three months, the CIC had neither listed the appeals for hearing nor passed any order, he alleged. He had sought the court’s intervention to ensure timely disposal of RTI applications and appeals in keeping with the RTI Act.
