The Manipur Government has failed to appoint a new State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC), leaving the Manipur Information Commission (MIC) without its chief since October 22, 2026, when the tenure of the previous Chief Information Commissioner ended. The prolonged vacancy has raised serious concerns over the functioning of the statutory institution responsible for ensuring transparency and accountability in public administration under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DP&AR), Government of Manipur, issued an advertisement on September 16, 2026, inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of State Chief Information Commissioner. The last date for submission of applications was October 15, 2026. However, despite the completion of the application process and the impending vacancy being known in advance, the Government has failed to appoint a successor, leaving the Commission without its chief since October 17.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated February 15, 2019, in Anjali Bhardwaj and Others v. Union of India, emphasised the need for timely appointments to Information Commissions. The Court observed that the process for filling a vacancy should ideally begin one to two months before the anticipated vacancy so that there is no substantial time lag between the occurrence of the vacancy and its filling. It also urged the Central and State Governments to ensure that vacancies are filled without delay.
Although the Manipur Government issued the advertisement approximately one month before the previous Chief Information Commissioner’s tenure ended, the failure to complete the appointment process and ensure continuity in the leadership of the Commission has raised questions over the follow-up action taken by the Government.
The failure to appoint a successor has also raised questions over the Government’s commitment to strengthening transparency and accountability in public administration.
When Imphal Times investigated the reasons behind the delay in appointing the new Chief Information Commissioner, it found that the appointment process had been held up due to slow procedural movement at the Administrative Reforms Department.
The delay in processing such an important appointment has left a crucial statutory institution without its principal administrative head.
The absence of a Chief Information Commissioner for an extended period risks weakening the accountability mechanism established under the RTI Act. Delays in the disposal of appeals and complaints can provide further protection to public officials and authorities who withhold information or avoid transparency, while citizens seeking answers on matters involving public interest are left waiting for decisions.
More concerning is the reported suspension of hearings by the Manipur Information Commission, even though a State Information Commissioner remains in office. The Commission is reportedly not taking up hearings of RTI appeals and complaints on the ground that a new State Chief Information Commissioner has not been appointed.
While the absence of a Chief Information Commissioner may affect the administrative management, general superintendence and direction of the Commission, the RTI Act does not expressly state that hearings of appeals and complaints must be suspended during a vacancy in the post of Chief Information Commissioner.
A similar situation arose at the Central Information Commission in 2025, when the post of Chief Information Commissioner remained vacant from September 14 to December 15, following the completion of the tenure of the then Chief Information Commissioner. During this period, no existing Information Commissioner was given additional charge of the post of Chief Information Commissioner. Yet, the Central Information Commission continued conducting hearings through its existing Information Commissioners.
This raises a pertinent question: if the Central Information Commission could continue conducting hearings in the absence of its Chief, why has the Manipur Information Commission stopped hearing appeals and complaints despite having an existing State Information Commissioner?
Section 15(4) of the RTI Act provides that the general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the State Information Commission shall vest in the State Chief Information Commissioner, who shall be assisted by the State Information Commissioners. However, Sections 18 and 19 separately provide for the Commission’s statutory responsibilities in dealing with complaints and second appeals. The Act does not expressly make the conduct of hearings conditional upon the presence of a Chief Information Commissioner.
The distinction between administrative management and the hearing of appeals and complaints therefore assumes significance. While the absence of a Chief Information Commissioner may create difficulties in the administrative functioning of the Commission, the question remains whether such a vacancy should bring its hearing functions to a standstill.
The Government’s failure to appoint a successor, coupled with the reported suspension of hearings, has raised concerns over the fate of pending RTI appeals and complaints. At a time when citizens depend on the RTI Act to question government decisions and expose irregularities, the institution entrusted with ensuring transparency and accountability cannot be allowed to remain ineffective.
The State Government needs to explain the delay in completing the appointment process and ensure that the Manipur Information Commission continues to discharge its statutory responsibilities without interruption.