Will the Jharkhand Government Revive the Information Commission in Four Weeks?
Synopsis
In a recent hearing, the Jharkhand government pledged to restore the State Information Commission, which has been inactive for nearly five years, within four weeks. This commitment comes after warnings from the High Court regarding the lack of progress in activating the commission, crucial for upholding citizens' rights under the Right to Information Act.
Key Takeaways
The Jharkhand government has committed to reviving the State Information Commission.
The commission has been inactive for nearly five years.
Citizens currently lack a platform to file appeals under the Right to Information Act.
The High Court has expressed significant concern over the delays.
Government officials have been directed to ensure timely reactivation.
Ranchi, Jan 29 (NationPress) The government of Jharkhand has committed to the High Court that the State Information Commission, which has been inactive for nearly five years, will be operational again within a four-week timeframe.
During a hearing with a division bench led by Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice A.K. Rai, Advocate General Rajiv Ranjan, representing the state, indicated that decisive measures are underway to reactivate the commission, ensuring it begins operations within the specified period.
Chief Secretary Avinash Kumar and the Secretary of the Personnel, Administrative Reforms, and Official Language Department attended the hearing, adhering to the court’s previous instructions.
In earlier proceedings, the High Court had cautioned that contempt actions could be pursued against accountable officials if the commission was not promptly reactivated. The Chief Secretary and the Personnel Secretary were mandated to appear personally.
The court noted that despite its directive given on December 12, 2025, the state government had not shown any significant advancement in reactivating the commission.
After considering the arguments presented on Thursday, the bench granted the government a four-week period to ensure the commission is operational.
During the discussion, the petitioner's attorney highlighted that the State Information Commission has been dormant for approximately five years, leaving the positions of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners unfilled. Consequently, citizens lack a statutory platform to submit appeals under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
It was further pointed out that this situation has created substantial difficulties for information seekers, forcing them to turn directly to the High Court, thereby increasing its case load.
Advocate Vikas Kumar represented the petitioner. The appellant, Virendra Singh, had requested information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, but did not receive a reply within the designated 30-day period. Even after submitting a first appeal, the relevant department failed to provide the information.
With no operational State Information Commission to address a second appeal, Singh approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Point of View
It is clear that the revival of the State Information Commission is not just a bureaucratic necessity but a fundamental right for citizens seeking transparency. The delay in its activation has significant repercussions on the public's ability to access information, and it is crucial that the government follows through on its promise to reinstate this vital institution.
NationPress
10 May 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the State Information Commission?
The State Information Commission is an independent body established to oversee the implementation of the Right to Information Act, ensuring citizens can access information from public authorities.
Why has the commission been inactive?
The commission has remained inactive due to unfilled positions and a lack of government action, leaving citizens without a channel to appeal under the Right to Information Act.
What are the consequences of the commission's inactivity?
The inactivity has forced information seekers to approach the High Court directly, adding to the judicial workload and hindering citizens' rights to information.
