J&K&L High Court Declines To Fix 45-Day Timeline For Disposal Of RTI Appeals, Directs CIC To Improve Mechanism For Clearing Pendency

The Court, however, observed that the Commission cannot permit appeals to remain pending indefinitely and must evolve an effective mechanism to reduce backlog and ensure expeditious disposal of cases.

The Court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by Junaid Javid, a resident of Uri, Baramulla, seeking a direction to the Central Information Commission to decide all pending second appeals, particularly those filed by residents of Jammu & Kashmir, within 45 days.

A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani, while disposing of the PIL, observed,

".... The Right to Information Act, 2005 does not lay down any timeline for deciding the second appeals and complaints under the Act and, therefore, we cannot, by issuing a mandamus, fix a timeline of 45 days for disposal of the second appeals and complaints by the CIC, as prayed for by the petitioner."

The petitioner instituted the Public Interest Litigation seeking judicial intervention to address the growing pendency of second appeals before the Central Information Commission arising from the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir. It was pleaded that prolonged delays in disposal of appeals under the Right to Information Act substantially diluted the effectiveness of the statutory right to information.

Besides seeking a direction requiring disposal of all pending appeals within forty-five days, the petitioner also prayed for putting in place an institutional mechanism to ensure time-bound disposal of second appeals before the Commission.

Additionally, an application was filed seeking permission to place on record certain suggestions intended to improve the functioning of the CIC and reduce pendency. The Court allowed the application and took the suggestions on record.

The Central Information Commission filed its response explaining that, having regard to the existing infrastructure and the large number of second appeals and complaints received by it, it was not feasible to adhere to any rigid timeline for disposal of all matters.

Court's Observations:

After considering the rival submissions and the material placed on record, the High Court observed that the principal relief sought by the petitioner could not be granted in exercise of its writ jurisdiction because the Right to Information Act itself does not prescribe any mandatory time limit for disposal of second appeals or complaints by the Central Information Commission.

The Bench held that in the absence of any statutory prescription, the Court could not legislate by issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Commission to decide all appeals within forty-five days. The Court observed,

"... The Right to Information Act, 2005 does not lay down any timeline for deciding the second appeals and complaints under the Act and, therefore, we cannot, by issuing a mandamus, fix a timeline of 45 days for disposal of the second appeals and complaints by the CIC, as prayed for by the petitioner."

At the same time, the Court emphasised that the absence of a statutory timeline cannot be construed as permitting the Commission to indefinitely defer adjudication of appeals. The Bench observed,

".. However, it cannot be said that the CIC can sit over the appeals for an unduly long period and keep them undecided for years together."

Recognising the practical difficulties pointed out by the Commission regarding infrastructure and the volume of appeals, the Court nevertheless underscored the need for institutional reforms to ensure timely disposal of pending matters.

The Court observed that the Commission is required to improve its working and evolve an appropriate mechanism to deal with both the existing backlog and the continuous inflow of fresh appeals and complaints under the Right to Information Act.

The Bench further observed,

".. The CIC needs to improve its working and put a mechanism in place so as to overcome the pendency of appeals and to tackle the inflow of fresh appeals and complaints."

The Court also noted that the petitioner had placed several suggestions on record for improving the functioning of the Commission and observed that the Commission may examine those suggestions and adopt them if found to be genuine and practically feasible.

Disposing of the Public Interest Litigation, the High Court directed the Central Information Commission to look into the issue of pendency and take appropriate measures to improve its functioning, subject to infrastructural constraints and the volume of second appeals and complaints received by it.

The Court further observed that the Commission may also consider the suggestions submitted by the petitioner for improving its functioning, provided they are found to be genuine and realistic.

Case Title: Junaid Javid v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 289

Appearances

For the Petitioner: Mr. Naveed Bukhtiyar, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. T.M. Shamsi, DSGI, with Mr. Rehana Qayoom, Advocate.

Click here to read/download the Order.