J&K HC Refuses 45-Day Mandate for CIC but Directs Commission to Tackle RTI Appeal Pendency

The High Court of J&K and Ladakh declined to impose a court-fixed timeline on the Central Information Commission while directing it to improve its working and address the backlog of second appeals from J&K.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani, disposed of a public interest litigation on 1 July 2026 that sought a judicial direction compelling the Central Information Commission to decide all pending second appeals — particularly those from J&K residents — within 45 days. The Bench refused to issue the mandamus as sought, holding that the Right to Information Act, 2005 prescribes no such timeline and a court cannot create one by writ. At the same time, the Bench directed the CIC to take concrete measures to reduce pendency, acknowledging that the Commission cannot leave appeals undecided for years.

The Petition and What Was Sought

The petitioner, Junaid Javid, a resident of Uri, Baramulla, filed WP(C)PIL 4/2025 in public interest. He sought a writ of mandamus directing the CIC to dispose of all pending second appeals, with priority to those from J&K, within 45 days. He also sought the creation of a mechanism for time-bound disposal of second appeals and complaints. Along with the main petition, he filed a separate application, CM 1955/2026, to place on record suggestions he had prepared for improving the CIC's working.

The CM was taken up first. The Bench allowed it and formally took the suggestions on record before proceeding to the writ petition itself.

The petitioner was represented by Mr. Naveed Bukhtiyar, Advocate. The Union of India was represented by Mr. T.M. Shamsi, DSGI, with Mr. Rehana Qayoom, Advocate.

The CIC's Response on Infrastructure Constraints

The Central Information Commission filed a reply explaining its difficulty in committing to any fixed timeline. The Commission pointed to the infrastructure available to it and the volume of second appeals and complaints it receives as reasons why a rigid 45-day window was not feasible.

This response formed the factual backdrop against which the Bench examined whether a mandamus could go.

Why the Court Would Not Fix a 45-Day Deadline

The Bench examined the Right to Information Act, 2005 and found that the statute does not lay down any timeline for the CIC to decide second appeals or complaints. Because no statutory timeline exists, the Court held it could not, by way of mandamus, impose one of 45 days as the petitioner sought.

The reasoning was direct: a writ of mandamus enforces a legal duty that already exists. Where the statute is silent on a specific deadline, the Court cannot use mandamus to legislate a period into the Act.

However, the Bench drew a clear limit to this restraint. It observed that the absence of a statutory deadline does not mean the CIC has a free hand to leave appeals undecided indefinitely. In the Court's words, it “cannot be said that the CIC can sit over the appeals for an unduly long period.” Keeping appeals unresolved for years would be a failure of the Commission's statutory function, even if no specific number of days is prescribed.

The Direction to the CIC

While declining to mandate 45 days, the Bench did not close the matter without any relief. It disposed of the petition with a direction to the CIC to look into the pendency problem and take appropriate measures to improve its working, within the limits of its infrastructural constraints and the volume of inflow of fresh appeals and complaints.

The Bench also asked the CIC to consider the suggestions placed on record by the petitioner and, where those suggestions are found genuine and realistic, to make use of them for improving the Commission's working.

The disposition is not merely a request. It is a judicial direction to act, even if the Court left the manner of action to the Commission's discretion, bounded by practical realities.

Outcome

Both CM 1955/2026 and WP(C)PIL 4/2025 were disposed of on 1 July 2026. The application to place suggestions on record was allowed. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the CIC to take appropriate measures to address pendency and to consider the petitioner's suggestions, subject to infrastructure and workload constraints. No 45-day or any other fixed timeline was imposed.