Haryana Info Commissioners’ Appointment Faces Delay Amid Political Allegations

Haryana : A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the appointment of Information Commissioners in Haryana has triggered a legal and political storm. The Punjab and Haryana High Court was expected to hear the matter today, but the hearing did not take place. The court has now scheduled the next hearing for tomorrow, intensifying interest around the case. The PIL alleges that the recently appointed Information Commissioners have close affiliations with the ruling political party, raising serious concerns about neutrality and transparency in the selection process.

The petition argues that the appointments were not made in an impartial or merit-based manner, as required under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Instead, it alleges that the selected individuals are politically aligned with the current state government, potentially compromising their independence and objectivity in handling sensitive RTI matters. Such allegations, if proven true, could undermine public trust in the entire RTI mechanism, which plays a crucial role in promoting government accountability and transparency.

Sources familiar with the case say that the selection committee bypassed several eligible candidates who had stronger credentials and more experience in public administration. Critics argue that this raises red flags about favoritism and political nepotism, especially in institutions meant to ensure transparency in governance. The state government, on its part, has denied any wrongdoing, claiming that the appointments were carried out as per laid-down procedures and in consultation with the relevant authorities.

The High Court is expected to review the appointment process in detail, including the minutes of the selection committee’s meetings, profiles of the appointees, and adherence to legal norms. Legal experts believe the outcome of this case could set a precedent for similar disputes across the country. With increasing scrutiny on political influence in autonomous institutions, the case has gained national attention from civil rights groups and governance watchdogs.

As the hearing continues tomorrow, all eyes will be on the courtroom for any potential developments. The case highlights the growing tension between administrative discretion and the need for institutional integrity in a democratic setup. The final verdict could have far-reaching implications for how key public posts are filled in future.