Section 15: Constitution of State Information Commission

Right to Information Act, 2005 • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 2005

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 15

Section 15 mandates the constitution of State Information Commissions across all States, establishing their autonomous institutional framework, composition, gubernatorial appointment committee, and strict political disqualifications.

  • State Statutory Architecture & Nomenclature: Under Section 15(1) and 15(2), every State Government must constitute a State Information Commission consisting of the State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC) and up to ten State Information Commissioners (SICs), exercising general superintendence, direction, and management over State public authorities.
  • Gubernatorial Selection Committee under Section 15(3): The SCIC and SICs are appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of a Committee consisting of: (i) the Chief Minister (Chairperson); (ii) the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly; and (iii) a Cabinet Minister nominated by the Chief Minister. The explanation provides that where no recognized Leader of Opposition exists, the leader of the single largest opposition group is deemed to be the Leader of Opposition.
  • Eminence Criteria and Incompatible Offices: Section 15(5) and 15(6) require members to be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge in law, science, governance, etc., and expressly disqualify Members of Parliament, State Legislators, holders of political office, and persons carrying on business or pursuing any profession.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Namit Sharma v. Union of India (2013) 1 SCC 745 & (2013) 10 SCC 359: The Supreme Court emphasized that State Information Commissions perform quasi-judicial functions of profound public importance, requiring an independent status free from executive control and an appointment process that values legal competence.
  • Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India (2019) 18 SCC 246: The Supreme Court issued directions to State Governments across India to fill long-standing vacancies in State Information Commissions, mandate proactive public disclosure of search committee recommendations, and prevent Commissions from becoming defunct.
  • Sanjay Narayan v. State of Maharashtra (2014 SCC OnLine Bom 1243): The Bombay High Court held that the selection of State Information Commissioners must be objective and fair, quashing arbitrary appointments where statutory eminence criteria under Section 15(5) were disregarded in favor of political favorites.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

When challenging the validity of a State Information Commission appointment, verify whether the Selection Committee under Section 15(3) was properly constituted and whether the Leader of the single largest opposition group was invited. If the state executive bypassed the opposition leader or nominated active political party office-bearers in breach of Section 15(6), challenge the appointment by filing a writ of quo warranto before the High Court under Article 226.