ADVOCATE HEMANT KUMAR ALSO SEEKS PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PROCEEDINGS OF SEARCH & STATUTORY COMMITTEES, QUESTIONS RAISED OVER 11-MONTH DELAY IN APPOINTMENT OF ONE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER; GOVERNOR, CM, LOP AND CHIEF SECRETARY URGED TO MAKE SEARCH COMMITTEE AND SELECTION COMMITTEE RECORDS PUBLIC IN LIGHT OF SUPREME COURT RULING
Face2News/Chandigarh
major controversy has erupted over the appointment process of the State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC) and State Information Commissioners (SICs) in Haryana after an Advocate at Punjab and Haryana High Court Hemant Kumar sent a strongly-worded legal representation-cum-public appeal demanding immediate proactive public disclosure of the proceedings of the Search Committee as well as Statutory Committee which were constituted for these appointments in 2025.
The representation, addressed to Haryana Governor Ashim Kumar Ghosh, Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini, Chief Secretary Anurag Rastogi, Leader of Opposition Bhupinder Singh Hooda and State Chief Information Commissioner T. V. S. N. Prasad, has brought the spotlight on what the Advocate described as a lack of transparency in one of the State’s most sensitive quasi-judicial appointments.
Hemant has questioned why the Haryana Government has not yet proactively disclosed the proceedings and deliberations of the Search Committee and the Statutory Selection Committee despite a 2019 Supreme Court judgment mandating complete transparency in the appointment process of Information Commissioners across the country.
The controversy has become sharper because one of the SIC appointment was allegedly made straight eleven months after the first batch of appointments, raising questions over whether the selection process was staggered, altered later, or finalized in phases behind closed doors.
According to the representation, applications were invited in March 2025 for one post of SCIC and seven posts of SICs. Under the prescribed mechanism, a Search Committee headed by the Haryana Chief Secretary was to shortlist candidates to the extent of three times the number of vacancies of SCIC/SICs to be filled , after which a statutory committee chaired by the Chief Minister would make the final recommendations.
On May 23, 2025, the Haryana Government appointed retired IAS officer T. V. S. N. Prasad as SCIC, while Amarjit Singh (Retd. HCS), Karmvir Saini, Neeta Khera, Priyanka Dhopra and Sanjay Madaan were appointed as SICs.
However, in a development that triggered widespread speculation in administrative and legal circles, Priyanka Dhopra was reportedly not administered the oath during the official swearing-in ceremony held on May 26, 2025. No official explanation was publicly issued regarding the reasons for withholding the oath.
The matter became even more controversial when another candidate, Ajay Kumar Sura, was appointed as SIC only on April 20, 2026 — nearly eleven months after the appointment of the earlier batch of commissioners. He subsequently took oath on April 24, 2026.
In his representation, Hemant has raised pointed questions over whether Ajay Kumar Sura’s name had already been finalized by the Search Committee and Selection Committee in 2025 itself. If so, he asked, why was his name omitted from the original appointment order issued on May 23, 2025 along with the names of other selected SICs?
The Advocate has also highlighted that on May 19, 2026, the Haryana Government finally uploaded the names of more than 350-odd applicants who had applied for the posts of SCIC and SICs. However, the detailed proceedings and recommendations of the Search Committee and Selection Committee are still not in the public domain.
Citing the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Anjali Bhardwaj vs Union of India delivered on February 15, 2019, Hemant asserted that the Apex Court had categorically directed proactive disclosure of the entire selection process for appointment of Information Commissioners in order to uphold transparency and public confidence.
Interestingly, the representation points out that Haryana had itself uploaded similar proceedings related to such appointments in March 2022, copies of which are reportedly still available on the Chief Secretary’s official website. The Advocate has therefore questioned why the same standard of transparency is now allegedly being withheld in the 2025 selection exercise.
Further also invoking Section 4(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which obligates public authorities to voluntarily place information in the public domain to minimize the need for RTI applications, Hemant has appealed for immediate disclosure of all records, minutes and proceedings connected with the Search Committee and Statutory Committee meetings held for the SCIC/SIC appointments.
The representation asserts that transparency in appointments to information commissions is not merely an administrative formality but goes to the heart of citizens’ right to information and institutional accountability.
Political observers and RTI activists believe the issue could snowball into a major governance controversy if the Haryana Government fails to publicly clarify the circumstances surrounding the staggered appointment of Ajay Kumar Sura and the unexplained withholding of oath in the case of Priyanka Dhopra
Haryana
Trending