Judicial Mandate Over Election Protocol: Supreme Court Declares Model Code No Bar to Statutory Appointments
(Judicial Quest News Network)
New Delhi: 29, July,2029- In a significant reaffirmation of administrative continuity and the right to information, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) cannot serve as a shield for state governments to delay statutory appointments.
A three-judge bench, presided over by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, underscored that constitutional and statutory obligations must proceed unimpeded, particularly when mandated by judicial directives.
The ruling came during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by activists Anjali Bhardwaj and others, highlighting the alarming number of vacancies in Information Commissions across the country. The Bench expressed stern disapproval of the “defunct” status of several State Information Commissions, emphasizing that the transparency of governance should not be held hostage to electoral cycles.
“Statutory Duty Supersedes MCC”
The Court’s intervention was particularly sharp regarding the state of Himachal Pradesh, where appointments had been stalled despite a finalized selection process, citing the MCC in force for municipal elections.
“In our considered view, the model code of conduct should not be an impediment in the matter of statutory appointments and that too when the same is required to be done under the Court directions,” the Bench observed.
Rejecting the state’s plea for delay, the Court directed the Himachal Pradesh government to notify the results and complete the appointments within a strictly mandated two-week window.
Nationwide Cleanup: State-by-State Directives
The Supreme Court issued a series of peremptory orders to various states to address the “pendency crisis” and ensure the functional integrity of Information Commissions:
| State | Judicial Directive | Timeline |
| Himachal Pradesh | Notify results and complete all IC appointments. | 2 Weeks |
| Jharkhand | Appoint the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC). | 2 Months |
| Maharashtra | Notify 3 additional posts and complete appointments. | 2 Months |
| Bihar | Fill current vacancy and create 3 additional IC posts. | 1-2 Months |
| Assam | Complete the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner. | 1 Month |
| Rajasthan | Fill the vacant post of the Chief Information Commissioner. | 2 Months |
| Tamil Nadu | Fill five vacancies, including the post of the CIC. | 3 Months |
The “Transparency Deficit”
During the proceedings, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, pointed out the staggering pendency of appeals reaching 36,000 in Bihar and 52,000 in Chhattisgarh.
CJI Surya Kant remarked that the ideal pendency for information requests should be zero, noting that the delay in supplying basic information regarding government functioning is inherently detrimental to democratic accountability.
The Court has further mandated that the details of all newly appointed Information Commissioners be promptly uploaded to the respective Commission websites to ensure public accessibility.
Case Reference: Anjali Bhardwaj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 436/2018]
