ETV Bharat: Bihar: Saturday, 18 April 2026.
Amarendra said that over 100 second appeals filed by me and pertaining to several serious issues of corruption are pending before the BIC.
Around 30,000 second
appeals and complaints under the Right To Information (RTI) are pending before
the Bihar Information Commission (BIC), revealing the poor implementation of
the Act that was brought in 2005 to empower citizens to hold the government accountable
and bring transparency in its work. The data tumbled out after the Patna high
court took up a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to address the
situation.
Hearing the PIL (CWJC 3089 of 2026) Praween Kumar versus the State of Bihar, the division bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar observed on Thursday that 28,291 second appeals or complaints were pending before the BIC as of December 2024. It has scheduled the next hearing of the case on June 18, 2026.
“The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before us annexure P/4 to the writ petition, which contains information supplied to one Amarendra Kumar, dated April 28, 2025, wherein it is mentioned that the total pendency of second appeals or complaints before the BSIC as of December 2024 was 28,292,” the high court said in its order on Thursday.
Amarendra is an RTI activist based in Muzaffarpur. Talking to ETV Bharat, he said: “Over 100 second appeals filed by me and pertaining to several serious issues of corruption are pending before the BIC. Suitable and timely redressals will improve public welfare and check corruption.”
The PIL in the Patna high court has sought first appeals to be strictly disposed of within 45 days as stipulated under the RTI Act, and second appeals within 90 days or such reasonable time the high court deems fit. It also called for issuance of a direction to the Bihar government to frame executive guidelines to ensure that ‘adverse entries’ are recorded in the annual confidential reports (ACR) of officers who are penalised thrice of more under the RTI Act.
Further, the case sought the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus (court’s command or order) to the state information commission to strictly enforce section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, by imposing the mandatory penalty of Rs 25,000 on government public information officers (PIOs) appointed in all cases where information is delayed beyond 100 days without reasonable cause. It has also requested the high court to direct that the penalty must be automatically deducted from the officer’s personal salary, and is not paid by the concerned department.
The PIL has also sought a direction to the state government to pay interim compensation to citizens who have suffered ‘loss of opportunity’ due to excessive delays in furnishing information and treat such delays as ‘Constitutional tort’ and violation of Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.
Appearing on behalf of the respondents, the senior counsel submitted before the court that a similar matter was before the Supreme Court in Anjali Bhardwaj vs Union of India, which was disposed of vide order dated February 15, 2019. However, a miscellaneous application number 1979 of 2019 was filed in the said case.
The senior counsel produced a copy of the order dated February 10, 2026 that Bihar has only four sanctioned posts of the chief information commissioner and information commissioners, of which one is lying vacant and the process of filling it up was going on.
The Supreme Court, while hearing the case, directed Bihar to consider the desirability of a suitable increase in the sanctioned strength, keeping in view the pendency of almost 30,000 appeals, and to file a response in that regard before the next hearing fixed on April 28, 2026.
Taking into consideration the fact that the matter was sub judice before the Supreme Court, the Patna high court listed the PIL on June 18 and directed the counsels for the respondents to apprise about the status of the miscellaneous application no. 1979 of 2019.
Amarendra said that over 100 second appeals filed by me and pertaining to several serious issues of corruption are pending before the BIC.
Hearing the PIL (CWJC 3089 of 2026) Praween Kumar versus the State of Bihar, the division bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar observed on Thursday that 28,291 second appeals or complaints were pending before the BIC as of December 2024. It has scheduled the next hearing of the case on June 18, 2026.
“The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before us annexure P/4 to the writ petition, which contains information supplied to one Amarendra Kumar, dated April 28, 2025, wherein it is mentioned that the total pendency of second appeals or complaints before the BSIC as of December 2024 was 28,292,” the high court said in its order on Thursday.
Amarendra is an RTI activist based in Muzaffarpur. Talking to ETV Bharat, he said: “Over 100 second appeals filed by me and pertaining to several serious issues of corruption are pending before the BIC. Suitable and timely redressals will improve public welfare and check corruption.”
The PIL in the Patna high court has sought first appeals to be strictly disposed of within 45 days as stipulated under the RTI Act, and second appeals within 90 days or such reasonable time the high court deems fit. It also called for issuance of a direction to the Bihar government to frame executive guidelines to ensure that ‘adverse entries’ are recorded in the annual confidential reports (ACR) of officers who are penalised thrice of more under the RTI Act.
Further, the case sought the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus (court’s command or order) to the state information commission to strictly enforce section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, by imposing the mandatory penalty of Rs 25,000 on government public information officers (PIOs) appointed in all cases where information is delayed beyond 100 days without reasonable cause. It has also requested the high court to direct that the penalty must be automatically deducted from the officer’s personal salary, and is not paid by the concerned department.
The PIL has also sought a direction to the state government to pay interim compensation to citizens who have suffered ‘loss of opportunity’ due to excessive delays in furnishing information and treat such delays as ‘Constitutional tort’ and violation of Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.
Appearing on behalf of the respondents, the senior counsel submitted before the court that a similar matter was before the Supreme Court in Anjali Bhardwaj vs Union of India, which was disposed of vide order dated February 15, 2019. However, a miscellaneous application number 1979 of 2019 was filed in the said case.
The senior counsel produced a copy of the order dated February 10, 2026 that Bihar has only four sanctioned posts of the chief information commissioner and information commissioners, of which one is lying vacant and the process of filling it up was going on.
The Supreme Court, while hearing the case, directed Bihar to consider the desirability of a suitable increase in the sanctioned strength, keeping in view the pendency of almost 30,000 appeals, and to file a response in that regard before the next hearing fixed on April 28, 2026.
Taking into consideration the fact that the matter was sub judice before the Supreme Court, the Patna high court listed the PIL on June 18 and directed the counsels for the respondents to apprise about the status of the miscellaneous application no. 1979 of 2019.
.JPG)
.JPG)
