The Wire: New Delhi: Thursday, 28 May 2026.
Commodore Lokesh Batra (retired), the RTI applicant who was refused the information, pointed out that the CBI 'itself occupies a central role in politically sensitive investigations, making questions of transparency … particularly significant'.
In 2012, the Union
government disclosed detailed records relating to the appointment of the CBI
director under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, including selection
committee minutes, internal file notings, the names of officers under
consideration and correspondence between top government departments.
Fourteen years later, the
same process has effectively been declared confidential.
In response to an RTI
application filed by transparency campaigner Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.),
the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) has refused to disclose records
related to the appointment of the new CBI director, citing exemptions under
sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. That process had culminated on May
13 this year with Praveen Sood receiving a second one-year extension in office.
The refusal marks a sharp
departure from the government’s own past practice.
“You can check the 55-page
document of the 2012 RTI on the CBI director's appointment,” Commodore Batra
told The Wire. “In 2012, the DoPT provided my RTI [response] with complete
information and answers as requested concerning selection of the CBI director,
why denial of information now? I have asked exactly the same question 14 years
later, they responded in a jiffy that they cannot share the information,” he
said.
Commodore Batra had first
sought information in November 2012, when then-CBI director A.P. Singh was
nearing retirement. His RTI application sought details of the selection process
for the next CBI director, including the names of shortlisted IPS officers,
file notings, selection committee records and copies of relevant files.
The DoPT in January 2013
then disclosed extensive records spanning dozens of pages to the queries
Commodore Batra had raised.
Exclusively accessed by
The Wire, these documents from 2012 provide a rare insight into the internal
workings of one of the country’s most sensitive appointments.
The records include
minutes of meetings of the selection committee held on October 18 and October
30, 2012, under the chairmanship of the Central Vigilance Commissioner. The
meetings were attended by the Union home secretary, secretary (personnel) and
vigilance commissioners.
The documents show that
the government considered 61 IPS officers from the 1974 to 1977 batches for the
post of CBI director. The records disclosed names, cadre details, empanelment
status and vigilance-related information of the officers under consideration.
Internal file notings
reveal, among other things, deliberations over whether IPS officers from the
1978 batch could be considered for appointment, with references made to a
Supreme Court direction that only officers from the four senior-most batches as
of the incumbent CBI director's retirement be considered, and opinions received
from the law ministry.
The records also include
discussions concerning complaints and allegations against some officers under
consideration, including Gujarat cadre IPS officer Kuldeep Sharma. One
communication sent by then-Gujarat chief secretary A.K. Joti raised objections
to Sharma’s possible appointment and referred to pending proceedings and
allegations against him.
The government eventually
appointed Ranjit Sinha as CBI director on November 22, 2012.
On May 20, 2026, Commodore
Batra filed a fresh RTI application seeking similar information regarding the
appointment process that ended with Sood receiving another extension as
director. The application sought details of the shortlisting process, names of
officers considered, records of discussions and minutes of the selection
committee meeting reportedly held around May 12, 2026.
A mere five days later,
the DoPT rejected the request.
According to the RTI
response dated May 26, 2026, the information sought pertained to “confidential
records, internal deliberations, assessment reports, file notings,
correspondence and evaluation materials connected with the process of
selection/appointment of Director, CBI”.
The response further
stated that the requested records included those that are held in a “fiduciary
capacity and contain personal information relating to third-party
officers/candidates,” and that disclosure “would cause unwarranted invasion of
privacy and compromise the confidentiality and integrity of the selection
process.”
The DoPT therefore denied
the information under sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Section 8(1)(e) exempts
information available to a person in a fiduciary relationship from disclosure,
while section 8(1)(j) broadly protects personal information from disclosure.
The latter was controversially amended by the Digital Personal Data Protection
Act to widen the scope of information it exempts.
However, the department’s
refusal raises questions because many of the categories of records now being
treated as exempt were previously disclosed by the same public authority in
2012.
The 2026 response does not
invoke section 10 of the RTI Act, which deals with severability and allows
public authorities to redact exempt portions while disclosing the remaining
material.
Commodore Batra believes
that this omission is significant because even if portions of the records
contained personal or sensitive information, non-exempt portions could still
have been disclosed after redaction.
The appointment of the CBI
director is governed by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and involves
a high-powered committee comprising the prime minister, the leader of
opposition and the chief justice of India or a nominee judge.
For Commodore Batra, the
issue is ultimately about inconsistency. “The CBI itself occupies a central
role in politically sensitive investigations, making questions of transparency
and institutional independence particularly significant. When the same information
was disclosed earlier, why should the entire process now be treated as secret?”
he asked.
The DoPT’s refusal to
disclose records related to the process behind the appointment of the next CBI
director also comes amid wider concerns over opacity in appointments to key
institutions and the conduct of the selection process itself.
Earlier this month, Leader
of Opposition Rahul Gandhi issued a dissent note following the meeting of the
high-powered committee tasked with selecting the next CBI director. Gandhi
alleged that crucial records concerning candidates, including self-appraisal
and “360-degree” assessment reports, were not shared with him in advance.
In the note, he said
members were expected to assess records relating to 69 officers during the
meeting itself, calling the exercise a “mockery” aimed at formalising the
selection of a “pre-decided candidate”.
This adds another layer to
questions surrounding transparency in the CBI director's appointment process,
particularly as the government refuses to disclose related records under the
RTI Act.
The controversy also comes
on the back of broader concerns raised by transparency campaigners over
appointments to institutions meant to safeguard accountability.
This past December, a
panel headed by the prime minister recommended the appointment of a new chief
information commissioner and eight information commissioners to the Central
Information Commission (CIC), the statutory final appellate body for RTI queries
concerning the Union government. Prior to that, eight of the CIC's ten
information commissioner posts remained vacant for a year after the government
solicited applications to fill in the vacancies.
Against this backdrop, the
DoPT’s refusal to disclose records that it had previously released during the
2012 CBI director appointment process has renewed questions about whether
transparency standards around key institutional appointments are steadily narrowing.
.JPG)
.JPG)
