logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 JKHC 132 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
Case No : WP.(C). PIL. No. 4 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI
Parties : Junaid Javid Versus Union of India & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Naveed Bukhtiyar, Advocate. For the Respondents: T.M. Shamsi, DSGI, Rehana Qayoom, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 01-07-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Right to Information Act, 2005

2. Catch Words:
- mandamus
- pendency
- appeals
- second appeals
- complaints
- infrastructure
- public interest litigation

3. Summary:
The petition, filed in public interest by Junaid Javid, sought a writ of mandamus directing the Central Information Commission (CIC) to dispose of all pending second appeals, especially those from Jammu & Kashmir, within 45 days and to establish a time‑bound mechanism for future appeals. The CIC responded, citing infrastructural constraints and the volume of appeals as impediments to meeting such a timeline. The Court examined the submissions and noted that the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not prescribe any specific timeline for deciding second appeals or complaints. Consequently, the Court held it could not impose a 45‑day deadline through mandamus, though it cautioned against indefinite delays. The Court directed the CIC to consider improving its processes and to evaluate the petitioner’s suggestions, subject to practical limitations. The petition was thereafter disposed of.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

CM (1955/2026):

01. This is an application seeking permission to place on record certain suggestions for addressing the pendency of appeals arising from the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir before the Central Information Commission.

02. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The suggestions forming part of the application are taken on record.

03. CM stands disposed of.

WP(C)PIL 4/2025

01. This is a petition filed in public interest by one Junaid Javid, a resident of Uri, Baramulla. A direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus is sought to the Central Information Commission (CIC) to decide all pending appeals, particularly those filed by the residents of Jammu and Kashmir, within 45 days. The petitioner also prays for putting in place a mechanism whereby the second appeals filed before the CIC are disposed of in a time-bound manner. Additionally, the petitioner has also placed on record certain suggestions for improving the working of the CIC.

02. The CIC has filed its response and has indicated its difficulty in adhering to a particular timeline for deciding the appeals, keeping in view the infrastructure available and the number of second appeals and complaints received by the CIC.

03. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that, in view of the reply submitted by the CIC, nothing more can be said by this Court. The Right to Information Act, 2005 does not lay down any timeline for deciding the second appeals and complaints under the Act and, therefore, we cannot, by issuing a mandamus, fix a timeline of 45 days for disposal of the second appeals and complaints by the CIC, as prayed for by the petitioner. However, it cannot be said that the CIC can sit over the appeals for an unduly long period and keep them undecided for years together. The CIC needs to improve its working and put a mechanism in place so as to overcome the pendency of appeals and to tackle the inflow of fresh appeals and complaints.

04. This petition is accordingly disposed of by directing the CIC to look into the matter and take appropriate measures to improve its working, subject, of course, to the infrastructural constraints and the inflow of second appeals and complaints. The CIC may also do well to consider the suggestions made by the petitioner and make use of them for improving its working, provided they found genuine and realistic.

05. Disposed of.
 
  CDJLawJournal