On February 10, 2026, the Supreme Court considered giving State Human Rights Commissions extra powers to act as Chief Information Commissioners in states with low Right to Information (RTI) appeal traffic. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, leading a three-judge Bench, asked, “Suppose it is just 100 appeals pending in a State Information Commission... Any institution you create is a burden on the public exchequer.” He proposed that in such states, the Human Rights Commissions could temporarily take over RTI duties to save taxpayers’ money. The Chief Justice noted SHRCs are usually led by former judges or retired High Court Chief Justices, making them suitable for this role. This ad-hoc solution would last until RTI appeals grow enough to justify a separate Information Commission. Petitioners Anjali Bhardwaj, Commodore Lokesh Batra (retired), and Amrita Johri argued for timely and transparent appointments to these commissions. Advocate Prashant Bhushan highlighted that Information Commissions hold governments accountable and ensure transparency, but many have become non-functional due to vacancies and lack of appointments. He said appeals have dropped because people lose faith when commissions do not operate. Data showed states like Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh have no active Information Commissioners or appeals. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court ordered the Union government to submit a status report on recent appointments to the Central Information Commission. Bhushan also raised concerns that key documents, such as selection committee meeting minutes and opposition notes, were not publicly available.