Government sources on December 11, 2025, rebutted Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi's assertions of a "systematic pattern" of excluding marginalised communities from appointments to constitutional and autonomous bodies, highlighting data from the Central Information Commission (CIC) that contradicts his claims during a recent high-level selection meeting. Gandhi, a statutory member of the committee chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and including Home Minister Amit Shah, raised concerns over the under-representation of Dalits, Adivasis, OBCs, EBCs, and minorities—collectively 90% of India's population—in the pool for key posts like Chief Information Commissioner, eight Information Commissioners, and a Vigilance Commissioner. He had sought caste composition details weeks prior, alleging less than 7% of applicants and only one shortlisted candidate from these groups, prompting his formal dissent note post the December 10 meeting.

The sources pointed to the CIC's establishment in 2005 under the RTI Act, noting zero appointments from Scheduled Castes (SC) or Scheduled Tribes (ST) communities between then and 2014, during the Congress-led UPA regime. This period saw no diversity in the commission's leadership or membership from these groups, despite the body's mandate to promote transparency. In contrast, the NDA government initiated reforms, appointing Suresh Chandra—a member of the ST community—as Information Commissioner in 2018, marking the first such inclusion. Further milestones include Heeralal Samariya's appointment as Information Commissioner in 2020, followed by his historic elevation to Chief Information Commissioner in 2023—the first from an SC background. These steps, sources argued, reflect a deliberate push toward inclusivity absent in prior administrations.

Regarding the December 10 deliberations, the Centre recommended a diverse slate for the eight Information Commissioner vacancies: one SC, one ST, one OBC, one minority community representative, and one woman, ensuring five of the eight slots prioritise disadvantaged sections. This composition directly counters Gandhi's narrative of exclusion, with officials providing data during the meeting to address his queries. The dissent, submitted afterward, reportedly encompasses both representational imbalances and selection criteria, though specifics remain confidential amid the 2:1 government majority in the panel.

Also Read: Assam Labourers’ Truck Accident in Arunachal Leaves 21 Feared Dead

Gandhi's intervention aligns with his broader parliamentary critiques, including accusations of electoral reforms favouring the ruling BJP, such as removing the Chief Justice from the Election Commission panel and shortening CCTV retention periods. Congress sources framed his stance as a defence of institutional autonomy, echoing Supreme Court directives for transparent processes. However, the government's response underscores ongoing tensions in appointment mechanisms, where opposition input is statutorily required but often overridden.

The CIC, tasked with adjudicating RTI appeals, plays a vital role in accountability, with vacancies historically delaying resolutions—over 3 lakh pending cases as of late 2025. This episode highlights persistent debates on social justice in public appointments, where data-driven rebuttals clash with opposition demands for quotas and disclosures.

As the panel finalises picks, the outcome could influence trust in transparency bodies, potentially escalating to judicial review if Gandhi's dissent gains traction amid a polarised winter session focused on governance reforms.

Also Read: Repeated Bomb Threat at Madurai Hilltop Dargah Declared Fake