Fate Of Four State Information Commissioners (sics) In Haryana Hang In Limbo

Sep3,2026 | Jagrati Lahar Bureau | Chandigarh

Haryana Govt 31 July 2026 issued Order Sparks Legal Questions Over Cancellation of State Information Commissioner Appointment

‘Candidature’ cancelled after 14 months — but Order itself refers to withdrawal of the 23 May 2025 notification appointing all five Information Commissioners

Legal representation flags what Advocate Hemant Kumar calls a “serious drafting and legal infirmity” in the Government order

CHANDIGARH

A fresh legal controversy has surfaced over the Haryana Government’s decision to cancel the appointment of Priyanka Dhopra as State Information Commissioner, with Advocate Hemant Kumar of the Punjab & Haryana High Court questioning the legal validity and drafting of the order issued by the General Administration Department.

In a detailed legal-cum-public representation submitted to the Governor, Chief Minister, Chief Secretary, State Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners and senior officials, Hemant has alleged that the Government order dated 31 July 2026, uploaded on the Chief Secretary’s official website on 25 August, contains a fundamental discrepancy that could have consequences beyond the intended cancellation.

‘Appointment’, not merely candidature

According to the representation, the Government had on 23 May 2025, through Order No. 01/01/2025-1 AR, appointed T.V.S.N. Prasad, IAS (Retd.) as State Chief Information Commissioner and five persons — Amarjit Singh, Karmvir Saini, Neeta Khera, Priyanka Dhopra and Sanjay Madaan — as State Information Commissioners.

However, during the oath-taking ceremony on 26 May 2025, Dhopra was not administered the oath.

The controversy, Hemant points out, arises from the fact that no formal clarification or amendment was issued for more than a year explaining the status of her appointment.

‘Notification’ or ‘Order’?

The latest Government order, dated 31 July 2026, states that the Governor, exercising powers under Section 15(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is pleased to “cancel the candidature” of Priyanka Dhopra and further says that the “said Notification” is withdrawn.

Hemant has strongly objected to this formulation.

His representation contends that the communication dated 23 May 2025 was an Order and not a Notification, and argues that describing it as a notification in the subsequent cancellation order creates a serious legal and administrative inconsistency.

A bigger question: What exactly has been withdrawn?

The most striking point raised by the advocate is the concluding sentence of the latest order:

“The said Notification is therefore withdrawn.”

Hemant argues that if the entire 23 May 2025 instrument is withdrawn, rather than merely modifying it to the extent of Dhopra’s appointment, the wording could potentially affect all the appointments made through the same order.

“Why withdraw the entire order when the stated intention is only to cancel the appointment of one person?” is the central legal question raised in the representation.

The Advocate has therefore urged the Haryana Government to suitably amend or modify the original order dated 23 May 2025, specifically and exclusively to the extent of cancelling Dhopra’s appointment, instead of using language suggesting withdrawal of the entire instrument.

14-month delay adds to the controversy

The issue has also raised questions over the prolonged administrative silence.

Dhopra was named among the appointed State Information Commissioners in May 2025, but was not administered the oath. Yet, according to the representation, no publicly available order modifying or cancelling her appointment was issued for approximately 14 months.

It was only in July 2026 that the Government passed the order cancelling her candidature, which was subsequently uploaded on the Chief Secretary’s website on August 25.

Advocate seeks immediate corrective action

Calling the representation a step aimed at upholding the “majesty of law” and ensuring an informed citizenry, Hemant has appealed to the competent authorities to take prompt cognizance of the alleged legal and drafting infirmities and issue an appropriate corrective order.

The controversy is now likely to draw attention to an important administrative-law question: Can an order appointing several statutory office-holders be described as a notification and withdrawn wholesale when the stated objective is to cancel only one individual’s appointment?

For now, the Haryana Government’s response to these questions remains awaited.

-haryana-stateinformationcommission-rtiact-priyankadhopra-hemantkumar