Haryana Govt order cancelling State Information Commissioner appointment raises legal questions
Babushahi Bureau
Chandigarh, August 26, 2026: The Haryana Government’s decision to cancel the appointment of Priyanka Dhopra as State Information Commissioner has raised questions over the wording and legal implications of the order issued by the General Administration Department.
Advocate Hemant Kumar of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has raised the issue through a detailed legal-cum-public representation submitted to the Governor, Chief Minister, Chief Secretary, State Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners and other senior officials.
The representation questions the legal and administrative formulation of the government order dated July 31, 2026, which was uploaded on the Chief Secretary’s official website on August 25.
Appointment or Candidature?
According to the representation, the Haryana Government had, through an order dated May 23, 2025, appointed T.V.S.N. Prasad, IAS (Retd.) as State Chief Information Commissioner and Amarjit Singh, Karmvir Saini, Neeta Khera, Priyanka Dhopra and Sanjay Madaan as State Information Commissioners.
However, Dhopra was not administered the oath during the oath-taking ceremony held on May 26, 2025.
Advocate Hemant Kumar has pointed out that there was no formal clarification or amendment publicly issued for more than a year regarding the status of Dhopra’s appointment.
The latest government order states that, exercising powers under Section 15(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Governor has approved the cancellation of Dhopra’s “candidature”.
The order also states that the “said Notification” is withdrawn.
Question Over Withdrawal of Entire Order
The advocate has particularly questioned the use of the term “Notification” in the latest order.
According to the representation, the May 23, 2025 communication was an order, rather than a notification. It has therefore been argued that referring to it as a notification in the subsequent order creates a legal and administrative inconsistency.
A more significant issue, according to Hemant Kumar, arises from the concluding statement that “the said Notification is therefore withdrawn.”
He has argued that if the entire May 23, 2025 instrument is withdrawn, the wording could potentially have implications for all the appointments made through that order, rather than only Dhopra’s appointment.
The representation therefore questions why the entire order would be withdrawn when the stated objective is limited to cancelling the appointment of one individual.
14-Month Gap Highlighted
The representation has also drawn attention to the approximately 14-month gap between the original appointment order and the subsequent cancellation.
Dhopra was named as a State Information Commissioner in the May 2025 order but did not take the oath. According to the representation, no publicly available order modifying or cancelling her appointment was issued during the intervening period.
The government subsequently issued the July 31, 2026 order cancelling her candidature, which was uploaded on the Chief Secretary’s website on August 25.
Advocate Seeks Corrective Order
Hemant Kumar has urged the competent authorities to examine the issue and take corrective action if necessary.
He has specifically sought an amendment or modification of the May 23, 2025 order only to the extent of cancelling Dhopra’s appointment, rather than using language that could be interpreted as withdrawing the entire instrument.
The representation raises broader questions about the legal effect of the government’s wording and whether an order covering multiple statutory appointments can be withdrawn in its entirety when the stated intention is to affect only one appointment.
The Haryana Government’s response to the issues raised in the representation is awaited.