Top News

Chandigarh, September 2, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)

The Haryana Government's decision to cancel the appointment of Priyanka Dhopra as State Information Commissioner has raised legal and administrative questions, with Punjab & Haryana High Court advocate Hemant Kumar flagging what he describes as a “serious drafting and legal infirmity” in 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, Kumar has questioned the wording and legal effect of the government order dated July 31, 2026. The order was uploaded on the Chief Secretary's official website on August 25.

According to the representation, the Haryana Government had, through Order No. 01/01/2025-1 AR dated May 23, 2025, appointed TVSN 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 swearing-in ceremony held on May 26, 2025. Kumar has pointed out that no formal clarification or amendment regarding the status of her appointment was issued for more than a year.

The latest order, dated July 31, 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 Dhopra. It subsequently states that the “said Notification” is withdrawn.

Kumar has objected to this terminology, arguing that the May 23, 2025 communication was an Order and not a Notification. He has contended that referring to the original instrument as a notification creates a legal and administrative inconsistency.

A larger issue arises from the concluding statement that the “said Notification is therefore withdrawn”. Kumar has questioned whether this wording could be interpreted as withdrawing the entire May 23 order through which all the Information Commissioners were appointed, rather than canceling only Dhopra's appointment.

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

The advocate has urged the Haryana Government to suitably amend or modify the May 23, 2025 order specifically and exclusively to the extent of canceling Dhopra's appointment, instead of using language that could suggest withdrawal of the entire instrument.

The representation has also highlighted the approximately 14-month gap between Dhopra's appointment and the government's July 2026 order. While she was included among the appointed Information Commissioners in May 2025, she did not take oath, and the representation states that no publicly available order modifying or canceling her appointment was issued during the intervening period.

Kumar has appealed to the competent authorities to take prompt cognizance of what he describes as the legal and drafting inefficiencies and issue an appropriate corrective order.

The matter has consequently raised a broader administrative-law question over whether an order appointing multiple statutory office-holders can be withdrawn in its entirety when the stated objective is to cancel the appointment of only one individual.

The Haryana Government's response to the issues raised in the representation was awaited.