1. Home
2. Legal News
3. Government’s direct hit on free flow of Unbiased Information: The Controversial RTI Amendment Bill, 2019

Government’s direct hit on free flow of Unbiased Information: The Controversial RTI Amendment Bill, 2019

Dated: June 06, 2020

                                                                                                                                                          - By Megha Bhatia

On July 19, 2019 the Government introduced in Lok Sabha the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2019 that amends the Right to Information Act, 2005 which proposes to give the Centre the powers to set the salaries and service conditions of Information Commissioners at central as well as state levels. The government’s move triggered protests from the Opposition.

What is the role of RTI Act?

Under the RTI Act , 2005, public bodies are expected to make reports on specific aspects of their organization and functions. This includes: (i) disclosure on their organisation, functions, and structure, (ii) powers and duties of its officers and employees, and (iii) financial information. 

The aim of such suo moto disclosures is that the public should have a minimum recourse through the Act to obtain such information. When this material is not rendered public, residents have the ability to request it from the authorities. This may include information in the form of documents, files or electronic records under the control of the Public Authority. The goal of the implementation of the Act is to encourage openness and accountability in the operation of public authorities.

Who is included in the ambit of ‘Public Authorities’? 

‘Public Authorities’ include self-government entities constituted under the Constitution or by some statute or policy notification. These include, for example, ministries, public sector undertakings and regulators. It also includes any entities owned, controlled or substantially financed and non-governmental organizations that are financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the Government.

What has changed after the RTI Bill is proposed?

Section 13 and 16 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 was modified by the Bill. 

Section 13 of the original Act limits the tenure of the Central Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners at five years (or up to the age of 65, whichever is earlier).

The amendment proposes that the appointment be “for such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government.” Again, Section 13 states that the salaries, allowances and other terms of service of “the Chief Information Commissioner shall be the same as that of the Chief Election Commissioner”, and those of the Information Commissioner “shall be the same as that of an Election Commissioner”. 

Section 16 of the original Act deals with state-level Chief Information Commissioners and Information Commissioners. It sets the term for state-level CICs and ICs at five years (or 65 years of age, whichever is earlier). The amendment proposes that these appointments should be for “such term as may be prescribed by the Central Government”.

And although the original Act describes the salary, pensions and other terms of service of the Chief Information Commissioner as “the same as that of the Election Commissioner” and the wages and other terms of service of the State Information Commissioner as “the same as that of the Chief Secretary to the Government of the State,” the amendment suggests that these “shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government”.

What is the protest all about?

The original Act quantified tenures and specified wages on the basis of current benchmarks. The changes are seen as suggesting that the conditions of office, compensation and tenures of the Chief Information Officer and the Information Commissioner will be determined on a case-to-case basis by the Government. Opposition’s Congress Leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury said in the Lok Sabha that the Bill is a “threat to the independence” of the Central Information Commissioner, while Shashi Tharoor called it an “RTI elimination Bill” that eliminates the organisation’s independence. Members of the Trinamool Congress, DMK and AIMIM, also, protested. In 2018 too, the government attempted to enact changes, but had to postpone the bill because of objections from the opposition.

What are the government’s stated grounds for bringing the amendments?

The government argued that it did not tinker with the autonomy or independence of the Central Information Commission. The statement of objects says “the mandate of Election Commission of India and Central and State Information Commissions are different. Hence, their status and service conditions need to be rationalised accordingly”. While introducing the amendment bill, Jitendra Singh, Minister of State at the PMO, said, “Probably, the then government of the day, in a hurry to pass the RTI Act, 2005, overlooked a lot of things. The Central Information Commissioner has been given the status of a Supreme Court judge but his judgments can be challenged in the High Courts. How can that exist? Besides, the RTI Act did not give the government rule-making powers. We are merely correcting these through the amendment.”

According to government, the Election Commission of India is a constitutional body established under Article 324 of the Constitution of India while on the other hand Central and State Information Commissioners are the statutory bodies established under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Thus, their status needs to be rationalized accordingly. These amendments are brought to strengthen the overall RTI structure.

Negative aspects of the bill

1. It would give the Centre greater powers, as the government will decide on everything. Thus, the neutrality of the information commissioners would be crippled and the Information Commissioners would be “more loyal” to the government. They will act as government employees and, if they so wish, they can decide to withhold information that can support the government.
2. The proposed bill was introduced and passed without public consultation, which hinders citizens' right to information, since public consultation is necessary to ensure the success of the legislation and the drafting of the legislation cannot be left to the elected representatives alone.
3. The proposed amendment reduces the status of the CIC, SCIC and IC to that of the Supreme Court Judge and thus reduces their authority to issue directives to senior government officials.
4. It appears to be an effort to bring the Central Information Commission under the absolute control of the central government. The CICs and the ICs are dealing with huge vested interests , particularly in senior bureaucracies. It is important for them to be independent of each other.
5. The original act had defined terms of tenure, salaries, appointments, etc. But as per the amendment the tenure, salaries and appointments will be decided on a case-to- case basis by the Government itself.
6. This amendment will negatively impact the freedom of the CIC, SCIC and ICs, as the Centre would now be able to agree on the service, conditions and salaries of such officials. This is therefore a threat to independence.
7. This amendment will remove transparency as it empowers the central government to unilaterally decide which will fundamentally undermine the whole basic idea and structure of the RTI.

Conclusion

The key goal of the RTI Act 2005, which was to encourage openness, accountability in the operation of a public body and the right of people to have access to knowledge, is to be undermined by this amendment bill, 2019. This is an attempt to remove the free flow of unbiased information and to place the information filtered by the public authorities before the general public in order to please the government. The Government has weakened the sunshine law without providing any credible rationale for bringing an amendment, as this will certainly hinder the independent functioning of the Information Commissioners. They are no longer dedicated to democracy, accountability, status and authority, but will instead act as one of the departments essentially accountable to the Central Government.