The Right to Information Act, 2005, was designed to facilitate the public’s right to seek information from government bodies, with certain limitations. It empowered citizens to request information from public authorities, promoting transparency and accountability. The Information Commissions, both at the national and state levels, were set up to adjudicate appeals and complaints under the RTI Act.[6]

The 2019 amendments introduced key changes, specifically related to the tenure, salary, and allowances of Information Commissioners. Prior to the amendment, the tenure of Information Commissioners was set at five years, with their salaries and allowances pegged at the same level as that of an Election Commissioner (for the Central Information Commission) or a State Election Commissioner (for State Information Commissions). The 2019 amendment altered this provision, giving the central government the authority to determine the tenure, salary, and allowances of Information Commissioners.

These amendments have been justified by the government as necessary to “bring uniformity” and to align the functioning of the Information Commissions with those of other constitutional bodies. However, critics argue that the amendments grant excessive discretionary power to the executive, potentially undermining the independence of the Information Commissions.

The independence of the Information Commissions is vital to the effective implementation of the RTI Act. By centralizing the authority to determine the tenure, salary, and allowances of Information Commissioners, the government has reduced the autonomy of these bodies. Information Commissioners, who were previously insulated from executive influence by having their terms and benefits defined in the Act, are now vulnerable to executive control. This has raised concerns that the government could use its power to appoint commissioners who are more sympathetic to its interests, thus undermining the impartiality of the RTI process.[7]

2.      The Impact on Transparency and Accountability:

The key feature of the RTI Act is that it fosters transparency in government operations by enabling citizens to access information about public policies, spending, and decision-making. The amendments, by reducing the independence of Information Commissions, threaten the effectiveness of this transparency mechanism. When the Information Commissions are influenced by the executive, there is a risk that their decisions may be biased, thus allowing the government to withhold or manipulate information. This, in turn, would diminish the accountability of public authorities.

3.      Centralization of Power and the Erosion of Democratic Norms:

One of the pillars of Indian democracy is the decentralization of power, ensuring that no single entity or branch of government has unchecked authority. The amendments to the RTI Act contribute to the centralization of power by giving the central government control over the functioning of both the Central and State Information Commissions. This diminishes the ability of state-level bodies to operate independently and effectively. Such centralization can undermine the spirit of federalism and democratic pluralism, leaving citizens with fewer avenues for recourse and reducing the diversity of viewpoints within government.

The RTI Act was designed not only to ensure transparency but also to encourage public participation in governance. By weakening the Information Commissions, the 2019 amendments could result in a less accessible RTI system, particularly for marginalized or rural citizens who rely heavily on Information Commissions to ensure their rights are upheld. If the RTI process becomes more bureaucratic and less responsive to the needs of the public, it could diminish the role of ordinary citizens in holding the government to account.[8]

1.      Political Motivations Behind the Amendments

Critics argue that the amendments to the RTI Act reflect a broader trend of political interference in the country’s democratic institutions. By empowering the central government to determine the terms of Information Commissioners, the amendments give the executive branch an increased ability to control the flow of information and protect its own interests. This has led to accusations that the amendments are designed to limit scrutiny of the government’s actions and reduce the transparency that the RTI Act was supposed to guarantee.

2.      Weakening the Integrity of the RTI System

The changes to the RTI Act’s governance structures could lead to a weakening of the RTI system overall. Information Commissions are meant to act as impartial arbiters in disputes between citizens and public authorities. However, by making Information Commissioners more vulnerable to political influence, the amendments undermine the very principle of fairness that the RTI Act is supposed to enshrine. This could discourage citizens from using the RTI system or result in a system where the outcomes are determined by political considerations rather than the merits of the case.

---