Right To Information (Amendment) Act, 2019.

 In a welfare state the government and its officials are vested with great powers. This power is important as it is necessary for administering the smooth functioning of a State. But at the same time it is also true that “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Thus, in every welfare state, the accountability and transparency of the government and its functioning is of utmost importance. The doctrine of checks and balances ensures inter- branch accountability of different branches of the government but still it, sometimes, fails to instill confidence amongst the citizen. And thus, in such a scenario it becomes highly important to equip the common citizen with a tool to ascertain the transparency and accountability of the government.

The citizens of India were gifted a powerful tool as the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is very rightly said in the context of RTI Act that “To improve governance, the common people can use the power of ballot once in five years but they can use the power of information through RTI Act on a daily basis”. This Act on one hand instituted a sense of courage and power amongst the common man to question the government and on the other hand, made the government officials liable to answer to the people from whom they actually draw their powers and for whom they are functioning. It also instilled a sense of fear and accountability amongst the bureaucrats and other government officials.

The Act came into force in the year 2005 and has been amended in the year 2019. I will be highlighting the amended provisions of the Act and the implications of the same. Following are the highlights under the Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019:

1. Among other amendments, prominently the two sections, 13 and 16 of the Act, have been amended which has a far-reaching impact.
2. Section 13: In the original Act, sets the term of the office of the Central Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners at five years or until the age of 65 whichever is earlier. Whereas, the amendment proposes that the appointment will be for such term as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Again, Section 13 stated that 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 Information commissioners shall be the same as that of an Election Commissioner. The amendment proposes that the salaries, allowances and other terms of service of the Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
3. Section 16 of the original Act dealt with term of office, allowances, salaries etc. of the Chief Information Commissioners and Information commissioners at the state level. The original Act sets the term of the office for Chief Information Commissioners and Information commissioners, at the state level, at 5 years or 65 years of age, whichever is earlier. The amendment proposes that these appointments shall be for “such term as may be prescribed by the Central Government”. And while the original Act prescribes the salaries, allowances and other terms of service of the state Chief Information Commissioner as the same as that of an Election Commissioner. And the salaries and other terms of office of the state Information Commissioner as the same as that of the Chief Secretary to the State Government. The amendment proposes that these shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
4. The amendment bill also removes the provision that when appointed, if Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners are receiving pension or any other retirement benefits for previous government service, their salaries will be reduced by an amount equal to the pension.

However, the amendment raises certain concern over the transparency and independence of the RTI Act:

1. This amendment seeks to alter the current tenure of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners. It does not specify the tenure and leaves the final call to be taken by the Central Government on a case-to-case basis. This provision puts total control of the Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners in the hands of Central Government. This will surely impact the transparency of the process.
2. It could severely cripple the neutrality of Information Commission because the govt will decide everything- from the tenure of the Information Commissioners to their salaries. It may be an effort to make Information Commissioners more loyal to the government. If they so wish they can decide to withhold information that can embarrass the government. It appears as an effort to bring the Chief Information Commission under the absolute control of the Central Government. The Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners deal with huge vested interests especially in the senior bureaucracy. And thus, it is important for them to be independent.

The Central Government backed and moved for these amendments and specified the reasons that the amendment was to strengthen the RTI Act and that it will help in streamlining the Act. Following are the contentions by the government in support of the amended provisions:

1. 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 Court which in itself is contradictory to the basic principles.
2. Central Information Commission is a statutory body and Election Commission is a Constitutional body. Therefore, the mandate of Election Commission of India and Central and State Information Commissions are different and needed to be determined accordingly. The government claims the equivalence drawn between the Election Commission of India and the Chief Information Commission is flawed and that through these amendments it is trying to streamline and strengthen the act. While also bringing in greater transparency. The Election Commission is a constitutional body established under clause (1) of Article 324 of the constitution. And it is responsible for the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for and the conduct of all elections to parliament and to the legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of the President and Vice President, held under the constitution. On the other hand the Chief Information Commission and the State Information Commission are statutory bodies established under the

provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

Therefore the mandate of Election Commission of India and the Central and State Information Commission are different. Hence their status and service conditions need to be rationalised accordingly.

The RTI Act was enacted to serve a great purpose and it rightly has served its purpose since its inception. The recent amendment shall not, in anyway lower the credibility or importance that the Act holds in the minds of the citizen. A transparent and answerable government only can establish and strengthen a welfare state.