RTI: A bill that may kill a right
The retrograde amendment would amount to creating an RTI ministry under the government.
Fifteen years is a good time for appraisal of an institution. The Right to Information (RTI) Act, called the sunshine legislation and promulgated in 2005, certainly deserves an in-depth study and assessment for accelerating the flow of information to the public. This calls for upgrading skills, infrastructure, processes and alacrity of response from public authorities. A decadal review of the RTI regime undertaken in 2014 by the various stakeholders, resulted in very useful findings.
Presently, over 25,000 cases are filed with the Commission annually — a quantum jump from roughly 15,000, 10 years back. With digitisation, the entire process of filing applications, serving of notices, and uploading of decisions has become easier, and the system has ramped up capacities and efficiency. Increasing applications indicate the faith of the people as well as better response by public authorities.
It is in this context that the government’s plan to amend the RTI Act, to alter the salary and tenure of Information Commissioners, is intriguing. The Lok Sabha, on Monday, passed “The RTI Act (Amendment) Bill, 2018”. This was moved in the last session too, but withdrawn in the face of fierce opposition.
The penultimate bill on RTI in 2005 also had a provision of appointing deputy commissioners, who would function as per ‘the direction of the Central Government’. The Parliamentary Standing Committee recommended its deletion because it would make every Information Commissioner a clerk in the administration. Finally, when the bill was passed, this subclause was replaced with: “...may exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things which may be exercised or done by the Central Information Commission (CIC) autonomously without being subjected to directions by any other authority under this Act.” The Committee felt “it will be desirable to confer on the Information Commissioner and Deputy Information Commissioners, status of the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioner, respectively...”
The RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2019, is set to dilute the Act by downgrading Information Commissioners’ status, salary and autonomy. It will also impact the sovereignty of states since it curtails their powers to decide on the degree of independence for Information Commissioners in their own jurisdiction. If the bill is passed, there would be an anomalous situation where states would have the power to appoint commissioners, but the Centre will decide their tenure, salary and status.
Many states may object to such a move. Besides, how can both salary and tenure be specified from time to time? Does it mean different salary and tenures for different commissioners?
The government argues RTI is not a constitutional right, and CIC and State Information Commission are not constitutional bodies. But, the Supreme Court in catena of landmark cases, has held that RTI, like the right to vote, has emanated from right of expression under Article 19(1)(a). Both CEC and CIC enforce these two aspects of that fundamental right. The 2005 RTI Act says information is a ‘constitutional right’, while the 2019 bill contradicts it. If the Election Commission that enforces a right under Article 324 (1), is a constitutional institution, how can the Information Commission that enforces a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a), not be a constitutional body? The mandate of both is similar — to fulfil constitutional rights obligations. If RTI was introduced earlier in India, like some other countries, then, like the CEC, it would have found mention in the Constitution itself.
Both CIC and CEC are, therefore, equal and, like the judiciary, should be separate from the legislative and executive, according to the well established theory of separation of powers propounded by Montesquieu, and incorporated in Indian Constitution.
The preamble of the RTI Act of 2005 lays out its broad objectives — transparency and accountability. The Information Commissioners adjudicate appeals in a manner that these objectives are fulfilled, without any fear and favour. The commissioners, hence, need to be kept insulated from political vagaries and adorned with appropriate status. It may be mentioned here that detailed deliberations were held with all stakeholders including the judiciary, legislature and the executive before giving the present status to the commissioners, in the RTI Act 2004.
The RTI Act is a sunshine legislation. Astute handling of RTI queries directly impact governance, especially the public delivery system and expose corruption. More and more poor people seek recourse to justice through RTI. A ₹10 application gives them hope, and to the receiver, a public duty to discharge. The need of the hour is to strengthen the RTI regime by posting bold, upright and competent Commissioners who uphold the dignity and power of the institution. Reducing their status, salary and tenure would be a retrograde step amounting to creation of an RTI ministry under the government.
The bill, therefore, may kill the RTI Act itself. In the same vein as PM’s appeal to the public for sending suggestions for his August 15 address from the Red Fort, the proposed amendment of RTI should be thrown open to the public for wide-ranging discussions and suggestions before taking a decision.
Yashovardhan Azad and M Sridhar Acharyulu are former Central Information Commissioners (2013-2018)
The views expressed are personal more
Fifteen years is a good time for appraisal of an institution. The Right to Information (RTI) Act, called the sunshine legislation and promulgated in 2005, certainly deserves an in-depth study and assessment for accelerating the flow of information to the public. This calls for upgrading skills, infrastructure, processes and alacrity of response from public authorities. A decadal review of the RTI regime undertaken in 2014 by the various stakeholders, resulted in very useful findings.
Presently, over 25,000 cases are filed with the Commission annually — a quantum jump from roughly 15,000, 10 years back. With digitisation, the entire process of filing applications, serving of notices, and uploading of decisions has become easier, and the system has ramped up capacities and efficiency. Increasing applications indicate the faith of the people as well as better response by public authorities.
It is in this context that the government’s plan to amend the RTI Act, to alter the salary and tenure of Information Commissioners, is intriguing. The Lok Sabha, on Monday, passed “The RTI Act (Amendment) Bill, 2018”. This was moved in the last session too, but withdrawn in the face of fierce opposition.
The penultimate bill on RTI in 2005 also had a provision of appointing deputy commissioners, who would function as per ‘the direction of the Central Government’. The Parliamentary Standing Committee recommended its deletion because it would make every Information Commissioner a clerk in the administration. Finally, when the bill was passed, this subclause was replaced with: “...may exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things which may be exercised or done by the Central Information Commission (CIC) autonomously without being subjected to directions by any other authority under this Act.” The Committee felt “it will be desirable to confer on the Information Commissioner and Deputy Information Commissioners, status of the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioner, respectively...”
The RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2019, is set to dilute the Act by downgrading Information Commissioners’ status, salary and autonomy. It will also impact the sovereignty of states since it curtails their powers to decide on the degree of independence for Information Commissioners in their own jurisdiction. If the bill is passed, there would be an anomalous situation where states would have the power to appoint commissioners, but the Centre will decide their tenure, salary and status.
Many states may object to such a move. Besides, how can both salary and tenure be specified from time to time? Does it mean different salary and tenures for different commissioners?
The government argues RTI is not a constitutional right, and CIC and State Information Commission are not constitutional bodies. But, the Supreme Court in catena of landmark cases, has held that RTI, like the right to vote, has emanated from right of expression under Article 19(1)(a). Both CEC and CIC enforce these two aspects of that fundamental right. The 2005 RTI Act says information is a ‘constitutional right’, while the 2019 bill contradicts it. If the Election Commission that enforces a right under Article 324 (1), is a constitutional institution, how can the Information Commission that enforces a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a), not be a constitutional body? The mandate of both is similar — to fulfil constitutional rights obligations. If RTI was introduced earlier in India, like some other countries, then, like the CEC, it would have found mention in the Constitution itself.
Both CIC and CEC are, therefore, equal and, like the judiciary, should be separate from the legislative and executive, according to the well established theory of separation of powers propounded by Montesquieu, and incorporated in Indian Constitution.
The preamble of the RTI Act of 2005 lays out its broad objectives — transparency and accountability. The Information Commissioners adjudicate appeals in a manner that these objectives are fulfilled, without any fear and favour. The commissioners, hence, need to be kept insulated from political vagaries and adorned with appropriate status. It may be mentioned here that detailed deliberations were held with all stakeholders including the judiciary, legislature and the executive before giving the present status to the commissioners, in the RTI Act 2004.
The RTI Act is a sunshine legislation. Astute handling of RTI queries directly impact governance, especially the public delivery system and expose corruption. More and more poor people seek recourse to justice through RTI. A ₹10 application gives them hope, and to the receiver, a public duty to discharge. The need of the hour is to strengthen the RTI regime by posting bold, upright and competent Commissioners who uphold the dignity and power of the institution. Reducing their status, salary and tenure would be a retrograde step amounting to creation of an RTI ministry under the government.
The bill, therefore, may kill the RTI Act itself. In the same vein as PM’s appeal to the public for sending suggestions for his August 15 address from the Red Fort, the proposed amendment of RTI should be thrown open to the public for wide-ranging discussions and suggestions before taking a decision.
Yashovardhan Azad and M Sridhar Acharyulu are former Central Information Commissioners (2013-2018)
The views expressed are personal more
Viewed by 1762
View all 10 comments Below 10 comments
dailypioneer.com/2025/sunday-edition/how-the-govt-dismantled-rti-act.html "How the Govt. dismantled RTI Act" Sunday, 12 October 2025 | Renuka Chowdhury - Former Union Cabinet Minister & Rajya Sabha MP "The 20th anniversary of the Right to Information (RTI) Act should have been an occasion to reaffirm India's commitment to transparency and democratic accountability. Tragically, under the current government, the RTI Act, a once vibrant weapon for citizens, lies battered, diminished, and perilously close to obsolescence. The RTI Act, passed by the UPA government in 2005, marked a watershed moment in India's democratic evolution. The genesis and passage of this Act bear the definitive imprint of Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Under the UPA government led by Manmohan Singh, with vital backing from Sonia Gandhi's National Advisory Council, the RTI Act was swiftly introduced and enacted, fulfilling a long-standing promise in the Congress manifesto and transforming India's democratic architecture. For the first time, every citizen was equipped with a legal weapon to penetrate the wall of opacity surrounding the state. In its formative years, the RTI Act embodied the promise of democracy restored; information commissions at the Centre and states functioned as vigilant custodians of transparency. Citizens, activists, and journalists wielded the Act as a sword against corruption, forcing reluctant officials to cough up records, be it recruitment dossiers, land grab affidavits, or spending on welfare schemes. However, this hard-won legacy of transparency has been bludgeoned and dismembered under the present government that exhibits unvarnished hostility toward accountability. Since 2014, the government's systematic onslaught against the RTI Act has been executed through far-reaching amendments and brazen politicisation of oversight bodies. Amendments rammed through Parliament in 2019 struck directly at the law's foundations. The statutory independence of Information Commissioners, once sacrosanct, has been desecrated; their tenure and salaries now at the mercy of government whim, turning watchdogs into supplicant lapdogs. The government's most audacious assault emerged through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, which stealthily ravages the core of the RTI Act. Earlier, the Act empowered citizens to access information about public officials, credentials, disciplinary actions, assets, and conduct, if public interest so warranted. Now, by amending Section 8(1)(j), the public interest override has been obliterated and 'personal information' is so broadly defined that the state can simply refuse any inconvenient query. This one stroke shields corrupt officials from disclosure, eviscerates the scope of investigative journalism, and blocks the pursuit of public interest litigation aimed at exposing government malfeasance. A glaring instance is the recent stonewalling of access to Prime Minister Modi's academic degree, an act of brazen opacity using this very amended section. What is truly diabolical is that the government deployed this fig leaf of privacy, even though the amendment itself had not yet been officially notified. Such deceitful manoeuvring lays bare the government's utter disdain for openness, proof of a governance philosophy rooted in duplicity and cover-up. The government's contempt for accountability is perhaps most vividly manifested in its administrative sabotage. The Central Information Commission, which should have been a bastion of public interest, is intentionally left crippled, starved of eight members since last July, an act of administrative vandalism that has reduced it to a bureaucratic tomb, unable to deliver justice to the thousands of languishing petitioners. In place of impartial arbiters, the Information Commissions now resemble echo chambers for the Prime Minister's agenda, rubber-stamping government opacity and routinely rejecting RTI requests. These vacancies are not isolated lapses; they are part of a broader pattern of indifference and malice whereby the swift filling of these posts is deliberately forestalled, ensuring the RTI mechanism is reduced to a bureaucratic graveyard. Since May 2014, no new commissioners have been appointed unless forced by court orders, causing an uncontrollable backlog and delays that translate to information denied. This stalling is not administrative oversight but cynical exhaustion of public will. Further, the present government has institutionalised a culture of "no information," routinely denying data on critical issues related to governance and public welfare. For instance, official refusals to disclose hospital oxygen shortage deaths during the pandemic, migrant worker fatalities, or unemployment statistics illustrate a shameful erasure of evidence and accountability. The government has also discontinued vital surveys, withheld consumer expenditure data, and refused to maintain or share basic administrative records A recent and striking example involved the Election Commission of India (ECI). Under RTI queries asking for documents related to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in 2025, the ECI shockingly admitted there were no files regarding the "independent appraisal" that supposedly justified the nationwide roll revision. It merely pointed to generic guidelines on its website, disclaiming any further information. When asked about the 2003 roll revision orders for Bihar, the commission again refused to provide archival documents and instead circulated recent guidelines, a blatant erasure of institutional memory." more
Oct 12
I believe RTI Act was one of the best act introduced by the UPA Govt. where as amendment in the act by the NDA Govt. is its worst attempt. RTI Act had given power to the people to know the facts about the case/decision etc. It made bureaureaucrats to some extent accountable to their acts of commission and omission. more
Jul 25
It was an effective tool to have right information from Govt. on various issues. No doubt, sometimes one has to do a lot of excercise to furnish the requisite information as I experienced, during my service. Failed to understnad why it is restricted instead of expanding the opportunity. Present Govt. is talking on transparency. It could easily remove doubt among people. Of course, one hugely mandated Govt. would like to administer what Govt. wishes, as opposition stands on a weak pole. more
Jul 24
It is beyond comprehension, as to how come, reducing salary and fixing tenure can alter the impartiality of an Information Commissioner. This tantamount to saying that any organisation within government ambit is prone to become corrupt and rotten. Sir, in India none of us actually knew about the powers of Election Commission and Chief Election Commission till the onset of Sh. T.N. Sheshan. In pre-Sheshan era EC was considered to toe the line of the ruling party. But subsequent Election Commissioners have made a mark in protecting the democracy in India. The logic that the amendment bill to RTI Act will lead to killing of RTI Act sound quite weird actually. An upright, responsible and knowledgeable Information Commissioner has all the powers to ensure the relevance of RTI Act. None of it is being taken by anybody. In any case the ruling of IC/CIC can be challenged in High Court, so there was no reason to see that the status of an IC is held equivalent to a Supreme Court Judge. Government of the day is just correcting this mistake. more
Jul 24
Wow! What a joke! Why don't you suggest to the Government to give the rank of Section Officers to the Information Comissioner! more
Jul 27
Absolutely on the dot. What a weird situation that a person whose role is essentially to facilitate information flow should enjoy salary and status equivalent to a SC judge. Govt. is correcting this anomaly. The entire post is a crib about salaries being reduced. Shameful. In the name of public service, IC want to enjoy fat salaries, remain above scrutiny and a law on to themselves. more
Jul 24
