Amendments have haunted the Right to Information (RTI) community ever since the RTI Act came into effect almost 14 years ago. This time, demands for progressive amendments has been used as a smokescreen by the establishment to usher in regressive changes.
Nevertheless, the sword of Damocles of regressive amendments has hung over the RTI with successive governments. Amendments have been proposed since 2006, just six months after the law was implemented and many times thereafter. The difference between previous government and this one is that every attempt to ammend an RTI has been done with prior setting up of a standing committee and debates whereas this government just passed the bill without any discussion and setting up a committee.
In the form of the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2019, they amended Sections 13, 16, and 27 of the RTI Act which carefully links, and thereby equates, the status of the Central Information Commissioners (CICs) with the Election Commissioners and the State Information Commissioners with the Chief Secretary in the States, so that they can (supposedly) function in an independent and effective manner. The deliberate dismantling of this architecture empowers the Central government to unilaterally decide the tenure, salary, allowances and other terms of service of Information Commissioners, both at the Centre and the States.
Some might ask why this hurry to make ammendments into the law? I think it is because the RTI helped with the cross-verification of the affidavits of powerful electoral candidates with official documents and certain Information Commissioners having ruled in favour of disclosure. RTI is a constant challenge to the misuse of power.
The RTI has been used to ask about village ration shop, the Reserve Bank of India, the Finance Ministry, on demonetisation, non-performing assets, the Rafale fighter aircraft deal, electoral bonds, unemployment figures, the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC), Election Commissioners, and the (non)-appointment of the Information Commissioners themselves. The information related to decision-making at the highest level has in most cases eventually been accessed because of the independence and high status of the Information Commission. That is what the government is trying to amend.
The task of the Information Commission is therefore different but no less important than that of the Election Commission of India. The Commission which is vested by law with status, independence and authority, will now function like a department of the Central government, and be subject to the same hierarchy and demand for obeisance.
Apart from Section 13 which deals with the terms and conditions for the Central information Commission, in amending Section 16, the Central government will also control through rules, the terms and conditions of appointment of Commissioners in the States. This is an assault on the idea of federalism.
All the provisions related to appointment were carefully examined by a parliamentary standing committee and the law was passed unanimously. It has been acknowledged that one of the most important structural constituents of any independent oversight institution, i.e. the CVC, the Chief Election Commission (CEC), the Lokpal, and the CIC is a basic guarantee of tenure. In the case of the Information Commissioners they are appointed for five years subject to the age limit of 65 years. Now, the central government is free to terminate their tenures if they wish to as CIC will function as just another department of Central government.