Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is a landmark legislation promoting transparency and accountability in governance. However, recent amendments, enacted through the Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019, have sparked debate regarding their potential impact on the independence and autonomy of the Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs). These amendments altered provisions relating to the tenure, salary, removal, and status of Information Commissioners, raising concerns about the Commissions’ ability to function impartially and effectively as independent oversight bodies. This discussion will analyze the implications of these changes on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commissions.
Amendments to the RTI Act, 2019
The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019, brought about the following key changes:
- Tenure: The central government now has the power to prescribe the tenure of Information Commissioners. Previously, it was fixed at five years or until the age of 65, whichever was earlier.
- Salary & Allowances: The central government is now empowered to determine the salaries, allowances, and other conditions of service of Information Commissioners.
- Removal: The amendment clarifies that the central government has the power to remove Information Commissioners from office.
- Status: The Act did not explicitly define the status of Information Commissioners.
Impact on Autonomy and Independence
Reduced Tenure Security
Prior to the amendment, the fixed tenure provided a degree of security, allowing Commissioners to operate without fear of arbitrary removal. The government’s power to prescribe tenure introduces uncertainty and potentially compromises independence. Commissioners might be hesitant to issue rulings unfavorable to the government if their tenure is at its discretion. This can lead to a chilling effect on the exercise of their powers.
Control over Salaries and Service Conditions
The government’s control over salaries and service conditions creates a potential for financial leverage. Commissioners could be vulnerable to pressure if their remuneration or post-retirement benefits are tied to government favor. This undermines their ability to act impartially and objectively. A 2018 report by the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (SARC) had recommended greater financial autonomy for the Commissions.
Increased Scope for Removal
While the government always had the power to remove Commissioners, the amendment clarifies this power. This clarification, coupled with the discretionary tenure, increases the risk of politically motivated removals. Commissioners who diligently enforce the RTI Act and hold the government accountable could face repercussions, further eroding the Commission’s independence.
Impact on Functioning of the Commissions
- Reduced Accountability: The amendments weaken the institutional safeguards designed to ensure the Commissions’ independence, potentially leading to reduced accountability of public authorities.
- Decreased Public Trust: Concerns about the Commissions’ independence can erode public trust in the RTI mechanism, diminishing its effectiveness as a tool for transparency and good governance.
- Potential for Bias: The amendments create a situation where Commissioners may be more inclined to align their decisions with the government’s interests, compromising the impartiality of the process.
Counterarguments & Potential Benefits
Proponents of the amendments argue that they aim to streamline the functioning of the Commissions and address issues of inefficiency. They suggest that greater government control can lead to better coordination and faster disposal of cases. However, critics contend that these potential benefits are outweighed by the risks to the Commissions’ independence and the fundamental principles of transparency and accountability.
Comparative Analysis – Pre and Post Amendment
| Feature | Pre-Amendment (RTI Act, 2005) | Post-Amendment (RTI Act, 2019) |
|---|---|---|
| Tenure | Fixed: 5 years or 65 years, whichever is earlier | Prescribed by Central Government |
| Salary & Allowances | Determined by Central Government (but with some guidelines) | Determined by Central Government |
| Removal | Process outlined in the Act, requiring investigation | Clarified power of Central Government to remove |
Conclusion
The amendments to the RTI Act, 2019, undeniably raise legitimate concerns about the autonomy and independence of the Information Commissions. While the stated intention may be to improve efficiency, the increased control vested in the government over tenure, salaries, and removal processes creates vulnerabilities that could compromise the Commissions’ ability to function as impartial and effective oversight bodies. Strengthening institutional safeguards, ensuring financial autonomy, and fostering a culture of transparency are crucial to preserving the integrity of the RTI regime and upholding the principles of good governance. A robust and independent Information Commission is essential for a vibrant democracy.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.