Introduction
The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is widely regarded as one of India’s landmark laws aimed at enhancing transparency, accountability, and democratic participation. It provides citizens with the legal right to seek information from public authorities, thereby making governance more open and responsive. Central to this framework are the Information Commissions—the Central Information Commission (CIC) and the State Information Commissions (SICs)—which act as quasi-judicial bodies to adjudicate appeals and complaints when information is denied or delayed.
Over recent years, significant amendments to the RTI Act and related legal changes have sparked intense debate about the future of transparency in India. Critics argue these changes undermine the autonomy and independence of the Information Commissions, weakening the Act’s effectiveness as a democratic tool. This essay explores the nature of these amendments, analyzes their implications, and critically assesses whether they threaten the institutional integrity of the Information Commission as envisioned in the original statute.
I. Background: The RTI Act and the Role of Information Commissions
A. Purpose and Design of the RTI Act
Enacted in 2005, the RTI Act is a statutory embodiment of the citizen’s right to information—interpreted by the Supreme Court as flowing from the freedom of speech and expression underArticle 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Act aims to:
- Empower citizens by facilitating access to public information;
- Promote transparency and accountability in administration;
- Curb corruption and misuse of power.
B. Information Commissions Under the Act
The RTI Act established Information Commissions at the central and state levels as independent appellate bodies to:
- Hear second appeals when information requests are denied or not responded to within stipulated timeframes;
- Investigate complaints;
- Impose penalties for non-compliance;
- Monitor implementation of the RTI Act.
The Act initially guaranteed the autonomy of these Commissions by specifying fixed tenure, salaries, and conditions of service equivalent to high constitutional offices such as the Election Commission, thereby insulating commissioners from executive influence.
II. The Recent Amendments: Key Changes
Although the core RTI Act was enacted in 2005, subsequent amendments—notably the RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 and associated changes through other laws like the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act of 2023—have restructured key institutional safeguards that underpinned the autonomy of Information Commissions.
A. Tenure and Service Conditions
Before Amendment: The RTI Act originally provided a fixed five-year tenure or until the age of 65 (whichever was earlier) for the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners, with salaries and service conditions comparable to those of Election Commissioners. This status accorded them high institutional stature and independence.
After Amendment: The amendment removed these statutory guarantees. Instead, the Central Government now has the authority to set the tenure, salaries, allowances, and service conditions of Information Commissioners through executive notification.
Implication: This brings the commissioners’ terms under executive control, opening the possibility of political influence over their decisions. It undermines the original design where fixed tenures and stature were meant to safeguard independent functioning.
B. Appointment Process and Criteria
The original Act stipulated that appointments be made through a selection committee to ensure a balance of political perspectives and minimize partisanship. The amendment removed or diluted this provision, enhancing executive discretion in appointments without adequate guarantees of competitive, transparent, and merit-based selection.
Implication: Without broad, multi-stakeholder participation in appointments, there is increased risk of politically motivated selections, which can jeopardize impartial adjudication of RTI appeals.
C. Centralized Control over Salaries and Conditions
By allowing the central government to fix salaries and allowances, the amendment dilutes the institutional dignity and perceived independence of commissioners compared to other constitutional functionaries.
Implication: Such control may create a culture of dependency where commissioners may hesitate to issue decisions that are unfavourable to the government, especially in politically sensitive cases.
D. Impact of Other Legal Changes
Apart from direct amendments to the RTI Act, related laws such as the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP), 2023 have indirectly altered the operational contours of the RTI regime by expanding exemptions (e.g., broad ‘personal information’ categories) and limiting disclosure even when in the public interest.
III. Implications of the Amendments on Autonomy and Independence
A. Erosion of Institutional Safeguards
The removal of statutory protection for tenure and service conditions fundamentally diminishes the structural independence of the Information Commissions. Without fixed tenures, commissioners could be perceived as serving “at the pleasure” of the executive, undermining confidence in their impartiality.
This erosion of autonomy is not merely technical; it carries symbolic and practical consequences for democratic governance by signaling reduced insulation from political pressures.
B. Risk of Executive Influence
When the executive government controls key aspects of commissioners’ terms, the possibility of subtle or overt political influence increases. This may manifest through approaches such as:
- Replacing commissioners midway through contentious cases;
- Offering favourable terms to those willing to align with the government’s viewpoint;
- Discouraging assertive decisions against powerful officials.
Such scenarios weaken the role of the Information Commission as an impartial arbiter and diminish public trust.
C. Backlogs, Vacancies, and Institutional Weaknesses
Beyond formal amendments, operational challenges like prolonged vacancies, staff shortages, and massive backlogs in appeals and complaints exacerbate institutional fragility. Reports indicate that many commissions have long waiting periods of several years due to inadequate appointments.
When constitutional safeguards are weakened, and operational challenges persist, the RTI ecosystem’s effectiveness is significantly reduced.
D. Federal Implications
The amendments have uniform applicability across central and state commissions, but states arguably lose autonomy in selecting and maintaining their Information Commission cadre. This centralization of control undermines the federal balance envisaged in the original Act.
E. Public Trust and Effectiveness
When citizens perceive the Information Commission as potentially subordinate to the executive, their willingness to use the RTI mechanism may decline. Trust is essential for democratic accountability; if citizens fear biased adjudication, they may refrain from challenging official decisions or corruption.
This erosion of public trust weakens RTI’s broader role as a pillar of transparency and accountability.
IV. Counterarguments and Government’s Position
Government representatives have maintained that the recent amendments do not affect citizens’ statutory right to seek information and that powers concerning disclosure remain intact. They argue that:
- Adjusting tenure and remuneration through rules allows flexibility;
- The core powers and functions of Information Commissions have not been removed;
- The amendments aim to bring uniformity and administrative coherence.
According to the government, as long as transparency and disclosure obligations are upheld, structural adjustments do not necessarily translate into diminished institutional independence.
However, legal and governance experts contend that de jure safeguards matter because they serve as bulwarks against de facto executive influence.
V. Broader Challenges Facing the RTI Framework
While amendments to the Act are a major concern, the RTI regime faces other structural obstacles that interplay with autonomy issues:
A. Vacancies and Delays
High levels of pending cases and long waiting times undermine the practical effectiveness of the law.
B. Institutional Resourcing
Inadequate staff and funding for information commissions reduce their ability to function efficiently.
C. Judicial Interpretation and Enforcement
Although courts have reinforced RTI rights in various judgments, enforcement gaps persist due to procedural delays and limited coercive mechanisms.
D. Culture of Opacity and Bureaucratic Resistance
Even without formal amendments, bureaucratic resistance to sharing information and a culture of opacity can hinder RTI’s implementation.
These systemic challenges compound the impact of amendments and weaken the overall right to information framework.
VI. Way Forward: Recommendations to Safeguard Autonomy
To protect the independence and effectiveness of Information Commissions, several measures can be considered:
A. Restoring Statutory Safeguards
Legislative action could restore fixed tenures, remuneration parity with other constitutional offices, and participative appointment processes to reduce executive influence.
B. Ensuring Transparent and Inclusive Appointments
Appointment committees should include multiple stakeholders—opposition leaders, civil society representatives, and judicial experts—to ensure merit and impartiality.
C. Timely Appointments and Adequate Staffing
Filling vacancies promptly and strengthening institutional capacities are essential for reducing backlogs and enhancing responsiveness.
D. Clarifying Legislative Intent
Amendments to related laws (e.g., data protection statutes) should explicitly affirm that RTI obligations supersede privacy exemptions when disclosure serves the public interest.
E. Strengthening Judicial Oversight
Courts can play a proactive role in enforcing RTI provisions and checking any arbitrary interference with Information Commission autonomy.
Conclusion
The amendments to the RTI Act and associated legal changes have profound implications for the autonomy and independence of Information Commissions—institutions that are central to ensuring transparency and accountability in public governance. By shifting control over tenure, salaries, and service conditions to the executive, the amendments dilute structural safeguards that once protected commissioners from political influence. Combined with operational challenges such as vacancies and backlogs, these changes weaken the effectiveness of the RTI framework.
While the government maintains that citizens’ right to information remains intact, legal experts, civil society activists, and even former jurists have raised concerns that diminishing institutional independence erodes democratic accountability, undermines public trust, and compromises RTI’s transformative potential. Restoring statutory safeguards, ensuring transparent appointments, and strengthening institutional capacity are critical to uphold the spirit of the RTI Act as a bulwark of democratic governance in India.
