Answer

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 was enacted to foster transparency and strengthen accountability in public administration. However, recent developments particularly the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) through the RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 which allows government bodies to withhold personal information without evaluating public interest, have sparked serious concerns about the potential erosion of citizens’ right to know.

Implications of the RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 on the Autonomy of the RTI Framework

• Centralization of Power Over Information Commissions: The amendment empowers the central government to set the tenure, salaries, and service conditions of Information Commissioners, both at the central and state levels, compromising their independence.
  For example: The amendment removes the fixed five-year tenure, allowing the government to determine terms, potentially influencing commissioners’ decisions.
• Erosion of Federal Structure: By centralizing control over state Information Commissions, the amendment undermines the federal principles enshrined in the Constitution, affecting the autonomy of state governments in managing their own commissions.
  For example: States now lack authority over their Information Commissioners’ appointments and service conditions, leading to potential conflicts.
• Potential for Political Influence: With the government controlling commissioners’ tenure and salaries, there is a risk of political interference in their functioning, threatening the impartiality of the RTI mechanism.
• Undermining Institutional Status: The amendment downgrades the status of Information Commissioners from being equivalent to Election Commissioners, diminishing their authority and credibility.
• Lack of Transparency in Amendments: The amendment was passed without adequate public consultation or debate, contradicting the very principles of transparency and accountability that the RTI Act upholds.
  For example: The absence of stakeholder engagement in the amendment process has led to widespread criticism from civil society.

Implications of the RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 on the Effectiveness of the RTI Framework

• Delayed Appointments Leading to Backlogs: Vacancies in Information Commissions due to delayed appointments result in case backlogs, hindering timely access to information for citizens.
  For example: The Jharkhand State Information Commission remained non-functional for the last four years, leaving numerous appeals unresolved.
• Reduced Public Confidence: Perceived government control over Information Commissions may erode public trust in the RTI mechanism, discouraging citizens from filing applications.
• Inconsistent Decision-Making: Variability in commissioners’ tenure and service conditions can lead to inconsistent decisions, affecting the predictability and reliability of the RTI process.
• Weakened Enforcement Powers: Diminished status of Information Commissioners may reduce their ability to enforce compliance from public authorities, weakening the RTI Act’s implementation.
• Chilling Effect on Whistleblowers: A less robust RTI framework may deter whistleblowers from exposing corruption, fearing inadequate protection and follow-up.
  

Way Forward

• Restoring Fixed Tenure and Service Conditions: Reinstating a fixed five-year tenure and standardized service conditions for Information Commissioners can safeguard their independence.
  For example: Aligning commissioners’ terms with constitutional bodies ensures consistency and autonomy.
• Ensuring Federal Balance: Empowering state governments to determine their Information Commissioners’ appointments and conditions can uphold the federal structure.
  For example: States managing their commissions can tailor the RTI framework to local needs.
• Transparent Appointment Processes: Implementing a transparent, merit-based selection process for Information Commissioners can enhance credibility and public trust.
  For example: Publicizing selection criteria and involving multiple stakeholders in appointments can reduce bias.
• Capacity Building and Training: Regular training programs for Information Commissioners and public officials can improve the quality and consistency of RTI responses.
  For example: The Institute of Secretariat Training and Management (ISTM) conducts RTI training workshops for Public Information Officers and Appellate Authorities to strengthen compliance and awareness.
• Public Awareness Campaigns: Educating citizens about their RTI rights and the application process can increase engagement and utilization of the Act.
  For example: The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) conducts nationwide RTI Awareness Campaign, organizing workshops, street plays, and training programs in rural and urban areas to promote informed citizen participation 

The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 poses significant challenges to the autonomy and effectiveness of the RTI framework. To preserve the Act’s integrity, it is imperative to ensure independent and empowered Information Commissions, uphold the federal structure, and promote transparency and accountability in governance.

DOWNLOAD PDF