Watch Free Classes

The RTI Act (Amendment) Act of 2019 empowers Central and State governments to control Information Commissioner compensation and working conditions. The central government will now prescribe the tenure of the central Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (IC), which was previously fixed at five years, by amending Section 13 of the RTI Act, 2005. (or until the age of 65, whichever comes first).

The Central government will now determine the salary and allowances of the central Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (IC), which were previously equal to those of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (EC). The Chief Information Commissioner, as well as state-level Information Commissioners, are addressed in Section 16.

Challenges in RTI Act, 2019:

  1. The LCI Recommendations are violated by the RTI Act Amendment Bill, 2019.The Law Commission of India (LCI) has proposed that wages and allowances for various Statutory Tribunals be standardised. This was recommended in LCI’s October 2017 report, “272nd Report on Assessment of Statutory Frameworks of Tribunals in India.” The salaries of the Chairpersons of the aforementioned tribunals had already been increased by the Central Government before the report was written, and the salaries and allowances paid to the Information Commissioners were not discussed. The salary of the Information Commissioners has previously been kept at the same level as those of other statutory bodies, in accordance with LCI’s request.
  2. This amendment may even violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which states, “The State shall not deny to any person/individual equality before the law or equal protection of the law within the territory of India.”The Information Commission’s authorities, like those of the other Statutory Tribunals and Adjudicating Authorities, have quasi-judicial powers.Treating them differently fails the test of “intelligible differentia,” which allows for unequal treatment under Article 14. As a result, the new RTI Act amendments violate everyone’s constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
  3. The RTI Act’s federal structure served as its backbone:The RTI Amendment Act, 2019 has killed the spirit of the people’s right to information by vesting excessive powers in the central government.
  4. The Act Clearly Violates the 2014 Pre- Legislative Consultation Policy: The Act was passed without the participation of the two main stakeholders in this case: citizens and information commissions. This is blatantly in breach of the 2014 Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, which mandates pre-legislative consultation for any new or revised legislation. To date, the RTI Act has been fought in two ways by the governments. On the one hand, they were trying to change the Act, while on the other, assassinations and assaults on RTI activists were routine. This narrative has been going on since 2005. However, with this change, the picture has completely changed.
  5. The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019, gives the central government the authority to set the terms & conditions of service for Information Commissioners at both the central & state levels. This amendment has hampered CIC’s autonomy by vesting the central govt. with excessive powers.

What can be done to overcome challenges?

  • Open Data Policy: All publicly available information should be made available on government websites.
  • The petitioners will be able to access whatever information they require immediately as a result of this.
  • This will also relieve the department’s burden of providing information, which consumes a significant amount of its valuable time.
  • Compilation of Similar RTI Applications: Many RTI Applicants file multiple RTI applications on the same subject/seek the same information, increasing the workload of various public institutions’ information departments. A system must also be put in place to weed out such duplicate cases.
  • Preventing Misuse of RTI: RTI misuse can be avoided by including a provision requiring the reason for filing the petition.
  • In addition, there should be a penalty provision for wasting the Information Commissioner’s valuable time by requesting unnecessary information or information that is not in the public interest.
  • Balancing with the Right to Privacy: Another constitutionally protected right of a citizen is the right to privacy. This right is enshrined in the spirit of the Constitution’s Article 21.
  • As a result, within the legal framework, the right to information must be balanced with the right to privacy.
  • Increasing Public Awareness: This can be accomplished by launching awareness campaigns in various regional languages in rural areas via radio, television, and print media.
  • A chapter on the RTI Act of 2005 should be included in the school/college curriculum.
  • Central/State Information Commissions should be given adequate funding to raise awareness about the RTI Act of 2005.