Why the amendments to the RTI Act are far from routine

Parliament building is reflected in a puddle after the rain as a man sweeps the water in Delhi (Image- Reuters)

A war of words has broken out over one of independent India’s most progressive pieces of legislation — the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The NDA government proposes to make some amendments to this law and earlier this week got the amended bill passed in the lower House of Parliament, raising the hackles of the Opposition and social activists. The bill will now go to the Rajya Sabha, the upper House of Parliament, for approval.

While opposition parties, including Congress, Trinamool Congress, Left Front, Samajwadi Party, Bahujan Samaj Party, Biju Janata Dal and National Congress, are livid, saying that the changes in the Act are being done to undermine people’s right to information and scuttle probing questions, the government described the move as “routine streamlining” and rationalisation of procedures.

Let us look back a little. The RTI Act was passed by Parliament on June 15, 2005 and came into force on October 13, 2005. The law seeks to set out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority.

Now, what are the amendments that the government has introduced in this Act? There are three specific areas (or sections in the law) where the government wants change.

Under the RTI Act of 2005, the term of office of State and Central Information Commissioners had been set at five years (or until the age of 65, whichever is earlier). The amendment proposes that the appointment will be “for such term as may be prescribed by the Central Government”.

According to the original Act, the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) was paid as much as the Chief Election Commissioner and the Information Commissioners (ICs) were paid as much as Election Commissioners. The bill seeks to change this, where the salaries of the CIC and ICs would be prescribed by the Centre.

The original Act stated that if a CIC or IC receives a pension at the time he/she is appointed — barring a disability or a wound pension — that amount would be deducted from their salaries. It also said that if they received retirement benefits from a “corporation established by or under any Central Act or State Act or a government company owned or controlled by the central government or the state government,” the salary would be reduced by that much. The current amendment seeks to do away with this.

Of the three amendments sought by the NDA government, the first two could have wide-ranging ramifications. So far, the tenure and salaries of Information Commissioners were fixed by law. But now bureaucrats will decide their salaries and tenure on a case-by-case basis. This is not a healthy sign. A statutory term of appointment gives job security. But if Information Commissioners have to serve according to the wish and terms of the government then no doubt institutional autonomy will be under threat. Put bluntly, such amendments could make ICs compromise on sharing information with the RTI applicant just to save their jobs.

The amendments also put a question mark on federal autonomy as the bill seeks to endow upon the Centre the power to fix the salaries and terms of state Information Commissioners.

Perhaps it would be not too out of place to recall in this context that the NDA government, even in its earlier term, was not known to have paid much respect to institutional autonomy. The clash of views with one former RBI governor (Raghuram Rajan) and the abrupt exit of another Mint Road boss (Urjit Patel) are still fresh in public memory.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has always said that he believed in “minimum government, maximum governance”. Irrespective of what Jitendra Singh, Union minister of state for personnel who piloted the bill in the Lok Sabha, said, the amendments to the RTI Act are indicators that the concept of “minimum government” is being put on the back burner.

However, the government must keep in mind that the RTI Act is regarded as one of the most successful laws of independent India. It has proved to be the strongest and most effective tool ordinary citizens possess to hold accountable the powers that be.

The RTI Act has been used time and again to ask a million questions across the spectrum — the Reserve Bank of India, the finance ministry, demonetisation, non-performing assets, the Rafale fighter aircraft deal, electoral bonds, unemployment figures, the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commissioner, Election Commissioners, and the (non)-appointment of the Information Commissioners themselves.

It is, therefore, imperative that the Modi government, which runs the world’s largest democracy, remains sensitive about public sentiment and should do nothing that can be construed as a move to trample the rights and freedom of its people.