The Validity Of The Recent Amendments To The Right of the Information Act, 2005

THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN BY SHRISHTI VATSA, STUDENT OF SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA. 

Introduction

The preamble to the Right to Information Act, 2005 specifies the promotion of transparency along with the accountability of every public authority as one of the reasons of its inception. With the act having been intended for such purposes, the latest bill seems to have garnered a lot of attention for the wrong reasons. The independence of public bodies has sadly always been a point of contention in a country like ours. With every move prone to being attacked vehemently by the opposition and media alike, it seemingly is an onerous task to maintain a neutral position. Through this paper, I intend to put forth my analysis on the latest amendments in respect of the excessive power the government has granted itself over an ostensibly independent body.

Good governance has four basic elements which are imperative for its continuity – transparency, accountability, predictability, and participation. Its absence in a number of countries is what makes it an integral right for a democratic country. Having been said to be flowing from the basic notions of natural justice, its importance cannot be disputed. With so much brouhaha around the recent amendments, it is thus important to understand the need for the independence of the body which is attributed to the dissemination of the public information, without which the core of a democratic setup may diminish.

Amendment In Dispute

As per the unamended act, clause (1) and (2) of section 13 fixes the term of the chief information commissioner and the information commissioners to be for a tenure of five years. With the latest amendment, the decision of their tenure now lies at the discretion of the central government. Likewise, as per clause (1) and (2) of section 16, the tenure of the state chief information commissioner and the state information commissioners were fixed at five years, which have now been decided to be “for such period as may be decided by the Central government.” Further, as per sections 13 of the RTI Act, 2005, the salaries for the chief information commissioner and the information commissioners were equivalent to that of the Chief election commissioner and election commissioners respectively. Similarly, as per section 16 of the act, the salary for state chief information commissioner and the state information commissioner was equivalent to that of the state chief election commissioner and the state election commissioner respectively. As per the latest bill, the Central government has the power to fix the salary of the chief information commissioners and state information commissioners.

The mentioned changes have for a varied reasons attracted dissent form the opposition since it has been claimed to be robbing the public body of its independence. What must be noted is that the RTI Act had consciously granted the Information Commissioners status and privileges as equivalent to those being given to the Election Commissioner in order to ensure that they continue to function independently and autonomously. The necessity for a public body to have a certain level of independence is significantly crucial, more so in a democratic country such as India. The erosion of the autonomy of the authority by the central government which isseizing its major power is essentially being termed as a regressive step for our democracy. To further know about the deteriorating independence of the RTI, it is integral to know how the independence of the body is important for the continued functioning of our country.

Control Mechanism Exercised By The Body

The Act mandates for the‘public authorities’ to disclose aspects of their structure and functioning. This includes disclosures on financial information, powers and duties of its employees, etc.‘Public Authorities’ include bodies of self-government established under the Constitution, or under any law or government notification. It also includes any entities owned, controlled or substantially financed and non-government organizations substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the government.The intent of such disclosures is that the public should require minimum recourse through the Act to obtain such information.

The Act has established a specific structure established for the enforcement of this right. Public Authorities designate some of their officers as Public Information Officers. The first request for information goes to them. These officers are required to provide information to an RTI applicant within 30 days of their request. Appeals from their decisions go to an appellate authority. The appellate authority is a senior official working in the same public authority. Appeals against the order of the Appellate Authority go to the State Information Commission or the Central Information Commission.It is with respect to this that the amendment makes two crucial changes.

The amendment made directly curtails the power granted to the Central Information Commission since they evidently have the power to direct offices as high as theDefence and Finance to publicize any information if needed. To have this kind of power is to exercise a great level of responsibility in ensuring that the public is well aware of all of the policies of the government. The amendment now puts the government in a position wherein they can exercise control over the Information Commissioners in any manner that they may find reasonable which per se is an arbitrary act.

One of the major reasons for the refusal to grant equal status to the Information Commission and Election Commission was that the RTI was not a constitutional body unlike the Election Commission. Terming it as a statutory body in itself is a major flaw considering the enormous power granted to the body in respect of its stature to act as one of the protectors of the fundamental rights of the citizens-The Right to know guaranteed under article 19 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court has time and again reaffirmed this right as one of the major democratic rights of the Indian citizens. Exercise of any kind of control by the executive on an independent body would thus not bode well for our country.

Conclusion

The change that has been seen in the governance of India in the past couple of decades is truly phenomenal and if we can sustain and strengthen it, our democracy will eventually turn into a highly effective democracy in the coming years.  When the power equation changes between those in power and an ordinary citizen, it is bound to get resistance. Hence, it is of utmost importance that we formulate laws keeping in mind the welfare of the state as our primary objective. To ensure that the concerned authority remains independent and devoid of any unjustified influence shall remain the foremost objective of the judiciary.