“Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act will have profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission”. Discuss.
Approach · directive: “discuss”
What it asks · Discuss how the 2019 amendments, by giving the Centre control over the tenure, salary and service conditions of Information Commissioners, affect their autonomy, and how the Government defends them.
The question has 2 parts — answer each
- Discuss: what the 2019 amendments changed in the tenure, salary and service conditions of Information Commissioners
- Discuss: the impact on the Commissions' autonomy and independence, weighing the concerns against the Government's justification
Open with · The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 changed Sections 13 and 16 so that the term and pay of Information Commissioners are prescribed by the Central Government.
Cover
- Before: five-year terms (or age 65), and status and pay equal to the Chief Election Commissioner or Election Commissioners for Central commissions, fixed by statute.
- After: term, salary, allowances and other conditions are prescribed by the Central Government through rules, for both Central and State commissions.
- Autonomy concern: control over tenure and pay may make commissioners defer to the executive, the main holder of information they must order disclosed.
- Government's case: the Election Commission is constitutional (Article 324) but Information Commissions are statutory, so parity was anomalous and rules add flexibility.
- Process: the Bill passed within days in July 2019, without Select Committee scrutiny despite Opposition demands.
- Unchanged: appointment by a committee including the Leader of Opposition (Section 12); removal for misbehaviour or incapacity needs a Supreme Court inquiry (Section 14).
- Way forward: fix tenure and pay in the statute itself, fill vacancies promptly and publish selection criteria.
Close with · Prescribing tenure and pay by executive rules weakens the security that makes commissions independent; statutory guarantees are needed to keep the RTI regime credible.
Add value (verified)
- Section 13(5), as substituted in 2019, leaves the pay and service conditions of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners to be prescribed by the Central Government. The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 (No. 24 of 2019), section 2(c) — Central Information Commission ↗“The salaries and allowances payable to and other terms and conditions of service of the Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government”
- The RTI Rules notified on 24 October 2019 fixed the term of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners at three years, down from the five years the Act itself had guaranteed. The Right to Information (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service…) Rules, 2019, rule 3 — DoPT ↗“The Chief Information Commissioner, or Information Commissioners, as the case may be, shall hold office for a period of three years from the date on which he enters upon his office.”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2020, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 223 words (UPSC limit 150) · Minimalist IAS
The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 rewrote Sections 13 and 16 of the RTI Act, 2005 so that the term, salaries and service conditions of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners, at the Centre and in the States, are whatever the Central Government prescribes.
What changed
- Before: a fixed five-year term (or till 65) and pay pegged by statute to the Election Commissioners for the Central Commission.
- After: term and pay set by executive rules; the RTI Rules of October 2019 fixed a three-year term for Central and State commissioners.
Impact on autonomy
- Tenure and pay are the classic guarantees of independence; leaving both to rules places commissioners at the mercy of the executive whose records they order disclosed.
- Rules can be revised at will, inviting deference; the Centre now prescribes conditions even for State Commissions appointed by the States.
The Government's case
- The Election Commission is constitutional (Article 324) while Information Commissions are statutory, so parity was anomalous and rules allow rationalisation.
- Core safeguards survive: appointment by a committee including the Leader of Opposition (Section 12) and removal only after a Supreme Court inquiry (Section 14).
Appointment and removal safeguards survive, but tenure and pay by executive rule dilute the Commissions' autonomy; restoring them in the statute, with prompt appointments and published selection criteria, would keep the RTI regime credible.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.