Activists opposing amendments to the RTI Act of 2005. The amendment bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on Monday. (Photo: PTI)

The Lok Sabha has passed the Right to Information Amendment Bill 2019. But the Opposition is up in the arms with Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury calling it "dangerous". DMK leader and former Union minister A Raja termed passing of the RTI amendment bill as a "dark day for democracy".

The bill introduces changes in the terms and conditions of appointment of the chief information commissioner (CIC) at the Centre and the information commissioners in states. The RTI amendment bill has three provisions that have been challenged by the Opposition members in Parliament and by activists working in the field.

But before proceeding ahead, let's have a look at the basic things that the RTI Act of 2005 does. The existing law says that the public authorities are required to make disclosures on

their organisation, functions and structure

powers and duties of its officers and employees

financial information

If such information is not provided by the public authorities on their own, the citizens have the right to demand the same from them under the RTI Act. "Public authorities" refer to ministers and government servants among others.

The central information commission is headed by a chief information commissioner and 10 information commissioners. They are appointed by the President (read central government) appoints them for a fixed tenure of five years and a salary of the rank of the chief election commissioner and election commissioners respectively. This was done to give the central information commission autonomy and protection from government interference.

The amendments

In the 2019 RTI amendment bill, the Narendra Modi government has done away with the fixed tenure of five years for the chief information commissioners and the information commissioners. Their salaries too have been altered. Both will now be separately notified by the government of the day.

This, in a political sense, means that the government can threaten or lure the chief information commissioner and information commissioners with arbitrary removal or extension and curtailment or increase in salary depending upon their suitability for the ruling dispensation.

Uncomfortable RTI pleas in background

This comes in the backdrop of a few orders of the information commission that were considered uncomfortable for the Modi government in recent times. Two examples can be gauged from PM Modi's degree row and the status of non-performing assets in public sector banks.

In January 2017, acting on an RTI activist's application, information commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu ordered the Delhi University to allow inspection of records of students who had passed BA course in 1978, the year in which Prime Minister Narendra Modi passed the examination.

Within the next couple of days, Sridhar Acharyulu was stripped of human resource development portfolio. Then Chief Information Commissioner RK Mathur took away HRD ministry from him. Interestingly, in a reshuffle within the central information commission on December 29, 2016, Acharyulu had retained HRD ministry in his portfolio.

In another incident from the previous Modi government's tenure, the Reserve Bank of India had been directed on an RTI application, to provide details of the NPA in public sector banks and the details of big loan defaulters. The RBI had denied revealing information sought citing confidential nature of the same.

The matter reached the Supreme Court, which first in 2015, directed the RBI to make the information available and reiterated the order in April this year after the central bank failed to comply with the order.

What's government's defence?

The government has maintained that it has not tinkered with autonomy or independence of the central information commission. Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office Jitendra Singh while introducing the RTI Amendment Bill 2019 in the Lok Sabha on Monday said the Modi government is correcting the anomaly in the RTI law passed by the UPA government.

He said, "Probably, the then government of the day, in a hurry to pass the RTI Act, 2005, overlooked a lot of things. The Central Information Commissioner has been given the status of a Supreme Court judge but his judgments can be challenged in the high courts. How can that exist?"

"The RTI Act did not give the government rule-making powers. We are merely correcting these through the amendment," Singh said.

Post-script

Interestingly, the central information commission has six information commissioners. Four posts of information commissioners are lying vacant with the Opposition citing the vacancies to accuse the Modi government of attempting to weaken the institution and check flow of information.

One curious connection before we conclude. The original RTI Act was passed after it was discussed and cleared by the Parliamentary Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice. In the original bill, the salaries of the CIC and ICs were equivalent to secretaries and additional secretaries respectively.

But the parliamentary committee recommended increasing the same to the level of the chief election commissioner and other election commissioners for the CIC and the ICs respectively. The parliamentary committee that recommended the change included then BJP MPs Ram Nath Kovind (now the President), Ram Jethmalani (no longer with the BJP) and Balavant Apte.