THE AMENDED RTI ACT -- A MOVE TO TRAMPLE THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOM OF WORLD'S LARGEST DEMOCRACY

The RTI Act 2005 grants citizens the right to seek information from government. The amended RTI bill was passed by Lok Sabha last Monday the 22nd July and three days later also by Rajya Sabha on Thursday the 25th.

The government says that amendments were necessary as certain anomalies needed to be corrected. In support of the RTI amendment the government said It seems the original Act was passed in a hurry in 2005 by the then UPA government which overlooked a lot of things.

There are three major controversial amendments to the term of office, salaries and pension of Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and the Information Commissioners (ICs).

1. Before amendment the term of appointment of CIC and ICs was for 5 years or upto 65 years whichever was earlier. Now after amendment the term of appointment will be decided by the Central Government.

2. According to the original Act the salary of CIC was equivalent to Chief Election Commissioner and ICs were paid as much as Election Commissioners. Now the amended Act has changed this, as now on, the Centre will prescribe their salary.

3. The third amendment is as regard to retirement benefits. As per original Act salaries were disbursed after deduction of pension or retirement benefits from central or state government — barring a disability or a wound pension. Now as per amended Act this has been done away with.

It is clear now that there will be no fixed law for salary and tenure for retirement of CIC and ICs governed by no set service rule book. These will be decided on a case to case basis by the bureaucrats and the government in power.

Needless to say that there will be erosion of institutional autonomy in the absence of statutory terms of appointment that gives job security. The CIC and ICs will be under constant fear of losing their jobs  if they do not toe the wishes of the government.

To put it bluntly, such amendments could make ICs compromise on sharing information with the RTI applicant just to save their jobs.

The government can threaten or lure the chief information commissioner and the information commissioners with arbitrary removal or extension and curtailment or increase in salary depending upon their suitability for the ruling dispensation.

We have seen since 2014 the BJP led NDA government gave scant respect to institutional autonomy. The government came in clash with former RBI governor Raghuram Rajan and the abrupt exit of Urjit Patel are still fresh in public memory.

It needs no examination of Modi's motive to defy his own big announcement of “minimum government, maximum governance”. The concept of "minimum government" is put aside the way the government is interfering with institutional autonomy. The government is on its way to cheat the citizens of india who regarded RTI Act as one of the most successful laws of independent India. RTI Act proved to be a very effective tool and prized possession of ordinary citizens to hold the government accountable.

The government has never been at ease as through RTI people  have been asking uncomfortable questions ranging from 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, the (non)-appointment of the Information Commissioners themselves and of course Modi's Delhi University degree row.

In January, 2017 Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu was sacked and stripped off his HRD portfolio because in response to one RTI activist's application he ordered Delhi University to allow inspection of records of students passed BA course in 1978, the year in which Prime Minister Narendra Modi passed the examination. However, in a reshuffle within the central information commission in December, 2016, Acharyulu had retained HRD ministry in his portfolio.

In another incident an RTI application requested for details of the NPA in public sector banks and the details of big loan defaulters. The RBI had denied revealing information sought citing the 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.

To conclude, the intentions of the government lie exposed as under.

1. The RTI body consists of a Chief Information Commissioner, i.e CIC and 10 Information Commissioners, i.e ICs. At the moment central information commission has six information commissioners. Four posts of information commissioners are lying vacant for a long, the condition is enough to doubt the intention of the government. Is it to weaken the institution and check flow of information?

2. Amendment in RTI Act points towards  government's intentions to tinker with federal autonomy as now the amendment bestows upon government the power to fix salaries and term to hold office of Information Commissioners.

The reason given by Jitendra Singh, Minister of State in the PMO is unconvincing that the government did not tinker with institutional autonomy or independence of the central information commission as the Act may have been passed in 2005 in a hurry with certain anomalies that needed correction. It is an absolute lie.

The fact of the matter is that the Parliamentary Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice passed the original RTI Act.

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 MP Ram Nath Kovind (now the President of India), Ram Jethmalani (no longer with the BJP) and Balavant Apte.

How effective the diluted RTI Act would be after amendment soon the time will tell. But one cannot obliterate the motive of the government to escape accountability.