+011 414 86 022 | 
RICKY CHOPRA
DIVESH SAWHNEY
The sacrosanct draft of the Constitution of India commences as ‘WE THE PEOPLE OF INDIA’ which very substantively narrates that even the grundnorm to all the rules, laws and statutes of our nation is formulated while granting a prime status topeople’s interests. The Right to Information Act, 2005is the most colossal and monumental developments of democratic governance in recent years. It may be termed as a remarkable attribute in upholding the rule of law and diluting the tyrannical bureaucratic system that was rotting the very roots of our nation’s democracy.
The RTI act is a law that empowers and entitles an ordinary citizen with no powerful authority to elicit information that one desires to know from the ones who somewhere hold a position of authority and power over them. The Right to information is read into Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India which entitles Freedom of speech and expression to all the citizens of India. And hence it is the quintessential ancillary aid to the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression. Over the yearsRTI has created a platform for vigilance and has acted as a watchdog to keep a firm check over the ones who are in power. The 2005 Act built an independent institutional mechanism that functioned transparently and somewhat opened-up the doors of secrecy that the government along with the public sector departments were so adamantly habitual to.
The Government in its bill, for reasons best known to the government, has amended sections 13,16 and 27 of the RTI Act, 2005 which provided for the status of the Chief information commissioners to be equal to that of an Election commissioners and that of the State information commissioner to that of their respective Chief state secretaries which provided them an independent platform to freely discharge their duties. The central government through this bill is now to unilaterally decide the tenure, salaries and other terms of employment of the information commissioners both at the centre and the state level which will inevitably vitiate the independence of the CIC as well state information commissioners. The dismantling of the RTI Act, 2005 is an innocuous amendment is a seemingly fallacious argument that the government has put forward. This amendment is a grotesque attempt to leave the CIC as a tamed lion and the RTI a toothless tiger.
In the matter of Union of India vs R Gandhi President Madras Bar Association, the Hon’ble apex court has recognised fixed tenures and stable salaries as an imperative part of institutional independence. There is a great lot of nexus between the independence of an institution and the allowances and tenure awarded. There has been a lot of misinterpretation of the said amendment bill as we come across people who are of the view that the amendmentis as per the whims and fancies of the government and that they can reject any RTI application which is being put forward. However, the amendment does not state that explicitly, though it might virtually mean the same thing as there will always be a democratic sword hanging over an institution which once had an absolute autonomy in its functioning.
The amendment of Section 16 of the RTI Act has brought an uproar of its own as it deals with the terms of employment of Information Commissioners in states. Corporative federalism is what the Indian model of democracy has been functioning on and this amendment is an assault on the same. This amendment has crippled an independent institution and is further aimed at mingling with the autonomy and independence of the states of a quasi- federalist country that India is known as.
The amendment that looks seemingly short and routine in nature is full of cynicism andcarte blanche. The pivotal point of the amendment circles around the tenure, salaries and terms of employment of the Information Commissioners and a somewhat similar dilemma was faced by the father of the Indian Constitution-Dr.B.R.Ambedkar while stipulating the age of the Supreme Court Judges in the Constitution itself. Quoting Dr. Ambedkar “There are some who say that the Constitution should not fix any age limit whatsoever, but that the age limit should be left to be fixed by Parliament by law. It seems to me that is not a proposition which can be accepted, because if the matter of age was left to Parliament to determine from time to time, no person could be found to accept a place on the bench, because an incumbent before he accepts a place on the bench would like to know for how many years in the natural course of things, he could hold that office; and therefore, a provision with regard to age, I am quite satisfied, cannot be determined by Parliament from time to time, but must be fixed in the Constitution itself”. What Dr. Ambedkar and several other makers of the Constitution found in peril to do between the Constitution and the Parliament, the government today is attempting to furnish between the statute and the executive. And this is the very more reason that this amendment is pernicious.
That it is also downright preposterous that the amendments which are of prime importance in the national interests are being pushed forward withoutno parliamentary standing committee constituted for the same purposes. The provisions of the RTI Act are being severely diluted by this amendment which is alluded to be a very short routine amendment but is surpassing all the canons. It, at best, is regressive. Though the passing of bills in both the houses of the Parliament is virtually a rubber stamp for the current government, the magnificent feature of the democratic setup of our country still providesa requisite constitutional authority which can nullify the caprice of the Parliament. The bill is yet to be challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which can be the final hurdle in deciding the fate of this so called ‘innocuous’ amendment.
