Information Commissions

‘No SMS, Calls, WhatsApp’: Haryana Information Panel Warns RTI Applicants

The CIC warned that calls made to the personal staff of the state information commissioners in pursuance of appeals or complaints would be tantamount to harassing, badgering and pressurising the Commission.

New Delhi: The chief information commissioner of the Haryana State Information Commission has in an order advised all appellants and complainants to refrain from asking about the status of their cases on phone calls, WhatsApp or messages.

In the order which was issued on December 12, 2022, CIC Vijai Vardha also warned that such calls to the personal staff of the state information commissioners would be “tantamount to interfering in the functioning of the Commission”.

This move is being seen as another step in dissuading Right to Information (RTI) applicants from pursuing information through the Act.

“…all the complainants/appellants may also be advised not to make phone calls to the personal staff of the state information commissioners to furtively ferret out information about their pending complaints or appeals as the same [would be] tantamount to interfering in the functioning of the Commission,” the order said. It added:

“It may also be mentioned in the advisory that no SMS/WhatsApp message shall be sent by the appellants/complainants in pursuance of their appeals or complaints to the mobile phones of information commissioners as the same [would be] tantamount to harassing, badgering and pressurising the Commission.”

The CIC, however, advised that they can communicate their issues to the Commission through email.

RTI activists have pointed out that for applicants from rural areas, calls are a more convenient option to inquire about their cases as compared to sending emails. Some of them, including the Haryana Soochna Adhikar Manch state coordinator Subhash, have suggested that it would be better if the SIC starts a helpline for the applicants.

In Haryana, SIC’s average disposal time is five months

As per a recent report card by Satark Nagrik Sangathan on the functioning of the information commissions, the Haryana SIC registered 7,632 appeals and complaints and disposed of 8,044 between July 1, 2021 and June 30, 2022.

As for the backlog of appeals and complaints for the SIC, it stood at 4,073 on June 30, 2021 and at 3,661 as on June 30, 2022.

The report added the average time for the disposal of cases stood at five months in Haryana.

Under the circumstances, and especially in cases where the waiting time is more than the average, it is understandable that the applicants would want to know the reasons behind the delay in their cases.

Also read: RTI Information Flow Continues to Suffer Due to Vacancies, Tardy Rate of Disposal: Report

SIC was lenient in imposing penalties

While the Haryana SIC had topped the list of Commissions in issuing show-cause notices to public information officers, it was not as proactive in imposing penalties for not providing the information under the RTI Act.

Out of a total of 3,887 notices issued by 15 state commissions, the Haryana SIC issued 1,891 notices.

However, when it came to the imposition of penalty, Haryana stood third after Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh. It had imposed a penalty of Rs 38.81 lakh in 161 cases.

Curbing the flow of information?

Recently, RTI activists have expressed concerns with the way various Commissions have been conducting themselves and with the manner in which they have been trying to restrict applicants from seeking information.

In August 2022, a large number of RTI activists, including several former CICs, slammed the Gujarat SIC for banning 10 RTI applicants from filing applications and termed its action as a “complete overreach” and “grossly unconstitutional”.

They said in doing so, the Commission had abrogated powers unto itself which the constitution does not provide and that these actions are akin to those of a ‘dictator’.

Speaking on the issue in August last year, Anjali Bhardwaj of the National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information said, “At this moment, we find that there is a new frontier. We are at a stage where Information Commissions are stepping up and banning people and blacklisting RTI applicants for various reasons.”

The RTI activist noted that nowhere does the RTI Act empower the Commissions to ban applicants or deny them information in this manner.

She had said that RTI activists have long demanded that all information should be proactively declared and should not be hidden behind any curtain.

Citing an analysis of RTI applications, she added that less than 1% of them can be termed “frivolous and vexatious”.

Vacancies, Pending Cases Threaten to Take the Wind Out of RTI’s Sails as it Turns 15

A report by a rights groups found that one-fourth of all information commissioner posts were vacant across the country.

New Delhi: Exactly 15 years ago on this day, the Right to Information Act, 2005, came into force.

But endless vacancies of commissioners in the central and state information commissions, their reluctance to impose penalties on public information officers who refuse to divulge information, and the subsequent burgeoning of pending appeals and complaints in these panels have contributed to the Act falling short of achieving its objectives.

Transparency rights groups have also pointed out various flaws in the implementation of the Act. The report card on the Performance of Information Commissions in India, released by Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS) and the Centre for Equity Studies (CES) highlighted some of the key reasons why the people’s right to know was not being fulfilled.

The report card said the law has been used extensively to hold the government accountable for delivery of basic rights and entitlements and to question the highest offices of the country. This was reflected in the fact that between 40 to 60 lakh RTI applications were filed each year.

However, it said, “the functioning of information commissions is a major bottleneck in the effective implementation of the RTI law. Large backlog of appeals and complaints in many commissions across the country have resulted in inordinate delays in disposal of cases, which render the law ineffective.”

No regular appointments despite SC directions

The study said “one of the primary reasons for the backlogs is the failure of central and state governments to take timely action to appoint information commissioners” to the Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs). It said these “appointments are not made in a timely manner, resulting in a large number of vacancies.”

Also read: Information Commissions Aren’t Helping Citizens Enough During Lockdown: RTI Activists

Recalling the Supreme Court’s ruling in February 2019, when the apex court said that the proper functioning of commissions with an adequate number of commissioners is vital for effective implementation of the RTI Act and held that the number of commissioners required should be determined on the basis of the workload, the assessment found that several Information Commissions (ICs) were still non-functional or were functioning at a reduced capacity as many commissioners posts were vacant.

The report card found the information commissions of Jharkhand and Tripura to be defunct for varying lengths of time. It said that the Jharkhand SIC had been without any commissioner since May 8, 2020, and consequently, people in the state had no recourse to the independent appellate mechanism for the last five months.

Likewise, it said, the Tripura SIC has been defunct since April this year when the new chief who was appointed in September 2019 demitted office on attaining the age of 65. Prior to this, the panel had no commissioner between April and September 2019.

Nine information commissions, including CIC, without heads

The report card also revealed that nine out of 29 information commissions (31%) in the country were functioning without a chief information commissioner. “The absence of a chief information commissioner has serious ramifications for the effective functioning of the ICs since the RTI Act envisages a critical role for the Chief, including, superintendence, management and direction of the affairs of the information commission,” it added.

It further pointed out that even the Central Information Commission had been without a chief since August 27, 2020. “This is the second time in the period under review (April 2019 to July 2020) that the post of the Chief has fallen vacant,” the assessment said, adding that this was the fifth time in six years that the CIC had been rendered headless due to the delay in appointing a new chief upon the incumbent demitting office.

Representative image of RTI. Illustration: The Wire

Pendency of cases mounts as panels function with reduced strength

The SNS-CES study also revealed that several information commissions, including the CIC, were functioning at a reduced capacity since commissioners were not being appointed in a timely manner.

Against a sanctioned strength of one chief information commissioners and 10 other information commissioners,

Also read: Delay in Replies to Appeals and Complaints Killing RTI Movement, Warn Activists

The study said that the CIC was functioning with seven information commissioners in April 2019 against a sanctioned strength of one chief information commissioners and 10 other information commissioners. In December 2019, the Supreme Court had directed the government to fill all vacancies within a period of three months. However, due to delays in appointments, the CIC is still functioning with only five commissioners.

As a result, the report said, the backlog of appeals and complaints with the CIC has crossed 36,500 cases.

In the states as well, the report pointed, the situation was similar. The Maharashtra SIC, which has a sanctioned strength of 11 information commissioners, including the chief, is functioning with just five and the number of pending cases has shot up from nearly 46,000 in March 2019 to almost 60,000 now. Similarly, the number of cases pending before the Odisha SIC and the Rajasthan SIC have increased to 15,000 and 14,000 respectively.

Overall the report said 1,78,749 appeals and complaints were registered between April 1, 2019, and July 31, 2020, by 21 information commissions and 1,92,872 cases were disposed by 22 commissions during this period. As of July 31, 2020, it said a total of 2,21,568 cases were pending with 20 information commissions, who provided their details. In comparison to March 31, 2019, when 26 commissions had revealed that 218,347 cases were pending with them, the report card said the pendency had risen despite fewer commissions providing information this time.

Reluctance to impose penalties

The report card said while the RTI Act empowers the ICs to impose penalties of up to Rs 25,000 on erring public information officers (PIOs) as a deterrent against wrongful refusal to provide information, “ICs imposed penalty in an extremely small fraction of the cases in which penalty was imposable” and “commissions appear to be reluctant to even ask the PIOs to give their justification for not complying with the law.”

The assessment found that between April 1, 2019, and July 31, 2020, a total of 15,738 show-cause notices were issued to PIOs under the penalty clause of the Act, by the 13 commissions which provided the relevant information – with the Gujarat SIC issuing the most at 9,080, followed by Haryana (3,962), Andhra Pradesh (881) and the Central Information Commission (858).

Also read: SC and RTI: Why the Top Court Should Lead the Way in Ensuring Transparency

As for the imposition of penalties, the report said, 18 commissions which had provided relevant information claimed to have imposed penalties amounting to Rs 2.53 crore for a total of 1,995 cases.

The Haryana SIC had the highest number of penalties imposed at Rs 65.43 lakh, followed by Madhya Pradesh (Rs 43.33 lakh), and Uttarakhand (Rs. 35.79 lakh). The CIC imposed penalty amounting to Rs 12.22 lakh during this period.

The report said an analysis of information provided by 16 information commissions revealed that penalties were imposed in just 2.2% of the cases disposed.

An earlier assessment had revealed that on average 59% orders recorded one or more violations listed in Section 20 of the RTI Act, based on which the commissions should have triggered the process of penalty imposition. As per that estimate, the report said, the actual penalties were only imposed in 3.8% of cases where they could have been imposed.

Information commissions themselves not transparent

The report also held that most of the Information Commissions were themselves not transparent enough in their functioning. It said much of the information sought as part of the assessment should have been available in the annual reports of these panels. However, 25 out of 29 ICs (86%) did not publish their annual report for 2019 and the Punjab SIC was found to have not published its annual report since 2012 while the Uttarakhand SIC had not published it since 2014.

Also, the assessment said 19% of Information Commissions had not made their latest annual report available on their website.

Only 9 ICs conducted online hearings during COVID-9

Meanwhile, another report released by Transparency International India on Sunday revealed that only nine information commissions, including CIC, out of the 29 conducted online hearings during the lockdown imposed due to COVID-19. Also, it said, only three states — Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh – issued COVID-19 circulars and warnings on their websites.

Also read: Transparency Activists Question Centre’s ‘Compliance Report’ on CIC Appointments

The report also claimed that only five states had maintained data on the threats being issued to and attacks on RTI activists.

It also noted that one-fourth of all posts of information commissioners remained vacant across the country. “Out of 160 posts, 38 posts of information commissioner are vacant at the union & state level, whereas in Oct-2019, 24 out of 155 posts were vacant. Four Chief Information Commissioner Post namely CIC, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Goa are vacant,” it said.

‘Life and Liberty’: CIC Urged to Prioritise Info Flow on COVID-19 Matters, Relief Schemes

Citizen’s rights group says necessary to put maximum information in public domain quickly to ensure compliance of schemes and to prevent leakages.

New Delhi: Noting that millions of people have suffered loss of livelihood during the COVID-19 lockdown, civil rights group Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS) has written to the Chief Information Commissioner Bimal Julka to prioritise the hearing of cases dealing with information related to life and liberty of citizens, especially in matters regarding food distribution, social security and health at the Central Information Commission.

CIC urged to provide time-bound hearing of COVID-19 linked matters

In a letter, the Sangathan has urged that these appeals and complaints must be taken up first in a time-bound manner by the CIC for hearing and disposal. It said: “For millions of people, government schemes and programs related to food distribution, health care, disbursal of wages and pensions are the only lifelines at a time when there has been large scale and sudden loss of livelihood.”

Pointing out that “transparency in the functioning of these programs is key to ensure that people are able to access their rights,” rights activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri pointed out on behalf of the organisation that therefore “it is absolutely crucial that information related to relief measures announced by governments be widely disseminated to enable people, especially the poorest and most marginalised, to access their rights and survive in these difficult times.”

Also read: CIC Conducts Online Hearings of Cases With ‘Home’ Access for First Time in History

‘Allow public scrutiny of PM CARES Fund, other L-G/CM schemes’

The letter also demanded that information about money received and disbursed under various relief funds, including the PM-CARES Fund and the Lt. Governor/Chief Minister Relief Fund, must be pro-actively disclosed to enable public scrutiny. It added that “effective dissemination of relevant information is essential to ensure money is spent on the most pressing priority needs during the current crisis”.

The letter also urged Julka to take cognisance of the need for suo motu information disclosure and direct concerned public authorities to disseminate relevant information under Section 4 of the RTI Act in the local language and in the most accessible manner.

The CIC is hearing cases through audio-video tools to tide over the mounting pendency. Photo: CIC

As CIC resumes hearings, letter calls for wide dissemination of info on relief measures

It acknowledged that several information commissioners in the CIC have resumed hearings via video and audio calls while others would be following suit from April 20. It said “to cope with the crisis, it is absolutely crucial that all relevant information related to relief measures announced by governments be widely disseminated. Without transparency, these measures are unlikely to be successful. Unless the intended beneficiaries have knowledge about the details of various schemes and programs available for them, they will not be able to access the services and entitlements, which could help them tide over these difficult times.”

In this regard, the letter made a reference to the Public Distribution System in particular. Incidentally, SNS has been at the forefront of pointing out shortcomings in the functioning of fair price shops and the PDS in Delhi ever since the lockdown began. It has also been a part of the right to food campaign that has been striving for universalisation of the PDS system across the country.

‘Put all information about PDS in public domain’

With regard to the PDS, the SNS letter demanded that “there must be information in the public domain” about all the crucial elements. “The list of all ration shops with phone numbers and addresses; shop-wise list of beneficiaries entitled to get free rations with their contact details; stock position of all shops in real-time; and details about distribution of rations,” it said, should all be made known to the public.

Also read: As Case Pendency Mounts, CIC to Start Digital Hearings Before April 15

“In the absence of this information, ground reports have revealed that ration shop keepers have been keeping their shops closed on the pretext that they have no rations, even though ration stocks have been supplied to them. This is equally true for delivery of other social security, health and basic services,” it highlighted.

The SNS also suggested that since people’s mobility has been restricted during the lockdown, information must be made available on government websites and widely disseminated through SMS, WhatsApp, public announcements and at points of disbursal such as ration shops, banks and hospitals. “Access to information is the only way to ensure that people, especially the poorest and most marginalised who are worst hit by the COVID 19 pandemic, are able to access their rights and survive these difficult times,” it said.

CIC Conducts Online Hearings of Cases With ‘Home’ Access for First Time in History

The commission heard 18 cases on the first day. Due to security concerns with Zoom, staff is now being trained to eventually switch over to NIC’s ‘Vidyo’ conferencing tool.

New Delhi: For the first time in its history, the Central Information Commission today heard 18 cases through audio-video tools to tide over the mounting pendency that has been aggravated both by a shortage of information commissioners as well as the national lockdown over COVID-19 pandemic.

During the hearing, the Commissioners as well as the applicants and the respondents came together online using Zoom, a platform for video and audio conferencing.

Photo: CIC

‘Applicants, respondents came well prepared’

Talking to The Wire, Chief Information Commissioner Bimal Julka said, “In these trying times, the Commission is trying to do the best it could.”

He expressed happiness at the way events unfolded today. “The best part was that all the applicants and respondents came well prepared for the hearing,” he said.

Julka said a lot of work had gone into the preparation of taking the Commission’s work online. The Commission held its first online office meeting via Zoom on March 23, which incidentally was also the first day of the nationwide lockdown.

Decision on online hearings was taken on March 23, first day of lockdown

During that meeting, which was chaired by Julka and attended by all the other six central information commissioners, secretary to the Commission and other senior officers, it was decided that the deputy registrars would fix dates in consultation with the information commissioners and issue the notices in all cases where the contact details of the parties were available. For this, it was also decided that the contact details of nodal CPIOs would be made available to the deputy registrars.

Also read: Coronavirus Daily Updates: More Than 20 Lakh Confirmed Cases Worldwide

Julka said in consonance with the decision that the Commission would start all scheduled hearings through audio or digital mode by April 15 in larger public interest, relevant information about the cases was sent out to both the parties by its officers.

NIC’s Vidyo to replace Zoom

Julka said that due to security concerns over using Zoom, the Commission was in consultation with the National Informatics Centre and has been training its staffers and commissioners to use ‘Vidyo’, which is an indigenous tool for audio-video conferencing that has been developed by NIC. The panel had earlier “collectively agreed” that it would “strive to introduce latest technological tools for its smooth functioning”.

The Commission also decided that the registrar would train deputy registrars periodically to iron out administrative or technical support issues that may arise with the National Informatics Centre.

Photo: CIC

E-mails being sent to applicants, respondents

On how the hearings are being arranged, the Chief Information Commissioner said: “There are over 35,000 cases pending and out of these we have with us phone numbers of applicants and respondents of around 29,000 cases. We are approaching them all through e-mails.”

While day-to-day hearings may still take some time, Julka said the Commission will examine how many cases it was able to handle by the end of this month. “We want to institutionalise this mechanism of conducting hearings online and would try to provide this option to all the applicants and respondents,” he said.

Advocates can also appear for clients

On whether advocates, who often appear on behalf of the clients would also be able to join in, the CIC said even today two advocates appeared. “They would be able to attend the hearings wherever they have been authorised by the applicants or the respondents.”

While not commenting on the Commission working with four Commissioners less than the sanctioned strength of 11, including the chief, and the Centre not following the Supreme Court’s directions of February 2019 to fill up the vacancies expeditiously, Julka said the Commission wants to fulfil its duties to the best of its abilities.

First-ever online hearing from home

Former central information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi has pointed out that this video-conferencing was not the first-ever in the history of the Commission, but the first-ever in which officials, appellants and respondents operated from home.

Stating that “CIC has been doing video conferencing since over a decade now”, using a NIC platform, he said, “the only change (now) appears to be that people could join from their homes using Zoom.” So, “the same technology is now being used from home and PIOs and appellants do not go to the NIC studios.”

SC Directs Centre, States to Appoint Information Commissioners in Within 3 Months

The bench also said there was a need to evolve guidelines to stop “misuse” of the Right to Information Act.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Centre and state governments to appoint within three months information commissioners in the Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and said there was a need to evolve guidelines to stop “misuse” of the Right to Information Act.

A bench headed by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde took note of the submissions of lawyer Prashant Bhushan that despite the apex court’s February 15 judgment, the Centre and state governments have not appointed information commissioners in CIC and SICs.

“We direct the Centre and the state to conclude the appointment from today,” the bench which also comprised justice B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant said.

The bench also directed authorities to put up on government websites the names of members of the search committee for the appointment of the CIC’s information commissioners within two weeks.

During the hearing, the bench raised the issue of “misuse” of the Right to Information Act by those who have no relation to the information sought for and said that there was a need for evolving some kind of guidelines.

“We are not against the RTI Act but we think it is necessary to evolve some kind of guidelines to regulate this,” the bench said.

“People who are in no way connected to an issue file RTI. It sometimes amount to criminal intimidation, which is a nice word for blackmail. We are not against the Right to Information. But there is need for guidelines. It cannot be an unrivalled right,” it said.

The bench was hearing an interim application filed by RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj seeking a direction to government authorities on the implementation of the top court’s order asking them to appoint information commissioners within a stipulated time and in a transparent manner.

Information Commissioners’ Tenures, Salaries Now Firmly in Centre’s Hands

As rules for amended RTI Act are notified three months after the amendment, activists insist greater powers with Centre would make information commissioners wary of issuing tough orders.

New Delhi: As the Centre today notified the rules for the amended Right to Information Act, 2005, curtailing the the tenure of information commissioners in both Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions to three years, a number of RTI activists slammed the move and said it would reduce the commissioners to “caged parrots”.

According to the gazette notification, “The Right to Information (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners in the Central Information Commission, State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners in the State Information Commission) Rules, 2019 will be applicable on all new appointments.”

The RTI Act was amended by the Centre in July 2019 to alter the tenure and terms of service of the information commissioners as it intended to do away with the parity enjoyed by them with the Chief Election Commissioner and election commissioners as per the original Act.

Rules come three months after Act was amended

The notification has come nearly three months after the amendments were passed amid protests by rights activists. Due to the delay new appointments had stalled and pendency of cases in commissions that were short of hands rose sharply.

As per the new rules, the Centre would now have the discretion to decide the allowances or service conditions not specifically covered by the 2019 rules and its decision would be “binding”. The power to relax the norms would also rest with the government.

Also read: Who’s Afraid of the RTI Act?

Tenure of Commissioners reduced to three years from five

While earlier, the commissioners had a term of five now or retired at the age of 65, whichever was earlier, now the term has been fixed at three years.

RTI activists had earlier argued that there was a need for a longer tenure that so that the information commissioners could function fearlessly.

CIC chief gets Rs 2.50 lakh in salary, all other commissioners Rs 2.25 lakh

The rules also stipulate fixing of the salary of Chief Information Commissioner at Rs 2.50 lakh and of Information Commissioners at Rs 2.25 lakh.

In a detailed analysis of the notification, Anjali Bhardwaj of Satark Nagrik Sangathan said these rules would make information commissions function like “caged parrots” since “they would now be wary of giving directions for disclosing information that the central government does not wish to provide”.

She said, “The rules made by the Central government confirm fears that the amendments were aimed at allowing the government to exert control over the information commissions.”

‘Government gets discretion to have different tenures for different commissioners’

On the reduction in tenure, she commented that while there is no change to the maximum age limit of 65 years and to the provisions regulating reappointment, as these provisions were not amended, Rule 22 states that the central government has the power to relax the provisions of any of the rules in respect of any class or category of persons.

“This raises serious concerns that the government could potentially invoke these powers to determine different tenures for different commissioners at the time of appointment,” she said.

Also Read: ‘RTI Bill Shrouded in Secrecy, How Will it Enhance Transparency?’ Ask Former CICs

‘Status of Information Commissioners reduced’

Bharadwaj charged that the protection of status of information commissioners has also been done away with. According to her, “prior to the amendments, the RTI Act conferred a high status on Commissioners to empower them to carry out their functions autonomously, without fear or favour, and direct even the highest offices to comply with the provisions of the law”.

“The law stated that the salaries and allowances payable to, and other terms and conditions of service of, the Chief and the Information Commissioners of the CIC shall be the same as that of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners respectively,” she said.

‘Reduction in salaries does away with insulation from government control’

Further, she added, the salaries and allowances of “State Chief Information Commissioners and State Information Commissioners were the same as that of the Election Commissioner and the Chief Secretary to the state government, respectively. The Chief and other election commissioners are paid a salary equal to that of a judge of the Supreme Court, which is decided by parliament, thereby providing insulation from government control.”

But now, she lamented, “rules made by the Central Government have done away with the protection of stature of commissioners.” The rules prescribe a fixed quantum of salary for commissioners – Chief of CIC at Rs 2.50 lakh per month, Chief of SICs and information commissioners of CIC and SICs at Rs 2.25 lakh per month.

Also Read: RTI Amendment Bill, Degree Row: Modi’s Victories Against Transparency Movement

The rights activist said, “The removal of the provision guaranteeing equivalence to other posts (Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commissioners, Chief Secretaries) means that salaries of information commissioners will be revised only if the central government decides to revise the rules.”

Also, the rules do not indicate details of the post-retirement entitlements, including pensions, of commissioners, she added.

‘Government will wield influence through discretionary powers on post retirement benefits’

Bharadwaj said more discretion has been brought in through Rule 21 which states that conditions of service for which no express provision has been made in these rules shall be decided in each case by the Central Government. “This would potentially mean that the government will decide the post retirement entitlements, including pension, of each commissioner. It could use this power to vary the entitlements of different commissioners and use it as a means to exercise control and influence.”

Similarly, she said, Rule 22 allows the central government to relax the provisions of any of the rules in respect of any class or category of persons. “This raises the concern whether the government can invoke these powers to determine different salaries, allowances and terms of conditions for different commissioners.”

The rules, she said, also empower the Centre to relax provisions related to tenure, salaries and terms of service for different category of persons. “This destroys the insulation provided in the original RTI Act, which was crucial to enable information commissions to function in an independent manner. The autonomy of commissions is further eroded through rules by enabling the central government to decide certain entitlements for commissioners on a case by case basis,” she said.

Information Commissions, commissioners downgraded, reduced to ‘babus’

Another RTI activist, Venkatesh Nayak, told PTI that “as the parity between the Information Commissions and the Election Commission of India has been downgraded to babu-level (government officials)” and so now it was very unlikely that senior bureaucrats would be hauled up before the Information Commissions for not complying with the provisions of the RTI Act.

He said the trait of the bureaucracy to equate seniority, authority and power with pay grades “adversely affects the prestige and the ability of the Information Commissions to do their appointed job under the RTI Act.”

Another RTI activist, Commodore (Retd.) Lokesh Batra commented that the new rules give the government full control over the information commissions and puts a question mark on their autonomy.