Tag: RTI act amendments

The Year in RTI Activism and Transparency

While the Supreme Court verdict bringing the office of the CJI under the RTI was a bright spot, the Centre’s plans to curb transparency were worrying.

New Delhi: The year 2019 was a mixed one for Right to Information and transparency in India as there were some gains for the movement through court rulings and the opening of the Chief Justice of India’s office to RTI, while the Centre kept up the pressure to wield more power over institutions that ensure accountability of government offices towards ordinary citizens.

Right to Information activists insist that apart from the Supreme Court urging the Centre to expedite and streamline the process of appointment of information commissioners and opening the doors of its own chief to the RTI, the year did not offer much to be optimistic about.

Repeal of J&K RTI Act a big setback

“It’s been a year of mixed experience where the tendencies towards curtailment of RTI were more, particularly in light of the Central Government’s attempts to get complete control over the tenure and salaries of Information Commissioners across the country,” said Venkatesh Nayak of Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, adding that this was an unfortunate development.

Nayak, who has been closely involved with the transparency movement in Jammu and Kashmir, also lamented the repeal of the J&K RTI Act following the reading down of Article 370 and ending of Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood. With the move leading to the application of the central Right to Information Act, 2005 to the state, he said “this was another unfortunate development since “the J&K Right to Information Act which was at least three shades better than the Central law.”

‘CJI office under RTI is a big positive’

However, according to him, one positive development during the year was the ending of the controversy regarding coverage of the Chief Justice of India’s office under the RTI. “It was a simple matter but it still dragged on for many years. Thankfully the clarification has been issued.”

Also read: RTI Activists Disagree With CJI’s View That Queries Have Created ‘Paralysis and Fear’

But, he added that “the judgment itself is both a blessing and also creates more problems in terms of interpretation of the law and application of the law.”

Referring to how seriously the government takes transparency, Nayak also pointed out that the good governance index, which the government of India released on December 26, contained “no reference to either transparency or the Right to Information Act. The only reference in the context of Citizens’ Governance Indicators is the Right to Services Guarantees Act,” he said.

Even when it came to Right to Services Guarantees Act, he said for this there is no Central Iegislation at all and different states have passed different kinds of service guarantee laws. “Therefore judging the states, particularly in the context of good governance, in the absence of any indicator on extent of transparency, is hugely problematic. The concomitant value of good governance with transparency is accountability, but the good governance indicator is silent on the accountability issue.”

Nayak also noted that “in the case of public security and judiciary related indicators, there is no mention of any indicator related to efforts of the states to curb corruption.”

PCA amended to make it difficult to catch wrong-doers

Nayak said that the Prevention of Corruption Act too was “amended to make it more cumbersome to launch any kind of action against public servants unless they are caught red-handed creates further problems with regard to the accountability commitment of the government at different levels.”

However, he said, the increasing number of RTI applications that have been filed, as an evolving phenomenon on the one hand, and as a response of civil society and the citizenry to the central government’s efforts to curb its efficacy was a major and promising feature of 2019. “Across the nation, during the first week of every month, citizens and civil society organisations are filing RTI applications in prolific numbers just to stand in solidarity with each other to protect and defend the RTI Act from rollback,” Nayak said.

RTIs filed with central government have risen

Admitting that there is no real-time data on RTI, Nayak said what was interesting is that compared to 2017-18 when around 9.5 lakh applications were filed with Central Government, in 2018-19 this number went up to around 12 lakh.

“This is extremely redeeming because it is showing that while it was believed that the curve was plateauing, that trend has been bucked and there is an increase now,” he said.

Also read: The Right to Information Is Dead. Here Is its Obituary.

Key central laws awaited, no information on Lokpal’s performance

Nayak also lamented that the Whistleblower Protection Law had gone nowhere in the last year; there has been no development around having a central Grievance Redressal law or in terms of giving grievance redressal powers to the information commissions, which most of the times dealt with appeals that were of the nature of grievances of the poor or non-delivery of public services.

As for the Lokpal, he said, though it has been activated in terms of appointment, “there is very little information about what exactly is the work they have done so far, particularly in terms of the disposal of a couple of thousand complaints that had been sent to them.”

Centre failed to abide by SC ruling on appointments of information commissioners

Another noted RTI activist, Anjali Bhardwaj of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information said “in February 2019, the Supreme Court gave an extremely progressive judgment on the RTI Act. It reiterated that the RTI is a fundamental right and information must be provided under the law in a time-bound manner. Highlighting the importance of information commissions, the court directed governments to appoint information commissioners in a transparent and timely manner.”

But, she pointed out, “unfortunately the Central government has failed to abide by the directions of the apex court to appoint information commissioners in the CIC.”

Parliament building. Photo: PTI

Amendment to RTI law compromised autonomy of information commissions

Referring to the Centre’s amendment of the RTI Act for the first time since 2005, Bhardwaj said, “the amendments, introduced surreptitiously by the BJP government, were extremely regressive and compromised the autonomy of information commissions in the country.”

The amendments passed by parliament, she said, empowered the central government to frame rules to decide the tenure, salaries and terms of service of all commissioners in the country. “Through the rules promulgated in October 2019, the central government has given itself arbitrary powers which will result in commissions potentially becoming caged parrots, effectively functioning like central government departments,” alleged Bhardwaj, who has led several protests over the issue.

‘Despite amendments, RTI law used to expose flaws in electoral bond scheme’

Like Nayak, she too noted that activists are continuing to seek information under the law to keep the pressure up. “The law, however, continues to be extensively used and valued by people across the country, who vehemently opposed the amendments to the law in 2019 and sought information to hold the government accountable.”

Also read: Why Is the General Admin Dept Trying to Delay the Application of the Central RTI Act in J&K?

This, she noted, has also resulted in valuable and important information on government departments being revealed. “For instance, recently using the RTI Act, information was accessed about how the government pushed through the scheme for allowing anonymous electoral bonds despite objections being raised by Election Commission of India and Reserve Bank of India,” she pointed out.

So, at every step, the Centre’s attempts to curb the flow of information is being countered by aware and concerned citizens who do not want the government to succeed in its design of preventing them from asking questions and holding it accountable.

Centre Changed RTI Law and Rules on Salaries, Tenures Without Consulting CIC

The Narendra Modi government had pushed these amendments forward despite protests from activists and the opposition.

New Delhi: The Centre did not ask the Central Information Commission (CIC) for comments on the Right to Information Amendment Act, 2019 and the subsequently promulgated rules, a query filed by an RTI activist has revealed.

In response to a query filed by Anjali Bhardwaj, the CIC replied on November 18, “No comments were sought and provided by CIC.”

Reacting to the response she received, Bhardwaj said, “The surreptitious manner in which the amendments were brought, and the rules promulgated, constitutes a violation of the Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy of 2014 which requires all draft rules to be placed in the public domain for comments/suggestions of people. Further, Section 4(1)(c) of the RTI Act puts an obligation on the government to publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect the public.”

The RTI Amendment Act, 2019 was passed by parliament in July 2019. It amended Sections 13, 16 and 27 of the RTI Act, 2005 to empower the Central government to prescribe rules to decide tenure, salaries, allowances and other terms of service of the chief and other information commissioners of the CIC and all state information commissions (SICs).

Also read: The Right to Information Is Dead. Here Is its Obituary.

The proposal was strongly opposed by RTI activists and opposition parties alike, as it sought to diminish the commissioners’ independence by empowering the Centre to decide on their tenures and salaries.

Bhardwaj said, “The government brought in amendments to the RTI Act despite protests across the country and opposition from several political parties. There were no public consultations on the amendments and the bill was not referred to a parliamentary deliberative committee for detailed discussions.”

Centre did not seek CIC comments on RTI amendment, new rules

To know the CIC’s stand on the new rules, Bhardwaj filed an RTI application.

She demanded that she be provided a copy of the letter or note through which the comments of the CIC were sought on the amendments. She also asked for a copy of the comments, correspondence or notings sent by the CIC on that Bill. The central public information officer, though, responded saying “no record for the information is available”.

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

Bhardwaj said following the amendments to the RTI Act, the Central government also promulgated rules to define the salaries, tenure and terms of service of information commissioners. “The rules were also not put through any process of public consultation. The CIC has also confirmed, in response to an RTI application, that the government did not seek its comments on the rules.”

While saying that no record was available, the CPIO added that the application was being transferred to “C. Vinod Babu, consultant SO and CPIO Admin”. On November 18, Babu, while responding to the query, wrote to Bhardwaj saying, “No comments were sought and provided by CIC”.

Government reply in Rajya Sabha

Bhardwaj has also pointed out that a July 27, 2019 reply in the Rajya Sabha by minister of state in the PMO Jitendra Singh on the RTI Amendment Bill highlighted the government’s thought process. Singh heads the Department of Personnel and Training, which is the nodal department for all RTI matters.

In the reply, in response to a query on why there were no public consultations on the amendments, he said: “The question was: Why was it not put in the public forum? My response is that…at this moment, we are dealing with certain functionaries, certain points. Kuchh adhikariyon kay kitnay waitan rahe, kitnay nahin rahe (What was the salary of some officials that remained, or did not remain). It is between the government and the officers, not the public. That is our response.”

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.

Opposition Parties Unite to Oppose Amendments to RTI Act

In agreement that the Modi government wants to control salaries and tenures of information commissioners through these changes, at least six parties declared their intent to oppose the amendments when they are moved.

New Delhi: Leaders of a large number of opposition parties today came together to denounce the proposed amendments to the RTI Act that have been moved by the Narendra Modi government and to demand the immediate operationalisation of anti-corruption laws.

Speaking at a people’s convention or ‘jan manch’ organised by the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, senior leaders of the Congress, Communist Party of India (Marxist), CPI, Rashtriya Janata Dal and Trinamool Congress declared that they would oppose any amendments to the RTI Act, 2005.

At the Jan Manch, a resolution was also passed to demand that the RTI Act not be diluted through amendments which seek to place in the hands of the Centre the powers of determining the tenure and salaries of all the information commissioners, including the chiefs, in both the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions. The resolution had also demanded immediate operationalisation of the Whistleblowers Protection Act and the Lokpal law, introduction of the Grievance Redressal Bill and opposed the lack of transparency in electoral funding due to introduction of electoral bonds.

Speaking at the meet, Rajeev Gowda of the Congress said his party would oppose any amendment to the RTI Act. He also accused the BJP government at the Centre of destroying every institution and legislation of transparency and accountability. Gowda said the Congress would also support the demand for implementation and passage of the other anti-corruption laws.

General secretary of CPI(M) Sitaram Yechury said the RTI Act came about after a long and hard struggle of the people. He said his party would support the demand to not dilute the RTI Act and assured that it would work both within and outside parliament to ensure that the RTI Act was not amended.

Another Communist leader, D. Raja of the CPI said his party was very clear in its position and would not allow any dilution of the RTI Act. His colleague and party national secretary Atul Kumar Anjaan said the BJP government wanted to weaken the RTI Act as it is a tool in the hands of the ordinary citizens for fighting corruption. “Who are the people who are opposed to this RTI Act? They are those who are involved in the loot of public money,” he said.

Anjaan said any tinkering with the RTI Act would be worse than rape as it would directly impact those who are poor and socially marginalised. He also charged that the Modi government has not got a Lokpal appointed in its four year rule thus far. “Now,” he quipped, “they are talking about it when its term is about to come to an end and the elections are only a few months away.”

Manoj Kumar Jha of the RJD said the government was trying to destroy the RTI Act as they have no answers to people’s questions. Trinamool leader Dinesh Trivedi too said his party would oppose the amendments to the RTI Act.

Later, Aam Aadmi Party leader and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh said that his party would block all attempts to get the amendments to the RTI Act introduced in parliament. He said it was clear that by controlling the purse-strings of the information commissioner, the Modi government wanted to curb their independence and freedom of deliver orders fearlessly.

The leaders of all these opposition parties were in unison that the failure of the Modi government in enacting or implementing the anti-corruption laws showed its real intent and face.

Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, who was part of the Lokpal movement, said the government was also trying to undermine the independence of the judiciary and that it was crucial that people campaign against all these attempts to dilute these important institutions.

Anjali Bhardwaj and Nikhil Dey of NCPRI declared that a follow up to today’s protests, which were also held in Gujarat and Rajasthan, similar demonstrations would be held all over the country to oppose the amendments to the RTI Act.

The gathering was also attended and addressed among others by former chief information commissioner Wajahat Habibullah, Harsh Mander of Centre for Equity Studies and former major general Anil Verma of Association for Democratic Rights.