Right to Information (Amendment) Act 2019

Topic: Transparency, Accountability and e-Governance · NCERT: Beyond NCERT

Meaning

The Right to Information (Amendment) Act 2019 changed Sections 13 and 16 of the RTI Act 2005. Before it, the Act itself fixed the term, salary and service conditions of Information Commissioners. After it, the Central Government sets them by rules, for both the Central Information Commission and the State Information Commissions [2].

It matters because it moved control over the RTI watchdogs' term and pay from Parliament's law to the government's rules. Critics say this weakens the independence of the bodies that are meant to check the government.

Explanation

What the RTI Act 2005 said before 2019

• Section 13 covers the Central Information Commission (CIC). Section 16 covers the State Information Commissions (SICs).
• Term: the Act gave members a fixed five-year term, or service until age 65, whichever came first [2].
• Pay and status: the Act linked their pay to the Election Commission.
• The Chief Information Commissioner got the same pay as the Chief Election Commissioner.
• An Information Commissioner got the same pay as an Election Commissioner.

• NCERT calls this "parity with Election Commissioners" (equal pay and rank).

• Because these terms were written into the Act, only Parliament could change them by amending the law.

What the 2019 amendment changed

• Who decides: the Act no longer fixes the term or pay. The Central Government now decides the term, salary and service conditions [2].
• Reach: this power covers both central and state commissioners [2]. So the Centre now decides service conditions for bodies set up by the states.
• Parity ended: the automatic link to Election Commission pay was removed.
• What did not change: the amendment touched only s.13 and s.16, so these rules stay as they were:
• Appointment (s.12(3)): a panel of the PM, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Cabinet minister nominated by the PM recommends names, and the President appoints them.
• State panel (s.15): the Chief Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Assembly and a Cabinet minister nominated by the CM recommend names, and the Governor appoints them.
• Removal (s.14): for proved misbehaviour or incapacity, the President refers the charge to the Supreme Court. The President removes the member only if the SC upholds the charge.

The RTI Rules 2019: how the new power was used

• Notified: the rules were notified (officially published) on 24 October 2019 [1].
• Term: three years for central and state commissioners [1].
• Monthly pay at the Centre: [1]
• Chief Information Commissioner: ₹2,50,000

• Information Commissioner: ₹2,25,000

• Monthly pay in the states: ₹2,25,000 for both the State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners [1].

• Key point: these figures are in rules, not in the Act. The government can change rules without passing a new law in Parliament.

In the Constitution and practice

• Legal home: the Right to Information Act 2005 is an ordinary law of Parliament. The CIC is a statutory body (set up by a law, not by the Constitution). That is why Parliament could change its service conditions with a simple amendment Act in 2019.
• Contrast with the Election Commission: the Election Commission is a constitutional body (Article 324). Before 2019, tying the CIC's pay to it gave the CIC similar status. The 2019 amendment ended that link.
• Who uses the power: the Central Government uses it by making rules. It did so through the RTI Rules 2019 [1].
• Background of weak functioning: in Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India (15 February 2019), the Supreme Court looked at vacancies in the CIC [6].
• When the petition was filed, 4 Information Commissioner posts were vacant and more than 23,500 appeals and complaints were pending [6].
• Posts fell vacant in the normal way, at the end of a five-year term or at age 65, but the government did not fill them in time [6].

• The Court ordered timely and transparent appointments. The government must publish the search committee, the selection criteria and the shortlisted names, and start filling a post before it falls vacant.

• A shorter term means more frequent vacancies: with a three-year term [1], posts fall vacant more often. This makes the Anjali Bhardwaj directions even more important.

• Recent practice (2025): for a time the CIC was short of members and had no Chief.
• Raj Kumar Goyal, a retired IAS officer of 1990 [3], took oath as Chief Information Commissioner from the President at Rashtrapati Bhavan on 15 December 2025 [4].
• Eight new Information Commissioners took oath in the CIC on the same day [5].

Don't confuse with

• RTI Act 2005 vs RTI (Amendment) Act 2019: the 2005 Act created the right, the PIOs, the appeals and the Commissions. The 2019 Act changed only the term, salary and service conditions of commissioners (s.13 and s.16).
• RTI (Amendment) Act 2019 vs RTI Rules 2019: the Amendment Act gave the Centre the power to set terms and pay. The Rules, notified on 24 October 2019, actually set them: a three-year term and fixed monthly pay [1].
• Information Commission vs Election Commission: the CIC is statutory (RTI Act 2005). The Election Commission is constitutional (Article 324). The pay parity between them ended in 2019.
• The 2019 amendment vs Anjali Bhardwaj (2019): the amendment is a law about service conditions. Anjali Bhardwaj is a Supreme Court judgment about filling vacancies on time and in a transparent way.

Prelims Hooks

• Sections amended: s.13 (Central Commission) and s.16 (State Commissions). The appointment panel (s.12(3)) and the removal process (s.14) were not changed.
• Before 2019 → after 2019: a fixed five-year term (or until age 65) and pay parity with the Election Commission → the Central Government decides the term, salary and service conditions for both central and state commissioners [2].
• RTI Rules 2019 (24 October 2019): a three-year term; ₹2,50,000 a month for the Chief Information Commissioner and ₹2,25,000 for an Information Commissioner at the Centre; ₹2,25,000 for both State Chief and State Information Commissioners [1].
• Trap: the Centre, not the State Government, now fixes the pay and term of State Information Commissioners [2].
• Trap: the CIC is a statutory body, not a constitutional one, which is why an ordinary amendment Act could change its service conditions. The CJI is not on the selection panel.
• Case–principle pair: Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India (2019) → timely and transparent appointment of Information Commissioners [6].

Mains Points

• Independence vs executive control:
• When the government sets a watchdog's term and pay by rules, it can change them at any time.
• This makes the Commission depend on the government whose secrets it may order to be disclosed.
• A short three-year term [1] also reduces security of tenure (protection from losing the post early).

• Reform: put a fixed term and fixed pay back into the Act itself, or restore parity with the Election Commission.

• Federalism concern:

• State Information Commissions are set up and staffed by the states (the Governor appoints, on a panel led by the Chief Minister).

• Yet the Centre now decides their term and pay [2]. This takes power away from the states in their own sphere.

• Status and enforcement together:

• Ending parity with a constitutional body lowers the standing of Information Commissions.
• Vacancies (Anjali Bhardwaj, 2019 [6]; the headless CIC of 2025) and pending cases already weaken RTI.
• A lower-status, short-term post may also attract fewer strong candidates.
• Reform: follow the Anjali Bhardwaj directions on time-bound and transparent appointments, and give commissioners secure terms so the 30-day promise of RTI is kept.

Related concepts

• Right to Information Act 2005
• Public authority (RTI)
• Public Information Officer
• Proactive disclosure
• Jan Soochna Portal
• RTI appeals

Read more

• The RTI Act 2005: rights, duties and machinery