Revision summary
The 2005 Act gave CIC and ICs a five-year term and CEC-equivalent salary as a tenure-and-status guarantee. The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019, left term and pay to Central Government rules and dropped the no-disadvantage clause. State Commissioners’ conditions also sit with the Centre, which federalises control over a State appellate. Appointment collegium was not the main target; security of tenure after appointment was. Autonomy suffers when the executive that is a frequent respondent also writes the Commissioner’s service rules.
Model answer
Introduction
The Right to Information Act, 2005, made the Central and State Information Commissions the appellate spine of a statutory right. The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019, shifted tenure, salary, and status of Commissioners from the parent Act to Central rules. That is a profound design change for autonomy, even if the Commission still exists on paper.
Body
What the 2005 Act had locked
- The Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners held office for five years or until sixty-five, with salary aligned to the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners.
- Status parity with a constitutional election body was the political signal that the Commission was not a departmental tribunal.
- Conditions of service could not be varied to the incumbent’s disadvantage after appointment, which is a classic independence clause.
What the 2019 amendment did
- Term of office is now such as the Central Government may prescribe; five years is no longer in the Act.
- Salaries, allowances, and other conditions of CIC, ICs, and State Commissioners are likewise as prescribed by the Centre.
- The disadvantage-variation shield and CEC-equivalent rank were removed from the statute, so the Union can rewrite the package by rule.
Impact on autonomy and independence
- A Commissioner whose term and pay sit in executive rules has a weaker incentive to pass orders that embarrass the same executive that writes those rules.
- State Information Commissions, already uneven in vacancies and pendency, now look to Delhi for service conditions, which cuts a federal nerve in a State-level transparency body.
- Anjali Bhardwaj and other transparency campaigns argued that the amendment subordinates the Commission to the Department of Personnel; the Union argued flexibility and that RTI Commissions are statutory, not constitutional, bodies.
- Independence is not only appointment (the Prime Minister–Leader of Opposition–Cabinet Minister collegium remains). It is also security of tenure after appointment; 2019 hit the second pillar.
- Recommendation: restore statutory tenure and a salary peg in the Act, and fill vacancies, or the 2005 right will be enforced by a timid appellate.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD A[RTI Act 2005] --> T[Five-year term CEC rank] T --> I[Independent Commission] AM[2019 amendment] --> R[Central rules on term and pay] R --> W[Weaker autonomy]
Conclusion
The 2019 amendments leave the RTI right intact as text but move the Commission’s term and pay into Central rules. That is a profound impact on autonomy because independence after appointment is what lets a Commissioner order disclosure against the government of the day. A statutory commission that lives on executive patronage is an appellate in name.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Indian constitution exhibits centralising tendencies to maintain unity and integrity of the nation. Elucidate in the perspective of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897; The Disaster Management Act, 2005 and recently passed Farm Acts.
Next question on this syllabus topic (2020 · Q11). View answer →
-
Did 2019 repeal the right to information?
No. Sections on request, appeal and penalty remain. The change is to the Commission’s institutional independence.
-
Are Information Commissions constitutional bodies?
No. They are statutory. That is the Union’s legal defence, and also why Parliament can weaken them unless political cost stops it.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2021 · Q1 · GS II · 10 marks
'Constitutional Morality' is rooted in the Constitution itself and is founded on its essential facets. Explain the doctrine of 'Constitutional Morality' with the help of relevant judicial decisions. -
2021 · Q13 · GS II · 15 marks
Analyze the distinguishing features of the notion of Equality in the Constitutions of the USA and India. -
2021 · Q14 · GS II · 15 marks
Explain the constitutional provisions under which Legislative Councils are established. Review the working and current status of Legislative Councils with suitable illustrations. -
2020 · Q11 · GS II · 15 marks
Indian constitution exhibits centralising tendencies to maintain unity and integrity of the nation. Elucidate in the perspective of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897; The Disaster Management Act, 2005 and recently passed Farm Acts. -
2020 · Q15 · GS II · 15 marks
Which steps are required for constitutionalization of a commission? Do you think imparting constitutionality to the National Commission for Women would ensure greater gender justice and empowerment in India? Give reasons. -
2019 · Q5 · GS II · 10 marks
What can France learn from the Indian Constitution's approach to secularism? -
2018 · Q2 · GS II · 10 marks
Whether National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) can enforce the implementation of constitutional reservation for the Scheduled Castes in the religious minority institutions? Examine. -
2018 · Q3 · GS II · 10 marks
Under what circumstances can the Financial Emergency be proclaimed by the President of India? What consequences follow when such a declaration remains in force?
More from this topic
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2025 · GS II · 10 marks
Compare and contrast the President's power to pardon in India and in the USA. Are there any limits to it in both the countries? What are 'preemptive pardons'?
Indian Constitution
Article 72 (and 161) are exercised on aid and advice; Maru Ram, Kehar Singh, Epuru Sudhakar and Shatrughan Chauhan frame Indian limits and delay. The US Article II pardon is personal, federal-only, and barred in impeachment. Judicial review is stronger in India; political cost is the main US brake. A preemptive pardon forgives before conviction, as in Ford–Nixon. India has no working doctrine of preemptive pardon for the untried.
Q15 · UPSC Mains 2024 · GS II · 15 marks
Discuss India as a secular state and compare with the secular principles of the US constitution.
Indian Constitution
Indian secularism: Preamble, Articles 25–28, Bommai as basic structure, personal laws, State reform of Hindu law and regulation of temples. US secularism: First Amendment establishment and free exercise, Everson’s wall, Engel on school prayer, no millet personal law. India practises principled distance and social reform; the United States practises non-establishment. Minority educational rights under Article 30 have no US analogue of that form. Neither wall nor distance is a finished peace with majoritarian politics. Comparison is of method, not of piety.
Q12 · UPSC Mains 2024 · GS II · 15 marks
Right to privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty and is inherently protected under Article 21 of the constitution. Explain. In this reference discuss the law relating to D.N.A. testing of child in the womb to establish its paternity.
Indian Constitution
Puttaswamy held that privacy is part of Article 21 and that any restriction must be legal, necessary and proportionate. Section 112 of the Evidence Act treats a child born in a valid marriage as legitimate unless non-access is proved. Goutam Kundu and later cases refused to make DNA a routine paternity weapon in a private quarrel. A test on a child still in the womb adds miscarriage risk and collides with the woman’s bodily autonomy. Suchita Srivastava had already linked reproductive choice to personal liberty. Proportionality will rarely justify a prenatal paternity expedition. The law of paternity is not a right to inspect a womb.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.