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
Copper italics in this answer — like this — are the key facts. Each one is unpacked in the Facts & figures rail.
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.
Same topic · past papers
UPSC has asked this before
These previous-year questions sit on the same topic. Open one to practise the earlier ask.
-
2023 · Q1 · GS II · 10 marks
"Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy". Comment. -
2025 · Q11 · GS II · 15 marks
"Constitutional morality is the fulcrum which acts as an essential check upon the high functionaries and citizens alike…"In view of the above observation of the Supreme Court, explain the concept of constitutional morality and its application to ensure balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability in India.
More from this topic
Q17 · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS II · 15 marks · Solution
Can the constitutional mandate of rights-based welfare be effectively realised in the context of non-integrated governance and minimal public investment? Examine.
Indian Constitution
• India’s constitutional welfare mandate struggles due to fragmented administrative silos and low public spending. • Siloed departmental functioning causes duplication, exclusion errors, and severe frontline administrative overload. • Suboptimal public investment in health and education forces heavy reliance on profit-driven private providers. • Fiscal federalism pressures leave financially weaker states unable to co-finance central welfare mandates properly. • Overcoming these bottlenecks requires a whole-of-government approach using unified digital platforms for convergence. • Progressively increasing public expenditure on core social infrastructure is vital to meet statutory entitlements. • Strengthening social audits and grievance redressal ensures legal rights translate into tangible grassroots outcomes.
Q1 · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS II · 10 marks · Solution
Right to privacy relating to self-identity is very dear to every human being and well protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this context, examine the effect of the amendment in 2026 to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.
Indian Constitution
• Article 21 protects personal autonomy, bodily integrity, and the right to self-identity as core components of human dignity. • The Supreme Court's *K.S. Puttaswamy* judgment firmly established privacy as a fundamental right encompassing personal choices. • The 2026 amendment to the Transgender Persons Act, 2019, aims to align statutory laws with evolving constitutional jurisprudence. • Key reforms include decentralising identity certification to eliminate bureaucratic delays and arbitrary state interference. • The amendment also strengthens punitive and remedial mechanisms against social and institutional discrimination. • Persistent challenges remain, notably bridging the gap between legal recognition and deep-rooted societal stigma. • True realization of these rights requires continuous administrative sensitization and inclusive access to education, healthcare, and jobs.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2025 · GS II · 10 marks · Solution
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.