THE GIST of Editorial for UPSC Exams : 25 JULY 2019 (Undermining RTI (The Hindu))

Undermining RTI (The Hindu)

Mains Paper 2 : Polity
Prelims level : RTI
Mains level : Separation of powers between various organs dispute redressal mechanisms and institutions

Context

• Amendments passed by the Lok Sabha to the Right to Information Act are so obviously unnecessary that naturally many see an ulterior motive.
• It is difficult not to concur with activists who contend that the amendments pose a threat to the freedom and autonomy of Information Commissions at the Central and State levels.
• The Central Information Commissioner, the corresponding authorities in the States (State Information Commissioners) and other Information Commissioners at both levels are statutory functionaries vested with the power to review the decisions of public information officers in government departments, institutions and bodies.

Background

• The amendments propose to modify the status, tenure and conditions of appointment of these Commissioners and empower the Union government to set their tenure and remuneration.
• While the original law assured incumbents of a fixed five-year term, with 65 as the retirement age, the amendments say the Centre would decide their tenure.
• The security of tenure of an adjudicating authority, whose mandate is to intervene in favour of information-seekers against powerful regimes and bureaucrats, has been undermined.
• The original legislation says the salary and terms and conditions of service of the CIC are the same as those of the Chief Election Commissioner, equal in status to a Supreme Court judge. Similarly, the other Information Commissioners at the Central level have the same conditions of service as Election Commissioners.

Aim behind this move

• At the State level, the SIC has the same terms and conditions of service as Election Commissioners, while other Information Commissioners are equated with the Chief Secretary of a State.
• The government claims its aim is to ‘rationalise’ the status of the authorities.
• It argues that while the Chief Election Commissioner is a constitutional functionary, the CIC is only a statutory authority. And while the CEC is equal in status to a Supreme Court judge, it would be incongruous for the CIC to enjoy the same status as the CIC’s orders are subject to judicial review by the high courts.
• This is a fallacious argument as even the Election Commission’s decisions can be reviewed by high courts.
• Protecting citizens’ right to information is a cause important enough for adjudicating authorities to be vested with high status and security of tenure.

Conclusion

• Given the extent to which the RTI Act has empowered citizens and helped break the hold of vested interests over the administration, the law has always faced a threat from many in power.
• The RTI Act was a consensus law and a product of public consultation.
• The present amendments have not been put to any debate.
• The government would do well to drop the Bill or at least send it to a parliamentary select committee for deeper scrutiny.

  Online Coaching for UPSC PRE Exam

  General Studies Pre. Cum Mains Study Materials

Prelims Questions:

Q.1) Which of the following are the Steps taken by India to combat terror financing in the country?
1. A Terror Funding and Fake Currency (TFFC) Cell has been constituted in National Investigation Agency (NIA).
2. FICN Coordination Group (FCORD) has been formed by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
3. Recent ratification of United Nation’s Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT).

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
A. 1 only
B. 2 only
C. Both
D. None

Answer: B
Mains Questions:
Q.1) Amendments should not downgrade the status of information panels. Comment.