Reading IX of XII · Act 24 of 2019
॥ सूचना अधिकार · संशोधन ॥
— Rights · in force since 24 Oct 2019 —
Gave the Centre control over the tenure and salaries of Information Commissioners.
“
The amendment did not repeal the RTI Act. It changed the terms on which its umpires sit.
Editorial readingThe Government’s pitch was administrative flexibility. Information Commissions were statutory bodies, not constitutional bodies; therefore, Parliament should not hard-code their salaries and tenure at the level of Election Commissioners.
The critique was institutional. RTI worked because Information Commissioners had status, security, and distance from the executive. If the Government could set tenure, salary, and service conditions by rule, independence would depend on the very authority whose departments were being questioned.
The Bill passed in the Lok Sabha and then the Rajya Sabha after a division, 117-75. It was not sent to a committee despite opposition demands.
| House | Date | Aye | No | Abs | Hours |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rajya Sabha | 25 Jul 2019 | 117 | 75 | 0 | ≈ 5 |
The amendment did not repeal the RTI Act. It changed the terms on which its umpires sit.
Editorial readingPendency, vacancy duration, penalty imposition, and compliance with disclosure orders are the practical indicators that determine whether the amendment weakened RTI in use.
Supporters read the amendment as correcting an anomalous equivalence between statutory commissioners and constitutional election authorities.
Support readingCritics read it as executive control over the terms of officers who are supposed to compel executive transparency.
Critique readingThe Act is small but structurally important. It leaves citizens’ right to ask intact, while changing the independence architecture of the offices that answer.