The absence of a strong opposition both in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha has led to the passing of a Bill that curtails the powers of the Chief Information Commissioner whose powers are considered to be not equal to that of the Chief Election Commissioner. Union Minister Dr Jitendra Singh defended the amendment saying it was not meant to curtail the independence of the RTI Act (2005) and that the CICs would not be changed every two years as alleged by the Opposition. Singh also reiterated that Government does not have unbridled powers to amend the rules of the RTI. He said that Government is open to suggestions and the amendments are being made with a clean intention. The problem it appears is because several RTI queries had gone to the CIC on the manner in which decisions were taken by the Election Commission of India (ECI) during the recent Lok Sabha elections. The Government’s defence is that the ECI is a Constitutional body whereas the CIC is a statutory body. Dr Singh stoutly defended the Government saying that it had followed the principle of ‘maximum governance and minimum government’ and had therefore abolished interviews for many jobs and allowed self attestation of documents which he said were citizen-centric approaches. Even the Mobile App was introduced to enable citizens to file RTI’s online. While the Modi government has put up a lot of information from different ministries in the public domain but the most important question on which RTI was sought was on the issue of electoral bonds and the names of the companies/corporate houses/individuals that purchased those bonds for which money went into the BJP kitty and advantaged it vis-à-vis its rivals. This is what the Government does not want revealed and the ECI seems to think that the CIC should have no remit over such issues which are within its jurisdiction.
The RTI Amendment Bill was not referred to a Select Committee since 117 members voted against that motion and only 75 members voted for it. The RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2019 amendment ostensibly relates to the term of office of, and the salaries, allowances and other terms and conditions of service of, the Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners, State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners. There is no doubt at all that there are attempts to dilute the powers of the CICs and the SICs on the alibi that the Government is putting up all information on the public domain. But that is hardly the case. There are ministries with very sketchy information. This is where the problem arises. It is unfortunate that a weak opposition has allowed the RTI Amendment Bill to be passed without discussion.