5 Arguments against RTI Amendments

1. Incorrect Rational given: Experts have rejected the justifications of government on the rationalisation of status. The decisions of all authorities including those of the President and prime minister are challenged before high courts and that their status does not prevent or debar such challenges. The genesis of the RTI comes from Supreme Court rulings on how right to information is a precondition for informed voting and therefore, parity between information and election commissioners is not an anomaly.
2. Dilutes the independence of CICs and ICs: As the Central government may determine the term and salaries of CICs and ICs. Uncertain term and salary changeable by executive notification reduces CIC to an obedient subordinate. This also hampers accountability as it calls people’s right to information under question. A situation could arise where different commissioners will have different tenures and salaries. If salaries and tenures are downgraded, eminent people may not apply for the vacant posts.
3. Dilutes the status of CICs: Chief Information Commissioner and Chief Election Commissioner (and the state level officers) were kept at the same footing, as according to the Supreme Court of India RTI and Right to vote are equally important fundamental rights. However, the amendments tend to change this scenario.
4. Encroaches upon the state jurisdiction: As the Central government will prescribe the term, status and salary of State Information Commissioners.
5. Lack of consultation: With the civil society and the state Governments, which amounts to undemocratic imposition. It was not put in the public domain and the amendment did not undergo much scrutiny.