RTI, the hand of the common man is on fire due to the proposed amendment through the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2019. The Bill amends sections 13 and 16 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. It proposes to give the centre the powers to set the salaries and service conditions for information commissioners at central as well as state levels. The passing of the bill, without much debate, has left the Indian democracy despondent, as the amendment has politicized the institutions (CIC and SIC).
But what does the term “independent” means to India, and why it is so important? This can be explained through the following example:
Judiciary Of India Vs. America: Control Over The Executive
India’s policy of judicial review is similar to the constitution of America; however, there is an interesting aspect of our judiciary, which makes it more powerful. It is the “collegium system” to appoint judges of the Supreme court of India. As per the present procedure, the Chief Justice of India recommends the name to the President for the appointment after consulting four senior-most judges. It is mandatory to consult, and even if two of them give an adverse opinion, the CJI cannot send the recommendation to the President. The recommendation is “binding” on the President and this, like India’s judicial system, is completely “independent”, which can be seen in the recent striking down of clause 57 of the Aadhaar Act (which has impacted every single Aadhaar holder by putting their privacy at stake).
Indian judicial system is independent of political influence/pressure, or it can be said, it has the provisions to rectify any attempt to thwart its independence. In fact, India’s judiciary puts checks and balances over the executive through the judicial review by itself, or by petition, if the state violates any of the fundamental rights.
While America can be considered as the father of India’s judicial review, there is something which actually curbs the power of the judicial system in America. The President nominates the judges (similar to India), and they serve for life (in India it is up to 65 years of age) after the Senate confirms it by the vote, and without their approval, no judges can be appointed. Ever since Trump came into power, his government has tried to pick judges of their own choice who are more conservative than the earlier judges, especially in the courts of appeal which are made up of 13 circuit courts known as the 9th circuit court where every year 50,000 cases are disposed. Trump wants to put their nominees in the judicial system to shut the mouth of the judicial system, because the court of appeal has played an important role to regulate overriding power of Trump by over-voting on Trump’s weird policies like the travel ban, emergency funding for a border wall, etc. This reduces the transparency and accountability of the executive. But in the case of India, we are proud to have an independent judiciary.
Similarly, independence of the Chief Information Commission and State Information Commission is the soul of our right to information, which is a fundamental right. The proposed amendment opens all the ways of hurting the “independent” nature of the office of CIC; there is no rationality in comparing the Supreme Court independence on the one hand, and information commission on the other as one has the “collegium system” to ensure independence and the others have its service terms and condition (keeping aside constitution and statutory body phenomenon).
But what if the collegium system is revoked? Obviously, it will turn the Indian democracy into an autocracy, similarly, what if the terms and conditions of the Information Commission are revoked? It will hang the RTI act, after all, an institution is an institution whether it’s the Supreme Court or the Information Commission, one protects the fundamental rights, and the other upholds those fundamental rights.
A lot of debate is going on about this bill like how it’s against the federal feature of the constitution, but in reality, the information commissions in different states have been in a wretched condition for a long time, in fact, they hardly care about the commission. For instance, before the separation of Telangana, there was no office of State Information commission in Andhra Pradesh, and similarly, the SIC offices were vacant in West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh etc. In fact, only recently out of the 11 posts, eight were lying vacant in Central Information Commission. Other challenges faced are the lack of manpower, poor legislation, delay in RTI queries etc.
On many fronts, the RTI act is facing poor governance, but still, it is the backbone of the Indian citizen; in the first 10 years of the commencement of the act over 17,500,000 applications had been filed. From demonetization to the labour wages to the 2G scam, etc., cases related to each of these were filed for information; this is what a struggling RTI has done for the common man. In this situation, a bill to curb its independence is like an undefeatable natural disaster where people can only face it, but not prevent it.
Now the question is, who can prevent this man-made disaster?
The answer is the judiciary of India: a regulator over the executive. After all, it is about our fundamental right. Again, all the responsibility to uphold our fundamental right is on the Supreme Court; it is up to them to take responsibility to prevent any damage to the Indian democracy and its institutions.