Understanding the Right to Information Rules, 2019: Administrative Amendments

The Right to Information Act of 2005 gave Indian citizens a powerful tool to question the government and demand transparency. But fourteen years later, in 2019, a quiet but significant change arrived through the Right to Information Rules, 2019. These rules didn’t touch the way a citizen files an RTI application or receives information. Instead, they reshaped the inner workings of the Information Commissions – the very bodies that enforce the Act. To understand what truly changed, we need to look at the administrative framework: the tenure, salaries, and service conditions of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners.

The background: why the 2019 Rules came into being 🔗

The story begins with the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2019, introduced in the Lok Sabha by the Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions on 19 July 2019. The Bill sought to amend Sections 13, 16, and 27 of the parent Act. Under the original 2005 law, Section 13 fixed the term of the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (ICs) at the central level at five years or until the age of 65, whichever was earlier. Their salaries and service conditions were pegged to those of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners respectively. Section 16 provided a parallel framework for State Information Commissioners.

The Amendment removed these provisions and empowered the central government to prescribe the tenure, salaries, allowances, and service conditions through rules. The government’s argument was that the Election Commission is a constitutional body under Article 324, while Information Commissions are statutory bodies created under the RTI Act. Equating the service conditions of a statutory body with a constitutional one, the government said, was an anomaly that needed correction.

After the Bill was passed by Parliament and received presidential assent, the central government notified the rules on 24 October 2019. The formal title is a mouthful – the Right to Information (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners in the Central Information Commission, State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners in the State Information Commission) Rules, 2019.

What the Rules actually changed 🔗

The 2019 Rules focus on three specific aspects of the Information Commissions: tenure, salary, and service conditions. None of the provisions touch the rights that citizens enjoy under the Act, nor do they alter the adjudicatory powers of the Commissions themselves.

Term of office reduced to three years 🔗

Perhaps the most talked-about change is the reduction in tenure. Rule 3 of the 2019 Rules provides that the Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner at the Central Information Commission shall hold office for a period of three years from the date on which he enters upon his office. Rule 12 mirrors this provision for State Chief Information Commissioners and State Information Commissioners. The maximum age limit of 65 years remains unchanged, and there is only one possibility of reappointment as an Information Commissioner or elevation as Chief Information Commissioner.

This is a departure from the original RTI Act, which had guaranteed a fixed five-year term. The shorter tenure means Commissioners now spend less time in office before a new selection process begins.

Salaries fixed through rules, not statute 🔗

The salary structure saw a similar shift. Under the 2019 Rules, the salary of the Chief Information Commissioner is fixed at Rs 2.50 lakh and that of Information Commissioners at Rs 2.25 lakh per month. Commissioners are also entitled to dearness allowance, medical facilities, official accommodation, travel allowances, and leave travel concessions on par with central government officers holding posts carrying the same pay.

Earlier, these amounts were tied directly to the salary of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, which effectively placed them at the level of Supreme Court judges. The new arrangement means the figures are set by executive rule-making rather than by a parity built into the statute. The government argued that this was about standardising service conditions across statutory regulatory bodies and tribunals, not downgrading any office.

Service conditions and residual powers 🔗

The Rules cover a wide range of service-related details – leave, pension adjustments for those drawing retirement benefits from previous service, dearness allowance, and travel entitlements. Importantly, three provisions give the central government considerable discretion:

Rule 21 (Residuary Provision): Any condition of service not expressly covered by the Rules must be referred to the Central Government, whose decision is binding on all Commissioners at both central and state levels.

Rule 22 (Power to Relax): The Central Government shall have power to relax the provisions of any of these rules in respect of any class or category of persons.

Rule 23 (Interpretation): Any question on the interpretation of these Rules is to be referred to the Central Government for decision.

These residual powers, on paper, are meant to handle unforeseen administrative situations. In practice, they have drawn close attention from legal experts and transparency advocates.

The protection for existing Commissioners 🔗

A proviso under Section 2 of the RTI Amendment Act, 2019 ensured that Commissioners appointed before the Amendment came into force would continue to be governed by the old provisions. In effect, existing Chief ICs and ICs at the Centre and State level continue to be paid their original salaries until they retire or resign. The new tenure and salary framework applies only to fresh appointments made on or after 24 October 2019. This created a short-term dual pay structure within the same Commissions, where newer appointees draw lower salaries than their seniors.

The government’s position: administrative streamlining 🔗

The official stance has consistently been that the 2019 Rules are administrative in nature and do not touch the substantive rights of citizens or the powers of the Information Commissions. The reasoning rests on a few pillars.

First, the government argued that Information Commissions are statutory, not constitutional, bodies. The Election Commission of India, by contrast, is established under Article 324 of the Constitution. Placing their pay and status on the same footing, the government maintained, was a conceptual inconsistency that needed correction.

Second, the government emphasised that the Rules do not affect the powers and functions of Information Commissions. An RTI application filed today follows the same process as it did in 2018 or 2015. Public Information Officers must still respond within 30 days. Appeals still go to the First Appellate Authority and then to the Information Commission. Penalties under Section 20 of the Act remain intact. The right of the citizen to seek information is, on the statutory books, undisturbed.

Third, the Rules were presented as part of a broader effort to standardise service conditions across various statutory regulators and tribunals, rather than a measure targeting the RTI framework specifically.

The critics’ concerns: independence and federalism 🔗

The 2019 Rules drew sharp responses from transparency activists, former Commissioners, and opposition parties. The core concern was not the reduction in salary or tenure per se, but the shift in who decides these matters. The amendment empowers the Central government to make rules to decide the tenure, salary, allowances and other terms of service of Information Commissioners at both the Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions. Previously, these were settled in the parent Act – meaning any change required parliamentary approval.

Critics argued that a quasi-judicial body supervising the government should have its basic service conditions insulated from executive control. A Commissioner who knows the government can prescribe or revise tenure and salary might, the argument goes, feel less secure in issuing decisions that embarrass senior officials. The Wire reported that activists described the new framework as reducing Commissioners to “caged parrots” – a sharp turn of phrase that captured the independence concern.

The federalism dimension drew equal attention. Under the amended scheme, even State Information Commissioners – appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of a state-level committee – have their tenure and salaries determined by central rules. State governments no longer decide the status and authority of their own Information Commissioners, which some commentators argued dilutes the federal distribution of powers the RTI Act originally reflected.

Judicial scrutiny and ongoing debates 🔗

Several petitions challenging the RTI Amendment Act and the 2019 Rules were filed before the Supreme Court. The petitioners raised constitutional questions about whether the delegation of rule-making power over tenure and salaries of a quasi-judicial body compromised the independence guarantees that earlier Supreme Court judgments had recognised.

Earlier, in Anjali Bhardwaj and Others v. Union of India (2019), the Supreme Court had directed that the selection process for Information Commissioners should be transparent, that vacancies should be filled promptly, and that the selection should include persons of eminence from fields beyond the civil services. The Court had also noted that the terms and conditions of CIC and ICs should, under the then-existing law, match those of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners.

Separately, the Supreme Court later directed the Centre and several states to conclude the appointment of Information Commissioners within three months, reinforcing the judicial view that functioning, adequately staffed Commissions are essential to the RTI framework.

Statutory control versus regulatory control 🔗

A useful way to understand the 2019 Rules is through the idea of statutory control versus regulatory control. A provision in a statute can only be changed through parliamentary amendment, which requires debate, scrutiny, and political consensus. A provision in executive rules, by contrast, can be modified by government notification – a far simpler process.

Before 2019, the tenure and salaries of Information Commissioners sat firmly within statutory control. After 2019, these matters sit within regulatory control. This is the quieter but more structural change. The figures in the current Rules – three-year tenure, Rs 2.50 lakh and Rs 2.25 lakh salaries – are not locked in by Parliament. They are set by rules that the central government can revise.

What remains unchanged for citizens 🔗

It is worth remembering what the 2019 Rules did not change, because these are the elements that matter most to the ordinary RTI user.

The 30-day timeline for responses, the Rs 10 application fee, the categories of exempted information under Section 8, the process of filing a first appeal and then a second appeal before the Information Commission, the penalty provisions under Section 20, the categories of public authorities covered, the concept of proactive disclosure under Section 4, and the definition of “information” and “right to information” – all of these stand as they were. The basic architecture through which a citizen demands accountability from public authorities is intact.

In that narrow sense, the government’s claim that the Rules are administrative holds on the statutory text. The debate is about whether the administrative design of the Commissions affects their ability to enforce these same citizen rights fearlessly.

What do you think? Does shifting the tenure and salary of Information Commissioners from parliamentary statute to executive rules genuinely affect their day-to-day independence, or is it purely an administrative question that leaves citizens’ RTI rights untouched? And if you were drafting these rules, would you have chosen a different balance between standardisation across regulatory bodies and insulation from executive control?

References

1. https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-right-to-information-amendment-bill-2019
2. https://www.pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1579510
3. https://www.gconnect.in/orders-in-brief/rti-orders-in-brief/rti-amendment-rules-2019.html
4. https://m.thewire.in/article/politics/centre-rti-act-information-commissioners-tenure-salary-retirement-benefits
5. https://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/blog/central-governments-2019-rti-rules-making-a-mess-of-things-to-gain-a-stranglehold-on-information-commissions-after-misleading-parliament
6. https://www.snsindia.org/right-to-information/
7. https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/15968/15968_2018_Judgement_15-Feb-2019.pdf