Understanding the Terms of Service for the Central Information Commission Members

Who decides how long the watchdog of transparency gets to stay in office? This question sits at the heart of a quieter, often-overlooked debate around the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The terms of service for members of the Central Information Commission (CIC) have shifted significantly over the years, and these changes carry real consequences for how independently the Commission can function. Let’s unpack what the original law said, what changed in 2019, and why these technical-sounding provisions matter for every citizen who files an RTI application.

The original framework under the RTI Act, 2005 🔗

When Parliament passed the RTI Act in 2005, it laid down a clear, fixed structure for the tenure and service conditions of Information Commissioners. The idea was straightforward: if the Commission was to hold the government accountable, its members needed protection from executive interference.

Under Section 13 of the original Act, the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners held office for a term of five years or until they attained the age of 65, whichever came earlier. They were also barred from reappointment, meaning once their term ended, they could not serve a second stint. This non-renewable tenure was deliberate – it meant commissioners did not need to curry favour with the government of the day in the hope of a second term.

Salary parity with the Election Commission 🔗

The original RTI Act placed the CIC and ICs on an equal financial footing with the Election Commission. Specifically, the Chief Information Commissioner’s salary was set equal to that of the Chief Election Commissioner, while Information Commissioners drew a salary equivalent to that of Election Commissioners. Since the Chief Election Commissioner’s pay is pegged to that of a Supreme Court judge, the CIC enjoyed a status and remuneration on par with a constitutional-level functionary.

This parity was more than symbolic. It signalled that the Information Commission, although a statutory body, was meant to operate with the same autonomy and stature as other top oversight institutions. Seasoned bureaucrats were expected to take orders from the Commission without treating it as just another government department.

Deductions for pensioners 🔗

There was also a practical provision for appointees who had previously served in government. If a newly appointed CIC or IC was already receiving a pension or retirement benefits from previous service under the central government, a state government, a government corporation, or a government-owned company, their salary would be reduced by the amount of pension received. This prevented “double-dipping” and kept the public purse in check.

The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019: a significant shift 🔗

The real turning point came 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 July 19, 2019. The Bill was passed by Parliament later that month and received presidential assent on August 1, 2019.

The amendments did not tinker with procedure – they reshaped the very foundation of how the Commission’s members are appointed and compensated. Three changes stand out.

Term of office: from statute to executive notification 🔗

The Amendment Act removed the fixed five-year tenure from the parent law. Instead, it stated that the central government would notify the term of office for the CIC and the ICs through rules. In effect, a matter that Parliament had previously decided was handed over to the executive.

Salary and allowances: determined by the Centre 🔗

The salary parity with the Election Commission was also removed. The amendment provided that the salaries, allowances, and other terms and conditions of service of the central and state CIC and ICs would now be determined by the central government. The link to constitutional bodies was severed.

Rationale offered by the government 🔗

The government defended the changes on a legal-technical basis. It argued that the Election Commission is a constitutional body established under Article 324, while the Central and State Information Commissions are statutory bodies under the RTI Act, and therefore their status and service conditions needed to be rationalised accordingly. In short, the government took the view that a statutory body should not automatically share service conditions with a constitutional one.

The RTI Rules, 2019: what actually changed 🔗

On October 24, 2019, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions notified the new rules under the amended Act. These are formally called 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.

Tenure reduced to three years 🔗

Rule 3 of the 2019 Rules states that the Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioners shall hold office for a period of three years from the date on which they enter upon their office. The same three-year tenure applies to State Chief Information Commissioners and State Information Commissioners under Rule 12.

The maximum age limit of 65 years remains unchanged. However, the rules now allow one possible reappointment as Information Commissioner or elevation as Chief Information Commissioner at the central or state level – a shift from the earlier blanket prohibition on reappointment.

Revised salary structure 🔗

The 2019 Rules also spelled out the new pay packets. The salary of the Chief Information Commissioner was fixed at Rs 2.50 lakh per month, while Information Commissioners would receive Rs 2.25 lakh – a difference of Rs 25,000. Earlier, there was no such differential within the Commission in the manner now prescribed.

Importantly, a transitional clause was built in. Chief Information Commissioners and Information Commissioners appointed before the commencement of the 2019 Amendment Act would continue to be governed by the earlier provisions until they retired or resigned. This created a short-term scenario of two pay grades operating side by side within the same Commission.

Leave encashment and other service conditions 🔗

The new rules also codified other service benefits. For instance, a CIC or IC is entitled to encashment of fifty per cent of earned leave to their credit at the time of completion of tenure. For those who had retired from central or state government service before joining the Commission, the aggregate period of leave encashment is capped at what an officer of equivalent pay in government would be entitled to.

Why the debate still matters 🔗

To the casual reader, a shift from five years to three years or a Rs 25,000 pay cut might seem minor. The deeper concern raised by transparency advocates is structural – it touches on the independence of the Information Commission.

Security of tenure and independence 🔗

A fixed statutory tenure provides what is often called “security of tenure”. It insulates an office-holder from the fear that the executive could curtail or alter their service conditions mid-way. Critics have argued that because the central government can now prescribe tenure, salary, allowances and other terms of service for Information Commissioners through rules, the change fundamentally weakens the institution’s ability to function independently.

The point is simple: if an Information Commissioner is considering passing a tough order against a senior ministry, the knowledge that the same government controls their tenure and pay can – even unconsciously – shape the outcome.

The status question 🔗

The equivalence with the Chief Election Commissioner was not just about money. Prior to the amendments, the RTI Act conferred a high status on Commissioners to empower them to carry out their functions autonomously, without fear or favour, and to direct even the highest offices to comply with the provisions of the law. Lowering that status, some argue, weakens the Commission’s ability to summon senior bureaucrats and enforce compliance.

The counter-view 🔗

The government’s counter-argument has its own logic. It has pointed out that the Information Commissions, as statutory bodies, should not automatically mirror the service conditions of a constitutional body like the Election Commission, and that the amendment aimed to correct this anomaly. Whether this correction has helped or hurt the institution is a question that continues to be debated in courts, newsrooms, and civil-society forums.

A snapshot comparison 🔗

To pull the threads together, here is how the framework has evolved. Originally, the tenure was fixed at five years or age 65 (whichever earlier), with no reappointment. The salary mirrored that of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners. Pension-receiving appointees had their salaries reduced by the pension amount. After the 2019 amendment and rules, the tenure stands at three years (age 65 cap retained), one reappointment is possible, the CIC draws Rs 2.50 lakh and ICs draw Rs 2.25 lakh per month, and the Centre holds the rule-making power over these terms. The framework has moved from a statutory guarantee to an executive prescription.

What the change means for citizens 🔗

For someone filing an RTI application to find out why a road project is delayed or how public funds have been spent, these technicalities rarely come up. Yet they affect the speed and fearlessness with which the appellate authority – the Information Commission – takes up cases. An institution confident of its independence is more likely to pass difficult orders, impose penalties on erring public information officers, and push public authorities to disclose inconvenient truths.

A well-functioning Information Commission is, in many ways, the last mile of the RTI Act. Whatever the legal form of the service conditions, the ultimate test lies in how freely the Commissioners are able to do their job.

What do you think? Should the tenure and service conditions of Information Commissioners be restored to statutory footing to safeguard independence, or is the current executive-notified framework a reasonable rationalisation given the Commission’s statutory (not constitutional) status? And how much does the Commissioner’s perceived “rank” actually influence the quality of orders passed against senior bureaucrats?

References

1. https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/RTI-Act_English.pdf
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information_Act,_2005
3. https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-right-to-information-amendment-bill-2019
4. https://www.pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1579510
5. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2019/10/25/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/
6. https://theprint.in/india/modi-govt-decide-salary-chief-information-commissioner-new-rti-rules/311619/
7. 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
8. https://igecorner.com/gazette-notification-rti-rules-2019-salaries-allowances-of-chief-information-commissioner/
9. https://www.snsindia.org/right-to-information/
10. https://m.thewire.in/article/politics/centre-rti-act-information-commissioners-tenure-salary-retirement-benefits
11. https://unacademy.com/content/upsc/governance-notes/about-rti-amendment-act-2019/