AUGUST 4, 2019 • THE WEEK 45of 65. Also, their salaries and other
conditions of service were to be the
same as that of the chief election
commissioner and election commis-
sioners, respectively. Section 16 pro-
vided for the tenure and conditions
of service of the state chief informa-
tion commissioner and information
commissioners, and put them on par
with the election commissioner and
the state chief secretary.
Singh, however, said that the man-
date of the Election Commission, a
constitutional body, and the infor-
mation commissions, which are stat-
utory bodies, were different. “Hence,
their status and service conditions
need to be rationalised according-
ly,” he said. Also, the appeals to the
CIC orders are done before the High
Court, he added, which would be
akin to challenging a Supreme Court
verdict in a High Court.
Former Central information com-
missioner Shailesh Gandhi, however,
said that Singh’s statement was “fac-
tually wrong” as section 23 of the RTI
Act specifically bars appeals against
the information commissioners’
orders. “The challenge to CIC ordersis made under the writ jurisdiction
of the courts,” he clarified. “The
minister has argued that since the
orders can be challenged before the
High Courts, the chief information
commissioner cannot be equal to the
Supreme Court judges. The orders of
the president, prime minister, gover-
nors and Central election commis-
sioners are also challenged in writ
jurisdiction before the High Courts.
So, will it be argued that all these
positions must be downgraded?”
Also, of the 11 sanctioned posts in
CIC, only seven were filled. “Even
these appointments were made by
the government on the intervention
of the apex court,” said RTI activist
Commodore (retd) Lokesh Batra,
who along with Bhardwaj filed the
plea in the Supreme Court. Moreo-
ver, there are more than 33,855 pend-
ing appeals. According to a recent
government data, 9,075 appeals have
been pending for over a year.
Activist Venkatesh Nayak said
government departments were using
provisions to deny information, cit-
ing reasons like national security and
invasion of privacy. Activist Subhash
Agrawal, however, said that the RTI
Act was being misused by many to
harass officials. He called for uniform
fees— 0 50, up from 0 10, including
photocopy charges for first 20 pages
of the documents—across all states,
which would deter people from filing
frivolous petitions. He also suggest-
ed that ID proofs be compulsorily
enclosed with applications.
Though the number of RTI ap-
plications is rising, the institutional
mechanism to propagate its use is
slowing down. In the 2018 budget,
the government cut down the allo-
cation for RTI by 63 per cent, from
0 23.61 crore to 0 8.66 crore. This year,
the allocation was further slashed to
0 5.5 crore.
RTI activists are now threatening to
launch a nationwide protest against
the amendments. The question is:
who will blink first?The government
does not want to give
information as people
are asking questions
on demonetisation
and jobs.
Anjali Bhardwaj, co-convener,
National Campaign for People’s
Right to InformationGETTY IMAGES