The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 modified the Right to Information Act, 2005, which had been enacted to operationalise the fundamental right to know flowing from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, as affirmed in State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975) and S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981). The 2019 amendment, passed by Parliament in July 2019 and notified shortly thereafter, altered Sections 13, 16 and 27 of the parent Act. It removed the statutory fixation of a five-year term and the parity of salary and status that the Information Commissioners previously enjoyed, and transferred the power to prescribe these conditions to the Central Government through delegated rule-making.
Under the original 2005 scheme, the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners at the Centre held office for a fixed term and drew salaries equivalent to the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners respectively (i.e. pegged to a Supreme Court judge and a Cabinet/Secretary-rank functionary), while State Information Commissioners were aligned with the Election Commissioners and the Chief Secretary. The amendment deleted these explicit equivalences and empowered the Centre to notify the term, salary, allowances and service conditions of both Central and State Commissioners by rules. The RTI Rules, 2019 subsequently fixed the tenure at three years (subject to revision) and prescribed pay, making the entire architecture subordinate to executive notification rather than statute.
Critics — including the Justice Srikrishna-era civil-society commentary, former Central Information Commissioners and the opposition — argued that the change undermined the institutional independence and autonomy of the Information Commissions, which function as quasi-judicial adjudicatory bodies, by making their tenure and status contingent on the goodwill of the very government they hold accountable. The Government defended the measure on the ground that the Election Commission is a constitutional body created under Article 324 whereas the Information Commissions are statutory, so equating their status was an "anomaly" requiring correction. As of 2026 the amended framework remains in force; the RTI ecosystem also operates against the backdrop of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, whose Section 44(3) amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to broaden the exemption for personal information — a development frequently paired with the 2019 amendment in current-affairs questions.
For the UPSC Civil Services examination, this topic is tested in GS Paper II (Polity and Governance) under transparency, accountability and statutory/quasi-judicial bodies. Prelims questions probe the specifics — which sections were amended, who now fixes tenure and salary, and the original parity with the Election Commission. Mains questions adopt an analytical angle: "Critically examine how the RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 affects the autonomy of Information Commissions," requiring candidates to connect Article 19(1)(a), the separation of powers, and the broader debate on diluting transparency safeguards. Aspirants should distinguish the 2019 amendment (tenure and salary) from the 2023 DPDP-driven change (Section 8(1)(j) personal-information exemption).
Example
In July 2019, Parliament passed the RTI (Amendment) Act despite opposition protests; the subsequent RTI Rules, 2019 notified by the Modi government fixed Information Commissioners' tenure at three years instead of the earlier statutory five.
Frequently asked questions
It amended Sections 13, 16 and 27. Sections 13 and 16 dealt with the term and conditions of Central and State Information Commissioners, while Section 27 concerns the rule-making power. The effect was to transfer the fixing of tenure, salary and service conditions to the Central Government.