State Information Commissions under RTI
The Right to Information Act, 2005, not only established the Central Information Commission at the national level but also mandated the creation of a State Information Commission in each state. In line with this provision, every state has duly set up its own State Information Commission through official gazette notifications.
As a high-powered and independent statutory body, the State Information Commission primarily investigates complaints and adjudicates appeals related to the Act. It handles matters arising from state government offices, financial institutions, public sector undertakings, and other entities falling under the respective state government's jurisdiction, ensuring transparency and accountability at the grassroots level.
State Information Commission: Composition and Eligibility
The State Information Commission is headed by a State Chief Information Commissioner, supported by up to ten State Information Commissioners. These members are appointed by the Governor, acting on the recommendations of a high-level selection committee chaired by the Chief Minister. The committee also includes the Leader of the Opposition in the State Legislative Assembly and a Cabinet Minister nominated by the Chief Minister, ensuring a balanced and bipartisan process.
Eligibility criteria emphasize integrity and expertise: appointees must be eminent public figures with substantial knowledge and experience in fields such as law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media, or administration and governance. To maintain impartiality, they cannot hold positions as Members of Parliament or state/Union Territory legislatures, nor occupy any other office of profit. Additionally, they must have no connections to political parties and cannot engage in any business or profession.
Tenure and Service Conditions
The State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners hold office for a term prescribed by the Central Government or until they reach the age of 65, whichever comes first. Notably, they are ineligible for reappointment, ensuring a fixed and non-renewable tenure that promotes fresh perspectives in the institution.
Removal from office rests with the Governor, who may act under specific grounds to uphold the integrity of the role. These include: if the officeholder is adjudged insolvent; convicted of an offence that, in the Governor's opinion, involves moral turpitude; engages in paid employment outside official duties during their term; is deemed unfit due to mental or physical infirmity, as per the Governor's assessment; or acquires a financial or other interest likely to prejudicially affect their functions.
Beyond these, the Governor can also remove them for proved misbehaviour or incapacity. However, this requires a formal process: the Governor must refer the matter to the Supreme Court for inquiry. Only if the Court, after investigation, upholds the grounds and recommends removal can the Governor proceed.
Their salaries, allowances, and other service conditions are determined by the Central Government. Crucially, these cannot be altered to their disadvantage during their tenure, providing stability and protection against arbitrary changes.
Powers and Functions of the State Information Commission
The State Information Commission serves as a pivotal watchdog under the Right to Information Act, 2005, empowered to handle complaints and enforce transparency across public authorities. Its primary duty is to receive and inquire into grievances from any person who faces obstacles in accessing information. This includes situations where a Public Information Officer (PIO) has not been appointed, preventing a request from being submitted; where a requested information is refused; where no response is received within the prescribed time limits; where the fees demanded appear unreasonable; where the provided information seems incomplete, misleading, or false; or any other issue related to obtaining information.
Beyond reactive complaints, the Commission holds suo motu powers to initiate an inquiry into any matter if reasonable grounds exist. During such inquiries, it wields the authority of a civil court for critical processes: summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses, compelling them to provide evidence on oath, and producing documents; mandating the discovery and inspection of documents; accepting evidence via affidavits; requisitioning public records from courts or offices; issuing summons for examining witnesses or documents; and addressing any other prescribed matters. Crucially, no public authority can withhold records under its control during the inquiry—ensuring unfettered access to all relevant materials for thorough examination.
To enforce accountability, the Commission can direct public authorities to comply with its decisions in several ways: granting access to information in the specified form; appointing a PIO where none exists; publishing specific information or categories thereof; reforming practices for managing, maintaining, and destroying records; bolstering training for officials on RTI provisions; demanding annual compliance reports; compensating applicants for any loss or detriment caused; imposing penalties as per the Act; or, in rare cases, rejecting the application.
The Commission also plays a reporting role, submitting an annual report to the State Government on the Act's implementation, which the government then lays before the State Legislature for scrutiny. Additionally, if a public authority fails to adhere to the Act's provisions, the Commission may recommend corrective steps to foster greater conformity and uphold the spirit of transparency.
Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019
The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 marked a pivotal shift in the governance of India's transparency framework by granting the Central Government sweeping authority over the tenure and service conditions of Information Commissioners at both national and state levels. Enacted to amend the original Right to Information Act, 2005, it dismantled fixed terms and equated perks, replacing them with flexible prescriptions from the Centre.
At the central level, the Act stipulates that the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (ICs) will serve for a term determined by the Central Government, doing away with the previous five-year fixed tenure. Their salaries, allowances, and other service conditions now fall under similar Central Government discretion. Earlier, the CIC's emoluments mirrored those of the Chief Election Commissioner, while ICs aligned with Election Commissioners, ensuring a degree of independence through parity with constitutional bodies.
This centralization extends to the states as well. The State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC) and State Information Commissioners (SICs) must now hold office for a period prescribed by the Central Government, overturning their prior five-year terms. Likewise, their salaries, allowances, and service conditions are subject to Central Government rules, a departure from the past when SCICs received pay equivalent to an Election Commissioner and SICs matched the Chief Secretary of their respective state governments.
Finally, the amendment eliminated provisions for salary deductions from these commissioners' pay on account of pensions or other retirement benefits earned from prior government service. This change removes a longstanding financial disincentive, potentially broadening the pool of eligible candidates while consolidating oversight in New Delhi.