New Delhi: The Controversial RTI (Amendment) Bill, which empowers the Central government to determine the tenure and salaries of information commissioners, was passed by Rajya Sabha on Thursday amid high drama.
Non-NDA allies such as BJD and TRS appeared to have supported the Bill, even as the Opposition led by the Congress strongly opposed the legislation and walked out in protest.
Some reports claimed that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had called up BJD president and Odisha Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik to seek his party’s support. The BJP government does not enjoy a majority in Rajya Sabha.
Ruckus during the passage of the legislation:
High drama prevailed in the House as voting was underway to determine whether it should be sent to a Select Committee as demanded by the Opposition. As voting slips were being collected, Congress and other Opposition members trooped to the Well of the House alleging that BJP MP C.M. Ramesh was influencing some Opposition members in the House.
“How did BJP win 303 seats? This is how they have won them. This is intimidation and undermining of democracy,” said Congress MP Ghulam Nabi Azad. He said the entire Opposition is walking out in protest.
Why the Bill is controversial:
It does away with the fixed five-year tenure of the chief information commissioner both in the Centre and the States. It also empowers the Centre to determine their salary component.
Opposition’s argument:
The Opposition argued that the Bill will end the autonomy and independence enjoyed by RTI authorities and that the Centre will apply undue influence over the functioning of the body.
In a statement issued earlier, former Congress president Sonia Gandhi had said that the Centre was “hell-bent on completely subverting the historic RTI Act” and the law, which was prepared after widespread consultations and passed unanimously by Parliament.
Government defence:
Minister of State in the PMO, Jitendra Singh had said in Lok Sabha, where it was passed on Monday, that the amendment will not dilute the autonomy of the Central Information Commission. He said the objective of the amendment was to “correct certain anomalies”.
For example, he said, “The Central Information Commissioner has been given the status of a Supreme Court judge but his judgments can be challenged in the high courts. How can that exist?”
