Removal of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners (ss. 14, 17) — Right to Information (RTI) Notes

Removal of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners (ss. 14, 17)

The framers borrowed the removal rule from the strongest protection they knew — the one that guards a judge. A Commissioner cannot be dismissed on a minister’s displeasure; he can be removed for “proved misbehaviour or incapacity” only after the Supreme Court itself, on a Presidential reference, has inquired and recommended it. Making the removal as hard as removing a judge is the final lock on the Commission’s independence.

Two routes out of office — the judicial-style removal and the automatic bars

Removal is deliberately difficult. Section 14 governs the Central Commissioners; section 17 mirrors it word-for-word for the State Commissioners (with the Governor in place of the President). There are two distinct routes.

A. Removal for proved misbehaviour or incapacity (s. 14(1))

A Chief IC or Information Commissioner can be removed by order of the President on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity — but only after the Supreme Court, on a reference made to it by the President, has held an inquiry and reported that the member ought on such ground to be removed. This is the same protection a High Court or Supreme Court judge enjoys. Pending the inquiry, the President may suspend the member and prohibit him from attending office (s. 14(2)).

B. The five automatic grounds (s. 14(3))

Separately, the President may by order remove a member who:

is adjudged an insolvent;
is convicted of an offence which, in the President’s opinion, involves moral turpitude;
engages, during his term, in any paid employment outside the duties of his office;
is, in the President’s opinion, unfit to continue by reason of infirmity of mind or body; or
has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions.

A member is also deemed guilty of misbehaviour if he is concerned or interested in any contract or agreement made by the Government or participates in its profits (s. 14(4)).

C. Section 17 — the State mirror

Section 17 replicates all of this for the State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners: removal by the Governor on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity after a Supreme Court reference and inquiry, plus the same five automatic grounds. Note the small trap: the inquiry is by the Supreme Court even for a State Commissioner — not by the State’s High Court.

Section 14(1), RTI Act, 2005: “Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), the Chief Information Commissioner or any Information Commissioner shall be removed from his office only by order of the President on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity after the Supreme Court, on a reference made to it by the President, has, on inquiry, reported that the Chief Information Commissioner or any Information Commissioner, as the case may be, ought on such ground be removed.”

In Simple Terms: A Commissioner is almost as hard to sack as a judge. For misbehaviour or incapacity, the President can remove him only after the Supreme Court inquires and recommends it. For five clear-cut situations — insolvency, a moral-turpitude conviction, outside paid work, infirmity, or a conflicting financial interest — the President can remove him directly. Section 17 says exactly the same for State Commissioners, with the Governor acting.

⚠️ DON’T CONFUSE — the two removal routes, and which court inquires

Do not merge the routes. Proved misbehaviour / incapacity needs a full Supreme Court reference and inquiry before the President (or Governor) can act — a heavy, judge-like process. The five s. 14(3) grounds (insolvency, moral-turpitude conviction, outside paid employment, infirmity, conflicting interest) allow direct removal with no reference. And note: even for a State Commissioner (s. 17), the inquiry is by the Supreme Court, not the High Court.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the Commissioner who takes outside work

Facts. An Information Commissioner, during his term, quietly takes up paid consultancy for a private firm. The Government wants him out.

Rule. s. 14(3): a member who engages during his term in any paid employment outside the duties of his office may be removed by the President’s order — no Supreme Court reference is needed for this ground.

Apply. Decoy: “removal always needs a Supreme Court inquiry.” That is true only for misbehaviour/incapacity (s. 14(1)). Outside paid employment is one of the five automatic grounds in s. 14(3), so the President may remove him directly.

Conclusion. He can be removed under s. 14(3)(c) without a Supreme Court reference.

flowchart TD
    A["Removal of a Commissioner (s. 14 / s. 17)"]
    A --> B{"Which ground?"}
    B -->|"Proved misbehaviour or incapacity"| C["President/Governor removes<br/>ONLY after Supreme Court reference + inquiry (s. 14(1))"]
    B -->|"One of the 5 automatic grounds"| D["President/Governor removes by order directly (s. 14(3))"]
    D --> E["insolvent · moral-turpitude conviction ·<br/>outside paid work · infirmity · conflicting interest"]
    classDef box fill:#e8f0fe,stroke:#333,color:#111;
    class A,C,D,E box;
    classDef q fill:#FFF3CD,stroke:#8a6d00,color:#111;
    class B q;

Case Laws

Namit Sharma v. Union of India (2012 / 2013) — the Commissions discharge important quasi-judicial functions; their members’ status and the safeguards around their office were examined by the Supreme Court.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Right to Information (RTI) topics