Term of office and service conditions of the Chief IC and Information Commissioners (s. 13) — Right to Information (RTI) Notes

Term of office and service conditions of the Chief IC and Information Commissioners (s. 13)

An umpire who can be sacked or starved out by one of the teams is no umpire at all. Security of tenure — a fixed term and a protected salary — is what lets an Information Commissioner rule against the very government that appointed him. That is why the original Act wrote the term into the statute itself. The controversy of this topic is that a 2019 amendment took that certainty away.

Tenure, salary and the 2019 change

Section 13 fixes how long a Commissioner serves and on what terms — the practical guarantee of independence that Topic 1’s appointment design promised.

A. The original position (s. 13, as enacted in 2005)

The Chief Information Commissioner and every Information Commissioner held office for a term of five years from the date they entered office, or until they attained the age of 65 years, whichever was earlier, and were not eligible for reappointment. Their salaries and allowances were pegged in the Act itself — the Chief IC’s to the Chief Election Commissioner’s, an Information Commissioner’s to an Election Commissioner’s. Pegging the pay to a constitutional office meant the government could not quietly reduce it.

B. The position after the RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019

The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 deleted the fixed five-year term and the salary-pegging from the statute and instead empowered the Central Government to prescribe the term of office, salaries, allowances and other service conditions by rules. Under the resulting RTI (Term of Office…) Rules, 2019, the term is now three years. Critics argue that letting the executive fix the tenure and pay of the very body that adjudicates against it weakens the Commission’s independence.

Section 13(1), RTI Act, 2005 (as originally enacted): “The Chief Information Commissioner shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office and shall not be eligible for reappointment: Provided that no Chief Information Commissioner shall hold office as such after he has attained the age of sixty-five years.”

In Simple Terms: Originally a Commissioner served five years (or until 65) on a salary fixed by the Act itself, so no government could cut it. The 2019 amendment handed the Central Government the power to set the term (now three years) and the pay by rules — a change widely criticised as denting the Commission’s independence.

⚠️ CAUTION — do NOT state the term is still a statutory five years

⚠️ Do NOT write that the Commissioners serve a fixed five-year term “under the Act”. After the RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 the fixed term and the salary-pegging were removed from the statute; the Central Government now prescribes them by rules, and the current term is three years. State the original position, then the 2019 change — writing only “five years” is now out of date.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the 8-mark note on tenure

Facts. “Short note on the term of office of the Chief IC and Information Commissioners.” (8 marks)

Rule. s. 13: originally five years or age 65, salary pegged to the Election Commission; after 2019, term and pay prescribed by Central Government rules (now three years).

Apply. State the original statutory position first, then flag the 2019 amendment and its criticism (executive control over tenure erodes independence).

Conclusion. A note that gives both the old and current positions, and names the 2019 amendment, earns the full eight marks.

flowchart TD
    A["Term & service conditions (s. 13)"]
    A --> B["As enacted 2005: 5 years<br/>or age 65, whichever earlier"]
    A --> C["Salary pegged to Election Commission<br/>(could not be reduced)"]
    A --> D["No reappointment"]
    A --> E["RTI (Amendment) Act 2019:<br/>Central Govt prescribes term & pay by rules"]
    E --> F["Rules 2019 → term now 3 years<br/>(criticised as weakening independence)"]
    classDef box fill:#e8f0fe,stroke:#333,color:#111;
    class A,B,C,D,E,F box;

Case Laws

Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India (2019) — decided against the backdrop of the tenure debate; the Court stressed that the strength and independence of the Commissions are essential to the Act’s working.

📄 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