The Right to Information Act, 2005, as originally enacted, fixed the tenure, salary, and service conditions of Information Commissioners by statute:

• Central Chief Information Commissioner — tenure and salary equal to the Chief Election Commissioner.
• Central Information Commissioners — tenure and salary equal to Election Commissioners.
• State Chief Information Commissioners and Information Commissioners — pegged to the Central equivalents but with appropriate State-Government modifications.

The statutory link was deliberate. The drafters of 2005 tied Commissioners' status to constitutional officers so that their salary, pension, and service conditions could not be varied by executive rule. This was a protection for institutional independence.

Commissioner tenure under the pre-2019 Act was five years or age 65, whichever was earlier.

The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 substituted the relevant sub-sections:

• Section 13(2). Term of office and service conditions “shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government”.
• Section 13(5). Salary, allowances, and other service conditions “shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government”.

• Section 15(4) and (5). Tenure and service conditions of the State Chief Information Commissioner — “as may be prescribed by the Central Government”. (Note: Central Government, not the State Government.)

• Section 16(2) and (5). Tenure and service conditions — again, “as may be prescribed by the Central Government”.

Parliament supplemented the substituted statutory text with the Right to Information (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners in the Central Information Commission, State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners in the State Information Commission) Rules, 2019 — commonly called the RTI Rules, 2019, notified on 24 October 2019.

Under the 2019 Rules:

• Tenure: Three years, or until the age of sixty-five, whichever is earlier.
• Salary (Central Chief Information Commissioner): Equivalent to a salary of a Secretary to the Government of India — not the former Chief Election Commissioner / Supreme Court Judge scale.
• Salary (Central Information Commissioners): As notified under the 2019 Rules.
• Salary (State Information Commissioners): Also fixed by the Central Rules.
• Re-appointment: Not available — once the term expires, the officeholder demits office.

The 2019 amendment was described by the Government as an exercise in administrative rationalisation — aligning tenure and pay of the Information Commissions with those of other statutory bodies. Critics, including a broad coalition of civil-society organisations and 120 Opposition Members of Parliament, argued that the amendment:

• Reduced the institutional independence of the Commissions by making their terms a matter of executive rule rather than Parliamentary statute.
• Shortened tenure from five to three years, increasing turnover and reducing institutional memory.
• Empowered the Central Government to fix even State Commissioners' terms, arguably encroaching on the federal scheme of the Act.
• Removed the status parity with Election Commissioners, which had served as a reputational and functional anchor for the RTI regime.

The 2019 amendment was challenged before the Supreme Court in Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Union of India. The Court declined to strike down the amendment but issued detailed directions on the process of appointments, emphasising the need for transparency, timely filling of vacancies, and publication of the reasons for selection. Those directions have become the anchoring framework for every subsequent appointment.

The tenure-and-salary changes do not alter the rights of an RTI applicant. The Act's substantive right under Section 3, the procedure under Sections 6 and 7, and the appeal ladder under Sections 19 and 20 are unchanged. What applicants notice, indirectly, is:

• Shorter tenures produce more transitions. New Commissioners, new hearing benches, and shifting panel compositions affect the pace of second appeals.
• Pendency pressure. Three-year terms combined with long gaps between appointments contribute to the widely-cited pendency figures across the Central and State Commissions. See Economic Survey 2025-26 RTI re-examination and the decade-of-change essay.
• Uniform Central control means the service conditions of the Information Commissioner in your State are set by the Central Government, not by your State Government — a point worth knowing when correspondence about a delayed appeal reaches the State Secretariat.

The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 is in force. The RTI Rules, 2019 continue to govern tenure and salaries. The DPDP Rules, 2025 substitution of Section 8(1)(j) (see the DPDP amendment analysis) operates on a different axis — it is about what can be disclosed, not who orders the disclosure. The two reforms are analytically distinct.

• The RTI Act, 2005 — current text, as amended — sections 12–17 carry overlays noting the 2019 amendment.
• RTI Rules.
• Central Information Commission regulations.
• A decade of change, 2015 to 2025.
• Economic Survey 2025-26 RTI re-examination.
• Case law library.
• Guide for PIOs.
• Guide for FAAs.

1. The Right to Information Act, 2005 (No. 22 of 2005), Sections 13, 15, 16 (pre- and post-2019 text).
2. The Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019 (No. 24 of 2019), notified 24 October 2019.
3. The Right to Information (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners) Rules, 2019.
4. Anjali Bhardwaj and Ors. v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India, with subsequent directions on appointment transparency.
5. Parliamentary debates on the RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2019 (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha).

20 April 2026