Information Commissioners are members of the statutory Information Commissions established under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
At the Union level:
At the State level:
Statutory Commission Member + Appeal/Complaint Adjudication + Transparency Oversight + RTI Accountability
Information Commissioners are not Public Information Officers.
PIO → First-level processing.
Information Commissioner → Statutory appellate/complaint and enforcement role.
The RTI Act separately provides for the Central Information Commission in Section 12 and the State Information Commission in Section 15. India Code
Relevant provisions:
Section 12 → Constitution of Central Information Commission.
Section 13 → Term and conditions of service.
Section 14 → Removal.
Section 15 → Constitution of State Information Commission.
Section 16 → Term and conditions of service.
Section 17 → Removal.
Section 18 → Complaints and inquiry.
Section 19 → Appeals.
Section 20 → Penalties.
Section 25 → Monitoring and reporting.
12 → Central Commission.
13 → Central tenure/service.
14 → Central removal.
15 → State Commission.
16 → State tenure/service.
17 → State removal.
18 → Complaints.
19 → Appeals.
20 → Penalties.
25 → Monitoring/reporting.
The Commission consists of:
The Chief Information Commissioner is the head of the respective Commission.
Information Commissioners work as members of the Commission.
One Chief Information Commissioner
Such number of Central Information Commissioners as may be necessary, subject to a maximum of 10.
One State Chief Information Commissioner
Such number of State Information Commissioners as may be necessary, subject to a maximum of 10.
Every Information Commission must have exactly 10 Information Commissioners.
❌ Wrong.
The statutory ceiling is 10; the actual number may be lower.
The President appoints:
on the recommendation of the statutory selection committee.
President → Appointment.
Prime Minister → Selection Committee Chairperson.
President chairs the appointment committee.
❌ Wrong.
The Governor appoints:
on the recommendation of the statutory selection committee.
Governor → Appointment.
Chief Minister → Selection Committee Chairperson.
| Feature | Central | State |
|---|---|---|
| Appointing authority | President | Governor |
| Selection committee chair | Prime Minister | Chief Minister |
| Opposition member | Lok Sabha | Legislative Assembly |
| Nominated minister | Union Cabinet Minister | State Cabinet Minister |
The RTI institutional structure follows India's federal architecture.
The Act requires the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners to be persons of:
Eminence in public life
with wide knowledge and experience in one or more relevant fields.
These include:
The Act does not require Commissioners to be judges.
Only retired judges can become Information Commissioners.
❌ Wrong.
The broad qualification requirement allows Commissioners to come from different fields.
RTI disputes can involve:
The Commission is designed as a specialised transparency institution rather than a conventional judicial body.
A Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner cannot:
These restrictions promote:
An Information Commissioner cannot be connected with a political party.
RTI adjudication should be based on:
Law + Facts + Public Interest + Statutory Exemptions
not political affiliation.
A sitting political office-holder can simultaneously serve as an Information Commissioner.
❌ Wrong.
Information Commissioners cannot hold another:
Office of profit.
The restriction aims to reduce conflicts of interest and preserve institutional independence.
An Information Commissioner cannot:
The office requires full institutional commitment and impartiality.
The original RTI Act provided a fixed five-year term.
The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 changed Sections 13 and 16.
The current law provides that:
The Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners hold office for such term as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
The fixed five-year term was removed from the Act. India Code
The current RTI Act itself guarantees a five-year term.
❌ Wrong.
For the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners:
Office cannot be held after attaining 65 years of age.
The prescribed term is subject to the statutory age ceiling.
A prescribed term can automatically continue beyond 65.
❌ Wrong.
A Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner is:
Not eligible for reappointment as such.
A serving Information Commissioner may be appointed as Chief Information Commissioner subject to the statutory framework.
Information Commissioners can be repeatedly reappointed.
❌ Wrong.
At the Central level, an Information Commissioner may be appointed as Chief Information Commissioner.
The Act provides that where an Information Commissioner becomes Chief Information Commissioner:
The total period in both offices cannot exceed five years in aggregate.
The same aggregate-term principle applies at the State level for an Information Commissioner becoming State Chief Information Commissioner. India Code
IC + CIC → Maximum aggregate 5 years.
There are two concepts that should not be mixed:
Such term as prescribed by the Central Government.
Aggregate period in both offices: → Not more than five years.
The five-year aggregate rule for an Information Commissioner subsequently becoming Chief Information Commissioner is distinct from the fixed five-year term that existed before the 2019 amendment.
The RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019 changed:
It amended both:
Section 13 → Central Commissioners.
Section 16 → State Commissioners.
The amendment expressly replaced the earlier fixed five-year wording with a term to be prescribed by the Central Government. RTI Amendment Act, 2019
2019 amendment affected only Central Information Commissioners.
❌ Wrong.
It also changed the State Information Commission provisions.
After the 2019 amendment, salaries, allowances and other service conditions are:
Such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
The amendment also provides that such conditions cannot be varied to the disadvantage of Commissioners after appointment. RTI Amendment Act, 2019
Distinguish:
Statutory Act vs Rules prescribed under the Act.
Information Commissioners are intended to function independently within the statutory framework.
Important safeguards include:
Credible Information Commission
Before entering office, the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners make and subscribe to an oath or affirmation in the prescribed form.
The oath/affirmation is made before the President or a person appointed by the President for this purpose.
The corresponding oath/affirmation is made before the Governor or a person appointed by the Governor.
Information Commissioners do not take any oath.
❌ Wrong.
A Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner may resign from office by writing addressed to:
President.
Governor.
Resignation is distinct from statutory removal.
At the Central level, the President may remove the Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner according to Section 14.
For these grounds, removal involves:
Removal protection is intended to support institutional independence.
The Act also provides circumstances in which the President may remove a Commissioner, including specified situations such as:
Do not confuse:
Special Supreme Court inquiry with other statutory grounds for removal.
At the State level, removal is undertaken by:
Governor.
The statutory procedure similarly involves:
Central → President.
State → Governor.
Information Commissioners exercise powers through the Information Commission.
Their key functions include:
The individual Commissioner is a member of the Commission; the statutory powers are exercised through the Commission's legal framework.
Information Commissioners hear matters brought before:
through the second-appeal mechanism.
Citizen ↓ PIO ↓ First Appellate Authority ↓ Information Commission ↓ Second Appeal
Information Commissioner ≠ First Appellate Authority.
Information Commissioners participate in complaint inquiries under Section 18.
Complaint jurisdiction is distinct from appellate jurisdiction.
During statutory inquiries, the Commission has specified powers similar to those of a civil court.
These include:
Information Commissioners are judges of civil courts.
❌ Wrong.
They exercise specified statutory civil-court-like powers.
Under the appellate framework, the Commission can direct the public authority to provide information.
The Commission can move beyond:
"PIO was wrong"
to:
"Public authority must take specified corrective action."
The Commission can require a public authority to:
The Commission can address both:
Individual Failure and Institutional Failure.
Information Commissioners participate in the exercise of Section 20 penalty powers through the Commission.
₹250 per day.
₹25,000.
Penalty is not automatic.
Where statutory conditions are met, the Commission may recommend disciplinary action against the concerned PIO under applicable service rules.
Penalty → Monetary.
Disciplinary recommendation → Service-related action.
Information Commissioner directly dismisses a PIO.
❌ Wrong.
The Commission can recommend disciplinary action according to the Act.
The Commission can require a public authority to compensate the complainant/appellant where the statutory conditions warrant compensation for loss or other detriment suffered.
RTI remedies can therefore include:
Information Commissioners participate in the Commission's monitoring and reporting functions.
Annual report can include:
The Commission can identify systemic RTI weaknesses.
Commission orders can encourage public authorities to strengthen:
RTI Request → Appeal → Institutional Problem → Corrective Direction → Proactive Disclosure
Poor records can produce:
Information rights depend on institutional information architecture.
The Commission may direct enhancement of PIO training.
Better institutional capacity reduces avoidable RTI disputes.
PIO → First-Level Decision.
Commissioner → Higher-Level Statutory Review.
Internal review within public authority.
External statutory review through CIC/SIC.
PIO → FAA → Information Commission.
Receive + Forward.
Review + Decide + Enforce through the Commission's statutory powers.
APIO is a lower-level Information Commissioner.
❌ Wrong.
They are completely different statutory roles.
Works within:
→ Central Information Commission.
Jurisdiction: → Central Public Authorities.
Works within:
→ State Information Commission.
Jurisdiction: → State Public Authorities.
Their institutional functions are broadly parallel; jurisdiction differs.
Information Commissions perform adjudicatory functions under the RTI Act.
They:
They are statutory commissions, not ordinary constitutional courts.
Orders of Information Commissions can be subject to judicial review through constitutional courts.
Commission decision → Statutory decision → Potential judicial review.
Information Commissioners are beyond court jurisdiction.
❌ Wrong.
An effective Information Commissioner requires:
The 2019 amendment shifted the statutory framework for tenure and service conditions of both Central and State Information Commissioners to prescription by the Central Government.
Centralisation of service-condition prescription may raise questions about:
The debate is not merely about salaries or tenure; it concerns the institutional independence necessary for effective transparency oversight.
Major challenges include:
Avoid vacancies that weaken Commission capacity.
Use:
Promote:
Reduce unnecessary appeals.
Train Commissioners and staff in:
Track implementation of Commission orders.
Publish:
Use:
Remember the role through:
Second appeals and complaints.
Records and legal issues.
Disclosure and corrective measures.
Statutory penalties through the Commission.
RTI implementation.
Annual reporting.
Information Commissioner / Commission Role
| Feature | Central Information Commissioner | State Information Commissioner |
|---|---|---|
| Commission | CIC | SIC |
| Jurisdiction | Central Public Authorities | State Public Authorities |
| Appointment | President | Governor |
| Selection Chair | Prime Minister | Chief Minister |
| Removal | President | Governor |
| Maximum members | 10 ICs | 10 ICs |
| Age ceiling | 65 years | 65 years |
| Current tenure | As prescribed by Central Government | As prescribed by Central Government |
| Reappointment as same post | No | No |
| Aggregate IC + Chief term | Max 5 years | Max 5 years |
| Appeals | Central matters | State matters |
| Complaints | Central matters | State matters |
| Penalty | Yes | Yes |
Information Commissioners are constitutional authorities.
❌ Wrong.
They are statutory office-holders under the RTI Act.
Only judges can become Information Commissioners.
❌ Wrong.
The Act allows persons with expertise in several fields.
President appoints State Information Commissioners.
❌ Wrong.
Governor appoints State Information Commissioners.
Governor appoints Central Information Commissioners.
❌ Wrong.
President appoints Central Information Commissioners.
Governor/President chairs the selection committee.
❌ Wrong.
PM chairs Central committee; CM chairs State committee.
There must always be exactly 10 Information Commissioners.
❌ Wrong.
10 is the maximum.
Current Act guarantees five-year tenure.
❌ Wrong.
2019 amendment replaced the fixed term with a prescribed term.
Information Commissioners can be continuously reappointed.
❌ Wrong.
They are not eligible for reappointment as such.
A State Information Commissioner can never become State Chief Information Commissioner.
❌ Wrong.
The Act permits such appointment subject to the aggregate-term rule.
An Information Commissioner can continue indefinitely until the prescribed term ends.
❌ Wrong.
The 65-year age ceiling applies.
Information Commissioners are civil-court judges.
❌ Wrong.
They exercise statutory quasi-judicial/civil-court-like powers within the RTI framework.
Information Commissioner can directly dismiss a PIO.
❌ Wrong.
The Commission may recommend disciplinary action under Section 20(2).
Information Commissioner is personally responsible for every RTI application.
❌ Wrong.
PIOs handle original applications.
Information Commissioners have jurisdiction over every public authority in India.
❌ Wrong.
CIC → Central Public Authorities.
SIC → State Public Authorities.
2019 amendment affected only Central Commissioners.
❌ Wrong.
It amended both Central and State tenure/service provisions.
Statutory finality means Information Commission decisions cannot be reviewed by courts.
❌ Wrong.
Constitutional judicial review remains available.
Information Commissioners are members of the statutory Central and State Information Commissions created under the RTI Act, 2005. They form the institutional layer through which citizens can obtain appellate review, complaint redress, corrective disclosure and enforcement against failures in the implementation of the right to information.
Central:
State:
Information Commissioners are crucial to making RTI an enforceable democratic right rather than merely a statutory promise. Their effectiveness depends on independence, expertise, timely appointments, adequate institutional capacity and meaningful compliance with Commission decisions.
