The RTI Act, 2005 provides a special statutory mechanism for removal of:
The purpose is to balance:
Institutional Independence + Accountability + Protection from Arbitrary Removal
Proved Misbehaviour/Incapacity → Supreme Court Inquiry → Report → President/Governor → Removal
Certain Specified Grounds → Direct Removal by President/Governor
Section 14 → Removal of Chief Information Commissioner/Information Commissioner.
Section 17 → Removal of State Chief Information Commissioner/State Information Commissioner.
14 → Central Removal.
17 → State Removal.
Section 14 provides the removal mechanism for:
President of India.
Removal for:
Proved misbehaviour or incapacity
requires a special inquiry by the Supreme Court.
India Code currently provides that the President may remove the CIC/Information Commissioner only after the Supreme Court, on a Presidential reference, has inquired into the matter and reported that removal is warranted. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}
For removal on the grounds of:
the President makes a reference to the:
Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court conducts an inquiry.
Allegation ↓ Presidential Reference ↓ Supreme Court Inquiry ↓ Supreme Court Report ↓ President's Order ↓ Removal, if warranted
The Supreme Court does not directly remove the Information Commissioner.
It conducts the inquiry and reports its findings.
The special procedure provides protection against arbitrary executive removal.
Greater Institutional Security
Independent oversight institutions require security of tenure along with accountability.
Where a reference has been made to the Supreme Court, the President may:
The suspension may continue until the President passes orders after receiving the Supreme Court's report. :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}
A Commissioner can never be suspended before removal.
❌ Wrong.
Suspension is expressly contemplated during the inquiry process.
Section 14(3) permits the President to remove a Commissioner directly on specified grounds without following the Supreme Court inquiry route for misbehaviour/incapacity.
These include:
The Commissioner is adjudged an insolvent.
The Commissioner has been convicted of an offence which, in the President's opinion, involves moral turpitude.
The Commissioner engages during the term in paid employment outside the duties of office.
The Commissioner is considered unfit to continue because of infirmity of mind or body.
The Commissioner has acquired a financial or other interest likely to prejudicially affect official functions.
These grounds are expressly listed in Section 14(3). :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}
Section 14(4) contains an important additional rule.
If a Central Information Commissioner is:
other than as an ordinary member of an incorporated company sharing equally with other members,
then the Commissioner is deemed to be guilty of:
Misbehaviour
for purposes of Section 14(1). :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}
Government contract conflict → Deemed misbehaviour.
Section 17 contains the corresponding removal mechanism for:
Governor of the State.
Removal for:
Proved misbehaviour or incapacity
requires inquiry by the Supreme Court after a reference by the Governor. :contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}
Allegation ↓ Governor's Reference ↓ Supreme Court Inquiry ↓ Supreme Court Report ↓ Governor's Order ↓ Removal, if warranted
Central → President makes reference and removes.
State → Governor makes reference and removes.
President → Central.
Governor → State.
Where a reference has been made to the Supreme Court, the Governor may:
The suspension can continue until the Governor passes orders after receiving the Supreme Court's report. :contentReference[oaicite:5]{index=5}
The Governor may directly remove a State Chief Information Commissioner or State Information Commissioner on specified statutory grounds.
These include:
The direct-removal grounds broadly parallel the Central mechanism.
Section 17(4) contains the corresponding rule for State Commissioners.
If a State Chief Information Commissioner or State Information Commissioner is involved in a contract or agreement made on behalf of the State Government, or participates in its profits/benefits in the circumstances specified by the Act, the Commissioner is deemed guilty of:
Misbehaviour
for purposes of Section 17(1). :contentReference[oaicite:7]{index=7}
| Feature | Central | State |
|---|---|---|
| Provision | Section 14 | Section 17 |
| Commissioner covered | CIC/Information Commissioner | State CIC/State Information Commissioner |
| Removing authority | President | Governor |
| Inquiry authority | Supreme Court | Supreme Court |
| Reference made by | President | Governor |
| Suspension during inquiry | President | Governor |
| Direct statutory grounds | Yes | Yes |
| Contract-related deemed misbehaviour | Yes | Yes |
Central → President + Supreme Court.
State → Governor + Supreme Court.
This distinction is extremely important.
Requires:
President/Governor Reference → Supreme Court Inquiry → Report → Final Removal Order
President/Governor → Direct Removal Order
Every ground for removal requires a Supreme Court inquiry.
❌ Wrong.
The Act creates a separate route for specified grounds under Section 14(3)/17(3).
Incapacity is one of the grounds requiring the special Supreme Court inquiry mechanism.
Do not confuse:
Incapacity → Section 14(1)/17(1) inquiry route.
Specific infirmity of mind/body → Included among direct statutory grounds under Section 14(3)/17(3).
The Act uses two related but legally distinct formulations in its removal provisions.
The Supreme Court inquiry mechanism creates procedural safeguards.
Commissioner → Cannot simply be removed by executive displeasure.
Instead:
Protected Tenure
These are different.
Voluntary departure from office.
Involuntary termination through the statutory mechanism.
Resignation addressed to:
→ President.
Resignation addressed to:
→ Governor.
Resignation and removal are the same statutory process.
❌ Wrong.
Removal is different from:
Removal → Premature termination for statutory grounds.
Expiry/age → End of tenure through normal operation of law.
Security against arbitrary removal is important because Information Commissions decide matters involving:
Credible Information Commission
The special inquiry procedure reflects procedural fairness.
The removal framework seeks to prevent arbitrary executive action.
The RTI framework prohibits Commissioners from being connected with political parties.
Removal safeguards reinforce the expectation that Commissioners should operate independently of political pressures.
Institutional Credibility
The Act specifically addresses acquisition of financial or other interests likely to prejudicially affect official functions.
Conflict of Interest ↓ Threat to Impartiality ↓ Statutory Removal Ground
Institutional independence does not mean immunity from accountability.
The contract-related provisions are designed to prevent Commissioners from obtaining improper financial benefits from government contracts.
Potential Misbehaviour
Only political activity can justify removal.
❌ Wrong.
The Act contains several financial and ethical grounds.
Insolvency is an explicit ground for direct removal.
Insolvency → Direct statutory removal ground.
It is distinct from proved misbehaviour/incapacity requiring a Supreme Court inquiry.
Conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude, in the opinion of the President/Governor as applicable, is an explicit statutory ground for removal.
The law seeks to preserve the integrity and credibility of the office.
A Commissioner cannot engage in paid employment outside the duties of office during the term.
Prevent:
Any outside paid employment is permitted if the Commissioner performs official duties properly.
❌ Wrong.
The Act expressly provides it as a removal ground.
The Act provides for direct removal where the Commissioner is considered unfit to continue by reason of infirmity of mind or body.
Use the statutory wording carefully in UPSC answers.
Acquiring a financial or other interest likely to affect official functions prejudicially can trigger direct removal.
The focus is:
Potential compromise of impartial official functioning.
The Supreme Court's role is:
Inquiry and report.
It is not:
The final executive removing authority.
Supreme Court reports → President decides.
Supreme Court reports → Governor decides.
Supreme Court directly dismisses Information Commissioners.
❌ Wrong.
For Central Commissioners, the President:
President is the removal authority.
For State Commissioners, the Governor:
Governor is the removal authority.
Removal of:
Removal of:
14 → Central.
17 → State.
Terms and conditions of service of Central Commissioners.
Terms and conditions of service of State Commissioners.
Central removal.
State removal.
13 → Central Service.
14 → Central Removal.
16 → State Service.
17 → State Removal.
The 2019 amendment changed the tenure and service-condition provisions in Sections 13 and 16.
It did not abolish the special removal mechanisms under Sections 14 and 17.
2019 amendment removed Supreme Court inquiry protection.
❌ Wrong.
The removal framework under Sections 14 and 17 remains.
Current Sections 13 and 16 provide an age ceiling of:
65 years.
Reaching 65 is not technically the same as "removal."
It is a statutory end of tenure.
Commissioner reaching 65 must be removed through Supreme Court inquiry.
❌ Wrong.
Age limit operates separately.
Commissioners are not eligible for reappointment as such.
This can reduce incentives to favour the appointing authority in anticipation of another term.
Stronger independence.
Where an Information Commissioner becomes Chief Information Commissioner, the aggregate period in both offices cannot exceed five years.
This is a tenure rule, not a removal rule.
The five-year aggregate rule means the Commissioner can be removed after five years.
❌ Wrong.
It limits total tenure across the two offices.
The statutory removal mechanism does not eliminate constitutional judicial review.
Executive removal order → Potential constitutional scrutiny.
Information Commission independence ultimately operates within the constitutional structure of judicial review.
Strong removal protections can:
But clear removal grounds ensure:
Institutional Credibility
Potential concerns include:
An information commission can function effectively only when both independence and accountability are credible.
Use clear, merit-based and publicly credible selection processes.
Prevent vacancies that weaken the institution.
Maintain strict adherence to statutory procedure.
Require robust disclosure and recusal mechanisms.
Provide adequate:
Maintain access to constitutional remedies.
Where legally appropriate, improve transparency regarding statutory procedures.
Neither:
"Commissioners are untouchable"
nor:
"Government can remove them freely."
Independent + Accountable + Law-Bound.
Section 14
Proved misbehaviour/incapacity → President's reference → Supreme Court inquiry → Report → President's removal order.
Section 17
Proved misbehaviour/incapacity → Governor's reference → Supreme Court inquiry → Report → Governor's removal order.
Central Commissioner Removal.
State Commissioner Removal.
Insolvency + Moral Turpitude + Paid Employment + Infirmity + Conflict of Interest + Government Contract Misbehaviour
President removes State Information Commissioners.
❌ Wrong.
Governor removes State Commissioners.
Governor removes Central Information Commissioners.
❌ Wrong.
President removes Central Commissioners.
Supreme Court directly removes Information Commissioners.
❌ Wrong.
It conducts the inquiry and reports.
Every removal requires Supreme Court inquiry.
❌ Wrong.
Specified direct-removal grounds exist under Section 14(3)/17(3).
Insolvency requires a Supreme Court inquiry before removal.
❌ Wrong.
It is one of the specified direct-removal grounds.
Reached 65 years = removal for misbehaviour.
❌ Wrong.
Age ceiling is a separate tenure-ending provision.
2019 amendment abolished removal safeguards.
❌ Wrong.
Sections 14 and 17 remain the removal provisions.
Information Commissioners can be reappointed repeatedly.
❌ Wrong.
They are not eligible for reappointment as such.
Supreme Court inquiry automatically means removal.
❌ Wrong.
The Supreme Court reports whether removal is warranted; the President/Governor acts under the statute.
Paid outside employment is merely an ethical issue, not a statutory removal ground.
❌ Wrong.
It is expressly listed.
Government-contract conflict automatically means criminal conviction.
❌ Wrong.
The Act treats specified contractual involvement as deemed misbehaviour for the statutory removal mechanism.
Central and State removal procedures are completely different.
❌ Wrong.
They are broadly parallel, with President/Governor as the respective authorities.
The RTI Act creates special removal safeguards for Information Commissioners under Sections 14 and 17 to balance the independence of transparency institutions with accountability for misconduct, incapacity and conflicts of interest.
The removal framework embodies a constitutional-governance balance: Information Commissioners must be sufficiently independent to scrutinise public authorities, yet sufficiently accountable to be removable for proved misconduct, incapacity and specified conflicts of interest through a legally protected process.
