 This amendment has to be withdrawn. There is no other way. There is no amendment to this amendment. Amendment has to go. Because it concels, it prepares the entire system to conceal the information through the barrier of information connection. There are between 4 to 6 million RTI applications are filed every year in India and people are asking for information on a range of issues on their basic rights, their rations, their pensions, their health, their education and also questioning the highest offices of the country. So whether it is questioning the Prime Minister's educational qualifications or asking about his foreign travels who's travelling with him when he goes abroad the way we look at it is that it's impossible for any government today to try and control people when they're asking for information. There is no way to reach out to those 60 lakh, 80 lakh people every year to stop them from filing applications. But there is a recognition that the body which is capable of ensuring that the government gives information even when it's inconvenient for the government to give is the information commission and therefore this is a clear attempt to control that institution. It is usurping the power of legislature to make amendment to the Right to Information Act by giving, by making a last amendment to Right to Information Act. Why I am saying this is last amendment to Right to Information Act? Because it has taken over to prescribe the terms of conditions of the information commission not only the central but the state also. That means what it doesn't say what kind of state it is going to give you. It is not certain about it. And what is the independence? Where does independence lie? Independence lies in difficulty of removal or terminating or reducing the term of information commission. That is the independence symbol of independence. That is the reason why you cannot disturb him until he completes the fixed term of 5 years or 65 years whichever it is earlier. We could survive only because of that rule. Had that not been the rule in the Right to Information Act you would have been finished long, long ago. Well, I agree that this amendment is unnecessary in the best way that the parliament has. But I would say that if the government wants to do something they should look at recommendations made by the Central Information Commission. I agree it is an annual report. As you are aware that the Central Information Commission prepares a comprehensive report about the activities of the RDI applications. So we see them also directly on the different sections. And a section is devoted on the various recommendations made to the government for effective implementation of the RDI Act. Unfortunately, to my knowledge the government has not acted on the recommendations made by the Central Information Commission. If the government is pro-transparency and it wants to function in an open manner it must act on those recommendations made by the Central Information Commission in its own way. The government is keeping complete control over what the tenure and salaries allowances and terms of service of information commissioners will be. Of course the minister on the floor of the house and otherwise has been saying that there is no guarantee that they will downgrade the salaries or the status of information commissioners. But there is absolutely nothing in the law to prevent them from doing so if they so want. So what Mr. Ansari was talking about is that if the salaries and the status of information commissioners is diminished then who will be willing to apply for those positions also becomes a big issue. The RDI Act, it is a statutory body just like the CVC at this point of time and it is also performing the same functions as the CVC and whereas the CVC has the recommended powers the commissions have powers which go slightly beyond them which is actually penalizing the bureaucratic government officers unless of course the courts set them aside. So if you look at and then they have no problem with the Central Vigilance Commission's salaries being hiked and it is being recognized as an institution to uphold governance and also to take care of the corruption issues and yet as far as the Central Information Commission is concerned where the Supreme Court has already read the right to information as one of the fundamental rights and the Central Government is willing to look at it the scars and not give it the right and I don't know whether to call it by any other name except or describe it in any other way except saying that it is discriminating against the RDI Act. Parliament has a power to make a body which is powerful enough to enforce right to information and freedom of speech and expression that is the idea of right to information Act. There was a Parliamentary Standing Committee before 2005 all this was elaborately discussed. People made representations. Sudarshan Anachi Appan is the chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee he specifically stated that unless you give the Darja of Central Election Commissioner and Supreme Court on par it is not possible for a commissioner to discharge his duties of ordering cabinet secretary principal secretary and other secretaries to disclose the information. That is what is stated by Sudarshan Anachi Appan in his report and based on that the status of election commission was given it's part of the law not part of prescription as being done now not only this government every other government that is going to come whether in the center will be prescribing different conditions different terms, different status and different salaries is that what you want to do with the information commission which is supposed to enforce freedom of speech and expression including right to information? It's a very serious question. What government must realize and what it has totally failed to realize is that the right to information Act greatly strengthens governance it may not strengthen government it strengthens governance and therefore I have pointed out in my letter to Honourable Prime Minister that it is his own slogan minimum government maximum governance what is the best instrument and if not only by him himself mind you in the National Convention of Information Commissions which he attended in 2015 that this is an instrument through which we can learn how we are working and whether we are serving the people as we are expecting to serve So the government's policy, the government's policy to bring it into action to see that it is reaching the people for that the government has more to offer Any new policy being done has to be explained with details as facts and circumstances to people under what's written section 41C right to information amendment bill 2019 and 2018 are in total violation of section 41C total complete violation and there is no information about right to information amendment bill to anybody unless and until it was introduced in the parliament that means nobody in this gallery not even stakeholders not even the commissioners not even the parliament commissioners not even the NGOs nobody knows about it so if you keep right to information amendment bill itself as a top secret what information you will work with you tomorrow? A statement which was made via a tweet by one of the senior cabinet ministers in the government saying that all those who are opposing this particular amendment are actually maligning the government this is mischievous and they are maligning the government and these amendments in no way dilute the right to information act or the autonomy of the information commissions there was also a fact sheet that was tweeted out from the official handle of the BJP and in that also the first point states that the amendments in no way compromise the autonomy of the information commissions Not only the right to information but the freedom of speech and expression is also under a threat with this bill the point is right to information is an integral part of constitutional right under article 1918 this is the most important statement and I am not saying this Supreme Court said it three times before 2005 and Supreme Court said again three times after 2005 and not only me it is the government of India that said it is a constitutional right in 2005 do you know they are not supposed to make law for all the states generally because access to records is a concurrent subject you cannot make law for the state government do you know what plea they have taken up in 2005 very right plea justified plea that it is a constitutional right I am enforcing 191A so when 191A is being enforced it is for entire country so I am making law for the entire country so that is the justification and after 17 years or 13 years how can you change how can you say that it is not a constitutional right the government is very secret about what are they going to do why did they not supply the graph of their prescription they should have so there is a secrecy around the amendment secrecy in their minds as to what rules are going to be applied and if this law to amend the RTI action is secret you can imagine the disclosure of the position tomorrow so this has to go whether it is global it goes through selectivity or goes through laws I don't know it should go but we push it protest the amendment and protect the RTI