Certain loopholes in the new amended Right to Information Bill having been passed by the Lok Sabha raises a question, on the purpose and object it sought to achieve. The tilt which should be towards transparency seems to be more towards the opaqueness.

To ensure that the process of election remains a bipartisan process and no single party or alliance could control the selection of Information Commissioner, the Appointment Committee consisted of PM(Prime Minister), leader Of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice Of India. But in the amended Bill the Appointment committee is no more represented by the Chief Justice Of India.

Not only this,in the Amended Bill Prime Minister has been given the power to nominate a Cabinet Minister of his own choice to the committee wherein bias and favouritism get a chance to creep in. Similarly, Chief Minister can do so at the state level.

As per the Amended Bill the public authorities have been included in the definition of third party and this would lead two different public authorities to collude in refusing information to the applicant and will unnecessarily delay the process further. Whereas in the original Bill, if the PIO(public information officer) recieved an application about information of a confidential nature that was given by a third party, wherein the definition of third party included another public authority, the PIO was required to give notice to the third party and invite any objections.

Besides the New Bill also lacks to throw light as to where an applicant can file an appeal with State Information Commission if there is unreasonable refusal by the local office of a Central Govt. Department or agency to give information. So, again the confusion and lack of transparency persists. The Amended Bill which is meant to bring solace to the applicants or information seekers proves to be a hard nut to crack.