The 2019 monsoon session of the Indian Parliament witnessed significant amendments to two crucial legislations: the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), India's primary anti-terror law, and the Right to Information (RTI) Act. These changes brought about substantial shifts in their respective operational frameworks.

Amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA): The most significant change to the UAPA was the empowerment of the central government to designate individuals as 'terrorists'. Prior to this amendment, only organizations could be designated as terrorist entities. This change allows the government to impose travel bans, freeze assets, and attach properties of individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism, even if they are not part of a designated terrorist organization. The rationale behind this amendment was to address the evolving nature of terrorism, where individuals might act independently or form new groups not yet proscribed. While proponents argued it strengthens India's counter-terrorism efforts, critics raised concerns about potential misuse, the lack of adequate due process for individuals, and the possibility of targeting dissent under the guise of national security, thereby impinging on civil liberties.

Amendments to the Right to Information (RTI) Act: The amendments to the RTI Act primarily targeted the terms and conditions of service for the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (ICs) at both the central and state levels. Originally, the RTI Act, 2005, provided for a fixed five-year tenure for these commissioners and equated their salaries and allowances to those of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, respectively. The 2019 amendment removed these provisions, empowering the central government to prescribe the term of office, salaries, allowances, and other terms and conditions of service for the CIC and ICs. This change significantly diluted the autonomy and independence of the information commissions, which are crucial for their effective functioning as oversight bodies. Critics argued that by giving the government control over the tenure and remuneration of the commissioners, the amendments undermined the institutional independence of the information commissions, making them more susceptible to executive influence and potentially weakening the very spirit of transparency and accountability that the RTI Act was designed to uphold.