1. Core Legal Answer & Context: The question likely refers to the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act, 2005), as there isn't a separate 'RTI Act, 2019'. However, the Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019, introduced significant changes to the 2005 Act, which raised concerns about its constitutionality and independence. The RTI Act, 2005, is a cornerstone of Indian democracy, empowering citizens to access information held by public authorities. Its constitutional basis is derived from the fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution, primarily Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (right to life and liberty), which have been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the 'right to know'.

Constitutional Basis of RTI Act, 2005:

• Article 19(1)(a): The right to information is considered an integral part of the freedom of speech and expression. Without access to information, citizens cannot form informed opinions or effectively participate in a democracy.
• Article 21: The right to life and liberty includes the right to live with dignity, which necessitates transparency and accountability in governance.

Concerns regarding the RTI (Amendment) Act, 2019:

• The 2019 Amendment Act gave the Central Government the power to prescribe the term of office, salaries, allowances, and other terms and conditions of service of the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (ICs) at both central and state levels. Previously, these were fixed by the 2005 Act, ensuring a degree of independence akin to election commissioners.
• Critics argued that these amendments undermined the independence of the Information Commissions, making them subservient to the executive and potentially hindering their ability to function as autonomous bodies. This raised questions about whether the amendments violated the basic structure of the Constitution by diluting a fundamental right.

Recent Judgments by the Supreme Court of India: While there hasn't been a direct Supreme Court judgment striking down the 2019 Amendment Act as unconstitutional, recent judgments have consistently upheld the spirit of transparency and the importance of the right to information:

• Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019) 5 SCC 796: This landmark judgment declared that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is a 'public authority' under the RTI Act, 2005. The Court balanced the right to information with the right to privacy and the independence of the judiciary. While it affirmed the applicability of RTI to the CJI's office, it also emphasized the need for a 'public interest test' for disclosure, especially concerning judicial appointments and personal information of judges. This judgment reinforced the constitutional validity and broad applicability of the RTI Act, 2005, despite the 2019 amendments.

2. Relevant Statutes and Sections:

• Right to Information Act, 2005.
• Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019.
• Constitution of India: Articles 19(1)(a), 21.

3. Important Landmark Cases:

• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) Supp SCC 87: This case, often referred to as the 'Judges' Transfer Case', was one of the earliest instances where the Supreme Court recognized the 'right to know' as implicit in the right to freedom of speech and expression.
• Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294: The Supreme Court held that the right to know the antecedents of electoral candidates is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a).
• Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019) 5 SCC 796: This judgment affirmed the constitutional validity and broad scope of the RTI Act, applying it to the highest judicial office, while also balancing it with other constitutional principles.

4. Clear Conclusion: The RTI Act, 2005, is constitutionally valid and a vital tool for democratic governance, rooted in Articles 19(1)(a) and 21. While the 2019 amendments raised concerns about the independence of Information Commissions, the Supreme Court, through judgments like Subhash Chandra Agarwal, has consistently affirmed the fundamental nature of the right to information and its applicability to all public authorities, including the judiciary. The ongoing challenge remains to ensure the effective and independent functioning of the RTI mechanism, free from executive influence, to truly realize its constitutional mandate of transparency and accountability.