CIC advises NHAI to proactively disclose contracts' info in public domain

Business Standard: New Delhi: Friday, 3^rd July 2026.
The CIC has advised NHAI to proactively disclose highway contracts, safety plans and project documents, saying greater transparency will improve public accountability

Underlining that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) is not placing contract agreement-related information in the public domain, the CIC has advised the authority to proactively disclose highway contracts, safety plans and other key project documents to promote transparency and accountability.
Issuing an advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act, Information Commissioner Jaya Varma Sinha said the "NHAI is not placing contract agreement-related information on their website in the public domain".
The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that "contractual agreements and safety plans directly impact public safety, transparency, and accountability in infrastructure projects".
It noted that "withholding such information under the guise of exemptions is inconsistent with the spirit of the RTI Act".
According to the order, proactive disclosure would "enhance transparency in public procurement and execution of highway projects", "ensure accountability of contractors and NHAI in adhering to safety norms", and "empower citizens to monitor compliance with safety standards and contractual obligations".
The advisory came while disposing of a second appeal filed by an RTI applicant seeking certified copies of documents related to the construction of flyovers at Shivpuri Bypass Crossing and Medical College Crossing in Jhansi.
The applicant had sought copies of the contract agreement, correspondence exchanged during project execution, approved safety plans and related communications.
The commission found that while the then CPIO had correctly provided the Letter of Award, the denial of copies of the contract agreement and approved safety plans under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act was "evasive".
It held that the exemption had been "wrongly applied" and was "contrary to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005", directing the CPIO to furnish the information.
The commission also reminded NHAI of its obligation under Section 4 of the RTI Act to proactively disclose information.
Referring to the Supreme Court's 2023 judgment in Kishan Chand Jain vs Union of India, it said transparency laws achieve their objective only when "the principle of accountability governs the relationship between 'right holders' and 'duty bearers'".
It advised NHAI to "take immediate steps to publish the above information in the public domain and ensure regular updates", observing that doing so would also reduce RTI applications seeking basic project information.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Govt spent Rs 10,169 crore on Udan; IndiGo biggest subsidy receiver: RTI

India Today: New Delhi: Friday, 3^rd July 2026.
RTI data shows the government has spent over Rs 10,169 crore on the Udaan scheme since 2016, splitting funds between aviation infrastructure and airline subsidies, with IndiGo emerging as the largest subsidy recipient.

Regional connectivity scheme Udan was launched in October 2016. (Photo: AI generated)

More than a decade after its launch, the government's flagship regional connectivity scheme, Udaan (Ude Desh ka Aam Nagrik), has seen a financial outlay of Rs 10,169 crore, with low-cost carrier IndiGo emerging as the largest beneficiary of airline subsidies, according to information obtained through the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Details of how public funds have been utilised during the programme's first decade were obtained by India Today as Prime Minister Narendra Modi prepares to announce a 10-year extension of the scheme until 2037 during his visit to Jodhpur on July 4.
The records show that the government has committed more than Rs 10,169 crore to the regional connectivity scheme since its launch in 2016, dividing expenditure between the development of aviation infrastructure and subsidies for airlines operating commercially unviable routes. While IndiGo emerged as the largest recipient of airline subsidies under the scheme, Ayodhya Airport received the highest infrastructure funding.
Nearly a decade after its launch, Udaan has evolved into one of the government's flagship regional aviation initiatives, with spending split almost evenly between building connectivity infrastructure and supporting airline operations on underserved routes.
According to the RTI response, the Centre sanctioned Rs 5,500 crore for the development of airports, airstrips, heliports and water aerodromes. Of this, Rs 4,833.25 crore had been spent as of March 31, 2026. During the same period, airlines received Rs 4,669.02 crore as Viability Gap Funding (VGF), a subsidy designed to bridge the gap between operating costs and revenues on regional routes. Together, the two components account for government support exceeding Rs 10,169 crore.

INDIGO TOPS SUBSIDY RECIPIENTS
The RTI data shows that a handful of carriers accounted for the bulk of airline subsidies released under the scheme.
IndiGo received the highest VGF support at Rs 1,157.13 crore, followed by Alliance Air (Rs 994.99 crore), GHODAWAT (Rs 684.90 crore), SpiceJet (Rs 654.13 crore) and TruJet (Rs 382.03 crore). Collectively, these five airlines received nearly Rs 3,873 crore, representing about 83 per cent of all subsidies disbursed under Udan.
Other beneficiaries included Just Udo Aviation, Air Taxi, Big Charters, GSEC Monarch, Heritage Aviation, Jet Airways, Pawan Hans, Air Odisha, Zoom Air and Deccan Charters.
The year-wise figures indicate that subsidy support expanded alongside the scheme's growth. VGF payments peaked at Rs 807.02 crore in 2023-24 before declining to Rs 628.42 crore in 2024-25 and a provisional Rs 621.99 crore in 2025-26, underscoring the continued reliance of regional routes on government support.

AYODHYA TOPS AIRPORT FUNDING
Beyond airline subsidies, substantial investments have been made in aviation infrastructure across the country.
The RTI lists 185 airports, airstrips, heliports and water aerodromes that have been developed or revived under Udan. Ayodhya Airport received the highest allocation at Rs 347.41 crore, followed by Kolhapur in Maharashtra (Rs 333.29 crore), Jharsuguda in Odisha (Rs 183.67 crore), Pakyong in Sikkim (Rs 178.75 crore), Prayagraj (Rs 161.43 crore), Amravati (Rs 148.53 crore), Kanpur (Rs 134.79 crore), Darbhanga (Rs 127.82 crore) and Adampur (Rs 125.60 crore).

CONNECTIVITY ACROSS INDIA
The RTI data highlights Udan's transformation from an airport development initiative into a nationwide connectivity programme.
Major projects are spread across states including Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, Bihar, Maharashtra and Gujarat, while Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh have seen the development of extensive heliport networks aimed at improving access to remote mountainous regions.
The scheme has also expanded to island territories through water aerodrome projects in Lakshadweep and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, alongside similar facilities in Gujarat and Assam. In the Northeast, infrastructure has been developed across Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland and Sikkim, reflecting the programme's focus on enhancing connectivity in geographically challenging regions.

Is gram sabha attendance list a secret document, ask Gujarat’s RTI activists

Times of India: Gandhinagar: Friday, 3^rd July 2026.
An order by Gujarat Information Commission (GIC), stating that the document containing the names and signatures of members present at a gram sabha cannot be provided because it could be misused for financial and other frauds, has angered RTI activists. The order was passed on April 22 by chief information commissioner Subhash Soni over an appeal before the commission.

RTI applicant Raman Parmar had sought information about the names of persons who attended a gram sabha at Adaas village on May 20, 2025. He approached the commission as he was not granted the information.
The CIC rejected the appeal, citing Section 8 (1) (a) of the RTI Act, which exempts public authorities from disclosing information that would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific, or economic interests of the state, relations with foreign states, or lead to the incitement of an offence.
Former state information commissioner (Madhya Pradesh) Rahul Singh has written a mail to the Gujarat CIC, raising legal questions against the decision. “The apprehension that the disclosure of signatures may facilitate financial fraud is speculative and unsupported by law. Signatures of public functionaries and citizens routinely appear on numerous public documents maintained by govt authorities. Such a hypothetical possibility cannot become a ground to deny access to an entire public record,” he said in the mail.
Singh added that strengthening transparency in the functioning of gram sabhas would reinforce public confidence in Panchayati Raj institutions and further the constitutional vision of participatory democracy. “Villagers should not be deprived of access to records relating to the functioning of their own gram sabha, particularly when these concern public meetings conducted under statutory authority,” he wrote.
Retired information commissioner, Central Information Commission, Shailesh Gandhi has also written a letter to the state CIC, requesting that the order be reconsidered.
“The order by the Gujarat Information Commission saying that information containing signatures can be misused in financial fraud and therefore cannot be shared under Section 8(1) (j) is anomalous and mistaken. By this logic, no official correspondence with signatures on it would be shared with citizens, and this would become like one single weapon to destroy RTI,” he said in the communication.
Pankti Jog, executive secretary of Mahiti Adhikar Gujarat Pahel, said that basic documents like a register of members present at a gram sabha should be provided in the interest of transparency.

RTI implementation in UP ‘pathetic’: State info chief

Times of India: Pilibhit: Friday, 3^rd July 2026.
State Information Commissioner Mohammad Nadim on Monday described the implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act in Uttar Pradesh as “pathetic,” saying that nearly 75% of replies are issued only after intervention by the State Information Commission.

At a press conference, Nadim flagged serious gaps in the functioning of public information officers (PIOs), noting that many were unaware of basic legal concepts such as the difference between an appeal and a complaint, or the role of deemed PIOs. He also said several PIOs were unfamiliar with amendments made to the RTI Act in 2019.
The commissioner said there’s a widespread deficiency in the fundamental knowledge required to uphold transparency laws. He underlined an urgent need for better training and accountability within the district’s administrative framework to ensure the RTI Act serves its intended purpose.
There are serious gaps at many levels as far as effective implementation of the RTI Act is concerned. Though a huge number of approximately 50K cases were disposed of, there is pendency of over 20K cases, he said.
Nadim said Pilibhit has 58 pending RTI cases, but PIOs concerned failed to explain the delays. During an exercise for review of pending cases, many PIOs attended without relevant files and documents which adversely affected the review process.
So far, 143 PIOs in Pilibhit have been penalised for failing to provide information on time.
He said that many websites of govt departments lack adequate information that should have been suo motu disclosures. He stressed that effective implementation of the RTI Act requires complete transparency, accountability and a commitment of PIOs to provide information in time.

Maharashtra government stays RTI Rules two days before Anna Hazare’s agitation

The Hindu: Mumbai: Friday, 3^rd July 2026.
Veteran social activist had planned to start an indefinite hunger strike on Saturday at Ralegan Siddhi demanding a rollback; State govt. will restore the position as of June 11, says official

RTI activists demand public consultation, scrapping of the amendments, and transparency before taking further decision.
The Maharashtra government on Thursday stayed the recent amendments to the Right to Information rules, two days before social activist Anna Hazare was to start an indefinite hunger strike at Ralegan Siddhi demanding a rollback. “We will restore the position as of June 11, 2026,” a senior IAS officer told The Hindu. The government said the amendments had been stayed in view of the objections and concerns raised by Mr. Hazare.
‘Moment of happiness’
The villagers of Ralegan Siddhi had called for an agitation on Friday, where they were to burn the draft of the Maharashtra Right to Information (Amendment) Rules, 2026. They expressed joy on news of the government’s decision. “It is a moment of happiness for us. It would have been difficult to see Anna sit for a hunger strike at the age of 90. The village stands by him,” said a close associate of the activist.
A letter sent by the General Administration Department on Thursday to the Chief Information Commissioner of Maharashtra stated: “The Chief Minister has directed that the rules before the issuance of a gazette notification on June 12, 2026, should be brought into force. Accordingly, the action has been taken immediately.” Soon thereafter, the Maharashtra State Information Commission issued orders staying the Maharashtra Right to Information (Amendment) Rules, 2026.
Several activists had raised objections to the provisions of the amended rules, which included a threefold increase in application fee, the introduction of a new fee for appeals, and a cap on free information for those living below the poverty line. The rules also required that each RTI application pertain to a single subject and be limited to 150 words. Other provisions included mandatory disclosure of an applicant’s identity, removing anonymity protections for whistleblowers, barring legal representation during hearings, permitting dismissal of cases if applicants fail to appear, and closing cases upon an applicant’s death.
Reacting to the development on Thursday, RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar welcomed the decision to stay the amendments but also called for their scrapping. “They are in contravention to the provisions of the RTI Act. The government should appoint a new committee to look into this issue. It should include all stakeholders and be done transparently,” he said.
Maharashtra’s Chief Information Commissioner Rahul Pande said a team had visited Mr. Hazare on June 24 where the activist conveyed his objections. “Accordingly the CM has directed to stay the implementation of the rules.”

State responds to Hazare’s concerns & threat of fast, puts RTI Rules 2026 on hold

The Times of India: Pune: Friday, 3^rd July 2026.
The state govt on Thursday put on hold implementation of the Maharashtra Right to Information (RTI) Rules, 2026, after veteran social activist Anna Hazare objected to the newly notified framework and threatened to launch an indefinite hunger strike from July 5, if the new rules remained.

Chief minister Devendra Fadnavis confirmed the decision in a written reply to TOI, saying the Maharashtra RTI Rules, 2026, have been kept in abeyance.
Other than Hazare’s proposed indefinite fast, residents of his native village Ralegan Siddhi had planned an agitation on Friday to support him. The supporters cited his advanced age and urged Hazare to not undertake the fast. Instead, they resolved to intensify their own agitation against the new rules.
Meanwhile, following the CM’s directions, state chief information commissioner (CIC) Rahul Pande instructed all six divisional information commissioners to immediately inform govt departments and public authorities that the rules had been put on hold.
State information commission secretary Ravindra Phalle issued a communication telling divisional information commissioners of Konkan, Pune, Nashik, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Amravati and Nagpur. He said that although the Maharashtra RTI Rules, 2026, had been notified in the Government Gazette on June 21 under Section 27 (2) of the RTI Act, it would not come into force for now. “As per the CM’s directions, the RTI Rules, 2026, have been kept in abeyance (put on hold),” the letter said. It directed commissioners to notify all public authorities and ensure compliance.
State CIC told TOI: “Pre-June 12 position is restored and the same will be followed.”
The RTI Act’s sections 27 to 29 empower the state to frame and notify rules to implement the law and place it before both Houses of the legislature. The Maharashtra RTI Rules, 2026, had replaced the 2005 Rules governing RTI applications, appeals and proceedings before public authorities and the state information commission.
Several activists criticised the provisions that they believed could restrict citizens’ access to information, but they also acknowledged that the rules addressed long-pending procedural gaps.
Director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) Venkatesh Nayak said the rules introduced procedures to file first appeals, laid down safeguards for inspection of records and expanded fee payment options. “Most important, it fixed responsibility on heads of public authorities for record management and proactive disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI Act — an obligation reinforced by the Supreme Court’s 2023 judgment in the Kishan Chand Jain vs Union of India case.” he said.
However, Nayak said several provisions remained “seriously problematic and restrictive” and required revision, rather than withdrawal. “The 2026 RTI Rules being withdrawn altogether is like throwing away the baby with the bathwater,” he said.
The activist further said that CHRI had submitted a detailed critique and suggested amendments by email and Speed Post to the CM’s office through former CIC Wajahat Habibullah, last week. He urged the govt to use the pause to undertake a wider public consultation and frame a comprehensive, citizen-friendly set of RTI Rules that strengthens not weakens the transparency of the Act.
Earlier, in his interaction with the state CIC at a meeting, Hazare had said that wider voluntary disclosure by authorities should reduce the need for citizens to file RTI applications for routine information and urged the govt to keep the RTI Rules, 2026, in abeyance until concerns raised by RTI users and transparency activists were examined.
Hazare’s stand on the new rules were that it made it difficult for ordinary citizens to exercise their legal right to information by increasing filing fees, the requirement to submit identity proof, limiting application length and adding procedural barriers. He had said these changes weaken transparency and may conflict with the RTI Act itself.

Kerala High Court Strikes Down 20-Page Cap On Free RTI Information For Below Poverty Line Applicants As Ultra Vires RTI Act

Live Law: Kerala: Friday, 3^rd July 2026.
The Kerala High Court has struck down proviso to Rule 4(4) of the Kerala Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2006, which restrict free supply of information under RTI Act to persons below the poverty line (BPL) to twenty pages. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 355]

Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. found that the proviso to the afore Rule, requiring payment for information above 20 pages, traverse beyond the scope of the parent Act, i.e., the Right to Information Act, 2005 since no such cap is sought to be made on the free information by its provisions.
“I have no hesitation in holding that the proviso to Rule 4(4) of the Kerala Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2006, travels beyond the scope of the rule-making power under Section 27 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is inconsistent with Section 7(5) of the Act, and also defeats the substantive provision of Rule 4(4) itself. The said proviso is therefore ultra vires the parent statute and is liable to be declared illegal and void. Accordingly, the proviso to Rule 4(4) of the Kerala Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2006, restricting free supply of information to persons below the poverty line to twenty pages, is struck down as ultra vires the Right to Information Act, 2005,” the Court observed.
The Court was considering a writ petition filed by Nishad Shobanan, an RTI activist and member of Bodhi Vivaravakasa Samrakshana Sena challenging the Rule.
The petitioner, a person belong to the BPL category himself, had submitted an RTI application seeking information from the Co-operative Registrar regarding audit reports and other details of Puthenvelikkara Service Co-operative Bank and Elanthikkara Women Co-operative Sangham.
In response to the application, a letter was issued directing him to pay Rs. 30 for certain copies. Aggrieved, he has come before the High Court.
He pointed out that Kerala Rules, being a delegated legislation, must be consistent with the parent Act. It was argued that Section 7(5) of the RTI Act mandates that information must be supplied free of cost to persons belonging to BPL category.
Responding to the plea, the State government contended that the requirement of payment of fee for information beyond 20 pages was inserted based on Kerala State Information Commission's opinion that certain applicants engage persons in BPL category to get free information after determining the availability of information and costs involved. It was to overcome this that the proviso was added, it was stated.
After hearing the parties, the Court noted that it must consider the nature, object and scheme of the parent statute as well as the scope of the delegation while examining the validity of a subordinate/delegated legislation.
It also referred to the doctrine of ultra vires, which states that the delegated authority does not have inherent legislative powers, and therefore, it must operate within the confines of the authority provided in the parent legislation.
Keeping these principles in mind, the Court examined the proviso to Rule 4(4) in the light of Section 7(5) of the RTI Act. It then reasoned:
“Section 7(5) of the RTI Act, 2005, in clear, categorical and imperative terms, mandates that “no fee shall be charged from the persons who are below the poverty line”. The provision is unqualified, admits of no exception, and leaves no discretion with either the rule-making authority or the information officer. This statutory mandate stands fully incorporated in Rule 4(4) of the Kerala RTI Rules, 2006, which exempts BPL applicants from payment of fee. Once the legislature has consciously granted a complete exemption, the delegate cannot, by inserting a proviso, dilute, restrict or neutralise that exemption. The proviso limiting free supply to twenty pages is therefore not a case of alleged inconsistency with the abstract object or scheme of the Act, but one of direct conflict with an express and mandatory statutory command, rendering the rule vulnerable on the touchstone of ultra vires.”
Finding the proviso to be contrary to the substantive part of the rule and directly in conflict with the parent statute, the Court opined that it cannot be sustained. It thus struck down the proviso, allowing the plea.
Case No: WP(C) No. 3530 of 2024
Case Title: Nishad Shobanan v. The Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 355
Counsel for the petitioner: T.U. Sujith Kumar
Counsel for the respondents: O.M. Shalina – Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI), Devishri R. – government pleader
(Click to Read/DownloadJudgment)

Andhra Pradesh Information Commission dismisses 160 RTI cases, raps appellant over misuse

The Hindu: Andhra Pradesh: Thursday, 2^nd July 2026.
The Commission said Naidu Nagarjuna Reddy had filed thousands of applications and over 400 second appeals, using the RTI Act as a litigation tool rather than for transparency

The Andhra Pradesh Information Commission has dismissed 160 second appeals and complaints filed by Bapatla-based RTI activist Naidu Nagarjuna Reddy, holding that he had misused the Right to Information (RTI) Act by repeatedly filing vexatious and grievance-oriented applications. The common order was issued by Chief Information Commissioner Vajja Srinivasa Rao on June 30, 2026.
The Andhra Pradesh Information Commission has passed this common order related to the Second Appeal No. 3328 of 2025.
The Commission observed that the appellant had filed thousands of RTI applications, numerous first appeals and more than 400 second appeals, many of them relating to his personal grievances and criminal cases. It noted that information was often sought in repetitive applications and that the RTI mechanism was being used as a litigation tool rather than to promote transparency and accountability.
During the hearings, the appellant acknowledged that he had never filed any public interest litigation or corruption complaint using information obtained through RTI. The Commission also recorded submissions by public authorities alleging that the appellant had harassed officials through repeated applications. Affidavits placed before the Commission referred to his criminal background and pending cases, though these were reproduced as submissions made by the respondents.
Relying on judgments of the Supreme Court, various High Courts and the Central Information Commission, the order reiterated that the RTI Act is intended to provide access to existing records and is not a forum for grievance redressal or speculative queries. It warned that indiscriminate and repetitive applications divert public resources and hamper the functioning of public authorities.
Concluding that the appellant had abused the RTI process, the Commission dismissed all 160 matters, reprimanded him and directed that repeated applications, appeals and complaints of a similar nature could be rejected in future to prevent further misuse of the RTI mechanism.

'Complete breakdown in institutional discipline': CIC pulls up CSIR-CIMFR over payment delay, RTI lapses

Deccan Herald: Bangalore: Thursday, 2^nd July 2026.
The CIC said contradictory stands taken by officials over the custody of records "reveal a disturbing state of administrative confusion and lack of accountability within the Public Authority".

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has pulled up the CSIR-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR), Dhanbad, over an RTI matter linked to delayed payment of a contractor's bills, observing that the case reflected a "complete breakdown" in institutional discipline and administrative responsibility.
Information Commissioner P R Ramesh noted that "intervention at the highest level of the institution has become necessary to restore administrative discipline and ensure compliance with statutory obligations." The case pertains to a contractor's bills remaining unpaid for over two years, while his RTI application seeking information on the delay went unanswered.
The Commission said the appellant had been "compelled to pursue both the pending payment and the reasons for such delay through repeated efforts, including recourse to the RTI mechanism", and viewed the situation with "serious concern".
The CIC said contradictory stands taken by officials over the custody of records "reveal a disturbing state of administrative confusion and lack of accountability within the Public Authority".
It added, "A situation where the CPIO identifies officers as holders of information, such officers ignore the directions of the Commission, fail to attend proceedings, and later deny custody of records altogether, cannot be countenanced in law." The Commission observed that "withholding payment for over two years, if established, is not a mere procedural lapse", adding that delayed release of legitimate dues "adversely affects the livelihood of the concerned vendor, disrupts business operations, and reflects poorly on the fairness and credibility expected of a public authority".
The CIC directed the First Appellate Authority of CSIR-CIMFR to obtain the relevant records, furnish a revised point-wise reply to the appellant and submit a compliance report, while stating that the ongoing show-cause proceedings would continue separately.
Expressing "serious displeasure" over the conduct of the officials, the CIC said their actions "have not only obstructed the flow of information but have also undermined the authority of this Commission and the transparency framework envisaged under the RTI Act".
The Commission also remarked that "public authorities exist to serve citizens and not to subject them to prolonged hardship through administrative indifference and bureaucratic apathy", adding that "a vendor who has rendered services to the organisation ought not to be compelled to spend years seeking what is legitimately due." Earlier, while initiating show-cause proceedings, the Commission had said the handling of the RTI application reflected a "lackadaisical approach towards RTI matters". It said that "non-furnishing of the relevant records would only frustrate Appellant's effort to seek judicial remedy and amounts to denial of meaningful access to justice".
It had also observed that public authorities "should not be permitted to cause financial distress to individuals or entities who have duly provided services".

Bengaluru North AC fined Rs 75,000 for RTI lapses

New Indian Express: Bangalore: Thursday, 2^nd July 2026.
The Commission directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the officer under the Karnataka Civil Services Rules and submit a compliance report.

The Karnataka Information Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 75,000 on the Assistant Commissioner of Bengaluru North Sub-Division, S Kiran, for failing to furnish information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act in three separate cases and for repeatedly remaining absent during commission hearings.
The Commission has also recommended a departmental inquiry and disciplinary action against the officer.
State Information Commissioner Rudranna Harthikote of the Commission’s Fourth Bench imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 in each case, observing that the officer had consistently failed to provide information sought by applicants and neither appeared before the Commission nor deputed a representative during hearings.
In one case, B Anjanamurthy of Gollahalli village in Dasanapura Hobli had sought records from the SDO’s office on March 25, 2024. As no information was provided within the stipulated 30 days, he approached the Commission through a second appeal. The officer failed to attend the hearing, leading to the penalty.
In another case, J Rajendraraju of Kengeri sought information relating to Gavipuram Village in December 2024. The Commission directed the officer to lodge an FIR under the Karnataka Public Records Act, 2012 if the file was unavailable. However, the directions were not complied with. Apart from imposing a Rs 25,000 penalty, the Commission ordered Rs 5,000 compensation to the applicant.
In the third case, Chalapathi J of Whitefield sought land records pertaining to Pattandur Agrahara village in November 2024. The officer neither provided the information nor appeared before the Commission despite its directions.
The Commission directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the officer under the Karnataka Civil Services Rules and submit a compliance report. Separately, Commissioner Rudranna Hartikote has written to Chief Secretary Shalini Rajneesh seeking directions to ensure timely disposal of RTI applications across the Bengaluru district administration, stating that delay in providing information amounts to denial of justice.

RTI Act applies to National Stock Exchange: Delhi High Court

Bar and Bench: New Delhi: Thursday, 2^nd July 2026.
A Division Bench upheld a 2010 judgement of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and rejected NSE's appeal.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday ruled that the National Stock Exchange (NSE) of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act).
Being classified as a public authority makes the institution subject to the RTI Act.
A Division Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla upheld a 2010 judgement of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and rejected NSE's appeal against the judgement.
"We entirely agree, and wholeheartedly endorse the finding, of the learned Single Judge, that the NSEI is an “authority” within the meaning of the first part of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act," the Bench said.  
Justice Khanna had held that although the NSE was incorporated as a private company under the Companies Act, its recognition as a stock exchange under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, transformed it into an authority performing public functions.
He said that the recognition granted by the Central Government, later delegated to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), effectively constituted the NSE as an institution of self-government under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
The single-judge also held that NSE is a body controlled by the Central government.
The NSE challenged the judgement before a Division Bench. It argued that it was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, making it a private corporate entity rather than a government body.
The Division Bench stayed the single judge (Justice Khanna's) judgement on May 4, 2010.
In its final verdict today, it upheld the single-judge decision.
It concluded that the "justification provided by the learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment, for each of these findings, is eloquent and reasoned, and we see no cause to disturb the findings".
Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta with advocates Pranav Sarthi, Prachi Dhingra, Ishan Agrawal, Gandharv Garg, Jasleen Oberoi, Anshit Aggarwal, Mansvini Jain and Udit Bajpai appeared for the NSE.
The RTI applicant was represented through advocates Ashish Aggarwal, OP Faizi, Anand Aggarwal, Darshana Aggarwal, Nishtha Verma, Lisha Arora, Tanya Jain, Himanshu Singh, Ishita and Anjali.
CGSC BS Shukla and Dashmesh Tripathi represented the Union of India.
[Read Judgement]

National Stock Exchange of India public authority under RTI Act, says Delhi HC

The Hindu: New Delhi: Thursday, 2^nd July 2026.
The court observed that if the body is owned, controlled or substantially financed by the government, it would qualify as a ‘public authority’

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (July 1, 2026) held that the National Stock Exchange of India (NSEI) is a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information Act.
A bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice O.P. Shukla dismissed an appeal by the stock exchange challenging a single judge’s decision which ruled that NSEI qualified as a ‘public authority’ under section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
The court observed that if the body is owned, controlled or substantially financed by the government, it would qualify as a ‘public authority’.
It stated that this was not a case where an entity was established as a private company and was regulated by statute later.
“We affirm and uphold the judgment of the learned single judge. The appeal is dismissed, with no orders as to costs,” the court concluded.
The NSEI assailed the single judge’s judgement, passed on April 15, 2010, before the division bench.
The stock exchange had challenged an order of the Central Information Commissioner before the single judge and asserted that it was not a public authority under the RTI Act.
Before the division bench, the NSEI argued that it was not owned, controlled or substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by the government, and was merely recognised and regulated by the SEBI.
The court observed that if the body is owned, controlled or substantially financed by the government, it would qualify as a ‘public authority’.
It stated that this was not a case where an entity was established as a private company and was regulated by statute later.
“We affirm and uphold the judgment of the learned single judge. The appeal is dismissed, with no orders as to costs,” the court concluded.
The NSEI assailed the single judge’s judgement, passed on April 15, 2010, before the division bench.
The stock exchange had challenged an order of the Central Information Commissioner before the single judge and asserted that it was not a public authority under the RTI Act.
Before the division bench, the NSEI argued that it was not owned, controlled or substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by the government, and was merely recognised and regulated by the SEBI.

Assam Information Commission Orders Action Against PWD SPIO for RTI Lapse

The Sentinel: Guwahati: Wednesday, 1^St July 2026.
Assam Information Commission orders disciplinary action against a PWD SPIO for withholding RTI records on key infrastructure projects.

The SPIO of the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Karbi Anglong District Territorial Building Division, is accused of missing hearings without any intimation and knowingly furnishing incorrect and incomplete information to block access to vital public documents.
In an important step to ensure public accountability, the Assam Information Commission (AIC) today used its rarely applied powers under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005, to recommend official disciplinary proceedings against the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) of the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Karbi Anglong District Territorial Building Division, Diphu.
This action is one of the few instances where the commission has recommended the initiation of formal disciplinary proceedings since its inception.
The bench of State Information Commissioner Dr Reep Hazarika expressed serious concern that the SPIO did not show up for hearings without notice and intentionally provided wrong and incomplete information to prevent access to important public documents. The withheld records involve major infrastructure works, specifically the construction of the Multi-Utility Sports Complex at KASA Stadium, Diphu, and the construction/repair of the Kajir Ronghangpi Guest House at Taralangso, Diphu.
The commission said the right to information is a key part of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and that the official's refusal was hindering the Act's effectiveness.
The Commission has taken control of the situation by instructing the Chief Engineer, PWD (Building), Assam, Guwahati, to promptly initiate the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the relevant service rules. The chief engineer has been given a strict 30-day deadline to fix individual accountability on all guilty officers holding the SPIO charge since late 2023 and to ensure the immediate release of the withheld public records.Maps
The petitioner, Longkiri Timung, submitted a letter to the Assam Information Commission on June 29, 2026, along with his June 22, 2026, note addressed to the SPIO concerned in the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Karbi Anglong District Territorial Building Division, Diphu, Karbi Anglong, a copy of the order said.

CIC asks CBSE to formulate SOP governing timelines for providing marks, answer sheets

The Hindu: New Delhi: Wednesday, 1^St July 2026.
The recommendation came while deciding an appeal by a Class 12 student who sought her assessment records used for preparing the 2021 board examination results after the examination was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic

Calling it the "dire need of today's scenario", the Central Information Commission has recommended that the CBSE introduce a Standard Operating Procedure governing the timelines for providing the marks or answer sheets on the request of students.
The recommendation came while deciding an appeal by a Class 12 student who sought her assessment records used for preparing the 2021 board examination results after the examination was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The appellant alleged that errors in the assessment process caused her "mental agony and depression", for which she had to undergo therapy.
Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi observed, "It is the dire need of today's scenario that CBSE should introduce a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) governing the timelines for submission/providing the marks or answer sheet on the request of students."
The Central Information Commission (CIC) further said, "This will be an effective step to avoid any unwarranted situations of this nature of hardship as faced by the Appellant in this matter, which is likely to affect the young minds." It accordingly "strongly recommends" under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act that the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) formulate the SOP and ensure that "such policy related information be disclosed on their official website".
A copy of the order has also been marked to the CBSE secretary for necessary action, while the First Appellate Authority has been directed to file a compliance report within four weeks.
On the appellant's grievance, the commission observed that "the denial of Appellant's own assessment marks in whatever format it may be by the CPIO [Central Public Information Officer] goes against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005." It noted that although the student's challenge to her assessment is pending before the high court, the CPIO "ought to have addressed the concern of the Appellant" by providing information relating to her own assessment after redacting details of other candidates exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.
The CIC directed the CBSE's CPIO to provide the appellant, free of cost, a revised reply along with the permissible information, specifically her assessment marks in the prescribed tabular format sought in the RTI application.
The appellant had sought the tabulation sheet for five subjects under CBSE's special assessment policy adopted after the cancellation of the 2021 Class 12 board examinations due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
During the hearing, she contended that she was entitled to know the basis of her assessment and that no exemption under the RTI Act barred disclosure of her own records.

SC Says RTI Activism Has Become a ‘New Business’, Denies Anticipatory Bail to ActivistBy : Saket Sourav

Law Street Journal: New Delhi: Wednesday, 1^St July 2026.

In a significant observation on the perceived misuse of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Supreme Court recently remarked that RTI activism has evolved into a “new business.” The observation came while the Court was hearing a plea for anticipatory bail filed by an activist accused of obstructing a public servant during a government road construction project.A Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi dismissed the plea for pre-arrest bail filed by Ramesh Kumar Behl and expressed strong disapproval of individuals who, under the guise of RTI activism, interfere with public works and harass government officials.
During the hearing, Justice Sandeep Mehta made sharp oral observations regarding the conduct of self-styled RTI activists. He remarked that RTI activism had effectively become a new profession and likened such conduct to “yellow journalism.”
The Bench observed that when government funds are allocated for infrastructure projects, designated authorities are responsible for monitoring and supervising the work. Questioning the petitioner’s role, Justice Mehta referred to him as a “so-called RTI activist” and observed that such individuals have no role in interfering with the execution of public projects.
Justice Vijay Bishnoi also questioned the petitioner’s locus standi to monitor the progress of the road construction work. The Court asked under whose authority the petitioner was supervising the project and whether he possessed any official role empowering him to oversee the work.
The Bench further observed that supervision and monitoring of public infrastructure projects fall within the exclusive domain of the authorities entrusted with their implementation. The observations reflect judicial concern that, in some cases, the RTI mechanism—intended to promote transparency and accountability—may be used to exert unauthorized influence over public administration.
The case arose from an FIR alleging that the petitioner and another accused obstructed an ongoing road construction project. According to the prosecution, the accused intimidated the site supervisor and labourers present at the location.
The FIR further alleged that the petitioner assaulted the supervisor, while the co-accused physically attacked the supervisor by kicking him. The prosecution also alleged that caste-based derogatory remarks were made against labourers working at the site.
Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The petitioner approached the Supreme Court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected his application for anticipatory bail. The High Court had observed that the allegations disclosed specific involvement of the petitioner in obstructing government work and found no grounds to grant the discretionary relief of pre-arrest protection.
Upon consideration of the matter, the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s assessment and declined to interfere.
The Court noted that public projects are executed through established governmental frameworks and that interference by self-appointed monitors can hamper infrastructure development. By describing such conduct as a “business” and comparing it to “yellow journalism,” the Court drew a distinction between genuine efforts to promote transparency and actions that create administrative hurdles under the guise of activism.
Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and permitted the investigation to proceed in accordance with law.
Case Title: Ramesh Kumar Behl v. State of Punjab | SLP (Crl.) No. 10257 of 2026

Two years on, Delhi govt recruitment board had no copy of 2024 exam paper; CIC fines officials

The Print: New Delhi: Tuesday, 30 June 2026.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has pulled up the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) after it did not provide a 2024 recruitment examination questionnaire to an RTI applicant even after two years claiming that it has not been received from the exam conducting agency. The CIC said the explanation reflected a “sheer lack of intent” to facilitate access to information.
Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal also imposed a penalty of Rs 15,000 each on two Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) of the DSSSB for “gross violation” of the RTI Act, directing that the amount be recovered from their salaries in three equal instalments.
The case arose from an RTI application filed by a candidate seeking copies of her descriptive answer sheet, the online question paper and her responses for the Senior Personal Assistant and Personal Assistant Tier-II descriptive examination held on June 1, 2024.
In a strongly worded order, Goyal said the Commission was “baffled to note the complacency with which the CPIOs have responded” and that it was “clear beyond reasonable doubt that the CPIOs have not bothered” to ensure their replies complied with the RTI Act.
The Commission noted that while the applicant was initially told the information did not pertain to the concerned branches, the officers later “arbitrarily denied the information without referring to any provision of the RTI Act.” It observed that claiming the question papers of examinations conducted in 2024 were “still to be received from the exam conducting agency even in the year 2026” displayed a “sheer lack of intent” to facilitate access to information.
The CIC further said that “DSSSB, having hired an exam conducting agency, cannot plead that the record held by the exam conducting agency could not be procured despite the passage of two years”, while failing to show any attempt to obtain the records in 2024.
It held that the conduct of the officers “amounts to causing a deliberate and intentional obstruction” to the applicant’s right to information.
During the proceedings, a newly posted examination branch officer sought the question paper from the agency through an email on April 30 this year, and the agency supplied it the same day.
The Commission observed that “no such attempt to access the available information was made” by the previous CPIO.
On the applicant’s request for her descriptive answer sheet, the Commission said the CPIO wrongly relied on an internal board policy to deny disclosure and “appears to be oblivious to Section 22 of the RTI Act”, which gives the law overriding effect over inconsistent rules.
The Commission also criticised the officers’ conduct during the proceedings, observing that one CPIO “remained nonchalant”, neither officer “paid any heed” to its interim order and their “disregard towards the provisions of the RTI Act is rather deliberate in the instant matter.” PTI MHS RT
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.

‘We are not dictatorship’: Madras High Court upholds citizens’ right to know under RTI - Written by: Vineet Upadhyay

The Indian Express: New Delhi: Tuesday, 30 June 2026.
The Madras High Court was hearing a plea filed by the public information officer and official trustee of a public trust against an order of the state information commission, directing disclosure of the financial records of the trust.

Right to information (RTI) is an integral part of right to know, the Madras High Court said. (Image generated using AI)

Observing that India is “not a dictatorship” where public authorities can keep citizens in the dark, the Madras High Court has ordered the disclosure of the financial records of a public charitable trust under the Right to Information Act (RTI), ruling that a sweeping claim of fiduciary privilege cannot defeat transparency in the functioning of statutory authorities.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan was hearing a writ petition filed by the Public Information Officer-cum-Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu against an order of the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission (TNSIC), which had directed disclosure of the balance sheets, audit reports, immovable property register, and demand, collection, and arrears records of the V Thiruvengadathan Chetty Charities.
“This country, by its Preamble, declares it to be a sovereign, socialist, secular democratic republic. We are not a dictatorship nor do we live under an iron curtain, for the public authorities to retain information and keep it away from the citizenry,” the court said on June 4, tracing the constitutional roots of the citizen‘s right to know.
The case stemmed from an RTI application filed by S Srikumar, a member of the Arya Vysya community, who sought the trust’s financial records after raising concerns that the charity had reduced educational assistance to beneficiaries to Rs 50,000, citing a lack of funds. He sought to examine whether the trust’s finances justified the reduced assistance and whether its funds were being managed in accordance with the objects of the trust.

If information is sought to be used for voyeuristic pleasure, which would affect the right to privacy of another individual, the same has to be refused under RTI. (File image)

On August 17, 2023, Srikumar sought copies of the trust’s balance sheets for the previous five financial years, audit reports, immovable property register, demand, collection, and arrears details, besides a copy of the founder’s will and earlier court orders.
While the official trustee furnished certain judicial records, it refused to disclose the will and financial documents, claiming they were exempt under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act as information held in a fiduciary capacity.
The first appellate authority upheld the refusal. However, on October 3, 2025, the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission directed the official trustee to disclose the financial records after finding that the trust was a public charitable trust and that a larger public interest warranted disclosure.
Challenging that order, the official trustee approached the high court.
Right to know part of Constitution
Justice Lakshminarayanan said that the right to information is not merely a statutory right but flows from Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution. Referring to landmark Supreme Court decisions beginning with State of Uttar Pradesh vs Raj Narain, S P Gupta vs Union of India, Reliance Petrochemicals Limited v s Indian Express Newspapers, and the ‘Electoral Bonds’ judgment, the court held that citizens have a constitutional right to know how public authorities function. The court said that secrecy cannot become the norm in a democratic republic.
The high court further pointed out that the principle of transparency in the functioning of the official trustee is not a new concept. It said that even the colonial-era rules governing the office, framed over a century ago, required openness and permitted beneficiaries to inspect trust records, allowing only genuinely confidential information to be withheld.
“Even the colonial Government wanted the Official Trustee to be open and transparent. This position prevailed 113 years ago. Only such information, which was confidential, was called upon to be withheld from the beneficiaries,” the court said.
If such transparency existed under British rule, the court said, there was even less justification for withholding information after the enactment of the RTI Act, which has further narrowed the grounds on which public authorities can refuse disclosure.
“This shows that disclosure is the name of the game under the Rules, and refusal of information is only an exception. By virtue of the Right to Information Act, the scope of refusal has been further reduced,” the high court added.
The court accepted the information commission’s finding that disclosure served a larger public interest because the trust was created to provide educational assistance to economically weaker members of the Arya Vysya community.
According to the judgment, greater transparency would allow beneficiaries and members of the community to understand how the trust’s funds were being spent and whether financial constraints cited by the trust were genuine. “The balance sheets, audit report, immovable property register, demand, collection and arrear details of each of those properties satisfy the larger public interest,” the court said.
The high court also rejected the argument that the official trustee should be treated as an extension of the judiciary. The court held that the official trustee is appointed by the Government under the Official Trustees Act, 1913, functions as a statutory authority and therefore qualifies as a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. “The Office of the Official Trustee is not a part of the sovereign function of the judiciary. He is a statutory authority and remains one,” the court said.
‘Right to Information integral part of right to know’
Right to information is an integral part of right to know.
Unless and until, a person gets access to the information, he / she will not be in a position to know as to how a public authority functions.
This right to know has not been expressly enumerated as a fundamental right under Part-III of the Constitution.
Yet, realizing the importance, the Supreme Court, atleast 50 years ago, held that citizens have a Right to be informed about official functions and public acts.
Interpreting Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court declared that every citizen have a right to be informed.
The Supreme Court held that the right to know is an essential ingredient of a free and open Government.
The fate of a nation will obviously take precedence over the interests of an individual.
Similarly, if information is sought to be used for voyeuristic pleasure, which would affect the right to privacy of another individual, the same has to be refused.
Rejecting another argument advanced by the petitioner, the court held that while the Official Trustees Act is a special legislation governing trustees, the RTI Act is the special law dealing with access to information.
Since Parliament expressly gave the RTI Act overriding effect through Section 22, information cannot be denied unless it squarely falls within one of the statutory exemptions, the court added. The court further observed that records regularly submitted by the official trustee to the government during audits cannot simultaneously be withheld from beneficiaries.
The court, however, upheld the refusal to provide a copy of the founder’s will under the RTI Act, holding that it forms part of judicial records and can instead be obtained by following the procedure prescribed under the Madras High Court Original Side Rules.
Finding no infirmity in the information commission’s order, the high court dismissed the writ petition and directed the official trustee to furnish the financial records sought under Clause 4 of the RTI application within two weeks from the date of uploading of the judgment.
The court also imposed costs of Rs 10,000 on the incumbent official trustee, making it clear that the amount shall not be paid from the trust’s funds. “The cost shall not be borne out of the funds or accounts of the Trust,” the court directed.