skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Leaflet: Report: Sunday, 14 June 2026.
Fifteen years after Anti-Human Trafficking Units were
envisioned as India’s frontline institutional response to trafficking, a new
report by Sanjog finds them overburdened, underfunded, and structurally fragile
with 47,000 children still untraced and conviction rates that are, in several states,
zero.
ON MAY 20, 2026, Sanjog, a
social impact organisation that works on anti-human trafficking, published an
‘Anti-Human Trafficking Unit Watch Report’ tracing the functionality of
Anti-Human Trafficking Units (‘AHTUs’) across all Indian states and Union Territories
(‘UTs’) between 2010 and 2025 across three phases. The report draws primarily
on information received from states and UTs through RTI applications, along
with inputs from lawyers, civil society organisations, and survivor
testimonies.
Anti-Human Trafficking
Units were envisioned by the Ministry of Home Affairs as specialised units
charged with preventing trafficking, conducting rescues, investigating cases,
prosecuting traffickers, and aiding the rehabilitation of survivors. Their composition
envisages trained law enforcement personnel working in structured coordination
with Child Welfare Committees (‘CWCs’), District Child Protection Units
(‘DCPUs’), legal aid authorities, and shelters.
The report which opens
with National Crime Records Bureau’s (‘NCRB’) ‘Crime in India’ report reflects
a rising trend in human trafficking up to 2016, when reported cases peaked at
8,132, followed by a subsequent decline. This decline, however, must be read
against a troubling backdrop. The Supreme Court, while hearing a Special Leave
Petition filed by a father whose eighteen-month-old daughter went missing in
2011 and remains untraced, noted that 47,000 children continue to remain
untraced to date. The report cautions that the post-2016 decline in reported
trafficking cases may reflect a failure of institutional documentation rather
than any real reduction in the incidence of trafficking.
The AHTU Watch Report
assesses the functioning of Anti-Human Trafficking Units through six
interdependent indicators.
The report’s findings
across six indicators
The AHTU Watch Report
assesses the functioning of Anti-Human Trafficking Units through six
interdependent indicators. These include: notification status, staffing and
stability, budget and infrastructure, FIR autonomy, case progression, and
outcomes. The research covers RTI filings and data analysis across all
thirty-six states and UTs, interviews with Superintendents of Police and
constables associated with AHTUs, inputs from civil society organisations, and
structured consultations with survivor leaders and their collectives.
At the outset, the report
raises a pointed question about the apparent decline in trafficking cases after
2016 on whether it reflects an actual reduction in trafficking or merely a
decline in reporting, documentation, and institutional disclosure, particularly
in high-incidence states like Assam, Maharashtra, and Andhra Pradesh. Since the
formation of AHTUs, the Ministry of Home Affairs has issued twenty-two
advisories and operational guidelines, including advisories on treating human
trafficking as organised crime and on trafficking of foreign nationals, the
implementation of which, the report finds, remains fragmented across the
country.
On notification,
relatively less densely populated UTs like Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Ladakh
have a hundred percent rate of notified and functional AHTUs, while Uttar
Pradesh has only thirty-five functional units out of seventy-five notified. The
report underscores that notification as a separate entity, and distinct from a
local police station, makes AHTUs more accessible to survivors and reduces
their hesitancy in approaching the unit.
On staffing and stability,
AHTU personnel across states carry the additional burden of general policing
duties, significantly undermining their functioning as specialised
investigative units. A survivor quoted in the report noted that AHTU officials
were overburdened with general policing responsibilities and often unavailable
for trafficking cases. Uttar Pradesh, notably, saw a complete reversal between
phases from nearly all AHTU members carrying additional charges to none doing
so by Phase 3.
On budget and
infrastructure, the data is fractured. Some states and UTs have no dedicated
funds and rely entirely on general police budgets, while others like Arunachal
Pradesh received sanctioned funds but showed inconsistent utilisation across
phases. The report notes that the absence of a dedicated budget is a reflection
of governmental callousness toward the seriousness of trafficking offences, and
it pushes the financial burden of legal follow-ups and travel onto survivors
themselves.
On training and capacity
building, the pattern is one of persistent inconsistency. Training remains
exclusively police-centric, overlooking social workers, legal aid authorities,
and rehabilitation stakeholders. Content is largely confined to general legal
awareness, missing crucial areas like labour trafficking identification and
trauma-informed investigation. The lack of specialised training in handling
trafficking, according to the survivor testimonies in the report, also leads to
misdirected insensitive questions, poor documentation, lack of clarity on
survivor rights and an erroneous classification of trafficking cases as
ordinary labour disputes or kidnapping cases. In order to strengthen the
training and capacity building of the AHTU personnels, the report recommends
the development of a continuous training framework with a standardized and
uniform training syllabus involving various stakeholders.
On FIR autonomy and case
progression, the data reveals heavy reliance on local police with minimal
transfer of cases to AHTUs and even fewer investigations conducted by them.
Delhi transferred thirty-one cases to its AHTU in Phase 3 but recorded zero investigations.
The conviction rate across states is abysmal as states and UTs like Uttar
Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and the Andamans reported zero convictions.
Telangana stands out, with 980 chargesheets filed as a result of AHTU
investigations.
The conviction rate across
states is abysmal as states and UTs like Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and
the Andamans reported zero convictions.
On coordination, the
report finds the multi-stakeholder architecture structurally fragile across all
phases. Coordination with the Crime Multi Agency Centre, launched in 2020 to
facilitate interstate information sharing on trafficking, remains weak. Victim
compensation, the report notes therefore, is contingent on the quality of
documentation and offence classification by law enforcement, which is itself
premised on inter-agency coordination that largely does not exist.
The consolidated national
findings reflect a system afflicted by overburdened personnel, fluctuating FIR
autonomy, inconsistent training, and an almost inconsequential rate of
trafficker conviction. Telangana and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are identified
as having relatively strong institutional practices. Uttar Pradesh and Delhi
fall into the category of moderate but uneven functionality. Meghalaya and
Rajasthan’s Bikaner district are identified as structurally fragile but
evidence-documented contexts.
The report’s findings echo
the Supreme Court’s directions in G. Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2026), in
which while dealing with missing children and child trafficking, the Court
directed the Union and state governments to eliminate the dormancy functioning
of the AHTUs and ensure the immediate restoration of trafficked children.
The malignancy of human
trafficking networks, the report concludes, can only be combated by an
Anti-Human Trafficking Unit whose functioning is equally systematic, and
equally committed to dismantling those networks.
Dainik Bhaskar: Uttar Pradesh: Sunday, 14 June 2026.
लखीमपुर खीरी के निघासन
क्षेत्र की एक ग्राम पंचायत में विकास कार्यों में कथित अनियमितताओं का मामला
सामने आया है। ग्रामीणों ने सूचना का अधिकार (आरटीआई) के तहत प्राप्त अभिलेखों के
आधार पर आरोप लगाया है कि करीब 20 सोकपिटों का निर्माण कराए
बिना ही उनका भुगतान कर दिया गया।
ग्रामीणों का कहना है कि
अभिलेखों में जिन स्थानों पर सोकपिट निर्माण दर्शाया गया है, वहां
मौके पर कोई निर्माण कार्य नहीं मिला। आरोप है कि सरकारी धन खर्च दिखाकर कार्य
पूर्ण दर्शा दिए गए, जबकि जमीनी स्तर पर निर्माण
नहीं हुआ।
ग्रामीणों ने विशेष रूप
से सोकपिट संख्या-122 का मामला उठाया है। उनका दावा है कि दौलतापुर निवासी
दौलतराम पुत्र हेमराज के घर की छत पर केवल योजना संबंधी विवरण लिखकर कार्य पूर्ण
दिखा दिया गया और भुगतान भी कर दिया गया। ग्रामीणों ने इसके समर्थन में तस्वीरें
भी उपलब्ध कराई हैं।
आरटीआई में सामने आए कई
सवाल
ग्रामीणों ने आरटीआई के
माध्यम से ह्यूम पाइप खरीद, सोकपिट निर्माण, स्वच्छता
कार्य, ग्राम पंचायत एवं ग्राम सभा की बैठकों की कार्यवाही, हैंडपंप
रीबोर और मरम्मत समेत विभिन्न विकास कार्यों से संबंधित अभिलेख प्राप्त किए थे।
दस्तावेजों की जांच के बाद उन्होंने कई मदों में वित्तीय अनियमितताओं की आशंका
जताई है।
ग्रामीणों का आरोप है कि
विकास कार्यों के नाम पर सरकारी धन का दुरुपयोग किया गया है। उन्होंने सभी कार्यों
का भौतिक सत्यापन कराए जाने और दोषियों के खिलाफ कार्रवाई की मांग की है।
ग्रामीणों ने प्रशासन से
मांग की है कि अभिलेखों में दर्ज कार्यों की स्थलीय जांच कराई जाए और यदि
अनियमितताएं साबित होती हैं तो जिम्मेदार लोगों के खिलाफ कठोर कार्रवाई की जाए।
साथ ही सरकारी धन की रिकवरी भी सुनिश्चित की जाए।
खंड विकास अधिकारी जयेश
कुमार सिंह ने कहा कि यदि उन्हें शिकायत के साथ पर्याप्त साक्ष्य उपलब्ध कराए जाते
हैं, तो पूरे प्रकरण की विस्तृत जांच कराई जाएगी। उन्होंने कहा
कि जांच में अनियमितता पाए जाने पर नियमानुसार कार्रवाई की जाएगी।
फिलहाल यह मामला क्षेत्र
में चर्चा का विषय बना हुआ है। ग्रामीण निष्पक्ष जांच की मांग कर रहे हैं। अब सभी
की निगाहें प्रशासनिक जांच और उसकी रिपोर्ट पर टिकी हैं, जिससे
आरोपों की वास्तविकता सामने आ सकेगी।
Dailyhunt: Nagpur: Sunday, 14 June 2026.
More than 30,000 fraud
cases involving thousands of crores of rupees were reported by the State Bank
of India (SBI) between April 2023 and March 2026, according to information
disclosed by the bank under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The figures were provided
by SBI’s Fraud Prevention and Monitoring Department in response to an RTI
application filed by Nagpur-based activist Abhay Kolarkar.
According to the RTI
reply, SBI reported a total of 30,746 fraud cases during the three-year period,
involving an aggregate amount of Rs 6,313.35 crore.
The year-wise data shows
that 14,717 fraud cases involving Rs 2,445.76 crore were reported during
2023-24. In 2024-25, the number stood at 13,782 cases involving Rs 2,122.36
crore. During 2025-26, the bank reported 2,247 fraud cases involving Rs
1,745.23 crore.
The RTI response indicates
that cyber fraud constituted a significant portion of the overall fraud
incidents reported by the bank.
According to the data, SBI
recorded 13,237 cyber fraud cases involving Rs 90.97 crore during 2023-24. In
2024-25, the bank reported 10,260 cyber fraud cases involving Rs 66.70 crore.
For 2025-26, the bank reported 83 cyber fraud cases involving Rs 9.06 crore.
The reply notes that the
figures exclude reclassification cases.
The RTI response further
provides a break-up of digital frauds reported between April 2023 and March
2026.
UPI-related frauds
accounted for the highest number of cases at 12,868, involving Rs 71.51 crore.
Internet banking frauds followed with 8,657 cases involving Rs 79.58 crore.
The bank also reported
1,102 ATM fraud cases involving Rs 9.58 crore and 296 mobile banking fraud
cases involving Rs 3.66 crore during the period.
Employee-linked fraud
cases reported
The RTI data also sheds
light on internal fraud cases involving bank employees.
According to the reply,
SBI reported 114 employee-linked fraud cases involving Rs 137.04 crore in
2023-24. During 2024-25, 100 such cases involving Rs 70.98 crore were reported,
while 89 cases involving Rs 103.06 crore were reported in 2025-26.
The figures have been
reported in accordance with the Reserve Bank of India’s Master Direction on
Fraud Risk Management for Commercial Banks issued on July 15, 2024, the bank
stated.
No data available on
‘digital arrest’ frauds
In response to a query
seeking details of SBI account holders allegedly trapped in “digital arrest”
frauds, the bank stated that the information was “not available.”
Digital arrest scams, in
which fraudsters impersonate law enforcement or government officials and coerce
victims into transferring money, have emerged as a growing cybercrime concern
across the country in recent years.
West Bengal records
highest number of frauds
According to the RTI
reply, West Bengal recorded the highest number of fraud cases among all states
during the three-year period.
The state reported 3,426
fraud cases involving Rs 143.67 crore, making it the state with the largest
number of reported fraud incidents in SBI’s network between April 2023 and
March 2026.
The information was
furnished by Rakesh Aima, Deputy General Manager and Central Public Information
Officer, Fraud Prevention and Monitoring Department, SBI Corporate Centre,
Mumbai, under the provisions of the RTI Act.
The RTI disclosure
provides a rare insight into the scale and nature of frauds reported within
India’s largest public sector bank and highlights the continuing challenges
posed by cybercrime, digital payment frauds and internal irregularities in the
banking sector.
Deccan Herald: Opinion: Sunday, 14 June 2026.
Last week, Hungary’s MPs
unanimously approved legislation to drastically reduce their salaries and
allowances. Barely a month after being sworn in, Prime Minister Peter Magyar
delivered on this electoral promise. While the MPs will be paid 40 per cent lesser
than before, the PM’s pay will be cut by more than half. European media have
calculated that his predecessor was earning almost 13 times more than the
average national wage.
This side of the Danube, a
day after PM Magyar assumed office, we were advised to adopt austerity measures
to conserve forex reserves that are depleting rapidly due to the economic
hardships arising from the United States-Israel-Iran conflict. We must resume
working from home, avoid unnecessary foreign travel, use public transport, buy
gold sparingly, limit the use of fertilisers, and even reduce our consumption
of cooking oil. Soon came the indispensable tour of five countries. Will our
ministers and MPs, 90% of whom are self-declared crorepatis, “tighten de
belten” (like Chaplin’s Great Dictator demanded sacrifices from his people in
the fictional country of Tomania) to lead by example? This is a question hardly
anyone has asked publicly.
Forget emulating such good
practices from the European Union, with whom we have the ‘mother of all trade
deals’, the distance between our Parliament and us is increasingly widening.
First, not too long ago, the majority of MPs voted to erase the parity between
them and us for accessing official information through the RTI when they passed
the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act. Now, the Parliament’s
secretariats are telling us we do not have the right to know the details of the
recently rejected attempts to impeach the current Chief Election Commissioner.
Despite widespread media
reporting on the twin notices of the impeachment motion submitted by the
Opposition MPs, in March this year, nobody outside Parliament seems to have
actually seen their contents. After it was publicly announced in April that the
Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman had rejected these notices, I
submitted two identical RTI applications to the respective secretariats.
I sought copies of the
notices of motion submitted, the rejection orders issued by the respective
heads of the Houses, the name and designation of all persons they consulted as
required under Section 3(1) of The Judges Inquiry Act (which applies in this case),
the opinions they received, the text of the materials consulted by the Speaker
and the Chairman as required by the procedure laid down, and all correspondence
and file notings generated during the decision-making process. The respective
public information officers merely replied that none of this information can be
disclosed under Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act. Neither of them signed their
replies.
The exemption clause they
invoked is crafted to prevent information disclosure from causing “a breach of
privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature.” It is the least frequently
used ground for rejecting RTI applications. The Union ministries used it only
39 times in 2024-25. Neither House Secretariat used it even once, according to
their annual implementation reports.
Articles 105(2) and 194(2)
of our Constitution immunise our MPs, MLAs, and MLCs from criminal liability
for words spoken or votes given in the legislature or in its committees.
According to Kaul and Shakder’s compendium of parliamentary practice and procedure,
successive committees on privileges and committees of speakers have held that
these and other privileges are granted to them for performing their appointed
duties without hindrance. These privileges do not place them on a footing
different from that of ordinary citizens vis-à-vis the application of any law.
The fundamental principle is that all citizens, including MPs, must be treated
equally in the eyes of the law unless there are sufficient reasons in the
interest of Parliament itself to do otherwise. MPs cannot claim any privilege
higher than those enjoyed by the people who elect them.
Given this foundational
philosophy of parliamentary privileges, how does the disclosure of information
sought through RTI hurt Parliament’s interests or prevent MPs from doing their
job? The matter relating to this batch of impeachment motion notices is complete
because they stand rejected. Whose vested interests are being protected now?
We elect our MPs and
annually finance the expenditure incurred by Parliament and the Election
Commission. Yet, babus are claiming that records on the allegations levelled
against the head of the entity conducting those very elections are sarkari
secrets! This is the latest irony in the world’s largest democracy.
(The writer wakes up every morning thinking
someone somewhere is hiding something.)
Cross Town News: J&K: Saturday, 13 June 2026.
J&K Officials have
come under the scanner of the Central Information Commission again and again
over lack of knowledge and neglect of statutory responsibilities under the
Right to Information (RTI) Act.
CIC has also initiated
penalty proceedings against more officers, including a Sub-Divisional
Magistrate and a Tehsildar, for alleged lapses in discharging their statutory
obligations.
An applicant sought copies
of two official communications exchanged between the office of the SDM and the
Deputy Commissioner, Jammu. The Commission found that the information was
supplied on February 2, 2026, despite the RTI application having been filed on
August 29, 2024?
First Appellate Authority also failed to
adjudicate the appeal filed by the applicant as seems unaware of his powers but
as showoff only fix date & hear & communicate a letter & chapter
closed.
Commission has ordered
issuance of a show-cause notice to the then SDM-cum-PIO, holding that the
officer had failed to provide information within the prescribed timeframe and
had failed to furnish any cogent explanation for the lapse.
However, there are
countless questions also JKAS Officer
working as Tehsildar in Jammu dev Authority for adopting "Pick &
Choose" in various issues especially after issuing Notices under various
sections for violations, which are to be acted for demolition, sealing or other
actions after lapse of time period of Notices issued.
However, in case of one
RTI application, wherein applicant sought documents & noting of her own
case file butTehsildar, Megha Gupta as APIO
refused to provide the documents required by quoting under Sec. 8(i)(b)
said information cannot be provided, but said observation of Megha Gupta was
totally illegal as per said section but was not acted upon by FAA, Garbi
Rashid, DLM of JDA, PIO & one LA,
who were hearing Appeal.
Times of India: Chandigarh: Saturday, 13 June 2026.
Taking note of the
repeated non-appearance of the district development and panchayat officer
(DDPO), Fazilka, despite being granted several opportunities, the Punjab State
Information Commission has issued bailable warrants against the officer.
The action was ordered by
the bench of Harpreet Sandhu, State Information Commissioner, Punjab.
The bench observed that
the continuous absence of the DDPO from the proceedings, coupled with the
failure to provide the information sought in connection with the appeal case,
caused undue delay in the adjudication and final disposal of the matter pending
before the commission. Despite being duly notified, the officer failed to
appear and assist the commission in the case.
The bench remarked that
such conduct not only hampered the timely delivery of justice under the Right
to Information Act but also reflected a lack of regard for the authority and
proceedings of the commission. The repeated non-compliance has obstructed the
effective conclusion of the case and caused inconvenience to the parties
involved, it observed.
In view of the persistent
absence and to secure the presence of the officer concerned, the bench deems it
necessary to issue bailable warrants and direct the DDPO, Fazilka, to appear
before it on the next date of hearing, the bench added.
The commission reiterated
that all public authorities and officers were duty-bound to cooperate with
proceedings under the RTI Act and ensure timely compliance with directions
issued by the commission in the interest of transparency, accountability and good
governance.
The Economic Times: New Delhi: Saturday, 13 June 2026.
The Central Information
Commission has criticized the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board. This
is for not properly answering a Right to Information request. The request
sought details on safety measures for gas pipeline work by Indraprastha Gas Limited.
The Commission ordered the regulator to provide a better response.
The Central Information
Commission (CIC) has pulled up the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board
(PNGRB) for failing to adequately respond to an RTI application seeking details
of safety measures, inspections and regulatory oversight of gas pipeline work
carried out by Indraprastha Gas Limited in a west Delhi locality.
The RTI application sought
information related to permissions for road digging, safety protocols mandated
by PNGRB, inspection reports, restoration timelines, action against contractors
for safety lapses and officials responsible for supervising PNG pipeline
installation work in Ramesh Enclave, Kirari Suleman Nagar.
During the hearing, PNGRB
said it had sought inputs from IGL and forwarded the information received to
the applicant.
IGL submitted that it had
provided available factual information to the regulator and that the
applicability of the RTI Act to the company was sub judice before the Delhi
High Court when the reply was furnished.
After examining the
records, Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi found the regulator's
response inadequate.
"The Commission finds
that most of the points sought by the appellant specifically pertain to PNGRB,
and the PNGRB is the custodian of the sought information in most of the
points," the order said.
"The PNGRB seeking
inputs from IGL is not acceptable, even for the points where information is
held by their own public authority," it added.
The Commission noted that
several queries related directly to PNGRB's regulatory role, including safety
guidelines, inspections and action that could be taken against IGL or its
contractors for failure to follow prescribed safety measures.
During the hearing, PNGRB
informed the Commission that regulations existed for taking action in cases
involving safety lapses. It also stated that no complaints had been received
regarding the pipeline work in the locality. The regulator further said its
technical division was responsible for overseeing the quality and timely
completion of the project.
Directing corrective
action, the Commission ordered PNGRB to provide a revised point-wise
consolidated reply, incorporating available factual information, relevant
guidelines, regulations and website links.
It also directed the
regulator to clearly state the factual position where information was
unavailable or cite the relevant exemption under the RTI Act if disclosure was
denied.
The Commission disposed of
the appeal while noting that the issue of whether IGL is a public authority
under the RTI Act would be reconsidered separately in light of a recent Delhi
High Court judgement.
The Times of India: Karnataka: Saturday, 13 June 2026.
The Right to Information
(RTI) Act cannot be employed as a mechanism for obtaining personal information
merely for advancing a private claim, the Karnataka high court has ruled.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj
made the observation in a recent judgment while dismissing a petition filed by
Bengaluru resident S Savithramma.
She moved the Karnataka
Information Commission (KIC) for details of the assets and liabilities of SP
Jayapal, who worked as the deputy controller at the central KSRTC office during
1990-2002, saying he fraudulently obtained a sale deed from her, and she required
the documents for pending civil suits.
On May 6, 2025, KIC
rejected her application, citing that the information sought by her fell under
personal information and could not be disclosed as it was exempted under the
RTI Act.
Challenging the order,
Savithramma approached the high court, arguing that Jayapal is a public servant
and, therefore, any immovable property acquired by him, together with the
corresponding disclosure of assets and liabilities, should be revealed.
Justice Govindaraj,
however, rejected the argument.
“The right to privacy is
now recognised as a constitutionally protected right. Section 8(1)(j) of the
RTI Act represents a statutory manifestation of that protection in the context
of access to information. Therefore, before directing disclosure of personal
information, the authority concerned must be satisfied that the public interest
sought to be served is of such magnitude as to outweigh the privacy interests
of the individual concerned. No such circumstances have been demonstrated in
the present case,” the judge noted.
“Mere allegations, however
serious, cannot by themselves convert personal information into public
information,” the judge added.
Verdictum: Karnataka: Friday, 12 June 2026.
The Karnataka High Court
has held that asset and liability statements filed by public servants do not
automatically become public information merely because they are submitted to
government authorities under service rules.
Dismissing a writ
petition, the Bench refused to interfere with orders of the Karnataka
Information Commission and the Public Information Officer of the Karnataka
State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), which had rejected an RTI application
seeking the asset and liability statements of a former Deputy Controller of
KSRTC.
The Court held that such
records are protected as "personal information" under Section 8(1)(j)
of the Right to Information Act, 2005, unless an applicant establishes a
demonstrable larger public interest warranting disclosure.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed, “The mere fact that a person is a
public servant does not ipso facto render every piece of information concerning
him amenable to disclosure under the RTI Act…Such an interpretation would be
contrary to the legislative intent underlying Clause (j) of Sub Section (1) of
Section 8 of the RTI Act, which recognises that public servants do not cease to
possess privacy rights merely by reason of their employment in public service”.
“Equally, the mere fact
that such information is required to be furnished by a public servant to his
employer or to a statutory authority under the applicable service rules does
not, by itself, render the information publicly disclosable under the RTI Act.
A distinction has to be maintained between information furnished to a competent
authority for administrative, vigilance, regulatory, or service related
purposes and information which is liable to be disclosed to the public at
large”, the Bench observed.
Advocate G. B. Nandish
Gowda appeared for the
petitioner while none appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner had sought
the records claiming that the officer had allegedly procured a sale deed
relating to her property through fraudulent means and that details of the
transaction would be reflected in his asset declarations. She contended that
since the officer was a public servant required to disclose assets under
service rules, the information assumed the character of public information.
Rejecting the contention,
the Court observed that the mere fact that an individual holds public office
does not render every piece of information concerning him amenable to
disclosure under the RTI Act. It noted that public servants do not lose their
privacy rights by virtue of their employment.
“…Every litigant may have
a genuine interest in obtaining information which may support his case.
However, a private interest, however bona fide, is not synonymous with public
interest. The statute contemplates something more, namely an interest which transcends
the concerns of the individual applicant and bears a nexus to the welfare of
the public at large or a substantial section thereof”, the Bench observed.
The Court distinguished
between information relating to the discharge of official duties and
information concerning the private affairs of a public servant. While official
decisions, exercise of statutory powers, and use of public resources may stand
on a different footing, personal assets, liabilities, financial affairs, tax
records, family matters, and similar details ordinarily fall within the ambit
of protected personal information, the Court held.
“A distinction must
necessarily be drawn between information relating to the discharge of public
duties and information relating to the private affairs of a public servant.
Information concerning official acts, decisions taken in an official capacity,
exercise of statutory powers, utilisation of public resources, or matters
directly connected with public administration may stand on a different footing.
However, information relating to personal assets, liabilities, financial
affairs, income particulars, tax records, family matters, medical records, and
similar personal details would ordinarily fall within the ambit of personal
information protected under Clause (j) of Sub Section (1) of Section 8 of the
RTI Act, unless disclosure is justified by an overriding public interest”, the
Bench noted.
Importantly, the Court
clarified that allegations against an individual cannot, by themselves,
transform personal information into public information. It further held that a
private litigant's interest in obtaining documents to support a civil or
criminal dispute is not equivalent to the "larger public interest"
contemplated under Section 8(1)(j).
The Bench noted that no
material had been placed to show corruption, abuse of public office, misuse of
public funds, disproportionate assets, or any issue affecting the public at
large, and accordingly, applied the statutory exemption.
Cause Title: S.
Savithramma v. The Karnataka Information Commission & Ors.
(Click here to Download the Judgment)
The Indian Express: Karnataka: Friday, 12 June 2026.
If every piece of
information about public servants were amenable to disclosure, an entire class
of people would lose protection afforded under the RTI Act merely because they
hold public office, the Karnataka High Court ruled.
The Karnataka High Court
said the RTI Act cannot be employed to obtain information protected under law
to advance a private claim.
The Karnataka High Court
has held that personal information relating to personal assets, liabilities,
financial affairs, income particulars, tax records, family matters, and medical
records, that a public servant furnishes to the employer cannot be disclosed to
a third party under the Right to Information Act.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj
said in an order on June 1, “Mere fact that such information is required to be
furnished by a public servant to his employer or to a statutory authority under
the applicable service rules does not, by itself, render the information
publicly disclosable under the RTI Act.”
The order added, “Asset
and liability statements are ordinarily collected by the employer or the
competent authority to ensure compliance with service rules, promote probity in
public service, identify possible conflicts of interest, and facilitate vigilance
or disciplinary oversight, wherever required. The purpose for which such
information is collected cannot automatically determine the scope of its
disclosure to third parties.”
S Savithramma had
approached the court challenging the Karnataka Information Commission’s order
that upheld Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation’s rejection of her
request for details of the assets and liabilities of S P Jayapal, a deputy
controller at the KSRTC’s central office. She argued that he had fraudulently
obtained a sale deed from her and that she required the information because of
pending civil suits.
Advocate G B Nandish
Gowda, appearing for Savithramma, argued that since Jaypal was a public
servant, any immovable property he acquires, together with the corresponding
disclosures required to be made under service rules and statutory provisions,
partook the character of public information.
The court rejected this
contention. “The mere fact that a person is a public servant does not ipso
facto render every piece of information concerning him amenable to disclosure
under the RTI Act,” its order read.
The order added, “If such
an interpretation were to be accepted, the protection expressly afforded under
Clause (j) of Sub Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act would stand
substantially diluted in respect of an entire class of individuals merely because
they happen to hold public office.”
The court referred to
8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts from disclosure information related to
personal information, the disclosure of which is unrelated to any public
activity or public interest, or that would result in an unwarranted invasion of
an individual’s privacy.
The court stated that
while an individual’s right to privacy is protected under clause (j), but it
may be overridden in an appropriate case where the larger public interest
demonstrably outweighs the privacy interests. The burden would necessarily lie
on the applicant seeking disclosure to establish the existence of such an
overriding public interest, it added.
The court noted that the
information sought was to aid in a challenge to a property transaction
allegedly entered into between Savithramma and Jayapal
The court dismissed the
petition, saying the RTI Act’s provisions cannot be employed for obtaining
personal information protected under law “merely for the purpose of advancing a
private claim”.
Deccan Herald: Karnataka: Friday, 12 June 2026.
The petitioner S
Savithramma, a resident of Bengaluru, challenged the Karnataka Information
Commission (KIC) order on her application.
The provisions of the RTI
Act cannot be employed as a mechanism for obtaining personal information
otherwise protected under law, merely for the purpose of advancing a private
claim, the high court said in a recent judgement.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj
said mere allegations, however serious, cannot by themselves convert personal
information into public information. The petitioner S Savithramma, a resident
of Bengaluru, challenged the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) order on
her application seeking asset and liability statement of one S P Jayapal,
deputy controller at KSRTC central office in Shantinagar here.
The KIC had upheld the
order passed by the public information officer, KSRTC, with a finding that the
infor sought had no relationship to any public activity or interest and would
cause unwarranted invasion of privacy as per Sec 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act.
The petitioner said
Jayapal procured a sale deed in respect of her property by fraudulent means.
This transaction has been
reflected in the Income Tax returns filed by Jayapal, and hence, information
sought under RTI cannot be treated as personal, she said.
It was argued that since
Jayapal is a public servant, details on his assets cannot be regarded as purely
personal information, particularly when such information is sought in
connection with allegations of fraud and illegal acquisition of property.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj
said that there was a distinction between information furnished to a competent
authority for administrative, vigilance, regulatory, or service-related
purposes and information liable to be disclosed to public at large.
“While petitioner may have
remedies available under civil law, criminal law, or any other applicable
statutory framework for establishing the alleged fraud and seeking appropriate
reliefs, provisions of RTI Act cannot be employed as a mechanism for obtaining
personal information,” the judge said.
The Times of India: Ranchi: Thursday, 11 June 2026.
Jharkhand governor Santosh
Gangwar on Wednesday approved the panel of four names for the post of
information commissioners, ending a stand-off that had lasted months, but with
a rider that the JMM govt would be responsible for any procedural errors arising
in their appointments.
In an official statement,
Lok Bhavan said, “The Governor has granted approval for these appointments
subject to certain conditions. He has directed the state govt to ensure the
early appointment of a Chief Information Commissioner for the Jharkhand State
Information Commission so that the Commission’s work can be conducted smoothly
and effectively.”
It went on to add, “The
Governor also clarified that if any procedural error is found in the
appointment process, or if any question arises regarding compliance with
Supreme Court orders in this matter, the state govt will bear full
responsibility.”
The development comes
after Lok Bhavan had earlier returned the file containing the same names in the
wake of objections to a few of the candidates.
The names cleared by Lok
Bhavan include that of retired journalist and editor Anuj Kumar Sinha, Tanuj
Khatri, Amulya Neeraj Khalkho and Shivpujan Pathak. Tanuj had once served as
spokesperson of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), while Shivpujan had served as BJP
media cell in-charge and Amulya is said to be from Congress.
Of the four appointees,
Anuj Kumar Sinha is a retired journalist, a profession specifically mentioned
in the RTI Act as one from which Information Commissioners may be drawn.
The posts of Information
Commissioners had been vacant for nearly 5 years, leading to the piling up of
thousands of cases related to Right to Information. The high court had on
previous occasions pulled up the state govt for delay in reviving the state information
commission by filling up pending posts.
Sources in Lok Bhavan said
that after the governor’s nod, the department of personnel, administrative
reforms and rajbhasha will now notify the appointments. “Formal orders
regarding the appointment will be issued once the departmental formalities are
completed,” said an official in the state personnel department.
Deccan Herald: Sikkim: Thursday, 11 June 2026.
The petitioner alleged
that Jayapal had procured a sale deed in respect of the petitioner's property
by fraudulent means.
The provisions of the RTI
Act cannot be employed as a mechanism for obtaining personal information
otherwise protected under law, merely for the purpose of advancing a private
claim, the high court of Karnataka said in a recent judgement.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj
added that mere allegations, however serious, cannot by themselves convert
personal information into public information.
The petitioner S
Savithramma, a resident of Bengaluru, challenged the Karnataka Information
Commission (KIC) order on her application seeking asset and liability statement
of one S P Jayapal, Deputy Controller at the KSRTC Central Office in
Shantinagar at the relevant time.
The KIC had upheld the
order passed by the Public Information Officer, KSRTC, with a finding that the
information sought has no relationship to any public activity or interest and
would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy as per Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI
Act.
The petitioner alleged
that Jayapal had procured a sale deed in respect of the petitioner's property
by fraudulent means. This transaction has been reflected in the Income Tax
Returns filed by Jayapal, and hence information sought under RTI cannot be treated
as personal information.
It is further argued that
since Jayapal is a public servant, details relating to his assets cannot be
regarded as purely personal information, particularly when such information is
sought in connection with allegations of fraud and illegal acquisition of
property.
Larger public cause should
outweigh privacy interest:
Justice Suraj Govindaraj
noted that there is a distinction between information furnished to a competent
authority for administrative, vigilance, regulatory, or service-related
purposes and information which is liable to be disclosed to the public at large.
“While the petitioner may
have remedies available under civil law, criminal law, or any other applicable
statutory framework for establishing the alleged fraud and seeking appropriate
reliefs, the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be employed as a mechanism for
obtaining personal information otherwise protected under law merely for the
purpose of advancing a private claim,” Justice Suraj Govindaraj said.
The court further said,
“The right to privacy is now recognised as a constitutionally protected right.
Clause (j) of Sub Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act represents a
statutory manifestation of that protection in the context of access to
information.
Therefore, before
directing disclosure of personal information, the authority concerned must be
satisfied that the public interest sought to be served is of such magnitude as
to outweigh the privacy interests of the individual concerned. No such circumstances
have been demonstrated in the present case.”
SCC Online: Sikkim: Thursday, 11 June 2026.
The Court directed the
SPSC to furnish the relevant information sought by the respondent and recorded
the respondent’s undertaking not to disseminate the information on social
media.
Sikkim High Court: In a
writ petition filed by the Sikkim Public Service Commission (SPSC) assailing
the orders of the Sikkim Information Commission directing disclosure of
recruitment-related information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the
Single Judge Bench of Meenakshi Madan Rai, J., directed the State Public
Information Officer to furnish the relevant information to the RTI applicant
and recorded the applicant’s undertaking not to place the information on any
social media platform.
Background
The respondent sought
information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI) from the petitioner
for the Sikkim Services (Combined Recruitment) Mains Examination, 2022,
including the list of successful candidates for various posts, their roll
numbers, marks obtained, and also the details of candidates falling under the
Persons with Disabilities (PwD) category in the same examination.
While certain information
was furnished by the SPSC, disclosure of other details was declined. The first
appellate authority directed disclosure only in respect of a candidate who had
consented under Section 11(1), RTI Act and held that information relating to
candidates who had withheld consent was exempt under Section 8(1)(j), RTI Act.
Aggrieved, the respondent
approached the Sikkim Information Commission (SIC), which with order dated 17
June 2025, directed the petitioner to provide the consolidated merit list of
all candidates who had appeared in the interview/viva voce along with their
marks. Challenging these directions, the petitioner SPSC approached the High
Court.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the
SPSC was willing to comply with the SIC’s order, provided that the respondent
would not upload the information on any social media platform.The respondent,
in turn, stated that he had no objection to the said condition.
The Court noted grievance
of Respondent 2, regarding denial of permission to be accompanied by a family
member during the appellate hearing, despite his hearing impairment, was only
tangential to the substantive relief sought as the second appellate authority
had already granted the relief claimed, no further consideration of the issue
was necessary.
Disposing of the writ
petition, the Court directed the SPSC to furnish the relevant information
sought by the respondent and recorded the respondent’s undertaking not to
disseminate the information on social media. Pending applications were also
disposed of.
[Sikkim PCS v. Sikkim
Information Commission, WP(C) No. 57 of 2025, decided on 15-5-2026]
Free Press Journal: New Delhi: Wednesday, 10Th
June 2026.
Pending RTI second appeals
in Maharashtra rose to 5,060 by March 2026, up from 3,672 at the start of the
year, according to Sajag Nagrik Manch. The Konkan Bench disposed of 3,482 of
4,870 appeals received. Activists highlighted delays, incomplete disclosures,
and frequent information denials by public authorities.
The effectiveness of the
Right to Information (RTI) Act in Maharashtra is under increasing scrutiny. As
per data obtained by Navi Mumbai-based transparency watchdog Sajag Nagrik Manch
through the RTI Act has revealed a sharp rise in pending second appeals,
raising concerns about the state of transparency and accountability in public
administration.
Konkan Bench data
According to information
furnished by the Commission, the Konkan Bench received 4,870 new second appeals
between April 2025 and March 2026, while disposing of only 3,482 cases during
the same period. As a result, pending appeals rose from 3,672 at the beginning
of the year to 5,060 by March 2026, marking an increase of nearly 38%.
The Commission also
received 670 complaints during the period, disposed of 340, and carried forward
298 complaints as pending.
Activists' concerns
RTI activists say the
growing backlog has significantly weakened the effectiveness of the
transparency law. Citizens who have already exhausted the mandatory process of
filing RTI applications and first appeals are reportedly waiting two to three
years for hearings before the Commission.
"The RTI Act was
enacted to ensure timely access to information. When applicants have to wait
years for their appeals to be heard, the objective of the law is
defeated," said representatives of Sajag Nagrik Manch.
Reasons for surge
According to activists,
one of the key reasons for the surge in appeals is the increasing denial of
information by public authorities. Requests are frequently rejected on grounds
such as personal information, voluminous records or lack of larger public interest.
Delayed responses and incomplete disclosures have also become common complaints
across government departments and local bodies.
The organisation noted
that while the Commission conducts around 30 to 35 hearings daily, the inflow
of fresh appeals continues to outpace disposal rates, resulting in a steadily
growing backlog.
Accountability concerns
"By the time many
appeals are decided, the concerned officials may have been transferred and
accountability becomes difficult to establish," said Trishila Kamble,
secretary of Sajag Nagrik Manch.
The organisation has
called on the Maharashtra government to strengthen the Information Commission
by appointing additional information commissioners, increasing legal and
technical staff and improving digital infrastructure to accelerate disposal of
cases.
The group proposed that
all information supplied under RTI applications be uploaded to a publicly
accessible digital platform, subject to legal restrictions, to reduce
repetitive requests and improve transparency.
The debate over alleged
misuse of the RTI Act has also resurfaced amid the discussion.
"If any RTI applicant
is genuinely involved in extortion or blackmail, authorities have adequate
legal provisions to initiate action. Yet such prosecutions remain rare despite
frequent allegations," said Arun Kagale, vice-president of Sajag Nagrik
Manch.
Experts warn that
continued delays could erode public confidence in one of India's most
significant transparency laws.
". Delayed
information often becomes ineffective information. The Right to Information is
the lifeblood of democracy, but today that lifeblood is being constrained by
delays, pendency and administrative inertia," said Adv. Dr. Vishal Mane,
former police officer and administrative advisor to Sajag Nagrik Manch.
Babushahi.com: Chandigarh: Wednesday, 10Th June
2026.
Dr. Rehana Begum Interacts
with Punjab SICs, Focuses on Citizen-Centric Governance Discuss Innovative
Approaches to Enhance Public Access to Information
Dr. Shaik Rehana Begum,
the first woman State Information Commissioner of Andhra Pradesh, today visited
the headquarters of the Punjab State Information Commission in Chandigarh.
During her visit, Dr.
Begum held a productive interaction with Punjab State Information Commissioners
Dr. Bhupinder Singh Batth, Harpreet Sandhu, and Virenderjit Singh Billing. The
meeting focused on exchanging ideas regarding reforms, best practices, and the
effective implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The discussions centered
on strengthening transparency, accountability, and citizen-centric governance
through innovative approaches in the functioning of Information Commissions.
Both sides shared their experiences and perspectives on enhancing the effectiveness
of the RTI framework, improving public access to information, and promoting
greater responsiveness in governance.
On the occasion, Dr. Begum
presented a copy of her authored book, “Frontier”, to the Punjab
State Information Commission Library as a gesture of knowledge sharing and
institutional cooperation. In return, Punjab State Information Commissioner
Harpreet Sandhu presented his acclaimed coffee-table book, “Sukhna Lake
at Dawn,” highlighting the natural heritage and scenic beauty of
Sukhna Lake.
Dr. Begum also interacted
with the officers and staff of the Commission and gained firsthand insight into
its functioning and administrative processes.
The visit marked a
significant step towards promoting inter-state collaboration and
strengthening institutional efforts aimed at promoting transparency and good
governance through the effective implementation of the Right to Information
Act.
ON MAY 20, 2026, Sanjog, a
social impact organisation that works on anti-human trafficking, published an
‘Anti-Human Trafficking Unit Watch Report’ tracing the functionality of
Anti-Human Trafficking Units (‘AHTUs’) across all Indian states and Union Territories
(‘UTs’) between 2010 and 2025 across three phases. The report draws primarily
on information received from states and UTs through RTI applications, along
with inputs from lawyers, civil society organisations, and survivor
testimonies.
.JPG)
.JPG)
