RTI Act के तहत जानकारी मिलने के बाद मूल दस्तावेज मांगने का अधिकार नहीं: गुजरात हाईकोर्ट

Live Law: Ahmedabad: Thursday, 21 May 2026.
गुजरात हाईकोर्ट ने एक RTI आवेदक की याचिका खारिज करते हुए कहा कि जब केंद्रीय लोक सूचना अधिकारी (CPIO) उपलब्ध अभिलेखों की प्रतियां उपलब्ध करा देता है तब आवेदक मूल दस्तावेज देने की मांग नहीं कर सकता।

जस्टिस हेमंत एम प्रच्छक ने अपने आदेश में कहा कि RTI Act के तहत लोक प्राधिकरण की जिम्मेदारी केवल उन दस्तावेजों और सूचनाओं को उपलब्ध कराने तक सीमित है, जो उसके पास उपलब्ध और सुलभ हैं।
अदालत ने कहा,
“जो दस्तावेज संबंधित प्राधिकरण के पास उपलब्ध थे, उनकी प्रतियां याचिकाकर्ता को पहले ही दी जा चुकी हैं। मूल दस्तावेज उपलब्ध कराने की जिद CPIO के अधिकार क्षेत्र में नहीं आती।”
हाईकोर्ट ने यह भी नोट किया कि याचिकाकर्ता लगातार RTI आवेदन दाखिल करने का आदी था और उसने एक के बाद एक 25 से अधिक आवेदन दाखिल किए।
मामला महाराजा सयाजीराव यूनिवर्सिटी, बड़ौदा में अस्थायी शिक्षण पदों पर आरक्षण नीति से जुड़ी जानकारी मांगने से संबंधित था।
राज्य सरकार ने 22 अप्रैल 1983 को अनुसूचित जाति, अनुसूचित जनजाति, सामाजिक और शैक्षणिक रूप से पिछड़े वर्गों तथा दिव्यांग व्यक्तियों के लिए पदों में आरक्षण को लेकर एक प्रस्ताव जारी किया था। इसके बाद शिक्षा विभाग ने 14 सार्वजनिक विश्वविद्यालयों को 11 महीने के संविदा आधार पर शिक्षण पदों पर नियुक्तियां करने और गैर-शिक्षण पदों को आउटसोर्स करने के निर्देश दिए।
याचिकाकर्ता ने RTI Act के तहत वाणिज्य संकाय से कई जानकारियां मांगी थीं। इनमें आरक्षण के अनुसार अस्थायी शिक्षण पदों की संख्या, प्राप्त आवेदनों का विवरण, चयनित और अस्वीकृत उम्मीदवारों की सूची, चयन समिति में एससी/एसटी प्रतिनिधियों की जानकारी और अन्य रिकॉर्ड शामिल थे।
इसके अलावा, याचिकाकर्ता ने राज्य सरकार की प्रचलित आरक्षण नीति और अस्थायी नियुक्तियों से संबंधित जानकारी भी मांगी थी।
याचिकाकर्ता का आरोप था कि यूनिवर्सिटी ने मनमानी और अधूरी जानकारी दी तथा संबंधित कार्यालय रिकॉर्ड उपलब्ध नहीं कराए। उसने यह भी कहा कि विश्वविद्यालय ने शिक्षा विभाग के 3 मई 2022 के परिपत्र का पालन नहीं किया और चयनित उम्मीदवारों की सूची भी अपलोड नहीं की।
हालांकि, हाईकोर्ट ने माना कि मांगी गई जानकारी उपलब्ध रिकॉर्ड के अनुसार दी जा चुकी थी और CPIO की जिम्मेदारी पूरी हो गई।
अदालत ने कहा कि RTI Act के तहत सूचना में रिकॉर्ड, दस्तावेज, परिपत्र और अन्य सामग्री शामिल होती है, जिन्हें लोक प्राधिकरण किसी अन्य प्रचलित कानून के तहत प्राप्त कर सकता है। लेकिन इसका अर्थ यह नहीं कि मूल दस्तावेज आवेदक को सौंपना अनिवार्य हो।
इन्हीं टिप्पणियों के साथ हाईकोर्ट ने याचिका निराधार बताते हुए खारिज किया।

Violation of RTI Act: A.P. Information Commission imposes ₹25,000 penalty on Mines Director

The Hindu: Amaravati: Thursday, 21 May 2026.
The official, while he was Public Information Officer, failed to provide information sought by a complainant within the stipulated period, the Commission says in its order

The Andhra Pradesh Information Commission has imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 on the Director of the Mines and Geology Department for negligence in implementing the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
per the order dated May 15, 2026, a copy of which was accessed by The Hindu, State Information Commissioner Chavali Suneel, while hearing a complaint, had directed that action be taken against W.B. Chandrasekhar, who, at the time of the alleged negligence, was Public Information Officer (PIO). He is currently Director and First Appellate Authority in the department.
According to the Commission, the complainant, P. Srinivasa Babu of Visakhapatnam, had sought information under the Act in July 2022. However, the department failed to furnish the same within the statutory 30-day period. Despite appeals, no proper response was provided, prompting the complainant to approach the Information Commission in January 2023.
During inquiry, the Commission noted that repeated directions issued to the officer concerned were ignored. The officer neither appeared personally before the Commission nor provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Though the information was eventually furnished after considerable delay, the Commission observed that belated compliance could not justify violation of the Act.
Describing the Act as a cornerstone of democracy, the Commission warned that negligence by officials in implementing the law would invite strict action. It treated the officer’s failure to discharge statutory responsibilities and disregard of Commission directives as serious misconduct warranting penalty.
The Commission directed the Principal Secretary of the Industries and Commerce (Mines) Department to recover ₹25,000 from the salary, or remuneration of Mr. Chandrasekhar, and remit the amount to the government treasury. A compliance report was sought within four weeks.
Mr. Chandrasekhar had retired from regular government service, but was continuing in public service pursuant to his reappointment by the government as Director & First Appellate Authority, Mines & Geology Department, the order copy said.

Jharkhand RTI Row: Appointment Process Contravenes Section 15(6) And Dilutes Legislative Intent - By - Kritagya Sinha & Aryan Ranjan

Live Law: Jharkhand: Thursday, 21 May 2026.
On 29 January 2026, the State of Jharkhand informed the Jharkhand High Court that the State Information Commission, which has remained non-functional due to the non-appointment of its Chairperson and Members, would be made functional within four weeks. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai was hearing the matter.

The process was delayed, and the final meeting of the selection committee was held on 25 March 2026. Section 15(3)[1] provide the appointment process for the commissioners, The State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall be appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of a committee consisting of-- (i) the Chief Minister, who shall be the Chairperson of the committee; (ii) the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly; and (iii) a Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Chief Minister.
Section 15(5) [2] further lays down the eligibility “The State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance”
Whereas, Section 15(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 lays down the disqualification criteria for appointment of the State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners. Section 15(6) clearly reflects the legislative intent to ensure institutional independence by preventing political affiliation to achieve institutional independence by having a State Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner not to be affiliated to any political party. (It reads: 'The State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner shall not be a Member of Parliament or Member of the Legislature of any State or Union territory, as the case may be, or hold any other office of profit or connected with any political party or carrying on any business or pursuing any profession.) This is not a moment-in-time eligibility criteria but a substantive protection that the whole selection process is not politicized. So, a resignation by a member of a political party where the person is still a full member of that political party in the selection process or even up to the time when his or her name is shortlisted and officially proposed to the Governor by the statutory selection committee of the Chief Minister, Leader of Opposition and a Cabinet Minister is nothing more than a manoeuvre. These post-selection resignations are a form of abuse of the statutory scheme, they perpetuate prejudice, and are a direct failure to realise the legislative purpose in Section 15(6). The law does not even contemplate of a case in which political affiliation is tactically divested at the last moment to give a semblance of objectivity; instead, it requires that there be neutrality as a matter of fact, during the course of consideration and advice.
The Jharkhand State Information Commission appointments controversy
It has long since ceased to be just another case of administrative wrangling it is a graphic demonstration of the extent to which statutory protections may be eviscerated by a policy of formalism. In the ongoing case of Contempt Case (Civil) No. 283 of 2020, titled Raj Kumar v. Sukhdeo Singh, Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand & Others [3] Jharkhand High Court has given orders to complete the process of appointment of information commission, office of Jharkhand as soon as possible, which is vacant for the last six years. This was followed by an advertisement of the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioner posts. The advertisement clearly said that Members of Parliament, Members of the Legislature, persons holding or having held any office of profit, or connected with a political party or business, might also apply. But it declared this, on the condition that those persons would be required to resign their office of profit, business interests, or political attachments only after they had been appointed to the position of Information Commissioner.
However, a more consistent and tougher approach is taken by several other states. An example is in Himachal Pradesh, where the advertisement made regarding such appointments expressly barred Members of Parliament, Members of the Legislature and persons connected with political parties in the first instance. It also stressed that only Indian citizens of eminence who had a long background in such areas as law, science, technology and journalism could qualify as long as they were not affiliated to any political party. This discrepancy indicates a significant discrepancy in the understanding of the rules of eligibility in the different states and this is a serious issue concerning the watering down of the concept of institutional independence.
Violation of 15(6) ), Right to Information Act, 2005
According to the reports, four names were selected by the selection committee on 25th of March, 2026 among which three of them have direct active connection to the political party, one individual is a member of a major national political party and holds a position involving active participation rather than mere passive membership. Another individual has been associated with a different national political party, with state-level involvement indicating proximity to party leadership and engagement in political processes. A third individual has links with a regional political party through organisational or youth-level structures aligned with the party. These associations are not incidental; they reflect definite, immediate, and practical political affiliations that existed at the time of the selection this selection of names violated the provisions of 15(6) “connected with any political party”
However, the defence normally made in such instances is that the resignation was made after selection or just before appointment somehow remedies the disqualification. This is a very fallacious argument. The statutory requirement that a Commissioner must not be a member of any political party cannot be brought down to a photo image of qualification taken at a single point in time. This disqualification is not on optics when the appointment is made; but on ensuring that the whole process of consideration is not politicized. When the active people in politics are involved in the selection process there is no mere speculation the apprehension of bias is real Following objections, the Jharkhand Lok Bhavan returned the file concerning the appointment of Information Commissioners. The controversy surrounding the appointment of State Information Commissioners in Jharkhand has intensified, as various organizations and civil society members raised objections against the alleged violation of prescribed eligibility criteria and the recommendation of individuals linked to political parties.
According to sources, the Lok Bhavan first sought a legal opinion on the entire matter. Thereafter, taking serious note of the issue, the Hon'ble Governor returned the appointment file without granting approval. The Lok Bhavan has clearly directed the state government to re-examine the appointment process in light of the provisions of the RTI Act and the relevant judgments delivered by the Supreme Court on the subject.
This development has sparked a renewed debate in the state regarding transparency and the fairness of the appointment process.
The danger lies in treating resignation as a legal cleansing mechanism. Bias, once introduced, does not vanish with a letter of resignation. It attaches at the stage of consideration, where political proximity may influence both the candidate's selection and the decision-making environment of the appointing authority. To have such candidates being able to justify their appointing by resigning at the last moment is to turn the statutory protection into a sham.
The Supreme Court rulings on RTI appointments.
In the case of the Supreme Court Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India, [(2019) 18 SCC 246)], [4]it was noted that the validity of the Information Commissions is based on the fairness, transparency, and impartiality of the selection process. The issue of bias and especially structural or institutional bias that is of concern of the Court is directly relevant here. Once people of definite political inclinations are taken into account, the procedure itself becomes questionable, whether formal adherence is reached in the future or not.
This is also aggravated by the fact that Information Commissions under The Union of India v. Namit Sharma [(2013) 10 SCC 359)][5], are also considered to have a quasi-judicial role and therefore need to be independent just like adjudicatory bodies. The fact that bias has not been proven is not the standard, but that one does not even have an apprehension of bias. This norm is blatantly breached by political affiliation during selection.
The rule is simple and strict: a political neutrality should be present not only at the time of appointment, but also during the selection process. Any shortfall of that is not conformity to Section 15(6) it is a wilful avoidance of the same.
Interpreting Section 15(6): A Jurisprudential Inquiry into Legislative Intent and Statutory Mandates.
This shift also welcomes a more in-depth consideration of constitutional principles and jurisprudence that regulate institutional honesty and autonomy of oversight institutions (IOS). Fundamental to it is the doctrine of institutional independence requiring that any bodies undertaking quasi-judicial and accountability functions should be insulated not merely by actual bias but by any reasonable fear of bias. This is directly relatable to the dictum nemo judex in causa sua (no one is a judge in his own cause), which is not only applicable to adjudication but also extends to the very procedure of selection, where no politically close person or one with a vested interest is allowed into the decision-making framework. Moreover, the rule of law according to A. V. Dicey demands the discretionary power to be exercised within a strictly defined legal framework, with no arbitrary or politically charged appointment. Constitutional morality as upheld by B. R. Ambedkar, supports the idea that mere adherence to the stipulations of the statutes is not enough when the very nature of neutrality and justice is violated. Also, legitimate expectation applies in favour of the populace, which has a legitimate expectation that statutory institutions such as Information Commissions will be formed by a fair, transparent, and apolitical process. The new jurisprudence of institutional bias also explains that bias may be institutional and does not have to be proven by overt actions; the mere fact that politically-aligned people are in the pipeline of selection causes a lack of trust in the justice system. All these doctrines bring to the fore the fact that independence is not an after-appointment prerequisite but a precondition which needs to permeate the whole selection process otherwise the integrity of the institution itself is compromised.
In the perspective of interpretation of statutes (IOS), the matter at hand needs to be considered under the principle of legislative intent whereby, Section 15(6) of the RTI Act should be interpreted in a way that promotes the fundamental purpose of the statute which is the achievement of institutional independence instead of turning it into a technical or procedural formalism. The mischief rule (Heydon rule) goes further to explain that the law should be construed in a way that it discourages the mischief of political interference and promotes the remedy of neutrality in appointments. Similarly, the purposive interpretation method requires that courts and authorities interpret the statute to reflect the wider intent of the statute, which is to establish a separate transparency watchdog in this instance. The mere literal meaning, whereby politically affiliated individuals are allowed to take part in the selection process provided they step down at the last level, would be a failure of the whole plot of the Act. The harmonious construction principle also states that the provisions concerning eligibility must be construed in harmony with the institutional purpose of Information Commissions as independent, quasi-judicial institutions.
Combined with each other, these interpretative doctrines add up to one thing, to wit, the necessity that the political neutrality should be effective at all stages of the selection, and not only at the stage of formal appointment. Any other interpretation would be tantamount to a watering down of legislative intent and a way around the protections incorporated into the RTI framework.
A Clear Breach of Legislative Intent: Section 15(6) Reduced to a Formality.
To sum up, the advertisement published with regard to the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners is clearly against the law and the constitutional principles, which forms the basis of the RTI framework. By allowing people who are affiliated with political parties, who are in offices of profit, or in business to apply, except on resignation after appointment, the advertisement functions to make the statutory requirement in Section 15(6) to be a mere formality. This is an unacceptable solution in line with the legislative purpose of institutional independence and non-partisanship since the beginning of the selection process. It is in direct opposition to the purposive and mischief based statutory interpretation which aims to exclude political influence instead of acknowledging it at an earlier point. Thus, the advertisement, both in its form and in its effect, is in overt abrogation of statutory and otherwise accepted jurisprudence and cannot be upheld in law.
Currently, the file has once again been returned by Lok Bhavan authorities on the ground that the proposal allegedly breaches the law and is not with constitutional framework. Consequently, despite the prolonged delay and repeated administrative correspondence, the constitutional post of the Information commissioner, Jharkhand, continues to remain vacant, adversely affecting the effective functioning of the transparency and accountability mechanism under the law.
(Contempt Case (Civil) No. 283 of 2020, titled Raj Kumar v. Sukhdeo Singh, Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand & Others.)

Penalty under RTI Act Unsustainable Without Finding of Mala Fide: Chhattisgarh HC Quashes State Information Commission’s ₹25,000 Order : By Soumya Yadav

SCC Online: National: Thursday, 21 May 2026.
The High Court noted that since the State Information Commission failed to record any findings on mala fide denial, unreasonable delay, or contumacious conduct, the penalty order lacked legal foundation and was therefore liable to be quashed.

Chhattisgarh High Court: In a writ petition challenging the imposition of a ₹25,000 penalty under Section 20(1), Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), a Single Judge Bench of Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J., held that the order passed by the State Information Commission (SIC) on 9 May 2022 was unsustainable in law. The Court emphasised that penalty under the RTI Act is unsustainable without a clear finding of mala fide denial of information or unreasonable delay without sufficient cause, and stressed that such provisions, being quasi-criminal in nature, cannot be invoked mechanically.
Background: The RTI application dated 10 April 2019 was transferred by the Public Information Officer (PIO) to the audit and store sections. The audit section furnished 12 pages of available information, while the Store Section reported that no such information was available.
The petitioner argued that he could not be penalised for non-availability of information that did not exist and emphasised that there was no deliberate withholding or mala fide intention. The first appellate authority acknowledged that the issue was essentially one of availability of records, directing that if further information was traceable, it should be provided.
The State opposed the petition, contending that the penalty was rightly imposed as the petitioner failed to ensure complete and timely information, and that merely transferring the application did not absolve him of statutory obligation. SIC further argued that under Section 6(3), RTI Act, the petitioner was duty-bound to transfer the application to the authority where the information was available, which he failed to do.
Analysis: The Court referred to Nitin Singhvi v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, 2023 SCC OnLine Chh 6061, wherein it was held that the power to impose penalty is not automatic or mechanical, but is conditioned upon the existence of cogent material demonstrating that the PIO has, without reasonable cause, either refused to furnish information, caused undue delay, or acted in a mala fide manner. The Court further in Nitin Singhvi (supra) noted that mere delay or inability to furnish certain information, particularly when such information is not available on record or lies with another authority, would not ipso facto attract penal consequences, and before imposing penalty, the Information Commission is under a statutory obligation to record a clear and reasoned finding with respect to the existence of mala fide intent or lack of reasonable cause, and must also afford an effective opportunity of hearing to the officer concerned.
The Court observed that the impugned order dated 9 May 2022 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as a careful consideration of the material available on record would reveal that the petitioner, while discharging his duties as PIO, had acted in accordance with the statutory scheme of the RTI Act. The Court noted that upon receipt of the application dated 10 April 2019, the petitioner promptly transferred the same to the sections concerned, namely, audit and store, which were the custodians of the information sought.
The Court highlighted that the audit section furnished the available information, which was duly supplied, whereas the store section categorically informed that no such information was available on record. Thus, the petitioner cannot be faulted for non-supply of information which admittedly did not exist or was not held by the office concerned.
The Court also noted that the first appellate authority, while considering the grievance, did not record any finding of mala fide or deliberate lapse on the part of the petitioner, but merely directed that if any further information is traceable, the same be provided or the application be transferred to the appropriate authority. The Court emphasised that this itself indicates that the issue pertained to availability and traceability of records rather than any intentional default on the part of the petitioner.
The Court further observed that during the relevant period, the petitioner had been transferred from the post of PIO, and therefore had no effective control over subsequent compliance. In light of the law laid down in Nitin Singhvi (supra), as well as the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Manohar v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 13 SCC 14, it is manifest that imposition of penalty under Section 20(1), RTI Act is not automatic and must be preceded by a clear and reasoned finding of mala fide denial of information or delay without reasonable cause.
The Court highlighted that the conduct of the petitioner does not fall within the mischief contemplated under Section 20(1), RTI Act, and there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner had either deliberately withheld information, furnished misleading information, or acted in a contumacious manner so as to warrant imposition of penalty. The Court emphasised that the steps taken by the petitioner in transferring the application and facilitating supply of available information clearly demonstrate due diligence and bona fide discharge of his duties.
Decision: The Court held that the SIC, while exercising quasi-judicial powers entailing civil consequences, was under an obligation to record specific findings with regard to absence of reasonable cause and existence of mala fide intent. The Court concluded that the failure to do so vitiated the impugned order. The Court further observed that the penalty imposed appeared punitive without any legal foundation and was liable to be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 9 May 2022 including any consequential recovery proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, and directed that there shall be no order as to costs.
(T.A. Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026, Decided on 5-5-2026)

RTI violation: CIC penalises ESIC official in ragging case

The Times of India: New Delhi: Wednesday, 20 May 2026.

Central Information Commission (CIC) has imposed a Rs 10,000 penalty on an official of Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) Dental College and Hospital in Rohini for failing to provide CCTV footage linked to an alleged ragging incident involving women students in Oct 2024.
Coming down heavily on the institution’s handling of the matter, information commissioner Ashutosh Chaturvedi observed that “the custodian of information failed to ensure that crucial digital evidence relating to a reported ragging incident was preserved”. The commission further took note of the “mental anguish and distress” caused to the complainant due to the non-availability of the footage, which could have been a critical evidence in approaching National Commission for Women for grievance redressal.
The matter stems from allegations that several women students were ragged by their seniors between Oct 12 and 19, 2024, on the college premises. Following the incident, Gaurav Singhal, vice-president of Society Against Violence in Education, filed an RTI application on Oct 22 before the Central Public Information Officer, Sovan Bera, seeking CCTV footage from specific locations in the college during lunch hours on the relevant dates.
However, despite RTI Act mandating a response within 30 days, the reply was furnished after a delay of 48 days. In the response, the official stated that the requested footage was “unavailable" as the CCTV system stored recordings for only one month, and the footage had already been overwritten by the time the reply was sent.
The commission found the explanation unsatisfactory and noted that no valid reason was furnished for the non-availability of the footage despite the RTI application having been filed within the preservation period.
It further observed that, as per Dental Council of India’s mandate, “all dental colleges are obligated to preserve CCTV footage for six months”. ESIC, however, failed to preserve the same, and this noncompliance was highlighted by the tribunal, observing that the "requisite CCTV footage was not preserved/maintained for the specified period”.
ESIC was also criticised for the conduct of the officials involved, with the commission observing that “multiple officers appear to be shifting responsibility onto each other”. It held that Bera “acted without reasonable cause and has obstructed the furnishing of information”, denoting it to be a violation of the statutory obligations under RTI Act.

RTI Act Change Welcome, But More Concerns About GBEs

Tasmanian Greens: Tasmanian: Wednesday, 20 May 2026.
The Greens welcome news the Rockliff Government will move to amend the Right to Information Act 2009 to require more transparency from government businesses though we remain disturbed by the apparent contempt GBEs continue to show the public.

In March, the House of Assembly unanimously passed a Greens’ motion calling for the government to require GBEs to publish information they released under Right to Information laws. Two months on, yesterday we followed up to ask the Premier whether that had happened.
In response to our question, the Premier confirmed that last month he’d written to request government businesses comply with the Parliamentary motion to publish their RTI decisions on a publicly available log. He told us some companies had complied but a number refused, showing contempt for the Parliament and for Tasmanians’ right to know.
With GBEs refusing to openly publish RTI information, the Premier has confirmed a move to change the law to make this a requirement. That’s a very welcome step.
While we thank the Premier for committing to this law change, we are concerned it’s required at all. Publicly disclosing RTI information is a bare minimum transparency measure, so it’s disturbing some government businesses won’t follow the requests of the Parliament and the Premier.
Just who do these GBEs think they are? They are publicly-owned and they’re supposed to operate in the public interest. There is no justification for defiantly refusing to publish what should be public information.
We’ve seen all too often how the cowboy-like attitude and secrecy of GBEs has led to major problems. Just look at the Spirits fiasco. Even more recently, the Premier’s own department found that Tasracing had breached caretaker conventions.
Clearly, there is still a significant need for cultural change across Tasmania’s government businesses. These companies need to understand the public interest should be their priority, and they don’t just get to do things their own way without accountability.
In a Westminster democracy, they certainly can’t be allowed to get away with giving the middle finger to Parliament.

Punjab info panel pulls up cops repeated RTI lapses : By Hillary Victor

Hindustan Times: Chandigarh: Wednesday, 20 May 2026.
The commission observed that several police personnel failed to transfer complaint-related records even years after being shifted from their postings

The Punjab State Information Commission (SIC) has directed the director general of police (DGP) to ensure immediate handover of official records and charge by police personnel after transfers, amid repeated lapses affecting Right to Information (RTI) cases.
The commission observed that several police personnel failed to transfer complaint-related records even years after being shifted from their postings, leading to the denial of information sought under the RTI Act and causing administrative lapses within the police department.
The directions were issued by chief information commissioner Inderpal Singh while hearing an appeal filed by Vinay Kumar Sharma against the office of the Mohali senior superintendent of police (SSP).
During the May 7 hearing, the respondent public information officer-cum-SHO, Kharar, informed the commission that records related to a complaint sought under the RTI Act had not been handed over by the transferred assistant sub-inspector, Bhag Singh. The SHO further stated that senior officers had already been informed and that departmental proceedings were being initiated.
Calling the practice, a “serious violation of established office procedures”, the commission said failure to hand over official records amounted to supervisory negligence, misconduct and dereliction of duty.
The commission directed that a copy of the orders be sent to the DGP for issuance of statewide instructions mandating officers to hand over records immediately or within the prescribed period after transfer.
Referring to two similar appeals from 2024 and another case linked to Sohana police station in Mohali district, the commission recommended disciplinary action against erring officials and sought an action-taken report before the next hearing scheduled for July 9.
The directions come amid a rising number of RTI cases in the state, in which official records were found missing or untraceable. In recent months, the commission has dealt with several complaints involving missing files in departments such as the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, transport authorities, panchayat offices and municipal bodies.

BCCI not government body, not subject to RTI Act: Central Information Commission : Arna Chatterjee

Bar and Bench: New Delhi: Tuesday, 19 May 2026.
The CIC revisited its earlier ruling and concluded that the board remains a private autonomous body under law, and hence cannot be subject to the RTI Act.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) on Monday held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is not covered by the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) as it does not fall within the definition of a 'public authority' under the Act [Geeta Rani v Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports & Anr.]
Information Commissioner PR Ramesh said that BCCI is a private organisation created to promote the game of cricket.
“BCCI is a private organization whose objects are to promote the game of cricket. Its functions are regulated and governed by its own Rules and Regulations independent of any statute and are only related to its members." the CIC ruled.
The verdict came in a plea seeking information on the functioning and affairs of the BCCI and whether such details could be accessed under the RTI framework at all, given that the body is not formally recognised as a public authority.
In 2018, Central Information Commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu held that BCCI was a “public authority under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act and therefore amenable to the RTI regime. The order directed the BCCI to designate Public Information Officers and create a mechanism for receiving RTI applications.
BCCI challenged it in before the Madras High Court, contending that it was a private autonomous society not substantially funded or controlled by the government and therefore outside the ambit of the RTI Act.
The High Court did not decide whether BCCI was covered by the RTI Act. Instead, it remitted the matter back to the CIC for a fresh examination.
BCCI is a private organization whose objects are to promote the game of cricket.
Central Information Commission
In its order passed on Monday, the CIC explained that under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act (defines which bodies must disclose information), an organisation qualifies as a 'public authority' only if it is created by law or is owned, controlled, or substantially funded by the government.
Applying this test, the CIC found that the BCCI does not meet any of these conditions.
It noted that the BCCI is a society registered under law but not created by any statute or government order. It held that registration merely gives legal recognition to a private entity and does not make it a statutory body accountable under the Act.
It also detailed on what counts as “control” by the government, clarifying that it must be deep and pervasive, not just regulatory oversight.
“The working committee elected from amongst its members in accordance with its own rules, controls the entire affairs and management of the BCCI. It is pertinent to mention that there is no representation of the government or any statutory body of whatsoever nature by whatever form in the BCCI. There exists no control of the government over the functions, finance, administration, management and affairs of the BCCI. Thus, the status of public authority cannot be given to the BCCI,” observed the Commission.
The CIC further examined whether the BCCI could still fall under RTI as a body 'substantially financed' by the government.
Referring to Supreme Court in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd v State of Kerala (2013) and Zee Telefilms Ltd v Union of India (2005), the Commission said such funding must be significant and essential for the organisation’s functioning.
In BCCI’s case, the CIC found no such dependence. It recorded that the board generates its own revenue through media rights, sponsorships, and commercial activities, and that tax exemptions or general benefits available under law cannot be treated as government funding.
There exists no control of the government over the functions, finance, administration, management and affairs of the BCCI.
Central Information Commission
Additionally, the CIC addressed the argument that the BCCI performs public functions by selecting the Indian team and representing the country internationally.
This argument was also rejected on the ground that the RTI Act does not treat 'public function' as a test for deciding whether an organisation must disclose information.
“Another commonly advanced argument is that the BCCI performs ‘public functions’ and enjoys a monopoly over cricket in India. While this may be factually accurate, it is legally irrelevant for the purposes of Section 2(h). The RTI Act does not include ‘public function’ as a criterion for determining a public authority,” said the Commission.
In a broader observation, the CIC cautioned against assuming that greater government control automatically ensures transparency or fairness.
“The evolution of the Board of Control for Cricket in India from a colonial-era administrative body into the financial epicentre of global cricket reflects one of the most significant transformations in contemporary sports economics. Unlike many national sports bodies that depend substantially on state support, the BCCI operates as a largely autonomous, market-driven entity, with revenues running into tens of thousands of crores and substantial financial reserves,” it observed.
Another argument is that the BCCI performs ‘public functions’ and enjoys a monopoly over cricket in India. While this may be factually accurate, it is legally irrelevant for the purposes of RTI Act.
Central Information Commission
With these findings, the CIC ultimately dismissed the appeal seeking information under the RTI Act, holding that the law does not apply to the BCCI in this case.
Advocates Aditya Mehta, Shivani Garg, Agneya Gopinath, Deeksha Dev Singh, Biswa Patnaik, Melinda Colaco and Prakhar Maheshwari represented the BCCI.
[Read Order]

‘BCCI not under RTI Act’: CIC warns superimposed govt control could disrupt ‘finely balanced’ economic structure

The Times of India: New Delhi: Tuesday, 19 May 2026.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) on Monday reversed its 2018 order and held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) doesn’t come under the purview of Right To Information (RTI) act. The commission dismissed an appeal filed in front of Ministry Of Youth Affairs & Sports in 2017 seeking information regarding the provisions/guidelines under which BCCI represents India and selects players for national and international cricket tournaments and also raised queries concerning the authority vested in BCCI by the Government of India.

In the order accessed by TOI, the CIC also observed that it’s not appropriate to assume increased governmental supervision enhances the functioning of BCCI . It warned that superimposed govt control could risk ‘disrupt a finely balanced economic structure’.
The commission also pointed out the Supreme Court-appointed Justice Lodha committee’s reform recommendations for transparency in sports administration were only advisory in nature and “and could not override the express statutory framework contained in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.”
The matter was reconsidered after the Madras High Court in Sept last year remitted the CIC’s earlier order in Oct 2018 for fresh adjudication. In 2018, CIC held the BCCI as the public authority under RTI Act and directed then president, secretary and committee of administrators (CoA) to designate information officers and put in place a system of online and offline mechanisms to receive the applications for information under RTI Act. The order also issued a few more directions against BCCI. The cricket board subsequently challenged the order in front of the Madras High Court. The commission clarified that the Supreme Court had not declared the BCCI to be a “public authority” under the RTI Act.
In its fresh order, passed through information commissioner PR Ramesh, CIC stated: “the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) does not fall within the ambit of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and therefore is not subject to the provisions of the RTI Act.”
The CIC order cited that the BCCI is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. “BCCI is neither established by or under the Constitution nor created by any law enacted by Parliament or a State Legislature. The Commission further noted that the BCCI was not constituted through any govt notification or executive order,” read the order.
Besides stating that the govt has no role in appointment of office-bearers and internal functioning of the board, the commission further noted BCCI’s financial independence as the board generates its revenue through media rights, sponsorships, broadcasting arrangements, ticket sales, and other commercial activities. The order also mentioned that the tax exemptions offered to the board can’t be construed as govt funding. “Tax exemptions or statutory concessions available generally under law cannot be treated as “substantial financing” by the Government within the meaning of the RTI Act,” the order stated.
‘Indian cricket ecosystem a compelling illustration’
The CIC chose to address assumptions that increased governmental supervision is sufficient for functioning of an organisation. According to the commission, this premise “does not adequately account for the complexities of modern economic institutions.”
The CIC also highlighted the efficient economic model that the BCCI has managed to create through the IPL which now drives the global cricket economy.
“It may not be appropriate to proceed on the assumption that increased governmental supervision would, in and of itself, enhance the functioning or fairness of institutions such as the BCCI,” read the observation in the order. “To superimpose a model of oversight premised solely on governmental control may fail to account for these realities and could risk unintended consequences, including inefficiencies or disruptions in a finely balanced economic structure,” it added.
“Legislative and executive interventions—however well-intentioned—have, at times, produced outcomes marked by inefficiency, exclusion, or distortion, owing to challenges in implementation, lack of contextual sensitivity, or concentration of authority,” said the commission.
“The ecosystem of cricket in India presents a compelling illustration. The evolution of the BCCI from a colonial-era administrative body into the financial epicentre of global cricket reflects one of the most significant transformations in contemporary sports economics. Unlike many national sports bodies that depend substantially on state support, the BCCI operates as a largely autonomous, market-driven entity, with revenues running into tens of thousands of crores and substantial financial reserves,” the observation read.
“At the heart of this economic structure lies the Indian Premier League, whose franchise-based model and media rights regime have redefined the financial architecture of the sport,” it added.
According to the CIC, this kind of intricate ecosystem could not be achieved by any administrative oversight. “This intricate and high-value ecosystem demonstrates that the functioning of such an organisation is shaped not merely by administrative oversight but by a complex interplay of market forces, contractual arrangements, and international commercial dynamics.”

BCCI Not A 'Public Authority', Not Subject To RTI Act: Central Information Commission

Live Law: New Delhi: Tuesday, 19 May 2026.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is not a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and therefore cannot be compelled to disclose information under the transparency law.

Information Commissioner P R Ramesh passed the order while dismissing a second appeal filed by Delhi resident Geeta Rani, who had sought information regarding the legal basis under which the BCCI represents India in international cricket and selects players for the national team.
The appellant had originally filed an RTI application in 2017 before the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports seeking details including the authority under which BCCI selects players for India, why governments provide infrastructure and security for cricket events, and whether any government authority exercises legal control over the BCCI. The Ministry responded that the information was not available with it and said the RTI application could not be transferred to the BCCI as it had not declared itself a public authority under the RTI Act.
The matter had previously taken a different turn in 2018 when the CIC, under then Information Commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu, held that the BCCI was a public authority and directed it to appoint Central Public Information Officers and comply with proactive disclosure obligations under Section 4 of the RTI Act. However, the BCCI challenged that decision before the Madras High Court, which in September 2025 remanded the matter to the CIC for fresh consideration in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar.
Reconsidering the issue, the CIC held that the BCCI does not satisfy the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
The Commission reasoned that the BCCI was neither established by or under the Constitution, nor created by a parliamentary or state law, nor constituted through a government notification or order. It observed that the BCCI is merely a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, and that registration under a statute does not amount to being established by statute.
The Commission relied on Supreme Court judgments including Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd v. State of Kerala, Dalco Engineering Pvt Ltd v. Satish Prabhakar Padhye, and Zee Telefilms Ltd v. Union of India to conclude that mere regulatory oversight or public importance does not convert a private entity into a public authority under the RTI framework.
Rejecting the argument that the BCCI is under government control, the Commission held that the degree of control required under Section 2(h) must be “substantial” and not merely supervisory or regulatory.
“It is pertinent to mention that there is no representation of the Government or any statutory body in the BCCI. There exists no control of the Government over the functions, finance, administration, management and affairs of the BCCI,” the Commission said.
On the issue of funding, the CIC found that the BCCI is financially self-sustaining through media rights, sponsorships, ticket sales and other commercial activities, and does not depend on government financing for its functioning.
The Commission also held that incidental benefits such as tax exemptions or access to infrastructure do not amount to “substantial financing” under the RTI Act unless the entity's existence depends on such support.
Addressing the contention that the BCCI performs public functions such as selecting the Indian cricket team and regulating the sport nationally, the CIC said this factor alone is legally insufficient.
“While this may be factually accurate, it is legally irrelevant for the purposes of Section 2(h). The RTI Act does not include 'public function' as a criterion for determining a public authority,” the Commission observed.
The Commission further noted that although the Supreme Court in the 2016 Cricket Association of Bihar judgment had recognised the public character of BCCI's functions and subjected it to judicial scrutiny, it had not declared the BCCI to be a public authority under the RTI Act. Instead, any such move would require legislative intervention, the CIC said.
Referring to the recently enacted National Sports Governance Act, 2025, the CIC noted that the law extends RTI obligations to recognised sports organisations receiving government grants, but held that since the BCCI does not receive such financial assistance, it does not fall within that statutory framework either.
Concluding that the appellant had failed to establish that the BCCI is owned, controlled or substantially financed by the government, the Commission dismissed the appeal.

In an extended obiter, the Commission also cautioned against assuming that increased governmental supervision would necessarily improve transparency or fairness in institutions like the BCCI, noting the unique commercial and economic ecosystem surrounding Indian cricket.
(Click here to read theorder)

Thane: Two journalists, 'RTI activist' held for extortion bid

Mid-day: Mumbai: Monday, 18 May 2026.
The three were arrested on the complaint of a sub-registrar, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime) Shivraj Patil told reporters

The Thane police in Maharashtra have arrested two journalists and an "RTI activist" for allegedly trying to extort money from a government official by defaming him and orchestrating a fake protest, an official said on Saturday, reported news agency PTI.
The police have identified the trio as Santosh Bhikan Hirey (44) of the weekly 'Navasfurti', published from Ambernath in Thane district, Samsad Sajjadkhan Pathan (48), editor of the weekly 'Lok Rajkaran' in Nashik, and Subash Nathu Patil (40), a Nashik resident who acquired information under RTI, reported PTI.
The accused told the government official that they would print reports in their publications that corrupt practices were going on in his office and would demand his dismissal if he didn't pay up Rs 2 lakh, reported PTI.
When the sub-registrar ignored the demand, they printed defamatory reports and staged a fast, said the DCP, reported PTI.
The official then filed a complaint with the anti-extortion cell (AEC) of the Thane police who laid a trap and arrested Hirey and Pathan on Thursday while collectively accepting Rs 1.5 lakh from the victim, the official said, reported PTI.
Senior inspector Shekar Bagde of the AEC said the three have been remanded in police custody till November 7. They have also extracted money from many government officials in Mumbai, Thane, Navi Mumbai and Nashik using the same method, he said, reported PTI.
In another case, two history-sheeters were arrested at Virar in Palghar district of Maharashtra for allegedly stealing jewellery and other valuable items of a man, police said on Saturday, reported PTI.
The arrested duo has several criminal cases registered against them in Thane, Mumbai and Palghar districts, they said, reported PTI.
The man lodged a complaint against the duo, accusing them of stealing his gold ornaments after striking a conversation with him in September 2023, an official of the Mira Bhyandar-Vasai Virar police commissionerate said, reported PTI.
Following his complaint, the police examined the CCTV footage and zeroed in on the accused - Vijay Dattaram Tambe (54) and Ajay Ashok Sawant (50), he said, reported PTI.
The police arrested them and found that several cases were registered against them in the Mumbai metropolitan region, reported PTI.
While Tambe is named as accused in 53 different offences in Thane, Mumbai and neighbouring townships, Sawant has 13 offences registered against him., the official said, reported PTI.
(With inputs from PTI)

दतिया महिला एवं बाल विकास DPO की वेतन वृद्धि रोकी:RTI के जवाब में मांगे 1.66 लाख रुपए; खुद की कॉलर पकड़कर बोले थे- 'मारो मुझे'

Dainik Bhaskar: Datia: Monday, 18 May 2026.

शोभनीय व्यवहार करने के मामले में उन्हें कारण बताओ नोटिस जारी किया गया है।

दतिया में महिला एवं बाल विकास विभाग के जिला कार्यक्रम अधिकारी (DPO) अरविंद उपाध्याय के खिलाफ कलेक्टर स्वप्निल वानखेड़े ने सख्त कदम उठाया है। आरटीआई के जवाब में 1.66 लाख रुपए मांगने और कार्यालय में अधिवक्ता के सामने अपनी ही कॉलर पकड़कर अशोभनीय व्यवहार करने के मामले में उन्हें कारण बताओ नोटिस जारी किया गया है। प्रशासन ने उनकी एक वार्षिक वेतन वृद्धि रोकने की चेतावनी भी दी है।
यह पूरा विवाद एक आरटीआई (RTI) आवेदन से शुरू हुआ। अधिवक्ता शंभू गोस्वामी ने विभाग से आंगनबाड़ी कार्यकर्ताओं की नियुक्ति, उनकी चयन प्रक्रिया और वेतन आहरण से संबंधित दस्तावेज मांगे थे। जानकारी उपलब्ध कराने के बजाय, विभाग ने उन्हें 1.66 लाख रुपए जमा करने का फरमान (नोटिस) थमा दिया।
कैश लेकर पहुंचे तो किया हाई-वोल्टेज ड्रामा जब अधिवक्ता ने यह जानकारी चाही कि इतनी बड़ी राशि किस मद या खाते में जमा करनी है, तो विभागीय अधिकारी टालमटोल करने लगे। इसके बाद 11 मई को जब अधिवक्ता खुद नकद राशि लेकर कार्यालय पहुंचे, तो स्थिति बिगड़ गई। इस घटना का एक वीडियो सोशल मीडिया पर वायरल हो रहा है, जिसमें डीपीओ अरविंद उपाध्याय बेहद उत्तेजित नजर आ रहे हैं। वीडियो में अधिकारी अपनी ही कॉलर पकड़कर अधिवक्ता को उकसाते हुए कह रहे हैं- 'मारो झापड़, मारो मुझे।'
कलेक्टर ने माना गंभीर कदाचरण, जांच कमेटी गठित कलेक्टर स्वप्निल वानखेड़े ने एक जिम्मेदार राजपत्रित अधिकारी के इस तरह के बर्ताव पर कड़ी आपत्ति जताई है। उन्होंने इसे शासकीय मर्यादा के खिलाफ, अनुशासनहीनता और सरकारी कार्यालय की गरिमा को ठेस पहुंचाने वाला मानते हुए गंभीर कदाचरण की श्रेणी में रखा है।
इस पूरे मामले की निष्पक्ष और विस्तृत जांच के लिए कलेक्टर ने एक दो सदस्यीय उच्चस्तरीय कमेटी का गठन किया है। इस जांच कमेटी में संयुक्त कलेक्टर श्रुति अग्रवाल और तहसीलदार अमित दुबे को शामिल किया गया है, जो जल्द ही अपनी रिपोर्ट सौंपेंगे।