Presidential Secretariat denies RTI request on President’s travel details

Daily Mirror & Newswire: Sri Lanka: Friday, 29 August 2025.

Colombo, August 28 (Daily Mirror) - The Presidential Secretariat has declined to release information on the domestic travel of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake in response to a Right to Information (RTI) request.
The request, submitted on August 4 by Mr. Jinath Premaratne, was formally rejected on August 27 under Section 5(1)(b)(i) of the RTI Act, which exempts disclosure of information deemed directly relevant to the security of the President.
In its response, the Secretariat informed the applicant that an appeal may be lodged within 14 days under Section 31(1) of the Act.
Responding to an RTI request submitted on August 4, 2025, the Presidential Secretariat has refused to release information regarding the domestic travel of President Anura Kumara Dissanayake.
The Secretariat, in its response dated August 27, stated that the request was rejected under Section 5 (1) (b) (i) of the Right to Information Act, on the grounds that the details sought are directly relevant to security-sensitive information concerning the President.

The letter, addressed to Mr. Jinath Premaratne, further noted that under Section 31 (1) of the Act, an appeal can be filed within 14 days. Such appeals should be directed to Senior Additional Secretary to the President, Mr. K. Prasanna Chandith, at the Presidential Secretariat, Colombo.
The response was issued by G.G.S.C. Roshan, Information Officer and Senior Additional Secretary to the President. (Newswire)

Election Commission refuses to provide 2003 Bihar SIR order on RTI query : Shemin Joy

 Deccan Herald: New Delhi: Friday, 29 August 2025.
The EC did not provide the details sought under RTI and again provided the June 24 order.

The Election Commission has refused to provide a copy of the order of an Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in 2003 as well as the poll body’s study or analysis which it based to decide on holding the exercise in Bihar this year sought under the Right to Information Act.
Transparency activist Anjali Bhardwaj filed two separate RTIs with the Election Commission seeking copies of the 2003 order as well as the study or analysis based on which the EC decided to hold the SIR.

Bhardwaj said the orders and guidelines of the 2003 Intensive Revision in Bihar are not available on the EC website and nor have they been of any of the affidavits filed by the EC in the Supreme
Court. Copies of the orders and guidelines of the 2003 intensive revision would have shed light
on whether EC had sought documents to verify citizenship of voters in 2003, she said.
In the first RTI, Bhardwaj asked a copy of any independent appraisal or study or analysis undertaken based on which the EC decided to initiate a SIR across the country in 2025 was sought as well as a copy of all the files, including notings, correspondence and records which are part of the file) related to the exercise.
To this, the EC responded asking Bhardwaj to refer to the EC's guideline dated June 24, which it said is "self-explanatory and available" on its website besides providing the link. "Further, no any (sic) information is available in the Commission," it said.
In the second RTI application, she sought a copy of the order or the notification through which an Intensive Revision of electoral rolls was carried out for Bihar in 2003. She also sought a copy of the guidelines issued for the Intensive Revision in 2003 which specify the manner and procedure of revisions, the prescribed forms and list of documents required to be furnished among others.
The EC did not provide the details sought under RTI and again provided the June 24 order.
"No information has been provided by the EC about the Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls carried out for Bihar in 2003. The orders and guidelines of the 2003 exercise are important as the EC has provided a special exemption to those who feature in the 2003 electoral roll that they need not provide any proof of eligibility," Bhardwaj said.

514 cases booked under SC/ST Act since 2020: RTI reply

Times of India: Madurai: Friday, 29 August 2025.
A Right to Information Act (RTI) reply received by a Madurai-based activist has revealed that 3,041 SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cases were booked from 2020 until June 2025 in nine districts of Tamil Nadu. Madurai tops the list with 514 cases. Activists said sufficient initiatives are not being taken at the grassroots level to address discrimination in areas prone to caste atrocities, while the cases booked also remain pending in courts for years.

Social welfare activist S Karthik found in response to his RTI query that Madurai, Theni, Pudukottai and Sivaganga were among the districts where most cases were recorded during the period. "It also came to light through the RTI reply that a total of 509 cases (about 16%) among the 3,041 booked were closed by police due to ‘mistake of fact.' The highest number of cases closed in such a manner was in Pudukottai with 124 , followed by Theni with 97 cases," he told TOI.
Karthik also noted that 76 of the 514 cases in Madurai were recorded in Oomachikulam range alone, as of March 2024. Madurai district topped the state in the number of caste atrocity-prone areas identified as well. "However, despite such a dire situation, the number of social harmony awareness meetings conducted by officials in Madurai at the grassroots level remains low," he said.
A Kathir, executive director of the dalit rights NGO Evidence, raised concerns about SC/ST Act cases pending in courts for years. "A rise in heinous caste crimes in recent years may have prompted more SC/ST Act cases to be registered by police. The investigation of an SC/ST Act case should be completed within 150 days and the chargesheet filed in 60 days, but there are delays in the filing of chargesheets and cases remain pending in courts for years," he said. He called for special courts for SC/ST Act cases to be established in all districts across Tamil Nadu.
"The Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare department in respective districts under the collector, along with the social justice and human rights wing, and the social welfare department, must work together to prevent and bring down caste atrocities," added Karthik.

Private courses at Gujarat University now within RTI ambit: GIC

Times of India: Ahmedabad: Friday, 29 August 2025.

In an important order, the Gujarat Information Commission has stated that "Gujarat University's self-financed professional courses are to be considered ‘public authorities' under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The order now mandates GU to "furnish requested information for these courses," thus expanding the RTI Act's scope to "university-managed, self-funded educational programmes."
The decision was made during the hearing of an appeal related to information sought (on Feb 15) by former senate member Devdutt Rana regarding GU's Centre of Professional Courses, Department of Animation. He had earlier requested the details about self-financed courses that GU had been offering since 2013.
Pavan Pandit, GU's public information officer (PIO), denied Rana the information, arguing that the Centre of Professional Courses, operating under a "higher payment programme (HPP)", was a self-financed institute and "sustained by student fees." Therefore, it was asserted that "it did not fall under the definition of a public authority" under the RTI Act. GU later obtained a stay from the high court, arguing that private partner institutions were involved in running such courses.
However, state information commissioner Vipul Raval emphasised that GU's HPP was entirely internal to the university, with no external private entity involved. The commission clarified that "administrative control, not just financial support, determines whether an entity qualifies as a public authority." In its order, SIC highlighted that "the university exercises full control over the HPP, including decision-making, faculty appointments, audits and operations all conducted within university premises."
Raval clarified, "The Centre of Professional Courses, even if operating under HPP, is included in the definition of a public authority under Section 2(h)(1) of the Right to Information Act 2005, because Section 2(h)(c)(i) of the Right to Information Act 2005 clearly states that any authority, body or institution controlled directly or indirectly by the appropriate government is also included in a public authority." The GIC thus ruled that "the HPP falls under the RTI Act's purview".

“Educational qualifications are personal information”; Unpacking Delhi High Court verdict on disclosure of PM Modi and Smriti Irani’s academic records

SCC Online: New Delhi: Thursday, 28 August 2025.

“… what may superficially appear to be an innocuous or isolated disclosure could open the floodgates of indiscriminate demands, motivated by idle curiosity or sensationalism. … The RTI Act was enacted to promote transparency in government functioning and not to provide fodder for sensationalism.”...
While hearing bunch matters wherein orders passed by the Central Information Commission (‘CIC’) directing University of Delhi and Central Board of Secondary Education (‘CBSE’) to furnish academic records of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and former Minister Smriti Zubin Irani were challenged, the Single Judge Bench of Sachin Datta, J, set aside the impugned orders stating that such information constitutes ‘personal information’ and its disclosure was exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’).
Background: The present case dealt with 6 connected matters wherein the CIC had directed the University of Delhi and CBSE to furnish academic records of individuals including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and former Minister Smriti Irani upon applications filed under the RTI Act. The CIC, in all 6 matters, had allowed the applicants to inspect copies of the requested documents.
By order dated 21-12-2016, the CIC directed University of Delhi to facilitate inspection of relevant register where complete information on the result of all students who passed in Bachelor of Arts, in year 1978 (the year in which PM Modi is also stated to have obtained his degree) along with roll number, names of the students, father’s name and marks obtained before 30-12-2016. The CIC had held that disclosure of details of educational records of a student, maintained at a university, did not infringe his/her right to privacy. Matters relating to educational qualifications of a student (former/current) fell under public domain and hence there was no violation of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
While the same was under challenge before the Court under W.P. (C) No. 600 of 2017, the respondent in W.P.(C) No. 13568 of 2023, had filed an application under RTI Act for inspection of documents relating to the degree of PM Narendra Modi. The CIC, by order dated 8-9-2017, had disposed of the application stating that a similar application, under W.P. (C) No. 600 of 2017 was pending before the Delhi High Court and thus the matter was sub judice.
By order dated 17-1-2017, the CIC had directed CBSE to facilitate inspection of relevant records and provide certified copies of documents except personal details in admit card and mark sheet. The applicant in this case had requested the marksheet and Class Xth and XIIth result of former minister Smriti Zubin Irani. The CIC had opined that Ms. Irani, being an elected Member of Parliament at the relevant time, was a public authority under the RTI Act and therefore, the defense under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act could not be made available to her.
Upon hearing submissions for all 6 petitions, the Court formulated the following issues for determination:

1. Whether a Board/University (in particular, the Delhi University) was exempt from disclosing information pertaining to the educational qualifications/ results / mark sheets / degrees of an individual by virtue of Section 8(1)(e) and/or Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act?
2. Whether ‘larger public interest’ justified disclosure of the information sought even if the same fell within the purview of Section 8(1)(e) and/or Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act?
3. Even assuming that the supply of information was precluded under Section 8(1)(e) and/or Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, whether disclosure of information was mandated under Section 8(3) of the RTI Act?

Analysis, Law and Decision:
While Section 3 of the RTI Act grants all citizens the right to information, Section 8 carves out exceptions where such right may be curtailed. The Court noted that Section 8(1) of the RTI Act begins with a non-obstante clause thereby giving it an overriding effect over all other provisions of the RTI Act. The exemptions may be categorised in two ways:

• Clauses (a), (b), (c), (f), (g), (h), and (i), wherein disclosure is impermissible regardless of any plea of public interest; and
• Clauses (d), (e), and (j), which incorporate a public interest override. Under these clauses, information may be disclosed if the competent authority [in the case of clauses (d) and (e)] or the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), the State Public Information Officer (SPIO), or the appellate authority [in the case of clause (j)] is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies such disclosure.

Therefore, the right under Section 3 is not absolute and is qualified by the provisions under Section 8(1).
i. Whether a Board/University is exempt from disclosing information pertaining to the educational qualifications of an individual by virtue of Section 8 exemptions?

Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure any personal information that is not related to any public activity or interest, or the disclosure of which would result in an unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy.
Section 11 of the RTI Act complements this by safeguarding information that has been treated as confidential by a third party. The RTI Act, therefore, draws a clear distinction between the concepts of privacy and confidentiality.
The Court observed that a fiduciary relationship exists between a student and a university, wherein a student entrusts the university with personal information (academic records, personal data etc.) with a reasonable expectation of confidentiality and fair use. The degree of control and unilateral decision-making power can be said to be akin to a trustee in respect of a trust.
Further, the Court stated that Ordinance IX (4) of the Delhi University provides for issue of transcripts which indicates issuing of results to the student but not to the public. The framework does not permit the disclosure of marks/grades to any third party. Hence, there is an implicit duty of trust and confidentiality in handling students’ academic records.
Thus, the Court held that the data/information pertaining to an individual’s educational qualifications, including degrees and marks, constitutes ‘personal information’ which is specifically exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
ii. Whether ‘larger public interest’ justifies disclosure of the information sought?
The Court relied on the case of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2002) 5 SCC 481, and noted that ‘something which is of interest to the public’ is quite different from ‘something in public interest’. Interest of the public in private matters cannot impinge upon the exemption provided under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Court further noted that disclosure was not mandated in situations where the information sought had no relation to any public activity. The public interest override would not be attracted where the information sought has no bearing on the discharge of responsibilities by the concerned public official/functionary (whose personal information is sought).
Public interest considerations would prevail where if the information sought had a bearing on the performance of official responsibilities entrusted to a public functionary, or where the information sought concerns exposure of wrongdoing in the discharge of official functions, financial impropriety, inefficiency and/or has a bearing on the very eligibility for holding a particular office. There should be a clear, rational and direct nexus between the information sought and such ‘public purpose’.
The Court opined that mark-sheets/results/degree certificate/academic records of any individual, even if that individual is a holder of public office, are in the nature of personal information.
“The fact that a person holds a public office does not, per se, render all personal information subject to public disclosure.”
Hence, in the present case, the Court noted that no public interest was implicit in the disclosure of the information as sought through the RTI applications and therefore, disclosure cannot be made mandatory for the same.
iii. Whether disclosure of information is mandated under Section 8(3) of the RTI Act?
It was contended by the respondents that since the information in the present case pertained to a period beyond 20 years, Section 8(3) of the RTI Act mandates disclosure, rendering the exemptions under Section 8(1)(e) and Section 8(1)(j), inapplicable as Section 8(3) provides that information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which had happened twenty years before the date of request shall be provided if requested by a person.
However, the Court, rejected the said contention and noted that,
“In the post K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (supra) era, the Right to Privacy has been unequivocally recognized as a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is no longer tenable to assert that personal information loses its protected status solely on account of the passage of time. Privacy / confidentiality of personal information, is not time bound, and mere passage of twenty years does not obliterate constitutional protection.”
The Court, hence, held that Section 8(3) of the RTI Act would not automatically override the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) when the information is inherently personal and protected under the right to privacy.
The Court therefore held that the information sought by the RTI applications fell squarely within the exemptions under Section 8(1)(j) and thereafter the orders of CIC directing University of Delhi and CBSE to furnish information were liable to be set aside.
[University of Delhi v. Neeraj, W.P. (C) No. 600 of 2017, decided on 25-8-2025]

Jitendra Singh Launches RTI E-Journal, Highlights Reforms for Transparency

Devdiscourse: New Delhi: Wednesday, 27 August 2025.
In his inaugural address, Dr. Jitendra Singh outlined some of the landmark Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) reforms introduced over the past decade.

Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Science & Technology, Earth Sciences, Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Space and Atomic Energy, Dr. Jitendra Singh, released the latest edition of the RTI Journal and launched an E-Journal on the website of the National Federation of Information Commissions in India (NFICI) during the 15th Annual General Body Meeting of NFICI at the Central Information Commission (CIC), New Delhi.
The event was attended by Chief Information Commissioner Heeralal Samariya, as well as State Chief Information Commissioners and Information Commissioners from across the country, reflecting the importance of coordinated efforts in strengthening India’s Right to Information (RTI) framework.
Transformative Reforms Since 2014
In his inaugural address, Dr. Jitendra Singh outlined some of the landmark Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) reforms introduced over the past decade. He recalled the abolition of more than 1,600 obsolete rules, beginning with the elimination of the requirement for documents to be attested by gazetted officers.
“This reform sent out a powerful message that the Government trusts the youth of India, who constitute 70% of the population,” he said.
Another major reform was the abolition of interviews for government recruitment, a decision that removed subjectivity, favoritism, and nepotism from the selection process. Despite initial skepticism, this move has since enhanced public trust, transparency, and objectivity in governance.
Transparency and Citizen-Centric Governance
Dr. Singh highlighted how, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s principle of “Maximum Governance, Minimum Government”, transparency and accountability have been placed at the core of governance.
He praised the CIC and State Commissions for maintaining near 100% disposal of RTI cases, even during the COVID-19 pandemic, when sittings were conducted through digital platforms to ensure uninterrupted functioning. “This speaks volumes of how technology-driven options are being used effectively to strengthen transparency,” he noted.
The Minister also referred to innovative practices like the ‘Human Desk’ initiative, under which RTI applicants receive personal counselling or feedback calls after disposal of their applications. “Disposal is important, but so is the citizen’s happiness index,” he emphasized, pointing out that these efforts make applicants feel acknowledged and engaged.
Streamlining RTI Processes
With many government orders and policy decisions now proactively published on official websites, Dr. Singh observed that repetitive RTI applications have declined. He recommended stronger mechanisms to filter avoidable queries and suggested streamlined Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for faster and more efficient redressal.
Role of NFICI and Information Commissions
Dr. Singh appreciated NFICI for becoming an effective platform for coordination, knowledge sharing, and best practices among Information Commissions nationwide. He urged Information Commissioners to proactively share suggestions and insights during their tenure so that they can be implemented in real time.
“RTI and Information Commissions are not just legal mechanisms, they are pillars of democratic accountability,” he said. He underlined that with tools like CPGRAMS (Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System) and digital innovations, India is steadily moving towards a governance system that is transparent, responsive, and citizen-centric.
The launch of the RTI E-Journal and the deliberations at the NFICI meeting reaffirm the government’s commitment to institutional transparency, efficiency, and public participation in governance. Dr. Jitendra Singh’s emphasis on reforms, innovation, and trust in citizens underscores the evolving vision of RTI not just as a legal right but as a foundation for good governance in 21st-century India.

अनावश्यक या बार-बार आने वाले आरटीआई आवेदनों को छांटने के प्रयास किए जाने चाहिए: सिंह

The Print: New Delhi: Wednesday, 27 August 2025.

केंद्रीय मंत्री जितेंद्र सिंह ने मंगलवार को कहा कि अधिकांश सरकारी आदेश और निर्णय पहले से ही आधिकारिक वेबसाइटों पर सार्वजनिक रूप से उपलब्ध हैं, लिहाज़ा सूचना का अधिकार (आरटीआई) कानून के तहत अनावश्यक या बार-बार आने वाले आवेदनों को छांटने के प्रयास किए जाने चाहिए।
सिंह ने कहा कि साथ ही कुशल समाधान के लिए मानदंडों और मानक संचालन प्रक्रियाओं को मजबूत बनाया जाना चाहिए।
उन्होंने यहां केंद्रीय सूचना आयोग (सीआईसी) में भारतीय राष्ट्रीय सूचना आयोग महासंघ (एनएफआईसीआई) की 15वीं वार्षिक आम सभा की बैठक के उद्घाटन सत्र को संबोधित करते हुए यह बात कही।
सिंह ने नागरिक-केंद्रित शासन के लिए पारदर्शिता, जवाबदेही और सूचना के सार्वजनिक प्रकटीकरण को बढ़ावा देने के लिए पिछले दशक में सरकार द्वारा किए गए प्रयास को रेखांकित किया।
उन्होंने आरटीआई कानून के तहत दायर मामलों का लगभग 100 प्रतिशत निपटान करने के लिए केंद्रीय सूचना आयोग (सीआईसी) एवं राज्य सूचना आयोगों की प्रशंसा की।
मंत्री ने कहा कि ज्यादातर सरकारी आदेश और फैसले पहले से ही आधिकारिक वेबसाइटों पर सार्वजनिक रूप से उपलब्ध हैं जिससे बार-बार आरटीआई आवेदन दायर करने की ज़रूरत कम हो गई है।
कार्मिक मंत्रालय के एक बयान के मुताबिक, उन्होंने सुझाव दिया कि अनावश्यक या बार-बार आने वाले आवेदनों को छांटने के प्रयास किए जाने चाहिए, साथ ही कुशल समाधान के लिए मानदंडों और मानक संचालन प्रक्रियाओं को मजबूत बनाया जाना चाहिए।
सिंह ने अभिनव ‘ह्यूमन डेस्क’ प्रयोग का उल्लेख करते हुए कहा कि निपटान महत्वपूर्ण है, लेकिन नागरिक प्रसन्नता सूचकांक भी उतना ही महत्वपूर्ण है।
सिंह ने ‘आरटीआई जर्नल’ का नवीनतम संस्करण भी जारी किया तथा एनएफआईसीआई की वेबसाइट पर एक ‘ई-जर्नल’ का अनावरण भी किया।

RTI : Punjab claims Rs 93,758 cr investment but walls off data with ‘trade secrets’

Times of India: Chandigarh: Wednesday, 27 August 2025.

The Punjab Bureau of Investment Promotion (PBIP) claims to have attracted a whopping Rs 93,758 crore investment from 6,021 proposals since March 16, 2022, during the Aam Aadmi Party (AP) govt's tenure. But it's apparently all very secret.
In response to an RTI application by TOI, the bureau refused to disclose details about these new projects, citing sections dealing with "trade secrets", "commercial confidence" and a "fiduciary relationship" with the companies.
The RTI application sought a list of new industrial units, their locations and the industrial sectors they belong to. It also requested copies of primary approval documents, such as land allocation and environmental clearances, as well as a list of projects that have either actually established or received final approvals.
The application also requested copies of documents, reports, and data on establishment and operationalisation of new industrial units or projects during this period.
It was a flat ‘no' for nearly all the queries.
PBIP's assistant public information officer justified the refusal to provide names, locations, and approval details, citing "third-party commercial business information" that is "exempted under sections 8(1)(d) & 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005". Under Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, a public authority is not obligated to provide information containing commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property.
The primary purpose of this exemption is to prevent the disclosure of such information from harming the competitive position of a third party. Similarly, Section 8(1)(e) of the Act exempts the disclosure of information held by a person in a fiduciary relationship (where a person or company controls money or property belonging to others).
The RTI application was initially filed with the department of industries and commerce and was later transferred to the bureau, which sent a reply on Aug 18, 2025. "Invest Punjab has received 6,021 proposals for new projects with proposed investment of Rs 93,758 crore since March 16, 2022," it said.
RTI activist and lawyer Kamal Anand criticised PBIP's stance, arguing that when the state govt publicly makes claims of massive investment, it should also provide details of new projects.
"When names of new projects are disclosed by agencies like RERA, the claims of trade secrets and fiduciary relationship ring hollow. These terms are not applicable to providing basic information like names and locations or companies," he said, adding: "Govt's duty to inform citizens outweighs the commercial confidentiality of a private company, particularly when the projects are a matter of public interest and the state is involved in their facilitation and support."
Another RTI activist, Manik Goyal, said PBIP's reply "raises suspicion that a part of the proposed investment being claimed by the state govt may not have translated on the ground."
He noted a concerning trend among state govt departments to use such pretexts to deny information. "It is not a one-off case as lately there has been a trend in the state govt departments to cite such justification to refuse information under RTI. Ironically, it is happening during the tenure of AAP, a party that itself emerged from activism," he added.
In Feb 2025, Punjab govt had claimed to have attracted investments worth Rs 86,000 crore since March 2022, which it said would create nearly 3.92 lakh job opportunities for the youth of the state.

Officer not obliged to furnish, transfer Patiala law varsity information: HC

 Tribune India: Chandigarh: Wednesday, 27 August 2025.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that its Public Information Officer cannot be compelled to supply or even extract and transmit information pertaining to the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law (RGNUL), Patiala, under the RTI Act.

Setting aside the Central Information Commission’s April 26, 2022, order, the court made it clear that the RGNUL was an independent public authority and there is “no direct nexus” between it and the High Court merely because the Chief Justice was the law varsity’s ex-officio Chancellor.
“A perusal of the provision makes it clear that the functions discharged by the Chief Justice in the capacity of the Chancellor of the university concerned, are independent to that of the functions to be performed by the Chief Justice, under Article 216 of the Constitution of India,” Justice Kuldeep Tiwari ruled.
Justice Tiwari asserted that the high court “exercises no role in the functioning of the university.” The Bench, in the process, upheld that the PIO’s stand that the information sought was not “held by/under” the high court.
“It is apt to put on record that there is no direct nexus between the two institutions, i.e. the high court and the RGNUL, except that the Chief Justice happens to be the ex-officio Chancellor of the University…. The PIO of this court, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be asked either to supply the information, which relates to the RGNUL or extract the same therefrom and thereafter, transmit to the other respondent.”
The court relied on Section 8 of the RGNUL, Punjab Act, 2006, to delineate the Chancellor’s statutory functions and to underline their separateness from constitutional functions under Article 216. Finding the CIC’s contrary assumption erroneous, the court concluded: “The impugned order, indeed, requires interference, and the same is set aside.”
Referring to the course open to the applicant, the court clarified: “If respondent still requires any information pertaining to the RGNUL, he shall be at liberty to approach the PIO concerned, under the RTI Act.” Going into the background of the matter, the Bench observed that an RTI application was filed with the HC PIO seeking an RGNUL inquiry report and dates. The first appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, but the second appeal was allowed by the CIC vide the impugned order to re-examine the application and provide the requisite information.

RTI in Nepal: Time to move to phase two - By: Kamal Dev Bhattarai

The Annapurna Express: Nepal: Tuesday, 26 August 2025.
It has been nearly six decades since the UN General Assembly adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights popularly known as ICCPR. Article 19 of ICCPR states: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”

In Nepal’s case, the 1990 constitution, for the first time, recognized citizens’ right to demand information held by public agencies on matters of public importance. Actually, Nepal was ahead of other South Asian countries when it came to providing constitutional guarantee to Right to Information. Now, other South Asian countries are making a huge progress on RTI but Nepal is lagging behind. In Nepal, progressive constitutional provision remained largely unimplemented in the absence of a supportive law. Successive governments after 1990 did not pay any attention to formulate such legislation due to a lack of awareness about its importance for the effective functioning of the democracy.
The 2015 constitution further strengthened this right, stating that every citizen shall have the right to demand and receive information on any matter of personal and public interest, with exception of information legally designated as confidential. To support these constitutional guarantees, the Right to Information Act was enacted on 21 July 21 followed by the National Information Commission in 2009. Nepal now has both legal and institutional frameworks to protect people’s right to information. Yet, in practice, progress has been limited.
Government and non-governmental agencies, particularly the National Information Commission, have been active in raising awareness about the importance of RTI for democracy. Numerous training and seminars have been conducted, mainly targeting government officials. While these efforts have raised some awareness, they are often repetitive and ineffective. Nonetheless, journalists and activists have increasingly used RTI as a tool to expose corruption, which is a positive development.
The tendency to seek information from government bodies has grown, but it remains largely confined to activists and has yet to spread widely among ordinary citizens. Serious challenges continue to hinder effective implementation of the law. The most fundamental issue is the persistent failure to instill in political leaders and government officials that people have a right, not a privilege, to access information of public importance.  Political leaders rarely encourage transparency; instead, they often side with bureaucrats in suppressing information. In many cases, leaders have even instructed agencies to withhold information rather than disclose it.
There still is a mindset among the politicians and bureaucracy that granting or denying access to information is at their discretion. In reality, the law has clearly stated what type of information may be withheld. This includes information that jeopardizes sovereignty, integrity, national security, public peace and stability, or that interferes with criminal investigation, inquiry and prosecution, or sensitive economic, trade and monetary matters. Beyond these exceptions, government agencies are obligated to provide information without restrictions. Instead of adhering to the law, many government agencies impose unnecessary conditions with the deliberate intent of suppressing information. Politicians and officials alike fear that if full disclosure were made, their corruption and irregularities would be exposed.
As per the law, every public office should appoint an information officer. While such officers do exist in government offices, they are rarely empowered. Most lack access to the information they are meant to provide, leaving people empty-handed when they make requests. On paper, government agencies appear to comply with proactive disclosure requirements by publishing reports every three months. In reality, these documents do not reveal anything about actual activities. They are often little more than recycled introductions and lists of duties and responsibilities; reprinted again and again to create the illusion of transparency.
The National Information Commission cannot remain satisfied with this surface-level compliance. Its focus must go beyond repetitive training seasons for government officials. Instead, it should actively monitor the information that government agencies are making public and investigate misleading practices and demand that agencies change their current approach to proactive disclosure. The priority in earlier years was to ensure that agencies appointed information officers and began publishing regular reports. That phase has passed. Now, the challenge is to push for meaningful disclosure of substantive information. The government offices should stop reprinting empty profiles again and again, taking both the public and the Commission for granted.
Another vital component is that people are not aware about the importance of their rights and responsibilities of the government agencies. While publicity campaigns have informed people that an RTI law exists, very few people understand its details and how to use it effectively. Knowledge remains confined to a small circle of political leaders, activists and professionals working in the field. Even students do not have comprehensive knowledge about RTI even though RTI has been incorporated in the school and university curricula. Students know about the RTI only from a narrow examination perspective, with little understanding of its practical application.
The National Information Commission, which is tasked with ensuring implementation of this law, should change its working style. Going beyond its routine seminar and lectures, it should identify bottlenecks and directly confront agencies that are misleading the public by publishing background information while concealing what truly matters. As a journalist, I often visit the websites of government agencies to read their proactive disclosure documents to find new information about works accomplished by them. But they always disappoint me. The format provided by the National Information Commission for the proactive disclosure, which is focused on background and general information rather than the substantive information, itself is problematic. Similarly, it should explain why government agencies are not empowering the information officers to provide the information. Similarly, it should find out why two decades of awareness campaigns have failed to build genuine public understanding. It should study new ways to disseminate the information in the ever-changing information ecosystem.
In conclusion, politicians and government agencies have yet to internalize that the right to information is a cornerstone of democracy. Now, we have to move on to phase two of the implementation of RTI one that ensures not just the existence of laws and institutions but their effective use as well. Most importantly, people must be able to seek information without fear.
At present, many hesitate to approach officials for information, worried that they might be targeted if they do so. With corruption at unprecedented levels, especially at the local level where political leaders and bureaucrats are often complicit, the culture of opacity still persists. Breaking this cycle will require stronger enforcement, fearless oversight and a genuine political commitment.

Why did the Delhi HC observe details of PM Modi's BA degree are exempt from RTI?

 The Week: New Delhi: Tuesday, 26 August 2025.
The Delhi High Court has set aside a CIC order, ruling that specific details of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's BA degree from Delhi University are 'personal information' and not subject to public disclosure under the RTI Act

(File) Prime Minister Narendra Modi interacts with students
during the 79th Independence Day celebration at the Red Fort,
 in New Delhi | PTI

The Delhi High Court set aside an order passed by the Central Information Commission and prevented the disclosure of specific details regarding Prime Minister Narendra Modi's education qualification, observing they were "personal information".
Hearing the matter on Monday, the Delhi High Court observed that the petition seeking details of Modi's bachelor's degree awarded by the Delhi University lacked "implicit public interest". While the Delhi University challenged the CIC's order to make the mark details public, the top university informed that it was ready to share the information with the Court.
A bench led by Justice Sachin Datta heard Delhi University's plea challenging a 2017 CIC order to make public marks and other educational qualification details regarding students who graduated in 1978, the year Prime Minister Modi got his Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree.
The bench observed, "Something which is of interest to the public" was quite different from "something which is in the public interest". The bench observed educational qualifications were not a "statutory requirement for holding any public office or discharging official responsibilities".
 "The fact that the information sought pertains to a public figure does not extinguish privacy/confidentiality rights over personal data, unconnected with public duties," the Court said.
Appearing for the university, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued the CIC order must be set aside, but the institution had no objection in showing its record to the court. "There is a degree from 1978, Bachelor of Arts," he informed the bench.
The matter stems from a Right To Information (RTI) plea moved by an activist named Neeraj Kumar in December 2016. Kumar sought the results of all the students who appeared in BA in 1978, along with their roll number, name, marks and result, pass or fail. However, the information officer at DU refused to reply to the query, citing that they were "personal information".
The petitioner later approached CIC, which held that the university is a public body and that all degree-related information is available in the varsity's private register, which is a public document, Live Law reported.
"It is unambiguously clear that the 'marks obtained', grades, answer sheets, etc, are in the nature of personal information and are protected under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, subject to an assessment of overriding public interest. The mere act of publishing certain information on some occasions does not dilute the legal protection accorded to personal information under Section 8(I) of the RTI Act," the court held.

RTI data suggests Punjab is a disturbed state, says activist : Written by Kamaldeep Singh Brar

The Indian Express: Chandigarh: Tuesday, 26 August 2025.

Punjab CM Bhagwant Mann

RTI activist Harmilap Singh Grewal stated that he has submitted a representation to the chief secretary and the Punjab chief minister, asking them to question district magistrates about the prolonged imposition of restrictions.
Punjab has witnessed the prolonged use of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), now listed as Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), to restrict the assembly of five or more people, according to data obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
RTI activist Harmilap Singh Grewal said the figures indicate that the restrictions remained in force in several districts for most of the year, suggesting that the state has been functioning in a disturbed condition where gatherings could not be allowed.
Commenting on the data, Grewal said, “The blanket imposition and selective implementation of BNSS 163, commonly known as Section 144 (of CrPC), is a total misuse of power by the administration as it is against every kind of freedom granted to the citizen by the Constitution. It shows that nothing has changed in the country since the British left. There has been no sensitisation about the fundamental rights in the civil and police administration.”
He further said, “It may look like a casual practice, but it reflects the system where citizens have no rights. It is a tool to suppress people at the will of the political class. This is used to please their political masters and crush the voice of any peaceful dissent against the government. If the law and order situation is so bad in all the districts, then why not pass a new law in the assembly and enforce it?”

RTI activist Harmilap Singh Grewal

On the implementation of restrictions, Grewal said, “There is a clear guideline for the implementation of BNSS 163… that when it is implemented, the message should reach every citizen of the area through various means of communication, which is not done by the administration, and people are caught unaware.”

RTI data suggests Punjab is disturbed state, says activist

Grewal stated that he has submitted a representation to the chief secretary and the chief minister, asking them to question district magistrates about the prolonged imposition of restrictions. “If I do not get any satisfactory answer, then I will take the help of the judiciary, as this is not acceptable at all in a democracy,” he said.

Supreme Court stays Kerala High Court verdict which held RTI Act applies to Cochin International Airport

Bar and Bench: New Delhi: Tuesday, 26 August 2025.
The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the stay order on an appeal filed by CIAL against the High Court verdict.

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a judgment of the Kerala High Court which had held that Cochin International Airport Limited (CIAL) is a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) and that it is, therefore, obliged to disclose information to parties who approach it with RTI applications.
The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the stay order on an appeal filed by CIAL against the High Court verdict.
This was after CIAL's counsel submitted that the airport is a company and incorporated under the Companies Act and not a creation of the parliament and is not funded by the government.
"The question is whether Cochin International Airport is 'public authority' under RTI, Act. The High Court judgement is untenable. The petitioner is company under Companies Act and hasn't been created by an Act of Parliament like LIC etc. I am not funded by government," the counsel submitted.
"Leave granted. In meantime the effect and operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed," the top court said in order.
A Division Bench of Justices SA Dharmadhikari and Syam Kumar VM of the High Court on August 5 upheld earlier rulings by a single-judge of the Court as well as the State Information Commission (SIC) holding CIAL to be a 'public authority'.
"It is held that CIAL is a 'public authority' under Sec. 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act. The view taken by SIC in the impugned order dated 20.06.2019 is affirmed, holding that CIAL is bound to divulge necessary information and meet the statutory obligations placed upon its shoulders vide the various provisions of the RTI Act, including the appointment of PIO and divulging of necessary information in the said regard," the High Court's judgment said.
It also directed CIAL to take all necessary steps to become completely compliant with the RTI Act and file a compliance report before the Court.
The High Court also noted that the appeals before it were filed by the Managing Director of CIAL without the approval of the CIAL Board of Directors. Even the Chief Minister, who is the Chairman, was not consulted before filing the plea.
Deprecating the move, the High Court directed the Chief Secretary to the government of Kerala, who is also a member of the Board, to take action against the Managing Director.
To curb such actions in the future, the Court deemed it fit to impose costs of ₹1 lakh on CIAL, to be deposited with the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association.
In its plea before the High Court, CIAL had primarily contended that it was not ‘owned’, ‘controlled’, or ‘substantially financed’ by an agency of the government to be considered a public authority under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act.
CIAL argued that it is not a body established through a Government Order (GO) but was incorporated under the erstwhile Companies Act, and as such, cannot be presumed to be a 'public authority' under the RTI Act.
The High Court rejected this contention, noting that CIAL was preceded by the Kochi International Airport Society (KIAS), which came into existence by virtue of a GO. Since CIAL had effectively borrowed all the assets, land base, capital, and other funds, the Court concluded that CIAL too came into existence by virtue of the same GO.
The Court also observed that the 'ownership' contemplated under Section 2(h)(d) need not be complete or absolute ownership, it can be partial ownership as well. In this case, the presence of government functionaries in the Board of Directors of CIAL gave it the character of a government body.
The Court added that the presence of the Chief Minister and cabinet ministers in the Board practically ensured that the other directors yield to their views.
Considering the amount of financial aid received by CIAL even before its incorporation, the Court held that KIAS, and later CIAL, had been ‘substantially financed’ by the State and Central governments and their instrumentalities.
"Therefore, all the limbs of being a ‘public authority’ are duly satisfied and we must hold that CIAL is a ‘public authority’ amenable to disseminate information under the provisions and rigours of RTI Act," the High Court concluded.
This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

RTI Meant for Transparency, Not 'Fodder for Sensationalism': Delhi HC in PM Degree Row : By - Sukriti Mishra

 Law Beat: New Delhi: Tuesday, 26 August 2025.
The High Court observed that what looked like isolated disclosures under RTI often turned into mass demands for personal data, with absent compelling public interest

The Delhi High Court has clarified that the Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted to promote transparency in government functioning and accountability of public authorities, not to provide “fodder for sensationalism.”
Delivering a stern reminder on the intended spirit of the law, the Court cautioned against its misuse for personal vendettas or publicity-driven pursuits.
While setting aside orders of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the disclosure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s university degree and Union Minister Smriti Irani’s school examination results, the Court pulled up the CIC for overstepping its mandate, cautioning that the transparency law cannot be reduced to a tool for sensationalism.
Justice Sachin Datta, delivering the verdict in University of Delhi v. Neeraj & Anr., ruled that marksheets, results, degree certificates, and other academic records of individuals, even those holding public office, constitute personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
“The CIC misdirected itself in relying upon anecdotal material and subjective assessments and drawing conclusions therefrom. Whether or not the Delhi University has followed the practice of publishing certain results on its website is not determinative of, and cannot have any bearing on, the interpretation and scope of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.” the Court observed.
The High Court noted that the CIC’s orders directing disclosure of Modi’s degree from Delhi University and Irani’s Class X and XII results from the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) were legally unsustainable. Both institutions had challenged the CIC’s directions, arguing that they held academic information in a fiduciary capacity and owed a duty of confidentiality to their students.
Agreeing with this position, Justice Datta said: “These provisions make it evident that the University is obligated to issue results exclusively through official mark sheets and transcripts to the concerned student. The provisions indicate issuing of results to the student/s, not to the public. The framework does not permit the disclosure of marks/grades to any third party. There is an implicit duty of trust and confidentiality in handling students’ academic records.”
The Court also rejected the CIC’s reliance on Section 8(3) of the RTI Act, which allows disclosure of certain information after 20 years. Justice Datta clarified that the passage of time does not erode privacy protections:
“The mere efflux of time does not justify overriding privacy in the absence of compelling necessity linked to a legitimate aim. Section 8(3) does not automatically override the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) when the information sought is inherently personal and protected under the right to privacy.”
Crucially, the Court underlined that disclosure of educational records can only be justified when a qualification is a statutory requirement for holding a particular office. Absent such a condition, the public interest threshold is not met.
The ruling also delivered a strong warning against misuse of RTI requests: “This Court cannot be oblivious to the reality that what may superficially appear to be an innocuous or isolated disclosure could open the floodgates of indiscriminate demands, motivated by idle curiosity or sensationalism, rather than any objective “public interest” consideration. Disregarding the mandate of Section 8(1)(j) in such context would inexorably lead to demands for personal information concerning officials / functionaries spanning the entire gamut of public services, without any real “public interest” being involved. The RTI Act was enacted to promote transparency in government functioning and not to provide fodder for sensationalism."
In the 175 page-Judgment, the Bench also clarified that Section 8(3) of the Right to Information Act does not automatically override the privacy exemption under Section 8(1)(j).
The Court held that information of a personal nature remains protected unless a “demonstrable and compelling public interest clearly outweighs the privacy right in question,” stressing that statutory provisions must be interpreted in harmony with constitutional guarantees.
It is to be noted that on August 20 had deferred pronouncement of its judgment in the plea, as the judge was sitting in the UAPA Tribunal and not holding regular court.
Pertinently, on February 27, the High Court had reserved its verdict in the plea.
Case Title: Delhi University v. Neeraj & Ors. and connected matters
Judgment Date: August 25, 2025
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta
(Clickhere to download judgment)