70 government senior secondary schools in Hoshiarpur without principals: RTI

The Tribune: Hoshiarpur: Tuesday, 21 July 2026.

In many cases, one principal is holding the charge of two or even three schools. iStock

While the Punjab Government continues to highlight reforms in the education sector, a recent RTI reply has raised serious questions about the availability of leadership in government schools. Information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act has revealed that 70 of the 130 Government Senior Secondary Schools in Hoshiarpur district are functioning without regular principals.
The information has been made public by Labour Party president Jai Gopal Dhiman, who alleged that the shortage of school heads has weakened the functioning of government schools and affected the quality of education.
According to the data gathered through RTI, more than half of the district’s senior secondary schools do not have a regular principal. In many cases, one principal is holding the charge of two or even three schools, making it difficult to provide academic leadership, supervise teachers and monitor day-to-day administration.
Claiming that the shortage is not limited to the posts of principal, Dhiman alleged that several schools continue to face vacancies of lecturers and teachers, forcing teachers to handle subjects outside their specialisation. “In some schools, Punjabi teachers are teaching Mathematics and Science, while History teachers are taking Hindi classes because of staff shortages,” he claimed.
The RTI reply also points to a similar situation in primary education. According to Dhiman, 19 of the 21 sanctioned Block Primary Education Officer (BPEO) posts in the district are vacant, leaving only two officers to oversee all 21 education blocks.
Dhiman alleged that despite repeated claims of an “education revolution”, the government has failed to fill key posts in schools. He demanded that the Education Department make public the district-wise details of vacant posts and launch a special recruitment drive to fill them without delay.
He further said the growing number of vacancies is one of the reasons many parents are choosing private schools over government institutions.

Indian Protests, Hunger Strikes and Movements That Turned Demands Into Everyday Rights : By Raajwrita Dutta

The Better India: National: Tuesday, 21 July 2026.

Every RTI application, every anti-corruption law, and even the way India’s states are organised has a story that began long before Parliament passed an Act. Photograph: (Image generated by AI)

Every RTI application, every anti-corruption law, and even the way India’s states are organised has a story that began long before Parliament passed an Act. These are the peaceful protests, hunger strikes, and people’s movements that changed public demands into everyday rights.
Most of us have never had to fight for the rights we take for granted every day.
If a government office refuses to answer a question, we know we can file an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. If corruption makes headlines, we expect there to be institutions created under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act to investigate those in power. If you live in a state where your language is spoken in government offices, schools, and courts, it probably feels like the most natural thing in the world.
But none of these became part of everyday life overnight.
Behind these rights are ordinary Indians who refused to stay silent. They spent years sitting outside government offices, organised rallies that grew from small village gatherings into nationwide movements and, in some cases, risked their own lives through hunger strikes that changed the course of the country’s history.
Long before these rights were written into law, they were demands raised by people who believed India could be fairer than it was.
1. The right to know
In the 1990s, labourers in Rajasthan began asking a simple question. If they had worked on government projects, why had they not been paid the wages they were promised?
The answers lay in government records that officials refused to share. That refusal led to one of independent India’s most influential grassroots movements.
The Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, known as MKSS, led by Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey, and Shankar Singh, believed that if public money belonged to the people, then the people had the right to know how it was being spent.
The group began organising jan sunwais, or public hearings, where official records were read aloud before entire villages. As names, bills, and payment records were announced, villagers exposed shocking irregularities. Roads that had never been built had already been paid for. Wages had been issued to workers who did not exist. Public money had disappeared, while those meant to benefit remained empty-handed.
What began as a local campaign soon spread across the country. For nearly a decade, MKSS organised dharnas, demonstrations, and public meetings demanding transparency from the government.
Their persistence paid off.
In 2005, Parliament passed the Right to Information (RTI) Act, giving every Indian citizen the legal right to seek information from public authorities. The landmark law changed the relationship between citizens and the government by making transparency a legal right rather than a privilege.
Today, filing an RTI application is a routine step for journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens alike. Few stop to think about the years of protest that made that right possible.
2. The right to a linguistic state
When India became independent in 1947, its states did not look the way they do today.
Many communities believed that states should be organised according to the languages spoken by their people. Among the strongest voices was freedom fighter Potti Sriramulu, who demanded a separate state for Telugu-speaking people.
In October 1952, he began a hunger strike.
As the days passed, repeated appeals asking him to end his fast failed. He continued without food for 58 days.
When he died on 15 December 1952, grief soon turned into anger. Thousands took to the streets. Businesses shut down, transport came to a halt, and protests spread rapidly across the region.
The scale of public outrage left the government with little choice but to act.
Within days, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru announced that Andhra State would be created. It came into existence in October 1953.
The movement became the turning point that led to the appointment of the States Reorganisation Commission. Three years later, Parliament passed the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, reorganising India’s state boundaries largely on linguistic lines.
Today, the right of millions of Indians to live in states organised around their dominant language feels completely natural. It was secured through one of the most notable hunger strikes in independent India’s history.
3. The right to forest land
For generations, Adivasi and other forest-dwelling communities depended on forests for their homes, livelihoods, and way of life. But many had no legal recognition of their rights over the land they had lived on for decades.
As evictions increased, communities across India began organising.
The Campaign for Survival and Dignity brought together hundreds of tribal organisations, forest workers and activists who demanded that the government acknowledge what they saw as a historic injustice.
Thousands marched, held demonstrations, and travelled to Delhi to press Parliament for change.
Years of sustained protests finally led to the passage of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, widely known as the Forest Rights Act.
For the first time, the law recognised the rights of scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers over forest land and community forest resources. It also acknowledged the historical injustice faced by communities that had protected these forests for generations.
For millions of families, the Forest Rights Act was more than legislation. It was long overdue recognition of their identity, livelihood, and relationship with the forests they called home.
4. The right to demand accountability
In April 2011, a 73-year-old social activist sat on a hunger strike at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar.
His name was Anna Hazare.
He demanded a stronger law to tackle corruption and an independent institution that could investigate public officials without political interference.
What followed became one of the largest public movements India had witnessed in decades.
Thousands gathered in Delhi. Soon, similar demonstrations appeared across cities and towns. Students, office workers, retired citizens, and families joined marches and candlelight gatherings, demanding greater accountability from those in power.
The movement kept pressure on the government for months.
In 2013, Parliament passed the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, establishing a statutory anti-corruption ombudsman at the national level to inquire into allegations of corruption against certain categories of public servants.
While the final law differed from the original Jan Lokpal Bill proposed by the movement, the protests fundamentally changed the national conversation around corruption and accountability. They also proved how peaceful public mobilisation could influence legislation.
The rights we use today can feel so ordinary that it is easy to assume they have always existed.
History tells a different story.
Behind every application filed under the Right to Information Act, every community recognised under the Forest Rights Act, every institution established through the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, and every linguistic state that millions of Indians call home are people who refused to accept that change was impossible.
They protested. They organised. Some gave their lives.
Their struggles became our everyday rights.

Can MPSC call written and interview marks ‘Private’ after publishing total scores?

Imphal Times: Monday, July 20, 2026.

‘RTI filed by Imphal Times journalist raises transparency concerns over MPSC’s refusal to disclose the breakup of already published total marks’

Can the law treat the whole as public but its parts as private? That question has come to the forefront following the Manipur Public Service Commission’s (MPSC) refusal to disclose the written examination and interview/personality test marks of candidates selected in the Manipur Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2022, even though it has already published the names, roll numbers, categories, ranks, and total marks of those very candidates.

The issue arose after an RTI application filed by an Imphal Times journalist sought a certified statement showing the written examination marks, interview/personality test marks, and total marks secured by candidates included in the final merit list. The Commission, however, declined to disclose the component-wise marks, invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, on the ground that the information constituted “personal information.” The First Appellate Authority subsequently upheld the decision.

The recruitment process has already concluded, with the Government issuing appointment orders to the selected candidates. The Commission had also published the names, roll numbers, categories, ranks, and total marks of the selected candidates along with the final result.

Against this backdrop, the Commission’s decision has raised an important legal question concerning transparency in public recruitment: Can the written examination and interview/personality test marks that together constitute a candidate’s already published total score be withheld as “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act?

The information sought under the RTI application was confined to the breakup of the total marks already published by the Commission. It did not seek any additional category of information beyond the written examination marks and interview/personality test marks that together constitute the published total score.

Disclosure of the component-wise marks would enable verification of the relative weight assigned to the written examination and the interview/personality test, thereby promoting transparency and public confidence in the recruitment process.

Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act exempts the disclosure of personal information where such disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or public interest, or where it would amount to an unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy, unless the larger public interest justifies such disclosure.

However, neither the State Public Information Officer nor the First Appellate Authority explained how disclosure of the written examination marks and interview/personality test marks would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy once the Commission had already placed the total marks of the selected candidates in the public domain. Both authorities invoked Section 8(1)(j) without explaining how disclosure of the component-wise marks satisfied the statutory requirements of the exemption.

The matter assumes significance because the selection relates to appointments to public services through a constitutional recruitment body. Recruitment conducted by public authorities is expected to maintain the highest standards of transparency, fairness, and public accountability, particularly where merit determines selection to government service.

The dispute has gained added significance following the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Public Information Officer & Registrar & Anr. v. Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar & Anr., which upheld the disclosure of candidates’ marks sought under the RTI Act in a public recruitment examination. The Court observed that even if such marks are considered personal information, they should nevertheless be disclosed in the larger public interest to ensure transparency in government recruitment.

The Supreme Court observed “We are also of the view that the disclosure of the marks though may fall in the category of personal information, yet the disclosure of this personal information is presently necessary in public interest, and therefore, it is not an information which cannot be given by the Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005. To the contrary, such an information must be disclosed in order to maintain transparency in the process.”

The Court further held that seeking the marks of other candidates in a public competitive recruitment process does not amount to an “unwarranted invasion of privacy” under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It also emphasized that recruitment processes must be conducted in a transparent and fair manner to maintain public confidence and eliminate lingering doubts about institutional favouritism or malpractice.

The judgment has since emerged as an important precedent on the disclosure of candidates’ marks in public recruitment under the RTI Act. In many recruitment processes conducted in Manipur, recruiting authorities publish only the total marks of selected candidates while withholding the written examination and interview/personality test marks.

The outcome of the present dispute may therefore have wider implications for transparency in public recruitment in the State, particularly in determining whether such component-wise marks may continue to be withheld under the RTI Act after the publication of final recruitment results.

CIC directs IITs to form high-level committees to curb student deaths by suicides

The Hindu: S. vijay Kumar: New Delhi: Monday, July 20, 2026.

It says information on panels must be proactively disclosed on the institutes’ official websites. The direction came while disposing of appeals filed by an IIT-Kanpur alumnus, who is the founder of a non-governmental organisation engaged in student rehabilitation and mental health counselling.

Expressing concern over recurring student suicides across Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), the Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the institutions to constitute high-level committees to recommend measures for preventing such deaths and mitigating the factors that contribute to them.

The direction came while disposing of appeals filed by Dheeraj Kumar Singh, an alumnus of IIT-Kanpur and founder of a non-governmental organisation (NGO) engaged in student rehabilitation and mental health counselling.

Mr. Singh, under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, had sought details regarding the students, research scholars, and staff who ended their lives at IIT-Madras, IIT-Kanpur, IIT-Goa, and IIT-Jodhpur since January 1, 2005.

He wanted information including age, gender, caste/category, academic programme, native State, date of suicide, and whether the death occurred on the campus. Stating that the details were required for academic research, he said the names of the deceased could be withheld if necessary.

Details withheld

In response, IIT-Madras informed him that seven suicides had been reported between 2019 and June 26, 2025, but declined to disclose personal details, such as age and caste, citing the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act relating to personal information. The First Appellate Authority upheld the decision. IIT-Kanpur informed the applicant that 17 suicides had been reported between 2005 and 2025. The data furnished by the institute showed that at least one suicide was reported every year during the period, with three cases recorded in 2024. However, it too withheld the personal particulars of the deceased under Section 8(1)(j).

Similarly, IIT-Goa denied disclosure of personal information, describing it as third-party information exempt from disclosure, while IIT-Jodhpur informed the applicant that no such cases had been reported. Aggrieved over the denial of complete information, Mr. Singh moved an appeal before the CIC. He contended that the information he had called for was essential to analyse the root causes of student suicides across factors such as age, gender, and social category, and would help strengthen his organisation’s mental health counselling programmes for students facing academic and personal stress.

The information was crucial to strengthen the NGO’s programmes for uplift and counselling of students. The IITs, however, maintained that disclosure of the age, caste, and identity of deceased students would violate the privacy of the individuals and their families.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) versus Union of India case, provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, the institutions argued that such information constituted protected personal data and could not be disclosed in the absence of an overriding public interest.

Central Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi said the institutes had already furnished information, including the number of deaths, date of occurrence, gender, native place, and place of death, while withholding names, age and caste/category on privacy grounds. The replies of the Central Public Information Officers were legally sustainable.

‘Persistent crisis’

However, the Commission expressed concern over the continuing incidence of suicides on campuses of IITs. Referring to the “persistent crisis” of multiple suicides reported annually across several IITs, particularly at campuses such as IIT-Kanpur and IIT-Kharagpur, it observed that there was an urgent need for institutions to strengthen preventive mechanisms.

The Commission directed IITs to constitute high-level committees, where such bodies have not already been formed, to identify and recommend measures to mitigate the factors contributing to student suicides.

It also asked that information relating to the constitution of these committees be proactively disclosed on the institutes’ official websites, in line with the RTI Act. The direction was in tune with the observations of the Supreme Court in the Kishan Chand Jain versus Union of India case.

(Assistance for overcoming suicidal thoughts is available on the State’s health helpline 104, Tele-MANAS 14416. and Sneha’s suicide prevention helpline 044-24640050)

CIC Upholds Indian Oil Corporation's Refusal To Disclose Fuel Fraud, Quality Inspection Records Under RTI.

Lawbeat:New Delhi: Monday, July 20, 2026.

The Central Information Commission upheld Indian Oil Corporation Limited's refusal to disclose extensive fuel quality inspection, vigilance and fuel fraud records under the RTI Act, holding that compiling the decade-long data would disproportionately divert the corporation's resources.

The CIC has accepted IOCL's stand that compiling decade-old inspection and fuelfraud data from 16 State Offices, 73 Divisional Offices, and around 42,000 retail outlets would disproportionately divert its resources under Section 7(9) oftheRTI Act against erring petrol pumps, accepting the public sector oil company's contention that compiling such information would disproportionately divert its resources under Section 7(9) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi dismissed a second appeal filed by RTI applicant Robin Zaccheus after finding that IOCL had already supplied the information available with it, including applicable rules, Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDG), website links and otherfactual material, while validly declining the remaining information sought.

What information did the appellant seek?

The appellant had sought a wide range of information covering the period from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2023, concerning fuel quality and quantity violations across IOCL, BPCL and HPCL retail outlets.

Among otherthings, the RTI application sought details of inspections conducted to detect poor quality or short delivery of fuel, annual vigilance reports, State-wise and OMC-wise data on fuel dispensing frauds involving integrated chips, names ofretail outlets found indulging in such frauds, action taken against such outlets, investigation reports, consumer complaints, audits, oversight mechanisms and technological measures adopted to prevent fuel fraud.

The applicant also requested that, if the information was not centrally maintained, the application be transferred to the respective CPIOs of the oil marketing companies or that the data be compiled in view of the public interest involved in consumer protection and accountability.

What was the IOCL's response?

Rejecting substantial portions of the request, IOCL informed the applicant that the information was "not readily available in format" and that the requested records were scattered across its 16 State Offices.

It stated that collecting and compiling the information would "disproportionately divert the resources of the Corporation" within the meaning of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. For several queries, however, IOCL supplied available information regarding its existing regulatory framework. It informed the applicant that all active retail outlets are being automated to facilitate better monitoring of retail operations, dispensing units are being procured with upgraded specifications validated by the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), regular training is imparted to retail outlet staff and consumer awareness programmes are conducted periodically.

It also provided links to the applicable Marketing Discipline Guidelines and Citizen Charter. Regarding the applicant's request for justification of resource diversion, IOCL stated that the information was spread across 16 State Offices, 73 Divisional Offices and approximately 40,000 retail outlets, making compilation impracticable under Section 7(9).

What arguments were made before the Commission?

During the hearing, the appellant argued that the requested information concerning inspections, non-compliant retail outlets and vigilance findings had not been supplied despite the significant public interest involved. He contended that consumers bear the burden of rising fuel prices and that, in the present digital era, IOCL ought to maintain a centralised database at its head office. Defending its reply, IOCL submitted that it had already furnished all available rules, guidelines, website links and factual information.

It reiterated that the requested information related to a ten-year period and was dispersed across its nationwide network comprising 16 State Offices, 73 Divisional Offices and approximately 42,000 retail outlets. According to the corporation, compiling the information would disproportionately divert the public authority's resources. The corporation further explained that, under its standard operating procedure, a minimum of two inspections are conducted annually, which, over the relevant period, nformation impracticable. CIC's findings After considering the rival submissions and examining the record, the Commission observed that IOCL had already provided the available rules, the Marketing Discipline Guidelines, website links, and factual information in its reply dated May 23, 2025, while denying the remaining information under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. The Commission held that the respondent had furnished an "appropriate reply" to the RTI application and concluded that "no further intervention of the Commission is required." Consequently, the second appeal was dismissed.

Case title ~ Robin Zaccheus v CPIO : Indian Oil Corporation Limited

NHAI crackdown on erring contractors patchy: RTI

The Sunday Guardian: National: Sunday, July 19, 2026.

NHAI crackdown on erring contractors patchy: RTI image:x

The RTI applications were addressed individually to NHAI offices across the country, and every application contained the same three questions. The replies, however, varied substantially.
Responses received under the Right to Information (RTI) Act on applications filed by The Sunday Guardian from Project Implementation Units (PIUs) of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) reveal wide variation in the action taken against contractors for poor road quality, substandard construction and failure to meet prescribed technical specifications during the last five financial years.
The findings are based on identical RTI applications filed on 11 February 2026 with NHAI offices across the country under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The applications sought three categories of information: details of action taken against contractors for poor road quality in the last five years; substandard construction or failure to meet prescribed technical specifications; year-wise details of penalties, liquidated damages, fines or other financial recoveries imposed on such contractors; and year-wise details of the total amount recovered from contractors on account of poor road quality.
The replies, covering a substantial cross-section of the RTI applications filed with NHAI’s Project Implementation Units, show that while several offices furnished detailed contractorwise records of penalties and recoveries imposed on highway projects, many others stated that no such action had been taken within their jurisdiction during the period covered by the RTI.
A total of 53 unique NHAI offices were covered in this nationwide audit, revealing that only 15 offices actively levied financial penalties over the half-decade bracket, totalling an absolute nationwide cumulative penalty pool of Rs 3,096,912,197 (approximately Rs 309.69 crore).
The responses also show that identical RTI applications were dealt with differently by different PIUs. While some offices enclosed detailed annexures containing project-wise penalties, contractor names, financial recoveries and arbitration status, others replied that there were no such cases. Some offices asked the applicant to inspect records, some stated that the information was not available in the requested format, some sought payment of the prescribed RTI application fee, while others transferred the applications to different public authorities.
The remaining states across India’s 28 states and 8 Union Territories either have their local replies tied up in internal processing delays or their regional headquarters structurally deflected the queries through administrative routing.
The RTI applications were addressed individually to NHAI offices across the country, and every application contained the same three questions. The replies, however, varied substantially depending on the Project Implementation Unit concerned.
CONTRACTOR PENALTIES RUNNING INTO CRORES DISCLOSED BY SEVERAL PIUS
Among the replies received, some Project Implementation Units furnished detailed records of financial action taken against contractors, identifying highway projects, concessionaires, contractors, financial years, penalty amounts, recoveries and, in some cases, the status of arbitration proceedings.
The largest disclosure came from PIU Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh). The office disclosed that a penalty of Rs 119 crore was imposed in 2025 on M/s Centrodorstroy (India) Pvt. Ltd., and NKC Projects Pvt. Ltd. (JV) in connection with the balance work of four-laning of the Bhopal-Biaora section of NH-12 (Package-II). According to the reply, the matter is presently under arbitration or conciliation.
The office also disclosed that in 2024, a penalty of Rs 1.196 crore was imposed on M/s NKC-CDS (JV) for the balance work of four-laning of the Obedullaganj-Itarsi section of NH-69 (Package-I), adding that the amount had been recovered.
In an equally massive enforcement drive missing from initial institutional compilations, PIU Surat (Gujarat) emerged as a premier fiscal enforcement node. The Surat office systematically levied Rs 314,474,000 (approximately Rs 31.44 crore) in financial penalties for non-compliance with maintenance obligations. This included encashing a massive Rs 13.87 crore penalty from the bank guarantee of M/s Shankar Ramchandra Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., for defaults spanning 2024-25. The unit further hit M/s Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd., with compounding penalties of Rs 6.4 crore and Rs 80 lakh, initiated a risk-and-cost notice of Rs 4.31 crore against M/s Wagad Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., and penalized M/s Shiwalay Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., a cumulative Rs 5.76 crore and Rs 35.74 lakh across successive evaluation terms.
PIU Muzaffarpur (Bihar) furnished details containing project-wise penalties relating to maintenance obligations. Moving past initial transitional reporting, the office disclosed heavy penalties of Rs 80.52 crore and Rs 3.85 crore relating to the Muzaffarpur-Darbhanga-Purnia section of NH-57 (Imposed on M/s SMS AABS India Tollways Pvt. Ltd., for breach of maintenance obligations), besides Rs 19.593 crore relating to the Muzaffarpur-Sonbarsa section of NH-77 (imposed on M/s North Bihar Highway Ltd.). The reply attributed these massive penalties to explicit breaches of maintenance obligations and unresolved work.
PIU Rudrapur (Uttarakhand) furnished one of the most detailed replies among the RTI responses received. The office disclosed penalties and recoveries across several highway projects. For the Sitarganj-Tanakpur section of NH-125 (Khatima Bypass Package-II), penalties amounting to Rs 7.61 crore were disclosed, with recoveries of Rs 1.23 crore. For the Rampur-Kathgodam section of NH-87 (Package-I), the office disclosed that Rs 8.60 crore had been imposed and fully recovered during FY 2024-25. For the Rudrapur-Kathgodam section of NH-87 during the operation and maintenance stage, penalties totalling Rs 27.27 crore were disclosed, with recoveries recorded across FY 2024-25 and FY 2025-26. The office also disclosed penalties of Rs 6.97 crore on the Rudrapur-Kathgodam Package-II project under Hybrid Annuity Mode, with recoveries of Rs 5.70 crore, besides a penalty of Rs 0.31 crore on the Kashipur-Sitarganj section of NH-74, which was reported to have been fully recovered. The mathematical summation of these Rudrapur infrastructure penalties stands at Rs 50.76 crore.
PIU Moradabad (Uttar Pradesh), enclosed contractor-wise details relating to two highway projects. For the Hapur Bypass-Moradabad section, the office disclosed penalties or damages amounting to Rs 0.14 crore, Rs 0.85 crore, Rs 0.54 crore and Rs 0.76 crore. For the Moradabad-Bareilly section of NH-24 under the DBFOT Phase-III project, the office disclosed penalties of Rs 4.66 crore and Rs 0.46 crore.
PIU Vijayawada (Andhra Pradesh) enclosed an active project matrix identifying highway projects where financial penalties and recoveries had been imposed on contractors, clarifying earlier regional ambiguities. The attached records from the Project Implementation Unit Amaravati file disclosed penalties and recoveries against projects executed by Varaha Infra Ltd.-Jinjaxi JV, Lakshmi Infrastructure & Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Shiva Build Tech Pvt. Ltd., Abhipsa Constructions and Dilip Buildcon Ltd., including a recovery of Rs 3.52 crore relating to the Vijayawada-Machilipatnam EPC project.
PIU Purnea (Bihar) informed the applicant that Non-Conformance Reports (NCR) had been issued against contractors for poor road quality, substandard construction, or failure to meet technical specifications. The unit disclosed that rectification had been carried out by contractors and penalties totaling Rs 2,35,30,391 had been recorded in respect of four highway projects. The reply disclosed project-wise maintenance deficiency penalties for the Narenpur-Purnea section (Rs 91,667 in FY 2025-26), Forbesganj-Jogbani section (Rs 868,664 in FY 2023-24, Rs 2,542,998 in FY 2024-25, and Rs 4,655,600 in FY 2025-26), Bahadurganj-Araria section (Rs 666,919 in FY 2025-26), and Purnea-Dalkhola section (Rs 8,449,125 in FY 2023-24, Rs 2,456,688 in FY 2024-25, and Rs 3,798,730 in FY 2025-26) under liquidated damages for deficiency in maintenance services.
PIU Gajwel (Telangana) enclosed Annexure-A relating to the four-laning of NH-161 from Mangalore to Hyderabad. The office disclosed that liquidated damages of Rs18,04,203 had been imposed under Clause 17.8 of the Concession Agreement after deficiencies including rutting, depression, non-functional Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) components and delays in rectification were recorded. According to the reply, rectification work was subsequently completed, while the concessionaire challenged the damages before the Delhi High Court and the matter is under arbitration.
PIU Kannur (Kerala) disclosed that NHAI imposed a penalty of Rs 30 lakh on M/s MEIL Chengala Roadways Pvt. Ltd., after a collapse at Chainage 72+927 caused by failure of staging material during construction.
PIU Cochin-II (Kerala) disclosed that a penalty of Rs 15.35 lakh had been imposed following the collapse of four girders on the Thuravoor-Paravoor stretch of the Alappuzha viaduct project.
PIU Malda (West Bengal) similarly reported direct financial recoveries arising from structural and road surface deterioration. Following a definitive quality audit by an independent engineer that flagged severe cracking, rutting, potholes, and disintegrating pavement edges between km 191.700 and km 212.500 of the Berhampore Bypass stretch, the office penalized the concessionaire Rs 34.68 lakh for non-maintenance.
PIU Bathinda (Punjab) documented active financial enforcement over consecutive financial terms, recovering Rs 11.97 lakh in damages during FY 2023-24, Rs 5 lakh in FY 2024-25, and consecutive recoveries of Rs 4.21 lakh and Rs 5 lakh during the FY 2025-26 cycle on northern stretches.
PIU Shillong (Meghalaya) disclosed that a contractor had been penalised Rs 20,000 after defects were noticed in an overlay work and rectification was carried out.
PIU Madurai (Tamil Nadu) also confirmed an active penalty of Rs 300,000 levied against its contractor following a major engineering failure on the Chettikulam section of the Madurai-Natham road, noting that three massive engineering girders collapsed due to a catastrophic hydraulic jack failure.
The replies from these Project Implementation Units identified specific highway projects, contractors or concessionaires, financial years, penalty amounts and, in several cases, the status of recoveries or arbitration proceedings.
MAJORITY OF PIUS REPORTED NO FINANCIAL ACTION AGAINST CONTRACTORS
While a number of Project Implementation Units furnished detailed records of penalties and recoveries, the majority of substantive replies received by the applicant stated that no financial action had been taken against contractors for poor road quality, substandard construction or failure to meet prescribed technical specifications during the period covered by the RTI.
The wording varied across offices, with some replies stating that the information may be treated as “Nil”, others reporting that no such cases or incidents had occurred under their jurisdiction, and a few stating that no deficiencies had been found in newly constructed roads. The responses, however, conveyed substantially the same position.
In Andhra Pradesh, most PIUs informed the applicant that there were no reportable instances of contractor action. PIUs at Anantapur, Chittoor, Nellore, Ongole, Tirupati, Visakhapatnam and Vizianagaram furnished Nil replies. A separate disclosure from PIU Rajahmundry similarly confirmed a zero-incident return for both quality breaches and penalties within its local operational jurisdiction. The Vijayawada area project data was the notable exception, tracking contractor penalties across multiple projects via the regional files.
In Bihar, several PIUs stated that no financial action had been taken against contractors. Begusarai informed the applicant that no deficiencies had been found in newly constructed roads and therefore no penalties or recoveries were reported. Bhagalpur replied that the information sought was Nil. Patna, Madhubani and several other PIUs also reported Nil responses.
In Uttar Pradesh, the majority of PIUs reported that no such action had been taken. Varanasi stated that no case of poor road quality or substandard construction had been recorded under its jurisdiction. Gorakhpur informed the applicant that the information relating to all three queries was Nil. Azamgarh replied Nil for action taken and penalties, while describing the total recoveries as “Not Applicable”. Ayodhya stated that the information for all three queries was Nil. Bahraich informed the applicant that the information with respect to PIU Bahraich may be treated as Nil. Raebareli also reported Nil and marked the total recoveries as “Not Applicable”. Palampur similarly replied that the requested information may be treated as Nil. Moradabad, however, furnished contractor-wise penalty details across two highway projects.
In Madhya Pradesh, Ratlam informed the applicant that no deficiencies had been found in newly constructed roads within the last three years and therefore no penalties or recoveries had been reported. Ujjain replied that the total amount of penalties, liquidated damages, fines or recoveries imposed or collected during the period covered by the RTI was Nil. Indore informed the applicant that no records matching the request existed under its jurisdiction. Gwalior reported that no such cases had been recorded, while the same communication stated that the information may be treated as Nil with respect to Jabalpur. In contrast, Bhopal disclosed contractor penalties exceeding Rs 120 crore, while Harda did not furnish the requested information in the format sought.
In Telangana, almost all substantive replies reported no financial action. Mahabubnagar, Khammam-I, Khammam-II, Warangal, Kamareddy and Mancherial informed the applicant that the information may be treated as Nil or that no such cases had been reported under their jurisdiction. A standalone “Nil” statement was also tracked for the regional data filed under the Gaisgawel node. Gajwel was the only PIU in the state to furnish a detailed statement of liquidated damages imposed under a concession agreement.
The replies from Kerala reflected different positions across PIUs. Kozhikode informed the applicant that the information may be treated as Nil. Cochin-I stated that no such information was available at NHAI PIU Cochin-I. Palakkad did not process the application because it stated that the prescribed RTI fee had not been received. Thiruvananthapuram sought copying charges before furnishing records. Cochin-II and Kannur, however, disclosed penalties imposed on contractors.
In Assam, Silchar informed the applicant that no such cases had been identified under its jurisdiction. Bongaigaon similarly stated that no such incidents had occurred under the PIU. PIU Guwahati similarly stated that “no such incident has happened under this PIU,” returning a blank slate for both actions and recoveries.
In Himachal Pradesh, Hamirpur replied that the information sought was Nil, while Mandi informed the applicant that the information under its jurisdiction was Nil.
In Chhattisgarh, Raipur stated that no such incidents relating to poor road quality, substandard construction or contractor penalties had occurred under its jurisdiction. PIU Abhanpur informed the applicant that no deficiencies relating to construction quality or technical specifications had been recorded under the jurisdiction of the PIU and that the information may therefore be treated as Nil. PIU Korba similarly returned a flat statement confirming that there were no such deficiencies or penalties reported within its local jurisdiction.
In Jammu and Kashmir, PIU Srinagar replied that the information sought was Nil under its jurisdiction. This absolute absence of punitive metrics was mirrored by PIU Jalgaon (Maharashtra), which filed a categorical Nil report across all active quality columns.
Across these replies, the Project Directors and Central Public Information Officers used different expressions, including “Nil”, “No such cases”, “No such incident”, “No deficiencies” and “Not Applicable”. In each instance, the replies indicated that the offices were not reporting financial action against contractors for the period covered by the RTI.
SEVERAL PIUS SOUGHT INSPECTION, CITED PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS OR TRANSFERRED APPLICATIONS
Besides replies furnishing contractor penalty records or stating that no such action had been taken, a third set of responses consisted of offices that did not provide the information in the format sought. These replies cited provisions of the RTI Act, fee-related issues, record management practices or administrative procedures.
One of the recurring grounds cited by some PIUs was that furnishing the information in the requested form would require compilation of records.
PIU Harda, in its reply, informed the applicant that providing the information in the manner sought would require compilation of data that would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Referring to Sections 2(f) and 7(9) of the RTI Act, the Project Director requested the applicant either to specify the information sought or inspect the records at the PIU office after prior intimation.
A similar response had earlier been furnished by PIU Motihari and PIU Chhatarpur, which also invoked Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, stating that compiling the information would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority and inviting the applicant to inspect the records locally.
Another group of PIUs stated that the information was not available in the form requested.
PIU Cochin-I informed the applicant that no such information was available with the office. The reply did not report whether any penalties had been imposed, but stated that the requested information was unavailable with the PIU.
PIU Coimbatore (Tamil Nadu) went further, issuing a multi-page statutory pushback noting that the targeted fine data was “not available on record” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, asserting that the law does not compel public officers to compile, deduce, or create fresh datasets to fulfil an inquiry.
In another reply, one Project Implementation Unit informed the applicant that the records sought existed but could not be supplied electronically because the PDF files exceeded the 1 MB upload limit of the online RTI portal. The Central Public Information Officer requested the applicant to visit the office during working hours after prior intimation, inspect the relevant records and obtain photocopies on payment of the prescribed charges.
A different approach was adopted by another PIU, which informed the applicant that the information sought was already available on the official NHAI website and directed the applicant to the public domain instead of furnishing project-specific records.
One office merely acknowledged the RTI application without furnishing any substantive reply. PIU Prayagraj, while communicating receipt of the application and providing details of the First Appellate Authority, did not respond to the three queries relating to contractor action, penalties or recoveries.
The replies also reflected differing positions on RTI application fees.
PIU Bareilly, PIU Kanpur, PIU Chhapra, PIU Palakkad, PIU Lucknow and PIU Ramban informed the applicant that the prescribed application fee of Rs 10 under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act had not been received. The offices stated that the information would be processed after receipt of the prescribed fee through a Demand Draft or Indian Postal Order, or upon production of proof of payment if the fee had already been deposited.
Unlike these replies, PIU Thiruvananthapuram did not question the RTI application itself but informed the applicant that the requested information could be supplied only after payment of Rs 18 per page towards photocopying charges. The office asked the applicant to remit the amount before copies of the records could be furnished.
Several Regional Offices did not themselves answer the RTI applications but transferred them to the concerned Project Implementation Units under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. Regional Offices including Chennai, Bhopal and other NHAI regional offices transferred the applications to the respective PIUs having jurisdiction over the projects referred to in the RTI applications. Similarly, the online RTI portal records show that one application was transferred to PIU Badaun, where it was assigned a fresh registration number for independent disposal.
IDENTICAL QUESTIONS, DIFFERING RESPONSES
The RTI responses also showed that even where the applications were identical and sought the same three categories of information, the manner in which they were processed differed across offices.
Some PIUs enclosed detailed annexures identifying projects, contractors, concessionaires, penalty amounts, recoveries and arbitration status. Others furnished brief Nil replies. A third group relied on procedural provisions of the RTI Act, sought payment of statutory fees, invited inspection of records or transferred the applications to other public authorities.
The RTI exercise covered Project Implementation Units across multiple states, with every application seeking identical information for the last five financial years.
The stark systemic contradictions in how identical queries were processed ranging from casual, single-line “Nil” text dispatches to highly technical statutory rejections also expose a profoundly fragmented administrative apparatus lacking a uniform institutional protocol or standardized regulatory training for NHAI’s public information officers.

Information Commission orders police station video footage be given to appellant

The Hindu: Bengaluru: Sunday, July 19, 2026.

Nagaraju M.R. of Malavalli had filed an application under the Right to Information Act before the Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned on August 4, 2022, seeking CCTV footage of Malavalli Town and Rural police stations from October 10, 2021, to March 31, 2022, in connection with the investigation of a case involving him.
In an interesting case, the Karnataka Information Commission has ordered that video footage from the CCTV cameras installed at a police station be furnished to an appellant.
Nagaraju M.R. of Malavalli had filed an application under the Right to Information Act before the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) concerned on August 4, 2022, seeking CCTV footage of Malavalli Town and Rural police stations from October 10, 2021, to March 31, 2022, in connection with the investigation of a case involving him.
However, the station officers of both stations had refused to hand over the CCTV footage to him. Although the DySP was required by law to transfer the application to the appropriate public authority, as the matter did not fall under his jurisdiction, he had failed to do so.
Instead, he had just written reminder letters to the station heads, said a release by the Karnataka Information Commission. The station heads had issued an endorsement that such video footage cannot be furnished. During the inquiry, they admitted that they had issued such an endorsement following oral instructions from senior officials, stated the release.
When the matter came up for hearing before him, Information Commissioner Rudranna Harthikote ordered the police to submit the hard disks containing the video recordings to the FSL for verification. He directed that the CCTV footage showing the appellant’s visits to the police stations for inquiry be provided to him, while the remaining footage be masked.
As per the direction, the video footage was provided to the appellant after all instructions were followed, the release said. The commission has warned the heads of the two police stations against violating RTI norms. It has also directed that disciplinary action be initiated against the then DySP, Naveen Kumar, who is currently serving as Additional SP in Ballari. A notice has been issued to him in this regard, and he has replied, claiming that he did not violate any norms. Further proceedings are under way, the release said.

PMO Says PM Modi's Personal YouTube Channel Isn't Managed By PMO or Govt Of India; CIC Dismisses RTI Appeal

Law Beat: New Delhi: Sunday, July 19, 2026.

CIC has dismissed a plea seeking details of the annual expenditure incurred on maintaining and operating Prime Minister Narendra Modi's YouTube channel.

The Commission held that the RTI applicant had not sought specific information within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and found no ground to interfere after the PMO stated that Prime Minister Narendra Modi's personal YouTube channel is not managed by the PMO or the Government of India.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has dismissed a second appeal filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking details of the annual expenditure incurred on maintaining and operating Prime Minister Narendra Modi's YouTube channel, after taking note of the Prime Minister's Office (PMO)'s stand that the PM Modi's personal YouTube channel is not managed by the PMO or the Government of India.
Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal passed the order while deciding a second appeal filed by Kunal Gupta.
The appellant filed an RTI application on June 27, 2024, seeking information on the annual expenditure incurred in maintaining and operating the Prime Minister's official YouTube channel. After receiving no response, he preferred a first appeal.
The First Appellate Authority (FAA) on August 22, 2024, directed the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the PMO to furnish a reply within 15 working days, clarifying that the request to initiate penalty proceedings against the CPIO was not maintainable before the appellate authority.
Alleging non-compliance with the FAA's directions, the appellant approached the CIC by way of a second appeal. During the hearing, the appellant remained absent.
Appearing on behalf of the PMO through video conference, the CPIO informed the Commission that a reply had been furnished to the RTI applicant on October 8, 2024, stating: "The Personal YouTube channel of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi is not managed by the PMO or GoI."
On being queried about the delay in responding to the RTI application, the CPIO expressed regret and stated that there was no intention to withhold information or obstruct the appellant's right to information.
According to the CPIO, additional time was required to gather the relevant inputs needed to reply to the application.
After considering the matter, the Commission observed that the RTI application did not seek a specific record or information within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
It noted that the application sought an answer to a conjecture-based query, without identifying any specific record or indicating the relevant time period for which the information was sought. The CIC therefore found that the CPIO had responded in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act.
The Commission further noted that there was no mala fide or wilful concealment of information on the part of the CPIO. Finding no scope for granting any relief or directing further action, it dismissed the appeal.
Case title: Kunal Gupta vs CPIO Prime Minister's Office

Wife can’t use RTI to access husband’s ITRs for maintenance case: Delhi High Court sets aside CIC order

Times of India: New Delhi: Saturday, 18 July 2026.

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the wife cannot use the RTI Act, 2005 to get her husband's income tax information for use in maintenance proceedings because income tax returns are “personal information” exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Court clarified that matrimonial disputes cannot be converted into a ground for disclosure of private financial information through the RTI mechanism, particularly when remedies for financial disclosure already exist under matrimonial law.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav delivered the judgment in a writ petition filed by the husband challenging an order passed by the Central Information Commission directing disclosure of his net taxable income from the financial year 2007-08 onwards.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute arose out of ongoing matrimonial litigation between the petitioner-husband and respondent-wife. During the pendency of maintenance proceedings, the wife sought details of the husband’s income through an RTI application filed before the Income Tax Department.
The Central Information Commission, by its order dated 22.07.2021, directed disclosure of the husband’s taxable income details.
Aggrieved by the said direction, the husband approached the Delhi High Court challenging the legality of the CIC’s order.
Submissions by the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the information directed to be disclosed was purely personal information and therefore exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
It was argued that income tax records have no connection with any public activity or public interest and disclosure of such information would amount to an invasion of privacy.
The husband further argued that the CIC had erred in directing disclosure of protected personal information merely because matrimonial litigation was pending between the parties. According to the petitioner, the RTI Act could not be used as a mechanism to compel disclosure of private financial information in a personal dispute.
Submissions on Behalf of the Respondent-Wife
The respondent-wife opposed the petition and argued that she had a direct and legitimate interest in knowing the financial details of the petitioner for the purpose of effectively pursuing her maintenance claim.
It was submitted that access to the husband’s income details was required/necessary for proper adjudication of maintenance proceedings and determination of the amount payable. The wife therefore argued that disclosure of the income details was justified in the facts of the case.
Issue Before the Court
The principal issue before the High Court was whether a spouse involved in maintenance proceedings could seek disclosure of the other spouse’s income tax details under the RTI Act by invoking the ground of “larger public interest”.
The Court was thus called upon to interpret Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts the disclosure of personal information unless there is a greater public interest in disclosing the information.
Court’s Analysis of Section 8(1)(j) RTI Act
The Court reviewed the statutory framework under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
It observed that the provision clearly establishes a general rule that personal information is ordinarily exempt from disclosure where it has no relationship to public activity or public interest, or where disclosure would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The only recognized exception is where larger public interest justifies disclosure.
The Court observed:
“A bare perusal of Section 8(1)(j) indicates that the general rule is that personal information is ordinarily exempted from disclosure if it is unrelated to public interest or if it would cause unnecessary violation of an individual’s privacy.”
The High Court also observed that there was no argument whether the income tax returns and information relating to taxable income of an individual is “personal information”.
In this regard, the Court drew reference from the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner which had held that the income tax returns are personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act from disclosure.
Another significant aspect of the judgment was the Court’s interpretation of the phrase “larger public interest”.
The Court said that the meaning of the expression has to be derived in accordance with the object and scheme of the RTI Act which was enacted to ensure and promote transparency in the working of public authorities and not to help in the disclosure of private information in personal disputes.
The Court held that the expression has to be interpreted in consonance with the object and scheme of the RTI Act, which was enacted to promote transparency in the functioning of public authorities and not to facilitate disclosure of private information in personal disputes.
The Court observed:
“It could not have been the intention of the legislature to allow disclosure of personal information of individuals, having no bearing on the public at large.”
The Court further observed
“Therefore, the concept of ‘larger public interest’ cannot be interpreted in a way that allows misuse of the provisions of the Act.”
Accordingly, the High Court concluded that disclosure of the husband’s income details in a matrimonial dispute does not fall within the exception of “larger public interest”.
RTI Cannot Become a Parallel Tool
The wife had argued that the husband's financial information was essential for adjudication of her maintenance claim.
The High Court, rejecting the submissions made by the respondent-wife, clarified that the RTI mechanism cannot be converted into a parallel tool for collecting evidence in private matrimonial disputes.
The Court also said that the respondent-wife was not remediless, since the law governing maintenance proceedings already mandates financial disclosure by both spouses.
The Court placed its reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh v. Neha, where directions were issued mandating parties in maintenance proceedings to file affidavits disclosing their income, assets, and liabilities.
The Court held that parties in matrimonial disputes are at liberty to seek disclosure of financial information through remedies recognized under matrimonial law rather than through the RTI framework.
CIC Order Set Aside
Taking into account of the statutory provisions and precedents, the Court concluded that the directions given by the CIC to disclose the income details of the husband were unsustainable in law.
The Court observed that if the Court allowed such disclosure under the RTI Act, it would effectively overlook the protection of privacy that is afforded under law, and the rules regulating financial disclosure in matrimonial proceedings.
Accordingly, the impugned order of the Central Information Commission was set aside.
W.P.(C) 8481/2021 & CM APPL. 26235/2021
KAPIL AGARWAL vs CPIO INCOME TAX OFFICER MORADABAD & ANR
(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)

(Click here to Download the Order)

Govt employees’ personal records cannot be disclosed without larger public interest: Chhattisgarh HC

Times of India: Raipur: Saturday, 18 July 2026.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that personal documents and service records of government employees cannot be shared under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, unless a larger public interest is established. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad on July 14 observed that a public servant’s personal documents including caste certificates, residential proof, educational qualifications, affidavits submitted during appointment, and service records fall within the ambit of personal information. The court directed public information officers (PIOs) not to disclose such private details under the RTI Act without proof of significant public interest.

The ruling comes in response to a writ petition filed by a patwari posted at Kamarga under the Lailunga tehsil in Raigarh district. The petitioner was appointed to the post on 7 March 2024. Following his appointment, a private organisation named Crime Free India Force filed an RTI application before the sub-divisional officer (revenue)-cum-PIO, Lailunga, seeking copies of the petitioner’s caste certificate, residential proof, educational documents, affidavits, and service records.
Fearing an invasion of his privacy, the patwari moved the HC seeking relief. The petitioner requested the court to restrain the authorities from providing his personal documents and confidential service records to a third party, arguing that the information is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Senior counsel Mateen Siddiqui and counsel Danish Ahmed Siddiqui, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the requested documents are purely personal and have no connection to any public activity or broader public interest. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the counsel stated that a public servant’s service record, qualification details, and asset disclosures constitute personal information exempt from disclosure. They argued that disclosing such data without substantial public interest violates the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The additional advocate general representing the state government and the counsel for the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission opposed the petition. They argued that the petitioner’s apprehensions are premature as the PIO has not taken a final decision on sharing the information. They submitted that the PIO is a statutory authority who will examine the application under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and supreme court guidelines.
The HC observed that since the PIO has not passed a final order, intervening through a writ petition at this stage would be premature.
The court has instructed the PIO to independently examine every RTI application. The official must determine whether the requested information is personal. The court stated that if the information is personal and lacks any proven public interest, it must not be provided to the applicant. If the competent authority concludes that disclosure is necessary, a reasoned order must be passed detailing the specific legal grounds.