RTI reveals 16-year-old promotion irregularities in differently abled welfare department in Tamil Nadu

Times of India: Chennai: Saturday, 11 July 2026.
An RTI reply has exposed an alleged irregularity in promotions in the department for the welfare of differently abled persons, revealing that 17 employees with only Class X or Class XII were promoted as junior rehabilitation officers (JROs) and later rose to senior positions, including assistant director and deputy director.

The promotions were given based on a 2009 govt order issued by social welfare and nutritious meal programme department, which relaxed the prescribed educational qualification for promotion of orthotic technicians to JROs. Instead of the mandatory postgraduate degree in psychology, social work or sociology, the order allowed orthotic technicians with 10 years of service to become eligible for promotion.
RTI applicant K Parthasarathy, citing official records obtained under the RTI Act, said that based on the govt order, 17 employees possessing only SSLC or higher secondary qualifications were promoted as temporary JROs. Though they later obtained postgraduate degrees in sociology through the open university system, human resource management department’s govt order No. 116 of 2010 states that candidates who obtain a postgraduate degree without first acquiring a basic undergraduate degree are not eligible for appointment or promotion in public service.
The then commissioner for differently abled welfare P R Shampath, in proceedings dated Aug 8, 2010, cited the human resource management department order and directed that such employees be removed from the seniority list and that a fresh promotion panel be prepared.
However, according to the RTI reply, the order was never implemented. Instead, the employees continued in service, received promotions on administrative grounds and their appointments were regularised in 2020.
“Five years later, they were promoted as district differently abled rehabilitation officers. Subsequently, they became assistant directors against vacancies arising due to retirements,” Parthasarathy said. He added that one officer with only SSLC qualification retired as an assistant director, while two others retired as DDROs in the past two years.
Fourteen of the 17 officers continue in service, and two among them have now been promoted as deputy directors. According to the documents availed under RTI Act, the two officers G Jagadeesan and Y D Shrinaath were promoted despite having served for less than two years as assistant directors after department commissioner Laksmi recommended relaxation of another service condition requiring an assistant director to complete at least three years in the post before becoming eligible for promotion.
When contacted, Lakshmi denied any irregularities in the appointment or promotion of staff within the department. “The promotions follow existing procedures and comply with govt orders,” she said.

AIIMS Nagpur sold over 1,000 litres of surplus plasma for Rs 16.44 lakh, RTI reveals : Written By Rumela De Sarkar

Medical Dialogues: Nagpur: Saturday, 11 July 2026.

AIIMS Nagpur Sold 1,000+ Litres of Surplus Plasma, RTI Finds

The All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Nagpur, has sold more than 1,000 litres of surplus Fresh Frozen Plasma (FFP) collected from voluntary blood donors to an external facility for over Rs 16.44 lakh since 2023, according to information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The RTI response, however, does not disclose the identity of the recipient organisation or indicate whether any administrative approvals were obtained before the supplies were made, raising questions over transparency in the transactions.  
According to a news report, the information was provided in response to an RTI application filed by Mumbai-based activist Chetan Kothari on June 7, 2026. In its reply dated July 7, AIIMS Nagpur’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) and Administrative Officer Shabbir Sheikh confirmed that the institute’s blood bank, which became operational on June 14, 2022, has been supplying surplus FFP to external facilities. 
According to the documents, AIIMS Nagpur dispatched 10 consignments of surplus plasma between March 2023 and October 2025. Each consignment was supplied at a rate of Rs 1,600 per litre, with the total volume exceeding 1,000 litres and the revenue amounting to Rs 16,44,523.20. 
AIIMS Nagpur further clarified that the plasma was supplied for monetary consideration rather than through an in-kind exchange, with the proceeds credited to the institute's Bank of Baroda account.
However, the RTI response withheld key details sought by the applicant. AIIMS declined to reveal the identity of the recipient organisation or provide copies of the administrative approvals authorising the supplies, citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which relates to third-party information.
Responding to the queries, a Maharashtra State Blood Transfusion Council (SBTC) official said the council would examine why the recipient’s identity had not been disclosed. “We will look into the matter and ascertain the reasons for not disclosing the name. We will seek the necessary information from AIIMS Nagpur and examine whether the reply is in accordance with the applicable provisions,” the official said. The RTI records also raise questions about the selection process. Asked whether any tender had been floated before the supplies were made, AIIMS responded: “Nil,” reports Mumbai Mirror.
The records do not indicate whether multiple eligible plasma fractionation facilities were considered, how the recipient was chosen, the basis for fixing the price of Rs 1,600 per litre, or the terms and duration of the arrangement.  
Under India’s regulatory framework, licensed blood banks are permitted to transfer surplus plasma that is no longer required for clinical transfusion to authorised plasma fractionation facilities. Instead of being discarded, the plasma is processed into plasma-derived medicinal products used in the treatment of burns, trauma, immune deficiencies, haemophilia and several other serious medical conditions, according to Mumbai Mirror.

RTI records reveal payments to Maya Ahir and Kirtidan Gadhvi:Activist urges artists to disclose income and taxes since 2017

Bhaskar: Gujarat: Saturday, 11 July 2026.
Controversy over remarks made by noted Gujarat folk artists Maya Ahir and Kirtidan Gadhvi about tax payments during a dayro (folk music event) has sparked widespread outrage across the state and on social media.

Amid the backlash, Morbi resident Ramesh Zhilariya released RTI documents claiming that Maya Ahir received ₹3.5 lakh for one SAUNI Yojana event, while Kirtidan Gadhvi was paid ₹10 lakh for two dayro performances.
In a viral video, Maya Ahir defended government employees, saying people behave 'as if they pay their father's tax' when claiming salaries are funded by taxpayers. Kirtidan Gadhvi, echoing the sentiment, joked from the stage that people 'don't even pay tax and eat rationed wheat'.
The RTI disclosures have fuelled public criticism, with many arguing that artists paid from public funds should not mock taxpayers.

Morbi citizen obtained information through RTI
This arrogant statement by the artists has hurt the sentiments of the poor and middle class of Gujarat, because even the poorest person in the country pays GST on small and large items. As soon as this controversial statement came to light, Morbi citizen Ramesh Zhilariya obtained official information from government departments under the RTI Act of 2005.
Citing this information, he made a shocking revelation that both these artists had participated in a government Sauni Yojana inauguration program held in Rajkot from 22 June, 2017, to 25 June, 2017.
Maya Ahir received ₹3.5 lakh for one dayro, Kirtidan ₹10 lakh for two
According to RTI documents, four government-sponsored dayro (folk music) events were organised under the SAUNI Yojana in 2017. Maya Ahir was paid ₹3.5 lakh for one performance, while Kirtidan Gadhvi received ₹10 lakh for two performances (₹5 lakh each).
Critics say the artists, who questioned whether the public pays tax, themselves earned lakhs of rupees from taxpayer-funded government programmes.
RTI activist questions artists' remarks
Speaking to Divya Bhaskar, RTI activist Ramesh Zhilariya said even the poorest citizens contribute to government revenue through GST and fuel taxes.
He argued that the same tax money funds government salaries, public representatives' benefits and payments to artists. He accused the artists of insulting the public despite benefiting from taxpayer-funded events.
Calls for disclosure of earnings and taxes
Referring to the RTI records, Zhilariya challenged the artists to disclose how many private and government dayro events they have performed since 2017, the fees they received, their total earnings and the amount of tax they paid on that income.
He also said artists should urge the government to improve governance, reduce the tax burden and provide free healthcare and education, adding that they should think carefully before making such remarks about the public.
Debate over ethics of government-funded performances
The controversy has sparked debate over the ethics of artists receiving payments from government programmes while criticising taxpayers. Following the RTI disclosures, many on social media have accused the artists of double standards, and the issue is expected to intensify in the coming days.
What did Maya Ahir say?
During a dayro event in Surat, Maya Ahir criticised people who record videos of police officers and claim government employees are paid from taxpayers' money. He said people behave 'as if they are paying their father's tax' and added that many who make such claims ‘eat rationed wheat’ despite never paying tax. The video quickly went viral, triggering widespread public criticism.
Other artists back Maya Ahir
While many have condemned Maya Ahir's remarks, several Gujarat artists have publicly supported him. Singer Kirtidan Gadhvi, along with Devayat Khavad, Sairam Dave and Rajbha Gadhvi, shared social media posts praising Maya Ahir as a symbol of truth, love, service and compassion. Their support has added a new dimension to the controversy, which is expected to grow further.

CIC directs all governments departments to strictly implement RTI

 Metro India News: Vijayawada: Saturday, 11 July 2026.

Andhra Pradesh State Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Vajja Srinivasa Rao has directed all government departments to strictly implement the provisions of Section 4(1)(b) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, warning that negligence in enforcing the law will not be tolerated. As part of a review of the implementation of the RTI Act, the Chief Information Commissioner conducted surprise inspections at several government offices in Vijayawada. 
Commissioner Srinivasa Rao reviewed the implementation of the RTI Act and pexpressed displeasure that several offices had failed to display mandatory name boards containing the details of Public Information Officers (PIOs), First Appellate Authorities (FAAs), job charts and citizen charters.

Information Commission Disposes RTI Appeal After Candolim Panchayat Provides 30 Year Old Records

Times of India: Panaji: Saturday, 11 July 2026.

The State Information Commission has disposed of an appeal under the RTI Act after the Candolim panchayat provided an RTI applicant information dating back to three decades ago.
In 2025, Nazario Paul Savio D’Souza sought information under the RTI Act with regard to a building in Candolim from the panchayat. When he was not satisfied with the information provided, he went in first appeal before the first appellate authority and later in second appeal before the commission.
After filing the appeal, the commission directed the public information officer to allow him to physically inspect files to ascertain availability of such old records, and if available, seek copies of identified documents.
He then received the information dating back to the years 1993 and 1994 and sought certified copies of 17 documents. The commission then disposed of his appeal after the PIO complied with directions during the course of proceedings and the appellant received the information.

Specific Notice Under RTI Act Mandatory Before Imposing Penalty On Public Information Officer: Chhattisgarh High Court

Live Law: Chhattisgarh: Saturday, 11 July 2026.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the State Information Commission cannot treat an earlier notice issued during appeal proceedings as a "final notice" for the purpose of imposing a penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Court observed that before imposing a penalty upon a Public Information Officer, the Commission must issue a specific notice under Section 20(1) and afford an adequate opportunity of hearing in accordance with the statutory mandate.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad was hearing a writ petition filed by a Public Information Officer challenging the order passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission imposing a penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act and recommending disciplinary action under Section 20(2). The dispute arose after respondent No.4 sought information regarding the auction or disposal of unserviceable items purchased under the Skill Development Scheme. The petitioner replied that the information sought was voluminous and insufficiently specific. Although the First Appellate Authority directed the petitioner to furnish the information free of cost within fifteen days, the information seeker preferred a second appeal before the State Information Commission, which ultimately imposed the penalty.
The petitioner contended that no notice under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act had been issued before the penalty was imposed. It was argued that the Commission had erroneously treated the earlier notice issued in the second appeal proceedings as the final notice contemplated under Section 20(1). The State Information Commission and the information seeker contended that once the petitioner had already been issued notice during the appeal proceedings and had failed to comply with the order of the First Appellate Authority, no separate notice before imposition of penalty was necessary.
The Court examined Section 20(1) of the RTI Act and observed that the provision mandates that before imposing a penalty, the concerned Public Information Officer must be afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing. It held that where the statute prescribes a particular procedure, the authorities are bound to follow it in its letter and spirit and cannot substitute or dispense with the prescribed procedure.
The Court found that the State Information Commission had expressly treated the earlier notice issued during the appeal proceedings as the final notice under Section 20(1), which was contrary to the statutory requirement. It held that an appeal notice cannot be equated with the specific notice required before imposing a penalty under Section 20(1).
“State Commission has categorically stated that earlier notice has been issued to the petitioner and as such it would be treated as final notice under Section 20(1) of the R.T.I. Act, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not in accordance with law,” the Court observed.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission imposing a penalty upon the petitioner.
Case Title: Amarchand Pahare v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission & Ors. [WPC No. 4714 of 2022].
(Click Here to Download Order)

Private Unaided Schools Outside RTI Purview, But Must Disclose Fee Structure, Rules Madras High Court

Catholic Connect: Chennai: Saturday, 11 July 2026.

The Madras High Court has ruled that private unaided schools are not "public authorities" under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and therefore cannot be compelled to furnish information under the Act. At the same time, the court held that such institutions are legally bound to publicly display their approved fee structure and other key details as mandated by Tamil Nadu's education regulations.
Justice M. Dhandapani delivered the judgment while interpreting the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act and the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules. The court observed that although private unaided schools fall outside the scope of the RTI Act, they remain subject to statutory transparency obligations under State law.
The court noted that the Rules require schools to prominently display information such as the approved fee structure, available infrastructure, staff strength and student enrolment at the entrance of the institution. These disclosures are intended to ensure that parents and the public have access to essential information without the need to seek it through RTI applications.
The judgment draws a clear distinction between the RTI Act and the disclosure requirements prescribed under State education laws. While private unaided schools cannot be treated as public authorities for the purposes of the RTI Act, they must continue to comply with the transparency measures laid down in the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Rules.
The ruling reinforces the obligation of private schools to maintain openness in matters concerning fees and institutional information, ensuring greater accountability to parents and other stakeholders while reaffirming that such schools are not covered by the RTI Act.

Why CIC upheld Indian Oil's refusal to disclose fuel quality inspection records under RTI

Moneycontrol: New Delhi: Friday, 10^th July 2026.
During the hearing, the appellant argued that consumers are "overburdened with the fuel prices" and contended that, "in today's digital era," such information ought to be maintained centrally by the company's head office.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has upheld Indian Oil Corporation Ltd's (IOCL) decision to withhold decade-long records related to fuel quality inspections, fraud detection and consumer complaints sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, accepting the public sector oil company's argument that compiling the information would place a disproportionate burden on its resources.
The order was passed by Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi while disposing of an appeal filed by Robin Zaccheus, who had challenged IOCL's refusal to provide extensive records covering the period from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2023.
According to the order, Zaccheus had sought year-wise details on inspections conducted to identify poor fuel quality, short delivery of fuel at retail outlets, cases involving chip-based manipulation of fuel dispensing machines, action taken against outlets found violating norms, vigilance reports, and consumer complaints.
During the hearing, the appellant argued that consumers are "overburdened with the fuel prices" and contended that, "in today's digital era," such information ought to be maintained centrally by the company's head office.
In response, IOCL told the Commission that the requested information was "not readily available" in the format sought by the applicant. The company said the records were not maintained in a consolidated manner and explained that collecting them would require a massive exercise across its nationwide network.
The Maharatna oil company informed the Commission that it operates through around 42,000 retail outlets and, under its standard operating procedure, carries out a minimum of two inspections every year at each outlet. This translates into nearly eight lakh inspections annually, making it "not possible to collate the sought information," it submitted.
IOCL further stated that "compiling the sought information for a period of 10 years i.e., from 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2023 would disproportionately divert the resources of their public authority, and hence the sought information was denied U/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005."
The company also informed the Commission that "all active retail outlets are being automated to capture the data for better monitoring of RO operations." It added that dispensing units are being procured with upgraded specifications validated by the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC). IOCL also said regular training is provided to retail outlet personnel and customer awareness programmes are conducted on an ongoing basis.
In his order, Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi noted that IOCL had already supplied the applicant with the applicable rules, marketing discipline guidelines, relevant website links and other information that was available, while denying the remaining records under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
"The Commission finds that the respondent gave an appropriate reply to the appellant… Therefore, no further intervention of the Commission is required," the order said, dismissing the appeal.
(With inputs from PTI)

CIC upholds Indian Oil’s refusal to disclose records of fuel quality inspection, fraud records

The Print: New Delhi: Friday, 10^th July 2026.
The CIC has upheld IOCL’s refusal to disclose decade-long nationwide fuel quality inspection and fraud records under the RTI Act despite an applicant’s plea that the information was in public interest.

The applicant said consumers are “overburdened with the fuel prices” and the information should be centrally maintained in today’s digital era.
The Central Information Commission accepted the oil major’s contention that compiling the data, scattered across its 16 state offices and 73 divisional offices, would disproportionately divert its resources under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
The order came on an appeal filed by Robin Zaccheus against Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL), seeking year-wise data from 2014 to 2023 on inspections conducted to detect poor quality and incorrect quantity of fuel dispensed at retail outlets, chip-based manipulation in fuel dispensing machines, action taken against erring outlets, consumer complaints and vigilance reports.
During the hearing, Zaccheus argued that consumers are “overburdened with the fuel prices” and in today’s digital era, the respondent ought to maintain such information centrally at its head office.
The IOCL submitted that the information was “not readily available” in the format sought.
It also told the Commission that it has around 42,000 retail outlets and, under its standard operating procedure, conducts a minimum of two inspections every year at each outlet, amounting to around eight lakh inspections annually.
It said it was “not possible to collate the sought information”.
The Maharatna oil company said that “compiling the sought information for a period of 10 years i.e., from 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2023 would disproportionately divert the resources of their public authority, and hence the sought information was denied U/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005”.
The Corporation also said “all active retail outlets are being automated to capture the data for better monitoring of RO operations”, while dispensing units are being procured with upgraded specifications validated by the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC).
It added that regular training is imparted to retail outlet staff and customer awareness programmes are carried out regularly.
Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi observed that the respondent had already provided the available rules, marketing discipline guidelines, website links and factual information to the appellant while denying the remaining information under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
“The Commission finds that the respondent gave an appropriate reply to the appellant… Therefore, no further intervention of the Commission is required,” the order said while dismissing the appeal. PTI MHS MHS KSS KSS
(This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.)

CIC directs Southern Railway to disclose details of 83,000 trees planted in Madurai Division

The Hindu: Chennai: Friday, 10^th July 2026.
Blanket denial of information is not in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act: Information Commissioner

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the Madurai Division of Southern Railway to disclose details of trees planted over a six-year period, including the species, locations and expenditure incurred.
The direction came on a petition filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, by Arun Pandi, who sought details of about 83,000 trees planted across the Madurai Division between April 2019 and July 2024. He requested information on the exact locations where the saplings were planted, the species of trees, the expenditure incurred, and the source of procurement, along with copies of purchase bills.
‘Information not available’ 
In response, the Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO) stated that the information sought was not available at the divisional office. While some details were available with field offices, compiling them would not only be time-consuming but disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority, he said.
Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO and the order of the First Appellate Authority, Mr. Pandi approached the Central Information Commission. During the hearing, the CPIO reiterated that the information sought was voluminous and not maintained in a compiled form.
‘Reply vague and generic’
After hearing both sides, Information Commissioner Swagat Das observed that the CPIO’s reply was vague and generic. The officer had merely stated that the information was unavailable at the divisional office and that compiling records from various field units would disproportionately divert the authority’s resources, without providing any specific justification regarding the availability or non-availability of each item of information sought by the appellant.
The Commissioner noted that the information sought ought to exist in one form or another, with the concerned offices maintaining plantation and expenditure records. “A blanket denial stating that the information is not available with the office, without examining the records held by the concerned field units, is not in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act,” he observed.
The Commission directed the CPIO to revisit the RTI application, conduct a diligent search of records available with the concerned offices and field units, and furnish all available information to the petitioner.

What constitutes public authority under the RTI Act : Dileep P. Chandran

The Indian Express: Delhi: Friday, 10^th July 2026.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is not a “public authority” under the RTI Act, and therefore cannot be compelled to disclose information under the Act.

The RTI Act came into force in 2005 with the aim of promoting transparency and accountability in public administration, containing corruption, and strengthening participatory democracy. (File)

In its May 2026 ruling, the CIC underlined that the BCCI is a private society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. As “a private association of individuals which has obtained legal recognition through registration”, the BCCI is not subject to control of the government in any meaningful way, it added.
The ruling revives broader questions about public authority, particularly in the context of the right to know as an essential part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. How did the right to know evolve in India into the Right to Information Act, 2005 , and what constitutes a public authority under the Act?
The constitutional foundation of the right to know:
Democracies across the world recognise access to information as the lifeblood of a vibrant civil society. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and Article 19(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) affirm the right to seek, receive, and impart information as an integral component of freedom of expression.
In India, the judiciary played a vital role in facilitating the right to know as an essential part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. For instance, the Supreme Court made a landmark pronouncement in the State of Uttar Pradesh vs Raj Narain (1975) case by noting, “…people of this country have a right to know about every public act, everything that is done in a public way by their public functionaries…”
In L K Koolwal vs State of Rajasthan (1986), the court reiterated, “Under Article 19(a) of the Constitution there exists the right of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is based on the foundation of the freedom of right to know.”
The evolution of the RTI Act:
Later on, the campaign for the right to information gained momentum with the historic struggle of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in Rajasthan during the 1990s.
Villagers in Devdungri who publicly scrutinised the fake muster rolls and other bills during public hearings emerged as the architects of the demand for transparency and accountability in governance. The grassroots movement eventually paved the way for the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The Act came into force in October 2005 with the objectives of promoting transparency and accountability in public administration, containing corruption, and strengthening participatory democracy through informed citizenry. But the most pertinent question is: what constitutes public authority under the RTI Act.
Public authority under the RTI Act:
Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines public authority as any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted –
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate government.
The definition further extends to any authority, body, or institution owned, controlled or substantially financed by appropriate governments. Even non-Government organisations substantially financed, either directly or indirectly, by the funds of the appropriate government come under the ambit of the Act.
In sum, the Act provides a broader definition of public authority to bring within its ambit not only governmental authorities but also institutions and bodies that function with substantial government funding and control.
Major obligations of public authorities:
Section 4 of the RTI Act lays down the major obligations of public authorities. Public authorities are mandated to maintain all their records systematically, duly catalogued and indexed to facilitate easy access to information. The Act also mandates every public authority to publish and annually update the particulars of their organisations, functions, duties, decisionmaking process and other relevant information.
Thus, the Act encourages public authorities to disseminate as much information as possible to the public at regular intervals through various means of communication, including the internet and in local language as far as practicable, to minimise the need for formal requests.
Furthermore, it is mandatory for public authorities to designate Public Information Officers (PIO) in all their administrative units and offices to receive RTI applications and provide requested information to applicants in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
However, a crucial question is whether or not the performance of public functions or “public actions” by an institution brings it within the ambit of the RTI Act.
Can “public actions” determine a public authority:
In its May 2026 ruling about the BCCI, the CIC relied on the three judgements of the Supreme Court – Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank v State of Kerala, Zee Telefilms v Union of India, and Dalco Engineering v Satish Prabhakar Padhye – holding that the BCCI did not satisfy the statutory requirements under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
In Zee Telefilms v Union of India (2005), the Supreme Court held that BCCI is not qualified as “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Nonetheless, several judicial observations and expert committee reports have acknowledged that the body performs significant public functions.
In 2018, then-Central Information Commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu also held that the BCCI is a public authority and directed the body to set up mechanisms to disseminate information under the RTI Act.
But the BCCI challenged that order in the Madras High Court, which sent the matter back to the CIC for a fresh look in September 2025. And by holding that the BCCI is not a “public authority” under the RTI Act, the Commission reversed the 2018 ruling.
Why public functions alone are not enough:
But critics of the CIC ruling argue that the BCCI enjoys privileges like a public authority, such as the use of the nomenclature ‘India’ in international sports, tax exemptions, regulatory control over cricket, and the selection of the national team for the country, with the tacit consent of the State.
Nonetheless, the CIC said that certain tax exemptions enjoyed by the BCCI do not amount to the government substantially financing it. It further maintained that merely performing significant public functions does not automatically make the BCCI fall within the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
Moreover, the term “public function” does not appear anywhere in the Act for the purpose of defining “public authority”. Instead, the Act focuses on the nature of governmental control and the extent of public financing. It is these statutory tests that have become the focal point of judicial interpretation.
Governmental control and substantial financing:
Although the RTI Act does not clearly define terms such as “substantial financing” and “controlled by appropriate government”, CIC decisions and judicial interventions from time to time seek to clarify the use of these expressions.
In the Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd & others v State of Kerala & others (2013) case, the Supreme Court held that cooperative societies are not public authorities under the RTI Act. The court observed that “control” by the appropriate government must be substantial in nature and that mere supervision and regulation by the government is insufficient to bring any institution within the ambit of the Act.
The court also narrowly defined the term “substantial financing” as “essential”, without which a body cannot practically run. These interpretations keep non-governmental bodies, including those performing significant public functions and extensively regulated by the governments, outside the purview of the RTI Act.
Beyond legal formalism:
Beyond the legal and statutory debates, it may be suggested that institutions performing public functions, regardless of their form and nature of organisation, could strive to uphold and maximise accountability and transparency in their administration. Greater transparency and accountability strengthen public trust and contribute to the creation of social capital.
Moreover, market considerations and claims for competitive advantages need not override the broader democratic value of transparency in administration. Lastly, efforts to clarify the statutory meaning and scope of contested expressions could help broaden the ambit of transparency laws.
Post read questions:

1. The right to information is an essential facet of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Discuss with reference to judicial pronouncements.
2. Discuss the significance of proactive disclosure under Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. What are the key obligations of public authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005?
3. Transparency and accountability are indispensable to democratic governance. Discuss the role of the Right to Information Act in strengthening these values.
4. Should institutions performing public functions be treated as public authorities under the Right to Information Act? Why or why not?

(Dileep P Chandran is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science in P M Government College, Chalakudy, Kerala.)

RTI : Madras High Court Makes Display Of Fee Structure Mandatory In Tamil Nadu Private Schools

The Tribune: New Delhi: Thursday, 9^th July 2026.
The Madras High Court has ordered all private schools in Tamil Nadu to display their approved fee structures on school notice boards, addressing long-standing concerns of parents over alleged overcharging by educational institutions.

The Madras HC directive has been welcomed by parents and educationists (ETV Bharat)

The directive comes against the backdrop of repeated allegations that several private schools in the state collect fees far above the levels prescribed by the government, prompting demands for stricter regulation and greater accountability.
In response to these concerns, the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission (SIC) on May 25 directed all private schools in the state to display government-approved tuition fee details prominently on their notice boards.
Subsequently, on June 1, the Director of Private Schools issued a circular making it mandatory for all private educational institutions - including nursery, primary, matriculation, CBSE and other board-affiliated schools - to comply with the order.
While the move was widely welcomed by parents and education activists, private school managements opposed the directive, arguing that they were not subject to such disclosure requirements.
Challenging the order, K Palaniyappan, general secretary of the All India Private Educational Institutions Association (AIPEIA), approached the Madras High Court seeking to quash the directive. The petition came up for hearing before Justice M Dhandapani.
After hearing submissions from both sides, the court observed that although private schools may not fall within the scope of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, they are nevertheless required to maintain transparency under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act.
The court therefore upheld the government's decision and directed all private schools in Tamil Nadu to display their tuition fee details on notice boards accessible to parents and the public. With the dismissal of the petition, compliance with the directive has now become mandatory for private schools across the state.
The judgment has been welcomed by parents and educationists, who believe that public display of fee structures will improve transparency, reduce disputes over fee collection and help parents make informed decisions regarding their children's education.

Set up by deed, not Act, Ram Temple Trust falls outside RTI purview : Manikant Mishra

The Tribune: New Delhi: Thursday, 9^th July 2026.
The answer to why the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust is exempt from the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act lies not in the political prominence of the temple but in the legal framework governing its administration.

In a detailed 13-page order, the Central Information Commission (CIC) last year held that the Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust was not a "public authority" under Section 2(H) of the RTI Act and was therefore not obliged to appoint public information officers or disclose information under the transparency law.
The CIC concluded that the Trust was an independent body created pursuant to the Supreme Court's 2019 Ayodhya judgment and was neither owned, controlled nor substantially financed by the Centre or Uttar Pradesh Government.
Calls for greater transparency in the functioning of the Trust have resurfaced following the recent controversy surrounding its affairs and alleged theft.
The CIC's reasoning relies on a crucial legal distinction. It held that when the Centre framed the scheme for constituting the Trust following the Supreme Court's verdict, it merely implemented the apex court's directions. The Trust itself was created through a trust deed and was not established by the Constitution, an Act of Parliament, a state law or a government notification creating a statutory authority, which are among the routes through which an institution can qualify as a "public authority" under Section 2(H) of the RTI Act.
According to the CIC, the Centre has no administrative or financial control over the Trust, government nominees do not enjoy voting rights in its meetings and vacancies among non-government trustees are filled internally. It also held that the Trust receives no government funding and therefore does not meet the statutory tests of government control or substantial financing required under the RTI Act.
Tirupati, Vaishno Devi and others come under RTI
The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams function under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, with its administration regulated under a statutory framework and subject to government oversight.
Similarly, the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board was established under the J&K Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988. The board is a statutory authority headed by the Lieutenant Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, making it subject to the RTI Act.
Most major temple administrations, including the Guruvayur Devaswom in Kerala, the Shri Jagannath Temple Administration in Odisha and Siddhivinayak Temple in Maharashtra, were constituted under specific state laws. Their powers, composition, administration and accountability mechanisms are laid down by legislation, bringing them within the definition of "public authority" under the RTI Act.
In each of these cases, the institutions derive their authority from statutes enacted by legislatures rather than from independent trust deeds.
Kashi Vishwanath is UP's notable exception
Within Uttar Pradesh, the Kashi Vishwanath Temple stands out as a notable exception.
Its affairs are governed under the Uttar Pradesh Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983, through which the state legislature created the Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust. Since the temple administration functions under a statutory framework and remains subject to government oversight prescribed under the Act, it falls within the ambit of the RTI Act.
The Ram Temple Trust, however, has no comparable governing legislation. Instead, it was constituted pursuant to the Supreme Court's directions in the Ayodhya judgment through a trust deed, with the government playing only the role assigned to it by the court in framing the scheme and facilitating the Trust's creation. The absence of a statute creating or governing the Trust ultimately became the defining factor behind the CIC's conclusion that it is not a "public authority" under the RTI Act.
With the CIC’s explanation in the order, it becomes clear that it is legal structure, not religious importance, which determines the RTI coverage of a temple institution.

RTI flags Congress occupied former 24 Akbar Road headquarters without authorisation since 2013

Millennium Post: New Delhi: Thursday, 9^th July 2026.
An official Right to Information (RTI) reply has stated that the Congress has remained in ‘unauthorised occupation’ of its former headquarters at 24, Akbar Road in New Delhi since June 26, 2013.

The RTI response also says that the Union government has not received any rent for the property during this period and that the party’s outstanding dues are still being assessed.
The RTI reply, furnished by the Directorate of Estates, which falls under the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, states that Bungalow No. 24, Akbar Road, located in Lutyens’ Delhi, was allotted to the Congress party on August 7, 1992.
However, its allotment was cancelled with effect from June 26, 2013, and the bungalow has remained under the party’s unauthorised occupation ever since, according to the government.
The RTI applicant also sought copies of notices, if any, issued by the government asking the Congress to vacate the bungalow.
The Directorate declined to provide the information, stating that such records are not maintained in a compiled form and that compiling them would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
Meanwhile, the recent RTI also sought information regarding 11, Ashoka Road, another address in Lutyens’ Delhi and the former headquarters of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which leads the Central government.
The Directorate of Estates confirmed that the bungalow was allotted to the saffron party on March 21, 1985.
However, it said the property now forms part of the Lok Sabha Members’ Pool, and the application regarding information on rent collection and the entity paying rent has been subsequently transferred to the Lok Sabha Secretariat.
The reply further states that the outstanding dues of the BJP towards the government, if any, are under review and yet to be determined.

No Blanket RTI Immunity for MP Lokayukt Police Wing, Supreme Court Rules

Moneylife: New Delhi: Thursday, 9^th July 2026.

In a significant judgment strengthening the Right to Information (RTI) regime, the Supreme Court has struck down a Madhya Pradesh (MP) government notification that exempted the special police establishment (SPE) of the Lokayukt organisation from the purview of the RTI Act. The Court held that the SPE, which investigates corruption and certain economic offences involving public servants, cannot be classified as an 'intelligence and security organisation' entitled to exemption under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
In an order last month, a bench of justice JK Maheshwari and justice Atul S Chandurkar said, "we are of the considered opinion that the notification dated 25 August 2011 issued by the general administration department (GAD) of Madhya Pradesh to the extent it seeks to exclude the SPE from the purview of the Act of 2005 in view of Section 24(4) thereof, is liable to be set aside as being bad in law as it provides for matters not enumerated under Section 7 of the Act of 1947. The SPE, having been conferred jurisdiction only to investigate offences punishable under the Act of 1988, Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII of the Penal Code, cannot be termed an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation for the purposes of Section 24(4) of the Act of 2005."
"The notification dated 25 August 2011 does not conform to Section 24(4) of the Act of 2005 and is, thus, excessive in nature...the notification dated 25 August 2011 issued by the GAD seeking to exclude the SPE from the applicability of the provisions of the Act of 2005 is struck down," the apex court said.
The bench dismissed an appeal filed by the SPE against a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment and struck down a 2011 state government notification that had excluded the SPE from the ambit of the RTI Act.
The Court, however, clarified that it had not examined the validity of the same notification insofar as it applied to the state bureau of investigation of economic offences, meaning that part of the notification would continue to operate.
The appeal arose after an RTI applicant sought information from the special police establishment. The investigating agency relied on a notification dated 25 August 2011 issued by the MP government under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, claiming exemption from the Act as an 'intelligence and security organisation'.
The principal question before the Supreme Court was whether the SPE, constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947, to investigate corruption and specified offences involving public servants, could legally be treated as an intelligence and security organisation under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
One notable aspect of the judgment is the Court's decision to examine the validity of the notification even though the RTI applicant had not specifically challenged it before the High Court.
The apex court observed that, while specific pleadings are ordinarily required before subordinate legislation is struck down, courts are not precluded from examining its legality if the issue arises directly during proceedings and the affected government is given a full opportunity to justify the provision.
The judges noted that the state government had been granted an adequate opportunity to defend the notification through detailed submissions and arguments before the Supreme Court.
The Court analysed Section 24 of the RTI Act, which exempts only intelligence and security organisations established by the central or state governments from the Act's provisions.
It observed that the organisations listed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act such as intelligence agencies, armed forces and national security organisations are fundamentally engaged in intelligence gathering or national security functions.
By contrast, the SPE's statutory mandate is confined to investigating offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, criminal breach of trust, cheating and specified offences relating to forged documents committed by public servants or employees of government bodies.
The Court said this limited jurisdiction clearly distinguished the SPE from organisations engaged in intelligence or security work.
The Bench examined the legislative framework governing the MP Lokayukt organisation and the special police establishment.
It noted that the Lokayukt was established to investigate allegations of corruption against public servants and functions as an independent anti-corruption institution.
The judgment referred to the statement of objects and reasons of the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt Act, 1981, as well as the organisation's own description on its official website, both of which emphasise its role in preventing and investigating corruption rather than performing intelligence or security functions.
The Court further observed that successive notifications issued under the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act consistently restricted the SPE's jurisdiction to corruption offences and a limited class of Indian Penal Code (IPC) offences involving public servants.
Therefore, it held, neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE has any statutory responsibility relating to intelligence gathering or national security.
The Supreme Court held that the 2011 notification exceeded the powers conferred by Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
It observed that subordinate legislation can always be tested against the parent statute and struck down if it travels beyond the authority granted by Parliament.
Quoting earlier precedents, the Bench reiterated that delegated legislation enjoys no greater immunity than ordinary executive action and must conform to the limits prescribed by the enabling statute.
The Court concluded that the notification failed this test because the SPE could not legally be categorised as an intelligence and security organisation.
Rejecting the state government's argument that the notification was intended to protect informers and ongoing investigations, the Court pointed out that the RTI Act already contains safeguards under Section 8.
Information whose disclosure could impede an investigation or endanger the life or safety of informers is already exempt from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h).
Consequently, extending a blanket exemption under Section 24(4) was not legally justified.
Holding that the special police establishment's statutory functions are confined to investigating corruption and specified criminal offences and do not relate to intelligence or security, the Supreme Court declared that the 2011 notification excluding the SPE from the RTI Act was ultra vires Section 24(4).
The Bench upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment, struck down the notification to the extent it exempted the SPE from the RTI Act, and dismissed the criminal appeal.
However, it clarified that the judgment does not affect the notification's applicability to the state bureau of investigation of economic offences, as that question was not before the Court.
On 6 September 2024, the Maharashtra government decided to put the anti-corruption bureau (ACB) out of the RTI ambit, sparking a wave of protests from activists across the state. The notification was surreptitiously posted only on the ACB’s website, not on the Maharashtra government’s website, as is the norm. (Read: Congress-NCP govt removed Anti-Corruption Bureau from RTI just before polls)
This had drawn ire from RTI activists, especially those who had lodged formal complaints against powerful politicians in Maharashtra for corruption.
In October 2024, the then governor of Maharashtra, Vidyasagar Rao, used his power to scrap the notification. The press statement issued by the Raj Bhavan stated, “The Governor took the decision to withdraw the notification issued by the State Government on 6 September 2014 after considering representations from various RTI activists and taking cognisance of newspaper reports which reflected the view that the notification was in violation of the RTI Act. The Governor also got the issue legally examined before taking the decision to withdraw the notification.” (Read: Maharashtra Governor puts ACB back in RTI Act)