Haryana Tightens RTI Appeal Deadlines, Chief Secretary Anurag Rastogi Directs Officers to Pass Reasoned Orders

Indian Masterminds: Haryana: Sunday, 8^th November 2026.
Haryana Chief Secretary Anurag Rastogi has directed officials to dispose of RTI first appeals within the prescribed timeframe and ensure that orders clearly explain the reasons behind their decisions.

The Haryana government has directed departments and public authorities to ensure timely disposal of first appeals filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, while requiring appellate authorities to issue clear and reasoned decisions.
Chief Secretary Anurag Rastogi, a 1990-batch IAS officer of the Haryana cadre, has instructed all concerned officials to comply with the statutory timelines for deciding first appeals. He has also emphasised that State Public Information Officers (SPIOs) must provide information that can legally be disclosed under the Act without unnecessary delay.
The directions follow concerns raised by the Haryana State Information Commission over delays in deciding first appeals and the issuance of orders without adequate reasoning.
Chief Secretary Emphasises Timely Disposal and Speaking Orders
In a communication issued by the Chief Secretary, officials have been reminded of their obligations under Section 19(6) of the RTI Act.
The provision requires first appellate authorities to decide appeals within the prescribed period. While issuing orders, authorities must also consider the key points and grounds raised by the appellants.
The government has specifically directed appellate authorities to:

• Dispose of first appeals within the statutory timeframe.
• Examine the principal grounds and submissions raised by appellants.
• Record clear and logical reasons while passing orders.
• Ensure that decisions adequately explain the basis for accepting or rejecting an appeal.
• Direct SPIOs to provide legally disclosable information without unnecessary delay.

These instructions are intended to ensure that first appeals are decided in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
Haryana State Information Commission Flags Delays
The latest directions came after the Haryana State Information Commission expressed concern over delays in the disposal of first appeals by various departments and public authorities.
The Commission also pointed to instances of orders being passed without sufficient reasons.
It subsequently requested administrative departments, heads of departments and other authorities to issue appropriate instructions to ensure compliance with the RTI framework.
Following this, the state government issued directions to the concerned officials, reiterating the need for timely decisions and reasoned orders.
Pending RTI Cases Also Came Under Discussion
The issue of pending cases before the Haryana State Information Commission had also come up during a recent press conference.
Journalists had asked the Commission about the number of pending cases. Chief Information Commissioner TVSN Prasad had said that the information would be provided later.
The latest government communication focuses on improving compliance with the existing provisions governing first appeals, particularly the timelines for disposal and the requirement to provide reasons in appellate decisions.

Data protection law faces scrutiny: The key concerns explained : By Abhishek Mishra

Times of India: Article: Sunday, 8^th November 2026.
India's new data protection framework was introduced with a clear objective: to give citizens greater control over their personal information and make organisations accountable for how they collect, store and use it. But as the government moves towards implementing the law, a growing debate has emerged over whether safeguards designed to protect individual privacy could also affect investigative journalism, access to public records and government accountability.

The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, is facing a legal challenge from the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), which represents 21 news organisations. The association has approached the Supreme Court, arguing that several provisions of the law and its accompanying rules could restrict journalistic activities, compromise confidential sources and undermine the Right to Information (RTI) framework.
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre on October 27 and listed the matter for further hearing on November 17. The government, meanwhile, has indicated that it is open to amending the rules or even the law itself if necessary to address concerns over press freedom.
The challenge has brought an important question into focus: Where should the line be drawn between an individual's right to privacy and the public's right to know? While one view holds that constitutional protections and judicial scrutiny can address competing interests, another argues that journalism needs explicit statutory safeguards.
What is the DPDP Act and why was it introduced?
Parliament passed the Digital Personal Data Protection Act in August 2023, establishing a legal framework to regulate the processing of digital personal information.
The legislation came against the backdrop of India's rapidly expanding digital economy, where personal information has become central to everyday activities. Banking transactions, online shopping, digital payments, social media accounts, healthcare services and government welfare schemes all involve the collection and processing of personal data.
While this has made services more accessible, it has also increased the risks of data breaches, identity theft, unauthorised sharing and misuse of personal information.
The need for a comprehensive data protection framework gained importance after the Supreme Court, in its landmark 2017 Puttaswamy judgment, recognised privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution.
The DPDP Act seeks to establish obligations for organisations handling personal data and provide individuals with rights over how their information is processed.
The ministry of electronics and information technology (MeitY) notified the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, on November 14, 2025, following consultations with stakeholders.
According to a Press Information Bureau (PIB) backgrounder published on November 17, 2025, the government received 6,915 inputs during the consultation process. These included suggestions from startups, micro, small and medium enterprises, industry bodies, civil society organisations, government departments and citizens.
The government described the framework as citizen-centric, with an emphasis on consent, transparency, accountability and responsible use of digital personal information.
What does the law provide?
The Act revolves around two key categories: Data Fiduciaries and Data Principals.
A Data Fiduciary is an organisation or individual that determines the purpose and means of processing personal data. This could include a bank collecting customer details, an e-commerce platform storing purchase histories or a company maintaining employee records.
A Data Principal is the individual to whom the personal information belongs.
The legislation requires Data Fiduciaries to obtain consent before processing personal data, except in specified circumstances where processing is permitted under the law. Such consent must be free, specific, informed, unconditional and unambiguous.
Individuals must also be informed about the purpose for which their information is being collected and how it will be used.
The Act provides Data Principals with several rights, including the right to access information about the processing of their personal data, seek correction and erasure, withdraw consent and raise grievances. They can also nominate another person to exercise their rights in certain circumstances.
Organisations are required to implement reasonable security safeguards to protect personal information. In case of a data breach, they must notify the Data Protection Board of India and affected individuals in accordance with the prescribed framework.
The legislation also provides additional safeguards for children's data. Organisations are generally required to obtain verifiable parental consent before processing the personal data of children below 18 years. The law also restricts tracking, behavioural monitoring and targeted advertising directed at children, subject to specified exemptions.
The framework provides for the Data Protection Board of India, which is responsible for examining complaints, conducting inquiries and determining penalties for non-compliance.
The financial consequences can be significant. Under the Act, failure to take reasonable security safeguards to prevent a personal data breach can attract a penalty of up to Rs 250 crore. Violations relating to breach notifications and obligations concerning children's data can attract penalties of up to Rs 200 crore.
Why are news publishers challenging the law?
The most prominent concern raised by the DNPA is the absence of a specific exemption for journalistic activities.
The association argues that the law does not adequately distinguish between the commercial processing of personal information and its use for reporting matters of public interest.
Journalists frequently rely on personal information while investigating allegations involving public officials, companies, financial transactions and government decisions. Such investigations may require access to records and information without informing the person concerned in advance.
For instance, a journalist investigating alleged irregularities in the assets of a public official may need to examine financial records, property details and business associations. Seeking consent from the individual before collecting or using such information could alert the subject to the investigation and potentially compromise the reporting process.
Similarly, time-sensitive reporting and live television coverage often involve the use of information about individuals without obtaining prior permission.
The DNPA has argued that the notice, consent and data-erasure requirements under the DPDP framework could make such activities difficult.
In its petition, the association has challenged Sections 7, 17(2), 18, 19, 27, 29, 36, 37 and 44(3) of the Act, along with Rules 16, 17 and 23 of the DPDP Rules.
It has argued that the provisions fail to recognise journalistic activity as a distinct category deserving protection under the Constitution and could affect journalists, ground reporters, whistleblowers, citizen journalists and RTI activists.
The association has also raised concerns over the possibility of individuals withdrawing consent and seeking erasure of their personal information. It fears that this could be used to pressure news organisations into removing reports or altering digital archives, even when the information is relevant to public interest.
The challenge is not about denying individuals the right to privacy. Rather, it concerns whether the law provides sufficient safeguards for reporting that requires the collection and publication of personal information in the public interest.
What do legal experts say about press freedom?
The debate has produced differing assessments of whether journalism needs a separate exemption under the legislation.
Advocate Adhitya Srinivasan believes the constitutional protection enjoyed by the press and the nature of the legislation could allow competing interests to be resolved through judicial scrutiny.
"Freedom of press is so well-entrenched in our Constitution, so I really don't think that the DPDP Act is going to materially impair investigative journalism," Srinivasan said.
He argued that Parliament had deliberately chosen a framework that articulates core principles without becoming overly prescriptive, leaving courts to undertake a balancing exercise when competing rights come into conflict.
"This is hardly unusual, and far from being problematic, it is just a deliberate choice that Parliament has made," he said.
Srinivasan also pointed out that the legislation was not necessarily intended to restrict reporting. In his assessment, its objective could instead be to discourage practices such as doxxing and voyeurism.
On the question of whether journalism requires an explicit exemption, he said: "I don't think journalism needs an explicit exemption under the DPDP Act, but I suppose it wouldn't hurt."
Advocate Mayank Arora, however, takes a more cautionary view, arguing that the absence of an express exemption could create significant difficulties for public-interest reporting.
"I think yes, there is a strong likelihood that The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, could affect investigative journalism because it does not expressly exempt public-interest reporting from its consent requirements," Arora said.
He argued that journalists investigating allegations involving public officials may need to examine financial records, ownership details and private communications, and seeking consent from the individuals concerned could defeat the purpose of an investigation.
Arora also warned that the law could produce a chilling effect, with journalists avoiding investigations into powerful individuals because of potential complaints, litigation costs and regulatory uncertainty.
"The real danger here is not necessarily direct censorship, but a chilling effect on journalists," he said.
He maintained that an explicit exemption would provide stronger protection for legitimate investigative reporting while preserving safeguards against misuse of personal information.
RTI amendment: Why is Section 44(3) under scrutiny?
Another major point of contention is Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which amends Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The earlier provision allowed public authorities to withhold personal information if it had no relationship to public activity or interest, or if its disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. However, it also allowed disclosure where a larger public interest justified making the information available.
The amendment changes the wording of the exemption to cover information relating to personal information.
Critics argue that the revised provision removes the earlier balancing mechanism between privacy and public interest, potentially making it more difficult for citizens to access information held by public authorities.
The implications could extend to information concerning public officials, government decisions and the functioning of public institutions.
For example, a journalist or an RTI applicant seeking information about the assets or official dealings of a public servant may encounter questions over whether the information falls within the personal information exemption.
The central concern is that information could be withheld even when its disclosure has a legitimate bearing on public accountability.
The government, however, has defended the amendment.
In a PIB release issued on August 20, 2025, MeitY said the DPDP Act sought to recognise both an individual's right to protect personal information and the need to process such information for lawful purposes.
The ministry maintained that the amendment to the RTI Act was intended to balance the right to privacy with the right to information.
Srinivasan believes concerns over the amendment may be overstated.
"This suggestion that the RTI amendment weakens the right to access public information is in my view a red herring," he said.
He argued that the amendment does not prevent public authorities from disclosing personal information when the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm.
"By way of the substitution, personal information cannot be given to citizens as a matter of right. This does not, however, stop a public authority from allowing access to information (even personal information) if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm," he said.
Arora, on the other hand, believes the amendment substantially weakens the express public-interest protection previously available under the RTI Act.
He pointed to cases involving recruitment records or alleged favouritism in government departments, where information could reveal corruption involving public money but may now be denied under the broader personal-information exemption.
He also questioned why the earlier public-interest qualification was removed if authorities could continue to disclose information after weighing competing interests.
Could government powers affect journalistic sources?
The DNPA has also questioned provisions that give the government powers to seek information and restrict access to certain information.
Section 36 empowers the Centre to call for information from Data Fiduciaries or intermediaries for specified purposes. The association has argued that the provision could affect the confidentiality of information held by news organisations.
Journalists often depend on confidential sources, including whistleblowers and individuals who share information about alleged corruption, corporate wrongdoing or administrative irregularities.
The possibility of sensitive information being sought by the government, the association argues, could discourage people from sharing information with journalists.
This could have implications for investigative reporting, particularly when sources fear that their identities or communications may be exposed.
Another provision under challenge is Section 37, which empowers the government to direct the blocking of access to information in specified circumstances.
The association has questioned the scope of these powers and the safeguards available against their possible misuse.
The broader concern is whether provisions intended to protect personal information could also create restrictions on the circulation of news and information.
Is the Data Protection Board independent?
The composition and functioning of the Data Protection Board of India have also come under scrutiny.
The Board is expected to serve as the principal adjudicatory institution under the law. It will examine complaints, conduct inquiries and determine penalties against organisations that fail to comply with the framework.
However, questions have been raised about the government's role in the appointment of its members and the extent of its institutional independence.
Under the notified rules, the selection process for the chairperson and members involves a search-cum-selection committee comprising senior government officials and government-nominated experts.
The DNPA has challenged provisions concerning the Board, including Sections 18 and 19 of the Act and Rule 17 of the Rules.
The concern is that an institution responsible for adjudicating disputes involving both private organisations and government departments should have adequate independence from the executive.
Government agencies themselves process large amounts of personal information while implementing welfare schemes and providing public services. This makes the independence of the regulatory institution an important aspect of the data protection framework.
What has the government said?
The Centre has defended the legislation, maintaining that its primary objective is to protect citizens' privacy and regulate organisations that collect and process personal information.
Union electronics and information technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw has rejected suggestions that the law is intended to restrict journalistic freedom.
On October 29, Vaishnaw said that freedom of the press was constitutionally guaranteed and that the government had no intention of affecting it.
He also indicated that editors and media professionals could engage with the government to discuss their concerns.
The government's position is that the obligations under the legislation are primarily directed at Data Fiduciaries, such as banks, telecom companies and insurance providers, rather than journalists as a category.
In a report published on October 31, The Times of India quoted senior MeitY officials as saying that the Centre was open to changing the rules and, if necessary, the law itself to ensure that the framework did not become an impediment for journalists and media organisations.
Officials maintained that journalists and media houses do not fall within the category of Data Fiduciaries merely because they undertake reporting activities.
They also indicated that exemptions could be incorporated into the rules to address concerns over journalistic work.
Arora, however, believes government assurances alone cannot provide adequate protection.
"Assurances must be backed by statutory provisions and enforceable laws and rules," he said.
He argued that an express exemption would offer a stronger legal foundation for independent journalists and digital publishers, rather than leaving the matter dependent on administrative assurances.
When will the law come into effect fully?
Although the DPDP Rules were notified in November 2025, the government has provided a phased implementation timeline to allow organisations to prepare for compliance.
According to the enforcement timeline published by MeitY, certain institutional provisions, including those relating to the establishment of the Data Protection Board, came into force in November 2025.
The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act also came into effect as part of the initial phase.
Other provisions, including the main obligations governing the processing of personal data, are scheduled to come into force 18 months after the November 13, 2025 notification. This places the key implementation date at May 13, 2027.
The transition period is intended to give organisations time to establish consent mechanisms, strengthen security systems and put procedures in place to comply with the law.
For news publishers, however, the legal uncertainty is likely to remain until the Supreme Court examines the challenge and the government clarifies whether additional exemptions will be introduced.
What happens next?
The Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre on October 27 after hearing the DNPA's challenge. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana agreed to examine the petition and listed the matter for November 17.
The court did not grant an interim stay on the challenged provisions without hearing the government's response.
The Centre will now have to respond to the questions raised by the association, including the absence of a specific journalistic exemption, the amendment to the RTI Act and the powers granted to the government under the legislation.
The government has also indicated that it is willing to consider changes if required.
The outcome could have implications beyond news organisations. It may help determine how privacy rights, access to public information and the freedom to investigate are balanced under India's digital regulatory framework.
The larger question: Can privacy and public interest coexist?
The debate over the DPDP Act reflects a difficult balance between two important principles.
On one hand, individuals should have control over their personal information. Financial details, health records, identity documents and private communications should not be freely collected, shared or used without appropriate safeguards.
On the other, access to information and the ability to investigate matters of public interest are essential to accountability. Journalism and the RTI framework often require the examination of information that may be personal in nature but has wider public significance.
The challenge, therefore, is not simply about choosing between privacy and press freedom. It is about creating safeguards that protect both without allowing one to become an obstacle to the other.
The Supreme Court's examination of the law will be important in determining how these competing interests are reconciled.
For citizens, the implications go beyond newsrooms and technology companies. They concern how much control individuals have over their personal information, how easily they can access information about public institutions and how effectively those in positions of authority can be held accountable.
As India moves towards a more data-driven economy, the task before policymakers is to ensure that stronger privacy protections do not come at the cost of transparency and the public's right to know.

Exclusive: Gujarat Police flagged one URL every six minutes through Sahyog Portal, RTI reveals

Media Nama: National: Saturday, 7^th November 2026.

On average, the Gujarat Police flagged one URL every six minutes through the Centre’s censorship facilitator, the Sahyog Portal, possibly since its launch in October 2024, according to a Right to Information (RTI) reply shared with MediaNama. The person who filed the RTI application has requested anonymity.
According to the RTI reply reviewed by MediaNama, the Gujarat Police issued 5,358 takedown notices, covering 190,633 URLs, to “all intermediaries” through the Centre’s Sahyog Portal over the past two years, possibly since October 2024, when the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) launched the portal. However, the reply does not specify a cut-off date and states that the figures are accurate “to date”. The reply was received on October 28, 2026.
This means that, on average:

• Around 261 URLs were flagged per day, equivalent to roughly one URL every six minutes.
• Around 7.34 notices were issued per day.
• Each notice covered around 36 URLs.

For comparison, in April 2025, The Indian Express, citing another RTI reply, reported that the MHA’s Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) had issued 130 content takedown notices between October 2024 and April 8, 2025. This translates to approximately 0.69 notices per day, compared with Gujarat Police’s average of 7.3 notices per day, a rate 10.6 times higher. While the figures cover different reporting periods and authorities, the comparison illustrates the scale at which Gujarat Police has used the Sahyog Portal.
The RTI reply, dated October 28, 2026, followed a second appeal to the Cyber Centre of Excellence, which operates under the Office of the Inspector General of Police, Gujarat.
What was asked:
The RTI application asked the Gujarat Home Department to disclose the total number of takedown notices issued to intermediaries under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act or Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021. It also sought copies of these notices and specifically asked how many had been sent through the Sahyog Portal.
The application was filed with the Gujarat Home Department on June 17, 2026. It was transferred to the Cyber Centre of Excellence following an order by the First Appellate Authority and was finally answered on October 28, 2026.
Center’s Sahyog Portal itself doesn’t hold takedown records, reveals another RTI reply
In another RTI reply to MediaNama, the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), which operates the portal, said it does not maintain records of notices issued through it. I4C said that these records are held by State and Union Territory police departments. Gujarat has now disclosed an aggregate figure without citing any RTI exemption.
This could mean that individual State police departments should also be able to disclose the number of takedown notices issued through the Sahyog Portal. MediaNama will file RTI applications with each State police department and publish the responses as and when they are received.
Brief context on Sahyog Portal:
The MHA’s I4C created the portal to automate notices issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. In a submission to the Karnataka High Court, the government said the portal displays each agency’s total requests, the content taken down, and the number of closed and pending requests.
“As per screenshots attached with the Government’s response, the portal contains a dashboard which shows Central ministries/departments along with States, and the total number of requests they have sent out. It also shows them the total pieces of content that platforms have taken down, the number of requests closed and the number of requests pending. The dashboard also provides a platform-wide breakdown of requests and the status of said requests.
Besides this, agencies have the option to generate a takedown notice and simply select the Act/Section under which a piece of content is unlawful.” – MediaNama reporting on Sahyog Portal
X challenged the portal, arguing that the government uses it to bypass the safeguards under Section 69A, which governs blocking orders. The Karnataka High Court upheld the portal. The Supreme Court has since stayed all previous High Court judgments in the case.

Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against RTI Activist Snehamayi Krishna Booked For Shouting At Govt Official

Live Law: Karnataka: Saturday, 7^th November 2026.
The Karnataka High Court on Friday quashed First Information Report (FIR) and all further proceedings initiated against RTI activist Snehamayi Krishna, registered on a complaint made by Roopa M J who works as Secretary of the Sri Chamundeshwari development Authority, accusing Krishna of obstructing her in doing government duty and shouting at her.

A single judge bench of Justice Rajesh Rai K, allowed the petition filed by Krishna and quashed the offence registered against him in 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 132 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from duty) and Section 351 (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha.
The court said “It can be gathered that the complaint is filed by R2 (Roopa) as a counterblast to the complaint filed against her by the petitioner.”
As per the complaint filed by Roopa with the Krishnaraja police in Mysuru on December 14, 2024, while she was discharging her duty at her office, Krishna had entered her office along with the police and the police had informed her that Krishna has given a complaint alleging that sarees worth lakhs of rupees, donated as offerings to the deity Chamundeshwari, were being misappropriated.
It was alleged that at that time Krishna who was standing besides the police had in a loud voice threatened her and allegedly said that he would teach her a lesson and he has already filed a complaint against then Chief Minister, Siddaramaiah.
Senior Advocate Arun Shyam appearing for the petitioner argued that on going through the complaint averments it can be seen that absolutely no offence has been made out against the petitioner. Further there is a two days delay in lodging the complaint and no explanation is given by the complaint for it. Further, it was argued that the present complaint is filed as a counterblast to the complaint filed by petitioner against Roopa.
The government advocate opposed the plea saying that the investigation is at nascent stage and complaint averment disclose that petitioner had threatened the complainant There is also CCTv footage, about the incident.
The bench noted that the complaint does not disclose that petitioner made an assault or used criminal force or threat with an intention to outrage her modesty. The only allegation is that the petitioner had in a loud voice said he will teach her a lesson.
Referring to the Apex court judgment in the case of K Dhananjaya Versus Cabinet secretary SLP 5905/2022 wherein it has been held that the shouting and threatening the staff, will not amount to any assault as described in Section 353 of IPC and there must be a positive act by the offender to attract the offence, the high court said,
“Admittedly there is no criminal force or assault is made by the petitioner. As such Section 132 of BNS is not attracted. Admittedly, there are no abusive words used by the petitioner against the complaint and he has not threatened the respondent with dire consequences.”
Noting that there was a delay of two days in lodging the complaint against the petitioner, the bench said, “I am of the considered view that entire chargesheet allegations and complaint averments taken on face value no offence is made out against the petitioner. As such the continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and FIR and further proceedings are quashed against the petitioner.”

TN man files 97 RTI pleas for ‘information’ on ex-girlfriend; info commissioner warns him of ban

Times of India: Chennai: Saturday, 7^th November 2026.
“Is my ex-girlfriend in a relationship with another person?” “How many men did she cheat on? Is she married? Where does she live and work?” This is how a Villupuram-based youth bombarded the police department and then filed at least 1,887 queries under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

Livid at the 97 RTI petitions containing 1,887 questions, information commissioner V P R Elamparithi rejected them and issued a stern warning to the appellant, A Santhosh of Villupuram, who had the audacity to appear in person before the state information commission to put forth his ‘arguments’ on Tuesday.
“We will be forced to send you to undergo medical counselling if further such mindless RTI pleas in contempt of the Act are filed,” the commissioner said in his detailed order dated Thursday.
Additional superintendent of Cuddalore district police, who is the public information officer, informed the commission that Santhosh was in a relationship with his collegemate in 2024 and they broke up after passing out of college. But he harassed her through phone calls and social media, after which she attempted suicide and was admitted to govt hospital for treatment in June 2025. The PIO also informed the commission that the girl had lodged a harassment complaint against Santhosh and furnished a copy of her complaint. After police inquired them by issuing a CSR, Santhosh started badgering the police station with RTI queries. In one of the pleas, he asked 179 queries which asked 68 questions seeking CCTV camera footage of certain dates, while other queries were surrounding the girl’s personal life, including whether she was alive and how many men she was in a relationship with.
Recording the submission, commissioner Elamparithi said the RTI Act is a powerful weapon to a common man and has been effectively used to expose corruption and ensure individual’s right over the system. “But there can’t be a better plea than this to highlight how the RTI Act has been abused since the petitioner has gone to the extent of seeking a photo of the girl concerned under the RTI Act,” the commissioner noted.
Following submission from Santhosh that he would approach the court to seek justice, the commission closed the petition.

No Exemption For Journalism: Why News Publishers Are Challenging The DPDP Act : By Hera Rizwan

The Morning: Sri Lanka: Friday, 6^th November 2026.
The DNPA has approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the law could undermine investigative reporting, expose confidential sources and restrict access to public records.

The Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), which represents the digital news operations of 21 major media organisations, has moved the Supreme Court challenging provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023.
The association argues that the law, intended to protect people's personal data, could make investigative journalism difficult, expose confidential sources and threaten the preservation of published reports.
The DNPA includes digital news operations of organisations such as The Indian Express, The Hindu, India Today, the Times Group, Zee, NDTV and Network18. Independent investigative journalist Yukta Mudgal is also a petitioner.
“This is perhaps the first comprehensive petition by what we call legacy media. There has been some debate over citizen journalists. We are the traditional, conventional legacy media,” Advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the DNPA, told the court.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notice to the Centre on the petition and the association's request for an interim stay on the challenged provisions.
What Does The DPDP Act Require?
The Parliament passed the Digital Personal Data Protection Act in August 2023 to establish a legal framework for processing digital personal data. The government notified the accompanying Digital Personal Data Protection Rules in November 2025, with implementation scheduled in phases over 18 months.
The law regulates how organisations collect, use and process digital personal data. It also gives individuals certain rights over their information and places obligations on organisations that handle it.
Under the Act, an entity that determines the purpose and means of processing personal data is called a Data Fiduciary. The individual to whom that data relates is called a Data Principal.
Broadly, the law requires Data Fiduciaries to process personal data with the individual's consent or for specific legitimate uses permitted under Section 7.
Section 7(a), for instance, permits processing for a specified purpose for which an individual has voluntarily provided their personal data, provided they have not indicated that they do not consent to its use.
The law also gives individuals the right to withdraw consent and seek erasure of their personal data, subject to the applicable provisions and exceptions.
Organisations that violate the law can face substantial financial penalties, with some breaches attracting fines of up to Rs 250 crore.
These requirements are intended to give people greater control over their personal information. However, the law does not expressly exempt journalistic activities from its provisions.
Why Is The DNPA Challenging The Law?
The DNPA's central objection is that the DPDP Act does not provide an explicit exemption for journalism. According to its petition, the government had assured publishers at an August meeting that press freedom would be protected. However, the absence of a written exemption, similar to provisions in the European Union, Singapore and the United Kingdom, remains a concern.
One of the biggest issues is the requirement for consent. Unlike businesses that collect personal data when users sign up for a service, journalists often need to gather information about individuals without informing them, particularly when investigating corruption, corporate wrongdoing or irregularities in government schemes.
The DNPA argues that requiring journalists to seek consent from the subjects of their investigations could alert them before a story is published, allowing them to interfere with the reporting. This could “allow that subject to destroy evidence, intimidate witnesses”, the petition states.
Without safeguards for journalism, the DNPA argues, this could create difficulties for publishers if individuals featured in previously published reports demand that their information be deleted.
Appearing for the association, Divan told the Supreme Court that making journalists dependent on the consent of those they report on would amount to “a complete regime of pre-censorship”.
“If I am left to the mercy of the data principal as to whether he or she will give consent, how will news be reported?” she said.
The association has also questioned the government's powers to seek information from organisations handling personal data. Section 36 of the Act, scheduled to come into effect in May 2027, allows the Centre to require a Data Fiduciary or intermediary to furnish information it calls for.
The DNPA describes this power as “nakedly unguided”, arguing that it “can extend to privileged communications in possession of a reporter or the informant”. It warns that this could expose confidential sources, including whistleblowers and government employees, and discourage them from sharing information about corruption or wrongdoing with journalists.
How Will The RTI Law Be Affected?
The DNPA has also challenged Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which amended Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
The RTI Act allows citizens to access government records, subject to certain exemptions. Journalists use it to verify official claims and investigate government decisions and policies.
Earlier, authorities could withhold personal information if it had no connection to public activity or would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. However, they could still disclose it if a larger public interest justified doing so.
The amendment replaces this provision with a blanket exemption for “information which relates to personal information”, removing the earlier public-interest test.
Nitin Sethi, founding editor of The Reporters' Collective, said this could substantially “take the teeth out of the RTI Act”.
“I would compare earlier attempts to dilute the RTI Act to a thousand cuts. What we have now in the form of the DPDP Act is a sledgehammer on the RTI law,” he told Decode.
The concerns come at a time when the RTI system is already struggling with delays and a growing backlog. A 2026 assessment by transparency watchdog Satark Nagrik Sangathan found that 3.85 lakh appeals and complaints were pending across 28 information commissions as of June 30.
A Long-Standing Press Freedom Concern
The DNPA's petition follows years of concerns from press bodies and civil society groups about the DPDP Act's impact on journalism and transparency.
In August 2023, the Editors Guild of India and DIGIPUB News India Foundation flagged the lack of a journalistic exemption and the amendment to the RTI Act. Both warned that data protection requirements could conflict with reporting on individuals and institutions in the public interest.
DIGIPUB also raised concerns with the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), arguing that the law gave the government broad powers without providing similar safeguards for journalists. In November 2025, the organisation said it had submitted detailed questions following a meeting with the MeitY Secretary, but had received no response.
The Editors Guild said the MeitY Secretary had assured press bodies in July 2025 that journalistic work would not fall under the law. The Guild and other media organisations subsequently submitted 35 questions seeking clarity on consent, exemptions, data retention, research and public-interest reporting. “However, there has been no official response since then,” the Guild said.
The Reporters' Collective filed a separate petition in the Supreme Court in February 2026, challenging provisions of the Act and their implications for transparency and public-interest reporting.
Alluding to The Reporters' Collective's recent investigations into the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, Sethi said, “All the work we did with researchers and others to analyse crores of voter records and identify irregularities could, under the DPDP Act, make whistleblowers, researchers and data analysts liable for privacy violations,” he said.
Sethi said their petition was not seeking special protection for journalists, but safeguards for all citizens seeking information in the public interest.
“We are asking for an exception to these perverse sections of the law for all citizens who want to bring out information for public purposes.”
He added that journalists were not a separate category of citizens entitled to greater accountability rights. “We are not a different breed of citizens,” he said, arguing that the ability to hold institutions accountable “should be in the hands of every possible citizen.”
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court has sought the Centre's response to the DNPA's petition but has not granted an interim stay on the challenged provisions. The next hearing is scheduled for November 17.
Union Electronics and Information Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw has dismissed concerns that the DPDP Act could restrict investigative journalism, saying the Constitution's guarantee of press freedom remains paramount. He has also invited editors and media professionals to discuss their concerns with the government.
The challenge comes at a time when India's press freedom ranking remains low. In the 2026 World Press Freedom Index, published by international media watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF), India ranked 157th among 180 countries, down from 151st in 2025. It remains in the index's 'very serious' category. RSF cited rising violence against journalists, concentrated media ownership and increasingly overt political alignment among media outlets as concerns affecting press freedom.
The DPDP Act adds another dimension to this debate, with questions over whether data protection requirements could make reporting, accessing public records and protecting confidential sources more difficult.

RTI request finds, 86 custodial deaths between 2020-26 : BY Buddhika Samaraweera

The Morning: Sri Lanka: Friday, 6^th November 2026.
A total of 86 people died in Police custody, while being taken into custody, or while being held in detention between 1 January 2020 and 26 October of this year (2026), according to data released by the Police under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. 

The figures were provided by the Police Central Crime Investigation Bureau (CCIB) on 4 November in response to an RTI request filed by The Daily Morning.
The highest number of deaths was recorded in 2023, with 19. There were 16 deaths in 2020, 14 in 2021, 11 in 2022, 10 in 2024 and 12 last year (in 2025). Four deaths have been recorded so far this year, up to 26 October. The largest number of deaths, 23, occurred while suspects were being taken into custody. Another 15 died while being taken for investigations after their arrest, and a further 15 by hanging inside Police cells. According to information, 18 deaths were natural, caused by sudden illness while the suspects were held in cells. Seven deaths were attributed to drug intake, and five involved suspects who had been assaulted by members of the public before being handed over to the Police. One death each was attributed to a suspect behaving violently inside a cell, to injuries sustained while escaping from the place of detention, and to a suspected Police assault. The suspected assault case was recorded this year.
The deaths had been reported from a large number of Police divisions across the country. These include Colombo North, Central and South, Mount Lavinia, Homagama, Nawagamuwa, Gampaha, Kalutara, Elpitiya, Galle, Matara, Tangalle, Suriyawewa, Kurunegala, Kandy, Anuradhapura, Ratnapura, Kegalle, Negombo and Kelaniya. Deaths were also reported from special units, namely the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), the Colombo Crimes Division, the Police Narcotics Bureau and the Terrorism Investigation Division. 
When queried as to whether an inquiry or investigation had been carried out into each death at the Police Departmental level, the Police stated that a Magisterial inquiry and a post-mortem examination had been conducted by the relevant regional Magistrate's Court in every case. In sensitive and special cases, further investigations were carried out by the CID or another special Police unit on the instructions of the Inspector General of Police, and the findings were reported to the courts and the Attorney General. 
The CCIB declined to state as to how many officers had been suspended or were interdicted in connection with these deaths, or against how many officers disciplinary action had been concluded or legal proceedings had been instituted. It stated that this information related to officers' personal disciplinary inquiries and personal files, and was therefore exempt from disclosure under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act, which covers personal information. However, The Daily Morning will appeal against the refusal, as the request sought only the number of officers concerned and not their names or any other details that would identify them.
Public Security Minister Ananda Wijepala and Public Security Ministry Secretary Ravi Senevirathne were not contactable on whether the Ministry would consider introducing further guidelines to prevent deaths in Police custody. 

RTI Reply Says No Feasibility Study Done For Mylapore Assembly Complex

Deccan Chronicle: Chennai: Friday, 6^th November 2026.
The government has ordered a Rs.1,200-crore new Assembly and Secretariat complex in Mylapore without conducting even a basic feasibility study or assessing the suitability of the 25.55-acre site, according to RTI replies obtained by residents.

The proposed complex, spread over 20 lakh square feet, is intended to house the Legislature and the Secretariat, which currently function from separate locations. The government has identified 25.55 acres in Mylapore for the project through a government order (G.O. Ms. No. 564) issued by the public works department on September 8, 2026. Officials have been asked to submit a detailed project report (DPR) within three months.
The residents questioned how such a major public infrastructure project was planned without documented preliminary assessments.
In replies under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the public (buildings) department has said it had no feasibility report for the project. The Chennai Circle of the Public Works Department also said it had no records relating to a needs assessment, site selection study, pre-feasibility study or cost-benefit analysis.
The department, as per the RTI reply, had no records explaining why a feasibility study was considered unnecessary before preparing the DPR.
The absence of these documents has raised questions about the basis on which the government identified the Mylapore site. The residents want to know whether alternative locations were considered and whether the land was assessed for its suitability before the government issued the order.
Under established government procedures for public works, major projects are expected to undergo technical examination, cost estimation, and appropriate administrative and financial scrutiny.
The Tamil Nadu Budget Manual also mandates site investigation and technical assessment in the preparation of major works. However, whether a separate feasibility report was mandatory before issuing this particular G.O. depends on the nature of the approval and the applicable procedures.
The residents have demanded that the government disclose the studies, if any, conducted before selecting the site and explain the reasons for choosing Mylapore for a project involving public expenditure of Rs. 1,200 crores.
A resident told Deccan Chronicle that the village panchayats will hold a press conference at the Moolikuppam Srinivasapuram Fishermen Community Welfare Hall at 10 am on Thursday to present the RTI replies and explain their objections.

Manipur Govt. fails to appoint State Chief Information Commissioner; Vacancy paralyses transparency watchdog

Imphal Times: Manipur: Friday, 6^th November 2026.

The Manipur Government has failed to appoint a new State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC), leaving the Manipur Information Commission (MIC) without its chief since October 22, 2026, when the tenure of the previous Chief Information Commissioner ended. The prolonged vacancy has raised serious concerns over the functioning of the statutory institution responsible for ensuring transparency and accountability in public administration under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
The Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DP&AR), Government of Manipur, issued an advertisement on September 16, 2026, inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of State Chief Information Commissioner. The last date for submission of applications was October 15, 2026. However, despite the completion of the application process and the impending vacancy being known in advance, the Government has failed to appoint a successor, leaving the Commission without its chief since October 17.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated February 15, 2019, in Anjali Bhardwaj and Others v. Union of India, emphasised the need for timely appointments to Information Commissions. The Court observed that the process for filling a vacancy should ideally begin one to two months before the anticipated vacancy so that there is no substantial time lag between the occurrence of the vacancy and its filling. It also urged the Central and State Governments to ensure that vacancies are filled without delay.
Although the Manipur Government issued the advertisement approximately one month before the previous Chief Information Commissioner’s tenure ended, the failure to complete the appointment process and ensure continuity in the leadership of the Commission has raised questions over the follow-up action taken by the Government.
The failure to appoint a successor has also raised questions over the Government’s commitment to strengthening transparency and accountability in public administration.
When Imphal Times investigated the reasons behind the delay in appointing the new Chief Information Commissioner, it found that the appointment process had been held up due to slow procedural movement at the Administrative Reforms Department.
The delay in processing such an important appointment has left a crucial statutory institution without its principal administrative head.
The absence of a Chief Information Commissioner for an extended period risks weakening the accountability mechanism established under the RTI Act. Delays in the disposal of appeals and complaints can provide further protection to public officials and authorities who withhold information or avoid transparency, while citizens seeking answers on matters involving public interest are left waiting for decisions.
More concerning is the reported suspension of hearings by the Manipur Information Commission, even though a State Information Commissioner remains in office. The Commission is reportedly not taking up hearings of RTI appeals and complaints on the ground that a new State Chief Information Commissioner has not been appointed.
While the absence of a Chief Information Commissioner may affect the administrative management, general superintendence and direction of the Commission, the RTI Act does not expressly state that hearings of appeals and complaints must be suspended during a vacancy in the post of Chief Information Commissioner.
A similar situation arose at the Central Information Commission in 2025, when the post of Chief Information Commissioner remained vacant from September 14 to December 15, following the completion of the tenure of the then Chief Information Commissioner. During this period, no existing Information Commissioner was given additional charge of the post of Chief Information Commissioner. Yet, the Central Information Commission continued conducting hearings through its existing Information Commissioners.
This raises a pertinent question: if the Central Information Commission could continue conducting hearings in the absence of its Chief, why has the Manipur Information Commission stopped hearing appeals and complaints despite having an existing State Information Commissioner?
Section 15(4) of the RTI Act provides that the general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the State Information Commission shall vest in the State Chief Information Commissioner, who shall be assisted by the State Information Commissioners. However, Sections 18 and 19 separately provide for the Commission’s statutory responsibilities in dealing with complaints and second appeals. The Act does not expressly make the conduct of hearings conditional upon the presence of a Chief Information Commissioner.
The distinction between administrative management and the hearing of appeals and complaints therefore assumes significance. While the absence of a Chief Information Commissioner may create difficulties in the administrative functioning of the Commission, the question remains whether such a vacancy should bring its hearing functions to a standstill.
The Government’s failure to appoint a successor, coupled with the reported suspension of hearings, has raised concerns over the fate of pending RTI appeals and complaints. At a time when citizens depend on the RTI Act to question government decisions and expose irregularities, the institution entrusted with ensuring transparency and accountability cannot be allowed to remain ineffective.
The State Government needs to explain the delay in completing the appointment process and ensure that the Manipur Information Commission continues to discharge its statutory responsibilities without interruption.