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.

CIC Cautions Railways Against 'Administrative Buck-Passing' In RTI Cases

ETV Bharat: New Delhi: Friday, 6^th November 2026.
The CIC observed that repeatedly transferring queries between departments without ensuring that information reaches applicants defeats the objective of the transparency law.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has taken strong exception to "administrative buck-passing" by the Railways in handling RTI applications and asked it not to repeat such instances.
Information Commissioner Swagat Das expressed "displeasure" over the handling of an RTI application seeking details of action taken on allegations concerning unauthorised occupation and misuse of railway land and property by cooperative societies.
The CIC observed that repeatedly transferring queries between departments without ensuring that information reaches applicants defeats the objective of the transparency law.
"The Commission expresses its displeasure over the manner in which the RTI application was dealt with, resulting in repeated inter-departmental transfers without ensuring that the information sought was ultimately furnished to the appellant," the order said.
It further cautioned that "such instances of administrative buck-passing" should not be repeated, and directed that RTI applications be handled in a coordinated, responsible and time-bound manner. The case pertains to the RTI application filed in November 2019, seeking details of action taken on the representation submitted to the Railway Board concerning alleged irregularities involving railway land and property.
The application was transferred from the Railway Board to Northern Railways and subsequently forwarded among various departments, including the Accounts Department, Engineering Division and Personnel Branch. The commission noted that despite the passage of considerable time, the Railways had failed to establish that a complete and specific response addressing the information sought had been furnished to the applicant.
Observing that administrative coordination among different departments was the responsibility of the public authority and this "cannot be shifted upon the appellant", the Commission directed Northern Railway's Nodal Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to seek assistance from the concerned departments under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act.
It asked the CPIO to furnish a specific, categorical and point-wise reply detailing the action taken, present status and final outcome, if any, of the representation. If no final decision had been taken, the same must be categorically stated.
The commission, however, dropped the proposed penalty proceedings after considering the explanation furnished by the railway official concerned, while cautioning the respondents against further instances of administrative buck-passing.

RTI Act: CIC rejects blanket fiduciary exemption for PMRBP selection records, directs disclosure of nomination status and aggregate statistics

SCC Online: New Delhi: Friday, 6^th November 2026.
“A fiduciary relationship cannot be established merely because information is held confidentially or forms part of an internal process, and mere custody of evaluated records does not, by itself, create such a relationship.”

Central Information Commission (CIC): In a second appeal concerning information sought regarding the appellant’s 4 nominations under the Pradhan Mantri Rashtriya Bal Puraskar (PMRBP), the Information Commissioner, P.R. Ramesh held that mere custody of evaluation records or their forming part of an internal selection process does not, by itself, establish a fiduciary relationship under Section 8(1)(e), Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), and that a general assertion of third-party information cannot justify withholding the entire record where reasonably severable information exists under Section 10, RTI Act. The Commission directed the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Women & Child Development, to furnish the status of the appellant’s nominations, the exact URL/hyperlink to the PMRBP guidelines and aggregate statistical data regarding nominations received, shortlisted and finally selected, after redacting exempt information under Section 10, RTI Act.
Background
The appellant had submitted 4 nominations under the PMRBP for the award cycles 2023, 2024 and 2025 and sought information regarding their status, evaluation records, scores, rankings, committee observations, selection criteria, deficiency notes and aggregate statistics concerning nominations received and selected. The CPIO denied several queries under Section 8(1)(e) and (j), RTI Act, treating the evaluation records as confidential and fiduciary in nature. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the response, following which the appellant approached the CIC.
Before the CIC, the appellant contended that the information concerning his nominations could be disclosed after redacting exempt portions under Section 10, RTI Act. The respondent submitted that the evaluation records contained comparative assessments and information relating to other candidates, could not be separated from the exempt portions.
Analysis and decision
The Commission considered the appellant’s 10 queries relating to his 4 PMRBP nominations for the 2023, 2024 and 2025 award cycles, examined the CPIO and FAA’s approach of treating the entire selection and evaluation record as confidential and fiduciary. The expression “fiduciary relationship” has been judicially understood to refer to a relationship in which one person acts for the benefit of another and owes a duty of confidence and good faith. Referring to Section 8(1)(e), RTI Act and CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, the Commission observed that a fiduciary relationship cannot be established merely because information is held confidentially or forms part of an internal process, and mere custody of evaluated records does not, by itself, create such a relationship.
The Commission, however, acknowledged that comparative evaluation records may contain information relating to other candidates, disclosure of which may attract Section 8(1)(j), RTI Act. The Commission observed that while personal information of other nominees, comparative assessments of identifiable third parties and confidential information furnished by third parties could not be disclosed where exempt under Section 8(1)(j), RTI Act, a general assertion that the records contain other candidates’ information was insufficient to establish that no reasonably severable portion exists. Thereafter, the Commission, in response to Point 1, found that the CPIO had failed to clearly specify the stage-wise status of each of the appellant’s 4 nominations and had instead provided a vague response.
For Points 2—5, the Commission noted that the CPIO had stated that separate scores or rankings were not maintained in a form capable of independent disclosure. For Point 6, although the CPIO had stated that the PMRBP Scheme Guidelines and nomination-related instructions were publicly available, the Commission noted that no web link/hyperlink and leading to the information had been provided.
For Point 7, the Commission found the response substantive, as no fixed minimum qualifying marks, scores, rankings or selection thresholds were prescribed or maintained and selection was based on holistic assessment, the CPIO was not required to create or compile information not maintained by the public authority. For Point 8, it noted that no specific deficiency note, adverse remark, or objection resulting in rejection of the appellant’s nominations had been recorded. As regards Point 9, the Commission held that aggregate figures of nominations received, shortlisted and selected were distinguishable from personal information of individual nominees, and the CPIO had not sufficiently explained how disclosure of such aggregate data, identities or personal particulars, would attract Section 8(1)(e) or Section 8(1)(j), RTI Act.
Allowing the second appeal in part, the Commission directed the CPIO to furnish the status of the appellant’s nominations, the exact URL/hyperlink and complete path to the PMRBP information sought, and the statistical data of nominations received, shortlisted and finally selected, within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The CPIO was directed to ensure that any exempt information was redacted under Section 10, RTI Act, before disclosure. For the remaining queries, the Commission found the response of the CPIO appropriate and disposed of the appeal accordingly.
[Zain Eqbal v. CPIO: Ministry of Women & Child Development, CIC/MOWCD/A/2026/641779, decided on 1-10-2026]

‘Information fairs’ planned at universities to raise RTI awareness

UNB: Bangladesh: Thursday, 5^th November 2026.
The Information Commission has taken an initiative to organise “information fairs” at universities across the country, aiming to raise public awareness about the Right to Information Act, 2009 and encourage wider exercise of the right to information.

As part of this initiative, the Commission on Wednesday held a view-exchange meeting with representatives from non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to discuss plans for organising Right to Information (RTI) fairs at universities across the country.
The meeting was held in the conference room of the Commission, with Chief Information Commissioner Prof Dr Nahreen Islam Khan in the chair.
Information Commissioners SAM Mahfuzur Rahman and Khan Mohammad Abul Hossain, and Commission Secretary Md Shah Alam were also present, according to a press release.
The meeting discussed plans, scope and implementation strategies for organising information fairs at universities.
The representatives of NGOs shared their views and suggestions on how their organisations could contribute to and participate in the initiative.
The proposed information fairs will feature stalls set up by various organisations, showcasing RTI-related publications, posters, leaflets and booklets.
Videos, short dramas and documentaries highlighting the right to information will also be screened.
Practical assistance will be provided to students on how to write applications seeking information and complete the relevant application forms.
The fairs will also familiarise students with the procedures for lodging appeals and complaints.
The participants expressed optimism that university-based information fairs would foster a positive attitude towards the right to information among young people and encourage them to exercise this right.
The initiative is also expected to contribute to promoting transparency and accountability and building a more informed, aware and responsible citizenry.

Defence ministry denies RTI plea on air chief selection, cites national security : By Mohit Saini

Rediff: New Delhi: Thursday, 5^th November 2026.
The defence ministry has invoked national security to deny crucial information regarding the appointment process of the Chief of Air Staff under the RTI Act, raising significant questions about transparency in high-level defence selections.

Image used only for representational purposes. Photograph: Jitender Gupta/ANI Photo

Three defence offices were unable to identify the authority keeping records relating to the appointment of the Chief of Air Staff, while the defence ministry invoked national security to deny information on the selection process or the policy and guidelines governing the appointment of service chiefs, according to an RTI reply.
The applicant had sought the names of the officers considered for appointing the air chief after the retirement of Air Chief Marshal B S Dhanoa, documents and correspondence relating to the appointment of Air Chief Marshal R K S Bhadauria as his successor, and details of the policy governing such appointments.
Ministry Cites National Security
The defence ministry, however, denied the information, describing the appointment of service chiefs as a sensitive matter impinging on national security, and invoking Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, which the Central Information Commission (CIC) upheld.
Dhanoa served as the Chief of Air Staff from January 1, 2017, to September 30, 2019, before Bhadauria took over the post and served until September 30, 2021.
RTI Application's Journey
The RTI application, filed on March 25, 2024, was initially submitted to the department of defence, which transferred it to the department of military affairs (DMA).
The DMA subsequently forwarded it to the Air Headquarters.
The Air Headquarters replied that "no such information" was held by the public authority.
Confusion Over Record Keeping
In its subsequent submission to the Central Information Commission (CIC), the Air-III Division of the DMA said it had found no records relating to the appointment of the Chief of Air Staff.
It also acknowledged that the official handling the application was not aware as to which section or division dealt with such appointments.
The Air-III Division said the application was forwarded to Air Headquarters as the authority dealing with the subject might require its inputs and could also know which division in the ministry handled the matter.
Terming the sequence of events "unfortunate", an official said the Air Headquarters too had been unable to identify the appropriate authority and had eventually stated that the information was not held by it.
Final Denial and CIC Upholds
After making further enquiries, the Air-III Division said it had learnt that the subject was dealt with by the AF/Policy wing in the department of defence and forwarded the application to that office.
However, a joint secretary in the AF/Policy wing denied the information, stating that the appointment of service chiefs was a sensitive matter affecting national security.
The official invoked Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, which exempts disclosure of information that could prejudicially affect India's sovereignty, integrity, security and strategic interests, among others.
At a recent hearing, the respondents informed the CIC that the ministry's response denying the information on security grounds had been sent to the applicant.
They also submitted that the appointment of service chiefs was governed by statutory provisions and laws.
The CIC observed that the respondents duly addressed the queries raised in the RTI application and that the response was acceptable.
The Chief of Air Staff is appointed by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC), which is chaired by the prime minister, with formal formalisation by the President of India, who's the supreme commander of the armed forces.

CEO J-K constitutes POSH committee after RTI application, claims activist

Kashmir Vision: Jammu: Thursday, 5^th November 2026.
The Office of the Chief Electoral Officer has constituted an Internal Complaints Committee under the POSH Act on October 30, nearly a month after an RTI application seeking details about the constitution of such committees in government departments was filed, the applicant activist claimed here.

According to the information furnished in response to the RTI application filed by Jammu-based activist Raman Kumar Sharma on September 26, the freshly constituted committee does not include an external member from an NGO or an association working on women’s issues.
The department also informed that 31 female employees are currently working in the office of the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) and no complaint of sexual harassment had been received by the committee so far.
A POSH committee officially called the Internal Committee or Internal Complaints Committee is a mandatory body required for every workplace with 10 or more employees under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act.
The RTI application had sought details of government offices and government-funded bodies that had not constituted POSH committees, copies of the latest orders and guidelines on the subject, as well as information regarding the composition and date of constitution of each committee, the number of complaints received and their disposal status.
Sharing the official response dated November 4, Sharma said the information received from the CEO’s office provides insight into the constitution of the committee and also highlights the need for clarity regarding the mandatory representation of an external member under the POSH Act.
According to the order, the CEO confirmed that an Internal Complaints Committee had been constituted on October 30 with Deputy Director Information Salam Din appointed as its Chairperson.
Statistical Officer Sapna Raina and Election Assistants, Neelam Devi and Shufta Haroon, were nominated as its members. The order also provides for the co-option of another person by the chairperson.
However, the RTI reply stated that no outside member from an NGO or an association working on women’s issues has been included in the committee.
This raises questions regarding compliance with Section 4 of the POSH Act, which mandates the inclusion of an external member in the Internal Complaints Committee, the RTI activist said.
He said the RTI application was initially submitted to the General Administration Department (GAD), which forwarded it to all administrative departments under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, on October 7 for furnishing the requisite information directly to the applicant within the prescribed time.
The development once again highlights the importance of statutory compliance and institutional accountability in ensuring that legal protections available to women are implemented at the workplace, he said.
Sharma thanked the CEO’s office for the step and said greater awareness about women’s rights at the workplace was needed across Jammu and Kashmir.
He said such committees should function effectively and women employees should be made aware of the mechanism available to them under the law.

GSIC Cracks Down On Devalaya Administrators Over RTI Evasion, Orders Statewide Indexing Of Temple Records

Prudent Media Goa: Ahmedabad: Wednesday, 4^th November 2026.
Commission Says Administrators Cannot Shift Responsibility to Temple Committees; Directs All Devalaya Offices to Catalogue Mandatory Records

The Goa State Information Commission (GSIC) has directed Devalaya Administrators across Goa to obtain, catalogue and index mandatory temple records, emphasising that their offices are public authorities responsible for maintaining and disclosing such information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The order was passed by State Information Commissioner Atmaram R. Barve while disposing of five second appeals filed against the Public Information Officer (PIO), Mamlatdar of Bardez, who also functions as the Administrator of Devalayas.
The Commission observed that although temple managing committees are not considered public authorities under earlier High Court rulings, the Office of the Administrator of Devalayas is bound by RTI obligations. It criticised the practice of merely forwarding RTI applications to private temple committees and denying information when the committees failed to respond.
The Commission noted that previous court rulings concerning temple committees appeared to have become a shield for Administrators to avoid their own statutory responsibilities.
It clarified that mandatory records, including lists of Mahajans, inventories of movable and immovable properties, budget estimates, cash books and bank details, must be maintained and made accessible through the Administrator’s office. The Commission also stated that compiling these records does not amount to creating new information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Allowing all five appeals, the Commission directed the PIO to ensure that the concerned Devalaya furnishes the requested information by November 30, 2026. An official inspection of the records must also be facilitated for the appellant by December 15, with formal minutes recorded and a compliance report submitted on December 21.
In a statewide directive, the Commission asked the Secretary of the Revenue Department to instruct all Devalaya Administrators in Goa to obtain, catalogue and index mandatory temple records by December 15, 2026. A statewide compliance report must be submitted before the Commission on December 21.

Women's Rights In New Criminal Laws: CIC Orders inspection of NCW consultation records

ETV Bharat: New Delhi: Wednesday, 4^th November 2026.
The consultations were conducted as part of the NCW's exercise titled 'Review of Criminal Law – Improvement in Status of Women'

The Central Information Commission has directed the National Commission for Women to allow an RTI applicant to inspect records relating to five regional consultations held in 2022 as part of its exercise to review criminal laws from the perspective of women's rights.
In an order, Information Commissioner P R Ramesh directed the central public information officer (CPIO) of the National Commission for Women (NCW) to provide an opportunity to inspect all relevant physical and electronic records within two weeks of receiving the order.
The consultations were conducted as part of the NCW's exercise titled 'Review of Criminal Law – Improvement in Status of Women', following a request from the Union government seeking recommendations on the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Indian Evidence Act.
The NCW held the consultations in early 2022 and submitted a consolidated report to the central government on March 4 that year, suggesting changes to criminal laws to better protect women's interests.
The IPC, CrPC and Indian Evidence Act were subsequently replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), respectively, which came into force on July 1, 2024.
The Commission observed that the NCW had provided the applicant with a copy of its March 4, 2022 communication to the central government, along with the consolidated report containing its recommendations. However, it pointed out that the specific information sought regarding individual regional consultations had not been adequately addressed.
"The specific information sought by the appellant at point no. 3 individual regional consultations, has not been specifically addressed," the Central Information Commission (CIC) said.
The RTI applicant, Sanjukta Basu, had sought details of all five regional consultations, including their dates, venues, organising institutions, participants and copies of reports or deliberations. During the hearing, she contended that the consolidated report referred to five regional consultations but individual reports and details of participants, discussions and deliberations had not been provided.
She also pointed out that the report of the consultation held at National Law University (NLU), Odisha, was available on its website, while Symbiosis Law School, Pune, had indicated that a detailed report of its consultation would be prepared and sent to the NCW.
The NCW told the commission that some consultations were conducted online and physical reports relating to those meetings were not available in its records. It offered the applicant an opportunity to inspect the relevant records.
Observing that inspection was a recognised mode of accessing information, the CIC said Section 2(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, encompasses the right to inspect documents and records and obtain certified copies.
The commission said the NCW was expected to undertake a "diligent search of the relevant records, including physical files and electronic records pertaining to the regional consultations".
It directed the CPIO to assist the applicant in identifying relevant documents during the inspection and provide copies upon payment of the prescribed fee under the RTI Rules, 2012.
The Commission also directed the NCW to communicate categorically if any information was unavailable or not maintained by the public authority after verification of its records.

The Delhi High Court was considering a petition challenging an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC). : By Tulip Kanth

Verdictum: New Delhi: Wednesday, 4^th November 2026.
The Delhi High Court was considering a petition challenging an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC).

Justice Amit Mahajan, Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has set aside an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) asking the High Court to provide information regarding cases wherein judgments were reserved and not pronounced despite the lapse of two months.
The High Court was considering a petition challenging an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC), whereby the petitioner was directed to locate the information about the cases wherein judgments were reserved and not pronounced despite the lapse of two months.
The Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan held, “This Court is mindful that while timely delivery of judgments is undoubtedly a matter of public concern, the consideration of public interest arises only when the information exists. The same cannot be used to compel a public authority to create information which is not held by it.”
Advocate Priyam Mehta represented the Petitioner.
Factual Background
The respondent is a former judicial officer. On April 2, 2009, the respondent applied to the Public Information Officer (PIO) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). In query, the respondent stated that in a Writ Petition, filed by him against the Court, arguments were heard by a Division Bench presided over by Justice A.K. Sikri. The respondent sought complete details of all the cases heard by the Judge, sitting singly or in a Division Bench, in which judgment was delivered more than two months after the conclusion of arguments.
When no reply was received within thirty days, the respondent filed a first appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act. Thereafter, the PIO replied that such data was specifically maintained and compiled. The respondent later alleged that the information had been deliberately withheld and “may be readily available” with the Court Master or Private Secretary of the Judge, the Registrar(Admn.-Judicial) and the office of the Chief Justice. The First Appellate Authority passed an order finding no infirmity in the reply of the PIO, as no such data was maintained, and rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Authority, the respondent preferred a Second Appeal before the CIC, which came to be dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The Bench reiterated that the RTI Act provides access only to such information as is available and existing with the public authority. Reference was also made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011).
The Bench noted that furnishing the information sought by the respondent would require the petitioner to examine the records of all the cases heard by a particular Judge, whether sitting singly or in a Division Bench, to calculate the time taken in each case, and to prepare a fresh list. “This would amount to collecting and collating information, which, as held in Aditya Bandopadhyay (supra), the public authority is not obliged to do. The learned CIC itself noted that such an exercise would be impossible”, it stated.
The Bench held that the CIC in the impugned order proceeded merely on the premise that the information “should be available” on account of the practice of furnishing such lists to the Chief Justice. “A direction under the RTI Act cannot be issued on such an assumption. Such practice does not, by itself, mean that the lists are preserved year after year”, it added.
Thus, allowing the petition, the Bench set aside the impugned order.
Cause Title: Public Information Officer v. P.D. Gupta (Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:9686)
(Click here to downloadOrder)

MP High Court Allows RTI Applicant To Inspect Records Before Seeking Copies Of Documents : By Jayanti Pahwatwitter

Live Law: Bhopal: Wednesday, 4^th November 2026.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has permitted an RTI applicant to inspect the relevant records before identifying the specific documents whose copies he seeks, taking note of the substantial delay of nearly 14 years since the appellate authority's order of 2012. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 446]
Modifying the earlier order of the Single Judge, the division bench of Chief Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain directed:
"Considering the time elapsed between the order passed in the year 2012 and the impugned order of learned Single Judge, the Court deems it fit to modify the order of learned Singe Judge to the extent that the application specifying the documents, the copies of which are required by the respondent (appellant herein), however, such documents be specified by the appellant after taking inspection of the record. For the aforesaid, it is open for the appellant to approach the Public Information Officer with an application for inspection and based on such inspection, an application for supply of the documents specified therein may be filed". 
The appellant, a social activist, challenged an order of August 17, 2026, passed by the Single Judge Bench in WP 18347 of 2015. The Single Judge had set aside the order of the State Information Commissioner and the First Appellate Authority concerning the appellant's request for information under the RTI Act. 
The appellant had sought certain documents, including 'up-to-date monthly reports submitted by/on behalf of the Governor to the Central Government regarding the functioning/political status of the State Government, along with internal communications sent by the Central Government to the Office of the Governor'.
The State contended that the application did not clearly identify the specific documents whose copies were being sought. Therefore, the State argued that in the absence of such details, the appellate authority could not have passed an order directing disclosure. 
In the August 17 order, the Single Judge had observed that the applicant failed to mention specific documents along with respective details. Therefore, the court granted liberty to the applicant to submit a fresh application specifying the documents required. 
Aggrieved, the appellant filed before the Division Bench seeking its modification and a direction to the authorities to provide information within the stipulated time period. With the aforementioned directions, the court disposed of the writ appeal.

Delhi High Court rejects order asking for data on ‘delayed’ judgments of ex-HC judge : Written by: Ashish Shaji

The Indian Express: Article: Tuesday, 3^rd November 2026.
The court set aside a Central Information Commission's order directing the Public Information Officer to disclose details of cases heard by former judge Justice A K Sikri in which judgments were reserved and not pronounced within two months.

The Delhi High Court set aside the CIC's disclosure order. (Image generated using AI)

The Delhi High Court has set aside a Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing the Public Information Officer (PIO) to disclose details of cases heard by former judge Justice A K Sikri in which judgments were reserved and not pronounced within two months.
Justice Amit Mahajan observed that while timely delivery of judgments is important, public interest cannot compel a public authority to create information it does not hold.
“This Court is mindful that while timely delivery of judgments is undoubtedly a matter of public concern, the consideration of public interest arises only when the information exists. The same cannot be used to compel a public authority to create information which is not held by it,” the order dated October 29 read.
RTI application
The case concerns an RTI application filed in April 2009 by former judicial officer P D Gupta, who sought details of cases heard by then Delhi High Court judge Justice A K Sikri, either singly or as part of a Division Bench, in which judgments were delivered more than two months after the conclusion of arguments.
The judicial officer had pointed out that arguments in a case filed by him against the Delhi High Court were heard on July 31, 2007, and the judgment was pronounced on May 2, 2008. He therefore sought similar details of all cases heard by Justice Sikri during the relevant period.

Justice Amit Mahajan found that the CIC had passed the order merely on the premise that the information “should be available” on account of the practice of giving such lists to the Chief Justice.

Since no reply was received within thirty days, the officer filed a first appeal. Thereafter, the PIO informed the judicial officer that no such data was specifically maintained or compiled.
After the first appeal was rejected, the judicial officer approached the CIC. The PIO had argued that, firstly, the information sought is not maintained, and secondly, the information was being furnished to the Chief Justice in a sealed cover and was held in a fiduciary capacity and was thus exempt under the RTI Act.
The CIC rejected both the arguments by observing that, owing to the practice of court masters compiling such lists every month, the information “should be available”, and that its disclosure would serve a larger public interest. Challenging the order, the PIO approached the high court.
The court observed that furnishing the information would require the PIO to examine the records of all the cases heard by a particular Judge, whether sitting singly or in a Division Bench, to calculate the time taken in each case, and to prepare a fresh list which would amount to collecting and collating information, which, the public authority is not obliged to do.
The court took note of PIO’s stand that no such data is maintained or compiled as required by the judicial officer. “The said stand, supported by the affidavit of the PIO, has not been disputed by the respondent by way of any counter affidavit,” the court said.
The court found that the CIC had passed the order merely on the premise that the information “should be available” on account of the practice of furnishing such lists to the Chief Justice. “A direction under the RTI Act cannot be issued on such an assumption. Such practice does not, by itself, mean that the lists are preserved year after year,” the court said.
It therefore allowed the petition and set aside the order passed by CIC.
(Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express (Digital), where he specialises in legal journalism.)