कपूरथला नगर निगम PIO के जमानती वारंट जारी:राज्य सूचना आयोग का सख्त आदेश; RTI की जानकारी नहीं देने का आरोप

Dainik Bhaskar: Kapurthala: Sunday, 26 July 2026.
पंजाब राज्य सूचना आयोग (PSIC) ने कपूरथला नगर निगम के जन सूचना अधिकारी (PIO) सह एक्सईएन हरप्रीत सिंह के खिलाफ 7 अलग-अलग मामलों में जमानती वारंट जारी किए हैं। यह कार्रवाई कथित अतिक्रमण और जुलाई 2022 में नाले में गिरकर एक बच्चे की मौत से जुड़ी आरटीआई जानकारी देने में लगातार टालमटोल करने के कारण की गई है।

ह्यूमन राइट्स प्रेस क्लब के लीगल एडवाइजर टीएस ढिल्लो।

राज्य सूचना आयुक्त पूजा गुप्ता की अदालत ने निगम की कार्यप्रणाली पर कड़ा संज्ञान लिया। ह्यूमन राइट्स प्रेस क्लब पंजाब के अध्यक्ष ने सितंबर 2023 में नगर निगम कपूरथला से कई महत्वपूर्ण जानकारियां मांगी थीं। इनमें शहर में अनियंत्रित अवैध अतिक्रमणों की स्थिति और जुलाई 2022 में एक मासूम बच्चे की खुले नाले में गिरकर हुई मौत की जांच व लापरवाही से संबंधित सवाल शामिल थे।
सितंबर 2023 में आरटीआई दाखिल करने के बावजूद नगर निगम ने कोई जवाब नहीं दिया। इसके बाद संस्था ने प्रथम अपीलीय अथॉरिटी यानी नगर निगम कमिश्नर के समक्ष अपील दायर की, लेकिन वहां से भी कोई राहत या जानकारी नहीं मिली।
12 अपीलें राज्य सूचना आयोग में लंबित
अधिकारियों की इस लापरवाही और सूचना छिपाने की मंशा के खिलाफ संस्था ने राज्य सूचना आयोग, चंडीगढ़ का रुख किया। संस्था के अध्यक्ष की ओर से कुल 12 अपीलें राज्य सूचना आयोग में लंबित हैं, जिनमें से सूचना आयुक्त पूजा गुप्ता की अदालत में विचाराधीन 7 अपीलों में सीनियर एक्सईएन हरप्रीत सिंह के जमानती वारंट जारी करने का आदेश दिया गया है। आयोग ने सभी सातों अपीलों पर कड़ा रुख अपनाया है।
संस्था के लीगल एडवाइजर क्या कहते है
ह्यूमन राइट्स प्रेस क्लब के लीगल एडवाइज़र TS ढिल्लो ने कहा कि "नगर निगम कपूरथला के अधिकारियों की लापरवाही के कारण शहर में अतिक्रमण का जाल बिछ चुका है और एक मासूम बच्चे को अपनी जान तक गंवानी पड़ी।
जब संस्था के अध्यक्ष जी की तरफ से कानून के दायरे में आकर सवाल पूछे गए तो तीन साल तक फाइलें दबाई गईं और आयोग में भी तारीख पर तारीख का खेल खेला गया। संस्था की तरफ से दायर कुल 12 अपीलों में से मानयोग कमिश्नर पूजा गुप्ता की कोर्ट में चल रही 7 अपीलों में जमानती वारंट जारी होना यह साबित करता है कि अधिकारी कानून से ऊपर नहीं हैं और उन्हें जनता के प्रति जवाबदेह होना ही पड़ेगा।"

Shocking RTI Findings: Pune’s PMPML Lost Nearly Rs 3,000 Crore in Just Four Years

Punekar News: Pune: Sunday, 26 July 2026.
The Pune Mahanagar Parivahan Mahamandal Ltd. (PMPML) has incurred cumulative losses of ₹2,957.28 crore over the past four financial years, with its expenditure consistently exceeding its income, according to information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The information, sought by RTI activist Tushar Ratnapal, reveals that PMPML earned ₹2,438.91 crore through passenger fares and other sources between 2021-22 and 2024-25. However, the public transport undertaking reported cumulative losses of ₹2,957.28 crore during the same period. To sustain its operations, the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) and the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC) together provided ₹2,825.43 crore in financial assistance over the four years. The Maharashtra government contributed only once during this period, releasing ₹8.40 crore in 2022-23 towards police travel reimbursement.
The highest annual loss was recorded in 2024-25, when PMPML posted a deficit of ₹885.43 crore. During the year, it generated ₹689.25 crore in revenue while spending ₹769.35 crore on employee salaries and pensions alone an amount that exceeded its total income.
The RTI data has raised concerns about PMPML’s financial sustainability and its continued dependence on grants from the two civic bodies. Citizens have questioned whether the transport utility has implemented effective measures to curb recurring losses and improve its financial health.
When contacted, PMPML Chairman and Managing Director Mahesh Awhad did not respond to queries. Senior officials said they were unaware of any specific measures currently being implemented to address the mounting losses.
“PMPML’s revenue is largely consumed by salary and pension expenses. Every year, the organisation incurs losses running into hundreds of crores, yet there are no concrete measures to reduce them. Consequently, it has to rely on annual grants of around ₹700 crore from the two municipal corporations,” RTI activist Tushar Ratnapal said.
PMPML losses over the lastfour financial years
Financial Year Loss (₹ crore)
2021-22            718.97
2022-23,           646.53
2023-24            706.35
2024-25            885.43
Total                2,957.28

Urdu Academy Financial Probe Deepens After RTI Denial

INDToday: Hyderabad: Sunday, 26 July 2026.

Urdu Academy Financial Probe Deepens After RTI Denial

The Telangana Urdu Academy has refused to disclose details of its bank accounts and financial transactions under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, citing an ongoing Vigilance and Enforcement Department investigation.
The refusal has also renewed questions over prolonged leadership vacancies and financial oversight within the Academy.
The RTI application was filed on April 20, 2026, by social activist Shareef from Moghalpura, Hyderabad.
In its reply dated May 20, 2026, the Academy’s Public Information Officer rejected the request, stating that the information sought was exempt under Sections 8(1)(g), 8(1)(h), and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The officer also stated that the requested details did not fall within the definition of “information” under Section 2(f) of the Act.
The RTI response confirms that the Vigilance and Enforcement Department is investigating the Academy’s financial affairs.
Official correspondence dated January 2, 2026, shows that vigilance officials sought extensive financial records from the Academy.
The department requested details of all bank accounts operated since 2020, certified bank statements, approvals related to opening or closing accounts, copies of specific cheques issued in November 2020, sanction orders, vouchers, and records identifying officials authorised to operate the accounts.
The enquiry also refers to government instructions requiring all departments to cooperate fully with Vigilance and Enforcement officials during investigations.
Meanwhile, Shareef alleged that government funded Shaadi Khana facilities managed under the Academy have not undergone proper audits for several years.
He questioned how public funds allocated to these facilities were utilised and who benefited from them.
Separately, social activists linked the current controversy to the absence of permanent leadership at the Telangana Urdu Academy. He alleged that since the formation of Telangana, the institution has functioned without a permanent cadre Director or Secretary, with officers holding temporary or additional charge.
According to activists, the lack of consistent administrative leadership weakened financial accountability and delayed institutional reforms.
He urged Minorities Welfare Minister Mohammed Azharuddin to appoint a permanent cadre officer and order a comprehensive audit of the Academy and its government funded assets.
The Telangana Urdu Academy functions under the Minorities Welfare Department from Haj House, Nampally, Hyderabad.
Neither the Academy nor the Minorities Welfare Department has issued a public statement on the Vigilance investigation or the RTI rejection.

Don’t hide your identity in RTI plea: Info commissioner

Times of India: Chennai: Sunday, 26 July 2026.
The state information commission has asked applicants not to file pleas in another person’s name without the latter’s consent, under the pretext of maintaining anonymity.

“Those expecting the public information officers to remain transparent and furnish the required and correct information under the RTI Act should know the same is expected of them. They too should not misuse the Act,” said information commissioner V P R Ilamparithi.
The commissioner made the observations while disposing of an appeal filed in the name of a 13-year-old girl without her knowledge. The original petition sent last year to the Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department sought land details of Sri Pillaiyar temple under the control of HR&CE dept at Chandrapuram in Jolarpet. The first and second appeals were also promptly filed citing lack of information.
The information commission sent the summons to the petitioner-girl by post and the commission was surprised when a 13-year-old schoolgirl accompanied by her grandmother appeared for the hearing. To the commission’s shock and surpirse, the girl deposed that she never filed the petition and that the Tamil signature in the petition was not hers.
The girl’s mother on the phone informed the commission she sent her daughter to the hearing since she wanted to become a lawyer and experience the hearing at the information commission, even though she did not file the petition.
Recording the submission, commissioner Ilamparithi closed the petition since the PIO also informed the commission the details sought under the RTI plea was already sent by post.

Is India's Data Protection Board Independent Enough To Protect You? : By - Faraz Siddiqui

Live Law: New Delhi: Sunday, 26 July 2026.

Most people believe that once laws are enacted establishing regulatory oversight, regulator independence is a done deal. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 is set to become the exception to this rule, and the arena in which this contest is playing out is the Supreme Court of India itself.
The DPDP Act 2023 and the DPDP Rules 2025 notified on 13th November 2025, are currently before the Supreme Court, challenged in a clutch of writ petitions by journalist Geeta Seshu, the Software Freedom Law Centre, digital news platform The Reporters Collective, journalist Nitin Sethi and the National Campaign for People's Right to Information. The matter has been taken up by the CJI and a bench of other judges, and the status quo is for the time being sub judice. This article does not seek to comment on the petitioners' prospects before the Court, or engage in speculation on the issues likely to arise. Instead, it seeks to lay out, in easily-digested language, what these challenges are about in the first place what grey areas in the law they have identified and what Data Fiduciaries and ordinary citizen need to know about the discrepancy between what the DPDP Act promises and what its language actually delivers.
The Grey Zone: Who Does The DPDP Act Actually Protect?
The DPDP Act has the broad definition of "person" in it and, crucially, it does not draw a distinction between 'natural' and 'legal' persons. It states that individuals, companies, Hindu Undivided Families and the State can all qualify as a "person" under the Act. However, "personal data" is defined strictly in terms of information pertaining to an identifiable individual person. The implication of this technicality is that a company's data is not "personal data" in the eyes of the law, unless its owner is a natural person. This definitional grey area is one of the reasons why the Bench has asked the petitioners to address what it considers to be the issue of public data versus personal data, and whether the stated objectives of the DPDP Act apply only to 'natural persons' Until this dispute is laid to rest, businesses which process data on behalf of corporate clients face a compliance conundrum and a potential data security risk. The resolution of this dispute is one of the many reasons why the issues raised in these petitions are of great interest to Data Fiduciaries everywhere.
The RTI Amendment: An Explicit Change with Implicit Consequences
Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act 2023, which amended the Right to Information Act 2005, is another sticking point. Under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act 2005, a public authority may disclose personal information about any public servant upon demonstration of overriding public interest in the disclosure. However, as it stands now, personal information of public servants are now exempted from disclosure as a category, with no public interest exception available at all marks a stark contrast to the legal standing prior to this enactment. This is an explicit statutory change, not an interpretation of law, and falls squarely within the issues raised by the petitioners. The amendment is being challenged on the grounds that the RTI framework is now significantly weakened, and the ability of the media and common citizens to hold public servants accountable has been hampered. Whether this amendment survives constitutional scrutiny is now squarely a question for the Court.
Board Independence: A Structural Question, Not a Personal One
The DPDP Act establishes the Data Protection Board under Section 18 and the composition and remit of the Board is the subject of much debate. Under Section 18 of the DPDP Act, the Board consists of a chairperson and other members appointed by the Central Government on the recommendations of the Search-cum-Selection Committee constituted by the Central Government - meaning that the majority of the Board is likely to comprise Government nominees. Furthermore, the Board reports to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, which raises the question of whether it can truly act independently when it comes to cases concerning the Government of India, or the data protection concerns of its agencies and political leadership. This is, arguably, a question of structural design, and one which falls outside the purview of individual. It is the kind of issue that has been referred to the Supreme Court previously in similar contexts and it seems entirely reasonable that it should be referred there now. It is notable that this question has even arisen and that it did not get buried by the sheer gravity of the other issues raised in the petitions. That is the mark of a functional system of checks and balances, and not a weakness in it.
What This Means for Compliance Right Now
It bears mentioning that for every Data Fiduciary preparing for the DPDP Act's substantive commencement on 13 th May 2027, this litigation will not affect your obligations one bit. The Act comes into force regardless, and the Data Protection Board is fully operational. As of 13th November 2026, you are expected to put your Consents Manager infrastructure in place. It would be unwise to prepare for the total repeal of the DPDP Act, or for the provisions which the petitioners find most offensive to be struck down wholesale, but it is unwise to operate under the assumption that they will be either. As in similar matters, it is more prudent to prepare for the law as written, while keeping a close eye on how the Court rules on the specific sections under challenge, namely Sections 7, 17(2)(a), 19(3), 24, 36, 44(2)(a), and 44(3).
The Path Forward
India's Supreme Court has, since its landmark judgement in the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India verdict establishing privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, been the locus of debates which touched on personal data protection. It was the very judgement that established the need for a comprehensive data protection framework in the first place- and it is only fitting that this Court has been tasked with assessing the DPDP Act's compliance with the Constitution in turn. The fact that this law has come into being, and can now be judged by the country's highest court, is itself a statement on support for privacy in the constitution. The Indian Supreme Court has always tackled such dilemmas with the responsibility expected of it. Whatever it rules, it will have affirmed, yet again, that India's young but resilient data protection framework rests in capable hands.
Author is a Delhi based Legal Professional specialising in DPDP Act compliance and AI governance. Views are personal.

हिमाचल में 13 महीने से चीफ इन्फॉर्मेशन कमिश्नर नहीं:पूर्व आयुक्त बोले- RTI कमजोर कर रही सरकार, 3 बार आवेदन मांगे, नियुक्ति फिर भी नहीं

Dainik Bhaskar: Shimla: Saturday, 25 July 2026.
हिमाचल के स्टेट इन्फॉर्मेशन कमीशन एक साल से सफेद हाथी साबित हो रहा है। कमीशन के पास 1600 से अधिक शिकायतें लंबित हो चुकी हैं, लेकिन कांग्रेस सरकार एक साल से ज्यादा समय बीतने के बावजूद चीफ इन्फॉर्मेशन कमिश्नर (CIC) और इन्फॉर्मेशन कमिश्नर (IC) की नियुक्ति नहीं कर पाई है।

हालांकि, इन पदों को भरने के लिए तीन बार आवेदन मांगे जा चुके हैं। एडमिनिस्ट्रेटिव रिफॉर्म डिपार्टमेंट ने इच्छुक दावेदारों से तीसरी बार फरवरी 2026 में आवेदन मांगे थे। इसकी अंतिम तिथि 20 मार्च थी। इससे पहले दो बार (जून 2025 और दिसंबर 2025) आवेदन मांगे गए।
सूत्रों के अनुसार 20 से ज्यादा लोगों ने CIC और IC के लिए आवेदन कर रखा है। मगर सरकार नियुक्ति की प्रक्रिया को आगे नहीं बढ़ा रही। CIC और IC की तैनाती नहीं होने से अपीलों की सुनवाई नहीं हो पा रही है। पुरानी शिकायतें भी नहीं सुनी जा रही। इससे लोगों को RTI के तहत सूचनाएं नहीं मिल पा रही।
सरकार RTI को कमजोर कर रही: बातिश
राज्य के पूर्व सूचना आयुक्त केडी बातिश ने बताया कि CIC और IC की नियुक्ति न करके सरकार सूचना का अधिकार कानून (RTI) को कमजोर कर रही है। एक साल से दोनों पदों का खाली होना RTI के प्रति सरकार की सोच को दर्शाता है। उन्होंने बताया कि UPA सरकार ने कानून तो जरूर बना दिया, लेकिन कांग्रेस को पारदर्शिता पर विश्वास नहीं है।
CIC-IC का क्या काम?
सरकारी विभाग से जब कोई व्यक्ति RTI के तहत सूचना मांगता है और संबंधित विभाग के जन सूचना अधिकारी (PIO) जानकारी देने से इनकार करते या गलत सूचना देते हैं, तो उस स्थिति में लोग संबंधित विभाग की फर्स्ट अपीलेट अथॉरिटी के पास पहली अपील करते हैं।
फर्स्ट अपीलेट अथॉरिटी से भी जब सूचना नहीं मिलती, तब सूचना मांगने वाला व्यक्ति इन्फॉर्मेशन कमीशन के पास पहुंचता है। इसके बाद सूचना आयोग अपीलकर्ता और संबंधित विभाग, दोनों को सुनता है। दोनों पक्षों को सुनने के बाद आयोग RTI के तहत मांगी गई जानकारी देने को लेकर फैसला सुनाता है।
कब से खाली पड़े CIC-IC के पद?
हिमाचल में पूर्व IAS आरडी धीमान CIC और एसएस गुलेरिया IC थे। एसएस गुलेरिया 3 जुलाई 2025 को रिटायर हुए। जून 2025 में ही आरडी धीमान को रेरा (रियल एस्टेट विनियामक प्राधिकरण) में चेयरमैन लगाया गया। तब से CIC का पद भी खाली पड़ा है। यानी एक साल से अधिक समय बीत गया। नए CIC-IC की नियुक्ति नहीं हो पाई।
कौन बन सकता है CIC और IC?
CIC और IC बनने के लिए व्यक्ति को सार्वजनिक जीवन में प्रतिष्ठित होना चाहिए, जिसके पास लॉ, विज्ञान और प्रौद्योगिकी, समाज सेवा, प्रबंधन, पत्रकारिता, जनसंचार माध्यम या प्रशासन और शासन जैसे क्षेत्रों में व्यापक ज्ञान और अनुभव हो। ऐसे व्यक्ति CIC और IC बन सकते हैं। संसद या राज्य विधानमंडल का सदस्य इसके लिए आवेदन नहीं कर सकता।

अब हर छात्र जानेगा अपना अधिकार! रांची यूनिवर्सिटी में एडमिशन लेते ही मिलेगी RTI की जानकारी

Jagran: Ranchi: Saturday, 25 July 2026.
रांची विश्वविद्यालय के कॉलेजों में अब नामांकन लेने वाले छात्रों को प्रथम क्लास से ही आरटीआई की जानकारी दी जाएगी। राज्य सूचना आयोग के निर्देशानुसार, कॉलेजों को वेबसाइट पर पूरी जानकारी देनी होगी और पीआईओ नियुक्त करने होंगे।

नामांकन के समय छात्रों को मिलेगी आरटीआई की जानकारी। जागरण

रांची विश्वविद्यालय के कॉलेजों में नामांकन लेने वाले विद्यार्थियों को अब आरटीआई की जानकारी प्रथम क्लास से प्रदान की जाएगी। ये हम नहीं कह रहे हैं बल्कि राज्य सूचना आयोग का ये निर्देश है।
नए सत्र के विद्यार्थियों को इसकी जानकारी के साथ सूचना अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 से संबंधित सारी सूचना उपलब्ध करानी होगी। इसके अलावा कॉलेजों को अपने वेबसाइट पर भी पूरी जानकारी उपलब्ध करानी होगी। राज्य सूचना आयोग की ओर से इसके अलावा कई और निर्देश कॉलेजों और विश्वविद्यालय को दिया गया है। जिसको कॉलेजों को इस सत्र से लागू करना होगा।
कॉलेजों को वेबसाइट पर देनी होगी पूरी जानकारी:
यही नहीं कॉलेजों ओर विश्वविद्यालय को अपने वेबसाइट पर सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 की पूरी जानकारी प्रदान करनी होगी। इसमें बताना होगा कि क्या नियम है और इससे सूचना कैसे प्राप्त की जा सकती है।
राज्य सूचना आयुक्त डॉ. तनुज खत्री ने बताया कि आरटीआई की जानकारी केवल उन्हीं छात्रों को रहती है, जिनको इस अधिनियम से सूचना प्राप्त करनी है। इसके अलावा कॉलेजों के विद्यार्थियों को ये पता नहीं होता है कि सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम क्या है, इसका इस्तेमाल कैसे किया जाता है।
इसलिए कॉलेजों को निर्देश दिया गया है कि वो नामांकन के समय ही विद्यार्थियों को पूरी जानकारी उपलब्ध कराएं। इसलिए कहा गया है कि कॉलेज अपने वेबसाइट पर आरटीआई से संबंधित पूरी जानकारी प्रदान करेंगे। इसके अलावा विश्वविद्यालय की ओर से आरटीआई से संबंधित एक हैंडबुक भी वेबसाइट पर पब्लिश किया जाएगा।
हेल्प डेस्क से दी जाएगी आरटीआई की जानकारी:
विश्वविद्यालय स्तर पर समर्पित आरटीआई पोर्टल विकसित किया जाएगा, वहीं प्रत्येक कॉलेज में आरटीआई हेल्प डेस्क स्थापित किया जाएगा और परिसर एवं वेबसाइट पर नो योर राइट टू इनफॉर्मेशन शीर्षक से स्थायी सूचना प्रदर्शित की जाएगी।
वहीं अब उत्कृष्ट कार्य करने वाले लोक सूचना पदाधिकारी (पीआइओ) एवं महाविद्यालयों को वार्षिक आरटीआई कंप्लायंस अवार्ड भी प्रदान किया जाएगा। जिससे पीआईओ प्रोत्साहित हो और इस अधिनियम की जानकारी प्रत्येक विद्यार्थी तक पहुंच सके।
कॉलेजों में भी बनाए जाएंगे पीआईओ:
इसके अलावा रांची विश्वविद्यालय के सभी अंगीभूत और संबद्ध कॉलेजों में अब पीआइओ की नियुक्ति की जाएगी। वर्तमान में रांची विश्वविद्यालय के एक से दो कॉलेजों को छोड़कर किसी में भी पब्लिक इनफॉर्मेंशन ऑफिसर नियुक्त नहीं किया गया है। इसलिए राज्य सूचना आयोग का निर्देश है कि सभी कॉलेजों में जल्द से जल्द पीआईओ की नियुक्ति की जाए।

IFF Writes to the Commissioner of Police and files RTIs on live facial recognition at Jantar Mantar

IFF: Delhi: Saturday, 25 July 2026.
The Delhi Police is running live facial recognition on protesters at Jantar Mantar from a vendor-built surveillance van. By its own record, there is no rule, no retention policy and no privacy impact assessment.

Two Delhi Police vehicles are stationed at the ongoing protests at Jantar Mantar: a Mobile Command and Control Vehicle and a smaller van called 'Ikshana', inside which CCTV footage of the protest is run through facial recognition software that draws green boxes around faces and matches them against a police database. A senior officer has confirmed to the press that live facial recognition is being run on protesters. Another has admitted that no data retention guidelines are being followed. The Delhi Police's own replies to our RTIs, extracted after a second appeal before the Central Information Commission, establish that there is no rule governing its use of facial recognition technology ("FRT"), that no privacy impact assessment was ever conducted, and that a similarity score of just 80% is treated as a positive match. On July 24, 2026 we sent a legal representation to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi seeking an immediate halt to live FRT at peaceful assemblies, deletion of the biometric data of protesters, and publication of the rules, if any exist. We have also filed four fresh RTI applications, including one directed at the private vendor arrangement behind the Ikshana van.
The scene at Jantar Mantar
The Cockroach Janta Party ("CJP"), led by student activist Abhijeet Dipke, has been holding a sit-in and hunger strike at Jantar Mantar since 20 June 2026, protesting repeated examination paper leaks. As reported by the Indian Express on 23 July 2026, the two police vans stand parked outside Kerala House, at the heart of the protest. Inside the Ikshana van, officers watch screens where facial recognition software processes live CCTV feeds of the crowd, flagging faces for comparison against what one officer described as a large database of criminals. The Ikshana vehicle was inducted ahead of the G20 Summit in 2023 and carries eight fixed cameras giving 360-degree coverage.
The reporting records the human consequence with precision. Students are covering their faces. One protester preparing for competitive examinations feared that being filmed holding a poster would land her in a police database. Another worried the footage would find its way to his parents. A second senior officer conceded that no specific data retention guidelines were being adhered to, and that footage could remain on police systems indefinitely, available for investigations months later.
The vans have since become a story of their own. Videos circulating on social media appear to show the vehicles' screens displaying photographs and personal details of persons at the protest site. The Delhi Police has not disclosed which database these details are drawn from. Speculation that the system is linked to Aadhaar remains unverified, and that it can circulate at all is itself an indictment: seven years after we began asking, no one outside the police knows what these systems are matched against.
This surveillance is not incidental to the protest. It is a condition imposed on it. A petition, Aishe Ghosh v. Union of India, filed by the former JNU Students' Union president through advocates Subhash Chandran K.R. and Anirudh K.P., is pending before a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court. It alleges continuous, indiscriminate and intrusive surveillance of the assembly, including a permanent surveillance tower, blanket deployment of videographers, and monitoring so pervasive that it covers protesters eating and resting. The plea further alleges that police threatened student protesters that their photographs would be sent to their parents and educational institutions.
At the hearing on 20 July 2026, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Court that recording protests is routine and done only to maintain law and order: "There is no snooping. There is no surveillance." The green boxes inside the Ikshana van say otherwise. Notably, the Bench asked the Delhi Police to state whether any standard operating procedure or guidelines govern the handling of protests at all. That is precisely the question our RTI applications have put to the force, and we already know part of the answer from its own record.
What the paper trail already shows
We have been litigating transparency on the Delhi Police's use of FRT since 2020. Our original RTI applications were refused. Our first appeals were rejected. We won before the Central Information Commission in Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/604037, decided on 08.06.2022, and the disclosures that followed remain the only official record of how this system works. Our full 2022 analysis is here:

• There is no rule. The CCTV Cell of New Delhi District stated in writing on 03.02.2022 that there is no specific rule for the use of facial recognition technology in the Delhi Police.
• 80% is a "positive" match. The reply dated 25.07.2022 disclosed that a similarity score of 80% and above is treated as a positive result. When the American Civil Liberties Union ran Amazon's Rekognition tool at its default confidence threshold in 2018, it falsely matched 28 members of the US Congress to criminal mugshots, disproportionately legislators of colour. Applied to a crowd, this arithmetic manufactures suspects.
• No privacy impact assessment was ever done. The Delhi Police admitted as much, while assuring us that the privacy of every citizen is sacrosanct.
• The databases rest on a repealed statute. The matching databases were stated to be maintained under Sections 3 and 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, a law that Parliament repealed in 2022. What legal basis they rest on today is unknown. Reporting from as far back as 2019 indicated that the Delhi Police's datasets extended well beyond history-sheeters, to images harvested from footage of the city's protests.
• Function creep is complete. The Delhi High Court in Sadhan Haldar v. NCT of Delhi permitted the Delhi Police to obtain FRT to trace missing children. It has since been used on the 2020 North East Delhi riots, the Red Fort violence, Jahangirpuri, and now on students holding posters.

The vendor in the van
There is a further question the press reporting does not reach: who built this system, and what access do they retain? The answer sits on the vendor's own website. In a publication dated 12.04.2023, CP PLUS (Aditya Infotech Limited) announced that it designed and developed the prototype Ikshana vehicle in collaboration with the Delhi Police, complete with AI-powered cameras, face detection and recognition functions, and the vendor's own Health Monitoring System software integrated for live monitoring of the surveillance setup. The company added that the Delhi Police planned to commission more such vehicles.
No tender, contract, or data handling agreement for this arrangement has ever been disclosed. In 2022, the Delhi Police refused our request for tender documents citing national security, even as the vendor advertised the system's capabilities to the public. Whether a private company's software has remote access to a police surveillance system processing the biometric data of protesters is a question that deserves an answer on record. The pattern of private vendors embedded in Delhi's policing is one we flagged earlier this year in the context of the Safe City project.
Why this is illegal
The right to assemble peacefully at Jantar Mantar was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018). The right to privacy, and the three-fold requirement that any intrusion satisfy legality, legitimate aim and proportionality, was settled in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). Live facial recognition of a lawful assembly fails at the first step: there is no law, and the police's own record admits there is not even a rule.
Indian law has never tolerated open-ended police surveillance. In Govind v. State of M.P. (1975) and Malak Singh v. State of Punjab and Haryana (1981), the Supreme Court confined surveillance to habitual and potential offenders, on recorded grounds, exercised discreetly. In Malak Singh, the Court warned:
"...nor can the surveillance be such as to squeeze the fundamental freedoms guaranteed to all citizens or to obstruct the free exercise and enjoyment of those freedoms; nor can the surveillance so intrude as to offend the dignity of the individual."
The practice at Jantar Mantar inverts every one of these conditions. Everyone present is scanned, not persons with recorded antecedents. There are no recorded grounds. The surveillance is conspicuous by design. It answers to no independent review. What five decades of precedent permitted as a narrow exception for history-sheeters has become the default condition of attending a protest.
The consequences were foreseen sixty-three years ago. In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1963), Justice Subba Rao's dissent, since approved in Puttaswamy, held that a citizen under the shadow of surveillance cannot move, speak or associate freely. The covered faces at Jantar Mantar are the empirical proof of that holding. And when the state reaches for national security as a justification, the Supreme Court's Pegasus order in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India (2021) is the answer: its mere invocation does not oust constitutional scrutiny.
What we have done
On July 24, 2026 we sent a legal representation to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, requesting that his office:

• Immediately cease live facial recognition of participants in peaceful assemblies at Jantar Mantar and other protest sites, absent specific legal authorisation.
• Confine videography of assemblies to the position stated before the Delhi High Court, and discontinue continuous and indiscriminate recording.
• Delete footage, facial templates and match results of protesters not connected to the investigation of a specific cognisable offence.
• Publish the SOPs governing FRT, CCTV, surveillance vehicles, drones and videography of assemblies, including retention and destruction schedules.
• Commission and publish a data protection impact assessment before any further FRT deployment.
• Disclose the vendor arrangements behind the Ikshana vehicles and confirm on record that no private entity has access to the data.
• Constitute a consultation with civil society and technical experts.

We have also filed four RTI applications:

1. With PIO: Crime, on the FRT and AI analytics systems: the SOPs, the current match threshold, accuracy audits, the databases and their legal basis after the 1920 Act's repeal, retention, and compliance with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
2. With New Delhi District, on the CCTV network and videography at Jantar Mantar: camera numbers, deployment orders for the vans and videography teams, the alleged surveillance tower, retention, and the instructions in force when the Solicitor General made his statement.
3. With Police Headquarters, on drones: fleet, procurement, SOPs, Digital Sky registration, deployment at Jantar Mantar, and whether drone footage feeds facial recognition.
4. With Police Headquarters, on Project Ikshana: every contract with the private vendor, the cost of each vehicle, whether procurement followed open tender under the General Financial Rules, whether vendor software transmits data to private servers, and whether any private entity can access footage or biometric data.

Each application is grounded in the Delhi Police's past disclosures, so that the exemptions claimed in 2022 cannot be credibly claimed again. We will publish every reply we receive.
Transparency litigation of this kind is slow, unglamorous and entirely dependent on our members. If you believe that attending a protest should not place your face in a police database, become an IFF member and help us see this through.
Important Documents

1. IFF's legal representation to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi dated [24.07.2026] [Link]
2. RTI application on FRT and AI video analytics filed with PIO: Crime [Link]
3. RTI application on CCTV and videography filed with New Delhi District [Link]
4. RTI application on drones filed with Police Headquarters [Link]
5. RTI application on Project Ikshana and vendor involvement filed with Police Headquarters [Link]
6. Delhi Police reply dated 25.07.2022 pursuant to the CIC's decision in Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/604037 [Link]
7. CCTV Cell report dated 03.02.2022 stating that no rule governs FRT use [Link]
8. CP PLUS publication dated 12.04.2023 on the Ikshana prototype [Link] (archived copy: [[Link]])
9. The Indian Express report dated 24.07.2026 [[Link]]
10. Bar and Bench report of the Delhi High Court hearing dated 20.07.2026 in Aishe Ghosh v. Union of India [Link] 
11. Our 2022 analysis: "Delhi Police's claims that FRT is accurate at 80% are 100% scary" [Link]
12. Our February 2026 analysis of Delhi's Safe City project [Link]

Punjab State Information Commissioner asks cops asked to study panel’s reports

The Tribune: Chandigarh: Saturday, 25 July 2026.

Punjab Police Academy Director IGP Dhanpreet Kaur presents a souvenir to State Information Commissioner Harpreet Sandhu.

The State Information Commissioner, Punjab, Harpreet Sandhu, emphasised the importance of transparency, accountability and citizen-centric governance while addressing a one-day training programme on the Right to Information Act-2005, organised under the patronage by the Director, Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur, Dhanpreet Kaur.
Addressing Public Information Officers (PIOs), Assistant Public Information Officers (APIOs) and police officers associated with RTI Cells of Punjab, Sandhu said the RTI Act is a powerful instrument for strengthening public trust in government institutions.
He encouraged police officers to regularly study judicial pronouncements and the commission’s decisions to ensure legally sustainable decision-making and reduce avoidable appeals.
The SIC highlighted the crucial role of PIOs in effective implementation of the Act and urged them to ensure that RTI applications are dealt with promptly, correctly and courteously. He emphasised that applicants should be viewed as citizens exercising a legal right and not as adversaries.
Sandhu stressed the need for proper record management, systematic indexing, digitisation and timely disposal of RTI applications. He said that exemptions under Sections 8 and 9 should be invoked carefully and only where legally justified, with clear and reasoned decisions.
Advertisement
Referring to the sensitive nature of police functioning, he observed that while legitimate confidentiality must be protected, transparency should remain the guiding principle. Calling for greater proactive disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI Act, Sandhu said, “Transparency builds credibility. Credibility strengthens public cooperation. Public cooperation contributes to more effective policing.”
The SIC said the RTI Act is not merely about providing information but about building public trust, strengthening democracy and ensuring transparent, accountable and responsive governance.
The event concluded with Punjab Police Academy Director IGP Dhanpreet Kaur presenting a souvenir to Sandhu as a token of gratitude.