2,761 complaints pending before Maharashtra women’s commission, govt yet to appoint chairperson & six members: RTI reply

The Times of India: Pune: Friday, 22 May 2026.
Over 2,700 complaints were pending before the Maharashtra State Commission for Women at the end of the last financial year, with key positions in the panel remaining vacant, an RTI reply obtained by city-based activist Vihar Durve has revealed.

The post of chairperson has been vacant since March 20, when Rupali Chakankar resigned. In addition, the tenure of six non-official members ended in Jan, leaving the commission significantly understaffed. As per its mandated structure, the commission is meant to have nine members, including a chairperson, six non-official members, a member secretary and an ex-officio police officer.
According to data provided by the commission, 2,761 complaints were pending as of March 31, 2026. During the financial year 2025-26, the panel disposed of 15,560 cases. The reply to RTI query was issued on May 18 by the commission’s public information officer.
Marital disputes accounted for the largest share of pending cases at 1,020, followed by complaints related to social issues, including rape and allied offences, at 741. Property disputes made up another 319 pending cases. The commission also reported 169 workplace harassment complaints and 35 sexual harassment cases awaiting resolution.
In total, the commission handled 18,321 complaints over the last financial year, of which 16,150 were newly registered and 2,171 were carried forward from previous years. The data also indicated a steady rise in pendency. Pending cases stood at 2,550 in Dec 2025, rose to 2,637 by the Jan-end (2026) and reached 2,761 by March-end.
Activist Durve said the delay in appointing a new chairperson and members could hamper the commission’s functioning and slow down the disposal of complaints. “The delay amounts to a violation of the Maharashtra State Commission for Women Act, 1993,” he said, adding that repeated high court directives on timely appointments had not been complied with.
Women’s rights activists emphasised the need for experienced and grassroots-level professionals to be appointed to the panel. They argued that individuals with direct experience in handling issues like domestic violence, workplace harassment, and gender rights would be better equipped to address the growing caseload. “One cannot rely on purely political appointments. The commission needs people who understand ground realities,” an activist said.
Meanwhile, complainants have expressed concern over delays in case hearings. One woman who approached the commission said there was an urgent need for faster resolution of cases to ensure timely justice for those seeking help.

'Hamara Paisa, Hamara Hisaab': How Semi-Literate Villagers in Rajasthan Exposed Crores in Corruption & Won India the Right to Information : By Avantika Krishna

The Better India: Himachal: Friday, 22 May 2026.
When activists, journalists, and ordinary villagers united in a small Rajasthan village, they exposed ghost projects, confronted corrupt officials in public hearings, and launched a grassroots movement that empowered rural India and gave birth to the nation's landmark Right to Information Act.

A village in Rajasthan became the starting point of a movement that would permanently reshape how citizens engage with power. Photograph: (AI generated image for representation)

In the heartland of Rajasthan, nestled on the slopes of the Aravalli range, lies a village that changed the course of Indian democracy.
Devdungri, a small settlement in Rajsamand district’s Bhim block, is widely recognised as the birthplace of India’s Right to Information (RTI) movement. Here, in a simple mud-and-stone house, three activists began a conversation with rural workers that would eventually reach the floor of Parliament.
Three people, one question
In 1987, three people from vastly different backgrounds came together in Devdungri. Aruna Roy, a former Indian Administrative Service officer who had resigned to work with the rural poor, joined hands with Shankar Singh, a local activist with exceptional communication skills, and Nikhil Dey, who had returned from the United States with a commitment to social change.
They settled in Devdungri, living simply alongside the community they had come to work with.
“The idea of living in Devdungri was to live with the people, like them,” Roy later recalled in an interview with The Week.
One of the first people they connected with was Lal Singh, a police constable who had been dismissed for protesting the alleged misuse of constables as domestic servants.
“I met them within months of their arrival. We used to roam around on bicycles,” Lal Singh now secretary of the School for Democracy, a non-profit in Rajasthan recalled.

A modest mud-and-stone home in Devdungri became the platform for conversations between activists and villagers helped shape a national movement. Photograph: (Outlook India)

At the time, rural workers across Rajasthan had limited means to verify whether government relief works were being implemented fairly, or whether wages recorded on official muster rolls had actually been paid.
Working alongside villagers like Lal Singh, the activists began organising workers to collectively raise questions about their dues.
As Roy later reflected, “When people came with grievances, it became clear that access to information was critical to securing basic rights.”
The question at the heart of their work was deceptively simple: if public money belongs to the people, why should people not be able to see how it is being spent?
Building the Jan Sunwai
Out of years of grassroots organising grew the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), formally established on 1 May 1990 during a rally attended by 1,000 people from 27 villages.
The organisation developed a tool that would become one of its most enduring contributions to Indian democracy: the jan sunwai, or public hearing.
The concept was elegant in its simplicity. Government officials were invited to bring their account books, which were then read aloud in a public space. Villagers could listen, cross-check, and speak up verifying whether work documented on paper had actually been completed on the ground, and whether wages recorded in their names had reached them.
In December 1994, MKSS held its first jan sunwai in Kot Kirana village in Pali district. Subsequent hearings followed in Vijaypura, Jawaja, and other villages.

Aruna Roy, Shankar Singh and Nikhil Dey built the movement by living and working alongside rural communities. Photograph: (The Week)

What these hearings demonstrated, above all, was that ordinary citizens many of them semi-literate, many of them women were entirely capable of scrutinising official records when given access to them.
According to accounts documented by MKSS and reported by journalists who attended, villagers used the platform to formally raise discrepancies between what official records showed and what they had experienced on the ground. The jan sunwai gave these observations a documented, public platform for the first time.
Alongside the jan sunwais, MKSS also ran informal classes for children in the area who could not access formal schooling part of a broader effort to build a community grounded in an understanding of its rights.
Shankar Singh, who had given up an opportunity to become a government schoolteacher to join the movement, spearheaded its communication strategies using art, puppetry, theatre, dance, and music to engage the public.
His Ghotala Rath Yatra, a satirical street performance built around a decorated handcart, travelled from village to city, drawing people into conversations about governance and accountability through irony and song.
The jan sunwai model eventually drew a formal response from the state. On 5 April 1995, the Rajasthan Chief Minister pledged in the Assembly that the government would grant public access to development records an acknowledgement that the public hearing process had surfaced questions requiring a policy response.
“Hamara Paisa, Hamara Hisaab”
When the state government’s promise remained unimplemented, MKSS launched a 40-day dharna at Beawar’s historic Chang Gate in April 1996.
The sit-in drew thousands from rural Rajasthan, with women forming the largest contingent.

MKSS used songs, street theatre and puppetry to turn discussions on governance into conversations people could join. Photograph: (Outlook India)

Lakshmi Narayan, a vegetable vendor at Chang Gate, recalled: “The place bustled with journalists and others from Jaipur, Delhi and beyond. Protesters came from nearby villages, and local traders provided accommodation, food and drinks throughout the dharna.”
It was at Beawar that the movement found its defining voice.
Sushila, an MKSS member who had studied only up to Class 4, was asked by a journalist why an uneducated woman wanted the RTI.
Her response, documented and widely recalled by those present, became the movement’s most enduring slogan:
“When I send my son to the market with ten rupees, I ask him to account for how he spent it. The government spends crores of rupees in our name. Why can we not ask for an accounting? Hamara paisa, hamara hisaab (our money, our accounts).”
The phrase captured something legal language never quite could: that transparency was not a technical demand, but a matter of basic dignity.
From village square to parliament
The sustained organising by MKSS, and the public evidence gathered through jan sunwais, helped build a broader coalition.
In 1996, the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information was established, bringing together civil society organisations from across India.
The testimonies and documented findings from Devdungri’s public hearings formed part of the evidence presented before parliamentary committees, making the case that transparency was a right, not a privilege.
As a former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court said at the RTI Mela in Beawar  held to mark twenty years of the Act “The idea for RTI was born from the soil, from the struggle of ordinary workers and farmers, in villages more than in cities. It came from people like you.”
Rajasthan passed the first state-level RTI law in 2000. Tamil Nadu, Goa, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Delhi followed.

“Hamara Paisa, Hamara Hisaab” became the slogan that transformed the language of transparency into a demand for dignity. Photograph: (X/@nikhilmkss)

After years of sustained advocacy, the Right to Information Act was passed by Parliament in May 2005, received presidential assent in June, and came into force on 12 October 2005.
What RTI made possible
Once the law was in place, the accountability model pioneered in Devdungri could function at scale.
In Janawad Panchayat in Rajsamand district, over 70 villagers came together to collectively examine their panchayat records using Rajasthan’s RTI law demonstrating, in practice, that communities could read official documents, cross-reference them with their own experiences, and build a verified, evidence-based picture of how public funds had been used in their name.
The process they undertook prompted a formal government inquiry.
Corroborated by the RTI records the villagers had gathered, the inquiry found that a significant number of listed development works could not be verified on the ground.
A subsequent inquiry, held in 2001, found evidence of misappropriation of funds, and the outcome included a state mandate for annual social audits of panchayat funds a structural reform that continues to shape local governance in Rajasthan.
What the Janawad case illustrated most powerfully was not simply what had gone wrong, but what citizens could build: a replicable, community-led process for verifying public spending that was rigorous enough to trigger official accountability.
Passing It On: RTI and the Next Generation
From the beginning, the movement understood that lasting change required building knowledge across generations not just winning individual cases.
Within Rajasthan’s broader RTI ecosystem, this took several forms.
RTI Manch, a Jaipur-based organisation that works in close collaboration with MKSS, built a network of nearly 100 student volunteers from the University of Rajasthan.
These students carried RTI awareness into villages near Jaipur, explaining both the Act and MGNREGA entitlements to residents, while also setting up RTI kiosks at the university and in public spaces across the city.
The movement also found its way into classrooms.
The Government of Rajasthan included a chapter on the RTI movement in the state’s high school textbooks, acknowledging the contributions of MKSS and the people of Beawar and Bhim.
The chapter remained in the syllabus across changes in political leadership a marker of cross-party recognition of the movement’s place in the state’s democratic history.
Perhaps the most vivid account of how RTI was introduced to younger generations comes from Shankar Singh himself.
He described a volunteer named Vineet who visited villages with a small projector, casting the Rajasthan government’s Jan Soochna Portal onto a white wall.

Children and villagers learning to access public information reflecting the movement’s effort to pass the idea of accountability to future generations. Photograph: (The Week)

First, Vineet screened a short film on RTI to draw in children who believed they were simply watching a movie. Then he asked a child to bring their family’s ration card, entered the number into the portal, and projected the result onto the wall.
The child saw his father’s photograph appear and called out in surprise.
Vineet then showed the family’s complete ration record how much wheat they had received, and when.
In that moment, the idea that a government database contained information that belonged to them and that they could access it became immediate and real.
As Aruna Roy has said: “The demand for transparency stems from our fundamental right to a dignified life.”
The Work Continues
Two decades after the RTI Act came into force, the law continues to evolve and so does the citizen engagement that gave birth to it.
According to the Central Information Commission’s 2023–24 annual report, 1.75 million RTI applications were filed across the country, reflecting the scale at which ordinary Indians have adopted the tool that Devdungri helped build.
Shankar Singh framed the road ahead in characteristically collective terms:
“This era of RTI will continue only if there is a movement today. In places where people are fighting and struggling together, they get the information they need.”
The legacy of Devdungri is not simply the legislation that emerged from it it is the proof of concept that preceded it.
Before there was a law, there was a group of villagers in Rajasthan who established that reading a government file aloud in a public space was a legitimate act of citizenship.
The jan sunwai model they built has since informed social audit frameworks across India and has been referenced in governance discussions internationally.
Justice Shah, speaking at Beawar in 2025, captured the spirit of what that museum and the movement behind it could represent going forward: a place where “the past helps inspire democratic initiatives in the present and future”, and where the story of ordinary citizens shaping national policy is preserved for generations to come.
Devdungri stands as evidence that lasting change can begin in a village square when ordinary people decide they have the right to know and, in knowing, find the tools to shape the world they live in.
Sources:
'Devdungri Remains A Testament To The History Of India's RTI Act': Outlook India, Published on 20 March 2024
'How a series of small dharnas in a remote village in Rajasthan snowballed into the RTI Movement': by Bharat Dogra for Press Institute of India, Published on 10 November 2024
'Jansunwai – Public Hearing and Accountability': MKSS official website
'How a grassroots movement ignited India's RTI revolution': The Week, Published on 4 October 2025
'RTI Act: A powerful tool in fighting hunger': Good Food Movement, Published on 14 February 2025
'RTI activist Shankar Singh on building social movements': India Development Review (IDR), Published on 15 January 2026
'RTI Success Stories': by Asha Kanta Sharma for RTI India, Published on 4 March 2018

High Court stays Himachal government notification exempting Vigilance Bureau from RTI Act

The Indian Express: Himachal: Friday, 22 May 2026.
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has stayed the state government’s notification exempting the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (SV&ACB) from the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The state government had issued the notification on March 12, while the interim order was passed on May 19.

The state government, however, justified exempting the Vigilance Bureau from the RTI framework on the grounds that investigations into corruption cases often involve sensitive information. (File Photo)

A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma issued notices to the state government, the Vigilance Bureau and other departments, seeking their response in the matter. The next hearing has been scheduled for June 24.
Challenging the government’s notification before the High Court, the petitioner argued that under Section 24(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, information can still be sought in cases involving serious allegations of corruption or human rights violations. The plea contended that the government’s decision violated the provisions of the RTI Act.
The state government, however, justified exempting the Vigilance Bureau from the RTI framework on the grounds that investigations into corruption cases often involve sensitive information. It argued that maintaining confidentiality was necessary to ensure investigations are not compromised.
According to the petitioner, a complaint naming 15 individuals had been submitted to the Vigilance Bureau, but action was initiated against only three persons. The petitioner then filed an RTI application seeking the status of the investigation.
In its reply dated May 2, the Vigilance Bureau informed the applicant that the Himachal Pradesh government, through its March 12, 2026 notification, had excluded the bureau from the ambit of the RTI Act.
Jai Ram Thakur welcomes move
Former Chief Minister and Leader of Opposition Jai Ram Thakur welcomed the High Court’s interim stay and launched a sharp attack on the state government’s functioning.
Thakur said the Chief Minister’s attempt to “shield corruption and authoritarian functioning” had failed after the High Court stayed the March 12 notification exempting the Vigilance Bureau from the RTI Act, 2005.
He claimed that the BJP had earlier warned the state government that such “authoritarian decisions” would not stand judicial scrutiny.

Bat for the better: On the BCCI and the RTI Act, Courts must treat tax exemptions to the BCCI as a form of state grant

The Hindu: Editorial: Friday, 22 May 2026.

The RTI Act was originally designed to scrutinise the state, a limit that the BCCI has repeatedly tested thanks to its outsized power. The BCCI is a private body that operates commercially and lacks direct public financing. RTI disclosures could expose competitive information and compromise the flexibility required to govern a sport, especially since the BCCI already has anti-corruption measures and comes under judicial review if required. If the BCCI is brought under the Act’s remit, there is also a risk of political forces abusing transparency requirements to exert greater influence on cricket administration. Even so, the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) recent decision to exclude the BCCI from the RTI Act is unlikely to go uncontested because the body has also monopolised a national sport. The BCCI benefits from national symbolism, police deployment at matches, concessional land allotments, and State hospitality; uses public stadium infrastructure; enjoys the regulatory privileges accruing to its monopoly status; and negotiates with foreign boards in ways that sometimes overlap with diplomacy. These liberties have thus sustained civil society concerns about being unable to scrutinise its conflicts of interest and governance arrangements.
Under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, the BCCI is not a constitutional or statutory body and was not created by government notification, leaving the matter to turn on whether it can be said to be under state control or financing. Following disputes in 2005 and 2013, the Supreme Court repeatedly said in 2015-16, when the BCCI was adopting the Lodha committee recommendations, that it performs public duties. The Law Commission furthered this position in 2018 because, it added, the BCCI also serves as a National Sports Federation without the Sports Ministry recognising it as one and received tax exemptions worth ₹2,100 crore in 1997-2007 alone, a figure the Commission interpreted as foregone state revenue. Subsequently, former Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu ruled the BCCI to be a public authority under Section 2(h). The Madras High Court stayed the order, and the CIC has now reversed the ruling. The CIC has admitted that the BCCI exerts a significant influence on public life while insisting that its decision is based on Section 2(h) alone. There is a contradiction between writ jurisdiction applying to the BCCI as the Court affirmed in 2015 even as the body is private enough to conceal its internal records. At this time, Section 2(h) should be amended to include any body discharging public duties, especially with monopoly power, perhaps by creating a category that simultaneously protects the BCCI’s commercial interests. Courts must also treat tax exemptions as a form of state grant.

RTI Act के तहत जानकारी मिलने के बाद मूल दस्तावेज मांगने का अधिकार नहीं: गुजरात हाईकोर्ट

Live Law: Ahmedabad: Thursday, 21 May 2026.
गुजरात हाईकोर्ट ने एक RTI आवेदक की याचिका खारिज करते हुए कहा कि जब केंद्रीय लोक सूचना अधिकारी (CPIO) उपलब्ध अभिलेखों की प्रतियां उपलब्ध करा देता है तब आवेदक मूल दस्तावेज देने की मांग नहीं कर सकता।

जस्टिस हेमंत एम प्रच्छक ने अपने आदेश में कहा कि RTI Act के तहत लोक प्राधिकरण की जिम्मेदारी केवल उन दस्तावेजों और सूचनाओं को उपलब्ध कराने तक सीमित है, जो उसके पास उपलब्ध और सुलभ हैं।
अदालत ने कहा,
“जो दस्तावेज संबंधित प्राधिकरण के पास उपलब्ध थे, उनकी प्रतियां याचिकाकर्ता को पहले ही दी जा चुकी हैं। मूल दस्तावेज उपलब्ध कराने की जिद CPIO के अधिकार क्षेत्र में नहीं आती।”
हाईकोर्ट ने यह भी नोट किया कि याचिकाकर्ता लगातार RTI आवेदन दाखिल करने का आदी था और उसने एक के बाद एक 25 से अधिक आवेदन दाखिल किए।
मामला महाराजा सयाजीराव यूनिवर्सिटी, बड़ौदा में अस्थायी शिक्षण पदों पर आरक्षण नीति से जुड़ी जानकारी मांगने से संबंधित था।
राज्य सरकार ने 22 अप्रैल 1983 को अनुसूचित जाति, अनुसूचित जनजाति, सामाजिक और शैक्षणिक रूप से पिछड़े वर्गों तथा दिव्यांग व्यक्तियों के लिए पदों में आरक्षण को लेकर एक प्रस्ताव जारी किया था। इसके बाद शिक्षा विभाग ने 14 सार्वजनिक विश्वविद्यालयों को 11 महीने के संविदा आधार पर शिक्षण पदों पर नियुक्तियां करने और गैर-शिक्षण पदों को आउटसोर्स करने के निर्देश दिए।
याचिकाकर्ता ने RTI Act के तहत वाणिज्य संकाय से कई जानकारियां मांगी थीं। इनमें आरक्षण के अनुसार अस्थायी शिक्षण पदों की संख्या, प्राप्त आवेदनों का विवरण, चयनित और अस्वीकृत उम्मीदवारों की सूची, चयन समिति में एससी/एसटी प्रतिनिधियों की जानकारी और अन्य रिकॉर्ड शामिल थे।
इसके अलावा, याचिकाकर्ता ने राज्य सरकार की प्रचलित आरक्षण नीति और अस्थायी नियुक्तियों से संबंधित जानकारी भी मांगी थी।
याचिकाकर्ता का आरोप था कि यूनिवर्सिटी ने मनमानी और अधूरी जानकारी दी तथा संबंधित कार्यालय रिकॉर्ड उपलब्ध नहीं कराए। उसने यह भी कहा कि विश्वविद्यालय ने शिक्षा विभाग के 3 मई 2022 के परिपत्र का पालन नहीं किया और चयनित उम्मीदवारों की सूची भी अपलोड नहीं की।
हालांकि, हाईकोर्ट ने माना कि मांगी गई जानकारी उपलब्ध रिकॉर्ड के अनुसार दी जा चुकी थी और CPIO की जिम्मेदारी पूरी हो गई।
अदालत ने कहा कि RTI Act के तहत सूचना में रिकॉर्ड, दस्तावेज, परिपत्र और अन्य सामग्री शामिल होती है, जिन्हें लोक प्राधिकरण किसी अन्य प्रचलित कानून के तहत प्राप्त कर सकता है। लेकिन इसका अर्थ यह नहीं कि मूल दस्तावेज आवेदक को सौंपना अनिवार्य हो।
इन्हीं टिप्पणियों के साथ हाईकोर्ट ने याचिका निराधार बताते हुए खारिज किया।

Violation of RTI Act: A.P. Information Commission imposes ₹25,000 penalty on Mines Director

The Hindu: Amaravati: Thursday, 21 May 2026.
The official, while he was Public Information Officer, failed to provide information sought by a complainant within the stipulated period, the Commission says in its order

The Andhra Pradesh Information Commission has imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 on the Director of the Mines and Geology Department for negligence in implementing the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
per the order dated May 15, 2026, a copy of which was accessed by The Hindu, State Information Commissioner Chavali Suneel, while hearing a complaint, had directed that action be taken against W.B. Chandrasekhar, who, at the time of the alleged negligence, was Public Information Officer (PIO). He is currently Director and First Appellate Authority in the department.
According to the Commission, the complainant, P. Srinivasa Babu of Visakhapatnam, had sought information under the Act in July 2022. However, the department failed to furnish the same within the statutory 30-day period. Despite appeals, no proper response was provided, prompting the complainant to approach the Information Commission in January 2023.
During inquiry, the Commission noted that repeated directions issued to the officer concerned were ignored. The officer neither appeared personally before the Commission nor provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Though the information was eventually furnished after considerable delay, the Commission observed that belated compliance could not justify violation of the Act.
Describing the Act as a cornerstone of democracy, the Commission warned that negligence by officials in implementing the law would invite strict action. It treated the officer’s failure to discharge statutory responsibilities and disregard of Commission directives as serious misconduct warranting penalty.
The Commission directed the Principal Secretary of the Industries and Commerce (Mines) Department to recover ₹25,000 from the salary, or remuneration of Mr. Chandrasekhar, and remit the amount to the government treasury. A compliance report was sought within four weeks.
Mr. Chandrasekhar had retired from regular government service, but was continuing in public service pursuant to his reappointment by the government as Director & First Appellate Authority, Mines & Geology Department, the order copy said.

Jharkhand RTI Row: Appointment Process Contravenes Section 15(6) And Dilutes Legislative Intent - By - Kritagya Sinha & Aryan Ranjan

Live Law: Jharkhand: Thursday, 21 May 2026.
On 29 January 2026, the State of Jharkhand informed the Jharkhand High Court that the State Information Commission, which has remained non-functional due to the non-appointment of its Chairperson and Members, would be made functional within four weeks. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai was hearing the matter.

The process was delayed, and the final meeting of the selection committee was held on 25 March 2026. Section 15(3)[1] provide the appointment process for the commissioners, The State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall be appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of a committee consisting of-- (i) the Chief Minister, who shall be the Chairperson of the committee; (ii) the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly; and (iii) a Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Chief Minister.
Section 15(5) [2] further lays down the eligibility “The State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance”
Whereas, Section 15(6) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 lays down the disqualification criteria for appointment of the State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners. Section 15(6) clearly reflects the legislative intent to ensure institutional independence by preventing political affiliation to achieve institutional independence by having a State Chief Information Commissioner or Information Commissioner not to be affiliated to any political party. (It reads: 'The State Chief Information Commissioner or a State Information Commissioner shall not be a Member of Parliament or Member of the Legislature of any State or Union territory, as the case may be, or hold any other office of profit or connected with any political party or carrying on any business or pursuing any profession.) This is not a moment-in-time eligibility criteria but a substantive protection that the whole selection process is not politicized. So, a resignation by a member of a political party where the person is still a full member of that political party in the selection process or even up to the time when his or her name is shortlisted and officially proposed to the Governor by the statutory selection committee of the Chief Minister, Leader of Opposition and a Cabinet Minister is nothing more than a manoeuvre. These post-selection resignations are a form of abuse of the statutory scheme, they perpetuate prejudice, and are a direct failure to realise the legislative purpose in Section 15(6). The law does not even contemplate of a case in which political affiliation is tactically divested at the last moment to give a semblance of objectivity; instead, it requires that there be neutrality as a matter of fact, during the course of consideration and advice.
The Jharkhand State Information Commission appointments controversy
It has long since ceased to be just another case of administrative wrangling it is a graphic demonstration of the extent to which statutory protections may be eviscerated by a policy of formalism. In the ongoing case of Contempt Case (Civil) No. 283 of 2020, titled Raj Kumar v. Sukhdeo Singh, Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand & Others [3] Jharkhand High Court has given orders to complete the process of appointment of information commission, office of Jharkhand as soon as possible, which is vacant for the last six years. This was followed by an advertisement of the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioner posts. The advertisement clearly said that Members of Parliament, Members of the Legislature, persons holding or having held any office of profit, or connected with a political party or business, might also apply. But it declared this, on the condition that those persons would be required to resign their office of profit, business interests, or political attachments only after they had been appointed to the position of Information Commissioner.
However, a more consistent and tougher approach is taken by several other states. An example is in Himachal Pradesh, where the advertisement made regarding such appointments expressly barred Members of Parliament, Members of the Legislature and persons connected with political parties in the first instance. It also stressed that only Indian citizens of eminence who had a long background in such areas as law, science, technology and journalism could qualify as long as they were not affiliated to any political party. This discrepancy indicates a significant discrepancy in the understanding of the rules of eligibility in the different states and this is a serious issue concerning the watering down of the concept of institutional independence.
Violation of 15(6) ), Right to Information Act, 2005
According to the reports, four names were selected by the selection committee on 25th of March, 2026 among which three of them have direct active connection to the political party, one individual is a member of a major national political party and holds a position involving active participation rather than mere passive membership. Another individual has been associated with a different national political party, with state-level involvement indicating proximity to party leadership and engagement in political processes. A third individual has links with a regional political party through organisational or youth-level structures aligned with the party. These associations are not incidental; they reflect definite, immediate, and practical political affiliations that existed at the time of the selection this selection of names violated the provisions of 15(6) “connected with any political party”
However, the defence normally made in such instances is that the resignation was made after selection or just before appointment somehow remedies the disqualification. This is a very fallacious argument. The statutory requirement that a Commissioner must not be a member of any political party cannot be brought down to a photo image of qualification taken at a single point in time. This disqualification is not on optics when the appointment is made; but on ensuring that the whole process of consideration is not politicized. When the active people in politics are involved in the selection process there is no mere speculation the apprehension of bias is real Following objections, the Jharkhand Lok Bhavan returned the file concerning the appointment of Information Commissioners. The controversy surrounding the appointment of State Information Commissioners in Jharkhand has intensified, as various organizations and civil society members raised objections against the alleged violation of prescribed eligibility criteria and the recommendation of individuals linked to political parties.
According to sources, the Lok Bhavan first sought a legal opinion on the entire matter. Thereafter, taking serious note of the issue, the Hon'ble Governor returned the appointment file without granting approval. The Lok Bhavan has clearly directed the state government to re-examine the appointment process in light of the provisions of the RTI Act and the relevant judgments delivered by the Supreme Court on the subject.
This development has sparked a renewed debate in the state regarding transparency and the fairness of the appointment process.
The danger lies in treating resignation as a legal cleansing mechanism. Bias, once introduced, does not vanish with a letter of resignation. It attaches at the stage of consideration, where political proximity may influence both the candidate's selection and the decision-making environment of the appointing authority. To have such candidates being able to justify their appointing by resigning at the last moment is to turn the statutory protection into a sham.
The Supreme Court rulings on RTI appointments.
In the case of the Supreme Court Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India, [(2019) 18 SCC 246)], [4]it was noted that the validity of the Information Commissions is based on the fairness, transparency, and impartiality of the selection process. The issue of bias and especially structural or institutional bias that is of concern of the Court is directly relevant here. Once people of definite political inclinations are taken into account, the procedure itself becomes questionable, whether formal adherence is reached in the future or not.
This is also aggravated by the fact that Information Commissions under The Union of India v. Namit Sharma [(2013) 10 SCC 359)][5], are also considered to have a quasi-judicial role and therefore need to be independent just like adjudicatory bodies. The fact that bias has not been proven is not the standard, but that one does not even have an apprehension of bias. This norm is blatantly breached by political affiliation during selection.
The rule is simple and strict: a political neutrality should be present not only at the time of appointment, but also during the selection process. Any shortfall of that is not conformity to Section 15(6) it is a wilful avoidance of the same.
Interpreting Section 15(6): A Jurisprudential Inquiry into Legislative Intent and Statutory Mandates.
This shift also welcomes a more in-depth consideration of constitutional principles and jurisprudence that regulate institutional honesty and autonomy of oversight institutions (IOS). Fundamental to it is the doctrine of institutional independence requiring that any bodies undertaking quasi-judicial and accountability functions should be insulated not merely by actual bias but by any reasonable fear of bias. This is directly relatable to the dictum nemo judex in causa sua (no one is a judge in his own cause), which is not only applicable to adjudication but also extends to the very procedure of selection, where no politically close person or one with a vested interest is allowed into the decision-making framework. Moreover, the rule of law according to A. V. Dicey demands the discretionary power to be exercised within a strictly defined legal framework, with no arbitrary or politically charged appointment. Constitutional morality as upheld by B. R. Ambedkar, supports the idea that mere adherence to the stipulations of the statutes is not enough when the very nature of neutrality and justice is violated. Also, legitimate expectation applies in favour of the populace, which has a legitimate expectation that statutory institutions such as Information Commissions will be formed by a fair, transparent, and apolitical process. The new jurisprudence of institutional bias also explains that bias may be institutional and does not have to be proven by overt actions; the mere fact that politically-aligned people are in the pipeline of selection causes a lack of trust in the justice system. All these doctrines bring to the fore the fact that independence is not an after-appointment prerequisite but a precondition which needs to permeate the whole selection process otherwise the integrity of the institution itself is compromised.
In the perspective of interpretation of statutes (IOS), the matter at hand needs to be considered under the principle of legislative intent whereby, Section 15(6) of the RTI Act should be interpreted in a way that promotes the fundamental purpose of the statute which is the achievement of institutional independence instead of turning it into a technical or procedural formalism. The mischief rule (Heydon rule) goes further to explain that the law should be construed in a way that it discourages the mischief of political interference and promotes the remedy of neutrality in appointments. Similarly, the purposive interpretation method requires that courts and authorities interpret the statute to reflect the wider intent of the statute, which is to establish a separate transparency watchdog in this instance. The mere literal meaning, whereby politically affiliated individuals are allowed to take part in the selection process provided they step down at the last level, would be a failure of the whole plot of the Act. The harmonious construction principle also states that the provisions concerning eligibility must be construed in harmony with the institutional purpose of Information Commissions as independent, quasi-judicial institutions.
Combined with each other, these interpretative doctrines add up to one thing, to wit, the necessity that the political neutrality should be effective at all stages of the selection, and not only at the stage of formal appointment. Any other interpretation would be tantamount to a watering down of legislative intent and a way around the protections incorporated into the RTI framework.
A Clear Breach of Legislative Intent: Section 15(6) Reduced to a Formality.
To sum up, the advertisement published with regard to the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners is clearly against the law and the constitutional principles, which forms the basis of the RTI framework. By allowing people who are affiliated with political parties, who are in offices of profit, or in business to apply, except on resignation after appointment, the advertisement functions to make the statutory requirement in Section 15(6) to be a mere formality. This is an unacceptable solution in line with the legislative purpose of institutional independence and non-partisanship since the beginning of the selection process. It is in direct opposition to the purposive and mischief based statutory interpretation which aims to exclude political influence instead of acknowledging it at an earlier point. Thus, the advertisement, both in its form and in its effect, is in overt abrogation of statutory and otherwise accepted jurisprudence and cannot be upheld in law.
Currently, the file has once again been returned by Lok Bhavan authorities on the ground that the proposal allegedly breaches the law and is not with constitutional framework. Consequently, despite the prolonged delay and repeated administrative correspondence, the constitutional post of the Information commissioner, Jharkhand, continues to remain vacant, adversely affecting the effective functioning of the transparency and accountability mechanism under the law.
(Contempt Case (Civil) No. 283 of 2020, titled Raj Kumar v. Sukhdeo Singh, Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand & Others.)

Penalty under RTI Act Unsustainable Without Finding of Mala Fide: Chhattisgarh HC Quashes State Information Commission’s ₹25,000 Order : By Soumya Yadav

SCC Online: National: Thursday, 21 May 2026.
The High Court noted that since the State Information Commission failed to record any findings on mala fide denial, unreasonable delay, or contumacious conduct, the penalty order lacked legal foundation and was therefore liable to be quashed.

Chhattisgarh High Court: In a writ petition challenging the imposition of a ₹25,000 penalty under Section 20(1), Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), a Single Judge Bench of Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J., held that the order passed by the State Information Commission (SIC) on 9 May 2022 was unsustainable in law. The Court emphasised that penalty under the RTI Act is unsustainable without a clear finding of mala fide denial of information or unreasonable delay without sufficient cause, and stressed that such provisions, being quasi-criminal in nature, cannot be invoked mechanically.
Background: The RTI application dated 10 April 2019 was transferred by the Public Information Officer (PIO) to the audit and store sections. The audit section furnished 12 pages of available information, while the Store Section reported that no such information was available.
The petitioner argued that he could not be penalised for non-availability of information that did not exist and emphasised that there was no deliberate withholding or mala fide intention. The first appellate authority acknowledged that the issue was essentially one of availability of records, directing that if further information was traceable, it should be provided.
The State opposed the petition, contending that the penalty was rightly imposed as the petitioner failed to ensure complete and timely information, and that merely transferring the application did not absolve him of statutory obligation. SIC further argued that under Section 6(3), RTI Act, the petitioner was duty-bound to transfer the application to the authority where the information was available, which he failed to do.
Analysis: The Court referred to Nitin Singhvi v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, 2023 SCC OnLine Chh 6061, wherein it was held that the power to impose penalty is not automatic or mechanical, but is conditioned upon the existence of cogent material demonstrating that the PIO has, without reasonable cause, either refused to furnish information, caused undue delay, or acted in a mala fide manner. The Court further in Nitin Singhvi (supra) noted that mere delay or inability to furnish certain information, particularly when such information is not available on record or lies with another authority, would not ipso facto attract penal consequences, and before imposing penalty, the Information Commission is under a statutory obligation to record a clear and reasoned finding with respect to the existence of mala fide intent or lack of reasonable cause, and must also afford an effective opportunity of hearing to the officer concerned.
The Court observed that the impugned order dated 9 May 2022 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as a careful consideration of the material available on record would reveal that the petitioner, while discharging his duties as PIO, had acted in accordance with the statutory scheme of the RTI Act. The Court noted that upon receipt of the application dated 10 April 2019, the petitioner promptly transferred the same to the sections concerned, namely, audit and store, which were the custodians of the information sought.
The Court highlighted that the audit section furnished the available information, which was duly supplied, whereas the store section categorically informed that no such information was available on record. Thus, the petitioner cannot be faulted for non-supply of information which admittedly did not exist or was not held by the office concerned.
The Court also noted that the first appellate authority, while considering the grievance, did not record any finding of mala fide or deliberate lapse on the part of the petitioner, but merely directed that if any further information is traceable, the same be provided or the application be transferred to the appropriate authority. The Court emphasised that this itself indicates that the issue pertained to availability and traceability of records rather than any intentional default on the part of the petitioner.
The Court further observed that during the relevant period, the petitioner had been transferred from the post of PIO, and therefore had no effective control over subsequent compliance. In light of the law laid down in Nitin Singhvi (supra), as well as the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Manohar v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 13 SCC 14, it is manifest that imposition of penalty under Section 20(1), RTI Act is not automatic and must be preceded by a clear and reasoned finding of mala fide denial of information or delay without reasonable cause.
The Court highlighted that the conduct of the petitioner does not fall within the mischief contemplated under Section 20(1), RTI Act, and there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner had either deliberately withheld information, furnished misleading information, or acted in a contumacious manner so as to warrant imposition of penalty. The Court emphasised that the steps taken by the petitioner in transferring the application and facilitating supply of available information clearly demonstrate due diligence and bona fide discharge of his duties.
Decision: The Court held that the SIC, while exercising quasi-judicial powers entailing civil consequences, was under an obligation to record specific findings with regard to absence of reasonable cause and existence of mala fide intent. The Court concluded that the failure to do so vitiated the impugned order. The Court further observed that the penalty imposed appeared punitive without any legal foundation and was liable to be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 9 May 2022 including any consequential recovery proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, and directed that there shall be no order as to costs.
(T.A. Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2026, Decided on 5-5-2026)

RTI violation: CIC penalises ESIC official in ragging case

The Times of India: New Delhi: Wednesday, 20 May 2026.

Central Information Commission (CIC) has imposed a Rs 10,000 penalty on an official of Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) Dental College and Hospital in Rohini for failing to provide CCTV footage linked to an alleged ragging incident involving women students in Oct 2024.
Coming down heavily on the institution’s handling of the matter, information commissioner Ashutosh Chaturvedi observed that “the custodian of information failed to ensure that crucial digital evidence relating to a reported ragging incident was preserved”. The commission further took note of the “mental anguish and distress” caused to the complainant due to the non-availability of the footage, which could have been a critical evidence in approaching National Commission for Women for grievance redressal.
The matter stems from allegations that several women students were ragged by their seniors between Oct 12 and 19, 2024, on the college premises. Following the incident, Gaurav Singhal, vice-president of Society Against Violence in Education, filed an RTI application on Oct 22 before the Central Public Information Officer, Sovan Bera, seeking CCTV footage from specific locations in the college during lunch hours on the relevant dates.
However, despite RTI Act mandating a response within 30 days, the reply was furnished after a delay of 48 days. In the response, the official stated that the requested footage was “unavailable" as the CCTV system stored recordings for only one month, and the footage had already been overwritten by the time the reply was sent.
The commission found the explanation unsatisfactory and noted that no valid reason was furnished for the non-availability of the footage despite the RTI application having been filed within the preservation period.
It further observed that, as per Dental Council of India’s mandate, “all dental colleges are obligated to preserve CCTV footage for six months”. ESIC, however, failed to preserve the same, and this noncompliance was highlighted by the tribunal, observing that the "requisite CCTV footage was not preserved/maintained for the specified period”.
ESIC was also criticised for the conduct of the officials involved, with the commission observing that “multiple officers appear to be shifting responsibility onto each other”. It held that Bera “acted without reasonable cause and has obstructed the furnishing of information”, denoting it to be a violation of the statutory obligations under RTI Act.