હવે અકસ્માતના દસ્તાવેજો માટે પોલીસ સ્ટેશનના ધક્કા નહીં!:પીડિત પરિવાર અને ઇન્સ્યુરન્સ એજન્ટને FIR, પીએમ રિપોર્ટ સહિતના દસ્તાવેજો વિનામૂલ્યે મળશે.

Divyabhaskar: Ahmedabad: Friday, June 19, 2026.

રોડ અકસ્માતોનો ભોગ બનેલા પીડિતોના પરિવારોને વીમા ક્લેમ અને વળતર મેળવવામાં પડતી હાલાકીનો અંત લાવવા માટે ગુજરાત માહિતી આયોગે ઐતિહાસિક નિર્ણય કર્યો છે. હવે મોટર અકસ્માત દાવા ટ્રિબ્યુનલ (MACT) સંબંધિત કેસોમાં પીડિત પરિવાર અથવા ઇન્સ્યુરન્સ કંપનીના અધિકૃત એજન્ટને FIR, પંચનામું, FSL રિપોર્ટ અને પોસ્ટમોર્ટમ રિપોર્ટ સહિતના તમામ કાયદાકીય દસ્તાવેજો કોઈપણ ચાર્જ લીધા વિના 'વિનામૂલ્યે' ઉપલબ્ધ કરાવવા પોલીસ તંત્રને કડક આદેશ આપવામાં આવ્યા છે.

ઇન્સ્યુરન્સ એજન્ટની અરજી પર માહિતી આયોગનો મોટો સપાટો તાજેતરમાં એક ઇન્સ્યુરન્સ કંપનીના અધિકૃત એજન્ટ દ્વારા બે અલગ-અલગ અકસ્માત કેસોના જરૂરી દસ્તાવેજો મેળવવા માટે અરજી કરવામાં આવી હતી. જોકે, સંબંધિત પોલીસ સ્ટેશન અને સ્થાનિક કોર્ટ દ્વારા આ માહિતી આપવાનો ઇનકાર કરાતાં મામલો આખરે રાજ્ય માહિતી આયોગ સુધી પહોંચ્યો હતો. આ કેસની સુનાવણી દરમિયાન આયોગે ગંભીર નોંધ લીધી હતી કે એમ.એ.સી.ટી. એક્ટ (સુધારા)-2022 અને સુપ્રીમ કોર્ટના અગાઉના કડક નિર્દેશો અનુસાર, અકસ્માત સંબંધિત તમામ માહિતી નિર્ધારિત સમયમર્યાદામાં અરજદારોને આપવી કાયદેસર રીતે ફરજિયાત છે.

સમયમર્યાદા નક્કી, કયો અહેવાલ કેટલા સમયમાં આપવો પડશે?

પ્રથમ અકસ્માત અહેવાલ (FAR): 48 કલાકમાં

વચગાળાનો અકસ્માત અહેવાલ (IAR): 50 દિવસમાં

વિગતવાર અકસ્માત અહેવાલ (DAR): 90 દિવસમાં

DGP ને કડક આદેશ: 

હવે RTI હેઠળ અલગથી અરજી કરવાની જરૂર નથી આયોગે સ્પષ્ટ કર્યું છે કે અકસ્માતમાં ભોગ બનનાર વ્યક્તિ, મૃત્યુના કિસ્સામાં તેમના કાયદેસરના વારસદારો તેમજ વીમા કંપનીના અધિકૃત પ્રતિનિધિને આ તમામ દસ્તાવેજો નિઃશુલ્ક આપવાની જવાબદારી પોલીસની જ છે. આ માટે નાગરિકોને માહિતી અધિકાર (RTI) હેઠળ અલગથી ધક્કા ખાવા ન પડે તેવી પૂર્વવ્યવસ્થા ગોઠવવા સૂચવાયું છે. આ અંગે આયોગે રાજ્યના મુખ્ય પોલીસ અધિકારી અને પોલીસ મહાનિદેશક (DGP)ને ખાસ પરિપત્ર બહાર પાડીને રાજ્યના તમામ પોલીસ સ્ટેશનોમાં આ નિયમનું 100% કડક પાલન થાય તેવી સિસ્ટમ ગોઠવવા આદેશ કર્યો છે.

આ નિર્ણયથી શું ફાયદો થશે? અકસ્માત જેવા કપરા સમયે પરિવારોને વળતર મેળવવા માટે પોલીસ સ્ટેશન કે કોર્ટના ચક્કર કાપવામાંથી કાયમી મુક્તિ મળશે. દસ્તાવેજો સમયસર અને મફત મળવાને કારણે વીમા ક્લેમ મંજૂર થવાની પ્રક્રિયા અત્યંત ઝડપી અને પારદર્શક બનશે.

Police must give MACT case details to insurance agents, victims: Gujarat Information Commission

Times of India: Ahmedabad: Friday, June 19, 2026.

The Gujarat Information Commission (GIC) has directed that documents such as the FIR, panchnama, FSL report, inquest panchnama, postmortem report, and related records be supplied free of cost to insurance agents and accident victims.

The order was given in a case where an agent of an insurance company had requested the Kamrej police station for the aforementioned records along with other papers pertaining to two accident cases. In response, the police station had asked him to approach the court.

When he contacted the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), he was informed that the procedure requires him to obtain the papers from the Kamrej police station itself. The complainant then approached the GIC, which ruled that the public information officer of Kamrej police station had not acted in accordance with the provisions of the MACT Act (Amendment) 2022.

Under the amended MACT Act, the investigating officer is required to submit the first accident report to the MACT; authorised agent of the insurance company and the accident victim or legal heirs in case of death, within 48 hours; the interim accident report within 60 days; and the detailed accident report within 90 days.

The commission also directed state police to ensure that, in cases where such reports have already been sent to the MACT but not forwarded to the authorised insurance agent and the victim/legal heirs, they are now sent to them.

These directions are intended to ensure compliance with the legal framework so that accident victims/their heirs can obtain insurance claims more quickly in MACT matters, the commission said in its order. The order is expected to provide major relief to the families of victims, insurance company agents handling claim procedures, besides helping victims secure justice without delays.

Pankti Jog, general secretary of Mahiti Adhikar Gujarat Pahel (MAGP) said there are several such cases where help is sought by people on the MAGP helpline and that the commission’s order will now expedite settlement of insurance claims.

AAI denies RTI request on Jamshedpur’s Dhalbhumgarh airport, Chakulia airstrip inspection report.

Avenuemail: Ranchi: Friday, June 19, 2026.

The Airports Authority of India (AAI) has declined to provide a copy of the site inspection report prepared by its five-member technical team following visits to the proposed Dhalbhumgarh Airport site and Chakulia Airstrip on April 11 and 12, 2026.

The information was sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by applicant Shashank Shekhar Swain. In its reply issued by the Airport Director’s office at Birsa Munda Airport, Ranchi, AAI stated that the inspection report is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. The provision allows public authorities to withhold information containing commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property if its disclosure could harm the competitive position of a third party.

The applicant had also sought clarification on whether AAI had accepted a revised project map for the proposed Dhalbhumgarh Airport and the likely runway length after the exclusion of certain disputed land parcels. AAI responded that these queries were in the nature of questions and did not fall within the definition of “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

In addition, AAI did not provide details of coordination committee meetings held with the Jharkhand government regarding forest clearance issues for the airport project, stating that the query was not specific.

The response was issued on June 12, 2026, by Airport Director Vinod Kumar. The applicant has been informed of his right to file a first appeal before the designated appellate authority.

Persistent delay in restoring the Information Commission is unacceptable : Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz

The Daily Star: Bangladesh: Thursday, 18 June 2026.

It is true that observers have so far viewed the performance of the BNP government, which took office in February 2026 following a year-and-a-half-long interim administration, with cautious optimism. But many have been dismayed by the government’s failure to appoint the country’s three information commissioners since the previous ones, like numerous officials serving in comparable institutions, vacated their positions in the aftermath of the July uprising. Nearly four months into its tenure, the government’s continued inaction about restoring the Information Commission to full strength has disappointed those who hoped that the political transition would mark a decisive shift towards more democratic, transparent, and accountable governance.
The much-invoked spirit of the July uprising rekindled hopes for a genuine transformation in governance one in which citizens’ voices would be respected, the rule of law upheld, and the laws of the land used to advance citizens’ interests rather than suppress them. Among more vigilant citizens, there was also the expectation that their right to know how the government functions would be meaningfully guaranteed through, inter alia, the effective implementation of the Right to Information Act, 2009.
The failure to move convincingly towards the RTI regime has inevitably raised troubling questions. Is the government hesitating to embrace the transparency and accountability the RTI Act seeks to advance by opening public institutions to citizen scrutiny? Or is it genuinely struggling to identify suitable candidates for the vacant positions? More worryingly, does the prolonged delay suggest an attempt to quietly render the institution ineffective? Citizens deserve a clear answer.
It is necessary to continue highlighting the tremendous potential of the RTI Act as a tool for good governance and to promote meaningful citizen participation in public affairs. To this end, we turn to the concerns raised in a recent editorial published by this daily.
The editorial titled “Address the rot in our infrastructure sector” (May 23, 2026) raises troubling questions about corruption, waste, and the entrenched lack of accountability in the country’s development sector. The alleged irregularities in the South Asia Subregional Economic Cooperation (SASEC) Road Connectivity Project-2 under the Roads and Highways Department (RHD) paint a disturbing picture of how public infrastructure projects can become vehicles for private enrichment rather than instruments of public welfare.
According to the editorial, funds allocated to upgrade the 190-km Elenga-Rangpur highway to a four-lane road were allegedly also used to construct extravagant facilities in Paikpara, Dhaka, far removed from the project area. It further highlights allegations of inflated costs, repeated revisions benefiting contractors, environmental destruction, and even the demolition of structures designed by renowned architect Mazharul Islam. The project cost, initially estimated at around Tk 11,000 crore, reportedly rose to more than Tk 19,000 crore following repeated modifications and deadline extensions.
The editorial rightly questions how such extensive irregularities could occur without political patronage and systemic weaknesses in oversight. More importantly, it calls upon the authorities to investigate the allegations thoroughly and restore public confidence in the management of development projects.
While the allegations surrounding this particular project are deeply troubling, the broader issue is far more significant: the chronic absence of transparency and accountability in Bangladesh’s infrastructure sector. This is precisely where the importance of the RTI law becomes most evident.
The RTI Act was enacted to ensure citizens’ access to information held by public authorities. It recognises that transparency is not merely an administrative formality but a cornerstone of democratic governance. Citizens have the right to know how public money is spent, contracts are awarded, project costs escalate, and whether environmental and social safeguards are respected.
Had the RTI framework been actively and effectively utilised, many of the questions might have surfaced much earlier. Journalists, civil society organisations, researchers, environmental groups, and ordinary citizens could have sought official documents relating to procurement, contract revisions, feasibility studies, environmental assessments, and cost escalations. Public scrutiny of such records often serves as one of the strongest deterrents against corruption and abuse of power.
Unfortunately, the RTI regime in Bangladesh has become weakened in recent years. The prolonged absence of information commissioners and the resulting institutional paralysis have significantly undermined the law’s effectiveness. At a time when large development projects involve enormous public expenditure and foreign loans, weakened access to information creates an environment in which irregularities can flourish with little fear of accountability.
Therefore, the concerns raised in the editorial should not be viewed merely as an isolated scandal. Rather, they should serve as a reminder that development without transparency inevitably risks becoming distorted by corruption, patronage, and waste. Roads, bridges, and buildings alone cannot define progress if public trust is eroded. So, reviving and strengthening the RTI regime is essential if Bangladesh wishes to ensure that development genuinely serves the public interest. This requires not only the immediate appointment of competent and independent information commissioners, but also the cultivation of a governance culture in which disclosure of public information becomes the norm rather than the exception.
The challenge now is whether policymakers, public institutions, and citizens alike will respond by demanding greater transparency and accountability across all sectors. In that endeavour, the Right to Information Act remains one of the most powerful tools available to the people of the country. The responsibility now rests squarely with the government. Citizens naturally look forward to the early restoration of a fully functional RTI regime that safeguards transparency and accountability in public life. The manner in which the government addresses this issue will serve as an important indicator of its commitment to advancing the democratic governance and openness that it has repeatedly pledged to uphold.
(Dr Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz are chairman and deputy director (RTI), respectively, at Research Initiatives, Bangladesh (RIB). They can be reached at rib@citech-bd.com.)
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

RTI Commission must crack down on unlawful information charges – Zakariah Tanko Musah

My Joy Online: Ghana: Thursday, 18 June 2026.
Private legal practitioner and lecturer at the University of Media, Arts and Communication's Institute of Journalism, Zakariah Tanko Musah, has called on the Right to Information (RTI) Commission to strictly enforce the RTI Act against public institutions that impose unlawful charges for access to information.

According to him, stronger sanctions are needed to deter public officials from creating barriers that undermine transparency, accountability and citizens' constitutional right to information.
Speaking on Joy FM's Corruption Watch on Wednesday, Mr Tanko Musah urged the Commission to exercise its enforcement powers in a manner that sends a clear message to institutions that fail to comply with the law.
"I think the way to solve this problem is for the RTI Commission to start enforcing its powers in a way that sends a very clear signal to institutions that the RTI law is a very important law that would help our democracy to thrive," he said.
He argued that any attempt to obstruct access to public information weakens democratic governance and undermines the objectives of the RTI Act.
"If you're going to put any impediment in the way of achieving an effective and efficient access-to-information regime, then according to the law, they have the authority and the right to impose administrative fines," he stated.
Mr Tanko Musah, however, expressed concern that existing penalties have had little impact because fines are often paid by institutions rather than the individual officers responsible for withholding information.
"The tragedy is that when they administer those administrative charges, people are not paying out of their own pockets," he said.
"People are negligently or recklessly refusing to provide information and then throwing up their hands to say, 'So what?' At the end of the day, if my institution is fined, it doesn't come out of my pocket."
He argued that the solution lies in enforcing provisions of the RTI Act that hold individual officers personally accountable for refusing to release information without lawful justification.
"That's why we have to go back to the provisions in the RTI law, which actually say that if you, as an individual, recklessly refuse or fail to provide information that you are supposed to provide, you can be charged as an individual," he explained.
His comments come amid growing concerns over the high fees some public institutions charge for information requests made under the RTI Act.
During the programme, freelance journalist and editor of media start-up The Treasure, Benjamin Tinkram, disclosed that the Ghana Meteorological Agency (GMet) demanded GH¢10,400 for a seven-page document and an Excel spreadsheet containing rainfall and weather data requested under the RTI Act.
Mr Tanko Musah described such charges as inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the law, stressing that access to information should not be restricted by prohibitive fees.
"The idea is not to make access difficult. It is to make it easy for people to access information," he said.
He explained that the RTI Act permits institutions to recover only the reasonable cost of reproducing documents and does not support excessive charges that effectively deny access to information.
Mr Tanko Musah further maintained that the RTI Act supersedes any conflicting provisions in other legislation relating to access to public information, and therefore, public institutions cannot rely on their own enabling laws to justify exorbitant fees.
He emphasised that improving access to information is critical to exposing corruption, promoting transparency and strengthening democratic accountability.
"That's the only way we can promote access to information and ensure that our institutions remain accountable, transparent and responsive to the people they serve," he said.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.

State Information Officer has no power to ‘blacklist’ RTI applicants: State Commission - By Bhartesh Singh Thakur

The Tribune: Haryana: Thursday, 18 June 2026.
The complainant had filed an RTI application before Shahbad Sugar Mills Limited in Kurukshetra on November 12, 2025; however, the SPIO in his response purportedly restrained the complainant from filing RTI applications on the ground that he had submitted repeated requests

The State Information Commission, Haryana, has ruled that a State Public Information Officer (SPIO) serves only as a statutory facilitator and has no legal jurisdiction, authority, or power to “restrain, bar, or blacklist an appellant/complainant” from filing Right to Information (RTI) applications.
Complainant Sandeep Sharan had filed an RTI application before Shahbad Sugar Mills Limited in Kurukshetra on November 12, 2025. However, the SPIO in his response dated January 21 purportedly restrained the complainant from filing RTI applications on the ground that he had submitted repeated RTI requests. While denying the information, SPIO further stated in his response that action may be taken against the complainant for disrupting the discharge of official duties if he did not desist from filing RTI applications.
Aggrieved by the response, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Information Commission on January 27. The Commission observed that SPIO failed to furnish the complainant with correct and complete information.
After hearing both parties, State Information Commissioner Dr Ajay Kumar Sura observed, “Even in cases where an appellant/complainant files voluminous, repetitive, or allegedly vexatious requests, the SPIO cannot issue any injunction, embargo, or blanket prohibition against such appellant/complainant. The SPIO is required to deal with each RTI application independently and on a case-to-case basis, and may invoke only those exemptions specifically provided under Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, 2005.”
He added, “The RTI Act also contains no provision empowering an SPIO to issue a restraining order against an information seeker. Any such action is clearly ultra vires the provisions of the Act and is therefore without legal sanction. Needless to mention, an SPIO is an authority created by statute and can exercise only those powers which are expressly conferred upon him by the statute.”
The Commissioner’s order, dated June 12, pointed out, “While the misuse of the RTI Act by chronic litigants may, in certain circumstances, impose an administrative burden upon public authorities, neither the public authority nor its SPIO can pass administrative orders restraining a citizen from exercising a statutory right conferred under law.”
The State Information Commissioner then directed the SPIO of Shahabad Sugar Mills Limited to refurnish the complete information to the appellant through registered post within 15 days. Further, the SPIO was directed to submit a detailed explanation specifying the provisions, if any, under the RTI Act, 2005, “which empower an SPIO to debar or restrain an appellant/complainant from filing RTI applications merely on the ground that the appellant/complainant has submitted multiple RTI requests.”

Hindon loses 16 routes as Jewar airport emerges as NCR's new aviation hub: RTI

India Today: Noida: Thursday, 18 June 2026.
An RTI response accessed by India Today has revealed that Hindon Airport in Ghaziabad has lost at least 16 flight routes in recent months, with airlines steadily scaling back services from the facility that was once projected as a key regional aviation hub.

As Jewar takes off, Hindon loses altitude: RTI reveals 16 routes cut from NCR's first alternative airport (Photo: ITG)

As Noida International Airport (NIA) at Jewar opens its doors to commercial flights and ushers the National Capital Region (NCR) into the era of dual airports, the region's first attempt at creating an alternative aviation hub is quietly losing ground. An RTI response accessed by India Today reveals that Hindon Airport, launched with much fanfare under the Centre's UDAN scheme, has lost at least 16 routes as airlines steadily scale back operations.
In March 2019, Prime Minister Narendra Modi inaugurated the civilian terminal at the Indian Air Force's Hindon airbase under the Centre's flagship UDAN (Ude Desh Ka Aam Nagrik) scheme. Located in Ghaziabad, Hindon was envisioned as a low-cost airport aimed at improving regional connectivity and easing the burden on Delhi's Indira Gandhi International Airport.
More than seven years later, however, the airport is grappling with shrinking connectivity and a steady decline in traffic.
Information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act shows that at least 16 routes have been discontinued from Hindon. Air India Express and IndiGo have withdrawn services to several cities, including Mumbai, Bengaluru, Chennai, Bhubaneswar, Goa, Kolkata, Patna, Jaipur, Varanasi, Ahmedabad and Indore.
The Airports Authority of India (AAI) attributed most of the route suspensions to "operational reasons", while Air India Express's Mumbai and Bengaluru services ended following a "cessation of operations".
TRAFFIC DROPS AFTER PEAK IN 2025
The retreat of airlines is reflected in the airport's traffic figures. Hindon recorded its highest-ever traffic in August 2025, with 1,168 aircraft movements. By October that year, more than 40 flights were operating daily to and from 16 cities after carriers such as Air India Express and IndiGo expanded their presence at the airport.
Since then, traffic has fallen sharply. AAI data shows domestic aircraft movements declined from 638 in February 2026 to 614 in March and further to 404 in April. Passenger traffic also dropped significantly, from 89,073 in February to 79,161 in March and then nearly halved to 44,326 in April.
AAI also confirmed that Air India Express discontinued operations from Hindon due to operational reasons. However, it declined to share correspondence exchanged with the airline regarding the closure of services, citing exemptions under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
AAI PLANS TERMINAL EXPANSION, PUSH FOR NEW ROUTES
The RTI response also sheds light on efforts underway to arrest the decline in connectivity.
AAI said expansion of the terminal building towards the city side is currently in progress to enhance passenger facilities and meet future requirements. The airport operator further stated that discussions are underway with the Central government, state governments and other stakeholders to restore connectivity and attract new airlines and routes to Hindon.
The revival push comes as Jewar's Noida International Airport begins commercial operations, intensifying competition for passengers and airlines in the NCR aviation market.

Maharashtra’s new RTI rules spark outrage over fee hikes, word limits

Times of India: Pune: Thursday, 18 June 2026.
Right to Information (RTI) activists and regular users have raised an alarm over the state govt’s newly notified RTI Rules, 2026. Critics alleged that several provisions will create significant barriers for citizens, effectively diluting the spirit of the landmark 2005 transparency law.

The new rules, notified on June 12, replaced the previous framework governing RTI applications in Maharashtra. While the state maintained that these changes were designed to streamline processes and prevent “misuse,” activists argued they imposed unnecessary hurdles on information seekers.
Among the most significant changes is a threefold increase in RTI application fee from Rs10 to Rs30. Charges for obtaining copies of documents have also been raised from Rs2 to Rs5 per page. Citizens seeking to inspect records will have to pay Rs50 per hour after the first free hour, while appeals against decisions of public information officers will now attract fees of Rs50 for first appeals and Rs100 for second appeals before the State Information Commission.
Beyond fees, the 2026 rules introduce strict structural constraints. Every RTI application must now be restricted to a single subject limited to approximately 150 words. Under the new guidelines, if an application contains multiple queries, the Public Information Officer (PIO) may process only the first issue and direct the applicant to file separate applications for the rest.
Furthermore, applicants are now required to submit self-attested photo identification to establish citizenship with every application. Failure to provide ID may result in the application being returned.
Activists argued these requirements contradict the RTI Act’s core objective: providing a simple, citizen-friendly mechanism for accountability.
“No amendment can be made that goes beyond the basic tenets of Section 6(2) of the RTI Act, which states that an applicant shall not be required to give any reason for requesting information,” said activist Vihar Durve. “Mandating citizenship proof at the application stage and imposing word limits will only increase litigation and discourage the common man.”
The rules also grant PIOs more discretion to deny copies. If information is already available on a government website, authorities can simply direct the applicant to the link rather than providing physical or digital copies. Additionally, “repetitive” applications can now be disposed of without a detailed hearing.
The 2026 rules do include some modernising touches. RTI fees can now be paid via UPI and other electronic modes, and communication through email is now formally recognised. Citizens below the poverty line (BPL) remain exempt from fees, though this is now capped only the first 50 pages of voluminous information will be provided free of cost.
Activists contend that the cumulative effect of higher fees, word counts, and identity requirements will stifle transparency. “The RTI Act was designed to make information accessible. Any measure that increases costs and procedural barriers risks weakening the public’s ability to hold the govt accountable,” said another veteran activist.
The rules are now in force across Maharashtra. Legal experts and RTI unions are currently examining the provisions to determine if they can withstand a challenge in the high court for potentially overstepping the parent RTI Act of 2005.

Maharashtra tightens RTI rules, hikes fees

Hindustan Times: Mumbai: Thursday, 18 June 2026.
Under the newly notified Maharashtra Right to Information Rules, 2026, the application fee has been raised from ₹10 to ₹30, while the cost of obtaining copies of documents has increased from ₹2 to ₹5 per page

The Maharashtra government said the amendments are aimed at improving transparency and streamlining the processing of RTI applications. (PTI)

Obtaining information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act in Maharashtra is set to become costlier, with the state government amending the rules governing the law.
Under the newly notified Maharashtra Right to Information Rules, 2026, the application fee has been raised from ₹10 to ₹30, while the cost of obtaining copies of documents has increased from ₹2 to ₹5 per page. The rules were notified on June 12.
The state government said the amendments are aimed at improving transparency and streamlining the processing of RTI applications. However, RTI activists have criticised the move, calling the new rules restrictive.
Among the key changes is a 150-word limit for RTI applications and a restriction that each application can deal with only one subject. If multiple subjects are included, the information officer will respond only to the first subject.
Applicants must now attach a self-attested photo identity proof with every application, with the government saying the objective is to contain bogus applications.
Citizens inspecting original records at government offices will continue to get the first hour free of charge, but will have to pay ₹50 for every additional hour. While persons below the poverty line (BPL) were earlier entitled to receive information free of cost, they will now receive only the first 50 pages free.
During the inspection, applicants must use only pencils and are prohibited from making any marks on documents. Other writing instruments must be deposited with the information officer.
However, failure to proactively disclose information is now explicitly deemed a dereliction of duty, warranting disciplinary action against the head of the relevant office. Information delivered via e-mail or any electronic mode is now deemed valid delivery under the Act.
Fees can now be paid via UPI or electronic means, recognising online RTI filings. This can save time spent visiting government offices just to pay fees. Appellants can appear via video conferencing if documents are submitted two days prior and the facility is available, the amendments state.
Social activist Anjali Damania questioned the legality of some of the changes. “The RTI Act was passed by Parliament. The state can’t modify it. The Centre has to make the amendment. Providing an explanation for seeking information was not a part of the Act. If the information officer feels that information sought is unnecessary or harass someone, he can levy a fine.”
RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar said, “Democracy is in doldrums and these new rules are detrimental. One has to now give a reason for seeking information. There is a 100% to 300% rise in charges. Maharashtra was the first state to introduce RTI, and now they are killing it.”

‘Can you provide Rs 1,000 cr?’: Karnataka High Court bins plea for online hearing for RTI appeal

The Indian Express: Karnataka: Wednesday, 17 June 2026.
The Karnataka High Court said the Supreme Court has only urged the states to allow online hearings and not made it mandatory.

The petitioner, a law student, argued his case in the Karnataka High Court in person. (File Photo)

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday disposed of a law student’s petition seeking directions for the Karnataka State Law University and the state government to allow him to appear online for the hearing of an appeal filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj refused the relief to the petitioner, Pranava K N, and asked, “Are you willing to provide Rs 1,000 crore and provide the facility… Who is going to give them (authorities) Rs 1,000 crore to enable this facility in each of the departments?”
Pranava, who argued in person, relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Swapnil Tripathi v Supreme Court of India (2017) and said that online hearings are a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The judge then said the principle applies only if the authorities have the facilities.
The high court said in its order, “Though the Apex court has indicated that state should endeavor to provide online hearing, there is no mandate as such and the same is a policy decision by the state government.”
The court also noted the additional government advocate’s submission that allowing online hearings would require huge investments and expenses.
The order added, “Providing online hearing being a policy decision of the University and State of Karnataka, the above relief cannot be granted, the petition stands disposed.”
The court said that in the petitioner’s case, appeals before the first appellate authority need to be filed at the department or university level.
Pranava approached the court to quash a November 25, 2025, communication from the first appellate authority under the RTI Act that denied him permission for online appearance and directed him to appear physically to argue his appeal.
Further, he sought a direction for the government to ensure that all first appellate authorities under the RTI Act provide an online or hybrid hearing option for RTI first appeals.
As per section 19 of the RTI Act, anyone who does not receive a decision on his application or is aggrieved by a decision of the central or state public information officer (PIO) may, within 30 days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision, appeal to the PIO in each public authority.

NTA's salary bill remains a secret as agency denies RTI request

India Today: New Delhi: Wednesday, 17 June 2026.
NTA has refused to disclose its salary bill and top officials' pay under RTI, despite having 198 personnel. The move comes as a reform panel urges reduced outsourcing after the 2024 exam controversies.

NTA's salary bill remains a secret as agency denies RTI request

The National Testing Agency (NTA), the body that conducts high-stakes examinations such as NEET, JEE Main and CUET for millions of students, has declined to reveal how much it spends on salaries and staff or how much its highest paid officials earn.
In response to a Right to Information (RTI) application filed by India Today, the agency refused to provide details of its salary expenditure and the remuneration of its top officials, stating that the information was not available in the format sought.
The RTI application sought year wise details of expenditure incurred by the NTA on salaries, allowances and other staff-related payments since its inception, along with information on the agency's ten highest paid officials, including their designation, annual salary, allowances and total annual remuneration.
"The data is not available in the desired format, as requested by the applicant," the agency said in its reply dated June 13, 2026.
The NTA invoked Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, arguing that public authorities are required to provide only information that already exists in their records. "Creation of new data, compilation of information from different sources, or collation of details amounts to generating information, which is beyond the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005," the reply stated.
The response is likely to raise questions about transparency in an organisation that occupies a critical position in India's education system. Notably, the NTA did not state that the information does not exist. Instead, it maintained that the data was not available in the format sought and that compiling it would amount to creating new information.
The RTI response assumes significance because the agency's staffing structure is already in the public domain. In a reply to Parliament in December 2024, the Ministry of Education disclosed that the NTA had 198 personnel, comprising 22 employees on deputation, 38 contractual employees, and 138 outsourced staff.
The issue assumes added importance in light of the recommendations of the K Radhakrishnan Committee, constituted in 2024 after controversies surrounding national entrance examinations.
The committee had recommended minimising the outsourcing of examination staff and centres, stressing that high-stakes examination functions should not rely excessively on temporary or weakly supervised delivery chains.
Against this backdrop, details of NTA's expenditure on personnel and the remuneration structure of its senior officials acquire greater public interest significance.

Disclose Recruitment Merit Lists, Selected Candidates' Marks Proactively: CIC to UPSC

ETV Bharat: New Delhi: Wednesday, 17 June 2026.
The CIC advised UPSC to proactively disclose merit lists, marks, and candidate names to enhance transparency

The Central Information Commission has advised the UPSC to proactively disclose category-wise merit lists, marks and names of selected candidates in recruitment examinations, saying transparency is crucial in the appointment process.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) passed the direction while deciding an appeal filed by a candidate, who sought his interview marks and the waiting list for the post of deputy director (planning/statistics) in the planning department of the Delhi government.
Information Commissioner Jaya Varma Sinha noted that "the need for transparency is more in the case of appointment/recruitment" and advised the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act to place relevant information from all stages of recruitment in the public domain.
The Commission recommended that the UPSC publish "names of the selected candidates, category wise merit list arranged with sequence beginning with the unreserved category, followed by all reserved categories (SC, ST, OBC, PwD) along with their marks, sequence of filling the posts with respect to current or backlog vacancies in public domain" on its website so that citizens have "minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information".
The CIC also pulled up the UPSC over an erroneous RTI response. The appellant was initially denied his interview marks after officials mistakenly linked his request to another candidate involved in pending litigation.
"The Commission admonishes the respondent public authority for committing such blatant errors while replying under the RTI Act," the order said.
On the denial of the waiting list under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, the Commission observed that "the term 'confidential' by itself is not an exemption" under the law. It said the authorities cannot deny information merely by labelling it confidential and must demonstrate how a disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party.
Holding the denial of waiting list information to be "unsustainable in law and contrary to the spirit of transparency mandated under the RTI Act", the CIC directed the central public information officer (CPIO) to provide the required information to the appellant.

Attempt to hoodwink court: Karnataka HC dismisses BDA Secretary's plea against penalty imposed by RTI authority

Bar and Bench: Bangalore: Wednesday, 17 June 2026.
The Karnataka Information Commission had imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 on the BDA Secretary for failing to comply with directions issued under the RTI Act.

Bangalore Development Authority

The Karnataka High Court on Monday refused to interfere with disciplinary action recommended by the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) against Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) Secretary Shivakumar CL [Shivakumar CL v. State Information Commissioner and another].
Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that the officer's conduct deserved to be deprecated and that the Court would not permit any attempt to "hoodwink" it.
The judge dismissed Shivakumar's petition challenging the KIC's orders which had imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 on him and recommended disciplinary proceedings against him for not complying with directions issued under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The Court noted that the BDA Secretary had neither complied with the KIC's directions, nor had he appeared before the Commission despite repeated opportunities.
"On the dates that the matter was taken up by the KIC, the said action on part of the petitioner cannot be countenanced either in law or fact. In fact, such conduct is required to be deprecated, which this Court does."
The dispute is tied to an RTI application filed by one Suresh Chandra Babu. After the information was not furnished within the prescribed period, Babu filed a first appeal before the first appellate authority under the RTI Act - the BDA Secretary in this case - on March 9, 2023. Though certain steps were initiated by the earlier BDA Secretary on May 5, 2023, no final order was passed on the appeal.
Shivakumar CL assumed charge on May 8, 2025. However, the Court noted that even after he assumed office, no orders were passed on the pending appeal. The matter then reached the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC).
Proceedings before the KIC were held on July 8, August 12 and November 5, 2025, during which there was no representation on behalf of the BDA Secretary and no action was taken to furnish the requested information.
Consequently, on January 1, 2026, the KIC imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 and directed that the information be furnished. When the matter was listed again on February 10, 2026, the KIC found that there was still no appearance by the BDA Secretary. It proceeded to direct the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him.
This turn of events was then challenged by the BDA Secretary before the High Court. His counsel, Advocate M V Charati, argued that the delay originated during the tenure of Shivakumar's predecessors and that the petitioner had assumed office only on May 8, 2025.
He contended that the petitioner, being only the first appellate authority and not the Public Information Officer, could not be held liable for the denial of information that related to the year 2023. It was also submitted that on March 12, 2026, the petitioner had instructed the Deputy Secretary to furnish the information sought.
The Court, however, rejected these submissions.
"Even after the petitioner took charge on 8.5.2025, no order had been passed for the rest of the year, that is, from May to December 2025. The letter that the petitioner relies upon addressed by the petitioner to the Deputy Secretary, is dated 12.3.2026, much after the order dated 1.1.2026 had been passed (by KIC)," the Court observed.
The Bench proceeded to term Shivakumar's argument an attempt to hoodwink the Court.
"The said reliance on the letter dated 12.3.2026 is completely misconceived and, in my considered opinion, is an attempt to hoodwink this Court, which is not permissible," Justice Govindaraj said.
During the hearing, the Bench also questioned the petitioner over his inaction after assuming office.
"You are supposed to do it in 45 days. What did you do with your appeal? You were the First Appellate Authority. First appeal was filed on 9.3.2023. What did you do after that?...From 8.5.2025 to 1.1.2026, what did you do?"
When it was argued that earlier files would come to notice only when placed before the officer, the Bench remarked that authorities must put systems in place to ensure prompt action.
"So you'll sit on the application? We won't allow the recall of disciplinary action...You set your house in order. You put a system in place so that you are informed, because you are the first appellate authority," the judge remarked.
Finding no infirmity in the KIC's orders, the High Court proceeded to dismiss the BDA secretary's plea.
The Court clarified that the concerned authorities would also be at liberty to initiate action against the petitioner's predecessor, who had failed to take any action on the first appeal from March 9, 2023, until the petitioner assumed charge in May 2025.

Special Police Establishment Not An "Intelligence & Security Organisation": Supreme Court Strikes Down MP Notification Granting It Exemption From RTI : ByMuhib Makhdoomi

Verdictum: Chandigarh: Wednesday, 17 June 2026.
The Apex Court struck down a State Government notification that exempted the SPE from the purview of the RTI Act, holding that its jurisdiction is confined to investigating corruption-related offences involving public servants and does not extend to matters of intelligence or security.

The Supreme Court held that the Special Police Establishment constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947, for assisting the Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta in corruption-related investigations, cannot be exempted from the operation of the Right to Information Act, 2005, by treating it as an “intelligence and security organisation”.
The Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Special Police Establishment, Madhya Pradesh, and upheld a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that directed the disclosure of information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005, concerning the sanction granted for the prosecution of a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held: “The sphere of operation of the SPE constituted under the Act of 1947 would be governed and guided only by matters that may be enquired into by the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt under Section 7 of the Act of 1981. The jurisdiction, in that sense, is limited to an allegation in relation to a public servant in the context of the Act of 1988.”
The Court further observed: “The SPE having been conferred jurisdiction only to investigate offences punishable under the Act of 1988, Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII of the Penal Code, it cannot be termed to be an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation for the purposes of Section 24(4) of the Act of 2005.”
Advocate Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR, appeared for the appellant-establishment. Prashant Singh, Advocate General, appeared for the respondent State. Advocate Rajeev Singh, AOR, represented the respondent-applicant
Background
Respondent-applicant, a Town Inspector posted at Police Station Madhav Nagar, Katni, was implicated in a trap case registered by the Special Police Establishment under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Following the grant of sanction for his prosecution by the State Government, he sought information under the RTI Act regarding the decision-making process leading to the grant of sanction and communications exchanged in that regard.
The request was rejected, and the State Information Commission upheld the refusal by relying upon Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court found that the investigation had already concluded and directed disclosure of the information sought. Aggrieved thereby, the Special Police Establishment approached the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant relied upon a notification dated 25 August 2011 issued by the General Administration Department of the State Government under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, exempting the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment of the Lokayukta Organisation from the applicability of the RTI Act.
Court's Observations
The Court noted that, although the notification dated 25 August 2011 had not been specifically challenged before the High Court, the appellant sought to rely on the notification to defeat the RTI claim. This led the Court to examine whether the notification was consistent with Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
Referring to its power to examine the validity of subordinate legislation, the Court observed that where a pure question of statutory interpretation arises, and the State has been afforded adequate opportunity to justify the measure, the Court is not precluded from testing its legality.
The Bench undertook an examination of Section 24 of the RTI Act and noted that both sub-sections (1) and (4) exempt only “intelligence and security organisations” from the operation of the statute. It observed that organisations listed in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act, such as the Enforcement Directorate, Border Security Force, Central Reserve Police Force and National Investigation Agency, are specifically concerned with intelligence gathering, national security or internal security functions.
According to the Court, the expression “intelligence and security organisations” cannot be interpreted expansively to include every investigative agency established by the State Government.
The Court examined the statutory framework governing the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 and observed that the legislation was enacted to establish an independent mechanism for enquiring into allegations of corruption, misconduct and abuse of office by public servants.
The Court noted that Section 7 of the 1981 Act authorises the Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt to enquire into allegations against public servants, while the Special Police Establishment functions as an investigative arm assisting those authorities.
Referring to various notifications issued under the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947, the Court observed that the SPE is empowered only to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 409 and 420 IPC, offences under Chapter XVIII of the IPC and related conspiracies.
The Bench remarked: "The various Notifications issued by the State Government under Section 3 of the Act of 1947 from time to time are limited to offences punishable under the Act of 1988, Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII of the Penal Code. Though Section 24(4) of the Act of 2005 states that the Act would apply to such ‘intelligence and security organisations’ established by the State Government as notified, the SPE though established by the State Government, it is not empowered to investigate any offences or classes of offences related to ‘intelligence’ and ‘security".
The Bench further held: “The statutory scheme under which the SPE stands constituted coupled with the jurisdiction conferred on the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt clearly indicate that the SPE cannot be termed to be an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation when it assists the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt in matters specified by Section 7 of the Act of 1981.”
The Court found that the notification dated 25 August 2011 sought to exempt the SPE from the RTI Act by invoking Section 24(4), despite the SPE not qualifying as an “intelligence and security organisation”.
The Bench observed that subordinate legislation can be invalidated when it exceeds the limits of authority conferred by the parent enactment. Since Section 24(4) permits exemption only for intelligence and security organisations, extending that exemption to the SPE was beyond statutory authority.
The Court held: "The SPE having been conferred jurisdiction only to investigate offences punishable under the Act of 1988, Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII of the Penal Code, it cannot be termed to be an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation for the purposes of Section 24(4) of the Act of 2005".
“The Notification dated 25.08.2011 issued by the GAD of the State of Madhya Pradesh to the extent it seeks to exclude the SPE from the purview of the Act of 2005 in view of Section 24(4) thereof is liable to be set aside as being bad in law”, the Court accordingly concluded.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment, functioning as the investigative arm of the Lokayukt Organisation for corruption-related offences involving public servants, cannot be characterised as an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Consequently, the notification dated 25 August 2011, exempting the SPE from the RTI Act, was declared invalid and struck down. The Court maintained the High Court's direction requiring disclosure of information sought by the respondent under the RTI Act and dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 644)
Appearances: Appellant: Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR.
Respondents: Advocates Rajeev Singh, Naveen Kumar Singh; Prashant Singh (Advocate General), Advocates Sridhar Potaraju, Manisha T. Karia, D.S. Parmar, Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Abhimanyu Singh Ga and Karan Singh.
(Click here to read/download Judgment)

Chandigarh Administration denies RTI plea seeking basis for Master Plan amendments

The Indian Express: Chandigarh: Wednesday, 17 June 2026.
Says proposed changes to Master Plan 2031 are still under consideration; details can be disclosed only after final decision

The Chandigarh Master Plan-2031, formally notified in April 2015, serves as the guiding blueprint for managing the city’s growth, heritage and infrastructure till 2031. (File Photo)

The Chandigarh Administration has declined to disclose details of the proposed amendments to the city’s Master Plan, citing provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act that exempt disclosure of records related to an ongoing decision-making process.
The proposed amendments to the Chandigarh Master Plan 2031 including a higher Floor Area Ratio (FAR), increased population density, mixed land use, and high-rise development have come under scrutiny following an RTI application seeking to know the studies and assessments that formed the basis of the proposed changes.
In response to an RTI application filed by city resident Ram Kumar Garg, the Urban Planning Department said the draft amendments had been placed in the public domain for inviting objections and suggestions from residents, but the proposal was still under consideration and had not attained finality.
“The Draft Amendments in the Chandigarh Master Plan have been placed in the public domain for inviting objections/suggestions from the general public, and the proposal is presently under consideration, and not attained finality from the Competent Authority,” the department said in its response dated June 16.
The department further said the information sought was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act, 2005, and could be disclosed after the matter is finalised, subject to the provisions of the law.
The response came after Garg sought details relating to the proposed changes in the Master Plan, the key planning document that guides Chandigarh’s land use, housing, commercial development, transport infrastructure and future urban growth.
The applicant had sought copies of all studies, consultant reports, technical assessments, and official records relied upon while preparing the proposed amendments. The request aimed to ascertain whether the city’s infrastructure is equipped to handle the additional burden that may arise from denser development.
Specifically, the RTI application sought utility augmentation, detailed project reports, population impact projections, carrying-capacity studies, infrastructure impact assessments, traffic studies, utility load assessments and environmental impact assessments related to the proposed amendments.
It also sought records indicating whether funds had been earmarked for upgrading civic infrastructure and whether timelines or implementation plans had been prepared before the proposed planning changes are implemented.
In addition, the applicant sought file notings, inter-departmental correspondence, minutes of meetings and records relating to any expert committee constituted to examine or recommend the amendments. Copies of approvals, recommendations, observations and reports relied upon by the administration while framing the amendments were also sought.
The applicant further requested that if any of the studies or assessments sought did not exist, the administration should state so specifically. An inspection of all relevant files was also sought under the RTI Act.
Officials maintained that since the amendment process is ongoing, disclosure of the information at this stage is barred under the RTI Act. They, however, pointed out that information relating to the draft amendments already available in the public domain can be accessed through the department’s website.
The refusal is significant as the proposed amendments, which have attracted criticism from several quarters, could have a bearing on future development patterns in the city. Urban planners, resident welfare associations and other stakeholders have been closely tracking the exercise, with several groups seeking greater transparency regarding the proposed changes and their likely impact on land-use norms and development controls.
The RTI application was disposed of by the Urban Planning Department on June 16.