Delhi Fire Service Faces Staff Crunch Of 1,001 Personnel, RTI Shows 523 Firemen Posts Vacant

News18: New Delhi: Thursday, 4^th June 2026.
Delhi has witnessed major fire incidents in recent months, claiming at least 45 lives this year, according to DFS records

A five-storey building collapsed in Delhi’s Saket area on Saturday evening. It is feared that several people are trapped underneath. The Fire Department was alerted at 7:45 AM.
Rescue teams are currently operating at the scene and three individuals have been successfully rescued; however, it is suspected that several others remained trapped, prompting an ongoing rescue operation.
According to the Delhi Fire Service, the five-storey structure which housed various offices, was largely vacant due to it being a Saturday; the few offices that were operational had already closed down by 6:00 PM. “We have sent four fire tenders to the spot and further details are awaited," the DFS officer said.
However, when the five-storey commercial building collapsed, its debris cascaded onto adjacent structures. Specifically, rubble fell into a canteen operating within a neighboring building, where it is feared that some people may be trapped.
The Delhi Police and the Delhi Fire Service are currently on the scene, joined by the NDRF.
Delhi CM Extends Condolences
In a post on X, Delhi CM Rekha Gupta said, “Deeply concerned by the building collapse incident near Saket Metro Station. Teams from NDRF, Delhi Fire Services, “Delhi Police, DDMA, MCD, CATS and Civil Defence are carrying out rescue operations on a war footing. Every possible effort is being made to safely rescue those trapped and provide immediate assistance to the affected families."
“The situation is being closely monitored, and all concerned agencies are working in coordination. The safety and well-being of every citizen remain our highest priority," she added.

6,659 govt offices in Gujarat missing from RTI portal: State Information Commission

The Times of India: Gujarat: Thursday, 4^th June 2026.
Gujarat’s push for digital governance has hit an unexpected roadblock. The State Information Commission has found that 6,659 govt offices are missing from the state’s online RTI portal. Issuing an order, State information commissioner Nikhil Bhatt noted that this “administrative oversight” has created a digital blackout, making it impossible for citizens to select the correct authorities from the portal’s drop-down menu.

Bhatt observed, “The main reason is that nodal officers have not properly mapped the public information officers (PIOs) and first appellate authorities (FAAs) of all public authorities under their control.” This mapping failure forces citizens to misdirect applications to the Chief Minister’s Office or nodal departments, which the commission noted “tarnishes the image of the state govt” and causes “unnecessary burden” and “harassment” to applicants.
The energy and petrochemicals department leads with 1,172 unmapped offices, followed by Narmada and water resources (780), and the revenue department (610). Other major departments failing the transparency test include agriculture and farmers welfare (532), health and family welfare (485), roads and buildings (474), panchayat and rural development (454), labour and employment (393), home (361), and finance (233).
The order was issued by SIC after hearing a complaint filed by a citizen, Dikshitkumar Talpada. He had sought logs and internal movement records of his previous first appeals. He discovered that his applications were disappearing into a digital “no-man’s land”. During the hearing, it was revealed that while the state promotes an “e-Sarkar” (electronic govt) system, the backend integration with the RTI portal was broken.
Refusing to accept technical glitches as an excuse, the commission issued a 90-day ultimatum to all nodal officers to complete the mapping of every office. To modernise the process, the order recommends integrating “modern AI tools” and an “advanced search feature” to track applicant history and prevent redundant queries. The SIC has also demanded that the portal allow a single application to be directed to multiple PIOs simultaneously. Bhatt also directed nodal officers to conduct monthly reviews to ensure no office remains “off the grid”.

Why Central Information Commission slashed public officer’s salary for RTI non-disclosure : Written by Somya Tyagi

The Indian Express: New Delhi: Thursday, 4^th June 2026.
The Central Information Commission was listening to a complaint filed by a man who had not received the reply to his RTI application since past one-and-a-half years.

The Central Information Commission held that the conduct of the public information officer had hindered the effective adjudication of the matter. (AI Generated Image)

Calling out a public information officer for wasting its “valuable time, energy and resources”, the Central Information Commission (CIC) recently imposed a penalty of Rs 1,000 for hindering effective adjudication of the concerns raised by a man.
Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari was hearing a complaint filed by a man who had not received any reply to his right to information (RTI) application after passing of one-and-a-half years of filing the same online.
“The conduct of the officer concerned resulted in wastage of the valuable time, energy and resources of the commission and impeded the effective adjudication of the matter,” the June 1 order read.

The commission held that the appearance before the Central Information Commission proceedings was a statutory responsibility and could not be treated casually.

‘Delayed reply’

• The complainant filed an RTI application on July 25, 2022.
• The said application sought a clear and certified copy of the communication between the office of executive engineer and Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited regarding the disconnection of electricity connections from unauthorised construction at a specific part of Naraina Village, New Delhi.
• The application also sought a clear and certified copy of the communication made between the officer concerned and Delhi Jal Board regarding the disconnection of water supply from unauthorised construction at a specific part of Naraina Village, New Delhi.
• The complainant, however, did not receive any response from the officer and hence filed a first appeal on August 24, 2022.
• The first appellate authority, by its order dated September 14, 2022, observed that, as per the assistant public information officer (APIO), the RTI application had not been received from the nodal officer of the authorities concerned and, till date, they were unable to provide the required information to the appellant.
• The RTI application received with the appeal was handed over to the APIO during the hearing, and the concerned authorities were directed to provide the information as desired in the RTI application to the complainant within 7 days.
• The complainant, aggrieved by the non-compliance of the appellate authority’s order, approached the CIC.
• During the hearing held on February 4, 2025, the complainant was present. However, it was noted that the officer concerned remained absent, and a representative had appeared on his behalf.

What happened in previous hearing
The commission observed that more than one-and-a-half years had elapsed from the date of the RTI application, and yet no reply had been given to the complainant even after the direction of the FAA.
It was also noted that the officer concerned not only did not participate in the hearing, but also his representative had not filed a proper authority letter to represent the case on his behalf, nor was he acquainted with the facts of the case.
The authority letter produced before the commission was also found to be “deficient,” having been signed by an unidentified person without disclosing his name, designation or contact details.
The commission expressed severe displeasure with the conduct of the officer for neither providing any reply nor participating in the hearing despite prior intimation. This conduct, as per the commission, “trampled” upon the citizen’s right under the RTI Act as well as showed a lack of respect towards the commission.
Consequently, the commission issued a show cause notice to the officer, directing him to explain in writing as to why action should not be initiated against them under the RTI Act for his conduct.
Following the above occurrences, on April 24, 2026, a reply was sent by the officer to the complainant through the offline mode, providing relevant answers to the questions posed. Before this reply, another reply had been sent by the officer on September 26, 2022, following the directions of the first appellate authority.
‘Busy in field inspection’
The officer in question filed a written submission dated March 7, 2025, stating that since he was “busy in field inspection on the day of hearing since morning and was not present in the office to sign the authority letter,” the authority letter was hence signed by the next most senior official present in the office.
He also apologised for the format of the authority letter and further submitted that the office of executive engineer was running with an acute shortage of engineering and ministerial staff, and hence an official who was discharging a clerical job as a “stopgap arrangement” was directed to attend the hearing.
‘Hindered effective adjudication’
The commission recorded that because the officer concerned was not present during the previous hearing and the representative deputed failed to answer basic queries regarding the status of the RTI application, the commission was deprived of effective assistance in adjudicating the matter.
It was noted by the commission that the explanation furnished by the officer did not “satisfactorily explain’ as to why no properly authorised officer, knowing the facts of the case, was assigned to represent the matter before the Commission.
The commission also pointed out that the RTI application in the present matter was filed through the online portal, but the reply to the same was furnished through offline mode instead of through the portal, and no justification had been offered for such “deviation”, thereby causing avoidable ambiguity regarding transparency of the RTI process.
The commission held that the appearance before it in proceedings under the RTI Act was a statutory responsibility and could not be treated casually, calling the conduct of the officer concerned to have resulted in the “wastage of the valuable time, energy and resources of the commission” and hindered the effective adjudication of the matter.
Considering the case to be fit for imposition of a penalty, the commission ordered an amount of Rs 1,000 to be deducted from the salary of the officer in favour of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Transparency International Raises Concerns Over Ghana’s RTI Law Implementation

Modern Ghana: Ghana: Wednesday, 3^rd June 2026.

Transparency InternationalRaises Concerns Over Ghana’s RTI Law Implementation

Transparency International has disclosed that bureaucratic obstacles remain a major barrier to the effective implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act across West Africa, including Ghana.
The organization made this known during the presentation of its latest West Africa Right to Information Report and Policy Brief, which assessed the implementation of RTI laws in Ghana, Liberia, Togo, and Sierra Leone.
According to the report, despite Ghana having an operational RTI Act, awareness of the law remains low, leading to its underutilization. It also noted that some public institutions continue to delay or deny access to requested information.

RTI on PMs’ foreign travel: Nov 2019-26: MR spent the most; Dinesh, Harini the least : BY Buddhika Samaraweera

The Morning: Sri Lanka: Wednesday, 3^rd June 2026.

• MR spent Rs 42 m on 3 visits; Dinesh spent Rs 3 m on 4 visits
• No foreign visits by Ranil during 2022 PM tenure
• Harini has travelled the most with 8 visits; spent only Rs 11.5 m

Of the four Prime Ministers (PMs) who served between November 2019 and 13 May of this year, Mahinda Rajapaksa incurred the highest expenditure on foreign travel, spending Rs 42.3 m on only three overseas visits, whereas Dinesh Gunawardena recorded the lowest foreign travel expenditure, spending just Rs 3.43 m, despite undertaking four foreign visits.
The figures were revealed in information provided under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, No. 12 of 2016 by the PM's Office.
Rajapaksa, who served as the PM from 21 November 2019 to 9 May 2022, incurred a total expenditure of Rs 3,225,092,107.50 (approximately Rs 3.23 b) through the PM's Office. During that period, he made three official foreign visits to Bangladesh, Italy and India at a total cost of Rs 42,315,510.79 (approximately Rs 42.3 m).
Ranil Wickremesinghe, who served as the PM from 12 May 2022 to 21 July 2022, incurred a total of Rs 141,214,407.48 (approximately Rs 141.2 m) through the PM's Office and did not undertake any foreign visits during his tenure.
Gunawardena, who served as the PM from 22 July 2022 to 23 September 2024, incurred a total expenditure of Rs 2,403,160,007.96 (approximately Rs 2.4 b) through the PM's Office. He undertook four foreign visits to Thailand, China on two occasions, and to South Korea. The total expenditure on those visits amounted to Rs 3,431,922.91 (approximately Rs 3.43 m), the lowest foreign travel expenditure among the four PMs.
Incumbent PM Dr Harini Amarasuriya, who is in office from 24 September 2024 to date, has incurred a total expenditure of Rs 1,361,114,655.56 (approximately Rs 1.36 b) through the PM's Office as at 13 May. She undertook eight foreign visits to Germany, France, Thailand, Canada, Switzerland, China, India and the Philippines, with the total expenditure on those visits amounting to Rs 11,546,694.56 (approximately Rs 11.5 m).
The information shows that although Dr Amarasuriya undertook the highest number of foreign visits among the four PMs, the expenditure incurred on those visits was substantially lower than the amount spent on foreign travel during Rajapaksa's tenure.

Important to question those in power to enforce accountability; strong judiciary must: Former judge S Muralidhar -Written by: Somya Panwar, Jagriti Rai

The Indian Express: Article: Wednesday, 3^rd June 2026.
Senior advocate S Muralidhar underlined the importance of asking questions to those "in power to enforce accountability".

The only way you can really enforce accountability of those in power is a strong judiciary, S Muralidhar said.

Senior Supreme Court advocate and former Chief Justice of Orissa High Court S Muralidhar on Tuesday said it is important to ask questions to whoever is in power to enforce accountability, and the only way to influence accountability of those in power is to have a strong judiciary.
S Muralidhar, who was also a judge in the Delhi High Court, was speaking at the launch of a quiz book in Bengaluru titled ‘Ready for the Law Challenge’, authored by his former intern Raghav Chakravarthy. He was on the panel discussing topic “Curiosity, Democracy and Public Life”.
“As a lawyer and, of course, later as a judge, you begin to realise the only way you can really influence accountability of those in power is to have a strong judiciary. A judiciary that lends its hand to people wanting answers from the government. And the more and more judges realise that they are meant to do this very primary fundamental duty as a constitutional court, we’ll have a better country,” he added.

S Muralidhar was speaking at the launch of a quiz book in Bengaluru titled ‘Ready for the Law Challenge’, authored by his former intern Raghav Chakravarthy. He was on the panel discussing topic “Curiosity, Democracy and Public Life”.

On RTI movement
The former judge also highlighted the power of the RTI movement when he said, “The RTI movement followed with the RTI Act. It came through small protests of this nature, where they were asking questions of the local administration. It’s so important to ask questions of whoever is in power to enforce accountability. Democracy in the court, of course, as a judge, as a lawyer, you keep filing petitions where you don’t get responses from the government otherwise. The government is forced to come and respond to the court.”
Responding to the question on curiosity and its role in his life, S Muralidhar said, “I think curiosity plays a role in democracy; I think the best example to give here. Just to see the power of the people is the MK case movement in Rajasthan.”
He highlighted how people were asking a simple question of their own panchayats. “Money is allocated for projects in this area; what’s happened to that money? Show us the accounts; that’s how the entire movement started, and it’s one of the most powerful tools,” he added.
On Safai Karmachari Andolan being mentioned, he said that the PIL started in 2003, three years before he became a judge; with that, he emphasised, “what we could not have got through RTI applications, and otherwise, we were able to get responses from states across the country.”
Continuing the conversation of RTI, he said that those responses were denials that there is any manual scavenging happening in the state. “We had to then produce video clips.” He continued, “We had to produce personal testimonies to make them accept that it was happening, and it was a long struggle, so that was another big, big step forward in trying to eradicate the practice; it’s not been entirely successful, but that’s a fight that will go on.”
As a lawyer, and of course later as a judge, you begin to realise that the only way you can really enforce accountability of those in power is a strong judiciary, he said.
‘Law an ocean’
Elaborating on the influence of law and legal development, Muralidhar said that every day something happens in connection with the law.
“You open the newspaper, there are so many news items about what’s happening in the court or what’s happening in society, which can become a potential case. So there’s a lot of interest in law. Lawyers, by their very training get to realise very soon that all the learning happens in court,” he said.
However, the former judge said, it is not possible to get exposed to all branches of the law.
“It’s like an ocean. Like, so many disciplines. It’s a vast ocean. So you may join a law office where your senior colleague does a certain kind of case, and you may not have any exposure to other kinds of cases at all. You can sit in the court, you can watch other lawyers perform, but it’s only so much of a learning… Kerala has attempted it, like a law academy, that is on-the-job learning. So there are so many developments in the law at a very rapid pace that you can’t keep up with it.”
Muralidhar, therefore, underscored the need of an avenue where one is not taxed for and learns to enjoy besides gaining knowledge. “And quizzes somehow break down hierarchies. The brightest mind could be the youngest,” he noted.

Delhi High Court refuses to disclose Safety Analysis Report of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant under RTI Act

India Legal Live : Chayanika: New Delhi: Tuesday, June 02, 2026.

The Delhi High Court has held that the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) relating to Units I and II of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant in Tamil Nadu is exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005, holding that the document is protected by statutory exemptions concerning fiduciary relationships, national security interests and India’s relations with a foreign State. 

The single-judge Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav set aside a 2012 order of the Central Information Commission (CIC), which had directed the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) to disclose the report to RTI applicant SP Udaykumar after redacting proprietary design-related information.

The Court held that NPCIL was in possession of the SAR in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of the Russian Federation and, therefore, the document was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The Court further ruled that disclosure of the report could adversely affect India’s scientific and strategic interests, as well as its diplomatic relations with a foreign government, thereby attracting the exemption contained in Section 8(1)(a) of the Act. While examining the nature of the project, the Court noted that the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant was established pursuant to an inter-governmental agreement between India and Russia, with the reactor technology and design being supplied by the Russian side.

The judgment records that the Russian entity associated with the project had specifically objected to the publication of the Safety Analysis Report, asserting confidentiality over the document. The High Court observed that the Safety Analysis Report contains sensitive technical and safety-related information concerning the nuclear facility and forms part of a framework involving international cooperation and strategic infrastructure. In such circumstances, disclosure of the document could not be treated as an ordinary exercise under the transparency regime of the RTI Act.

Justice Kaurav also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in *G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India*, wherein the apex court had examined and rejected various challenges concerning the safety and operational aspects of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project. Referring to the findings of the Supreme Court, the High Court held that safety concerns relating to the project had already undergone judicial scrutiny at the highest level. Consequently, no overriding public interest existed that would justify disclosure of the report despite the statutory exemptions available under the RTI Act.

The dispute originated from an RTI application filed by Udaykumar in 2010 seeking access to the Safety Analysis Report, Site Evaluation Report and Environmental Impact Assessment Report relating to Reactors I and II of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant. Following the application, the Central Information Commission in 2012 directed disclosure of the Safety Analysis Report after excluding proprietary reactor design details. 

Aggrieved by the CIC’s direction, NPCIL approached the Delhi High Court challenging the order. Allowing the petition, the High Court held that the CIC had failed to adequately consider the fiduciary nature of the information, the strategic implications of disclosure and the international obligations arising from the Indo-Russian nuclear cooperation framework Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Safety Analysis Report of Units I and II of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant is protected from disclosure under the RTI Act and set aside the CIC’s order directing its releas

Students of law varsity learn about RTI Act during 2-day workshop.

Tribune India: Shimla: Tuesday, June 02, 2026.

Over 1,500 students of Himachal Pradesh National Law University (HPNLU), Shimla, were apprised of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, during a two-day workshop organised by the Legal Aid Clinic of the university in collaboration with Vidhi Vimarsh. The workshop aimed at promoting awareness regarding transparency, accountability and citizens’ rights under the RTI.

The workshop featured distinguished experts in the field of transparency and governance, including Shailesh Gandhi and Uday Mahurkar, former Central Information Commissioners, Government of India; Rahul Singh, former State Information Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh; and Nikhil Dey, founder member of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) and the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI). Prof Priti Saxena, Vice-Chancellor of the university was also present during the workshop.

Held in four comprehensive modules over two days, the workshop provided participants with in-depth knowledge of RTI, procedures for filing RTI applications, transparency mechanisms, the role of Information Commissions, landmark judicial pronouncements and contemporary debates concerning reforms in the RTI framework. The resource persons highlighted the continuing relevance of RTI as one of the most effective democratic tools available to citizens for ensuring transparency, accountability and good governance.

Through practical illustrations and real-life experiences, the speakers emphasised the transformative role played by the RTI movement in strengthening participatory democracy and empowering citizens.

dvocate Seeking Information Under RTI Act To Defend Client Cannot Be Dragged Into Criminal Case: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR.

Verdictum: Bengaluru: Tuesday, June 02, 2026.

The Court strongly admonished the complainant, a public servant, for dragging the defence counsel into a matrimonial and caste-related dispute merely for discharging his professional obligations.

The Karnataka High Court quashed a criminal case registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against an advocate who was arrayed as an accused for simply seeking information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to defend his client. The Court expressed deep disquiet over the rising trend of disgruntled litigants weaponizing the criminal justice system to intimidate advocates. The Court categorically held that an advocate acting strictly within the confines of professional duties and institutional instructions cannot be subjected to the trauma of investigative proceedings, as such intimidation strikes a paralyzing blow to the independence of the Bar and the purity of the administration of justice.

The Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, "Before parting with the matter, this Court considers it both necessary and appropriate to record its deep, disquiet and increasingly disturbing trend that has surfaced in recent times. This Court is encountering plethora of cases, wherein Advocates, who merely represent parties before Courts of law in the discharge of their professional obligations, are themselves being dragged into criminal proceedings and arrayed as accused. The only “fault” attributable to such Advocates, is that they appeared for their clients and articulated their cause before the concerned judicial forum." 

Brief Facts of the Case

The Petitioner was an advocate by profession who came to be arrayed as accused number four in a criminal case registered by the jurisdictional police. A matrimonial dispute arose between the complainant, who was working as an Assistant Conservator of Forest, and the co-accused individuals. The petitioner was engaged professionally to represent the co-accused and accordingly entered appearance by filing his vakalathnama and subsequent statement of objections before the family court. In the course of discharging his professional duties and acting upon instructions from his clients, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act before an educational institution to secure certain information concerning the complainant for production before the court.

Consequent to the collection of information regarding the caste of the complainant from the school, the complainant lodged a criminal complaint. The said complaint was registered as a first information report against several individuals, including the petitioner, for offences punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Agitated by the registration of the said crime, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings.

Contentions of the parties

The Petitioner vehemently contended that the registration of the criminal case against an advocate was a gross abuse of the process of law and a clear misuse of the criminal justice system. It was submitted that the petitioner had no personal animosity or involvement in the inter-se dispute between the parties and was merely acting in his professional capacity to defend his clients. It was argued that the act of seeking information under the Right to Information Act to bolster a client’s legal defense could not be construed as a criminal offence, and allowing the investigation to continue would result in a miscarriage of justice.

The Complainant countered the arguments, asserting that the petition was premature as the investigation was at its threshold. It was contended that the petitioner-advocate had exceeded the scope of his professional duties by attempting to gather information beyond what was legally necessary for presentation before the court. The Respondent sought the dismissal of the petition, arguing that the true role and intent of the petitioner could only be unearthed through a comprehensive police investigation. 

Observations of the Court 

High Court observed that to attract the provisions of Section 336 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), there must exist the deliberate making of a false document or electronic record with the intent to cause injury or unlawful prejudice. The Court noted that how these ingredients could be attributed to the petitioner remained shrouded in mystery, as his role was strictly confined to procuring school documents under professional instructions from his clients. The Court further noted that the invocation of Sections 336(3) and 340 of the BNS—which contemplate forgery for the purpose of cheating or using a forged document as genuine—was wholly untenable. The complaint was found to be conspicuously silent regarding any participation, fabrication, or fraudulent intent on the part of the petitioner, meaning the offenses could not independently survive or justify an investigation against him It was held that the allegations pertaining to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were woven in the most fragile and nebulous manner. 

The Court observed that the complaint contained no whisper of any overt act or hurling of abuses by the petitioner in a public place or a place of public view, thereby failing to disclose the foundational ingredients required to invoke the rigors of the special penal provisions. The Court expressed deep disquiet over the increasingly disturbing trend of dragging advocates into criminal proceedings merely for discharging their professional duties. It observed that exposing advocates to criminal prosecution for articulating their clients' causes would have a paralyzing and chilling effect on the fearless discharge of their duties, thereby striking at the very independence of the Bar and the purity of the administration of justice. The High Court unequivocally admonished the second respondent-complainant, noting that such conduct, especially coming from a public servant, displayed a reckless misuse of authority and an abuse of coercive powers. 

The Court observed that the sanctity of the justice delivery system must remain inviolable and warned that any future reiteration of such unfounded conduct would be viewed with the utmost seriousness. "Such tendency strikes at the very heart of independence of the bar, by necessary extension the purity of administration of justice itself. Advocates are officers of the Court, they function within the confines of professional duty, acting upon the instructions of their client and presenting their cause within the four corners of law. If every Advocate, merely by a reason of appearing for a litigant is exposed to criminal prosecution and trauma of investigative proceedings, the inevitable consequence would be a chilling and paralyzing effect upon fearless discharge of professional responsibilities. The majesty of legal profession cannot be permitted to be diminished by disgruntled litigants to wield criminal law as a weapon of intimidation against the members of the bar", the Court observed.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition preferred by the petitioner. The criminal proceedings impugned in the petition pending before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court were quashed qua the petitioner. 

Cause Title: Sri Pradeep Kumar v. The State and Anr. [Neutral Citation:2026:KHC:21597] Appearances: Petitioner: Advocate Sravanna S Respondents: Addl. SPP BS Jagadeesh and Advocate BS Sachin

CIC pulls up law ministry over incomplete RTI on Court fee data

Telangana Today: New Delhi: Monday, 1^St June 2026.
An RTI seeking nationwide court fee collection data remained incomplete despite being transferred across four entities. The Central Information Commission has ordered a fresh reply and issued show-cause notices to Law Ministry officials over mishandling and procedural lapses

An RTI application seeking nationwide data on judicial court fee collections was transferred to four government departments and public sector entities but the information provided remained incomplete, prompting the CIC to direct a fresh reply and issue show-cause notices to officials of the law ministry.
The RTI applicant had sought details of annual collections of judicial court fees, including e-court fees, on an all-India basis, the total amount collected since June 1, 2014, with state-wise annual figures and the utilisation of such collections and related allocations.
According to the Central Information Commission (CIC) order, the application was filed with the Department of Legal Affairs under the Ministry of Law and Justice and was subsequently transferred to the Department of Financial Services (DFS), its Institutional Finance-I (IF-I) Division, Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd (IFCI) and finally the Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd (SHCIL). The IF-I Division informed the applicant that the information sought was not available with it and transferred the application to IFCI.
IFCI, in turn, said the queries appeared to pertain to SHCIL and forwarded the application to the company. SHCIL provided details of e-court fee collections for 16 states and Union Territories where it operates e-court services. However, on the second query relating to court fee collections since June 2014 and the third query regarding utilisation of the collections, it stated that the information sought was not applicable to it.
During the hearing, the appellant submitted that the information provided on the first two points was incomplete and that no information had been received on the utilisation of court fees, which related to the Ministry of Law and Justice.
The Commission observed that the application had moved from the Department of Legal Affairs to DFS, then to the IF-I Division, IFCI and finally SHCIL. It noted that SHCIL had provided replies only on the first two points and had stated that information on the third point was not available with it.
“The CPIO Stockholding Corporation of India Ltd. provided the reply only on points 1 and 2 of the RTI application and said that the information on point 3 is not available,” the order said.
Recording SHCIL’s submission that it would revisit its response and rectify any discrepancy, the CIC directed the company’s CPIO to provide a revised reply on points one and two.
The Commission also issued a show-cause notice to the CPIO of the Department of Legal Affairs, asking why action under Section 20 of the RTI Act should not be initiated for wrongly transferring the entire application to DFS and for remaining absent during the hearing without prior intimation.
A separate show-cause notice was issued to the First Appellate Authority in the Ministry of Law and Justice for not responding to the appellant’s letter dated October 12, 2024.

No law bars visitors from carrying mobiles inside police stations: Police’s RTI reply : BY SHABIR IBN YUSUF

Greater Kashmir: Srinagar: Monday, 1^St June 2026.
Response says no provision in BNS or BNSS prohibits visitors from carrying phones; no circular or notification issued imposing such restriction

No law bars visitors from carrying mobiles inside police stations: Police’s RTI reply Photograph: (For Representation)

Police has clarified that there is no specific legal provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) that prohibits visitors from carrying mobile phones inside Police Stations.
The clarification came in response to a Right to Information (RTI) application filed by advocate Nitin Bakhshi, a resident of Upper Barnai, Jammu, seeking information regarding restrictions on the use or carrying of mobile phones by visitors in police stations.
In a reply issued by the Public Information Officer (PIO), District Police Office (DPO) Jammu, vide communication No. RTI/131/2026 dated May 26, 2026, the police said that information had been sought from all Zonal Superintendents of Police in District Jammu before furnishing the response.
The RTI reply categorically states, “There is no specific section in BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) or BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) that explicitly says visitors are not allowed to carry mobile phones inside a police station.” The police further informed the applicant that no notification, circular, order or other official instruction exists under which visitors are barred from carrying mobile phones into police stations.
The response assumes significance as visitors to Police Stations in various parts of Jammu and Kashmir and elsewhere in the country are often asked by police personnel to deposit mobile phones before entering certain areas of police establishments, citing security or administrative reasons. However, the RTI reply indicates that no specific statutory provision or district-level order authorising a blanket prohibition exists in District Jammu.
The communication also informed the applicant that if he is dissatisfied with the reply, he may file an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act before the First Appellate Authority, District Police Office Jammu, within 30 days of the issuance of the response. The First Appellate Authority in the matter is Anna Sinha, who is presently serving as Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Jammu. The RTI application was received by the police on May 25, 2026, and the response was issued the following day after obtaining inputs from the concerned police officers.

RTI activist shot dead; cousin held within hours

The Times of India: Jalandhar: Sunday, 31 May 2026.

RTI activist, who had stepped out of his home without the armed police cover provided by government, was shot dead near a private university in Phagwara on Saturday morning.
The murder sent shockwaves through the state as victim Simranjit Singh was known for approaching the courts on controversial issues and had also filed complaints against senior officials on the basis of RTI replies.
Police said they solved the crime within hours, arresting his cousin Sharnjit Singh. A financial dispute led to the murder, they say.
According to police, the activist had two Punjab Police gunmen, but he left his home alone in his Fortuner at 7.15am. Phagwara SP Madhvi Sharma said police were alerted at 11am that he was lying dead in Maheru village, 20km from here.
Kapurthala SSP Gaurav Toora said Simranjit was shot twice from behind at close range.

Explained: Can cooperative housing societies refuse RTI queries? Haryana SIC answers - By Bhartesh Singh Thakur

The Tribune: Chandigarh: Sunday, 31 May 2026.
Haryana State Information Commission holds that information cannot be denied merely because the society itself is not a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act

The State Information Commission (SIC) has ruled that if information held by a cooperative group housing society is accessible to the office of the registrar of cooperative societies, it must be provided under the RTI Act.
The commission held that information cannot be denied merely because the society itself is not a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
Why is the order significant?
Group housing societies have been taking the plea that they are not covered under the RTI Act as they do not receive any aid or support from the state and therefore do not come within the RTI ambit. The Commission's order clarifies that information accessible through the Registrar can still be sought under the RTI Act.
In which case was the order passed?
The order was passed while directing the office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, to provide the complete unedited videography of the General Body Meeting of the New Haryana Officers Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited, Panchkula.
A retired district and sessions judge, Kuldip Jain, who is serving as a Member (Judicial) in the Haryana Human Rights Commission, filed an RTI application on September 5, 2023, seeking a certified copy of the unedited video of the entire proceedings of the General Body Meeting held on July 8, 2023, along with the minutes of the meeting. He is a member of the Society, having IAS, IPS and HCS officers as members.
What information was provided and what was denied?
The minutes of the meeting were furnished to Jain, but the videography was not provided.
The society contended that the videography was its property and that it did not fall within the ambit of a "public authority" as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. During a hearing on January 9, 2025, Satwanti Ahlawat, a retired IAS, then President of the Society, submitted that the society was fully owned, controlled and financed by its members and not by the Haryana Government, and therefore did not come within the purview of the RTI Act.
At another hearing on October 8, 2025, the subsequent President, Renu Phulia, also a retired IAS, stated that the information sought concerned personal discussions of members related to the affairs of the society and had no public-interest connection.
What did the Commission observe?
The Commission observed that the issue was not whether the society itself was a public authority, but whether the information sought by the appellant was accessible to the office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies.
The Commission noted that the Registrar exercises statutory, supervisory and regulatory control over cooperative societies and had directed the society, through a letter dated August 7, 2023, to furnish the complete videography of the General Body Meeting.
What provision of RTI Act did Commission rely upon?
The Commission referred to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, which states that the term "information" includes information relating to any private body that can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.
The Commission directed that the videography be obtained from the society and provided to the applicant. It further stated that if the society failed to comply, the Registrar should initiate appropriate action under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act and related rules.

Enough is enough: HC says bring Chandigarh Golf Club under RTI within a month

The Tribune: Chandigarh: Sunday, 31 May 2026.
After examining the matter, the court held that the Chandigarh Administration exercised substantial control over the Golf Club and also extended substantial financing indirectly to it

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Chandigarh Golf Club to put in place a mechanism to comply with the Right to Information (RTI) Act within a month. The direction came as the Bench dismissed its plea against a 2012 Central Information Commission (CIC) order that declared it a “public authority”.
Dismissing the 14-year-old challenge mounted by the club against the CIC order, Justice Kuldeep Tiwari observed that the time had come to make the club accountable to the public. “Enough is enough. The time has now come to tell the Golf Club that if its members want to enjoy playing golf at the cost of taxpayers’ money, it must make itself accountable by adopting an RTI mechanism,” the Bench asserted.
The court upheld the CIC’s October 8, 2012, order declaring the Chandigarh Golf Club a “public authority” under Section 2(h)(ii) of the RTI Act and directing it to establish an appropriate mechanism for providing information under the transparency law.
Court upholds finding of ‘public authority’
After examining the matter, Justice Tiwari held that the Chandigarh Administration exercised substantial control over the Golf Club and also extended substantial financing indirectly to it. “This Court concludes that the UT Chandigarh Administration exercises substantial control over, and extends substantial financing indirectly to, the Golf Club, thereby bringing it within the definition of a ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h)(ii) of the RTI Act,” the court held.
The judgment added that there was no illegality or infirmity in the CIC’s order declaring the Golf Club a public authority and directing it to put in place an appropriate mechanism for compliance with the RTI Act.
132 acres of prime land
Referring to the material on record, Justice Tiwari observed that the Golf Club was situated in the heart of Chandigarh and occupied 132 acres of prime land. The Bench added that the market value of the land was noted in the impugned order as Rs 1,000 crore, while observing that its present market value might be considerably higher.
The Golf Club came to occupy the land, along with the swimming pool, Golf Club Building and its extension in Sector 6, Chandigarh, under a lease deed dated March 16, 1988, executed between the club and the Chandigarh Administration acting on behalf of the President of India.
Findings on lease and financial assistance
The court noted that besides a monthly rent to be determined by the Estate Officer in accordance with the prescribed formula, the Golf Club was liable to pay an annual lease amount of Rs 3,960 for the golf course at the rate of Rs 30 per acre per annum.
Referring to the record, the court observed that against an assessed rent of Rs 33,45,268 computed at 2003 rates, the Golf Club had been paying only Rs 8,530 per month, comprising Rs 8,200 towards rent and Rs 330 towards lease charges. This constituted only 0.255 per cent of the assessed rent.
Court lists factors relied upon
Justice Tiwari added a survey of the record established that the Golf Club building, swimming pool and related structures were originally constructed by the Chandigarh Administration from public funds and were subsequently handed over to the club along with 132 acres of land on lease and public property was made available to the club on concessional and symbolic lease.
“In the absence of such substantial financial assistance in the form of land, buildings, and heavily subsidised lease amount extended by the UT Chandigarh Administration, the existence of the Golf Club would not have been feasible,” Justice Tiwari observed.
‘Substantially financed’ by public funds
Referring to the factors, the court held that the Golf Club was substantially financed by the Chandigarh Administration from public funds. “Consequently, this court has no hesitation in concluding that the Golf Club is substantially financed by the UT Chandigarh Administration from public funds and, therefore, qualifies to be declared a ‘public authority’ under the RTI Act,” the Bench stated.
Petition pending since 2012
Noting that the writ petition had remained pending adjudication since 2012 and that the Golf Club had been enjoying interim stay since November 5, 2012, the High Court directed compliance with the RTI Act within one month.

Kudankulam Nuclear Plant's safety analysis report exempt from RTI disclosure: Delhi High Court - S N Thyagarajan

Bar and Bench: New Delhi: Sunday, 31 May 2026.
The Court held that NPCIL held the report in a fiduciary capacity in relation to the Russian Federation and therefore, it was exempt from disclosure.

Delhi High Court and RTI Act

The Delhi High Court has held that the Safety Analysis Report of Units I and II of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant in Tamil Nadu is exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [Nuclear Power Corporation Vs SP Uday Kumar].
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav set aside a direction issued by the Central Information Commission (CIC) to Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) to supply the safety analysis report (SAR) to RTI applicant SP Udaykumar.
The Court held that NPCIL held the report in a fiduciary capacity in relation to the Russian Federation and, therefore, it was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
“The petitioner holds the SAR in a fiduciary capacity qua the Russian Federation. Under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, such information is clearly exempt from the scope of the statute,” the Court said.
The Court also held that the report was covered by Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, which exempts information whose disclosure would prejudicially affect the scientific, strategic and economic interests of the State, as well as foreign relations with a foreign State.
The case arose from an RTI application filed in 2010, when the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant was under construction. Udaykumar had sought information relating to Reactors I and II, including the safety analysis report, site evaluation report and environmental impact assessment report.
NPCIL furnished the EIA report but refused to provide the safety analysis report and the site evaluation report. It said the documents contained proprietary details of the reactor design and were exempt from disclosure.
The CIC, by an order passed in April 2012, directed NPCIL to provide copies of the two reports after severing any proprietary details of designs. It also directed NPCIL to publish the same on its website.
NPCIL challenged the CIC order before the High Court.
During the hearing, NPCIL told the Court that the site evaluation report had already been furnished to the RTI applicant and uploaded on its website after the filing of the petition.
Therefore, the only issue before the Court was whether the direction to disclose the safety analysis report could be sustained.
NPCIL argued that the Kudankulam project was established pursuant to an inter-governmental agreement between India and Russia. Under this arrangement, the design of the plant was to be done by the Russian Federation, while construction, erection and commissioning were to be carried out by NPCIL.
The Court noted that NPCIL had communicated the CIC order to Atomstroyexport, the Russian entity involved in the project, and that Atomstroyexport had objected to publication of the safety analysis report.
The High Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s 2013 judgment in G Sundarrajan v Union of India, where safety-related aspects of the Kudankulam project had been considered.
In that case, the Supreme Court had noted that the Kudankulam plant incorporated advanced safety features. It had also referred to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board’s post-Fukushima safety recommendations and the safety review undertaken for Indian nuclear power plants.
Justice Kaurav said that since the Supreme Court had already adequately considered and rejected safety-related concerns regarding Kudankulam, there was no larger public interest warranting disclosure of the Safety Analysis Report.
“Considering the Supreme Court decision in G Sundarrajan, wherein, the safety related concerns have been adequately considered and rejected, there cannot be any larger public interest concerns warranting disclosure of the information,” the Court observed.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the CIC’s direction with respect to the disclosure of the safety analysis report.
NPCIL was represented by advocates ER Kumar, DP Mohanty, Aditya Sharma and Jayant Bajaj.
The respondent was unrepresented.

Karnataka Information Commission disposed of 40,000 RTI cases in a year, says Commissioner

The Hindu: Kalaburagi: Sunday, 31 May 2026.
Information Commissioner B. Venkata Singh says strict action being taken against officials delaying information; ₹4.33 lakh penalty imposed in 101 days

Karnataka Information Commissioner B. Venkata Singh (Kalaburagi Bench) addressing a press conference in Hosapete on Saturday. | Photo Credit: SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT

The Karnataka Information Commission is committed to ensuring that citizens receive information in a transparent and time-bound manner under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, Information Commissioner B. Venkata Singh said.
Addressing a press conference in Hosapete on Saturday after inaugurating an RTI awareness workshop and interaction programme for officials and Public Information Officers, Mr. Singh said such workshops were being organised to clear doubts and misconceptions among government officials and facilitate easier access to information for citizens. The programme was organised with the support of the district administration.
Sharing details of the commission’s performance, Mr. Singh said the disposal of RTI appeals and complaints had accelerated significantly after the appointment of new commissioners. He said that when six commissioners assumed office in February 2025, around 56,000 cases were pending before the commission. Within a year, nearly 40,000 cases had been disposed of, marking a significant achievement.
The Commissioner said a special drive launched between March and December to clear old cases pending from 2010 to 2020 had yielded encouraging results, with nearly 75% of such cases being disposed of. Hearings are now being taken up for cases filed during 2023 and 2024, he added.
Referring to the Kalaburagi Bench, which has jurisdiction over Raichur, Kalaburagi, Ballari, Vijayanagara, Yadgir, Koppal and Bidar districts, Mr. Singh said there were 6,200 pending cases when he assumed charge. Since commencing hearings on November 24, 2025, the Bench has taken up 3,537 cases during 101 sitting days and disposed of 1,548 cases, enabling applicants to obtain the information sought.
Mr. Singh said the commission was taking a strict view of officials who failed to furnish information within the stipulated period. During the last 101 days, penalties amounting to ₹4.33 lakh had been imposed on erring officials. In addition, compensation totalling ₹38,000 had been awarded to applicants who suffered loss of time and money due to delays in receiving information.
Providing district-wise figures of pending cases under the Kalaburagi Bench, he said Raichur accounted for 2,337 pending applications, followed by Kalaburagi (1,318), Ballari (835), Koppal (650), Vijayanagara (611), Yadgir (580) and Bidar (400).
Mr. Singh said that the RTI awareness workshop had already been conducted in Bidar, Ballari, Koppal and Kalaburagi districts, with Vijayanagara becoming the fifth district to host the programme. Similar workshops would soon be organised in Raichur and Yadgir districts to strengthen the effective implementation of the RTI Act, he added.
State Information Commissioners K. Badruddin and Harish Kumar of the Bengaluru Bench, and Additional Deputy Commissioner P.N. Lokesh were present at the press conference.