RTI amendments: Hazare defers fast, demands rollback despite stay - Written by: Manoj Dattatrye More

The Indian Express: Pune: Sunday, July 5^th, 2026.
The proposed amendments include tripling the RTI application fee and more than tripling the document inspection fee, RTI activists said.

"These rules, which weaken the Right to Information Act, should be completely scrapped to protect the rights of the people," Hazare said. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

Though he has deferred his proposed indefinite hunger strike, activist Anna Hazare on Saturday said he was not satisfied with the Maharashtra government’s decision to merely stay the amended Right to Information (RTI) Rules, insisting that they be withdrawn altogether.
“These rules, which weaken the Right to Information Act, should be completely scrapped to protect the rights of the people,” Hazare said.
The state government had proposed amendments including raising the RTI application fee from Rs 10 to Rs 30 and increasing the fee for inspection of documents from Rs 15 to Rs 50. In some cases, inspection is currently free of cost, RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar said.
‘The state government has the power to amend the rules of the RTI Act but the power to amend the provisions of the Act rests with the central government,” Kumbhar said.
Hazare had announced that he would begin an indefinite hunger strike at his native village of Ralegan Siddhi from Sunday, alleging that the proposed amendments would dilute the RTI law.
Following Hazare’s announcement, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis directed the State Chief Information Commissioner to keep the amended rules in abeyance.
“I sincerely thank the people for the peaceful democratic pressure created through the unity and awareness of citizens across the state and the people of Ralegan Siddhi, because of which the government decided to stay the RTI rules. However, this is only a stay, not a final decision,” Hazare said.
“It is our expectation that these rules, which weaken the RTI, should be permanently withdrawn to protect the rights of the people. If the government leaves this process incomplete or fails to take a concrete decision to cancel the rules permanently, we will once again be compelled to protest through democratic means,” he added.
Hazare said he had decided to defer the hunger strike not because he trusted the government, but to allow it an opportunity to complete the process.
“I have decided to defer my hunger strike not out of trust in the government, but to provide an opportunity for the positive process they have initiated. Listening to the voice of the people is the true essence of democracy. Before taking decisions that affect people’s rights, it is necessary to hold wide-ranging consultations and earn the public’s trust,” he said.
Describing the RTI Act as a crucial instrument for accountability, transparency and public participation in governance, Hazare said he had spent years fighting to keep the law strong.
“I am now 90 years old, but I could not remain silent while this law was being weakened during my lifetime. That is why I decided to launch another hunger strike. It is satisfying that the government has respected public sentiment and taken a positive step. Ralegan Siddhi has guided the country in every movement. This time too, it has shown that there is no power greater than non-violence, truth and the strength of the people,” he said.
Hazare’s decision to launch the hunger strike came after the state government issued a gazette notification on June 12 announcing the amendments to the RTI Rules.
“As soon as Hazare announced the strike, State Chief Information Commissioner Rahul Pandey visited Ralegan Siddhi to meet him. It was a clear indication that the government had developed cold feet. Even after the discussions, Hazare remained firm on going ahead with the hunger strike,” RTI activist Lahu Landge said.
With Hazare refusing to relent, Chief Minister Fadnavis subsequently wrote to the State Information Commission, requesting that no final decision be taken without detailed consultations with Hazare. Following the letter, the State Chief Information Commissioner stayed the implementation of all the amendments notified in the June 12 gazette.

Gujarat RTI order on Gram Sabha attendance draws legal objections

Counterview: Ahmedabad: Sunday, July 5^th, 2026.

A recent decision of the Gujarat Information Commission declining disclosure of a Gram Sabha attendance register under the Right to Information (RTI) Act has triggered a debate among transparency advocates, with former Madhya Pradesh State Information Commissioner Rahul Singh urging the Commission to reconsider its legal interpretation.
In Appeal No. A-1138-2026, decided on April 22, 2026, the Gujarat Information Commission rejected a citizen's request for a copy of the attendance register of a Gram Sabha/General Sabha held on May 20, 2025. The Commission observed that disclosing the signatures of attendees could potentially lead to financial or other forms of fraud and therefore declined the request by invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts certain personal information from disclosure.
Reacting to the order, Rahul Singh addressed an open letter to Gujarat Chief Information Commissioner Dr. Subhash Soni, raising legal and policy concerns over the ruling. He argued that the attendance, proceedings and resolutions of a Gram Sabha are public records connected with statutory public functions and cannot ordinarily be treated as "personal information" under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
According to Singh, participation in a Gram Sabha forms part of a public and democratic process, and disclosure of attendance records does not amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. He further contended that withholding an entire document solely on the apprehension that signatures could be misused is based on speculation rather than a legally sustainable ground under the RTI Act.
Referring to Section 10 of the RTI Act, which provides for severability, Singh suggested that if the Commission had concerns about disclosure of signatures, it could have directed the public authority to redact or mask the signatures while providing the names and other details of those who attended the meeting. Rejecting the entire attendance register, he said, was inconsistent with the spirit of the legislation.
Singh also cited Section 4 of the RTI Act, which obligates public authorities to proactively disclose important information. He maintained that Gram Sabha proceedings, attendance records and resolutions should be placed in the public domain as part of routine disclosure, reducing the need for citizens to seek such information through RTI applications.
In his letter, Singh referred to the constitutional framework governing Panchayati Raj institutions, including the 73rd Constitutional Amendment and the Gujarat Panchayat Act, arguing that transparency in the functioning of Gram Sabhas is essential for public oversight of development programmes, expenditure of public funds and local governance.
He also cited Supreme Court principles affirming that the right to information flows from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and reiterated that disclosure is the norm while exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act must be interpreted narrowly.
Calling for a review of the Commission's approach, Singh said restricting access to Gram Sabha records could weaken transparency and accountability at the grassroots level. The Commission's order and the subsequent objections have sparked wider discussion among RTI activists and transparency campaigners on the balance between privacy concerns and the public's right to access records relating to local self-government.

Over Rs 9,300 crore remains unclaimed in 31 lakh inoperative EPF accounts, reveals RTI-based report

Moneycontrol: National: Saturday, 04 July 2026.
According to the RTI reply, as of March 31, 2026, there were 30,91,862 inoperative EPF accounts with an unclaimed balance of around Rs 9,330 crore.

More than Rs 9,330 crore belonging to employees continues to remain unclaimed in 30.91 lakh inoperative Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) accounts across India, according to information shared by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) in response to a Right to Information (RTI) application accessed by India Today.
The disclosure comes shortly after the Centre brought the Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) Scheme, 2026 into force. Notified in the Gazette and effective from June 29, the new framework replaces the EPF Scheme, 1952, and is intended to simplify provident fund regulations while making the system more digital for nearly eight crores active EPFO subscribers.
According to the RTI reply, as of March 31, 2026, there were 30,91,862 inoperative EPF accounts with an unclaimed balance of around Rs 9,330 crore.
The figures indicate a slight improvement from the previous financial year. On March 31, 2025, there were 31.83 lakh inoperative accounts with unclaimed deposits totalling Rs 10,181 crore. Over the next year, the number of dormant accounts fell by around 92,000, while the unclaimed amount declined by Rs 851 crore to Rs 9,330 crore. Despite the reduction, the data points to nearly 31 lakh inactive accounts still holding workers' retirement savings.
To illustrate the size of the unclaimed corpus, the India Today report compared it with major government expenditure. The Rs 9,330 crore lying in dormant EPF accounts is close to the Rs 10,169 crore spent by the Centre on the UDAN regional connectivity scheme since its launch in 2016. It is also nearly equal to the Union government's allocation for the Ayushman Bharat–Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY) for 2026-27.
The report also referred to a 2014 government estimate that pegged the cost of establishing an Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) at Rs 1,750 crore. After adjusting for inflation, the report said the cost would be around Rs 2,934 crore in 2026, meaning the unclaimed EPF amount "could fund three IITs, with over Rs 500 crore still left over." It added that "The comparison is illustrative and highlights the scale of workers' retirement savings lying dormant in EPF accounts."
India Today had also sought year-wise information on inoperative EPF accounts and the money lying in them for the previous five financial years to assess long-term trends. However, the EPFO said it could provide data only for 2025 and 2026. In its response, the organisation stated that "the Inoperative Accounts Cell (IAC) was established during 2025-26, and information for earlier years is not maintained by the cell."
The RTI application further sought details of Aadhaar-linked inoperative accounts, the amount held in such accounts, and the status of auto-settlement. The EPFO declined to share the information, citing Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, which exempts information held by a public authority in a fiduciary relationship from disclosure.
The organisation also did not provide details on the number of dormant EPF accounts with balances exceeding Rs 5 lakh, stating that such information "is not maintained in the format sought" and therefore could not be furnished under the RTI Act.

537 departmental inquiries against 1,523 BMC staff ‘ongoing’: RTI

Times of India: Mumbai: Saturday, 04 July 2026.
Even as seven officials have been suspended and inquiries have been instituted by the BMC administration following two recent rain-related tragedies, information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act reveals that as of April 30, 2026, as many as 537 departmental inquiries involving 1,523 officials and employees are currently pending. Of these, 189 inquiries are pending with the Enquiry Office itself. The data further shows that 234 employees are currently under suspension, including 150 suspended in connection with criminal cases and 84 linked to bribery and anti-corruption cases.

Activists alleged that although the data reflects pending inquiries only for the past six months, many of them remain unresolved for years, with some officers eventually retiring before the proceedings are concluded. They pointed out that while an inquiry is pending, the delinquent employee continues to receive 50% of the last-drawn salary, which can increase to 75% after three months. Also, employees of the BMC cannot be transferred to other civic bodies or to other departments of the state govt, except IAS officials.
Civic officials maintained that these inquiries against suspended staff are ongoing rather than pending, as employees must be given a fair opportunity to present their case and the proceedings have to be completed strictly in accordance with the rules.
Activist Jeetendra Ghadge, who obtained the information, said that while the prompt suspension of officials has been projected as evidence of accountability, the BMC initially refused to provide information regarding departmental inquiries in 2021. Subsequently, in 2025, the Maharashtra State Information Commission directed the BMC to disclose the details, leading to the release of the latest report as of April 30.
According to the data, 182 inquiries have been pending for up to one month, 98 for between two and six months, and 257 for more than six months. Only 15 inquiries were disposed of during April 2026, Ghadge pointed out.
“Though the data shows pending inquiry figures only for the past six months, many of these inquiries could actually have been pending for years. The inquiries are left unresolved, and eventually the officials even retire. In most cases, the officials are let off with a very minor punishment or given a complete clean chit. Furthermore, despite the information commission’s orders, the BMC has refused to provide information on the number of officials who have been dismissed from service,” said Ghadge.
“Whatever may be the allegations, the delinquent employee has to be given a fair opportunity to represent his case. There could be instances where the employee is sick or is engaged in election duty. Besides, an extension may have been granted for the inquiry. We submit a monthly report on the status of the inquiries to the municipal commissioner,” said a civic official handling inquiries.

Government kept Ram temple trust scheme in 'confidential file', denied RTI request, 2024 order shows

Telegraph India: National: Saturday, 04 July 2026.
The ministry argued that the information was 'confidential and sensitive in nature' and that its disclosure 'would somehow endanger the life of the concerned persons', denying the request under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act

The Ministry of home affairs (MHA) kept the government-approved scheme for setting up the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust in a "confidential file" and refused to disclose it under the RTI Act, arguing that its release could endanger the persons concerned, according to a 2024 order of the Central Information Commission (CIC).
The order relates to an RTI application filed by Neeraj Sharma, who sought certified copies of the scheme and related government orders. After receiving what he considered an unsatisfactory response from the MHA, he approached the commission.
During the hearing, the ministry argued that the information was "confidential and sensitive in nature" and that its disclosure "would somehow endanger the life of the concerned persons", denying the request under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
Accepting the ministry's stand, then Chief Information Commissioner Heeralal Samariya held that an appropriate response had been furnished by the public information officer and that no further intervention by the commission was necessary, disposing of the appeal on June 18, 2024.
The scheme was approved by the Centre on February 5, 2020, following the Supreme Court's Ayodhya judgment. A gazette notification said it laid down provisions governing the trust's functioning and management, the powers of its trustees, construction of the temple and other incidental matters.
The MHA also told the commission that the trust is an independent and autonomous body without financial, administrative or other interference from the central or state governments, and that the Centre's role was limited to becoming the settlor of the trust in compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment.
In a separate order issued on June 4, 2024, the commission also rejected a plea to treat the trust as a public authority under the RTI Act. The MHA and the trust argued that it was neither owned, controlled, nor substantially financed by the government and had been constituted only to comply with the Supreme Court's directions.
Agreeing with their submissions, the commission held that the trust had been created through a trust deed pursuant to the apex court's directions rather than by a government notification.

In-Depth | Maharashtra's Flip-Flop Over RTI Rules: Constitutional Hurdles to Rule-Making Process, and What We Can Do : Venkatesh Nayak

The Wire: Maharashtra: Saturday, 04 July 2026.
One of civil society’s grievances regarding Maharashtra’s now-withdrawn RTI rules is the opaque manner in which it was notified without prior consultation with the citizens of the state.

Last month, the Maharashtra government revised the rules for implementing The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), making it more expensive, cumbersome and potentially life-threatening for information-seeking citizens. Veteran anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare announced that he would fast unto-death, if the new rules were not rolled back. He also demanded that the government consult with the citizens, the primary stakeholders of the transparency regime, RTI experts, former Information Commissioners and other stakeholders, before making any changes to the Rules. Vociferous opposition from civil society has resulted in the state government ultimately halting the implementation of the new Rules. 
As a result, the RTI Rules, made in 2005 and amended in 2012, will continue to apply. Whether the Maharashtra government shelves the new Rules altogether or sits down with the citizenry to discuss how best to strengthen the RTI regime in Maharashtra, remains to be seen.
The latest avatar of the RTI Rules was fashioned without any kind of consultation with the citizenry, who remain the primary stakeholder of the transparency regime envisaged by the law. Ironically, Maharashtra was ranked second on the Union government’s 2021 Good Governance Index, which has ‘citizen-centric governance’ as one of the defining criteria for assessment. However, the state’s long tradition of enabling people to give their views and opinions on what should or should not be in an RTI law or rule was completely ignored this time, as the government raised the application fee from Rs 10 to Rs 30, hiking photocopying charges from Rs 2 to Rs 5 per page. 
Under the new Rules, an appellant could withdraw an appeal pending before the Maharashtra Information Commission, no questions asked. But they would have had to pay the ‘reasonable cost’ which the Commission would deem fit to impose. If the appellant failed to pay up, his/her assets would be confiscated and auctioned away – just how British colonial administrators collected arrears of land revenue from farmers.
The government did not bother to ask the people whether their pending appeals against public authorities should abate in case they passed away before a decision was made. In such an eventuality, the respondent public authority would have had to only ‘produce evidence of death’ and the Commission would have been within its powers to close the case “as the right to information is available only to the particular applicant citizen of India who has requested the information”, said Rule 23(2). 
In certain cases, the Commission could have closed the case on its own, based on the evidence available with it.
The media has reported the alleged murders of at least 18 individuals since 2010 because of their RTI activism in Maharashtra. In the very first case of RTI activist Satish Shetty, who was murdered in broad daylight for taking on the real estate mafia in Pune, nobody has been found guilty yet. This despite his brother running from pillar to post seeking justice for more than a decade and a half despite the involvement of the Central Bureau of Investigation to identify the perpetrators under the watchful eye of the Bombay High Court and even the Supreme Court of India. The RTI Rules could have been potentially weaponised by unscrupulous elements to silence citizens who endeavoured to expose corruption and wrongdoing in government.
Transparency advocates in Maharashtra publicly highlighted the problematic aspects of the rules, as soon as they were published. Last week, we submitted a detailed critical analysis of these RTI rules to the state government, along with practical suggestions for improvement. Would the Government have paid attention to only persuasive arguments about what was wrong with the new RTI rules in the absence of public pressure? Are there systemic checks and balances to act like brakes on executive adventurism, as one would expect in a constitutional democracy based on the rule of law?  
This historic juncture must be utilised to tackle two major constitutional issues which go to the heart of these questions. They have remained unresolved to date. The first is about the extent and manner of oversight which our elected representatives can exercise on the rule-making powers of governments. The second is the imperative of making all laws and rules in a consultative manner by opening up spaces for citizen participation. 
But first, a primer on the difference between law-making processes and rule-making procedures in our country, for the uninitiated. Even after nearly eight decades of independence, where laws and rules to govern us are made on our soil and by our elected representatives, not by unfamiliar MPs in the distant British Isles, like it was before independence, public knowledge about these matters is scarce. 
A brief intro to the law-making process
Usually, governments of the day table Bills on subject matters which are constitutionally within their jurisdiction to initiate; members of the concerned legislatures debate over their provisions with or without the benefit of detailed examination in small committees. Members may move amendments to the original clauses during the debate. Only when a simple majority supports their adoption in the original or amended form, and the President or Governors (as the case may be) give their assent, they become law. These laws are then published in the concerned Official Gazette and brought into force immediately or when the concerned governments are ready to implement them. 
The same procedures apply to a ‘private member’s bill’ i.e., draft legislation introduced by MPs or MLAs of their own accord and the government allows it to be passed, which is a rarity. Constitutional amendment Bills require a specified proportion of MPs to support the proposals and in some cases involving federal matters, ratification from at least 50% of the state legislatures is necessary, before they become law.
So theoretically speaking, there is some level of discussion on the contents of the Bill in our legislatures before enactment. Recent media reports of the alleged admission by a large number of MLAs that they voted in support of an anti-blasphemy law in Punjab without even reading the Bill may be exceptions. Instances of laws being passed through a voice vote after the opposition has walked out of the house is becoming commonplace. The RTI Bill itself was passed by the parliament in 2005 after the opposition parties walked out of the sitting. Even Union budgets for 2026-27, 2023-24 and 2018-19 were approved by the Lok Sabha with barely a few minutes of debate, according to media reports. 
Rule-making procedure – in brief
Whether passed with or without extensive debate and examination-in-committee, laws empower the executive i.e., the Union or state governments to make rules for their implementation. For example, the RTI Act only states that every RTI application must be submitted along with an application fee without specifying the amount an applicant must pay. Nor does it explain what procedures must be followed for submitting and deciding appeals and complaints. These matters are left to the respective governments to flesh out through the rule-making power because they are the implementing authorities. 
Where a law does not prescribe an “implement by such and such date”, it is up to the concerned government to frame the rules – which is called ‘subordinate legislation’ (because they are subordinate to the parent law) – and publish them in the official gazette before beginning enforcement of the law. The RTI Act is one example of the former category of laws – all but the information and request and appeal/complaint provisions became operational soon after the President of India signed on the Bill and the text of the law was published in the Gazette of India. 
The RTI application and appeal/complaint provisions became operational six months later in October, 2005. In contrast, the Whistleblowers Protection Act became a law in May 2014 but it remains stillborn because the Union government has not made the rules required to implement it, for more than a decade.
Rules become operational as soon as the government publishes them in the official gazette. There is no requirement of seeking prior approval of the concerned legislature at the central or the state level. If a law which originated as a private member’s bill vests rule-making powers in the government, the same procedure applies for initiating its enforcement. 
Can legislatures change the rules once notified?
This is the crux of the first constitutional issue. Rules which a government makes in order to implement any or all provisions of a law are also called ‘delegated legislation’. In other words, the concerned legislature which passed the law, delegates its powers to the concerned government to flesh it out by providing the details like the examples discussed above. A wealth of jurisprudence that has developed in our high courts and the Supreme Court, over the decades, makes it crystal clear that the rules made by the government must strictly align with the letter and the spirit of the ‘parent statute’. The power of rule-making must not be abused by the government to create new rights or impose new penalties which find no mention in the main law, or curtail the scope of the right(s) it recognises or creates. 
Maharashtra’s now-halted RTI Rules crossed these redlines on multiple accounts.
Legislatures exercise oversight on the manner of use of the rule-making powers they have vested in the government. This is why; governments are required to table the rules they have operationalised in the very next session of the legislature after the rules are published in the official gazette. In some cases, a year or two might lapse before the government wakes up to this ‘procedural’ requirement, but that is a matter best left for discussion, another day. 
Once the rules are tabled in the legislature which passed the parent law, its members (MPs or MLAs/MLCs) can move amendments to modify them or even nullify them partially or totally. Usually, a period of 30 days is available for this exercise either in one session or successive sessions of the legislature. If a modification or annulment proposal tabled by an MP or a state legislator receives majority support in the house, the rule will have to be implemented in the modified form or discarded entirely, if it has been nullified. 
Of course, a savings clause is always provided to protect acts already done by the concerned authorities before such modification or annulment, but similar acts will not be permitted thereafter once the rule has been changed or thrown to the dustbin by the concerned legislature. Usually, the committees on subordinate legislation of the legislature discuss the rules in detail, call for explanations from the government if they find that any of them is not aligned with the parent law and make recommendations for change. This is where the first constitutional issue with regard to the rule-making power arises.
Rule-making under the RTI Act
The RTI Act is a law made by the parliament, but it vests the rule-making power in both the Union and the state governments for determining primarily the fees payable for obtaining information and the procedures to be adopted for disposing appeals by the respective Information Commissions, amongst other things. But there is a clear distinction between the powers of oversight exercised by the parliament and the respective state legislatures. Section 27 explains the scope of the rule-making power. The provision with regard to legislative oversight over this power is given in Section 29. Section 29(1) of the Act explains the duty of the Union government to table the rules it makes in both houses of the parliament and the latter’s power to amend or even nullify them in the following manner:
Extract from the RTI Act, 2005
So, the Union government must table the rules it has notified under the RTI Act, in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha when they are in session. The Houses have 30 days in one or successive sessions to modify or annul any or all rules. Both Houses must agree to the changes. Anything done under the rules before they were modified or annulled will not be held invalid. But Section 29(2) requires the state government to only inform the concerned State Legislature of the fact that it has notified rules to implement the Act. The State Legislature does not have the power to make any modification or nullify the rules, if it is not happy with them. This is what might have happened in Maharashtra if the Government had not halted the implementation of the new RTI Rules.
The RTI Act is not unique in this regard. Many laws enacted by the parliament after independence contain similar provisions where rule-making power is vested in state governments but the respective state legislatures have no power to modify them. In more recent times, examples of such a schema of delegated legislation can be found in the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Dam Safety Act, 2021 and the Boilers Act, 2025. In all these statutes, state legislatures cannot make any changes to the rules notified by the respective state governments.
There are other schemas adopted for making subordinate legislation. For example, under the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016, the Union government can make rules after consulting with the state governments, but rules are tabled in the parliament which can modify or discard them. Under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, state governments can make rules after taking the previous approval of the Union government but the state legislatures do not have the power to modify or annul them. How well such schemas worked is a discussion best left for another day.
Why are the oversight powers of state legislatures restricted in this manner?
The core issue of oversight powers is connected to the constitutional scheme of division of powers between the parliament and the state legislatures and the respective governments. It is well known that the Seventh Schedule of the constitution lists the subjects on which the parliament and state legislatures can make laws. List I – also known as the Union List – is the exclusive domain of the parliament. States cannot make laws on those subjects. 
List II – also called the State List – is the exclusive domain of the state legislatures. The parliament cannot make laws on the subjects included in this List unless two or more states pass a resolution under Article 252 of the Constitution inviting the parliament to make a law for them on a particular subject mentioned in this List. That law becomes applicable in other States if their legislatures adopt a resolution to make that law applicable within their territories. The Clinical Establishments Registration and Regulation Act, 2010, is an example of a law the parliament enacted under Article 252 after a resolution was adopted by the state legislatures of Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Sikkim. Even in this case the schema for exercising the rule-making power between the Union and the states is just like that of the RTI Act. 
List-III – also called the Concurrent List – contains subjects on which both the parliament and State Legislatures can make laws. Article 254 of the Constitution explains which law will prevail over which in case of any inconsistency. 
When rules are made by the Union government under a law which only the parliament is competent to enact, the latter can modify or annul them. State legislatures can also do the same with rules made by the respective governments under laws which only they are empowered to enact. However, who has oversight over the exercise of rule-making powers of a state government under a law enacted by the parliament remains unresolved till date. This is the first constitutional issue that remains unresolved till date.
This issue was discussed in detail by Lok Sabha’s Committee on Subordinate Legislation in its 20th report submitted in 1979. It was headed by Somnath Chatterjee, who later became the Speaker of the 13th Lok Sabha when the RTI Bill was enacted. One of its members was P.A. Sangma, who was the Speaker of the 11th Lok Sabha. Another member was Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s daughter Kumari Maniben Patel, who was elected from Mehsana, Gujarat, on a Janata Party ticket.
The committee heard the views of the Union law ministry and also invited the views of the state legislatures and governments. Its views are summarised below:
A law enacted by the parliament on a subject under the Union List: 
The Committee observed that the state legislatures do not have the power to modify Rules made by state governments under a law enacted by the parliament on a subject included in the Union List. The reasons for such a restriction are discussed in detail in the enclosed report. First, rules made by the state government cannot be laid in the parliament because no Central Minister would be responsible for framing them, so they cannot be explained or defended by the Union government. Second, rules framed by state governments would be based on local conditions and material facts within their knowledge and unless all these are made known to the parliament, the discussion on the rules would not be comprehensive. Third, even if such rules would be tabled and discussed, it would be “impossible to draw a line to stop criticism of the state government concerned or their officers either directly or indirectly. Such a discussion was likely to be misunderstood by the state government and affect Centre-State relations”, the Committee remarked. Moreover, Union ministers would have no material to reply to such criticism. So, when state governments make rules under a law enacted by the parliament on a subject under the Union List, those rules are only required to be tabled in the House so that the legislature is informed of the action taken to implement the law. 
However, the Committee opined that some sort of oversight on the exercise of the rule-making powers is necessary even if it be merely recommendatory in nature. Despite considerable opposition from the Union law ministry, the Committee recommended that the state legislatures may in plenary sessions or through their respective committees on subordinate legislation make recommendations to the state government to change or withdraw a Rule that is not in tune with the provisions of the parent Act. However, the Committee was clear that state legislatures cannot annul or amend any offending rule under a law made by the parliament on a subject which is exclusively within its domain.
A law enacted by the parliament on a subject under the Concurrent List:
The Committee also observed that where a law is enacted by the parliament under a subject in the Concurrent List, the state legislature can modify or annul any Rule made by the state government. However, this will require an enabling provision in some other state law to empower the state legislature to act in this manner. At the time of authoring its report the Committee noted that only Uttar Pradesh and Orissa had amended their respective General Clauses Acts to empower the state legislatures to modify the Rules made by the state governments under a law dealing with a Concurrent subject. The Committee recommended that the Union law ministry follow-up with the other state governments to amend their own laws in a similar manner. A detailed examination of Maharashtra’s General Clauses Act, 1904, indicates that no action has been taken on this recommendation, till date.
In which List of the Seventh Schedule does RTI appear?
The Statement of Objects and Reasons attached to the RTI Bill tabled in the parliament in December 2004 did not connect it to any subject mentioned in any of the Lists given in the Seventh Schedule of our Constitution. Instead, it was stated that the proposed legislation would provide an effective framework for effectuating the right of information recognised under Article 19 of our Constitution. Does this mean that the RTI Act pertains to List III as States can also make laws to give effect to fundamental rights? There is no entry in this List under which RTI can be fitted unequivocally. Or can it be reasoned that the parliament passed this law under its residuary powers of legislation recognised under Article 248? This will put the RTI Act in the domain of exclusive jurisdiction of the parliament. So, state legislatures will not be able to modify or annul Rules notified by the respective Governments. The parliamentary committee did not deal with this scenario in its 1979 report. But it is also an undeniable historical fact that nine states had operational RTI laws for several years before the Central RTI Act was passed. None of them were challenged in the courts for being unconstitutional.
Having read about the constitutional gap with regard to the oversight on rule-making powers of state governments, in the seminal work on administrative law authored by noted jurist Professor S.P. Sathe (with whom I had extensive discussions on the eve of the first workshop on RTI we conducted for the media at YASHADA, Pune, a day after both Houses of the parliament passed the RTI Bill in May 2005), I made a public mention of it at the National RTI Convention organised by the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information in Shillong in 2011. The then Joint Secretary of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) who spoke afterwards (those were the days when senior government representatives readily participated in such civil society events), publicly disagreed that there was any such constitutional gap.
So, a few weeks later, I sent all the research about the constitutional gap that I had put together along with the relevant extracts of the 20th report of the Lok Sabha Committee on Subordinate Legislation, to the Joint Secretary, DoPT urging him to initiate action to bridge the constitutional gap. The purpose of this advocacy was to find a way of harmonising the major disparities in the RTI rules made by various state governments, heads of legislatures and the chief justices of high courts across the country. Fee rates and appeal rules are different across jurisdictions; new exemption clauses were introduced by Courts and legislatures above and beyond those listed in Section 8(1) of the RTI Act and quite a few imposed word limits and subject matter restrictions on RTI applications and charged fees for deciding appeals even though none of this was permissible under the RTI Act.
Although I was not expecting a reply, very surprisingly, the Joint Secretary wrote back within a few days acknowledging the factual matrix underpinning my claims about the existence of a constitutional gap with regard to oversight over rule-making powers under the RTI Act. He not only thanked me for highlighting this issue but also assured me that the matter would be taken up with the Union law ministry. A copy of that reply is given below.

Reply of DoPT’s joint secretary.
Soon afterwards, the gentleman was transferred to another assignment and the matter languished without any resolution. So, hoping that his predecessor might have taken some action, I filed an RTI application with the Union law ministry in March 2012, asking among other things, whether any communication had been received from the DoPT on the subject of legislative oversight over the exercise of rule-making powers of state governments. 
I sent a copy of the entire correspondence along with my RTI application and the reply received to the then Joint Secretary, DoPT in July 2012 and later to his boss – the Secretary, DoPT – in December 2015. Neither of them bothered to even acknowledge receipt of the communication. 
So, to the best of my knowledge this constitutional issue remains unresolved till date.
Was the Maharashtra government required to hold public consultation on the RTI Rules?
One of civil society’s main grievances regarding Maharashtra’s revised RTI rules is about the opaque manner in which it was notified – without prior consultation with the citizens of Maharashtra. In fact, the mention of ‘under postal certificate’ (UPC) and ‘registered post’ as permissible methods for the State Information Commission to serve a notice of hearing in an appeal or complaint proceeding indicates how out of touch with reality were the blessed souls who drafted the latest RTI Rules. 
The Department of Posts discontinued the UPC service in 2011 and registered post service in September 2025. So, is a state government duty bound to hold prior consultation to make rules under any enactment? 
What does the Union government’s pre-Legislative Consultation Policy of 2014 say?
The UPA government instituted a pre-Legislative Consultation Policy shortly before it went out of power in 2014. This policy requires every ministry and department to publish the text of the draft law it proposes to table in the parliament along with a brief justification for such a law, its essential elements, broad financial implications and an estimated assessment of its impact on the environment, fundamental rights, lives and livelihoods of affected people. All of this must be in simple language. People must be invited to give suggestions within a period of thirty days. The summary of feedback/comments received from stakeholders and the general public must be placed on the official website of the ministry/department which is also required to hold public consultations with all stakeholders. 
When a draft Bill is sent to the cabinet for approval to be tabled in the parliament, the cabinet note must contain a brief summary of the feedback received from the people. After the Bill is tabled in the parliament, the summary of the pre-legislative process must be placed before the department-related standing committee if it is tasked with vetting the bill. In short, this seminal policy was intended to involve people in the law-making process at the initial stages itself so that problem areas in the draft bill are ironed out and the possibility of any opposition to the law after enactment is minimised. Law-making was intended to become truly participatory.
However, the NDA government has applied this policy to draft laws very selectively and, in many cases, it has refused to allow many important Bills to be referred to the parliamentary committees for detailed vetting. In February 2022, the then Union Minister of Law and Justice, Kiren Rijiju told the parliament that paragraph 11 of the policy “gives sufficient leeway for the Ministry/Department to eschew the Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy on the ground that it is not feasible or desirable to do so. In December 2025, his successor, Arjun Ram Meghwal, told the parliament that there is no proposal to make pre-legislative consultation mandatory for all major legislative proposals. Interestingly, at the time of writing this piece, the very document containing the text of this policy has disappeared from the ministry’s website where it used to be hosted earlier.
Paragraph no. 4 of the pre-Legislative Consultation Policy suggests that rule-making must also be done in consultation with the people in the following words: “As a matter of practice, a provision regarding the previous publication of rules should be made in all new principal legislations.” However, this policy does not apply to state governments. So, unless the parent legislation requires rules to be made in consultation with the people, there is no statutory duty on governments to make rules in a transparent manner. 
Public consultation for rule-making is a century-old prescription in India
Many readers might not be aware that the tradition of consulting people before making rules and byelaws under any law was established in our country, more than a century ago. Section 23 of The General Clauses Act, 1897 which applies to the Union government and the Union territories, states that if a law requires rules to be made after ‘previous publication’, then the rule-making authority must publish a draft of the rules to inform people likely to be affected by them, mention the date by which the draft will be finalised for implementation, allow them to make submissions about what needs to be changed in the draft rules and consider all such submissions and objections before finalising it. Maharashtra’s General Clauses Act, 1904, is almost as old as its central counterpart and contains a similar provision (Section 24) for involving people while making rules under any law enacted by the State legislature. 
The General Clauses laws explain the meaning of terms commonly used in other laws in order to maintain consistency of usage such as: “act”, “affidavit”, “chapter”, “collector”, “document”, “enactment”, “father”, “financial year”, “month”, “High Court”, “immovable” and “movable property”, “local authority”, “month”, “oath”, “official gazette”, “person”, “registered”, “ship”, “sign”, “son”, “swear”, “will”, “year” etc. They also explain how the coming into force of laws and their repeal are to be understood and applied; how distances should be measured, time should be computed and that wherever laws use masculine gender they must be understood to include ‘females’ and that singular shall include the plural and vice versa.
The only catch with regard to participatory rule-making is that unless a law made by the parliament or the state legislature specifies that rules must be made only after ‘previous publication’, governments are under no obligation to consult with the citizenry. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, is a rare example of such a law requiring both the Union and state governments to make rules for its implementation only after ‘previous publication’. 
The rule-making provisions in the RTI Act do not contain such a stipulation for either the Union or the state governments to make rules after ‘previous publication’. Further, as the RTI Act is not enacted by Maharashtra’s legislature, the government did not find it necessary to hold a consultation process before replacing the 2005 RTI Rules. Interestingly, Maharashtra’s own RTI Act passed in 2002 before the Central RTI Act came into being, required the government to make rules for its implementation only after ‘previous publication’, except when the rules were made for the first time (Section 18). 
In other words, any change in the original set of rules notified by the Maharashtra government under that law could not be made without giving people the opportunity to file objections and suggestions for improvement. With the winding up of the state level RTI law, Maharashtra seems to have given the good practice of public consultation in the domain of RTI rule-making, a quiet burial. Whether this tradition will be revived now, remains to be seen.
In conclusion: What can RTI activists, transparency advocates do?
Given these major constitutional gaps, RTI activists and transparency advocates, not only in Maharashtra but across the country, can take a number of steps.
First, we must demand that the Union and state governments give statutory cover to the pre-Legislative Consultation Policy by incorporating it in the respective General Clauses Acts. This is a good way to ensure that all laws, rules, regulations and bye-laws are made in a participatory manner by involving citizens in the processes. Second, we must demand that all States amend their respective General Clauses Acts to empower legislatures to exercise effective oversight on the rule-making powers of the respective governments under laws enacted by the parliament on subjects under the Concurrent List or for giving effect to fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution. These fundamental changes will go a long way to make the world’s ‘largest democracy’ more participatory than it is, right now.
Third, both the parliament and state legislatures must find a mechanism to ensure legislative oversight over the rules made by the state governments under laws which only the parliament can enact. Fourth, the RTI Act delegates rule-making powers to the heads of the state legislatures and the chief justices of High Courts, but they are not even required to be laid in any legislature. Rule 317 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha (17th Edn., 2024) requires the setting up of a committee on subordinate legislation: “to scrutinize and report to the House whether the powers to make regulations, rules, subrules, bye-laws etc., conferred by the Constitution or delegated by the parliament are being properly exercised within such delegation.” Rule 204 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Rajya Sabha (9th Edn., 2016) contains a similar stipulation. 
These rules do not carve out any exception when the rule-making power is vested in the heads of the state legislatures and the high courts. The presiding officers of legislatures must take up these matters in their next conference to plug the constitutional gaps. 
In the meantime, if the Maharashtra government puts in place a progressive set of RTI Rules after holding effective public consultation, that’s well and good. However, if the next set of RTI Rules also contain deficiencies, RTI activists must demand that the state government table the latest RTI Rules in both houses of the Legislature. MLAs and MLCs must be approached to move motions recommending modification of the problematic aspects of those Rules. Legal challenges to the Rules must be mounted only if this exercise of legislative advocacy fails to deliver the desired results.
Venkatesh Nayak is Director, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi. Views expressed are personal.
This article went live on July third, two thousand twenty six, at forty-three minutes past three in the afternoon.

Will all stock exchanges come under the RTI Act? Delhi HC ruling in NSE case may have wider implications

Moneycontrol: New Delhi: Saturday, 04 July 2026.
The judgment marks the beginning of a legal debate on whether entities termed as critical public functions in the securities market, despite being private companies, should be treated as public authorities for the RTI Act.

A recent Delhi High Court ruling holding that the National Stock Exchange (NSE) is a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information (RTI) Act could have implications far beyond the country's largest stock exchange, with legal experts saying the reasoning may also extend to other stock exchanges, clearing corporations and depositories operating in India's securities market. Not only the securities market but all entities under other regulators may come under the ambit of RTI.
The ruling has sparked discussion within legal and market circles over whether the same logic could apply to other market infrastructure institutions (MIIs), including stock exchanges, clearing corporations and depositories, all of which operate under a regulatory framework that requires recognition or registration by SEBI and are subject to continuous oversight.
Former member of SEBI's Data Advisory Committee, Suhas Tuljapurkar, said the judgment could have ramifications well beyond the securities market if its underlying reasoning is applied more broadly. "If the logic that every regulated entity should come under the RTI Act merely because it is subject to regulatory oversight is accepted, then the implications could extend well beyond the securities market," Tuljapurkar said.
He said the Delhi High Court's ruling relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Delhi Stock Exchange Vs KC Sharma, even though the functioning of stock exchanges has undergone a fundamental transformation since the dispute arose in 1992. According to him, applying the same principle across sectors could potentially bring entities regulated by the RBI, IRDAI, CERC, PNGRB, and RERA within the RTI framework. Within the securities market, he said, the impact could extend to stock exchanges, depositories, clearing corporations, registrars and transfer agents (RTAs), mutual funds, alternative investment funds (AIFs) and proxy advisory firms.
Tuljapurkar also cautioned that while transparency is important, it should not come at the cost of exposing sensitive market information that could undermine market integrity.
Tuljapurkar summed up, ” Let us leave the transparency in stock exchanges to their governing boards and SEBI; otherwise, everyone’s shareholding can soon be found on the dark web. "
Neeha Nagpal, Founding and Managing Partner at N & Company Legal, said the judgment's reasoning is not confined to NSE alone. "The ruling unmistakably opens this door, and it would be naïve to assume it closes at NSE's threshold. The reasoning the Delhi High Court applied is not specific to NSE at all." Nagpal said.
She said the court's reasoning rests on two pillars: first, that recognition under Section 4(3) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act is indispensable for a stock exchange to exist and operate; and second, that SEBI exercises deep and pervasive control over such entities on behalf of the Central Government.
According to Nagpal, the same structural framework applies to BSE, depositories such as CDSL and NSDL, and clearing corporations. Nagpal added that the case for depositories may be even stronger because they hold the country's securities in dematerialised form while operating under extensive SEBI oversight. Given the quasi-public functions they perform for millions of investors, she said, extending RTI obligations to such entities would be a natural consequence of the court's reasoning.
Stock exchanges have historically maintained that they are private companies and, therefore, fall outside the ambit of the RTI Act. However, the Delhi High Court took a different view, observing that an exchange cannot be established or function without recognition from the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act (SCRA). The court also noted the extensive regulatory and supervisory control exercised by SEBI and the Central Government over stock exchanges.
Based on these factors, the court held that NSE performs public functions and can be treated as a public authority under the RTI Act.
Legal experts say the principles laid down by the court could be relied upon in future litigation involving similar entities, particularly where they discharge statutory functions that are integral to the securities market.
If upheld by higher courts, investors, listed companies and other stakeholders may be able to seek information relating to regulatory processes, governance and decision-making, subject to the exemptions available under the RTI Act for confidential, commercially sensitive or market-sensitive information.
Experts say that any expansion of the RTI framework to market infrastructure institutions would need to balance between transparency and the need to protect confidential trading, surveillance, and risk-management information, disclosure of which could undermine market integrity.

Hazare defers July 5 fast after govt puts RTI Rules on hold : Nisha Nambiar

Times of India: Pune: Saturday, 04 July 2026.
Social activist Anna Hazare on Friday deferred his proposed indefinite fast from July 5 after state govt put the implementation of the Maharashtra Right to Information (RTI) Rules, 2026, on hold.

In a statement released from Ralegan Siddhi village, Hazare termed govt’s decision to suspend implementation of the rules a victory for citizens, who had united to protect the RTI Act. He also thanked RTI activists for supporting the movement. He stated that he decided to defer the fast after repeated requests from supporters and govt’s assurance that the rules would remain in abeyance.
Hazare, however, stressed that suspending the rules was only a temporary measure. He urged govt to completely withdraw them, alleging that the rules diluted the spirit of the RTI Act and weakened citizens’ right to information.
He warned that if the rules are not permanently withdrawn after consultations with RTI activists and citizens, he would launch a fresh agitation.
Calling the RTI Act a powerful tool against corruption and for ensuring transparency and accountability in governance, Hazare said it must be protected for future generations.
State Chief Information Commissioner Rahul Pande said his office had received Hazare’s letter and welcomed the decision to defer the fast. “Govt has asked us to keep the new rules in abeyance. We have instructed all offices to follow the pre-June 12 RTI Rules and the earlier directives,” he said.
RTI activists have said they would now submit detailed recommendations to the Maharashtra govt for revising the rules.
Venkatesh Nayak, director of Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, told TOI that while the new rules filled some gaps in the 2005 framework, they also remained ‘seriously problematic and restrictive’ in several respects. He said they introduced procedures for filing first appeals and inspecting records, and assigned responsibility to heads of offices for record management and proactive disclosures under Section 4 of the RTI Act areas that were missing earlier.
Nayak said govt should now use the opportunity to frame comprehensive, citizen-friendly RTI Rules and undertake the review through a meaningful consultative process, giving citizens adequate opportunity to suggest measures that strengthen the transparency regime envisioned under the RTI Act.

CIC advises NHAI to proactively disclose contracts' info in public domain

Business Standard: New Delhi: Friday, 3^rd July 2026.
The CIC has advised NHAI to proactively disclose highway contracts, safety plans and project documents, saying greater transparency will improve public accountability

Underlining that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) is not placing contract agreement-related information in the public domain, the CIC has advised the authority to proactively disclose highway contracts, safety plans and other key project documents to promote transparency and accountability.
Issuing an advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act, Information Commissioner Jaya Varma Sinha said the "NHAI is not placing contract agreement-related information on their website in the public domain".
The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that "contractual agreements and safety plans directly impact public safety, transparency, and accountability in infrastructure projects".
It noted that "withholding such information under the guise of exemptions is inconsistent with the spirit of the RTI Act".
According to the order, proactive disclosure would "enhance transparency in public procurement and execution of highway projects", "ensure accountability of contractors and NHAI in adhering to safety norms", and "empower citizens to monitor compliance with safety standards and contractual obligations".
The advisory came while disposing of a second appeal filed by an RTI applicant seeking certified copies of documents related to the construction of flyovers at Shivpuri Bypass Crossing and Medical College Crossing in Jhansi.
The applicant had sought copies of the contract agreement, correspondence exchanged during project execution, approved safety plans and related communications.
The commission found that while the then CPIO had correctly provided the Letter of Award, the denial of copies of the contract agreement and approved safety plans under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act was "evasive".
It held that the exemption had been "wrongly applied" and was "contrary to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005", directing the CPIO to furnish the information.
The commission also reminded NHAI of its obligation under Section 4 of the RTI Act to proactively disclose information.
Referring to the Supreme Court's 2023 judgment in Kishan Chand Jain vs Union of India, it said transparency laws achieve their objective only when "the principle of accountability governs the relationship between 'right holders' and 'duty bearers'".
It advised NHAI to "take immediate steps to publish the above information in the public domain and ensure regular updates", observing that doing so would also reduce RTI applications seeking basic project information.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Govt spent Rs 10,169 crore on Udan; IndiGo biggest subsidy receiver: RTI

India Today: New Delhi: Friday, 3^rd July 2026.
RTI data shows the government has spent over Rs 10,169 crore on the Udaan scheme since 2016, splitting funds between aviation infrastructure and airline subsidies, with IndiGo emerging as the largest subsidy recipient.

Regional connectivity scheme Udan was launched in October 2016. (Photo: AI generated)

More than a decade after its launch, the government's flagship regional connectivity scheme, Udaan (Ude Desh ka Aam Nagrik), has seen a financial outlay of Rs 10,169 crore, with low-cost carrier IndiGo emerging as the largest beneficiary of airline subsidies, according to information obtained through the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Details of how public funds have been utilised during the programme's first decade were obtained by India Today as Prime Minister Narendra Modi prepares to announce a 10-year extension of the scheme until 2037 during his visit to Jodhpur on July 4.
The records show that the government has committed more than Rs 10,169 crore to the regional connectivity scheme since its launch in 2016, dividing expenditure between the development of aviation infrastructure and subsidies for airlines operating commercially unviable routes. While IndiGo emerged as the largest recipient of airline subsidies under the scheme, Ayodhya Airport received the highest infrastructure funding.
Nearly a decade after its launch, Udaan has evolved into one of the government's flagship regional aviation initiatives, with spending split almost evenly between building connectivity infrastructure and supporting airline operations on underserved routes.
According to the RTI response, the Centre sanctioned Rs 5,500 crore for the development of airports, airstrips, heliports and water aerodromes. Of this, Rs 4,833.25 crore had been spent as of March 31, 2026. During the same period, airlines received Rs 4,669.02 crore as Viability Gap Funding (VGF), a subsidy designed to bridge the gap between operating costs and revenues on regional routes. Together, the two components account for government support exceeding Rs 10,169 crore.

INDIGO TOPS SUBSIDY RECIPIENTS
The RTI data shows that a handful of carriers accounted for the bulk of airline subsidies released under the scheme.
IndiGo received the highest VGF support at Rs 1,157.13 crore, followed by Alliance Air (Rs 994.99 crore), GHODAWAT (Rs 684.90 crore), SpiceJet (Rs 654.13 crore) and TruJet (Rs 382.03 crore). Collectively, these five airlines received nearly Rs 3,873 crore, representing about 83 per cent of all subsidies disbursed under Udan.
Other beneficiaries included Just Udo Aviation, Air Taxi, Big Charters, GSEC Monarch, Heritage Aviation, Jet Airways, Pawan Hans, Air Odisha, Zoom Air and Deccan Charters.
The year-wise figures indicate that subsidy support expanded alongside the scheme's growth. VGF payments peaked at Rs 807.02 crore in 2023-24 before declining to Rs 628.42 crore in 2024-25 and a provisional Rs 621.99 crore in 2025-26, underscoring the continued reliance of regional routes on government support.

AYODHYA TOPS AIRPORT FUNDING
Beyond airline subsidies, substantial investments have been made in aviation infrastructure across the country.
The RTI lists 185 airports, airstrips, heliports and water aerodromes that have been developed or revived under Udan. Ayodhya Airport received the highest allocation at Rs 347.41 crore, followed by Kolhapur in Maharashtra (Rs 333.29 crore), Jharsuguda in Odisha (Rs 183.67 crore), Pakyong in Sikkim (Rs 178.75 crore), Prayagraj (Rs 161.43 crore), Amravati (Rs 148.53 crore), Kanpur (Rs 134.79 crore), Darbhanga (Rs 127.82 crore) and Adampur (Rs 125.60 crore).

CONNECTIVITY ACROSS INDIA
The RTI data highlights Udan's transformation from an airport development initiative into a nationwide connectivity programme.
Major projects are spread across states including Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, Bihar, Maharashtra and Gujarat, while Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh have seen the development of extensive heliport networks aimed at improving access to remote mountainous regions.
The scheme has also expanded to island territories through water aerodrome projects in Lakshadweep and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, alongside similar facilities in Gujarat and Assam. In the Northeast, infrastructure has been developed across Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Nagaland and Sikkim, reflecting the programme's focus on enhancing connectivity in geographically challenging regions.