Differences in 2002 and 2025 SIR revision procedures spark alarm in Gujarat

Counterview: Ahmedabad: Friday, 5^Th December 2025.

Civil rights groups and electoral reform activists have raised serious concerns over the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Gujarat and 11 other states, alleging that the newly enforced requirements could lead to large-scale deletion of legitimate voters, particularly those unable to furnish documentation linking them to the 2002 electoral list.
According to a press note issued jointly by PUCL Gujarat Secretary Mujaheed Nafis, electoral reforms activist Santoshsinh Rathod, and ADR State Coordinator Pankti Jog, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has directed that every voter must show proof of their presence or the presence of their father, mother, or grandparents in the 2002 SIR list. Failing to produce such proof may result in a notice from the Electoral Registration Officer and potential removal of names from the final rolls.
The activists object that no such rule existed during the 2001–02 revision process. Information obtained under the Right to Information Act reveals that the 2002 revision did not require voters to provide any proof of their presence in earlier lists, including the 1995 SIR.
“The 2002 SIR was based entirely on a house-to-house survey, and voters were not asked to fill any forms or submit documentation,” the release states. Enumerators physically verified residents, recorded corrections on-site, and made changes directly on a carbon-copy master list given to household heads. Names could only be deleted in cases of death or migration, and voters possessing EPIC cards could have omissions rectified without additional proofs.
In contrast, the current SIR places the responsibility on citizens instead of enumerators and demands proof of existence in the 2002 list despite no such documentation being required at that time. Activists argue that this change lacks justification and may disproportionately affect vulnerable groups such as senior citizens, migrants, tribal communities, and economically weaker families.
The press note highlights several key differences between the two processes, including:

• Absence of door-to-door verification in the present SIR.
• No mechanism to record migration in SIR forms, potentially resulting in wrongful deletion for people who recently changed residences.
• Lack of provision to group family members recorded on different pages of the roll, requiring multiple submissions through different Booth Level Officers.
• Missing framework to re-include voters holding valid EPIC cards whose names may have been removed in error.

The activists warn that without proper safeguards, improvements to the electoral rolls are impossible. “How an improvement of the electoral rolls will happen is a BIG question,” the statement concludes.
The groups have urged the Election Commission to withdraw the proof-of-2002 requirement, restore the enumerator-led verification model, and ensure that no eligible voter is removed due to bureaucratic hurdles.
Nafis, Rathod, and Jog have called on the public to remain alert and verify their electoral status amid fears that the new system may lead to large-scale voter disenfranchisement shortly ahead of upcoming elections.

In 2002, ensuring voter inclusion on list was enumerator’s duty: RTI activists

The Times of India: Ahmedabad: Friday, 5^Th December 2025.
RTI activists have highlighted significant procedural changes in how the Election Commission of India (ECI) conducts the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, comparing the 2002 process with that in 2025. They said that while in 2002, the enumerator was responsible for updating voter lists, in 2025, the onus is on the voters to establish and ensure their names are on the electoral rolls.
The activists said that while the SIR of 2001-02, which was called Special Revision of Intensive Nature, had provisions to make all kinds of amendments to voter details, the ongoing SIR does not have that provision.

RTI activist Santoshsinh Rathod, who sought information under the RTI from the Election Commission of India, said that three types of registers were maintained in the SIR of 2002 the first to make any changes in the details of voters such as spellings and the like, the second for people who had an EPIC but their names were not in the electoral rolls, and the third for listing names of voters who had shifted out of their constituencies.
"The primary objective of the SIR in 2002 was to include as many voters as possible on the electoral rolls. A document, such as a registered post letter, sent to an individual's name at their registered address was sufficient to confirm their place of residence," said Rathod.
Rathod added that the 2002 SIR did not include the clause requiring voters to provide details of their family members or relatives if the voter's name was not included in the earlier SIR.
Pankti Jog, state coordinator of the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR), said the fundamental difference between the BLO's role in the ongoing SIR and the enumerator's role in 2002 is significant. "In 2002, the enumerator was responsible and accountable for all changes that voters needed to make. All the proposed changes were to be noted down by the enumerator in the presence of the voter, who had to be given a carbon copy. In this SIR, BLOs are not accountable for any changes that a voter makes in his or her details," Jog said. She added that, in the ongoing SIR, BLOs have filled out forms only when special camps are being held.

Over 17.5 lakh RTI applications filed during 2023-24: Centre

 Hindustan Times: New Delhi: Friday, 5^Th December 2025.
Over 17.5 lakh applications were filed under the Right to Information Act during 2023-24, the Rajya Sabha was informed on Thursday.

Of the total 17,50,863 such applications filed, 67,615 were rejected and 14,30,031 were answered, according to a data shared by the Union minister of state for personnel Jitendra Singh in a written reply.
During 2022-23, 16,38,784 RTI applications were filed. Of these, 52,662 were rejected and 13,15,222 were answered, it said.
According to the data, 14,21,226 such applications were filed in 2021-22, of which 53,733 were rejected and 11,31,757 were answered.
It further said 13,33,802 and 13,74,315 RTI applications were filed in 2020-21 and 2019-20 respectively.
To a query seeking numbers of applications "with no answer or denied information", Singh said, "The Central Information Commission has informed that no such data is compiled by them."
In a separate reply, he said the one-time password feature was launched in the RTI online portal on January 2 to authenticate the users and protect sensitive personal information.
By ensuring only authorised access, the measure strengthens cyber security and aligns with the best practices, the minister said.
"OTPs are promptly dispatched from the NIC email domains. However, due to reasons such as congestion in the receiver's network, connectivity issues in the network being used by the users' service provider etc, the delivery of OTPs may take more time in some cases," he said.
However, the OTPs do not expire until they are used, thereby enabling the users to access their account as soon as the OTP arrives, Singh said.
"The RTI online portal is designed, hosted and maintained by the NIC unit of the DoPT . The NIC has informed that 27,57,506 OTPs were generated for email verification up to 28.11.2025," he added.

No Data on RTI Applications in Which Info Was Denied: Centre Tells Parliament

The Wire: New Delhi: Friday, 5^Th December 2025.
The Chief Information Commissioner has 'not compiled' such data, the government says, but well over 17.5 lakh RTI applications were filed and 14.30 lakh were answered.

The Union government has informed parliament that there is no information on the Right to Information (RTI) applications that were returned with no answer or denied information in the last five years as the Central Information Commission (CIC) does not compile such data.
In a written question in the Rajya Sabha, Trinamool Congress Member of Parliament Ritabrata Banerjee sought the number of applications filed under the RTI Act, 2005, during the last five years, the number of applications rejected, the number of applications with no answers or denied information and the year-wise details of applications answered.
In response to the number of applications with no answers or denied information, the Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and the Prime Minister’s Office, Jitendra Singh, said that “the Central Information Commission (CIC) has informed that no such data is compiled by them.”
In his reply, Singh, however, provided data for the number of applications filed, rejected and answered. He said 17,50,863 RTI applications were filed, 67,615 were rejected and 14,30,031 were answered.
Singh also said that 16,38,784 RTI applications were filed during one year – 2022-2023 – while 52,662 were rejected and 13,15,222 were answered.
In 2021-2022, a total of 14,21,226 applications were filed, of which 53,733 were rejected and 11,31,757 were answered.
His reply said that 13,33,802 and 13,74,315 RTI applications were filed in 2020-2021 and 2019-2020, respectively. While 10,86,657 were answered in 2019-20, the data on answers provided is not available for 2019-20, the reply said.
The Union government has, therefore, not provided data for RTI applications under which information was denied.
The issue came into focus recently when the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, was notified last month for staggered implementation. This Act, through Section 44(3), amends Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act to exempt all personal information from disclosure.
In addition, the Central Information Commission has been operating with only two information commissioners since September 14, while the post of the chief information commissioner and eight commissioners are currently vacant.
Transparency activists have said that this has created a situation that “negates the very purpose of the RTI Act”.
The government's response that the CIC does not compile data on the number of applications with no answer or denied information, comes as reports say there is a rising trend in pending RTI applications across the country.
(This article went live on December fourth, two thousand twenty five, at forty-two minutes past eight in the evening.)

Missing public park: Madras High Court orders inquiry by Collector, Chennai Corporation

 The Hindu: Chennai: Thursday, 4^Th December 2025.
Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan say alleged encroachment of a public park by a private hospital is a serious issue

A view of the Madras High Court Building in Chennai.
File. | Photo Credit: K. Pichumani

The Madras High Court on Wednesday (December 3, 2025) came across a curious case of a “missing public park” at Tiruvottiyur and directed the Chennai Collector as well as Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) Commissioner to conduct an inquiry and report to the court within four weeks.
First Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan said, a former councillor of the erstwhile Tiruvottiyur Municipality, now merged with GCC, had come up with a serious allegation of encroachment of an entire public park.
Therefore, the Judges directed the Collector to conduct an inquiry through an appropriate revenue department official and submit the report before the court on January 2, 2026. Similarly, the GCC was directed to file an affidavit explaining the steps taken by it pursuant to petitioner’s complaint.
In his affidavit, the petitioner G. Thondan Subramani (70) said he had served as a councillor of Tiruvottiyur municipality for two consecutive terms between 1996 and 2005. During that period, he asserted the existence of a public park named Kesavan park in the locality.
The petitioner said the attendance for the municipality conservancy workers used to be taken at the park during his tenure as the councillor. After the local body got merged with the GCC, the park had vanished from its location and instead a private hospital had cropped up on the land, he complained.
The petitioner said, that while responding to an application made by him under the Right to Information Act of 2005, the GCC had in 2023 conceded there was indeed a park named Kesavan Park in Tiruvottiyur but had informed the applicant that the park was not under the maintenance of the corporation.
On his part, the jurisdictional Tahsildar told the petitioner the land in question had been purchased by an individual in 1903 and her legal heirs had sold that property to a doctor in 2016. The doctor, in turn, had constructed a hospital on the property, the petitioner was informed.
Alleging it appeared to be a case of fake title deeds having been created for the purpose of encroaching upon a public park, the petitioner said, the revenue officials as well as the GCC had miserably failed to protect the public property. He urged the court to order restoration of the property into a park.
“l undertake to pay the costs if this public interest litigation petition is found ro be intended for personal gain or oblique motive,” the petitioner’s affidavit read.

College principal fined, told to compensate ex-student for RTI violation

The Times of India: Dehradun: Thursday, 4^Th December 2025.
The state information commission has imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on the principal of DBS College and directed the institution to pay another Rs 25,000 in compensation to a former student, Subodh Semval, after concluding that the college had unlawfully denied information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act regarding student enrolment and fund disbursal during the 2022–23 academic session.

Semval had filed an RTI query seeking data on total enrolment and details about the funds allocated to and utilised by the students' union, but the college rejected the application by invoking section 8(1)(j) of the Act, claiming the information requested was personal in nature. The commission found this reasoning to be without merit and held that the institution had acted in violation of the law. It also directed the state govt to reassign the role of first appellate authority for all aided colleges managed by private bodies to the director of higher education, replacing the current arrangement where college principals hold that responsibility.
Prior to delivering its ruling, the commission had issued a show cause notice to principal Dr V C Pandey and the college, seeking an explanation for the RTI violation. However, it found the response unsatisfactory and concluded that the delay in providing the information appeared to be deliberate. Semval, in his submission to the commission, said that instead of receiving a response to his application, he was subjected to an online campaign aimed at maligning his image. "I was mentally harassed to such an extent that I had to leave the city for my personal safety," he said.
After multiple hearings, the commission, headed by information commissioner Yogesh Bhatt, observed that the principal intentionally withheld the requested data and kept the matter unresolved until his superannuation on Nov 30. It termed the conduct a misuse of administrative authority and, on Monday, imposed the fine while also ordering the college to pay the compensation amount to the applicant.

Aban Raza’s painting turns Delhi art gallery into a classroom on RTI, democracy

The Print: New Delhi: Wednesday, 3 December 2025.
Exhibition titled 'Nothing Human is Alien to Me' showcased Aban Raza's paintings at Delhi's Galerie Mirchandani + Steinrücke gallery. Co-founders of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan and key figures in India's RTI movement, had travelled from Rajasthan for it.

On a crisp Saturday morning, a vast canvas lay unfurled on the gallery floor, drawing people to sit around it as though it were a courtyard. Suspended on the wall above, a riot of orange anger, defiance and courage leapt out in bold strokes.
Women in bright odhanis, musicians mid-stride, dust, colourful tripals, the swirl of a protest at a village fair: the painting seemed to pull viewers straight into a Rajasthani mela.The creator of the painting, titled Mazdoor Mela, a young artist called Aban Raza, looked on.
The painting shows a scene in Bhim, Rajasthan, where villagers mostly women gather during a Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) yatra to demand the Right to Information.
Activists, journalists, students, and weekend art-goers thronged the venue,  Galerie Mirchandani + Steinruecke in Delhi’s Defence Colony, for the exhibition ‘Nothing Human is Alien to Me’ on 29 November. For a moment, the gallery felt like a small public square. 
“We have seen very meaningful paintings in black and white that mostly show how there are no colours in a person’s life who is struggling,” a visitor commented on Raza’s artwork.
The artist had the perfect answer for her.
“When you enter a mela in Rajasthan, you are bombarded with colour. You cannot think in black and white,” she said. The colours, Raza added, had chosen her.
For the next few hours, the modest art gallery briefly turned into a classroom. Visitors also found themselves drawn into a conversation about the Right to Information Act and, inevitably, the state of the Indian democracy.
Mazdoor mela of dukh & sukh
Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey and Shankar Singh, co-founders of MKSS and key figures in India’s RTI movement, had travelled from Rajasthan for the event.
Nikhil Dey opened the conversation with a reminder, saying the RTI movement was never grey. “It was a Mazdoor Mela of dukh and sukh of defeats, yes, but also of winning,” he said.
Raza’s artwork throbbed with the energy of collective action of a crowd gathering to demand accountability. The one aspect many noticed was the number of women in the painting, overwhelmingly populating the canvas. Women, with veils, crowded the frame, but men were barely seen. Roy explained the reason: Men don’t sit.
“The men were present there, but it was difficult to make them sit. Men don’t sit women are the ones who settle in, wait, listen, and hold the space,” Roy said.
She pointed out another painting where the women were waiting at the bus stop.
“If you look at that painting there… It’s a big bus stand and you see women waiting, I don’t know how many hours, to catch the bus. We have all waited on that bench. And the frustration of not getting on to the bus is a metaphor for how we have not got on to democracy,” she said. “That is democracy too, we are voters, but not much more. The RTI made the vote speak.”
One of the most unexpected delights at the gallery was a puppet called Mofat, which Shankar Singh often uses to say the unsayable. Pointing at the painting, he declared, half-amused and half-stunned: “I’m looking at myself.”
Later, the conversation turned to digital personal data protection. Nikhil Dey warned that the recent amendments introduced to the Act have “slaughtered” the careful balance between privacy and public interest that RTI once held.
“You cannot even ask for a name now,” Roy added. “There will be no journalism. No research. Everything public is being redefined as personal.”
The room shifted. A morning of art-viewing suddenly carried the tension of a civic briefing.
But Roy kept bringing the conversation back to the painting. She talked about her experience in Rajasthan.
“Rajasthan taught me that colours are not merely aesthetic. It is determination.” Women there wear bright colours even in grief. “We don’t give up colour,” she said. “It is strength.”
Shankar Singh added a touch of humour, invoking Mofat, his long-time puppet alter ego. He talked about the mela and what the painting represented.
“This is a fair of struggle of sorrow, of happiness and of the victories ordinary people have won,” he said, on a more serious note.
Before the event closed, Roy quoted German playwright Bertolt Brecht: “In the dark times, will there be singing?” Then she rewrote it gently for the room: “In the dark times, will there be painting? Yes. There will be paintings about the dark times.”

Complaint against PIO of village court for refusing RTI application

Highland Post: Shillong: Wednesday, 3 December 2025.

Social activist Greneth M Sangma has lodged a complaint with the Chief Information Commissioner against the Public Information Officer (PIO) of Emangre Village Court, South Garo Hills for refusing to provide information under the RTI Act, 2005.
According to Sangma, he had submitted an application on November 24 seeking information regarding the case of Deriphina M. Sangma Vs Smith N. Marak.
Initially, he said the RTI application was submitted to the Village Court Secretary who redirected the application to be submitted to the Lasker. “Upon resubmission to Lasker on another day, he stated he would discuss with the Court Secretary before receiving it,” he added
Another application which was filed on December 1 was also refused, Sangma stated.
“This refusal damages and undermines the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005, which is meant to ensure transparency and respect for the applicant’s right to information. Both I and the victim had submitted applications with the same questions,” he said.
Sangma said he had not filed his complaint directly with the first appellate authority because it might favour its own department.

PM-led panel to meet on Dec 10 to select Chief Information Commissioner: Centre to SC.

The Hindu: New Delhi: Tuesday, December 02, 2025.

Seeking an expeditious selection of information commissioners in the CIC, the court had told the Centre that these posts need to be filled at the earliest.

The Centre on Monday (December 1, 2025) informed the Supreme Court that Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led panel is likely to meet on December 10 to select and recommend names for the post of Chief Information Commissioner and information commissioners of the Central Information Commission (CIC).

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, which was hearing a plea seeking filling of vacant posts of CIC and state information commissions (SICs), was told by Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, that the meeting has been fixed and notice for it has been sent to the members of the panel.

Under Section 12 (3) of the Right to Information Act, the Prime Minister is the chairperson of the committee, which also comprises the leader of Opposition and a Union Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, that selects and recommends the names for appointment as Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners.

The top court recorded the submission of the ASG and deferred the hearing on the plea.

It asked the chief secretaries of all the states to submit details of the total strength of SICs, vacant posts in SICs and number of appeals and complaints pending before the commissions.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioners including Anjali Bhardwaj and others, said that the government has not filled the vacant posts, which is resulting in piling of cases before the commissions.

He said that some States have made two to three appointments and are saying they don’t need to fill all the posts as they have sufficient strength of members to deal with the pendency of cases.

Mr. Bhushan said there are at least seven comprehensive orders of the court in which it had directed the Centre to expeditiously fill up the vacancies in the CIC and SICs.

On November 27, the top court deferred the matter after it was informed by Nataraj that the selection committee was scheduled to meet on October 28, 2025, but the meeting could not take place due to other engagements of the members.

The top court had asked Nataraj to speak to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) secretary and apprise it of the total vacancies, observing that "we have no reason to doubt that the Competent Authority will take the necessary initiative to fill the available vacancies".

It had noted that states like Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Karnataka have broadly filled all vacancies and their Information Commissions are working at full capacity, while in Chhattisgarh, the vacancies will be filled in six weeks.

On October 27, the top court refused to issue a directive for public disclosure of the names of candidates shortlisted for the post of chief information commissioner and information commissioners in the CIC.

It had directed the states, including Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh, to immediately try to fill the vacant posts in the state information commissions.

Backlog of cases

Mr. Bhushan had alleged that governments were "trying to kill the Right to Information Act" by making information commissions defunct.

He had submitted that the CIC is currently without its chief, and eight out of 10 posts of information commissioners are vacant.

"The backlog of cases in the CIC is nearly 30,000," he had submitted, and pointed out the violation of earlier orders of the apex court, where it was directed that all vacant posts should be filled up directly.

On January 7, the top court took a dim view of the vacancies in the CIC and state information commissions as it directed the Centre to immediately fill the posts.

Seeking an expeditious selection of information commissioners in the CIC, the apex court had told the Centre that these posts need to be filled at the earliest.

It had criticised the appointments being made only from a particular category of candidates in the CIC and SICs, and mulled taking a judicial note of the fact that only bureaucrats are considered for the appointment in these commissions instead of people from all walks of life.

Delayed selection process

Activist Bhardwaj and others have submitted that in 2019, the apex court issued seminal directions for filling the posts in the CIC and SICs, but states delayed the selection process and virtually killed the Right to Information Act.

On November 26, 2024, the top court took a stern view on the matter and asked the Centre and states to apprise it of the steps taken to fill the posts.

Since February 2019, the apex court has passed several directions on the need for timely appointments to the transparency watchdog by the Centre and states. It observed that in Jharkhand, Tripura and Telangana, the SICs had become virtually defunct, as there were no information commissioners.

On October 30, 2023, the top court issued a similar directive, noting the 2005 Right to Information law would become a "dead letter" otherwise. Ms. Bhardwaj's plea said the Centre and states did not follow the apex court's 2019 judgement on the issues, including timely filling posts in CIC and SICs.

The top court in December 2019 directed the Centre and state governments to appoint information commissioners in CIC and SICs within three months and asked authorities concerned to publish the names of members of the committee on the selection panel and appointment of information commissioners at the CIC on their websites.

The apex court said information officers should include people of eminence from varied fields

Forest dept slapped notice for denying RTI on Project Cheetah.

Times of India: P. Naveen: Bhopal: Tuesday, November 02, 2025.

The Madhya Pradesh State Information Commission has issued a show-cause notice to the state's chief wildlife warden after the forest department denied RTI information on Project Cheetah by invoking national security and even India's sovereignty and integrity. Chief Information Commissioner Vijay Yadav has directed Shubharanjan Sen, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF– Wildlife), to appear before the Commission on December 12 to explain why the data was withheld. 

The notice also warns of a possible statutory fine and departmental inquiry. The controversy began when wildlife and RTI activist Ajay Dubey sought information in July 2024 regarding cheetah management, including correspondence related to Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary in Sheopur and Gandhi Sagar Wildlife Sanctuary in Mandsaur – the present and proposed homes of cheetahs in India. The RTI was denied under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, which permits withholding information that may affect India's sovereignty, integrity, national security, strategic interests, or foreign relations. 

What has amplified the dispute is that the MP forest department repeated the same argument before the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) after NTCA issued a notice seeking clarification on the rejection. In its written response to NTCA, the department claimed the cheetah project involves international collaborations and foreign experts, and that disclosure of information could "jeopardize these relationships and the project's integrity." A letter written by Public Information Officer Saurav Kumar Kabra to NTCA states: "Disclosure may harm the sovereignty and integrity of India, or its relations with a foreign state… The scheme involves the Government of India and friendly nations; MoUs for Project Cheetah have been signed with partner nations, and guidance is received periodically from foreign experts." The department's explanation to NTCA emphasised the involvement of South Africa, Kenya and Namibia, describing Project Cheetah as a "critical experimental scheme" cleared by the Supreme Court in January 2020. It added that the second phase of the project is planned at Gandhi Sagar Sanctuary.

This is not a serious reply at all. I don't know when MP received cheetahs from Kenya," Dubey remarked, calling the government's defence ‘absurd' and "a misuse of national security clauses." He has filed an appeal against the RTI denial. Dubey lodged a formal complaint with the State Information Commission, accusing PCCF Sen of misusing Section 8(1)(a) to conceal public information and directing the PIO to reject the RTI. The Commission's notice states that the PIO was expected to provide the information but acted on instructions from Sen to block it completely. The Information Commission has now asked Sen to explain why action should not be taken against him under the RTI Act, including a penalty and departmental inquiry. The matter will be heard on December 12, and further action will depend on Sen's response.

In Pictures: When rural Rajasthan walked 16 days to make the State answer.

Make to Media: Mallika Singh: Rajasthan: Monday, December 01, 2025.

On 26 November 2025, India’s 76th Constitution Day, a day marking the state’s transition to a sovereign, democratic republic, Jaipur witnessed the culmination of a 16-day Jawabdehi Pad Yatra (Accountability March) which commenced in Beawar on 11 November 2025. Organised by the Soochna Evam Rozgar Adhikar Abhiyan Rajasthan (Right to Information and Employment Campaign Rajasthan), the Yatra brought together farmers, daily wage workers, female domestic workers, nomadic tribe members, and other marginalised rural community members, after over two weeks on foot, to the state capital. Their central demand is straightforward: urgent passage and implementation of the long-pending Rajasthan Transparency and Social Accountability Bill (RTSA) 2020.

Rural Rajasthan’s rightful asks around labour welfare, silicosis relief, pensions, and food security remain consistently unanswered, not because laws are missing, but because there is no political or administrative accountability to enforce them at the ground level. The first and 100-day-long Jawabdehi Yatra between 2015 and 2016 recorded over ten thousand grievances, with no legitimate follow-ups, and likewise for the second and third Yatra in 2021 and 2022. This time, between Beawar and Jaipur, the Yatra marched through 200–300 villages and witnessed widespread systemic failures once again, from pending complaints on the Rajasthan Sampark Portal established under the Rajasthan Right to Hearing Act, 2012, to unlawful deletion of lakhs of names from voter lists under the ongoing Special Intensive Revision.

There was also a sharp focus on labor welfare, demanding immediate implementation of the Minimum Guaranteed Income Act, along with a rise in the monthly pension from ₹1000 to ₹1500, a 15% annual increment as promised, and timely disbursal on a fixed date with due compensation for any delay. They also seek guaranteed employment of 125 days for shehri (urban) workers and 25 days for grameen (rural) workers each year under MNREGA, alongside an increase in minimum wages to at least ₹800. Female domestic workers called for the establishment of a dedicated board for them under the state legislature, with formal recognition as laborers by adopting the ILO Convention 189, to ensure dignity, workplace protection, and other basic labour rights for this otherwise largely invisible workforce.

The majority of the protestors happen to be long-standing campaigners of the Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005, and demand the immediate withdrawal of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA), 2023, as it grants public authorities sweeping discretion to withhold information by labelling it “personal.” Details about assets and liabilities of public servants, contract awards, welfare-beneficiary lists, or government expenditures, all of which RTI had previously routinely exposed, could now be withheld even when disclosure serves public interest

Furthermore, the yatra demands urgent enforcement of the Rajasthan Silicosis Policy, 2019, a landmark framework for detection, prevention, and rehabilitation, promising monthly pensions for affected workers and widows. Despite Rajasthan being an epicentre of silicosis, the policy remains largely absent on the ground. Labourers made repeated accounts of deaths persisting around stone-crushing zones. Immediate expansion of the National Food Security Act (NFSA) coverage was also brought to light, noting that thirteen years without a new census has left thousands excluded from food and ration entitlements, making the identification and inclusion of new eligible households an urgent priority.

The Yatra’s arrival in Jaipur on a day the state remembers its fundamental democratic values under the Indian Constitution exposes a long-standing tension in Rajasthan’s governance: constitutional rights exist, yet the systems meant to guarantee them falter repeatedly. And if these voices can only be heard after such a journey, how many must remain unheard altogether?

Your data, your rules: Understanding India’s DPDP Act, 2025

Tribune India: Ivnindar Pal Singh: Chandigadh: Monday, December 01, 2025.

Why India’s new privacy law matters and how it reshapes transparency, governance and everyday digital life. 

Think of every time you typed your phone number on a website, allowed an app to track your location or clicked “I Agree” without reading anything. Now imagine all that information travelling across servers, companies, governments and algorithms, often without you knowing how it’s being used.

India finally decided to put brakes on this free-flowing, unregulated exchange of personal data. That is where the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2025 steps in, a law designed for a country where digital life is now everyday life. This is not just a law for techies, bureaucrats or UPSC aspirants. It affects everyone who uses a smartphone, which means almost every Indian.

Why India needed this lawToo many data leaks, too little accountability?

Over the years, countless leaks exposed personal details — phone numbers, Aadhaar data, financial information — floating across the internet. People lost money to scams; others had their identities misused. But companies rarely faced serious consequences.

Apps were taking ‘permission’ without asking

You downloaded a photo-editing app and suddenly it had access to your contacts, microphone and location. The old system allowed companies to hide behind long, unreadable consent forms.Government programmes became data-heavy

Schemes like direct benefit transfer, digital land records and public health databases collect massive sensitive data. Without a proper law, there were no clear rules on how this would be stored, shared or protected.India needed a global-standard privacy law

Countries around the world, especially those in Europe, already have strong data protection systems. A strong Indian framework boosts global trust in Indian companies and digital governance.

Salient features: What the DPDP Act actually does“Say yes only if you really want to” — Stronger consent. Every app, website or organisation must clearly tell you:what data they want

• why they want it
• how long they will store it
• how you can withdraw consent
• No vague language, no sneaky permissions

Example: If a delivery app wants access to your gallery, you can simply refuse and it cannot deny service for that.You own your data — not the appThe law grants strong user rights:

• Right to access your data
• Right to correct wrong information
• Right to get your data deleted
• Right to stop data processing
• Right to nominate someone to exercise these rights if you cannot

Example: If a fintech app still holds your old address or Aadhaar number, you can demand correction or complete deletion.Special care for children’s data

• For anyone under 18:Parental consent is mandatory
• Apps cannot target ads at them
• Apps cannot track or profile them

Example: A gaming app cannot silently track a 12-year-old’s location or behaviour.Data fiduciaries must act responsibly

• Any organisation collecting your data must follow strict rules:robust security systems
• minimal data collection
• deletion once purpose is over
• breach notification within strict timelines
• Big platforms handling millions of users become Significant Data Fiduciaries, facing even higher scrutiny.Massive penalties for violations
• Fines can go up to hundreds of crores if a platform misuses or leaks data. No gentle warnings — real money on the line.

Example: If a popular social media platform leaks user data due to lazy security, they face steep monetary penalties.

• A new enforcer: The data protection board
• This independent body handles:user complaints
• breach investigations
• penalties and compliance
• Think of it as the traffic police of the digital world.

Timeline: How we got here?

• 2017: Supreme Court declares privacy a fundamental right.
• 2018–2022: Multiple draft bills prepared and withdrawn.
• 2023: DPDP Act is finally passed by Parliament.
• 2025: Rules framed and operationalised, making the law implementable.
• By 2027: Full-scale enforcement expected across sectors.
• This journey took years of debate, court cases, and stakeholder consultations — reflecting how complex digital privacy is.

DPDP vs RTI Act: A battle between privacy and transparency

• The conflict explained simplyRTI enables citizens to seek information from the government to ensure transparency.
• DPDP protects personal information from unnecessary exposure.
• The clash arises because:RTI gave access to personal information if public interest demanded it.DPDP tightens what counts as “personal information”. The earlier public-interest test is now weakerWhat this means in real life
• A citizen earlier could ask:How many government employees were penalised in a corruption case? 
• What were the assets declared by a public servant?

Now, authorities may deny this citing “personal data”.

The worry

• Transparency activists fear officials might hide information under the label of “privacy”, reducing public accountability.The government’s stand
• They argue that privacy is a fundamental right and misuse of personal information must stop — even when requested under RTI.
• The truth lies somewhere in between: India must protect privacy without shutting the doors of transparency.
• Why this law matters to every IndianYou get more control over what apps know about you
• You can demand deletion of data that companies keep forever
• Children get a safer digital environment
• Companies finally face real consequences for negligence
• But at the same time, citizens must stay alert so transparency under RTI doesn’t slowly erode
• Whether you’re a student, worker, parent or business owner — this law touches your digital life daily.

Privacy wins, but democracy must not lose

The DPDP Act is a landmark shift in India’s digital journey. It gives ordinary citizens power over their personal data, something long overdue in a country where digital activity grows every day.

But it also raises a difficult question: Can we protect individual privacy without dimming the light that RTI shines on public accountability?

This balance will define the future of India’s digital democracy. The DPDP Act is a strong start, but how wisely we implement it will decide whether India becomes both a private and transparent nation in the years ahead.

SC to hear on Monday pleas seeking filling of vacancies in CIC, SICs.

Siasat.com: Monday, December 01, 2025.

The apex court said information officers should include people of eminence from varied fields.

The apex court said information officers should include people of eminence from varied fields.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday pleas seeking filling of vacancies in the Central Information Commission (CIC) and State Information Commissions (SICs) amid rising pendency of cases before them.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi will hear pleas filed by activist Anjali Bhardwaj and others, in which it had earlier directed the Centre to expeditiously fill up the vacancies in the CIC and SICs.

On November 27, the top court deferred the matter after it was informed by Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj that the selection committee constituted under section 12(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, was scheduled to meet on October 28, 202,5, but the meeting could not take place.

The bench had asked Nataraj to speak to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and apprise them of the total vacancies, observing that “we have no reason to doubt that the Competent Authority will take the necessary initiative to fill the available vacancies”.

It had been noted that states like Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, and Karnataka have broadly filled all the vacancies and their Information Commissions are working at full capacity, while in Chhattisgarh, in six weeks’ time, the vacancies will be filled.

The top court noted the submission of advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, that seven posts of information commissioner are lying vacant in Madhya Pradesh.

The bench had directed the chief secretary of Madhya Pradesh to start the process immediately of appointing information commissioners, if it has not been initiated, and submit a compliance affidavit to this court.

“It is clarified that if the needful is not done before the next date of hearing, the Chief Secretary shall be required to remain personally present before this Court on the next date of hearing,” the top court had said.

On October 27, the top court refused to issue a directive for public disclosure of the names of candidates shortlisted for the post of chief information commissioner and information commissioners in the CIC.

It had directed the states, including Jharkhand and Himachal Pradesh, to immediately try to fill up the vacant posts in the state information commissions.

Bhushan had alleged that governments were “trying to kill the Right to Information Act” by making information commissions defunct.

He had submitted that the CIC is currently without its chief, and eight out of 10 posts of information commissioners are vacant.

“The backlog of cases in the CIC is nearly 30,000,” he had submitted, and pointed out the violation of earlier orders of the apex court, where it was directed that all vacant posts should be filled up directly.

On January 7, the top court took a dim view of the vacancies in the CIC and state information commissions as it directed the Centre to immediately fill the posts.

Seeking an expeditious selection of information commissioners in the CIC, the apex court had told the Centre that these posts need to be filled at the earliest.

It had criticised the appointments being made only from a particular category of candidates in the CIC and SICs, and mulled taking a judicial note of the fact that only bureaucrats are considered for the appointment in these commissions instead of people from all walks of life.

Activist Bhardwaj and others have submitted that in 2019, the apex court issued seminal directions for filling of posts in the CIC and SICs, but states delayed the selection process and virtually killed the Right to Information Act.

On November 26, 2024, the top court took a stern view on the matter and asked the Centre and states to apprise it of the steps taken to fill the posts.

Since February 2019, the apex court has passed several directions on the need for timely appointments to the transparency watchdog by the Centre and states. It was observed that in Jharkhand, Tripura and Telangana, the SICs had become virtually defunct, as there were no information commissioners.

On October 30, 2023, the top court issued a similar directive, noting the 2005 Right to Information law would become a “dead letter” otherwise. Bhardwaj’s plea said the Centre and states did not follow the apex court’s 2019 judgement on the issues, including timely filling posts in CIC and SICs.

The top court in December 2019 directed the Centre and state governments to appoint information commissioners in CIC and SICs within three months and asked authorities concerned to publish the names of members of the committee on the selection panel and appointment of information commissioners at the CIC on their websites.

Civic body faces heat over incomplete RTI info

Tribune India: Ludhiana: Monday, December 01, 2025.

Comply with directions or face personal appearance, says commission.

The Punjab State Information Commission has pulled up the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, for failing to provide complete information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, directing officials to furnish remaining details or submit a formal undertaking if records are unavailable.

The order, issued by State Information Commissioner Harpreet Singh Sandhu follows a complaint by Sat Pall Sharma, a resident of Haibowal Kalan, who alleged that the civic body had shared only partial information in response to his RTI application regarding ‘Punjab Nirman’ programme.

The Punjab State Information Commission has pulled up the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, for failing to provide complete information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, directing officials to furnish remaining details or submit a formal undertaking if records are unavailable.

The order, issued by State Information Commissioner Harpreet Singh Sandhu follows a complaint by Sat Pall Sharma, a resident of Haibowal Kalan, who alleged that the civic body had shared only partial information in response to his RTI application regarding ‘Punjab Nirman’ programme.

“I’ve been pursuing the same for months. Citizens have the right to know how public funds are used and incomplete replies defeat the purpose of transparency,” Sharma said.

The commission has also instructed the Public Information Officer (PIO) to either provide the remaining information or file an undertaking confirming its non-availability. A copy of the same must be sent to both appellant and the commission. In case of non-compliance, the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, has been directed to appear in person in the next hearing.

The matter has been adjourned to January 15, 2026, with a follow-up date of January 21 for further proceedings.

“RTI is a tool for citizens to hold institutions accountable. When departments dodge questions or delay responses, it signals deeper issues in record-keeping and intent,” said Jaspreet Kaur, a local advocate.

RTI Not A Tool To Obtain Others' Exam Answer Sheets: Karnataka High Court Rejects Activist's Plea For KPSC Answer Script Disclosure

Live Law: Karnataka: Sunday, November 30, 2025.

The Karnataka High Court recently said that merely being a Right to Information activist would not give a person the right to seek answer scripts of a person who had appeared for the exam conducted by the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC).
A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said thus while dismissing the petition filed by one Intak Raju N, who claimed to be a RTI activist and President of the Mysore District Right to Information and Human Rights Protection Association.
The petitioner had made an application for furnishing the answer script of one of the candidates who had appeared for the examination conducted by the Excise Department.
It was his contention that the said person has been appointed and as such, the answer scripts were sought for. The said application was rejected by the Public Information Officer, First Appellate Authority as also the Karnataka Information Commission.
The bench noted that what has been sought for by the petitioner is essentially an answer script of a person who had appeared in the exam and not that of the petitioner himself in any way.
Following which it held “The petitioner had not appeared for the exam but only claims to be a Right to Information Activist. The petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by the said person, having succeeded in the examination.”
Accordingly, it dismissed the petition.
(Click here to DownloadOrder)

Strict action if written RTI applications are rejected, warns State Information Commission

The Hindu: Kerala: Sunday, November 30, 2025.

The Kerala State Information Commission has cautioned that strict action will be taken against offices refusing to accept the Right to Information (RTI) applications submitted on paper. State Information Commissioner K. M. Dileep has said the Commission has received multiple complaints that several offices insist on online applications and decline handwritten ones.
He was speaking after a hearing conducted at the Thrissur Collectorate on Saturday.
Dr. Dileep clarified that the RTI Act mandates acceptance of applications submitted not only through K-SMART or RTI online portals, but also those filed in writing. “If an applicant is unable to submit the request in writing, the Public Information Officer is legally required to assist them by preparing the written application,” he said.
The Commission made this observation while hearing a complaint by Anto D. Ollukkaran, who alleged that his RTI application submitted on paper was refused by an office.
At the hearing held under the chairmanship of Dr. Dileep, 49 appeals were disposed of out of the 53 taken up for consideration. Four appeals were postponed for later review.
The appeals heard on Friday were related to departments including Local Self-Governments, Health, Police, Taxes, and Forests.

Goa University told to share prof’s certificates with RTI applicant

Times of India: Ahmedabad: Sunday, November 30, 2025.
Goa State Information Commission has directed Goa University to furnish certified copies of the degree, master’s, and PhD certificates of a professor at Goa University within 10 days to an RTI applicant.

The commission held that the educational qualification certificates (degree, master’s, and PhD) submitted to Goa University by Prof. Shaila D’Souza at the time of joining as a member of the teaching faculty at Goa University are in the possession of the university and “cannot be denied” under the RTI Act. They cannot be claimed to be “personal information of a third party”.
“The moment the said certificates are submitted to Goa University (public authority in the present appeal), such certificates become part of the records/documents held by Goa University,” stated state chief information commissioner, GSIC Aravind Kumar Nair.
Nazario Savio Paul D’Souza stated that he was not provided information by the PIO and by the first appellate authority under the RTI Act in respect of D’Souza of the Centre for Women’s Studies at Goa University. The PIO stated that this information is “third party information and cannot be provided under Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005”. The commission has called for a compliance report to be submitted to the commission within 15 days.

RTI activist slams 'wasteful' spending at Belagavi's Suvarna Vidhana Soudha, demands transparency

 Deccan Herald: Belagavi: Saturday, 29 November 2025.
Calling the expenditure “wasteful” and “beyond acceptable limits,” Gadad warned that if the government fails to rein in such misuse of public funds, a legal battle may be unavoidable.

Vidhana Soudha file photoCredit: DH File Photo

After a Right to Information query revealed large-scale expenditure on furniture and oil portraits inside the Suvarna Vidhana Soudha (SVS) in Belagavi, activist Bhimappa Gadad has demanded full transparency on the spending.
Calling the expenditure “wasteful” and “beyond acceptable limits,” Gadad warned that if the government fails to rein in such misuse of public funds, a legal battle may be unavoidable.
Addressing a press conference here on Friday, Gadad disclosed details obtained through the RTI Act, revealing that Rs 42,93,940 was spent on crafting a new chair and table for the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. In addition, Rs 1,98,240 was spent on refurbishing the plywood, upholstery and cushions of the Legislative Council Speaker’s chair. Gadad said such figures raise serious questions about fiscal responsibility and prioritisation of state resources.
According to the RTI documents, another Rs 67,67,964 was utilised to prepare and install 11 oil portraits of distinguished figures associated with the Anubhav Mantap, along with an extra painting. All artworks were produced by well-known artists. This amount surpasses the previous expenditure of Rs 36,60,000 incurred in 2011 to create furniture for the President’s visit during the inauguration of the SVS.
Gadad further stated that the government had earlier approved Rs 13,34,564 on February 27, 2023, for seven portraits measuring 8x5 feet, painted by reputed state artists. However, a review team from the Karnataka Chitrakala Parishad, instructed by the Speaker, inspected the portraits and concluded in a report dated October 25, 2025, that many paintings did not resemble the actual personalities. Following this assessment, the government issued a fresh order releasing Rs 28,49,200 to produce new oil paintings.
In addition, Rs 25,84,200 was sanctioned on February 4, 2025, for installing the Anubhav Mantap artwork on the first floor’s western wing and for handing over the Mahatma Gandhi portrait, an artwork that has drawn significant artistic appreciation across Karnataka.
With close to Rs 68 lakh spent on portraits and Rs 43 lakh on the Speaker’s chair, Gadad said citizens are increasingly questioning how such decisions were taken and who authorised the expenditures. He also urged the government to allow free public access to these artworks and appoint guides, similar to those in the tourism department.