RTI Commission announces September as Right to Information Month 2026

The Hindu: Madurai: Friday, August 28, 2026.

The Right to Information Commission (RTIC) has announced September 2026 as Right to Information (RTI) Month to promote public awareness and effective implementation of the Right to Information Act, 2019 (Act 989).
This year’s commemoration will focus on the growing challenge of information disorder in Ghana’s digital environment and the importance of access to accurate and credible information.
The month-long programme will run from September 1 to 28 and culminate in activities marking the International Day for Universal Access to Information on September 28.
In a statement issued on Thursday, August 27, the Commission said the commemoration would provide a platform to engage citizens and key stakeholders on the importance of access to information in promoting transparency, accountability, inclusive participation and good governance.
It said the RTI Month would begin with radio and television engagements involving its officials in Accra, Kumasi, Sunyani and Bolgatanga from September 1 to 28.
The media engagements are expected to deepen public understanding of Act 989 and clarify the responsibilities of public institutions and citizens under the law.
The Commission said the activities would culminate in a stakeholder conference on September 24, bringing together representatives from ministries, departments and agencies, metropolitan, municipal and district assemblies, civil society organisations, the media, academia, traditional authorities and development partners.
The conference will seek practical recommendations for addressing information disorder and strengthening information integrity within Ghana’s digital information ecosystem.
It will also explore ways to promote meaningful public participation in decisionmaking and improve access to reliable information.
The Commission said it would also organise internal staff engagement and teambuilding activities as part of efforts to build a motivated and service-oriented workforce.
“The Commission calls on all public institutions to strengthen their proactive disclosure practices and comply fully with their obligations under Act 989," the commission said.
The International Day for Universal Access to Information was proclaimed by the UNESCO General Conference in 2015 and subsequently recognised by the United Nations General Assembly in 2019.

Information Commissioner chairs review meeting in Tenkasi

The Hindu: Madurai: Friday, August 28, 2026.

State Information Commissioner V.P.R. Ilamparithi addressing awareness meeting on Right to Information Act 2005 held in Tenkasi on Thursday. | Photo Credit: SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT

State Information Commissioner V.P.R. Ilamparithi chaired a meeting here on Thursday to review the reply being provided to the Right to Information Act applications and to create awareness among government officials about the need for providing precise information within the stipulated period.
Addressing the meeting, Mr. Ilamparithi said the RTI applications being received by the government departments and the public sector undertakings should be treated with due respect by providing the relevant and accurate information within the stipulated period if the applications had been submitted by following the norms.
While the RTI petitions submitted by following the norms should be given the accurate reply within the stipulated period, the applications being submitted in violation of the norms or with the intention of wasting the time and resources need not be entertained.
He directed the officials to display in all government offices the designation of the Information Officer and the appellate officer.
District Collector Ranjeet Singh, General Information Officers of all government departments and public sector undertakings participated in the awareness meeting.

Rs 10,000 Compensation Exposes Manipur Government's Failure to Be Transparent on IDP Relief: Naorem Mohen

India Today NE: Opinion: Thursday, 27 August 2026.
The Rs 10,000 compensation ordered by the Manipur Information Commission against the public authority represented by the Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur may appear small in monetary terms. But in its institutional meaning, it is a serious indictment of how the state has handled public information relating to Internally Displaced Persons.

This is not merely about one RTI applicant receiving compensation. It is about the larger question of whether bonafide citizens internally displaced by violence, and those working for their rights, are entitled to know how relief and rehabilitation decisions are being made in their name.
At a time when thousands of displaced persons continue to live with uncertainty, the state cannot treat information on relief, rehabilitation, sanction orders, beneficiary lists and selection procedures as a matter of administrative convenience. These are not ordinary files. They concern the lives, dignity and future of people uprooted from their homes.
The issue has become sharper after the Chief Minister Yumnam Khemchand Singh met representatives of six groups of Internally Displaced Persons at the Chief Minister’s Bungalow in Imphal on August 24 and assured them that the government is sincerely working towards their rehabilitation and resettlement.
The representatives raised concerns over resettlement, relief camp conditions and the state of their native villages. The meeting was attended by senior officials, including Commissioner (Home) N Ashok Kumar, Special Secretary (Home) Ahanthem Subash Singh, Deputy Commissioners of various districts and representatives of displaced groups from Churachandpur, Moreh, Kangpokpi, Torbung and other affected areas.
Such a meeting is welcome. Direct engagement with displaced citizens is necessary. But meetings and assurances cannot substitute transparent governance. If the government is sincerely working for the displaced, it must also be ready to place the record of that work before the public, except where disclosure would clearly endanger individuals or compromise legitimate security concerns.
For the Chief Minister’s initiative to have real meaning, the entire government machinery must move with seriousness and sensitivity. Rehabilitation of IDPs cannot be left to political assurance alone. Departments, district administrations and officers dealing with relief must support Yumnam Khemchand Singh’s effort by acting transparently, responding promptly and understanding the pain of families who have suffered since May 3, 2023. Their suffering is not temporary inconvenience. It is a prolonged human crisis that demands empathy, efficiency and accountability from every level of administration.
The Manipur Information Commission’s decision dated August 17, 2026 in Appeal Case No. 2 of 2025, arising from an RTI application filed by W Joykumar Singh on August 16, 2024, brings this question into sharp focus. The application sought detailed information relating to schemes, sanction orders, beneficiary lists, selection procedures and transparency measures concerning relief and rehabilitation of IDPs in Manipur.
The Commission recorded that the matter had remained pending for a prolonged period. It noted repeated opportunities granted to the public authority, partial information furnished on different dates, persistent non-compliance, a show-cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act, and continued directions for complete disclosure and proactive uploading under Section 4(1)(b).
Despite this long process, complete compliance was not achieved.
The State Public Information Officer claimed that available and legally disclosable information had already been provided. The SPIO also contended that remaining information concerned sensitive data regarding IDPs and fell within the purview of the Justice Gita Mittal Committee constituted by the Supreme Court. The appellant rejected this position and argued that the information supplied was incomplete, misleading and unsatisfactory. He also stated that State sanction orders issued to Deputy Commissioners had not been provided and that the plea of sub judice could not be used to deny information sought under the RTI Act.
The Commission’s observation is important. It found an inordinate delay of nearly two years in furnishing complete information. It noted that important records, particularly State sanction orders issued to Deputy Commissioners, complete beneficiary lists, selection procedures and file notings, remained pending. It also recorded that the continued absence of responsible officers and non-compliance with repeated directions had caused clear detriment, mental harassment and loss of opportunity to the appellant.
The decision directed the public authority, represented by the Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur, to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation to the appellant under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act within 30 days. It further directed the SPIO or Joint Secretary (Home) to furnish complete remaining information within 15 days, particularly the State sanction orders issued to Deputy Commissioners and other pending items. The Commissioner (Home) was also directed to ensure that all disclosable information relating to IDP relief is proactively uploaded on the official website.
This order should worry the government. The Rs 10,000 compensation is not the final story. It is a warning that the state’s relief and rehabilitation system cannot function behind closed doors. If public money is sanctioned for displaced citizens, the public has a right to know how it is sanctioned, where it is sent, who receives benefit, what criteria are followed and what safeguards exist against exclusion, duplication or favouritism.
The internally displaced are not numbers in government reports. They are families that have lost homes, livelihoods, documents, farmland, shops, schools, places of worship, neighbourhoods and personal security. Many continue to live in relief camps with deep anxiety about return, compensation, reconstruction and safety. Their children have lost years of normal childhood. Elderly persons live with the pain of separation from ancestral homes. Women carry the burden of managing households under conditions of displacement and uncertainty.
For such citizens, information is not a luxury. It is part of justice. When sanction orders are not disclosed, people cannot know whether funds meant for them have reached the district administration. When beneficiary lists are incomplete or unavailable, people cannot know whether deserving families have been excluded. When selection procedures are not clear, suspicion grows. When file notings remain hidden without lawful justification, accountability weakens.
This is how public trust collapses. No one is arguing that every detail about displaced persons should be published carelessly. Personal addresses, sensitive locations and information that could place vulnerable families at risk must be protected. The safety and dignity of IDPs must remain central. But this cannot become an excuse to hide all information relating to funds, decisions and policy implementation.
There is a clear difference between protecting vulnerable citizens and shielding administrative opacity.
The Manipur Information Commission’s decision recognises this difference. It does not ask for reckless disclosure. It asks for complete remaining information and proactive uploading of disclosable records. This is exactly what the RTI Act was designed to secure.
The Home Department must therefore comply fully and quickly. It should not treat the order as a minor administrative inconvenience. It should see it as an opportunity to rebuild public confidence in one of the most sensitive areas of governance in Manipur today.
The government should immediately publish district-wise and scheme-wise information on IDP relief and rehabilitation, while removing personal details that may compromise safety. It should upload sanction orders, broad categories of beneficiaries, selection criteria, camp-wise assistance details, fund utilisation updates and the status of rehabilitation measures. It should also provide a regular public update on what has been done, what remains pending and what timelines are being followed.
Such transparency will help the government as much as it will help the people. It will reduce rumour. It will protect honest officers from unfair allegations. It will allow civil society, media, courts and affected families to assess the real situation. It will also expose gaps that can be corrected before they become deeper grievances.
The Chief Minister’s assurance to IDP representatives must be matched by this kind of institutional seriousness. Sincerity in public life is not measured by statements alone. It is measured by records, compliance, delivery and accountability.
The internally displaced persons have already suffered too much. They should not have to struggle for nearly two years merely to know what has been sanctioned in their name. They should not have to depend on RTI appeals, repeated hearings and compensation orders to access basic information about relief and rehabilitation.
The state’s obligation is not only to provide relief. It is to do so fairly, transparently and with dignity.
The Rs 10,000 compensation ordered by the Commission is therefore more than a payment to one appellant. It is a moral and administrative reminder to the Manipur government that the suffering of IDPs cannot be managed through silence, delay and partial disclosure.
Relief without transparency breeds suspicion. Rehabilitation without accountability becomes fragile. Resettlement without public trust cannot bring durable peace.
If Manipur is serious about helping its displaced citizens return to dignity, the government must begin by opening its records.

CIC raps JKPSC over blanket denial of exam record, wrong judicial precedents: Mohinder Verma

Daily Excelsior: Jammu: Thursday, 27 August 2026.
‘Post-exam disclosure doesn’t harm competitive interests’, Questions invocation of fiduciary relationship

The Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (JKPSC) has come under sharp criticism from the Central Information Commission (CIC) for seeking to defend its denial of examination records through judicial precedents that, according to the CIC, were wrongly applied.
Moreover, the Commission described the PSC’s reliance on one Supreme Court judgment as a grossly erroneous submission, while terming its original RTI response evasive, misleading and inconclusive and its approach to the records a blanket denial.
Accordingly, the Commission has directed the CPIO of the JKPSC to revisit the RTI application in a point-wise manner, ascertain the availability of the desired information in recorded form under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and reassess the applicability of exemptions under Sections 8(1) and/or 9 read with Section 10 of the Act.
The case pertains to an RTI application filed on August 12, 2024, concerning the OMR-based Objective Type Written Examination for the posts of Assistant Professor (Physics) in the J&K Higher Education Department, conducted on November 5, 2023.
The applicant had sought six categories of information, including the list of questions challenged by candidates after publication of provisional answer keys, opinions of subject experts, rationale and reasoning for decisions on challenged questions, references to books and authoritative sources cited by experts, correspondence between the Commission and subject experts and details of quorum and minutes of meetings in which decisions were taken regarding challenged questions.
The CPIO had initially denied the information by stating that third-party information cannot be provided. However, the First Appellate Authority, in its order dated October 22, 2024, held that no third party is involved, but maintained that the information was of a confidential and sensitive nature involving experts and could compromise their safety and security.
During the hearing before the CIC, the respondent submitted that the list of questions challenged by other candidates was treated as third-party information and that disclosure could cause public ruckus.
The Commission found the original reply of the CPIO grossly inappropriate, observing that the CPIO had not invoked any exemptions in terms of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Instead, the CPIO had simply stated, in a summative manner, that third-party information could not be provided.
The Commission further noted that at the stage of the Second Appeal hearing, the CPIO had emphasised confidentiality and sensitivity, while adding another dimension the existence of a fiduciary relationship. However, the CIC said that in the absence of an indication as to who was the beneficiary and who was the trustee whose interests were sought to be protected, it was at a loss to comprehend the reason for invoking the fiduciary relationship.
The Commission was particularly critical of the manner in which the CPIO relied upon judgments of superior courts. It observed that the CPIO had relied on various citations without quoting the relevant operative parts of these judgments for lending clarity or purpose and instead sought to put forth a self-styled statement of interpretation of the judgments.
The omission to specify the relevant operative contents, the CIC said, led to the discovery of an irrelevant and misleading citation in the CPIO’s written submissions dated March 10, 2026.
The Commission specifically examined the reliance placed on Nitish Kumar & Ors Versus Union of India & Another, Delhi High Court, 2023, WP(C) 2977/2023, which the CPIO had argued was based on the Supreme Court’s judgment in UPSC Vs Angesh Kumar (2018).
Terming this as grossly erroneous submission, the CIC said that the subject matter of the Nitish Kumar judgment concerned aspirants seeking recruitment to the post of Sepoy Pharma who were overaged and had sought upper age relaxation of three years to enable them to apply for the recruitment.
The CIC specifically noted that the judgment has no mention or reference made to the Angesh Kumar judgment. Similarly, the alleged deductions of the court stated further in the CPIO’s submissions are also incorrect and misleading, the Commission observed.
While the CPIO had argued that the Supreme Court had held that information relating to marks in a recruitment examination could not automatically be disclosed, the CIC pointed out that the judgment dealt with disclosure of raw marks in the Civil Services Examination, whereas the RTI application in the present case sought information regarding the list of challenged questions and records incidental thereto.
“If the respondent sought simply to protect the interests of subject experts, Section 10 was available to ensure harmonising the conflicting interests by redacting the names and identifying particulars of the subject experts”, the CIC said, adding “if revealing the list of challenged questions would reveal the identity of third-party candidates, the respondent had adequate resort to Section 10”.
The CIC rejected the proposition that after inviting challenges or objections from candidates to the question paper or answer keys, the remainder of the process was forbidden from public scrutiny without exception. “An obtuse approach such as this would appear to be inviting aspersions against the integrity of the examination process”, the Commission observed, adding “such an approach runs contrary to the tenets of probity, good faith and transparency expected from examination bodies”.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment, the CIC said, while question papers, solutions/model answers and instructions may not be disclosed before an examination as disclosure could harm the competitive position of third parties, the position is different once the examination has been held”, adding “disclosure of question papers, model answers and instructions after the examination and completion of evaluation would not harm the competitive position of any third party”.

Parliament approves Azeez Jamal as Information Commissioner: Malika Shahid

Edition.mv: Maldive: Thursday, 27 August 2026.
Azeez’s appointment was approved by 47 of the 58 MPs present at today’s sitting. Eleven opposition MDP MPs voted against his appointment.

Abdul Azeez Jamal Aboobakur responding to questions posed by members of the Independent Institutions Committee - Photo: Parliament

Parliament has approved the appointment of Abdul Azeez Jamal Aboobakur as Information Commissioner.
Azeez’s appointment was approved by 47 of the 58 MPs present at today’s sitting. Eleven opposition MDP MPs voted against his appointment.
Azeez, who currently serves as a State Minister at the Ministry of Heritage, previously served as Information Commissioner and had been the first person to be appointed to the position under the Right to Information Act.
He resigned on 22 July 2019 after completing his previous term as Information Commissioner.
Azeez previously served as MP for Maavah and worked at the Dhivehi Bahuge Academy, where he authored several books on the Dhivehi language.
The current Information Commissioner, Ahid Ahmed, was appointed on 6 September 2021. His five-year term expires on 6 September.
The Office of the Information Commissioner was established on 13 July 2014 under the Right to Information Act.

‘Cover-up, conflict of interest’: Visva Bharati prof files RTI, VBUFA says facts buried in disciplinary cases

NC: Vishva Bharti: Thursday, 27 August 2026.
Visva Bharati faculty body questions why judge-led panel was swapped with one with university’s own staff, demands unpaid salaries, deadline, closure of pending cases

Visva-Bharati University Faculty Association (VBUFA) now accusing the university administration of suppressing facts in disciplinary cases (Image- Wikimedia Commons, AI enhanced)

Four years after being suspended, reinstated, and left waiting for his salary arrears, a Visva Bharati professor turned to the Right to Information (RTI) Act to find out what happened to two committees that were supposed to settle his case and dozens like it.
Sudipta Bhattacharyya’s RTI application, filed on July 28, 2026, has landed amid a broader faculty revolt with the Visva-Bharati University Faculty Association (VBUFA) now accusing the university administration of suppressing facts in disciplinary cases that have sat unresolved for years.
The RTI comes against the backdrop of disciplinary proceedings initiated during the tenure of former vice-chancellor Bidyut Chakrabarty. The university had appointed a committee in 2024, headed by Justice Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, to review several such cases. After current VC Probir Kumar Ghosh, assumed office in 2025, this committee was discontinued and replaced with a three-member civilian committee all of whom were Executive Council (EC) members drawing pay or pension from the university.
VBUFA has flagged this decision as a conflict of interest and sought clarity on findings of both the committees. In an email to the VC and registrar on August 17, VBUFA called for long-pending show-cause notices and chargesheets to be withdrawn and cases closed. The association said several proceedings had dragged on for years without the committees meeting the concerned faculty or submitting reports.
“The apprehension that facts are being suppressed has a basis because, recently, hardly any RTI reply has been provided within the time and without suppression of information,” the letter to the VC read.
Visva Bharati: RTI seeks two committees’ reports
Bhattacharyya's RTI application seeks copies of the report of the Justice Chattopadhyay Committee as well as that of the subsequent three-member committee. The issue, VBUFA said, is significant because Visva Bharati had earlier assured the Calcutta High Court in several cases that it would abide by the recommendations of the Justice Committee a commitment the VBUFA said was undermined when the panel was discontinued midway and its unfinished work, along with review of its existing findings, were handed over to the three-member committee.
VBUFA has alleged that this creates a “clear conflict of interest” and claimed there were reasons to believe that recommendations of the three-member committee had modified or superseded those of the Justice Committee.
VBUFA said that if the information is not provided within the stipulated period, Bhattacharyya may pursue the first and second appeals under the RTI Act.
Visva Bharati Faculty Row: Bhattacharyya's case
VBUFA’s August 17 communication specifically raises Bhattacharyya's own disciplinary proceedings – the one driving the RTI application. He was suspended from January 7, 2021 to September 29, 2022 a move arising from a complaint he had filed over an alleged irregular appointment. According to VBUFA, Bhattacharyya had obtained the documents supporting his complaint through an RTI application from Visva-Bharati.
Four years on, his arrear salary for the suspension period about one year and nine months remains unpaid and his service unregularised.
The association, in the email, has also raised questions about the legal basis of the proceedings against the teachers. It claimed that the disciplinary committee constituted in the matter never met Bhattacharyya and did not submit a report.
It said that show-cause notices, chargesheets, suspension orders and other documents relating to disciplinary action were issued by the registrar. Citing Visva-Bharati's Statute 5(4)(a), the VBUFA contended that the registrar has no power to initiate disciplinary action against teachers, and such notices, therefore, were “without jurisdiction” and should be set aside.
VBUFA has demanded the withdrawal of show-cause notices and chargesheets, including those involving Bhattacharyya and another former VBUFA leader Kausik Bhattacharya.
VBUFA alleges selective handling
The August 17 email goes beyond individual cases and questions the overall manner in which the university is handling old disciplinary proceedings.
VBUFA said while some pending disciplinary matters involving serving or retired professors had recently been cleared, fresh penalties had also been imposed on some employees, including compulsory retirement or withholding of promotion. It also alleged that retirement benefits of some employees had been held up because of pending disciplinary proceedings.
The association described the administration's handling of the cases as “arbitrary, haphazard, ad hoc, and selective”. It has asked the university to set a deadline for settling all pending disciplinary matters and to clear salary and pension dues of employees.
It has also called for compliance with court orders in cases involving faculty members and other staff with all chargesheets and penalties withdrawn.
The VBUFA pointed out that the issue of promotion of another academic, Anindita Saha, an associate professor in the department of agricultural extension at Palli Siskha Bhavan is also stuck for years despite a Calcutta HC order in her favour in August, 2024. Saha became eligible for promotion in 2016 but had been made to wait until 2020 to be redesignated.
Calls to Visva Bharati’s VC office, his personal secretary and registrar went unanswered when this report was filed. The story will be updated as and when there is a response.

UP tops pendency list across fast-track courts; Delhi has 7,385 pending cases: RTI

Daily Pioneer: National: Thursday, 27 August 2026.

Uttar Pradesh accounts for nearly 78 per cent cases pending before Fast Track Courts (FTCs) across the country, with more than 13.74 lakh cases awaiting disposal, according to data obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act from the Department of Justice.
Over 17.5 lakh matters are pending across the country, going by the data until June 30. According to the reply, Fast Track Courts (FTCs) are set up by the states and UTs in consultation with the respective high courts for expeditious trial of specific categories of cases.
The data has been shared by the Department of Justice in a reply on August 10 this year to a query filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by Noida-based social activist Amit Gupta.
It said, “As per information received from the high courts, 884 FTCs are functional across 21 State/UTs as on June 30, 2026. No central assistance to the States is being provided for the setting up of these FTCs.”  Analysis of the state-wise data shows that Uttar Pradesh tops the pendency list with over 13.74 lakh pending cases across 373 functional FTCs.

When privacy becomes a wall of secrecy: Madhavi Ravikumar,Anees. M

Frontline: National: Thursday, 27 August 2026.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP) 2023, particularly Section 44(3), is raising concerns about its impact on the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Critics argue it could allow public authorities to withhold information about public funds and officials by classifying it as "personal information," thereby hindering accountability. This amendment replaces a previous RTI clause that allowed disclosure in the public interest. While the government claims a balance between privacy and transparency, activists and journalists fear it will undermine the ability to scrutinize government actions. The Supreme Court is currently reviewing petitions challenging the DPDP Act's provisions.

Activists shout slogans during a protest against the amendments to the RTI Act in the Lok Sabha of the Indian Parliament, in New Delhi, on July 25, 2019. | Photo Credit: Money Sharma/AFP

India’s new data protection regime promises citizens control over their digital lives, but a single amendment to the RTI Act could make it harder to track the spending of public money, the route of public decisions, and the names of public officials.
Consider an ordinary civic failure. A road outside a neighbourhood is repaired before the monsoon. Within weeks, it breaks apart. Residents suspect the use of substandard material and want to know the name of the contractor who did the work, who approved the bill, and whether public funds were released after due inspection. They file an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The reply comes back: the names and associated records constitute “personal information” and cannot be disclosed. The potholes remain. The file disappears behind privacy.
This is the everyday democratic danger to which the digital rights lawyer Apar Gupta draws attention. When a newly repaired road outside one’s home begins to crumble, and the municipal authorities refuse to respond, the RTI Act offers citizens a definitive means of seeking accountability. It allows them to ask who received the contract, who approved the work, and how public funds were spent.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP), 2023, Gupta cautions, could obstruct precisely this chain of accountability by denying citizens access to information about “the person who did the work with your money—public money”. What begins as a pothole outside one’s home thus raises a much larger democratic question: can privacy be invoked to conceal the identities and decisions of those entrusted with public authority and public funds?
The controversy turns on a single clause. Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act replaces the carefully qualified exemption in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act with the phrase: “information which relates to personal information”. The earlier clause protected genuinely private information but permitted disclosure when a larger public interest justified it. It also said that information that could not be denied to Parliament or State legislatures should not be denied to a citizen.
The exemptions have disappeared from Section 8(1)(j). The change potentially transforms privacy from a right protecting citizens against centralised authority into a justification for shielding governments from citizens. While medical histories, family details, and sensitive financial documents deserve protection, the identity of an official in a public office, the name of a contractor paid from public funds, or records showing why an eligible family lost its ration entitlement do not need to be withheld. Their public significance cannot be denied merely by attaching the label “personal”.
Transparency activist Anjali Bhardwaj calls the amendment “a huge blow to our ability as citizens to hold the government accountable”. Her warning is rooted in how RTI actually works. The law is not used only by professional activists. Pensioners use it to trace delayed payments; students seek marks and selection records; employees track unpaid wages; families excluded from welfare rolls ask who deleted their names. In such cases, personal data and administrative accountability are often inseparable.
The government disputes the charge that the amendment destroys transparency. Electronics and Information Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw has argued that the DPDP framework balances privacy with the right to information. The government has also pointed to Section 3 of the Act, which exempts information already made publicly available by a person legally obliged to publish it.
However, this justification is circular. A significant amount of government information is made public precisely because the RTI Act compels disclosure. If the amended exemption prevents disclosure at the threshold, the information never becomes “publicly available” and cannot benefit from Section 3. Proactive dissemination by governmental bodies could mitigate this issue; India’s record of compliance with Section 4 of the RTI Act remains uneven.
There exists a significant legal nuance. Section 8(2) of the RTI Act, which serves as a general override allowing disclosure when public interest surpasses the detriment to safeguarded interests, remains intact. The government may argue that this preserves the balancing exercise. However, removing the specific safeguards from Section 8(1)(j) still lowers the first barrier to refusal. An information officer can merely classify a record as personal, forcing an ordinary applicant to undertake a prolonged appeal to invoke the broader public-interest provision. Rights delayed through procedure are frequently rights denied in practice.
The Hyderabad-based policy studies scholar S. Abhiram argues that the policy challenge is to distinguish genuinely private information from that information which concerns the exercise of public authority. Data protection, he observes, should safeguard citizens against intrusive data collection without providing public institutions with an administrative shortcut to withhold information about official decisions and public expenditure.
Privacy vs transparency
For journalists, the danger extends beyond access to government documents. The DPDP Act lacks a clear, overarching exemption for journalistic activities conducted in the public interest. Reporting routinely involves gathering, archiving, verifying, and publishing information about identifiable people—often without their consent, especially when the individual in question is influential and the evidence reveals misconduct.

Prashant Bhushan, advocate Supreme Court (extreme right) along with Nikhil Dey of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (2nd right), Anjali Bhardwaj, co-convenor of National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (3rd right), and Sangeeta Barooah Pisharoty, vice president of Press Club of India (extreme left) addressing a press conference on the impact of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act on people’s right to information and press freedom at Press Club of India, in New Delhi, on July 30, 2025. | Photo Credit: SHIV KUMAR PUSHPAKAR

Delhi-based independent journalist Shubhangi Derhgawen voices the apprehension: “You won’t be able to question those in power”. Veteran journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta describes the change more starkly, saying it “rips away our Right to Information”. The Act does not automatically impose a penalty merely because a journalist names a person. Penalties arise from adjudicated breaches of statutory duties. However, the lack of well-defined journalistic protection, combined with potentially significant institutional penalties, creates uncertainty, which can deter small newsrooms and independent journalists.
The constitutional dispute is now before the Supreme Court. Petitions filed by RTI campaigners and journalistic organisations challenge Section 44(3), the absence of adequate public-interest protections, the broad state exemptions, and the institutional autonomy of the Data Protection Board. At the August 7 hearing, petitioners argued that the amendment could impede investigative journalism and place welfare, disciplinary, and public-contract records beyond scrutiny. Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked that “the balance has to be worked out with the right to privacy”. The Union said it would justify the law on record, “subject to judicial review”. The matter is still unresolved.
Balance means not choosing transparency over privacy or privacy over transparency in every case. Both rights respond to the same democratic problem: unequal power. Privacy prevents the government and corporations from making citizens permanently visible; RTI prevents the state from making itself permanently invisible. A legitimate data-protection law must accomplish both.
Parliament can repair the conflict. It should restore an explicit public-interest criterion to Section 8(1)(j), maintain the Parliament exception, distinguish information on private life from information about public duties, and establish a defined exception for journalism, research, whistleblowers, and civic accountability. Public authorities must also proactively disclose contracts, decision-making processes, and welfare criteria in anonymised or minimally intrusive forms wherever possible.
For citizens, this is not an abstract quarrel. It is a basic question about whether and when public money produces private gain and public loss, and whether the citizen will be allowed to ask who was responsible for it.
Madhavi Ravikumar teaches at Department of Communication, University of Hyderabad. Anees. M is a PhD scholar at the Department of Communication, University of Hyderabad.

91% of names back in Bengal electoral roll as SIR tribunals dispose of handful of appeals: Written by: Ravik Bhattacharya, Atri Mitra

The Indian Express: Kolkata: Wednesday, 26 August 2026.
Cong MP, who filed an RTI, says additional 10 lakh appeals were filed in tribunals for deletions, seeks EC’s clarification

In South 24 Parganas district, of the 3,21,332 appeals filed, 20,107 names have been included and 24 excluded so far. This is the highest inclusion of names so far, followed by in Hooghly where 19,528 names have been added in the rolls.

The SIR appellate tribunals in West Bengal have so far disposed of 82,782 appeals. Out of which, 91 per cent (75,443) of names have been added back to the state’s electoral list, while 8.86 per cent (7,339) of names have been excluded.
This has been revealed by the Election Commission (ED) in an RTI reply, which was filed by Congress MP Isha Khan Chowdhury.
However, as per the EC’s reply under the Right To Information (RTI) Act, the number of appeals filed was more than the number of people listed as “Not Eligible” in the adjudication process.
Citing the RTI reply, the MP said, “The major concern is that 38,10,620 appeals were filed against 27,28,500 voters recorded as ‘Not Eligible’ – a difference of 10,82,120 appeals. These were filed by the Election Commission for excluding voters who had voted in this year’s Assembly elections.  This requires immediate clarification by the Election Commission,” Chowdhury said.
Pointing to inclusion of 75,443 names in the electoral rolls out of the 82,782 appeals so far disposed of by the appellate tribunals, the Congress MP said, “In other words, more than 91 per cent of the disposed cases have resulted in restoration, raising a serious question about the initial deletion of genuine voters and whether eligible citizens were denied the opportunity to exercise their right to vote.”
“The consequences are not merely electoral. Many affected citizens are living in fear and uncertainty, facing difficulties in accessing government benefits or unable to travel abroad for employment due to apprehensions regarding detention. Electoral rolls must be accurate, transparent and inclusive. No genuine citizen should be deprived of the right,” he added.
Meanwhile, Congress leader Prasenjit Bose, who leads the party’s SIR panel and is one of the petitioners challenging the SIR exercise in the Supreme Court, said that only seven lakh out of the 27 lakh voters excluded by the adjudication phase over “logical discrepancies” have been able to file appeals.
“We informed the Supreme Court that the state government officials are claiming that only 7 lakh out of total 27 lakh deleted electors have filed appeals so far. The rest of the appeals have been filed by EC or individual objectors,” Bose said.
“The intention behind the EC’s March 10 order for constituting the Appellate Tribunals was to create a mechanism by which those persons whose claim for inclusion was rejected by the judicial officers could be included in the electoral rolls and not to create a means for the EC and other objectors to file bulk appeals for deletions,” he added.
The Congress leader said that they have urged the Supreme Court to set up a time-bound schedule for the disposal of the appeals, citing the elections to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Howrah Municipal Corporation scheduled to be held by the end of this year.
According to data provided by the EC, the highest number of appeals were filed in the border district of Murshidabad. Of the 7,47,305 appeals filed in the district, 434 names have been included and 53 excluded so far.  (See chart)
In another border district of Malda, 5,31,149 appeals were filed, and out of 1,471 cases disposed of, all have been included in the electoral rolls.
In North 24 Parganas district, 3,58,872 appeals were filed, and of the 277 disposed of, all have been included in the rolls.
In South 24 Parganas district, of the 3,21,332 appeals filed, 20,107 names have been included and 24 excluded so far. This is the highest inclusion of names so far, followed by in Hooghly where 19,528 names have been added in the rolls.
In the hill district of Darjeeling, only one name has been excluded so far, and 159 have been included, of the total 50,712 appeals filed here.

RTI reveals gaps in third-party fire audit system, portal glitches mar rollout

Times of India: Goa: Wednesday, 26 August 2026.
Nearly 14 months after the state notified a new third-party audit regime for fire safety systems under its ease of doing business drive, official records accessed under the Right To Information (RTI) Act show that only nine agencies have been empanelled statewide, and the directorate of fire and emergency services (DFES) has no record of how many fire audits these agencies have carried out.

The regime stems from a home department notification dated June 23, 2025, which, for the first time, laid down guidelines to regulate the installation, certification, and third-party auditing of fire protection and life safety systems in the state’s low-risk and high-risk buildings. Under the notification, the DFES director may licence qualified individuals or firms engineers with prescribed fire-safety qualifications and experience to act as ‘licensed agencies’ empowered to conduct fire audits and certify installations, removing the requirement that the department alone inspect every building.
The notification also specifies eligibility criteria that every licensed agency must meet before empanelment: A degree or diploma in fire engineering (or equivalent professional membership, such as a fellowship of the Institution of Fire Engineers), or a prescribed number of years of relevant experience, along with specified financial solvency, technical track record, infrastructure, and a clean legal record.
It promises a real-time, publicly accessible online dashboard showing the number of inspections conducted, the compliance status of audited buildings, and the performance history of each licensed agency. Section 9 empowers the director to suspend or cancel a licence for non-compliance, submission of false certificates, or negligence and malpractice, after due process.
An RTI reply furnished by the DFES North Zone office on Aug 20 highlights gaps in implementation. When asked for the total number of vendors empanelled to conduct third-party fire audits, the department said the number was nine statewide. When asked how many fire audits these agencies have carried out, and for the names and addresses of the buildings audited, the department responded, “Information not available.” More than a year after the system was notified and despite the dashboard promise the DFES appears to have no consolidated record of third-party audits conducted under the regime.
The department also declined to disclose the specific technical and professional qualifications held by the owners of the nine empanelled firms despite the notification’s eligibility requirements citing the third-party information exemption under Section 8(1)(d) read with Section 11 of the RTI Act.
While the department furnished copies of notices convening its scrutiny committee roughly once a month between Nov 2025 and Aug 2026, these were meeting notices, not signed minutes recording what was discussed or decided, as sought in the RTI query.
Sources familiar with the rollout said implementation has been rockier than the paperwork suggests. They said the option to select a third-party agency on the online NOC portal was non-functional for an extended period, forcing applicants back to fire offices for inspections despite the third-party system being in force. The glitch, they said, was fixed only in the past few days.

Public Authority Not Obliged To Collect Information From Private Body To Furnish To An Applicant: Bombay High Court

Live Law: Mumbai: Wednesday, 26 August 2026.

The Bombay High Court has held that a public authority is not under an obligation under the RTI Act to obtain information from a private body to satisfy an applicant seeking information. The Court further held that while the public authority is required to furnish the information held by it at the point in time when the request is made, the RTI Act does not cast an obligation to collect or collate information not available with it and then to furnish the same.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), challenging orders passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC), vide which the CIC had directed SEBI to obtain information from BSE and provide it to applicants under the RTI Act. The common question before the Court was whether a public authority is obliged to collect or obtain information from a private body and furnish the same to an RTI applicant.
The petitioners submitted that SEBI, as a public authority and regulator, was required to provide information available with it when an RTI application was submitted, subject to the provisions of the Act, including Section 8, but was not required to collect information from third parties such as BSE.
The Court noted that Section 2(f) requires a public authority to furnish information held by it relating to any private body. However, it clarified that though a public authority is required to provide information held by it at the point in time when the request is made, the provisions cannot be stretched to impose an obligation on bodies like SEBI to call upon third parties to provide information.
“The provisions do not indicate that a public authority, like SEBI in the present case, which is a regulatory body empowered to call upon third parties to provide information in terms of its own governing statute, is under an obligation to obtain information from third parties to satisfy persons applying for such information,” the Court remarked.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, and noted that the Supreme Court clearly laid down the position that the RTI Act does not place an obligation upon a public authority like SEBI to collect or collate information not available with it and then to furnish the same to the applicants.
The Court further noted that the CIC itself had subsequently passed orders declining to direct public authorities such as SEBI to obtain information from third parties such as BSE.
“… the CIC itself, in various orders brought to our notice after the Supreme Court clarified the said position of law… and declined to issue any direction to the public authorities like SEBI, to obtain information from third parties like BSE, to provide information to the applicants under the provisions of the RTI Act,” the Court observed.
Hence, while allowing the petitions, the Court held that the reasoning adopted by the CIC in the impugned orders could not be sustained. The orders passed by the CIC were accordingly quashed.
Case Title: Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Yogesh Babulal Mehta [Writ Petition No. 1664 of 2009 & connected matters]
(Click Here to Download Order)

After 13 marks rise to 31, Haryana panel flags GJUST re-evaluation delay : Siddarth Banerjee

Times of India: Chandigarh: Tuesday, 25 August 2026.
A delay in the declaration of a re-evaluation result has allegedly cost a Haryana university student an academic year, with her revised score increasing from 13 to 31 issued only after she filed an RTI application.

The ordeal prompted the Haryana State Information Commission to recommend that Hisar-based Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology (GJUST) prescribe a time limit for declaring re-evaluation results. The Aug 17 recommendation by state information commissioner Dr Ajay Kumar Sura came after the university admitted there was no prescribed timeframe for completing re-evaluation. Sanjay Singh, OSD to the GJUST vice-chancellor, “candidly admitted” this before the commission and expressed sympathy with the student’s father.
The father told the commission that the university had no time limit, rule, norm or regulation for declaring and communicating re-evaluation results. He said the delay meant his daughter lost a precious academic session for higher studies.
The commission said the issue was not merely academic, noting that unexplained or indefinite delays could seriously affect students’ academic progression. “Such matters, if not addressed through a transparent and time-bound administrative mechanism, have the potential to cause avoidable hardship to students and, in appropriate cases, to erode public confidence in the functioning of public authorities,” Sura wrote.
The university’s controller of examinations, Yashpal Singal, also confirmed that no specific timeframe had been prescribed, though the university endeavoured to declare re-evaluation results at the earliest.
Sura, exercising powers under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act, recommended that the GJUST registrar, in consultation with the controller of examinations and other competent authorities, consider prescribing a “definite and reasonable time-frame” for disposal of re-evaluation applications and declaration of the resultant outcome.
The commission said the exercise should preferably be completed within two months of receiving the order, with its outcome communicated to the appellant under intimation to the commission. The secretariat was directed to forward the order to the GJUST registrar for appropriate action.
The commission also recorded that the student had sought her answer sheet for the May 2025 result, in which she was awarded 13 marks. The university said it could not provide the record as its calendar requires answer sheets to be weeded out within nine months of result declaration.

One hundred resolutions, one voice expanding access to information for every Filipino

UNODC: International: Tuesday, 25 August 2026.
A participant shares ideas during a workshop on the Right of Information Bill, organized by UNODC on 18 May 2026 in Manila, Philippines.

“Freedom of information matters to every Filipino, simply because we live in a democratic society. Democracy is grounded in decisions, and decisions are supposed to be based on accurate data and information,” said Bryan Ezra Gonzales, from the advocacy group, GoodGov PH.
These decisions shape everyday life. They determine how public money is spent, where hospitals and schools are built, how communities are protected and which services people receive.
Access to information allows citizens to monitor government spending, verify project implementation and access relevant public records. Access to information is also a frontline defence against corruption: when budgets, procurement and public contracts can be scrutinized, it becomes far harder to conceal bribery, the misuse of public funds or conflicts of interest.
This is why the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) — which the Philippines ratified in 2006 — requires States Parties to enhance transparency in public administration and to ensure public access to information as measures to prevent corruption.
For nearly four decades, the right to information has been enshrined in the Philippine Constitution. Yet, despite repeated legislative efforts since 1987, the lack of enabling legislation has meant that this constitutional guarantee has not been fully realized in practice.
This gap was also highlighted during the Philippines review under UNCAC, where reviewing experts recommended the adoption of a comprehensive right to information legislation — the very reform this campaign seeks to advance.
The UN Office on Drugs and Crime, together with the Freedom of Information Program Management Office (FOI-PMO) and with the support of the Government of Sweden, launched a nationwide campaign to strengthen public and institutional backing for the Right of Information (RTI) Bill – a landmark opportunity to translate a long-standing constitutional right into an effective legal framework.
If enacted, the law would offer a practical framework for openness and democratic participation, providing public access to government records, supporting public access to that information and establishing an independent oversight body.
The campaign
UNODC and FOI-PMO worked with civil society organizations from across the Philippines, providing them with practical advocacy tools and resources to engage municipal and city councils. UNODC equipped civil society organizations with a toolkit: a model resolution (in Filipino and English), a briefing document on RTI legislation, a guidance note on engaging local councils, FAQs for council members, a template letter for the council agenda and an action-planning template.
These organizations then worked in Sanggunang Bayan and Sangguniang Pankungsod to secure 100 local government resolutions calling on Congress to enact a national right to information law. These resolutions represent a collective voice and national commitment to transparency and accountability in the fight against corruption. They also combine international standards on corruption with local reform priorities.
Today, the nation stands closer than ever to making one of its most significant transparency reforms.
In Congress, both parliament's chambers recently passed the RTI bill on its third and final readings. To become law, the two chambers must now reconcile and ratify their respective versions of the bill through a bicameral conference committee before it is transmitted to the President. If the President signs it or takes no action within 30 days of receiving it the RTI Act will become law, after which an independent oversight body and implementing rules would be established.
Paper is one thing; practice another
"It is important for the government to be prepared to deliver on the promise that it will be open, that it will provide information and documents that citizens need. On the other hand, it is important for the public, citizens in general, to know what this bill is for. It is for the delivery of basic services to be improved. It is for transparency and accountability in contracts and projects vested with public interest or conducted using public funds," explained Malou Mangahas, Right to Know Right Now Coalition, one of the civil society organizations participating in the campaign.
“UNODC will continue working closely with partners to drive awareness, advance advocacy efforts and promote meaningful civil society participation in support of the RTI legislation in the Philippines," said Annika Wythes, Coordinator, UNODC Corruption and Financial Crime Hub for South-East Asia and the Pacific.

further information

Learn more about the Philippines’ RTI path.