AP Information Commission bars B Gopal from filing RTI applications, appeals.

Times of India: Vijaywada: Sunday, September 20, 2026.

The Andhra Pradesh Information Commission has barred document writer B. Gopal from filing RTI applications, first and second appeals and complaints under the RTI Act, citing repeated filings and the burden placed on public authorities.

The order was issued on Sept 17 by Chief Information Commissioner Vajja Srinivasa Rao and State Information Commissioner Gajula Adenna in S.A. No. 1639/2023 and a batch of 101 cases. The Commission examined second appeals and complaints filed by Gopal.

Hearings were held on August 20, Sept 9 and 15. The Commission said Gopal did not attend, while the concerned public information officers (PIOs) and first appellate authorities appeared and presented their submissions.

According to the order, Gopal stated in an affidavit that he had filed second appeals numbering in the thousands. The Deputy Tahsildar of Kundurpi also submitted details of more than 300 RTI applications filed by him between 2002 and 2026.

The Commission noted that officials had furnished information sought in several cases, but applications and appeals on the same or similar issues continued to be filed

RTI reveals Rs 572 crore MLA constituency funds remain unutilised in Uttarakhand.

New Indian Express: Narendra Sethi: Dehradun: Sunday, September 20, 2026.

Hill MLAs trail plains counterparts in spending development funds: RTI. Between 2022-23 and June 2026, Uttarakhand MLAs spent Rs 1,091.29 crore, or 66% of the Rs 1,664 crore MLA development fund, leaving Rs 572.71 crore unutilised.

More than two decades after Uttarakhand was created, MLAs from the state's hill constituencies continue to lag behind their counterparts in the plains in spending constituency development funds, according to information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

Between 2022-23 and June 2026, Uttarakhand MLAs had Rs 1,664 crore available under the MLA Local Area Development Fund. Of this, Rs 1,091.29 crore, or about 66 per cent, was spent, leaving nearly Rs 572.71 crore unutilised.

The data, obtained by RTI activist Nadeem Uddin from the office of the Rural Development Commissioner, shows a clear gap in fund utilisation between hill and plain constituencies.

“The pace of expenditure is not uniform across the state,” Nadeem Uddin told this newspaper. “While MLAs in some constituencies have utilised more than 70 per cent of their funds, spending in several other constituencies remains below 60 per cent.”

The 34 Assembly constituencies in Uttarkashi, Chamoli, Rudraprayag, Tehri Garhwal, Pauri Garhwal, Almora, Bageshwar, Champawat and Pithoragarh had about Rs 807.5 crore available during the period.

By June 2026, MLAs from these hill constituencies had spent nearly Rs 501.07 crore, with an average expenditure of Rs 14.74 crore per legislator and an overall utilisation rate of around 62 per cent.

In comparison, the 20 Assembly constituencies in the plain districts of Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar had about Rs 475 crore available. Their MLAs spent nearly Rs 337.86 crore, recording an average expenditure of Rs 16.88 crore each and a utilisation rate of 71.1 per cent.

“In percentage terms, constituencies in the plains are ahead by around nine percentage points. The data clearly indicates that MLA funds are being spent faster in the plains than in the hills,” Uddin said.

Dehradun and Nainital, which have both hill and plain constituencies, recorded an average expenditure of Rs 15.77 crore per MLA.

The RTI data also showed that Congress MLAs recorded an average fund utilisation rate of 68.4 per cent, compared with 64.4 per cent for BJP MLAs.

Social activist Anoop Nautiyal, founder of Social Development for Communities, said the findings were disappointing in the context of Uttarakhand's formation.

“The fundamental idea behind the creation of Uttarakhand was to ensure that development reached its remote and difficult mountain regions,” Nautiyal said.

“These figures are deeply disappointing. They suggest that public representatives from the hills have not demonstrated the urgency and commitment to development expected in a state created after a prolonged movement and many sacrifices,” he added.

RTI a weapon against corruption, can’t become tool of impractical demands: CIC

Daily Excelsior: Mohinder Verma: Jammu: Sunday, September 20, 2026.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has cautioned Public Authorities in Jammu and Kashmir against mechanical disposal of RTI applications and appeals with the observation that the right to information is a cherished right intended to promote transparency and accountability, but indiscriminate and impractical demands for information can adversely affect the efficiency of administration.

The observation came in a Second Appeal concerning the Directorate of School Education Kashmir, in which the CIC found that both the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority had failed to properly assess the RTI application and had instead mechanically dealt with the request.

The Commission, however, also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in CBSE & Another Versus Aditya Bandhopadhyay and Others, while examining the nature of the information sought in the present case. Quoting the Supreme Court, the CIC held that the right to information and the provisions of the RTI Act are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and bring transparency and accountability in the functioning of Public Authorities.

"In respect of information other than that covered under the mandatory disclosure provisions, equal importance has to be given to public interests such as confidentiality of sensitive information, fiduciary relationships and efficient operation of Governments", the CIC said, adding "indiscriminate and impractical demands for disclosure of information unrelated to transparency and accountability could prove counter-productive by adversely affecting administrative efficiency and burdening the executive with non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information".

Linking these principles with the case before it, the CIC noted that the RTI application contained an all-pervasive demand for service-related documents concerning various third parties over two decades, besides clarification-based and indeterminate requests concerning the appellant over a period of more than 10 years.

The Commission observed that the CPIO had not assessed the application from the standpoint of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and had also not examined the applicability of the exemption under Section 8(1)(j). While the CPIO had indicated that certain information was unavailable, the reply itself made no reference to the relevant provisions of the RTI Act.

The CIC also took exception to the First Appellate Authority's approach of holding that the information could not be provided because an investigation was pending and Section 8(1)(h) was applicable. According to the Commission, such an approach would imply that once the investigation or prosecution process was over, the Public Authority would have been able to provide even personal information relating to third parties. The Commission termed the disposal of the RTI application and first appeal as mechanical.

The case arose from an RTI application filed by Abdul Qayoom before the Directorate of School Education Kashmir on July 11, 2024, seeking information on service record, appointment-related records and other documents. The CPIO had subsequently stated that several records could not be traced, while information relating to his GPF details was not provided on the ground that his case was under investigation.

The CIC, while restricting the relief in the matter, directed the CPIO to provide a revised reply regarding the appointment list sought by the appellant in respect of the specified reference letter dated March 1, 1983. The reply has to be furnished in strict compliance with the RTI Act, subject to Section 8(1) read with Section 10, within two weeks of receipt of the order.

Importantly, the Commission also advised the CPIO to take cognizance of the suo motu disclosure mandate under Section 4(1)(b)(ix), observing that an appointment list of a Public Authority would appear to entail the list of employees and such information, where required to be made available in the public domain, should not ordinarily be denied to RTI applicants unless it is unavailable or the relevant provisions of the Act apply.

The CIC cautioned the CPIO and FAA against mechanical disposal of RTI applications and First Appeals in future, thereby stressing the need for proper examination of RTI requests instead of routine disposal.

Mumbai-Goa Highway cost jumps 48% to Rs 16,909cr, RTI shows; Konkan commuters still wait for smoother ride: Chittaranjan Tembhekar

Times of India: Mumbai: Saturday, 19^th September 2026.

The Mumbai-Goa highway has become a long-running infrastructure headache for Konkan commuters, with the four-laning of 355km in Maharashtra now costing ₹16,909.22 crore nearly ₹5,500 crore or 48% more than its original sanctioned cost, according to fresh information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The figures, obtained by RTI activist Jeetendra Ghadge of The Young Whistleblowers Foundation from the Union Road transport and highways ministry, cover 10 four-laning packages of NH-66 in Maharashtra. The data shows that ₹11,577 crore has already been spent, exceeding the project's original sanctioned cost of ₹11,409.14 crore, even though work on some stretches remains incomplete.
The sharpest escalation is in the Parshuram Ghat-Arawali package in the Chiplun-Ratnagiri belt. Its sanctioned cost has risen from ₹983 crore to ₹2,226 crore a 126% increase.
For motorists, however, the issue is not merely the size of the bill but what they get for it: stretches of unfinished four-laning, bottlenecks and traffic disruption on a highway that is the principal road link between Mumbai and the Konkan.
The Centre began the four-laning work in phases in 2011. Official records have repeatedly cited land-acquisition and other pre-construction delays, clearances and financial difficulties faced by some contractors as reasons for slippage. A 2024 parliamentary reply said the Mumbai-Goa NH-66 project had been delayed by land acquisition, pre-construction activities and contractors' cash-flow problems.
The delays have also drawn judicial scrutiny. In January 2024, the Bombay High Court observed that the prolonged delay in the NH-66 widening and repair works caused hardship to people and added to the burden on the state exchequer through rising construction costs.
Ghadge questioned the division of responsibility for the highway's execution. While the Panvel-Indapur section is being handled by NHAI, the Maharashtra stretches covered by the RTI are being executed through the state PWD under the national highway programme. Earlier MoRTH records have also identified Maharashtra PWD as the executing agency for the Indapur-Zarap four-laning packages.
“When a project of this scale has remained incomplete for nearly 15 years despite thousands of crores being sanctioned and spent, the government must answer a basic question: who is ultimately accountable for the delay?” Ghadge said.
He also alleged that the prolonged delays had imposed a continuing human and economic cost on Konkan residents and travellers.
The impact becomes particularly visible around Ganeshotsav, when lakhs of Mumbaikars and other residents head towards their ancestral villages in Raigad, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg. A journey that can take around seven hours in normal conditions can stretch much longer when traffic converges on unfinished stretches, narrow carriageways and construction zones.
The highway has also seen repeated missed deadlines. In March 2023, Union minister Nitin Gadkari had said the highway would be completed by December 2023 and opened fully by January 2024. In a 2025 parliamentary reply, the revised completion target was September 2025, with the government citing land acquisition, pre-construction activities and contractors' cash-flow problems.
A 2026 parliamentary response subsequently said about 465km of the roughly 485km Panvel-Goa/Maharashtra-border section had been four-laned, with the balance 20km targeted for completion by June 2026; it cited land-related hindrances, clearances and slow contractor progress for delays.
The Samruddhi contrast
701km Samruddhi Mahamarg, a completely new expressway developed by Maharashtra. The project was inaugurated in phases, with the first 520km opening in December 2022; the full corridor is 701km.
For Konkan travellers, therefore, the latest RTI figures raise a simple question beyond cost escalation: after years of revisions, deadlines and expenditure, when will the promised four-lane highway deliver the safer, predictable journey it was meant to provide?
Meanwhile officials clarified that, "Panvel to Indapur, 84 Km stretch was started in 2011 by NHAI, while Indapur to Zarap, 355 km in 10 packages was started in 2018 by MoRTH through NH PWD as their agency."

New gaming law: No game registered yet, 201 complaints received, MeitY tells CIC

New Indian Express: Delhi: Saturday, 19^th September 2026.
The information was furnished in response to an RTI application seeking details of online games permitted to operate, complaints received against them and action taken against fake online games.

No online game has been granted registration under the new online gaming law so far, while 201 complaints related to online gaming had been received as of September 1, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has informed the Central Information Commission (CIC).
The information was furnished in response to an RTI application seeking details of online games permitted to operate, complaints received against them and action taken against fake online games.
The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, along with the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Rules, 2026, came into force on May 1 this year. The framework provides for the Online Gaming Authority of India (OGAI) to regulate the sector.
MeitY told the CIC that the OGAI, constituted under Section 8 of the Act, was formally established through a gazette notification on April 22.
The ministry had initially referred to amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, notified in April 2023, as the regulatory framework for online gaming platforms. It later clarified that provisions relating to online gaming under those rules remained unenforceable.
The RTI applicant challenged the response, alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The First Appellate Authority, however, upheld the reply.
During the CIC hearing, MeitY said the new Act was notified on August 22, 2025, and the Rules on April 22, 2026. In view of the new framework, it said, "no online game has been granted registration under the Online Gaming Authority of India (OGAI), while 201 complaints had been received as on September 1, 2026".
CIC Information Commissioner P R Ramesh observed that the RTI Act allows applicants to seek information available on record but does not require a CPIO to create information, draw inferences or provide explanations.
"The subsequent written submission of the Respondent has further clarified the present position," the Commission said, adding that the available information had been provided to the applicant.
(With inputs from PTI)

Day An RTI Reply Becomes Criminal Act: Siddhartha Shankar Mishra

Live Law: Article: Saturday, 19^th September 2026.

The Right to Information Act, 2005 rests on a simple democratic principle: a citizen has the right to know what the State is doing, how it is doing it and what records it holds. The Public Information Officer is not merely an administrative intermediary in this process. He is the statutory officer through whom that right is implemented. His obligation to respond is created by law. This becomes particularly significant when a PIO does not merely delay information or commit an inadvertent mistake, but knowingly gives a false response to an applicant. “Record not found” may be a perfectly legitimate answer where a genuine search has failed. But if the officer knows that the record exists and nevertheless says that it does not, the character of the conduct changes completely. The question is no longer simply whether the RTI application was properly dealt with. It becomes whether a public servant deliberately used his statutory position to defeat a statutory right.
The RTI Act Already Recognises Deliberate Obstruction
Section 20 of the RTI Act itself draws a clear distinction between an innocent administrative lapse and deliberate misconduct. It contemplates penalty where a PIO, without reasonable cause, refuses or delays information, mala fidely denies a request, knowingly provides incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, destroys information which was the subject of the request or obstructs the furnishing of information. The Act also permits recommendation of disciplinary action in appropriate cases. The statutory scheme therefore recognises that deliberate obstruction is qualitatively different from an ordinary mistake. But the penalty mechanism under the RTI Act does not automatically answer the separate question of criminal liability. A statutory penalty and a criminal prosecution operate in different legal fields. The real question is whether the facts of a particular case satisfy the ingredients of an offence under the BNS.
Section 198 BNS Raises the Larger Question
Section 198 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is particularly relevant to this debate. It concerns a public servant who knowingly disobeys a direction of law governing the manner in which he is required to conduct himself as a public servant, where such disobedience is accompanied by the intention to cause, or knowledge that it is likely to cause, injury to a person. The provision does not make every administrative violation a crime. It requires a public servant, a legal direction, knowing disobedience and the requisite mental element concerning injury. In the RTI framework, the statutory duties of the PIO are not merely departmental instructions. The RTI Act creates enforceable rights for citizens and prescribes obligations governing the furnishing or refusal of information. The legal question, therefore, is whether a PIO who knowingly violates those obligations in order to defeat an applicant's right can, on the facts, satisfy Section 198.
Injury Cannot Be an Empty Legal Word
The most important aspect of the argument is the meaning of “injury”. Under the BNS, injury is not confined to physical harm. It extends to harm caused to the body, mind, reputation or property. That statutory formulation makes the question of mental or other non physical harm legally relevant in an appropriate case. A citizen who is deliberately misled by a public authority may be forced into repeated proceedings, incur expenses, lose valuable time and suffer consequences extending beyond the mere denial of information. But this does not mean that every RTI applicant who experiences frustration or inconvenience has suffered a criminal injury. The alleged injury must be specifically pleaded and supported by facts. The causal connection between the conduct of the public servant and the injury must also be demonstrated. The existence of the word “mind” in the statutory definition opens the legal door for such an argument; it does not remove the requirement of proof.
“Record Not Found” Cannot Automatically Mean Criminality
There must also be a clear distinction between a genuine inability to locate a record and a deliberate falsehood. Government records can genuinely be misplaced, damaged or become difficult to trace, particularly where record management is poor. A PIO who conducts a bona fide search and honestly informs the applicant that the record could not be traced cannot automatically be accused of committing a criminal offence. The situation is fundamentally different where evidence subsequently establishes that the record existed, was within the knowledge or custody of the public authority and the officer nevertheless stated that it did not exist for the purpose of preventing disclosure. In such a case, the surrounding circumstances become crucial. File notings, correspondence, movement registers, departmental communications, audit records, references to the document elsewhere and the eventual recovery or production of the document may all become relevant in establishing whether “record not found” was an honest response or a calculated falsehood.
Before Criminal Proceedings, Injury Must Be Established
A criminal complaint cannot be built merely on the assertion that the applicant was “harassed”. If criminal liability under Section 198 is alleged, the complaint must explain the injury and connect it with the conduct of the accused. Where injury to the mind is alleged, the circumstances demonstrating that harm should be placed before the court. Where the alleged injury concerns reputation or property, the consequences must be identified with reasonable specificity. The complainant must also establish why the accused intended to cause that injury or knew that it was likely to result. This is particularly important because the criminal process cannot become an alternative mechanism for challenging every adverse RTI decision. The RTI appeal mechanism exists for ordinary disputes over disclosure, exemptions, delay and procedural compliance. Criminal law becomes relevant only where the facts cross the considerably higher threshold required for an offence.
Knowledge Is the Line Between Error and Crime
The distinction between an incorrect answer and a knowingly false answer is at the heart of the issue. A PIO may misunderstand an application, rely upon an incorrect record or make an administrative error without possessing any criminal intention. Such conduct may attract correction, penalty or disciplinary consequences depending upon the circumstances. But an officer who knows that a document exists and deliberately tells the applicant that it does not exist stands on entirely different ground. Criminal law is concerned not merely with what happened but with the mental state accompanying the act. Evidence of prior correspondence, knowledge of the file, internal communications and subsequent conduct may therefore become critical in establishing whether the false response was accidental or intentional.
When the Falsehood Enters the Official Record
The issue becomes even more serious when the alleged falsehood is deliberately incorporated into an official document or electronic record. The uploaded study also examines provisions concerning incorrect documents and records prepared by public servants, including BNS Sections 201 and 256. Their application, however, must depend upon the precise facts and statutory ingredients. They cannot simply be invoked because an RTI reply is found to be incorrect. The prosecution would have to establish what document or record was prepared, who prepared it, what the officer knew about its correctness and what intention or knowledge accompanied that conduct. Criminal law demands that each ingredient of the particular offence be independently satisfied.
The Other BNS Provisions Require Caution
The study also considers Sections 210 and 211 BNS in relation to failure to produce documents or furnish information where a person is legally bound to do so. These provisions may become relevant in an appropriate factual situation, but their application cannot be assumed merely because an RTI application was not properly answered. The precise statutory obligation, the identity of the person upon whom that obligation falls and the nature of the document or information must be examined. A criminal complaint should identify the exact statutory duty and the exact offence allegedly committed rather than treating every form of administrative non cooperation as criminal conduct.
The Information Commission and Criminal Court Have Different Roles
The Information Commission and the criminal court perform fundamentally different functions. The Commission can direct disclosure, impose statutory penalties and recommend disciplinary action. A criminal court, on the other hand, must determine whether the conduct satisfies the ingredients of a penal provision. Success before the Information Commission does not automatically establish criminal liability, just as the existence of an RTI remedy does not necessarily immunise conduct which independently constitutes an offence under the BNS. The two legal mechanisms can coexist, but their purposes and standards must not be confused.
Public Servants Cannot Be Prosecuted Merely for Making Mistakes
There is an equally important safeguard on the other side. Criminal law should never become a weapon against public servants for bona fide decisions taken in the discharge of their duties. If a PIO invokes an exemption on a reasonable interpretation of the RTI Act, the applicant's remedy ordinarily lies within the statutory appellate structure. If a record genuinely cannot be traced, the appropriate issue may be the adequacy of the search and the record management system. If there is an inadvertent delay, the statutory mechanism can address it. But deliberate falsification is different. Where the evidence demonstrates that the officer knew the truth, deliberately communicated the opposite and acted with the requisite intention or knowledge concerning injury, the matter moves beyond an ordinary RTI dispute.
A Criminal Complaint Must Be Built on Evidence
The practical lesson for an applicant is straightforward. A criminal complaint should not be drafted merely by reproducing the language of the BNS. The applicant must build the factual foundation. The original RTI application, the PIO's reply, the first appeal, subsequent correspondence, documents establishing the existence of the allegedly “missing” record, departmental communications and material demonstrating the officer's prior knowledge can become crucial. Equally important is evidence of the injury allegedly caused. The stronger the documentary chain connecting the officer's knowledge, deliberate falsehood and resulting injury, the stronger the legal foundation for invoking criminal jurisdiction.
Criminal Liability Must Remain the Exception, Not the Rule
The proposition should therefore remain carefully confined. Every violation of the RTI Act is not a criminal offence. Every delayed reply is not criminal misconduct. Every incorrect answer is not evidence of criminal intention. But the opposite proposition is equally important: the RTI Act cannot become a shield behind which a public servant deliberately falsifies information, suppresses records or knowingly defeats a citizen's statutory right without the possibility of consequences under the general criminal law. Where the ingredients of Section 198 BNS or another specific penal provision are satisfied, the fact that the conduct occurred in the course of processing an RTI application cannot by itself extinguish criminal responsibility.
The Real Question Is What the Officer Knew
Ultimately, the legal question is not whether the PIO made a mistake. It is what the PIO knew when he made the statement. If “record not found” reflects a genuine search, the matter may remain administrative. If it reflects deliberate deception by an officer who knew that the record existed and used a false official response to defeat the applicant's right, the legal character of the conduct becomes far more serious. The dividing line is knowledge, intention, evidence and injury. Before a criminal complaint is instituted, the alleged injury must be properly established. Before criminal liability is imposed, the requisite mens rea must be proved. And before a public servant is prosecuted, the prosecution must identify the precise offence and demonstrate every ingredient required by law. That approach protects both sides of the constitutional balance: the citizen's right to information and the public servant's protection against unjustified criminal prosecution.
The RTI Reply Can Itself Become the Evidence
The most uncomfortable possibility for an erring public servant is also the simplest. The very reply issued to defeat the citizen may eventually become the document used to establish the deliberate nature of the conduct. If subsequent records demonstrate that the officer knew the information existed, yet officially recorded that it did not, the RTI response ceases to be merely an administrative communication. It becomes part of the evidentiary chain from which knowledge, intention and injury may be examined. The law should neither criminalise an honest mistake nor provide a safe harbour for a calculated falsehood. The difference between the two is not the designation of the officer. It is what he knew, what he did and why he did it.
Author is an Advocate practicing at Supreme Court of India. Views are personal.

RTI: Prasar Bharati says it has no grievance reports for Waves OTT

Media Nama: New Delhi: Friday, September 18, 2026.

Prasar Bharati has no monthly grievance compliance reports for its Waves OTT platform. It also has no record of any communication from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting or any other ministry regarding this requirement, and no correspondence or action taken over its non-compliance, according to two separate RTI replies from the broadcaster’s WAVES OTT Division.
MediaNama had filed these RTIs in August 2026 after failing to find any published grievance compliance reports for Waves OTT, as required under Rule 18(3) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. One application was filed with Prasar Bharati and the other with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB). Both were answered by the WAVES OTT Division itself, suggesting that the MIB application was passed on internally, in line with our request to transfer it under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act if the information was held by another authority.
What the replies reveal
Whether the grievance reports exist at all: “No such monthly grievance redressal/compliance reports under Rule 18(3) of the IT Rules, 2021 are available on record with the WAVES OTT Division.”
On any Ministry circular, guideline, or communication instructing Prasar Bharati to publish these reports: We asked this question in both RTIs, and Prasar Bharati’s WAVES OTT Division gave the identical response each time: “No such communication specifically regarding publication of monthly grievance reports for WAVES OTT is available on record with the WAVES OTT Division.”
On any correspondence, show-cause notices, or action reports over non-submission or non-publication of these reports: “No such correspondence, show-cause notice, reply, or action report is available on record with the WAVES OTT Division.”
Why this matters
Rule 18(3) of the IT Rules applies to all publishers of online curated content, and platforms such as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, JioHotstar, SonyLIV, and Aha Video already publish their monthly grievance reports. By Prasar Bharati’s own account, Waves OTT has none. This highlights a gap in internal compliance monitoring and the lack of action on grievance reports, suggesting that the requirement under the IT Rules has gone unmonitored and unenforced since the launch of Waves OTT.
We have written to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting seeking a response to the following questions:

1. Is the Ministry aware that Waves OTT has not published any monthly grievance compliance reports under Rule 18(3) since the obligation became applicable to it?
2. What action, if any, will the Ministry take to bring Waves OTT into compliance, and by when?
3. Will the Ministry direct Prasar Bharati to publish the backlog of monthly reports it has not filed so far?
4. Would the Ministry like to offer any further comment on record for this story?

Another RTI to the MIB seeking information on which OTT platforms it considers compliant with Rule 18(3), and what records it uses to track this, remains unanswered at the time of writing. We will publish an update if we hear back.

MSIC directs KHADC to forward gate-related RTI to concerned Himas

Highland Post: Shillong: Friday, September 18, 2026.

The Meghalaya State Information Commission (MSIC) has directed the Public Information Officer (PIO), Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC), to transfer an RTI application concerning toll and check gates operated by Himas to all the Himas concerned.
In an order issued on September 8, Secretary of the Commission, R. Kharbikhiew, stated that if the subject matter of the RTI does not relate to the KHADC office, Section 6(3)(ii) of the RTI Act, 2005 should be resorted to.
The direction was issued in connection with the second appeal filed by a resident of Nongkrem, Joannes JTL Lamare on August 8, who had sought information on April 7, 2026 regarding the complete list of toll gates, check gates, forest gates and non-tribal gates operated by Himas under KHADC, their locations and operators, copies of tenders, revenue collected, notified fee structure, and file notings.
The PIO, KHADC had earlier replied that such records are not maintained by the Council as the gates are under the administrative control of the respective Himas/Elakas, and had advised the applicant to approach the PIOs of the concerned Himas directly.
Disposing of the matter at the admission stage, the Commission directed that the RTI application be transferred to all Himas concerned so that the relevant Hima furnishes the information within 30 days from receipt.
The Commission has also sought a compliance report in this regard at the earliest.

Odisha’s Fast-Track RTI Model Highlighted at National Information Commissioners Summit

Pragativadi: Chandigarh: Friday, September 18, 2026.
Faster Justice, Zero Delay: How Odisha Reduced RTI Pendency Through Summary Trials

Odisha’s pioneering efforts to streamline the Right to Information (RTI) process and eliminate case backlogs took center stage at the National Conference of State Chief Information Commissioners held in Hyderabad.
Representing the state, Odisha Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Manoj Parida detailed how the Odisha Information Commission successfully reduced its case pendency.
By adopting summary trials and curbing frequent, unnecessary adjournments, Odisha has created a faster, more accountable mechanism for citizens seeking information.
Inaugurated by Telangana Governor Shiv Pratap Shukla and presided over by the Central Information Commissioner, the national summit convened transparency chiefs to address key RTI implementation challenges across India.
Key Takeaways & National Agenda

• Odisha’s Efficiency Blueprint: CIC Manoj Parida explained that summary proceedings have significantly accelerated appeal disposals, offering a potential model for other states struggling with high case backlogs.
• Rule Revisions in Other States: The Chief Information Commissioner of Maharashtra shared recent state amendments that restrict RTI applications to a single subject and a maximum limit of 150 words.
• Focus on Suo Motu Disclosures: Central Information Commissioners urged state governments to mandate proactively uploading information on public websites, reducing the need for citizens to file formal applications.
• Preventing Misuse: Delegates highlighted strategies to prevent vested interests from misusing the law while safeguarding its core intent as a tool for common citizens.
• Impact of Data Protection Law: Participants analyzed the operational overlap between the new Personal Data Protection legislation and the RTI Act, stressing the need for grassroots training for lower-level officials.

The conference concluded with a call for state governments to equip Information Commissions with adequate staff and infrastructure, ensuring the RTI Act remains a fast, effective, and citizen-friendly mechanism nationwide.

RTI panel penalises two RTO officers in Amritsar for repeated non-compliance

Hindustan Times: Chandigarh: Friday, September 18, 2026.
State information commissioner Harpreet Sandhu imposed the penalties under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, on Khushdil Singh, then RTO-cum-PIO, RTO, Amritsar, and Mandeep Singh Sohi, ATO-cum-PIO, RTO Amritsar, in appeal case of 2024

The Punjab State Information Commission has imposed a ₹5,000 penalty each on two public information officers (PIOs) of the regional transport office (RTO), Amritsar, for repeatedly failing to comply with the commission’s directions and remaining absent from five consecutive appeal hearings.
State information commissioner Harpreet Sandhu imposed the penalties under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, on Khushdil Singh, then RTO-cum-PIO, RTO, Amritsar, and Mandeep Singh Sohi, ATO-cum-PIO, RTO Amritsar, in appeal case of 2024.
The order came after the appellant informed the commission that the information sought under the RTI Act had still not been furnished despite repeated hearings. During the proceedings, the departmental representative appearing on behalf of the PIOs was also unable to satisfactorily explain the status of the pending information or respond to the commission’s queries.
The commission observed that the two officials remained absent during five hearings held between August 2025 and May 2026. It also noted that a show-cause notice under Section 20(1) had already been issued on December 9, 2025, but the commission’s directions were not complied with.
Reiterating that timely compliance with the RTI Act and the commission’s orders is a statutory responsibility of public information officers, Sandhu observed that repeated disregard of such directions could invite appropriate legal consequences.
The commission directed that the penalties be recovered directly from the salaries of the two officials and deposited in the state treasury. The drawing and disbursing officer, RTO Amritsar, has been directed to recover the penalty from Mandeep Singh Sohi, while the secretary, personnel (PCS branch), Punjab government, has been instructed to deduct the penalty from Khushdil Singh’s salary. Singh is presently serving as deputy excise commissioner, Patiala.
Both authorities have also been directed to submit compliance reports to the commission.
The matter has been adjourned to October 16.

PM Modi की डिग्री का मामला: गुजरात यूनिवर्सिटी ने अरविंद केजरीवाल से हर्जाना मांगा, कहा- RTI अधिकारियों का समय बर्बाद नहीं होना चाहिए

Live Law: Ahmedabad: Thursday, 17^th September 2026.

गुजरात यूनिवर्सिटी ने बुधवार (16 सितंबर) को गुजरात हाईकोर्ट से आम आदमी पार्टी (AAP) के प्रमुख अरविंद केजरीवाल पर हर्जाना लगाने की मांग की। केजरीवाल ने सेंट्रल इन्फॉर्मेशन कमीशन (CIC) के उस आदेश को रद्द करने के फैसले को चुनौती देते हुए अपील की थी, जिसमें प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी की डिग्री से जुड़ी जानकारी सार्वजनिक करने का निर्देश दिया गया था।
यूनिवर्सिटी की ओर से चीफ जस्टिस सुनीता अग्रवाल और जस्टिस डीएन रे की डिवीजन बेंच के सामने पेश होते हुए सॉलिसिटर जनरल तुषार मेहता ने कहा कि हर्जाना लगाया जाना चाहिए ताकि यह सुनिश्चित हो सके कि RTI एक्ट का गलत इस्तेमाल न हो और सरकारी अधिकारियों को ऐसे अनुरोधों से निपटने में अपने काम के कीमती घंटे बर्बाद न करने पड़ें, जिनका एक्ट के मकसद से कोई लेना-देना नहीं है।
बेंच केजरीवाल की उस अपील पर सुनवाई कर रही है, जो मार्च 2023 के एक सिंगल जज के फैसले के खिलाफ है। उस फैसले में CIC के 2016 के निर्देश को रद्द कर दिया गया, जिसमें गुजरात यूनिवर्सिटी को प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी के नाम पर जारी डिग्री से जुड़ी जानकारी देने के लिए कहा गया।
सिंगल जज ने माना था कि प्रधानमंत्री की एजुकेशनल डिग्री से जुड़ी जानकारी RTI Act की धारा 8(1)(e) और 8(1)(j) के तहत सार्वजनिक करने से छूट प्राप्त है, क्योंकि इसे सार्वजनिक करने के लिए कोई बड़ा जनहित नहीं है। कोर्ट ने केजरीवाल पर ₹25,000 का हर्जाना भी लगाया।
सॉलिसिटर जनरल ने CBSE और अन्य बनाम आदित्य बंदोपाध्याय और अन्य (2011) मामले में सुप्रीम कोर्ट के फैसले का हवाला दिया। इस फैसले में RTI Act के तहत जानकारी के लिए बिना सोचे-समझे और अव्यावहारिक मांगें करने के खिलाफ चेतावनी दी गई और कहा गया कि ऐसी मांगें सरकारी अधिकारियों के संसाधनों को उत्पादक प्रशासनिक कार्यों से भटका सकती हैं।
फैसले का जिक्र करते हुए मेहता ने कहा,
"अपील पर मेरिट के आधार पर सुनवाई और फैसला हो सकता है। और हर्जाना भी लगाया जा सकता है। ताकि RTI Act के तहत विधायिका के नेक मकसद और इरादे का गलत इस्तेमाल या दुरुपयोग न हो और अधिकारी अपना समय बेकार के कामों में बर्बाद न करें... यहां जनहित क्या है? मान लीजिए किसी खास पद के लिए फिजिक्स में डॉक्टरेट जरूरी योग्यता है और कोई यह मुद्दा उठाता है कि वह व्यक्ति सार्वजनिक पद पर है लेकिन उसके पास PhD की डिग्री नहीं है। इसलिए मैं यूनिवर्सिटी से जानकारी मांग रहा हूं, तो यह जनहित होगा, क्योंकि उस पद पर बने रहना उस डिग्री पर निर्भर करता है। RTI सिर्फ़ उत्सुकता रखने वालों के लिए बनाया गया कानून नहीं है।"
शुरुआत में SG ने कहा कि यह मामला यूनिवर्सिटी से पास हुए छात्रों की डिग्री से जुड़ा है और यह देखना है कि क्या यह RTI Act की धारा 8(1)(e) और (j) के तहत छूट के दायरे में आता है।
SG ने कहा,
"सवाल जिस डिग्री का है, वह एक संवैधानिक पद पर बैठे व्यक्ति की है। यूनिवर्सिटी को इस मामले में डिग्री बताने या ज़ाहिर करने में कोई आपत्ति नहीं हो सकती। लेकिन यूनिवर्सिटी सैद्धांतिक तौर पर इसका विरोध कर रही है क्योंकि हमने लाखों छात्रों को डिग्री दी है और इसलिए इस कानून को स्पष्ट करने की ज़रूरत है..."
SG मेहता ने 'फिड्यूशरी रिलेशनशिप' (भरोसे का रिश्ता) की अवधारणा पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट के फैसलों का ज़िक्र किया, जिसका ज़िक्र धारा 8(1)(e) में है। इसके अनुसार, किसी व्यक्ति को भरोसे के रिश्ते में मिली जानकारी का खुलासा करने की ज़रूरत नहीं है, जब तक कि सक्षम अधिकारी इस बात से संतुष्ट न हो कि व्यापक जनहित में ऐसी जानकारी का खुलासा करना ज़रूरी है।
इस चरण पर कोर्ट ने मौखिक रूप से कहा,
"हमारा मानना ​​है कि कोई RTI आवेदन था ही नहीं। जानकारी मांगने के लिए कोई आगे नहीं आया।"
इस पर SG ने कहा कि कोर्ट सही कह रहा है और कोई आवेदन नहीं किया गया।
उन्होंने बताया कि कार्यवाही केजरीवाल से जुड़ी जानकारी के लिए एक अलग अनुरोध से शुरू हुई, जिसके बाद केजरीवाल ने प्रधानमंत्री की डिग्री से जुड़ी जानकारी मांगते हुए जवाब दिया।
बता दें, दूसरी अपील में CIC ने केजरीवाल के जवाब को नागरिक के तौर पर RTI आवेदन माना और जानकारी ज़ाहिर करने का आदेश दिया (जिसे बाद में रद्द कर दिया गया)।
इसके बाद कोर्ट ने मौखिक रूप से कहा कि उसकी समझ के अनुसार, ऐसा आदेश पारित करने का पहला कदम ही अधिकार क्षेत्र से बाहर है।
कोर्ट ने आगे मौखिक रूप से कहा,
"अगर कोई आवेदन नहीं है तो जानकारी ज़ाहिर करने का सवाल ही नहीं उठता, हमारी समझ के अनुसार... RTI की एक प्रक्रिया है। किसी को आवेदन दाखिल करना होता है। सही जानकारी देनी होती है कि वह क्या जानकारी मांग रहा है। तभी आवेदन पर कार्रवाई हो सकती है। आवेदन करने और उस पर कार्रवाई करने की एक प्रक्रिया है।"
SG ने सहमति जताते हुए कहा कि RTI Act अपने आप में एक पूर्ण कानून है और इसे नज़रअंदाज़ नहीं किया जा सकता। उन्होंने कहा कि न तो यूनिवर्सिटी और न ही वह व्यक्ति जिसकी जानकारी मांगी गई, इस मामले में पक्षकार थे।
इसके बाद कोर्ट ने मौखिक रूप से टिप्पणी की कि एक्ट के तहत प्रक्रिया का सख्ती से पालन किया जाना चाहिए, जिसमें अधिकारी को धारा 8 के तहत छूट पर विचार करना होगा और जिस व्यक्ति की जानकारी दी जा रही है, उसे अपील का अधिकार होगा; यहाँ वह अधिकार भी छीन लिया गया।
कोर्ट ने मौखिक रूप से कहा,
"नहीं तो इस कानून का गलत इस्तेमाल होगा।"
अब यह मामला 21 सितंबर को दोपहर 2:30 बजे केजरीवाल के जवाब (rejoinder submissions) के लिए लिस्ट किया गया।
Case title: ARVIND KEJRIWAL v/s GUJARAT UNIVERSITY & ORS.

Penalise Kejriwal, GU urges Guj HC

Ahmedabad Mirror: Ahmedabad: Thursday, 17^th September 2026.
He had challenged order quashing CIC order to disclose Narendra Modi’s degree details

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, on behalf of Gujarat University, urged the Gujarat High Court to impose costs on Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal on Wednesday. Kejriwal has filed an appeal challenging the quashing of a Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing disclosure of information concerning Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s degree. The matter is now listed for Kejriwal’s rejoinder submissions on September 21.
Appearing for the University before a Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray, Mehta submitted that costs should be imposed to ensure that the RTI Act is not misused and government officials are not made to spend productive working hours dealing with requests that do not serve the Act’s purpose.
“The appeal may be heard and decided on merits. And costs may be imposed. So that the very noble purpose and intent of the legislature under the RTI Act is not abused or misused and the authorities do not waste their time on unproductive work,” Mehta argued. “What is public interest here? Suppose for holding a particular post, a doctorate in physics is an essential eligibility criterion and someone raises an issue that he is holding a public post and not having a PhD and therefore I’m seeking information from the University, then that would be public Interest as his being on the post depends on that degree. RTI is not an enactment for curiosity seekers,” he argued.
The Bench is hearing Kejriwal’s appeal against the single judge’s verdict which quashed the CIC’s 2016 direction to Gujarat University to provide information concerning degrees in the name of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.