Bombay High Court at Goa Allows Petition of Public Information Officer in RTI Case — Station Diary Entries Exempt Under Section 8(1)(h) of Right to Information Act. Disclosure of investigation-related information that would impede investigation or prosecution is exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.

Lawtext: Goa: Saturday, 26 September 2026.

Case Note & Summary: The case involves a challenge by the Petitioner, Shekhar Prabhudessai, Superintendent of Police (South) and Public Information Officer, against an order of the Goa State Information Commission (Respondent No.1) dated 16.08.2007. The Respondent No.2, Adv. S. S. Saudagar, had sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding further entries in the station diary in connection with Criminal Case No. 9/2005. The Petitioner refused the information citing exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which exempts disclosure of information that would impede the process of investigation or prosecution. The Respondent No.2 appealed to the First Appellate Authority, which rejected the appeal on 03.05.2007. A further appeal to the State Information Commission was partly allowed by the impugned order, directing the Petitioner to furnish the information. The Petitioner then filed the present writ petition. The High Court, after hearing the Additional Government Advocate for the Petitioner (Respondent No.2 was served but unrepresented), held that the information sought clearly falls within the exception under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, as disclosure would impede the investigation or prosecution. The court also noted that the information could be exempt under Section 8(1)(g) (information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship) but primarily relied on Section 8(1)(h). The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.

Maharashtra State Information Dept Mired In Delays As 80% Posts Remain Vacant Delaying Over 63,000 RTI Appeals Filed By Citizens

ETV Bharat: Mumbai: Saturday, 26 September 2026.
Second appeals have been kept on hold by the Maharashtra State Information Commission.

Citizens seeking detailed information on policies and government decisions under the Right To Information (RTI) Act have been waiting endlessly for replies, not realizing the department has currently been functioning on bare minimal staff. The RTI Act is crucial for ensuring transparency in government operations and administrative accountability.
However, it is currently mired in delays as 63,017 complaints are pending, and even second appeals have been kept on hold by the Maharashtra State Information Commission.
Anil Galgali, an RTI activist, said citizens are facing consequences since they are not able to access authentic information, which they require. "Citizens are empowered to seek information through the RTI, and various departments are expected to give them replies, which is currently in a limbo."
Galgali, 48,583 second appeals and 14,434 complaints are pending. Consequently, citizens seeking government information are forced to endure long waits first for the initial application and appeal, and subsequently for the Commission's verdict.
RTI and appeal procedures
The RTI Act empowers citizens to file applications to obtain various types of information. After replies to the requested information is not received on time or the replies are incomplete, they can file a first appeal. The applicant can also file a second appeal if the outcome remains unsatisfactory. They can appeal by filing a complaint with the State Information Commission (SIC).
However, this entire process is now prolonged because a vast number of cases remain pending after reaching the Commission. Second appeals constitute the largest share of the pending caseload, with 48,583 awaiting a decision. These cases have reached the Commission due to many reasons like non-receipt of requested information or dissatisfaction with the information provided.
A significant number of cases are pending across the state's various benches, including Nashik, Amravati, Pune, and Konkan, highlighting the mounting workload on the Commission.
In addition to second appeals, nearly 14,434 complaints are yet to be resolved, all of which adds to the struggle of citizens to seek adequate information even after their cases reach the Commission.
Heavy influx of applications
The SIC has been getting a heavy influx of appeals since the time RTI was introduced. Efforts are made to prioritise and separately scrutinise appeals of importance to the general public.
However, the sheer volume of appeals combined with a shortage of manpower makes it impossible to resolve all cases immediately. Raviraj Phalle, Secretary of the State Information Commission, stated, "Approximately half of the positions within the Commission are vacant, notably, nearly 80 percent of the posts in the Information Commissioner's office in Mumbai remain unfilled."
The Right to Information Act is a crucial legal right that empowers citizens to hold the administration accountable, but its effective implementation is a huge challenge. RTI activist Galgali feels authorities need to give priority to fill the vacant posts.
Galgali said, "I appeal to the State Information Commission and Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis to give this issue priority and give relief to citizens by filling the vacant posts."

CIC advises Centre to restart publishing paper-wise marks of candidates who clear UPSC exam: Prashant Jha

Bar and Bench: New Delhi: Friday, 25^th September 2026.
Publishing these details was in the interest of transparency and building faith in the UPSC, the CIC said.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has advised the Central government to reinstate the practice of publishing paper-wise marks of candidates who clear the Civil Services Examination (CSE). 
Information Commissioner Jaya Varma Sinha noted that the subject-wise marks of successful candidates were made public till 2018 but were discontinued without any policy decision on record. 
The Commission said that publishing these details was in the interest of transparency and building faith in the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), a constitutional body. 
“An advisory under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act is issued to the Respondent Public Authority DoPT to reinstate the practice of publication of detailed break-up marks obtained by recommended candidates in Civil Services (Mains) Examination. This advisory by the Commission to reinstate this practice is based on the reliance (and the fact) that the same was done prior 2018 and was discontinued without any policy decision on record,” the Commission said in its September 24 decision. 
The advisory was issued under Section 25(5) of the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). The provision empowers the CIC or State Information Commission to issue recommendations to public authorities if it is found that their practices do not conform to the “provisions or the spirit” of the RTI Act.  
The CIC’s decision came on an RTI appeal filed by Aniket Kumar Gupta, who had sought data for the previous 10 years, including marks secured by all recommended candidates in individual general studies papers, optional papers and the personality test. Gupta had pointed out that while paper-wise marks of recommended candidates were published until CSE 2017, such disclosure was discontinued from CSE 2018 onwards, with only aggregate marks being made available.
UPSC told the Commission that subject-wise marks were treated as personal information and were not disclosed publicly, although written examination totals, personality test marks and final totals of recommended candidates were published.
Meanwhile, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) claimed that disclosure of detailed marks could result in coaching institutes selectively projecting certain optional subjects as “high scoring” and commercially exploiting aspirants.
However, during the proceedings, DoPT admitted that it could not trace any file noting, office memorandum, policy decision or other record documenting the decision to discontinue publication of the detailed marks.
In its order, the CIC also noted contradictory positions taken by UPSC and DoPT regarding custody of the marks. While DoPT said detailed marks were prepared and maintained solely by UPSC, UPSC stated that such information was passed on to DoPT and the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration (LBSNAA) after declaration of results.
After considering the case, the CIC directed DoPT to provide the detailed marks for CSE 2018 to 2023 to Gupta within three weeks of receiving the order.
It also issued the advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act. 
[Read order]

Status of petitions given to CM’s cell, collectors should be revealed: Info commission

Times of India: Chennai: Friday, 25^th September 2026.
The Tamil Nadu information commissioner has reiterated that it is the right of the citizens to know the status of their petitions submitted to the chief minister’s cell, district collectorate at the weekly grievance meetings as well as the Jamabandhi under the RTI Act.

The commission has also said that Section 2(h) of RTI Act has clearly defined what public authority is and added that all govt offices coming under the purview of public authority are bound to provide what has been clearly described as information under Section 2(f) of the Act.
The observation was made by information commissioner VPR Ilamparithi while disposing of a complaint petition filed by R Gopinath, who said he was not satisfied with the reply provided by the public information officer of Tiruvannamalai district collectorate.
The original petition pertained to the action taken report and the current status of his pleas submitted before the district collector in the weekly grievance meeting in 2024. However, he received replies from PIO stating the status of petitions submitted before the CM’s cell, district collectors and jamabandhi cannot be sought under RTI. The PIO also cited information commission’s earlier orders in 2015 to deny information in the reply.
Against the reply, the petitioner filed a complaint before the commission and the same was taken up for hearing. In its order passed on Thursday, commissioner Ilamparithi condemned the PIO’s act of denying information and said that the information commission’s 2015 order was a non-speaking order and was specific to the petition.
The commission has also directed the chief educational officer of Tiruvannamalai district to conduct an awareness programme on RTI Act to all public information officer in the district and has sought explanation from the public information officer V Jayapaul why he should not be slapped with a fine of ₹25,000 and submit the same in person on Oct 14. The school education director has been directed to circulate the order to all chief educational officers of all districts.

What the National Sports Governance Act Means for the Board of Control for Cricket in India

Lexology: India: Friday, 25^th September 2026.

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (“BCCI”), a private society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, is among the most powerful sports governing bodies in the world. It controls India’s representation in international cricket, operates the commercially dominant Indian Premier League, domestic cricket in India and commands annual revenues exceeding those of many national sports federations combined.
The BCCI is neither created by statute nor sustained by government grants. While the BCCI does not receive any direct funding or financing by the Government of India or state governments, it does receive indirect public support, including by way of tax exemptions, concessional leases from the relevant state cricket associations and security deployments by government personnel.
This structural anomaly has generated two decades of litigation over whether the BCCI should be subject to public accountability norms, particularly the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”). This note examines whether the enactment of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 (“NSG Act”) has advanced the debate, as was widely expected.
The BCCI’s Current Legal Position
The Supreme Court’s decision in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India^[1] remains the foundational ruling on the BCCI’s constitutional status. In the context of a writ petition challenging the cancellation of television rights as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1949, as amended (the “Constitution”), the Supreme Court held that the BCCI is not “State” or “other authorities” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution as: (i) it was not created by statute, (ii) it was not financially dependent on the government, (iii) it was not subject to deep and pervasive State control and (iv) its monopoly over cricket was “de facto” rather than State-conferred or State-protected. The majority by 3:2 therefore held that the BCCI would not be subject to Article 12 of the Constitution and held that while writ jurisdiction under Article 32 would not be available, an aggrieved party could approach a High Court pursuant to Article 226 of the Constitution.
A decade later, in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar,^[2] the Supreme Court went further and observed that the BCCI performs “important public functions,” exercises monopolistic control over cricket in India, selects national teams and regulates player livelihoods. The Justice R.M. Lodha Committee, appointed pursuant to such decision, recommended sweeping governance reforms, treating the BCCI as a body exercising quasi-public authority.
Accordingly, the BCCI maintains a hybrid status that is private in registration, public in function and judicially accountable under Article 226 but not under Article 32.
RTI Act Applicability: The Pre-NSG Act Position
Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines “public authority” to include bodies and non-governmental organizations “owned, controlled or substantially financed” by funds provided by the appropriate government. The central question with respect to the BCCI has been whether the indirect public support (including tax exemptions, concessional leases from the relevant state cricket associations and security deployment of government personnel) constitutes “substantial financing.”
The Supreme Court’s decision in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala (“Thalappalam”)^[3] narrowed the “substantial financing” test, and held that regulatory benefits, tax exemptions and privileges do not amount to “substantial financing” unless the body depends on such support for its very existence or basic functioning.
The Law Commission of India, in its Report No. 275 (issued in 2018), analyzed the legal status of the BCCI, reviewed the findings in the Thalappalam case and documented tax exemptions amounting to INR 21.68 billion between 1997 and 2007, concessional stadium leases (including a Himachal Pradesh lease at INR 1 per month for 99 years), and regular state deployments of police and infrastructure for matches. The Law Commission noted that: (i) the BCCI is the entity permitted “de facto” by the State to represent the country at the international stage, with the BCCI selecting the Indian team and the players wearing the national colors; (ii) the International Cricket Council recognizes the BCCI as the ‘official’ body representing India; (iii) neither the Government nor the BCCI have challenged such status; (iv) the BCCI practically enjoys a monopolistic status in controlling and regulating the game of cricket in India and policy formulation related to cricket and its implementation, which is effectively a state function; (v) the BCCI and its actions directly and indirectly affect the fundamental rights of citizens, players and other functionaries. Noting that this bears a striking resemblance to a ‘State-like’ entity wielding ‘State-like’ powers, it recommended that the BCCI and similarly situated state cricket associations be brought within the ambit of the RTI Act.
Subsequently, the Central Information Commission (“CIC”), in its May 2026 order in Geeta Rani v. Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports and BCCI,^[4] applied Thalappalam to hold that the BCCI is not a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The CIC reasoned that the BCCI is financially self-sustaining through media rights, sponsorship, broadcasting and ticketing revenues, and that indirect benefits such as tax concessions do not cross the Thalappalam threshold. Accordingly, the 2026 CIC order effectively closed the administrative route to RTI Act coverage, subject to legislative intervention or a subsequent contrary decision.
The NSG Act Framework
The NSG Act, of which certain provisions came into effect on January 1, 2026, introduces a broader governance architecture for national sports bodies. Its preamble recognizes that such bodies “discharge important public functions” and should manage affairs “in an open, fair and transparent manner in the public interest.” It establishes a National Sports Board empowered to grant “Board recognition” to sports organizations. Bodies previously recognized by the Central Government are deemed recognized under the new regime.
Governance obligations
Recognized sports bodies must comply with several accountability requirements under the NSG Act including mandatory publication of annual audited accounts, a Code of Ethics, a Safe Sports Policy and internal grievance redressal mechanisms. The National Sports Board established under the NSG Act may inquire into complaints concerning welfare of sportspersons or misuse of public funds and may suspend or cancel recognition for non-compliance. A National Sports Tribunal, with civil court powers, provides an adjudicatory backstop.
The limited RTI Act trigger under Section 14(2) of the NSG Act
Section 14(1) of the NSG Act provides that only a recognized sports organization is eligible to receive grants or other financial assistance from the Central Government. Section 14(2) of the NSG Act provides that a recognized sports organization “receiving grants or any other financial assistance” from the Central or State Government “shall be considered as a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, with respect to utilization of such grants or any other financial assistance.”
Two features of this provision are significant. First, the RTI Act obligation is triggered only by actual receipt of government grants or financial assistance, rather than recognition alone or the performance of public functions. Second, even where triggered, the scope of disclosure is confined to “utilization of such grants or any other financial assistance”, and not the body’s operations generally.
For a body like the BCCI, assuming it is considered as “previously recognized by the Central Government”, if it does not receive direct government grants, Section 14(2) of the NSG Act may be inapplicable.
Interlocking legislations
The harmonious interpretation of the RTI Act and the NSG Act together would be that Section 14(2) of the NSG Act is a deeming provision. Where a recognized sports organization receives government grants or financial assistance, the NSG Act dispenses with the RTI Act’s Section 2(h) inquiry and deems the body to be a public authority, but only for utilization of that assistance. Where such assistance is absent, Section 14(2) does not answer the broader RTI Act question of whether the body may independently satisfy the “owned, controlled or substantially financed” test.
This distinction matters because the NSG Act gives recognized sports bodies a public-law character independent of funding. Recognition is the gateway to participation in the statutory sports-governance structure; the National Sports Board can grant, suspend or cancel recognition, maintain registers of national sports bodies and affiliates, issue ethics and safe-sport frameworks and route disputes to a tribunal with civil court powers. The Act also regulates the use of the words “India”, “Indian” and “National”, and the national insignia or symbols in sporting affairs. These provisions connect recognition with public representation, not merely with government funding.
The object of the NSG Act is transparency and accountability in the management of sports; the object of the RTI Act is disclosure by public authorities.
Evidently, Section 14(2) of the NSG Act uses financial dependence as a proxy for public accountability even though the Act elsewhere treats public function, recognition and national representation as the central regulatory concerns. It is noteworthy that earlier drafts of the NSG Act treated all recognized sports organizations as public authorities; the enacted text limits the RTI Act to recognized organizations that receive government or State financial assistance, and only for the use of that assistance.
Indirect Support and the Limits of the Funding Trigger
The BCCI’s relationship with the State has not been one of direct fiscal dependency but of extensive indirect facilitation. The principal forms of indirect public support are well documented:
Tax exemptions
The BCCI historically has benefited from income tax exemptions under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the basis of its registration as a charitable trust promoting sports. The Law Commission calculated that the cumulative revenue foregone by the exchequer between 1997 and 2007 exceeded INR 21.68 billion. While the BCCI’s current tax status has been subject to reassessment, the magnitude of historical tax exemptions illustrates the scale of indirect state support.
Concessional leases and public infrastructure
The BCCI’s state associations operate from stadiums built on government land or leased to such associations at nominal rates. State police forces are routinely deployed for crowd management and security at matches, typically without full cost recovery. These are quantifiable public resource transfers that benefit the BCCI’s commercial operations.
Broadcasting and regulatory facilitation
The Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007 and the framework established in Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal^[5] treat cricket broadcasting as implicating the public’s right to access information via airwaves, which are public property. The BCCI’s media-rights ecosystem is sustained, in part, by a regulatory environment that validates the public-interest character of cricket viewing.
Competition considerations
The Competition Commission of India has found the BCCI dominant in the relevant market for organization of professional domestic cricket leagues in India, citing market share, economic power, consumer dependence and entry barriers.^[6] The BCCI’s exclusive authority to select teams representing India in international competitions is a function that, for virtually every other sport, is performed by a body receiving government grants and subject to full RTI Act coverage.
None of these forms of support constitutes a “grant” within the ordinary meaning of Section 14(2) of the NSG Act. Accordingly, while linking RTI to direct financial assistance the NSG Act has created a framework that recognizes public function in its preamble but does not draw the consequence in its operative provisions, at least for self-funded bodies.
Practical Implications and Conclusion
The NSG Act represents a meaningful advance in the sports governance architecture. It could operate independently of the RTI Act and address some of the governance deficits identified by the Lodha Committee. However, it does not resolve the RTI question for self-funded bodies or indirectly funded bodies such as the BCCI. Section 14(2) of the NSG Act creates only a conditional and narrow disclosure pathway. The Central Government’s power under Section 34 of the NSG Act to exempt specific sports bodies from the Act’s provisions introduces a further variable. The result is that the “accountability gap” identified by the Law Commission.
The practical question is whether a body that selects India’s teams, controls participation in the country’s most commercially significant sport, and benefits from public infrastructure should be outside the framework of RTI scrutiny solely because that support is not recorded as a government grant (particularly where there are indirect benefits accorded to such body). The authors submit that a workable framework should preserve the BCCI’s operational autonomy while attaching targeted disclosure obligations to public-resource use, national representation and recognized sports-governance status. Until that distinction is made express, the NSG Act regulates the ecosystem around the BCCI, but does not fully answer the public-accountability question with respect to it.

RTI right statutory, but doesn’t permit repetitive proceedings: Haryana Panel

Times of India: Haryana: Thursday, 24^th September 2026.
The Haryana State Information Commission has ruled that the Right to Information Act cannot be used to file multiple applications or complaints on the same issue.

“The right to seek information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 is a statutory right but the same cannot be construed as conferring an unrestricted right to institute repetitive proceedings on an identical cause of action,” state information commissioner Ajay Sura observed in detailed orders released this week.
“The RTI Act has to be implemented in a manner that advances transparency and accountability while ensuring that the limited administrative resources of public authorities and adjudicatory bodies are utilised efficiently,” he said.
The observation came in a complaint filed by Palwal resident Sharwan Kumar against the SPIO-cum-district education officer (DEO), Palwal. His RTI application was filed on Aug 24. During the hearing, the SPIO pointed out that the same application had already resulted in complaints in two other matters before the commission and that the application was identical, word for word, to the earlier one.
The commission was also informed that 36 cases filed by Kumar against the education authorities concerned were pending before it and that he had filed 130-150 RTI applications before the offices of the district elementary education officer (DEEO), DEO, block education officer and district project coordinator (DPC) in Palwal.
The commission has now directed Kumar to furnish an affidavit in respect of each RTI case already filed before it and any future complaint or appeal, affirming that he had not filed another complaint or appeal concerning the same RTI application and subject matter.
He was also directed to furnish similar affidavits before the DEO, DEEO, BEO and DPC, Palwal, in respect of his pending RTI applications, affirming that he had not filed multiple applications concerning the same or substantially identical subject matter.
Henceforth, every RTI application submitted by Kumar before these authorities must also be accompanied by an affidavit affirming that he had not already filed an RTI application concerning the same or substantially identical subject matter.
The commission noted that complaints concerning the same RTI application had been instituted more than once. When questioned about the multiple complaints, Kumar did not furnish a satisfactory explanation, except stating that if one complaint had already been decided, the others could also be decided accordingly.
The commission referred to earlier judicial pronouncements concerning repetitive and vexatious use of the RTI mechanism, reiterating that the legal right to information should not be abused. It also observed that a public authority cannot be disproportionately overloaded with complaints and RTI applications to the extent that providing information consumes the majority of its time and resources.

Examination evaluation records are “information” under S. 2(f), RTI Act; Confidentiality or fiduciary claim can’t be invoked mechanically: CIC

SCC Online: New Delhi: Thursday, 24^th September 2026.
The Central Information Commission held that “a general assertion of confidentiality or fiduciary capacity cannot substitute the statutory requirement of demonstrating the applicability of an exemption”.

Central Information Commission, New Delhi: While considering the scope of disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) in relation to the evaluation of law semester examination answer scripts at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Sudha Rani Relangi, Information Commissioner, held that while the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) could not be required to create information which did not exist, existing records could not be denied merely because they concerned the examination or evaluation process.
Brief Facts
The appellant filed an RTI application dated 7 June 2025 before the University of Delhi seeking information concerning the evaluation criteria, protocol and step-wise procedure adopted for assessment of law semester examination answer scripts for the 3-year LLB semester examinations conducted by the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. The appellant sought, inter alia, certified copies of:

1. rules, guidelines, circulars, manuals, orders and instructions governing evaluation,
   
2. model answers, marking schemes, sample evaluated scripts and scoring rubrics,
   
3. any weightage assigned to case law, legal principles, statutory provisions, answer structure or word limits,
   
4. the step-by-step evaluation procedure,
   
5. whether scripts underwent moderation, rechecking or quality control,
   
6. whether student identity was anonymised,
   
7. mechanisms for standardisation to minimise examiner subjectivity,
   
8. details of persons involved at different stages of evaluation,
   
9. training, briefing or orientation provided to evaluators,
   
10. moderation, double evaluation, cross-evaluation, auditing, peer review and score-calibration mechanisms,
    
11. marking or grading schemes,
    
12. use of digital/on-screen evaluation, and
    
13. where requested documents did not exist, a categorical statement to that effect together with disclosure of existing formal or informal practices.
    

The appellant specifically requested that the information be supplied point-wise and contended that a general reference to voluminous regulations or ordinances would not amount to a complete response.
The CPIO responded on 7 July 2025 stating that relevant input from the Joint Registrar (Examinations) was still awaited and that the matter was being pursued with the officer concerned. The appellant was accordingly advised to contact the Joint Registrar (Examinations).
Aggrieved by the response, the appellant preferred a first appeal on 12 July 2025.
The First Appellate Authority (FAA), by order dated 5 August 2025, noted that the appellant had not received the information sought. Consequently, the FAA directed the Joint Registrar (Examinations) to provide the relevant disclosable information to the appellant, under intimation to the Information Section, within 2 weeks from receipt of the order.
The appellant alleged non-compliance with the FAA’s direction and approached the Central Information Commission (CIC) by way of the present second appeal.
Parties’ Contentions
The appellant pointed out the practice of denying information in vague terms and sought the CIC’s intervention.
The CPIO submitted that a point-wise reply together with relevant available inputs had already been supplied to the appellant by email dated 8 September 2025. The CPIO explained that answer scripts were evaluated according to the broad marking scheme and instructions contained in the question paper, together with necessary instructions issued by the Coordinator/Head Examiner to examiners for maintaining uniformity in the marking scheme. It was stated that no formal documentation of the meetings was endorsed to or maintained by the University’s Examination Branch.
The CPIO also contended that a majority of the appellant’s queries amounted to requests for clarification, which, according to the CPIO, did not conform to the statutory concept of “information” under Section 2(f). In addition, the CPIO asserted that the evaluation process and related information were confidential in nature and were held by the University in a fiduciary capacity and therefore could not be disclosed under the RTI Act.
Issues for Determination
Whether information relating to the evaluation of University examination answer scripts can be denied under the RTI Act merely because the applicant seeks explanations/clarifications or because the evaluation process is stated to be confidential and held in a fiduciary capacity.
Analysis
At the outset, the CIC reiterated that Section 2(f) contemplates disclosure of material or information held by or under the control of the public authority. Accordingly, the CPIO is “not required to create information, give an opinion, interpret records, or furnish explanations which are not available on the record”. Therefore, queries seeking reasons, justification, opinion or clarification regarding how an evaluation was undertaken would not, by themselves, constitute “information” under Section 2(f).
However, the CIC made it clear that this principle cannot be used to deny existing records merely because they concern examinations or evaluation. Where identifiable records such as prescribed marking schemes, written examiner instructions, notices, circulars, guidelines, records of decisions or other documents concerning the evaluation procedure are maintained by the University, they constitute “information” within Section 2(f), subject to the exemptions specifically available under Section 8 or Section 9, RTI Act.
Further, the CIC held that the University could not be directed to create records which admittedly did not exist. Nevertheless, the CPIO was required to clearly identify and disclose the records available and corresponding to the appellant’s queries, subject to lawful exemptions.
The CIC rejected the proposition that describing information as “confidential” is, by itself, sufficient to justify its denial. Any refusal of information must be traceable to a specific exemption under Section 8 or Section 9, RTI Act.
Likewise, Section 8(1)(e), concerning information available to a person in a fiduciary relationship, cannot be invoked mechanically. The public authority must establish the existence of the fiduciary relationship in respect of the particular information sought and demonstrate how the statutory exemption applies.
Decision and Directions
Although the CIC found that the CPIO had substantially responded to the appellant and furnished available information pursuant to the FAA’s directions, it held that the justification for withholding information relating to the evaluation process had not been adequately articulated with reference to a specific exemption under the RTI Act. A general assertion of confidentiality or fiduciary capacity could not substitute the statutory requirement of establishing an exemption.
Therefore, the CIC directed the CPIO to file a detailed, duly signed and dated written statement identifying:

1. each item of information relating to the evaluation process that had been denied or withheld,
   
2. the reason for such denial,
   
3. the precise provision of the RTI Act under which exemption was claimed,
   
4. where Section 8(1)(e) was invoked, the nature of the alleged fiduciary relationship and its applicability to the information sought, and
   
5. whether any severable portion could be disclosed under Section 10, RTI Act.
   

The CIC directed to file the revised statement within two weeks from receipt of the order. Accordingly, the second appeal was disposed of.
[Rishabh Mishra v. CPIO, File No: CIC/UODEL/A/2025/641908, decided on 3-9-2026]

When ‘record not found’ under RTI becomes a criminal question: By Siddhartha Shankar Mishra

Bar and Bench: Columns: Thursday, 24^th September 2026.
An RTI regime cannot function effectively if an official can knowingly defeat a statutory right simply by stating that an existing record cannot be found.

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 creates a statutory right in favour of citizens and corresponding statutory duties for public authorities and public information officers (PIOs).
A PIO is not merely processing an administrative request. The officer is required to adhere to duties prescribed by the Act, including the obligation under Section 7 to deal with an application within the prescribed period and communicate the decision in accordance with law.
The question becomes legally significant when an official response is not merely delayed or erroneous, but knowingly false. If a PIO knows that a record exists and nevertheless states that it does not, the issue may move beyond ordinary administrative lapse and into the field of statutory and, in an appropriate case, criminal accountability.
A criminal analysis must begin by separating three situations. A record may genuinely be unavailable to the PIO despite a reasonable search. There may be negligence or defective record management. Or an officer may know that the record exists and deliberately deny its existence. These situations cannot be treated alike. Section 20 of the RTI Act itself recognises the significance of mala fide denial and knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or misleading information. It also covers destruction of information and obstruction in furnishing it. Thus, the Act itself draws a distinction between an ordinary failure and conduct involving knowledge or mala fides.
Why Section 198 BNS matters
Section 198 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 provides a possible criminal law framework in a narrow class of cases. It applies where a public servant knowingly disobeys a direction of law concerning the manner in which he is required to conduct himself as a public servant, with the intention of causing injury to a person or with knowledge that such injury is likely to result. Four elements therefore require attention: the accused must be a public servant; there must be a legal direction governing the conduct; the disobedience must be knowing; and the required intention or knowledge concerning injury must be established. The provision does not criminalise every breach of official duty.
The important question is whether the relevant RTI obligation amounts to a "direction of law" for the purposes of Section 198. In a case involving a PIO, the statutory duties under Sections 5 and 7 provide the starting point. Section 7 requires the PIO to deal with the request and communicate the decision in the manner prescribed by law. Where information is denied, the statutory scheme requires the response to identify the reasons for rejection and the appellate remedy. A deliberate false statement that a known record does not exist cannot be equated with a lawful refusal under Sections 8 or 9. Whether the particular conduct satisfies Section 198, however, remains a question for the competent court on the evidence.
The most important limitation is the requirement of injury. Section 198 does not punish knowing disobedience by itself. The prosecution must establish the additional mental element relating to injury. The BNS defines injury broadly to include harm illegally caused to the body, mind, reputation or property. But broad statutory language does not mean that every inconvenience caused by an RTI violation amounts to criminal injury. A complaint should identify the injury relied upon and explain how the accused's conduct caused, or was known to be likely to cause, that injury.
It would, therefore, be unsafe to convert every unsuccessful RTI application into an allegation of criminal mental injury. Repeated proceedings, unnecessary expenditure, loss of a legal opportunity, reputational consequences or other concrete harm may become relevant depending upon the facts. But the complainant must establish the factual basis and causal connection. A bare assertion that the applicant was harassed or frustrated should not substitute for the statutory requirement under Section 198.
Knowledge is the evidentiary core
In a case based on a statement such as “record not found”, the central evidentiary question will often be what the PIO knew when the reply was issued. A later discovery of the record, by itself, does not prove criminal intention. Stronger evidence may include earlier correspondence before the PIO, file movement entries, internal communications, previous orders referring to the record, acknowledgements, or subsequent departmental records showing that the officer had access to information establishing its existence. The issue is not simply whether the reply was wrong. It is whether the officer knew it was wrong and nevertheless gave it in circumstances satisfying the statutory ingredients of the alleged offence.
A false document may raise a separate offence
The BNS also contains provisions dealing with public servants who knowingly prepare incorrect documents or records with the requisite intention concerning injury or loss. Sections 201 and 256, however, contain their own specific ingredients and should not be mechanically applied to every false RTI response. If the allegation concerns preparation of an incorrect document, the prosecution must identify the document, the statutory duty attached to its preparation, the accused's knowledge that it was incorrect and the required intention or knowledge concerning injury or loss. The mere existence of an inaccurate RTI reply is not enough.
The RTI remedy and criminal law serve different functions
Section 20 of the RTI Act provides a specific statutory mechanism for penalty and disciplinary recommendation. That mechanism remains the ordinary route for establishing an RTI violation. A criminal proceeding is different. The existence of a Section 20 penalty does not, by itself, establish a BNS offence, nor does a BNS allegation eliminate the need to satisfy the RTI Act. The two regimes operate on different legal questions. A criminal complaint must, therefore, stand on its own statutory ingredients and evidence.
The RTI Act itself protects acts done in good faith under Section 21. This reinforces the need for caution before invoking criminal law against a PIO. An honest inability to trace an old record, a bona fide misunderstanding of the scope of a request, or a reasonable but ultimately incorrect administrative decision cannot simply be converted into criminality because an appellate authority later takes a different view. The decisive distinction is between bona fide error and knowing, deliberate conduct accompanied by the mental element required by the penal provision.
Even where the facts appear to disclose a possible offence, criminal process must follow the applicable procedure. Depending upon the status of the public servant and the circumstances in which the alleged offence was committed, the requirement of previous sanction under Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita may arise. This is a procedural question that must be examined at the stage of cognizance and cannot be assumed either way.
The proposition, therefore, should not be stated as “a false RTI reply is a crime”. That would be legally excessive. The more precise proposition is that where a PIO, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys a statutory direction governing the handling of an RTI request, and does so with the intention of causing injury or knowledge that such injury is likely to result, the conduct may potentially attract Section 198 of the BNS, subject to proof of every statutory ingredient. Depending on the facts, another specific BNS provision may also be relevant.
Transparency cannot depend on the honesty of a reply alone
The significance of the issue lies in the integrity of the information system itself. An RTI regime cannot function effectively if an official can knowingly defeat a statutory right simply by stating that an existing record cannot be found. At the same time, criminal law should not become a substitute for the appellate and penalty mechanisms of the RTI Act. Where the evidence shows only error or negligence, the matter may remain within the RTI and service law framework. Where it demonstrates knowing disobedience, deliberate falsehood and the legally required injury, criminal scrutiny may legitimately arise. The decisive question is, therefore, not whether the reply was inconvenient or even wrong, but whether the evidence establishes the state of knowledge and intention required by the penal law.
(Siddhartha Shankar Mishra is an advocate at the Supreme Court of India.)

SSC Selection Post Phase 13 exam: ‘No data available on candidates affected by centre changes, tech failures’

Indian Express: New Delhi: Wednesday, 23^rd September 2026.
The SSC Selection Post Phase 13 exam 2025, which started on July 24, 2025 and was scheduled to conclude on August 1, was disrupted by complaints of abrupt cancellations, server crashes, unresponsive systems and remote examination centres.

Some candidates had also alleged that they were allotted examination centres hundreds of kilometres from their homes. (Express photo by Gajendra Yadav/ representative)

The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) has no specific data on the number of candidates affected during the SSC Selection Post Phase 13 exam 2025 due to examination centre changes, cancellations and technical failures, even as re-examinations were scheduled for 76,153 candidates following disruptions, according to its response to the Central Information Commission (CIC).
The examination and data-system irregularities prompted SSC aspirants and teachers to stage a widespread protest over alleged mismanagement of the recruitment exam. The protest gathered at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar, demanding accountability and reforms in the examination process as a “Delhi Chalo” call echoed around.
The SSC Selection Post Phase 13 exam 2025, which started on July 24, 2025, and was scheduled to conclude on August 1, was disrupted by complaints of abrupt cancellations, server crashes, unresponsive systems and remote examination centres. A few candidates also alleged that they were allotted examination centres which were located hundreds of kilometres away from their homes.
In a Right to Information (RTI) application, the petitioner asked for the number of candidates whose centres were changed less than 24 hours before their examination time, along with a city- and state-wise breakup and additional details if any special arrangements were made for them.
As a written submission before the CIC, the SSC said, “Since EC-2 has no role in changing the examination centres of candidates, no data is available in this regard.” The applicant had also sought the data containing the total number of candidates affected by centre changes, cancellations and technical or logistical failures, along with copies of internal reports prepared on these issues.
“No data is available with us, as EC-2 has a limited role in such activities,” the SSC responded.
It said the section monitors the examination during its conduct.
The SSC further added that re-examinations were also conducted for multiple affected candidates during the examination, originally scheduled from July 24 to August 1, 2025.
“However, re-examination was conducted on August 2 and August 29, 2025 for 76,153 affected candidates,” the commission said. Simultaneously, the commission also acknowledged that the “specific data relating to such candidates is not available in EC Section.”
The RTI application also sought information on complaints received by the SSC or its partners regarding alleged mistreatment of students at examination centres, including incidents of physical abuse or aggression, medical emergencies and the reported case of a student fainting and bleeding from the mouth.
The SSC responded that “No complaints are received in this regard.”
On the student and teacher protest which unfolded on July 31, 2025 near Jantar Mantar and the CGO Complex, the applicant sought communications between the commission and Delhi Police or other authorities, including any directives issued for handling the demonstration.
The SSC said, “Insofar as the examination section was concerned, no communication was made between the Commission and Delhi Police.”
The RTI applicant had also demanded names and designations of officials involved in exam conduct activities like centre allocation, coordination with Eduquity (exam conducting agency) and other agencies, and examination-day operations.
The SSC cited Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act in response to this query, saying disclosure could hamper the “sanctity, integrity and security of future examinations”.
During the hearing, the CIC noted that the SSC could not satisfactorily explain the constitutional act used to deny information and orded it to submit a written justification.
CIC later scrapped the appeal after receiving the response but warned the SSC to “act strictly within the precincts of the RTI Act” and follow the prescribed timelines.
(With inputs from PTI)

RTI: MeitY has no records of MIB’s order that asked for teams to tackle ‘fake content’

Media Nama: Bangalore: Wednesday, 23^rd September 2026.

A response from an RTI filed by MediaNama revealed that Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has no information on record related to MIB’s July 27 ‘fake content’ order. The said order asks central ministries and departments to set up Quick Response Teams (QRTs) to counter fake, misleading, and manipulated content on social media. MediaNama received this RTI reply from MeitY’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), disposed of on September 18, 2026.
MediaNama has also filed a similar RTI with Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) as it reportedly issued the order. We are yet to receive a MIB’s response. We’ve also written to MeitY challenging this RTI response. We’ll publish a fresh copy if and when MIB or MeitY replies to the RTI applications.
Some background on Quick Response Teams: 
Earlier in August, MediaNama reported regarding the order, based on a PTI report that the MIB advisory directed the social media teams of various ministries to monitor content related to their own ministries and departments. The order also asked them to report anything deemed “fake, misleading, factually incorrect, manipulated, distorted, taken out of context, or likely to cause public confusion” to Quick Response Teams. The QRTs were in turn expected to coordinate with the Press Information Bureau’s Fact Check Unit (FCU) for a fact-checked response, ideally within two hours of the content being flagged.
As per a letter accessed by the New Indian Express, the MIB Secretary Chanchal Kumar said rumours on social media “travel fast,” and that the government must match the pace. The order reportedly capped fact-checked responses at 200 words and required them to be cross-posted on platforms like Instagram and YouTube as memes, posters, and short videos for “algorithmic amplification.” The directive came after Prime Minister Modi asked ministers to be proactive on social media, in the fallout of CJP’s Jantar Mantar protests. 
What the MeitY reply reveals:
MediaNama asked for the Terms of Reference (ToR) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), any amendments, and the internal file notings behind the notice.  Rather than responding point-by-point to the four questions asked, MeitY’s CPIO returned a single, blanket response covering the entire application.
“No information is available in records of the undersigned Central Public Information Officer (CPIO).” – RTI Response.
The reply goes on to cite clause 2(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, which defines “information” and notes that only information that is “available and existing” and “held by the public authority or is held under the control of the public authority” can be supplied under the Act.
In effect, MeitY says it holds no record connecting it to MIB’s order, its ToR or SOPs, any amendments, or any correspondence between the two Ministries.
Why MeitY? And, why it matters:
MediaNama filed identical RTIs with both MeitY and MIB because of a distinction of the identical name of Fact Checking Unit under both Ministries. For some context, Press Information of Bureau’s Fact Check Unit comes under the MIB, which may or may not have been tasked to co-ordinate with the so-called Quick Resposne Teams (QRT) under the MIB’s advisory. 
Whereas, now struck down Fact Check Unit under Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the IT Rules, 2021 comes under the MeitY. The Ministry notified provision that let a government-designated unit flag information about “any business of the Central Government” as fake, false, or misleading, and which the Bombay High Court struck down in 2024. Bombay HC’s Justice GS Patel found the terms like ‘fake’, ‘misleading’ are “entirely subjective” and called the provision ‘vague’ and overbroad.
Later in March 2026, the Supreme Court declined to strike down that 2024 Bombay HC order and itself raised questions about how the Rules define “misleading” content. MIB’s newer Quick Response Teams now resembles similar language. 
What are the questions asked?
Kindly provide certified copies of the following records held by your Ministry:

1. Any order, office memorandum, advisory, circular, or letter issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on or around Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s order on July 27, 2026, directing Union Ministries/Departments to constitute Quick Response Teams (QRTs) to counter allegedly fake, misleading, factually incorrect, manipulated, distorted, out-of-context, or confusing content on social media. Include the file number and date.

2. The Terms of Reference (ToR), Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), guidelines, manuals, or similar documents (including annexures) issued by the Ministry or under its authority, specifying:

• (a) The mandate, functions, and composition of these QRTs.
• (b) The process and timelines for monitoring social media content related to ministries/departments and identifying content as fake, misleading, factually incorrect, manipulated, distorted, taken out of context, or likely to cause public confusion.
• (c) The procedure for reporting such content to QRTs and coordinating with the Press Information Bureau’s Fact Check Unit (FCU). 
• (d) Requirements regarding format, word limits (e.g., 200 words), use of memes, posters, short videos, cross-posting across platforms (Instagram, YouTube, etc.), and any reference to “algorithmic amplification” of fact-checked responses.

3. Any subsequent amendments, clarifications, or follow-up instructions issued by the Ministry relating to the above order, ToR, SOPs, or guidelines.
4. File notings and intra-ministerial correspondence within the Ministry that document the decision-making process leading to the issuance of the order and SOPs/guidelines mentioned in points 1 and 2, limited to the stage after the final decision was taken, as per the proviso to Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Ballari Road RTI plea remains stuck in civic bottlenecks: ByY Maheswara Reddy

Bangalore Mirror: Bangalore: Wednesday, 23^rd September 2026.
Environmentalist says RTI application seeking information on Ballari Road tunnel project has been circulating between civic departments since January 2026 without any response or disclosure received

An application submitted to the Public Information Officer of Bengaluru Smart Infrastructure Limited (B‑SMILE) has been circulating among various city corporation departments since January 2026. Under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, authorities are mandated to furnish requested details within the stipulated time frame, but the response allegedly remains pending.
The standard time limit to get a reply under the RTI Act, 2005, is 30 days from the date the application is received by the Public Information Officer (PIO).
The application was filed by Dattatreya T Devare, an environmentalist, on January 13, 2026, seeking some documents pertaining to the proposed Ballari Road tunnel project. However, the officer allegedly forwarded the application to the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA).
The GBA Public Information Officer wrote letters to personal assistants of Additional Commissioners (Development), Bengaluru North City Corporation, Bengaluru South City Corporation, Bengaluru East City Corporation, Bengaluru West City Corporation, Bengaluru Central City Corporation and the Chief Engineer (Planning and Coordination) of the Greater Bengaluru Authority.
A copy of the letter was sent to Dattatreya T Devare on January 23, 2026. “I used the same copy to send a reminder to the Bengaluru East City Corporation. The Executive Engineer (KR Puram) of BECC wrote a letter to the Assistant Executive Engineer directing him to provide the information sought by me and also forwarded the copy of the letter to me on July 7, 2026. However, I am yet to receive a reply even after two months,” said Devare, adding that he wrote a reminder in the last letter, which kept going from one office to another before returning to him.
Commenting on the delay in providing information, HM Venkatesh of Naija Horatagarara Vedike noted that authorities are supposed to provide information sought by applicants under the RTI Act within a stipulated time.
“They can forward the application to the department concerned if they do not have the information sought by the applicant. Section 6(3) of the RTI Act requires a public authority to transfer an RTI application to another relevant department within five days if the requested information is held by them or relates to their functions,” said Venkatesh.