‘Can you provide Rs 1,000 cr?’: Karnataka High Court bins plea for online hearing for RTI appeal

The Indian Express: Karnataka: Wednesday, 17 June 2026.
The Karnataka High Court said the Supreme Court has only urged the states to allow online hearings and not made it mandatory.

The petitioner, a law student, argued his case in the Karnataka High Court in person. (File Photo)

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday disposed of a law student’s petition seeking directions for the Karnataka State Law University and the state government to allow him to appear online for the hearing of an appeal filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj refused the relief to the petitioner, Pranava K N, and asked, “Are you willing to provide Rs 1,000 crore and provide the facility… Who is going to give them (authorities) Rs 1,000 crore to enable this facility in each of the departments?”
Pranava, who argued in person, relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Swapnil Tripathi v Supreme Court of India (2017) and said that online hearings are a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The judge then said the principle applies only if the authorities have the facilities.
The high court said in its order, “Though the Apex court has indicated that state should endeavor to provide online hearing, there is no mandate as such and the same is a policy decision by the state government.”
The court also noted the additional government advocate’s submission that allowing online hearings would require huge investments and expenses.
The order added, “Providing online hearing being a policy decision of the University and State of Karnataka, the above relief cannot be granted, the petition stands disposed.”
The court said that in the petitioner’s case, appeals before the first appellate authority need to be filed at the department or university level.
Pranava approached the court to quash a November 25, 2025, communication from the first appellate authority under the RTI Act that denied him permission for online appearance and directed him to appear physically to argue his appeal.
Further, he sought a direction for the government to ensure that all first appellate authorities under the RTI Act provide an online or hybrid hearing option for RTI first appeals.
As per section 19 of the RTI Act, anyone who does not receive a decision on his application or is aggrieved by a decision of the central or state public information officer (PIO) may, within 30 days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision, appeal to the PIO in each public authority.

NTA's salary bill remains a secret as agency denies RTI request

India Today: New Delhi: Wednesday, 17 June 2026.
NTA has refused to disclose its salary bill and top officials' pay under RTI, despite having 198 personnel. The move comes as a reform panel urges reduced outsourcing after the 2024 exam controversies.

NTA's salary bill remains a secret as agency denies RTI request

The National Testing Agency (NTA), the body that conducts high-stakes examinations such as NEET, JEE Main and CUET for millions of students, has declined to reveal how much it spends on salaries and staff or how much its highest paid officials earn.
In response to a Right to Information (RTI) application filed by India Today, the agency refused to provide details of its salary expenditure and the remuneration of its top officials, stating that the information was not available in the format sought.
The RTI application sought year wise details of expenditure incurred by the NTA on salaries, allowances and other staff-related payments since its inception, along with information on the agency's ten highest paid officials, including their designation, annual salary, allowances and total annual remuneration.
"The data is not available in the desired format, as requested by the applicant," the agency said in its reply dated June 13, 2026.
The NTA invoked Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, arguing that public authorities are required to provide only information that already exists in their records. "Creation of new data, compilation of information from different sources, or collation of details amounts to generating information, which is beyond the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005," the reply stated.
The response is likely to raise questions about transparency in an organisation that occupies a critical position in India's education system. Notably, the NTA did not state that the information does not exist. Instead, it maintained that the data was not available in the format sought and that compiling it would amount to creating new information.
The RTI response assumes significance because the agency's staffing structure is already in the public domain. In a reply to Parliament in December 2024, the Ministry of Education disclosed that the NTA had 198 personnel, comprising 22 employees on deputation, 38 contractual employees, and 138 outsourced staff.
The issue assumes added importance in light of the recommendations of the K Radhakrishnan Committee, constituted in 2024 after controversies surrounding national entrance examinations.
The committee had recommended minimising the outsourcing of examination staff and centres, stressing that high-stakes examination functions should not rely excessively on temporary or weakly supervised delivery chains.
Against this backdrop, details of NTA's expenditure on personnel and the remuneration structure of its senior officials acquire greater public interest significance.

Disclose Recruitment Merit Lists, Selected Candidates' Marks Proactively: CIC to UPSC

ETV Bharat: New Delhi: Wednesday, 17 June 2026.
The CIC advised UPSC to proactively disclose merit lists, marks, and candidate names to enhance transparency

The Central Information Commission has advised the UPSC to proactively disclose category-wise merit lists, marks and names of selected candidates in recruitment examinations, saying transparency is crucial in the appointment process.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) passed the direction while deciding an appeal filed by a candidate, who sought his interview marks and the waiting list for the post of deputy director (planning/statistics) in the planning department of the Delhi government.
Information Commissioner Jaya Varma Sinha noted that "the need for transparency is more in the case of appointment/recruitment" and advised the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act to place relevant information from all stages of recruitment in the public domain.
The Commission recommended that the UPSC publish "names of the selected candidates, category wise merit list arranged with sequence beginning with the unreserved category, followed by all reserved categories (SC, ST, OBC, PwD) along with their marks, sequence of filling the posts with respect to current or backlog vacancies in public domain" on its website so that citizens have "minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information".
The CIC also pulled up the UPSC over an erroneous RTI response. The appellant was initially denied his interview marks after officials mistakenly linked his request to another candidate involved in pending litigation.
"The Commission admonishes the respondent public authority for committing such blatant errors while replying under the RTI Act," the order said.
On the denial of the waiting list under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, the Commission observed that "the term 'confidential' by itself is not an exemption" under the law. It said the authorities cannot deny information merely by labelling it confidential and must demonstrate how a disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party.
Holding the denial of waiting list information to be "unsustainable in law and contrary to the spirit of transparency mandated under the RTI Act", the CIC directed the central public information officer (CPIO) to provide the required information to the appellant.

Attempt to hoodwink court: Karnataka HC dismisses BDA Secretary's plea against penalty imposed by RTI authority

Bar and Bench: Bangalore: Wednesday, 17 June 2026.
The Karnataka Information Commission had imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 on the BDA Secretary for failing to comply with directions issued under the RTI Act.

Bangalore Development Authority

The Karnataka High Court on Monday refused to interfere with disciplinary action recommended by the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) against Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) Secretary Shivakumar CL [Shivakumar CL v. State Information Commissioner and another].
Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that the officer's conduct deserved to be deprecated and that the Court would not permit any attempt to "hoodwink" it.
The judge dismissed Shivakumar's petition challenging the KIC's orders which had imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 on him and recommended disciplinary proceedings against him for not complying with directions issued under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The Court noted that the BDA Secretary had neither complied with the KIC's directions, nor had he appeared before the Commission despite repeated opportunities.
"On the dates that the matter was taken up by the KIC, the said action on part of the petitioner cannot be countenanced either in law or fact. In fact, such conduct is required to be deprecated, which this Court does."
The dispute is tied to an RTI application filed by one Suresh Chandra Babu. After the information was not furnished within the prescribed period, Babu filed a first appeal before the first appellate authority under the RTI Act - the BDA Secretary in this case - on March 9, 2023. Though certain steps were initiated by the earlier BDA Secretary on May 5, 2023, no final order was passed on the appeal.
Shivakumar CL assumed charge on May 8, 2025. However, the Court noted that even after he assumed office, no orders were passed on the pending appeal. The matter then reached the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC).
Proceedings before the KIC were held on July 8, August 12 and November 5, 2025, during which there was no representation on behalf of the BDA Secretary and no action was taken to furnish the requested information.
Consequently, on January 1, 2026, the KIC imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 and directed that the information be furnished. When the matter was listed again on February 10, 2026, the KIC found that there was still no appearance by the BDA Secretary. It proceeded to direct the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him.
This turn of events was then challenged by the BDA Secretary before the High Court. His counsel, Advocate M V Charati, argued that the delay originated during the tenure of Shivakumar's predecessors and that the petitioner had assumed office only on May 8, 2025.
He contended that the petitioner, being only the first appellate authority and not the Public Information Officer, could not be held liable for the denial of information that related to the year 2023. It was also submitted that on March 12, 2026, the petitioner had instructed the Deputy Secretary to furnish the information sought.
The Court, however, rejected these submissions.
"Even after the petitioner took charge on 8.5.2025, no order had been passed for the rest of the year, that is, from May to December 2025. The letter that the petitioner relies upon addressed by the petitioner to the Deputy Secretary, is dated 12.3.2026, much after the order dated 1.1.2026 had been passed (by KIC)," the Court observed.
The Bench proceeded to term Shivakumar's argument an attempt to hoodwink the Court.
"The said reliance on the letter dated 12.3.2026 is completely misconceived and, in my considered opinion, is an attempt to hoodwink this Court, which is not permissible," Justice Govindaraj said.
During the hearing, the Bench also questioned the petitioner over his inaction after assuming office.
"You are supposed to do it in 45 days. What did you do with your appeal? You were the First Appellate Authority. First appeal was filed on 9.3.2023. What did you do after that?...From 8.5.2025 to 1.1.2026, what did you do?"
When it was argued that earlier files would come to notice only when placed before the officer, the Bench remarked that authorities must put systems in place to ensure prompt action.
"So you'll sit on the application? We won't allow the recall of disciplinary action...You set your house in order. You put a system in place so that you are informed, because you are the first appellate authority," the judge remarked.
Finding no infirmity in the KIC's orders, the High Court proceeded to dismiss the BDA secretary's plea.
The Court clarified that the concerned authorities would also be at liberty to initiate action against the petitioner's predecessor, who had failed to take any action on the first appeal from March 9, 2023, until the petitioner assumed charge in May 2025.

Special Police Establishment Not An "Intelligence & Security Organisation": Supreme Court Strikes Down MP Notification Granting It Exemption From RTI : ByMuhib Makhdoomi

Verdictum: Chandigarh: Wednesday, 17 June 2026.
The Apex Court struck down a State Government notification that exempted the SPE from the purview of the RTI Act, holding that its jurisdiction is confined to investigating corruption-related offences involving public servants and does not extend to matters of intelligence or security.

The Supreme Court held that the Special Police Establishment constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947, for assisting the Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta in corruption-related investigations, cannot be exempted from the operation of the Right to Information Act, 2005, by treating it as an “intelligence and security organisation”.
The Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Special Police Establishment, Madhya Pradesh, and upheld a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment that directed the disclosure of information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005, concerning the sanction granted for the prosecution of a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held: “The sphere of operation of the SPE constituted under the Act of 1947 would be governed and guided only by matters that may be enquired into by the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt under Section 7 of the Act of 1981. The jurisdiction, in that sense, is limited to an allegation in relation to a public servant in the context of the Act of 1988.”
The Court further observed: “The SPE having been conferred jurisdiction only to investigate offences punishable under the Act of 1988, Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII of the Penal Code, it cannot be termed to be an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation for the purposes of Section 24(4) of the Act of 2005.”
Advocate Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR, appeared for the appellant-establishment. Prashant Singh, Advocate General, appeared for the respondent State. Advocate Rajeev Singh, AOR, represented the respondent-applicant
Background
Respondent-applicant, a Town Inspector posted at Police Station Madhav Nagar, Katni, was implicated in a trap case registered by the Special Police Establishment under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Following the grant of sanction for his prosecution by the State Government, he sought information under the RTI Act regarding the decision-making process leading to the grant of sanction and communications exchanged in that regard.
The request was rejected, and the State Information Commission upheld the refusal by relying upon Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court found that the investigation had already concluded and directed disclosure of the information sought. Aggrieved thereby, the Special Police Establishment approached the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant relied upon a notification dated 25 August 2011 issued by the General Administration Department of the State Government under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, exempting the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment of the Lokayukta Organisation from the applicability of the RTI Act.
Court's Observations
The Court noted that, although the notification dated 25 August 2011 had not been specifically challenged before the High Court, the appellant sought to rely on the notification to defeat the RTI claim. This led the Court to examine whether the notification was consistent with Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
Referring to its power to examine the validity of subordinate legislation, the Court observed that where a pure question of statutory interpretation arises, and the State has been afforded adequate opportunity to justify the measure, the Court is not precluded from testing its legality.
The Bench undertook an examination of Section 24 of the RTI Act and noted that both sub-sections (1) and (4) exempt only “intelligence and security organisations” from the operation of the statute. It observed that organisations listed in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act, such as the Enforcement Directorate, Border Security Force, Central Reserve Police Force and National Investigation Agency, are specifically concerned with intelligence gathering, national security or internal security functions.
According to the Court, the expression “intelligence and security organisations” cannot be interpreted expansively to include every investigative agency established by the State Government.
The Court examined the statutory framework governing the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 and observed that the legislation was enacted to establish an independent mechanism for enquiring into allegations of corruption, misconduct and abuse of office by public servants.
The Court noted that Section 7 of the 1981 Act authorises the Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt to enquire into allegations against public servants, while the Special Police Establishment functions as an investigative arm assisting those authorities.
Referring to various notifications issued under the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947, the Court observed that the SPE is empowered only to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 409 and 420 IPC, offences under Chapter XVIII of the IPC and related conspiracies.
The Bench remarked: "The various Notifications issued by the State Government under Section 3 of the Act of 1947 from time to time are limited to offences punishable under the Act of 1988, Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII of the Penal Code. Though Section 24(4) of the Act of 2005 states that the Act would apply to such ‘intelligence and security organisations’ established by the State Government as notified, the SPE though established by the State Government, it is not empowered to investigate any offences or classes of offences related to ‘intelligence’ and ‘security".
The Bench further held: “The statutory scheme under which the SPE stands constituted coupled with the jurisdiction conferred on the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt clearly indicate that the SPE cannot be termed to be an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation when it assists the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt in matters specified by Section 7 of the Act of 1981.”
The Court found that the notification dated 25 August 2011 sought to exempt the SPE from the RTI Act by invoking Section 24(4), despite the SPE not qualifying as an “intelligence and security organisation”.
The Bench observed that subordinate legislation can be invalidated when it exceeds the limits of authority conferred by the parent enactment. Since Section 24(4) permits exemption only for intelligence and security organisations, extending that exemption to the SPE was beyond statutory authority.
The Court held: "The SPE having been conferred jurisdiction only to investigate offences punishable under the Act of 1988, Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII of the Penal Code, it cannot be termed to be an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation for the purposes of Section 24(4) of the Act of 2005".
“The Notification dated 25.08.2011 issued by the GAD of the State of Madhya Pradesh to the extent it seeks to exclude the SPE from the purview of the Act of 2005 in view of Section 24(4) thereof is liable to be set aside as being bad in law”, the Court accordingly concluded.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment, functioning as the investigative arm of the Lokayukt Organisation for corruption-related offences involving public servants, cannot be characterised as an “intelligence and security organisation” under Section 24(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Consequently, the notification dated 25 August 2011, exempting the SPE from the RTI Act, was declared invalid and struck down. The Court maintained the High Court's direction requiring disclosure of information sought by the respondent under the RTI Act and dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 644)
Appearances: Appellant: Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR.
Respondents: Advocates Rajeev Singh, Naveen Kumar Singh; Prashant Singh (Advocate General), Advocates Sridhar Potaraju, Manisha T. Karia, D.S. Parmar, Harmeet Singh Ruprah, Abhimanyu Singh Ga and Karan Singh.
(Click here to read/download Judgment)

Chandigarh Administration denies RTI plea seeking basis for Master Plan amendments

The Indian Express: Chandigarh: Wednesday, 17 June 2026.
Says proposed changes to Master Plan 2031 are still under consideration; details can be disclosed only after final decision

The Chandigarh Master Plan-2031, formally notified in April 2015, serves as the guiding blueprint for managing the city’s growth, heritage and infrastructure till 2031. (File Photo)

The Chandigarh Administration has declined to disclose details of the proposed amendments to the city’s Master Plan, citing provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act that exempt disclosure of records related to an ongoing decision-making process.
The proposed amendments to the Chandigarh Master Plan 2031 including a higher Floor Area Ratio (FAR), increased population density, mixed land use, and high-rise development have come under scrutiny following an RTI application seeking to know the studies and assessments that formed the basis of the proposed changes.
In response to an RTI application filed by city resident Ram Kumar Garg, the Urban Planning Department said the draft amendments had been placed in the public domain for inviting objections and suggestions from residents, but the proposal was still under consideration and had not attained finality.
“The Draft Amendments in the Chandigarh Master Plan have been placed in the public domain for inviting objections/suggestions from the general public, and the proposal is presently under consideration, and not attained finality from the Competent Authority,” the department said in its response dated June 16.
The department further said the information sought was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act, 2005, and could be disclosed after the matter is finalised, subject to the provisions of the law.
The response came after Garg sought details relating to the proposed changes in the Master Plan, the key planning document that guides Chandigarh’s land use, housing, commercial development, transport infrastructure and future urban growth.
The applicant had sought copies of all studies, consultant reports, technical assessments, and official records relied upon while preparing the proposed amendments. The request aimed to ascertain whether the city’s infrastructure is equipped to handle the additional burden that may arise from denser development.
Specifically, the RTI application sought utility augmentation, detailed project reports, population impact projections, carrying-capacity studies, infrastructure impact assessments, traffic studies, utility load assessments and environmental impact assessments related to the proposed amendments.
It also sought records indicating whether funds had been earmarked for upgrading civic infrastructure and whether timelines or implementation plans had been prepared before the proposed planning changes are implemented.
In addition, the applicant sought file notings, inter-departmental correspondence, minutes of meetings and records relating to any expert committee constituted to examine or recommend the amendments. Copies of approvals, recommendations, observations and reports relied upon by the administration while framing the amendments were also sought.
The applicant further requested that if any of the studies or assessments sought did not exist, the administration should state so specifically. An inspection of all relevant files was also sought under the RTI Act.
Officials maintained that since the amendment process is ongoing, disclosure of the information at this stage is barred under the RTI Act. They, however, pointed out that information relating to the draft amendments already available in the public domain can be accessed through the department’s website.
The refusal is significant as the proposed amendments, which have attracted criticism from several quarters, could have a bearing on future development patterns in the city. Urban planners, resident welfare associations and other stakeholders have been closely tracking the exercise, with several groups seeking greater transparency regarding the proposed changes and their likely impact on land-use norms and development controls.
The RTI application was disposed of by the Urban Planning Department on June 16.

Supreme Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To RTI Activist, Says ‘RTI Activism Has Become A New Business’.

Lawbeat: Sukriti Mishra: New Delhi: Tuesday, June 16, 2026.

The Supreme Court refused anticipatory bail to an RTI activist accused of obstructing a road construction project and remarked that “RTI activism has become a new business".

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant anticipatory bail to an RTI activist accused of obstructing a public servant and interfering with a government road construction project in Punjab, while making strong oral remarks on the growing trend of self-styled RTI activism.

The Bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi dismissed the anticipatory bail plea filed by RTI activist Rakesh Kumar Behl, who had challenged an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court denying him pre-arrest protection.

During the hearing, the Bench questioned Behl's role in monitoring the execution of a public infrastructure project and expressed disapproval of individuals taking it upon themselves to oversee government works without any statutory authority.

Justice Mehta remarked: "RTI activists have become a new business. Central government has issued funds, it will take care of the construction of road. You are nobody. So-called RTI activist! Yellow journalism. Dismissed."

Justice Bishnoi also questioned the basis on which the petitioner was allegedly supervising the road construction work. "Who are you to monitor the construction all these road progress or all? Are you some superior authority?" the judge asked.

The case stems from an FIR alleging that Behl, along with another accused, obstructed an ongoing road construction project being executed under government supervision. According to the prosecution, the accused persons interfered with the work, intimidated the complainant who was supervising the project, and prevented labourers from carrying out construction activities.

The FIR further alleges that Behl physically assaulted the complainant, while the co-accused kicked him during the altercation. The prosecution has also accused the duo of making caste-based derogatory remarks against labourers present at the site.

Based on these allegations, the police registered a case under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, including offences relating to obstructing public servants, criminal intimidation, assault and unlawful restraint. Charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have also been invoked.

Seeking anticipatory bail, Behl approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, contending that he had been falsely implicated. However, the High Court declined relief, observing that the allegations in the FIR disclosed his direct and specific involvement in obstructing government work.

The High Court had noted that the accusations were serious in nature and prima facie revealed interference with a public project being undertaken through government funds.

Aggrieved by the High Court's refusal, Behl moved the Supreme Court seeking anticipatory bail.

However, the apex court was not inclined to interfere. During the hearing, the Bench repeatedly questioned the petitioner's authority to monitor or intervene in the construction process and indicated that public projects funded by the government are subject to oversight by competent authorities rather than private individuals.

Case Title: Ramesh Kumar Behl v. State of Punjab Bench: Justices Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi ; Hearing Date: June 15, 2026

Lokayukta Special Police Not 'Intelligence & Security Organisation' Exempt From RTI Act : Supreme Court.

Livelaw: New Delhi: Tuesday, June 16, 2026.

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a Madhya Pradesh High Court direction requiring the Special Police Establishment (SPE) of the Lokayukta Organisation to disclose information sought under the Right to Information Act, while striking down a 2011 State Government notification that exempted the SPE from the RTI regime.

A Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that the SPE, which investigates corruption-related offences involving public servants, cannot be classified as an "intelligence and security organisation" under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, 2005, and therefore cannot be granted blanket exemption from the Act.

The case arose from an RTI application filed by Kamta Prasad Mishra, a Town Inspector in Katni who was implicated in a corruption trap case registered by the SPE in 2017. After the State Government granted sanction for his prosecution in 2020, Mishra sought details regarding the decision-making process behind the sanction order and related communications. His request was rejected by the authorities and later by the State Information Commission, which relied on Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, exempting disclosure of information that could impede investigation or prosecution.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court subsequently ruled in Mishra's favour, observing that the investigation had already been completed and a chargesheet filed. It directed the authorities to furnish the requested information. The SPE challenged that decision before the Supreme Court.

Before the apex court, the SPE relied on a notification issued by the Madhya Pradesh General Administration Department on August 25, 2011, under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act. The notification purported to exclude the SPE and the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences from the purview of the RTI Act.

Examining the validity of the notification, the Court held that Section 24(4) permits exemption only for "intelligence and security organisations" established by a State Government. Analysing the statutory framework governing the Lokayukta and the SPE, the Bench found that the SPE's jurisdiction is confined to investigating corruption offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and certain offences under the Penal Code involving public servants. It does not perform intelligence or security functions.

"The SPE cannot be termed to be an 'intelligence and security' organisation for the purposes of Section 24(4) of the Act of 2005," the Court held.

The Bench further observed that the 2011 notification sought to extend the exemption beyond what was authorised by the RTI Act and therefore failed to conform to the parent statute. It held the notification, insofar as it excluded the SPE from the RTI Act, to be invalid and excessive in nature.

While dismissing the SPE's appeal, the Court maintained the High Court's direction to provide the information sought by Mishra. However, it clarified that it had not examined the validity of the notification in relation to the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences, and therefore the notification would continue to operate to that extent.

Case: Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra & Ors. Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 629

Click here to read the judgment

Information Commission imposes penalty on two Social Welfare officials

The Hindu: Kalaburagi: Monday, 15 June 2026.
Action taken for failing to furnish information sought under the Right to Information Act and for not complying with the commission’s orders

Kalaburagi Bench Karnataka State Information Commission B. Venkata Singh

Commissioner of the Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka State Information Commission B. Venkata Singh has imposed penalties on two Deputy Directors of the Social Welfare Department for failing to furnish information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and for not complying with the commission’s orders.
According to media note released by his office, the action followed an appeal filed by Rangalinga Gouda of Raichur who said that information sought under the RTI Act has not been provided even after two years.
After hearing the matter, the commission imposed a penalty of ₹10,000 on Vijayalakshmi, who is a former Deputy Director of the Social Welfare Department in Raichur and now serving in Shahapur taluk, and ₹5,000 on Shivappa, who is the Deputy Director of the Social Welfare Department in Raichur.
The commission noted that Vijayalakshmi was earlier fined ₹5,000 and directed to furnish the information sought by the appellant and appear before it during the subsequent hearing.
However, she neither complied with the order nor appeared before the commission. Taking serious note of the continued non-compliance, the commission enhanced the penalty to ₹10,000.
Similarly, Shivappa was directed to provide the requested information and appear before the commission during the next hearing. As he too failed to comply with the commission’s directions, a penalty of ₹5,000 was imposed on him.
The commission has directed Deputy Director of the Social Welfare Department in Raichur district Praveen Kumar and Deputy Director of the department in Yadgir district Chidanandappa to initiate steps to recover the penalties from the officials concerned and submit a compliance report during the next hearing.
The directions were issued under Section 18(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. The commission warned that further action under Section 20(2) of the Act will be initiated in the event of non-compliance.

RTI कानून की मंजूरी के 21 वर्ष पूरे:दुनिया का पहला RTI लिविंग म्यूजियम ब्यावर में बनाया जाएगा

Dainik Bhaskar: Ajmer: Monday, 15 June 2026.

देश में लोकतंत्र को मजबूत करने वाले सूचना के अधिकार कानून को लागू करने के लिए जहां सबसे बड़ा 44 दिन तक धरना किया गया, उसी ब्यावर में दुनिया का पहला आरटीआई लिविंग म्यूजियम बनेगा। इसके लिए नरबद खेड़ा (केसरपुरा क्षेत्र) में 1 एकड़ जमीन चिह्नित कर ली गई है। इसके निर्माण की लागत ढाई करोड़ है। पहले फेज में 85 लाख रुपए मिल भी चुके हैं। 21 साल पहले 15 जून को यहीं से आरटीआई के लिए आंदोलन की शुरुआत हुई थी, इसके बाद जयपुर और अन्य जगह पर आंदोलन किया गया।
मजदूर किसान शक्ति संगठन व आरटीआई आंदोलन की प्रणेता सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता अरुणा रॉय बताती हैं कि इस म्यूजियम का निर्माण और संचालन स्कूल फॉर डेमोक्रेसी (लोकतंत्र की पाठशाला) संस्था की ओर से किया जा रहा है। इस संग्रहालय को पारंपरिक म्यूजियम से अलग एक लिविंग म्यूजियम (जीवंत संग्रहालय) के रूप में विकसित किया जा रहा है। इसमें वर्ष 1996 के ब्यावर धरने और जनआंदोलन से जुड़े दुर्लभ दस्तावेज, तस्वीरें, पोस्टर, पर्चे और अभिलेख, ऑडियो-वीडियो रिकॉर्डिंग और फिल्म फुटेज, मजदूर किसान शक्ति संगठन और राष्ट्रीय सूचना अधिकार अभियान के संघर्षों की गाथा दिखाई जाएगी। इसके अलावा यह एक रिसर्च एंड ट्रेनिंग सेंटर बनेगा।

RTI meant to bring govt actions ‘behind closed doors’ into public view: Punjab info panel

The Times of India: Chandigarh: Monday, 15 June 2026.
Stressing that the Right to Information (RTI) Act is intended to bring government actions carried out behind "closed doors" into the public domain, the Punjab State Information Commission has underscored the law's role in promoting transparency and accountability while pulling up officials for what it termed a "casual and callous" approach towards an RTI application.

The observations were made by state information commissioner Dr Bhupinder Batth while hearing an appeal filed by a Faridkot resident who had sought information from the office of the tehsildar, Jaito.
"The Act is meant for promoting transparency in government functioning by bringing to light actions done behind closed doors so that citizens are kept well informed of the functioning of public authorities, thereby strengthening democracy," the commission observed.
At the same time, it noted that the RTI Act should not be used as a substitute for availing services available under other statutes in matters that do not involve examining the functioning of a public authority.
During the hearing, the appellant submitted that no information had been provided despite the RTI application. The respondent public information officer (PIO) neither appeared before the commission nor deputed any representative.
The commission noted that the PIO had remained absent on the previous hearing as well. While the official had earlier cited election duty, an email sent before the latest hearing said the officer was occupied with ward-related work at the Municipal Council, Jaito, and sought another date.
Taking a serious view of the matter, the commission observed that the public authority had displayed "complete negligence and laxity" in dealing with the RTI application.
"It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind, reflecting disrespect towards the RTI Act itself," the order said.
While expressing displeasure over the respondent's conduct, the commission decided to grant one final opportunity before initiating penal proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act. The PIO has been directed to ensure that complete and accurate information is furnished to applicants in a timely manner.
The commission also brought the matter to the notice of the Faridkot deputy commissioner, noting that despite repeated notices, neither the PIO nor any junior official had appeared before it.
Warning of strict action in case of continued non-compliance, the commission said the PIO's presence could be secured through bailable warrants and disciplinary action could be recommended under the provisions of the Act. The next hearing is scheduled for Sept 3.

Disclose tender process for Board exam answer sheet procurement under RTI Act: CIC to CBSE

The Hindu: New Delhi: Monday, 15 June 2026.

The case arose from an RTI application seeking details of answer books used in Class 10 and 12 board examinations during the 2023-24 and 2024-25 sessions. Representational file image. | Photo Credit: PTI

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to disclose “point-wise categorical” information, permissible under the Right to Information Act, related to expenditure on exams and details of answer books, including the tendering and procurement process, for Class 10 and 12 board examinations.
After setting aside the CBSE’s earlier denial of information under the RTI, the transparency panel asked it to furnish revised replies.
The case arose from an RTI application seeking details of answer books used in Class 10 and 12 Board examinations during the 2023-24 and 2024-25 sessions, including paper quality, number of pages, size, purchase cost, total expenditure, GST payments and details of the tender process for procurement of answer sheets.
In its response, the CBSE disclosed certain specifications of the answer books.
However, information relating to the purchase cost of answer books, the number purchased and total expenditure incurred on procurement was denied under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
The Commission found that the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) had denied information under multiple exemption clauses “without giving any proper justification”.
“...the Commission, deems it fit, to direct, CPIO to revisit the contents of the RTI application in question and provide a revised point-wise categorical replies along with relevant permissible information that can be provided,” the CIC said.

‘Notified but dormant’: What a new RTI-based report reveals about the state of India’s Anti-Human Trafficking Units - Report By Ananya Gunjan

The Leaflet: Report: Sunday, 14 June 2026.
Fifteen years after Anti-Human Trafficking Units were envisioned as India’s frontline institutional response to trafficking, a new report by Sanjog finds them overburdened, underfunded, and structurally fragile with 47,000 children still untraced and conviction rates that are, in several states, zero.

ON MAY 20, 2026, Sanjog, a social impact organisation that works on anti-human trafficking, published an ‘Anti-Human Trafficking Unit Watch Report’ tracing the functionality of Anti-Human Trafficking Units (‘AHTUs’) across all Indian states and Union Territories (‘UTs’) between 2010 and 2025 across three phases. The report draws primarily on information received from states and UTs through RTI applications, along with inputs from lawyers, civil society organisations, and survivor testimonies.
Anti-Human Trafficking Units were envisioned by the Ministry of Home Affairs as specialised units charged with preventing trafficking, conducting rescues, investigating cases, prosecuting traffickers, and aiding the rehabilitation of survivors. Their composition envisages trained law enforcement personnel working in structured coordination with Child Welfare Committees (‘CWCs’), District Child Protection Units (‘DCPUs’), legal aid authorities, and shelters.
The report which opens with National Crime Records Bureau’s (‘NCRB’) ‘Crime in India’ report reflects a rising trend in human trafficking up to 2016, when reported cases peaked at 8,132, followed by a subsequent decline. This decline, however, must be read against a troubling backdrop. The Supreme Court, while hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by a father whose eighteen-month-old daughter went missing in 2011 and remains untraced, noted that 47,000 children continue to remain untraced to date. The report cautions that the post-2016 decline in reported trafficking cases may reflect a failure of institutional documentation rather than any real reduction in the incidence of trafficking.
The AHTU Watch Report assesses the functioning of Anti-Human Trafficking Units through six interdependent indicators.
The report’s findings across six indicators
The AHTU Watch Report assesses the functioning of Anti-Human Trafficking Units through six interdependent indicators. These include: notification status, staffing and stability, budget and infrastructure, FIR autonomy, case progression, and outcomes. The research covers RTI filings and data analysis across all thirty-six states and UTs, interviews with Superintendents of Police and constables associated with AHTUs, inputs from civil society organisations, and structured consultations with survivor leaders and their collectives.
At the outset, the report raises a pointed question about the apparent decline in trafficking cases after 2016 on whether it reflects an actual reduction in trafficking or merely a decline in reporting, documentation, and institutional disclosure, particularly in high-incidence states like Assam, Maharashtra, and Andhra Pradesh. Since the formation of AHTUs, the Ministry of Home Affairs has issued twenty-two advisories and operational guidelines, including advisories on treating human trafficking as organised crime and on trafficking of foreign nationals, the implementation of which, the report finds, remains fragmented across the country.
On notification, relatively less densely populated UTs like Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Ladakh have a hundred percent rate of notified and functional AHTUs, while Uttar Pradesh has only thirty-five functional units out of seventy-five notified. The report underscores that notification as a separate entity, and distinct from a local police station, makes AHTUs more accessible to survivors and reduces their hesitancy in approaching the unit.
On staffing and stability, AHTU personnel across states carry the additional burden of general policing duties, significantly undermining their functioning as specialised investigative units. A survivor quoted in the report noted that AHTU officials were overburdened with general policing responsibilities and often unavailable for trafficking cases. Uttar Pradesh, notably, saw a complete reversal between phases from nearly all AHTU members carrying additional charges to none doing so by Phase 3.
On budget and infrastructure, the data is fractured. Some states and UTs have no dedicated funds and rely entirely on general police budgets, while others like Arunachal Pradesh received sanctioned funds but showed inconsistent utilisation across phases. The report notes that the absence of a dedicated budget is a reflection of governmental callousness toward the seriousness of trafficking offences, and it pushes the financial burden of legal follow-ups and travel onto survivors themselves.
On training and capacity building, the pattern is one of persistent inconsistency. Training remains exclusively police-centric, overlooking social workers, legal aid authorities, and rehabilitation stakeholders. Content is largely confined to general legal awareness, missing crucial areas like labour trafficking identification and trauma-informed investigation. The lack of specialised training in handling trafficking, according to the survivor testimonies in the report, also leads to misdirected insensitive questions, poor documentation, lack of clarity on survivor rights and an erroneous classification of trafficking cases as ordinary labour disputes or kidnapping cases. In order to strengthen the training and capacity building of the AHTU personnels, the report recommends the development of a continuous training framework with a standardized and uniform training syllabus involving various stakeholders.
On FIR autonomy and case progression, the data reveals heavy reliance on local police with minimal transfer of cases to AHTUs and even fewer investigations conducted by them. Delhi transferred thirty-one cases to its AHTU in Phase 3 but recorded zero investigations. The conviction rate across states is abysmal as states and UTs like Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and the Andamans reported zero convictions. Telangana stands out, with 980 chargesheets filed as a result of AHTU investigations.
The conviction rate across states is abysmal as states and UTs like Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and the Andamans reported zero convictions.
On coordination, the report finds the multi-stakeholder architecture structurally fragile across all phases. Coordination with the Crime Multi Agency Centre, launched in 2020 to facilitate interstate information sharing on trafficking, remains weak. Victim compensation, the report notes therefore, is contingent on the quality of documentation and offence classification by law enforcement, which is itself premised on inter-agency coordination that largely does not exist.
The consolidated national findings reflect a system afflicted by overburdened personnel, fluctuating FIR autonomy, inconsistent training, and an almost inconsequential rate of trafficker conviction. Telangana and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are identified as having relatively strong institutional practices. Uttar Pradesh and Delhi fall into the category of moderate but uneven functionality. Meghalaya and Rajasthan’s Bikaner district are identified as structurally fragile but evidence-documented contexts.
The report’s findings echo the Supreme Court’s directions in G. Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2026), in which while dealing with missing children and child trafficking, the Court directed the Union and state governments to eliminate the dormancy functioning of the AHTUs and ensure the immediate restoration of trafficked children.
The malignancy of human trafficking networks, the report concludes, can only be combated by an Anti-Human Trafficking Unit whose functioning is equally systematic, and equally committed to dismantling those networks.

बिना निर्माण 20 सोकपिटों का भुगतान होने का आरोप:लखीमपुर में RTI से खुली ग्राम पंचायत के विकास कार्यों की पोल

Dainik Bhaskar: Uttar Pradesh: Sunday, 14 June 2026.

लखीमपुर खीरी के निघासन क्षेत्र की एक ग्राम पंचायत में विकास कार्यों में कथित अनियमितताओं का मामला सामने आया है। ग्रामीणों ने सूचना का अधिकार (आरटीआई) के तहत प्राप्त अभिलेखों के आधार पर आरोप लगाया है कि करीब 20 सोकपिटों का निर्माण कराए बिना ही उनका भुगतान कर दिया गया।
ग्रामीणों का कहना है कि अभिलेखों में जिन स्थानों पर सोकपिट निर्माण दर्शाया गया है, वहां मौके पर कोई निर्माण कार्य नहीं मिला। आरोप है कि सरकारी धन खर्च दिखाकर कार्य पूर्ण दर्शा दिए गए, जबकि जमीनी स्तर पर निर्माण नहीं हुआ।
ग्रामीणों ने विशेष रूप से सोकपिट संख्या-122 का मामला उठाया है। उनका दावा है कि दौलतापुर निवासी दौलतराम पुत्र हेमराज के घर की छत पर केवल योजना संबंधी विवरण लिखकर कार्य पूर्ण दिखा दिया गया और भुगतान भी कर दिया गया। ग्रामीणों ने इसके समर्थन में तस्वीरें भी उपलब्ध कराई हैं।
आरटीआई में सामने आए कई सवाल
ग्रामीणों ने आरटीआई के माध्यम से ह्यूम पाइप खरीद, सोकपिट निर्माण, स्वच्छता कार्य, ग्राम पंचायत एवं ग्राम सभा की बैठकों की कार्यवाही, हैंडपंप रीबोर और मरम्मत समेत विभिन्न विकास कार्यों से संबंधित अभिलेख प्राप्त किए थे। दस्तावेजों की जांच के बाद उन्होंने कई मदों में वित्तीय अनियमितताओं की आशंका जताई है।
ग्रामीणों का आरोप है कि विकास कार्यों के नाम पर सरकारी धन का दुरुपयोग किया गया है। उन्होंने सभी कार्यों का भौतिक सत्यापन कराए जाने और दोषियों के खिलाफ कार्रवाई की मांग की है।
ग्रामीणों ने प्रशासन से मांग की है कि अभिलेखों में दर्ज कार्यों की स्थलीय जांच कराई जाए और यदि अनियमितताएं साबित होती हैं तो जिम्मेदार लोगों के खिलाफ कठोर कार्रवाई की जाए। साथ ही सरकारी धन की रिकवरी भी सुनिश्चित की जाए।
खंड विकास अधिकारी जयेश कुमार सिंह ने कहा कि यदि उन्हें शिकायत के साथ पर्याप्त साक्ष्य उपलब्ध कराए जाते हैं, तो पूरे प्रकरण की विस्तृत जांच कराई जाएगी। उन्होंने कहा कि जांच में अनियमितता पाए जाने पर नियमानुसार कार्रवाई की जाएगी।
फिलहाल यह मामला क्षेत्र में चर्चा का विषय बना हुआ है। ग्रामीण निष्पक्ष जांच की मांग कर रहे हैं। अब सभी की निगाहें प्रशासनिक जांच और उसकी रिपोर्ट पर टिकी हैं, जिससे आरोपों की वास्तविकता सामने आ सकेगी।

RTI reveals 30,746 fraud cases involving Rs 6,313 crore in SBI over three years

Dailyhunt: Nagpur: Sunday, 14 June 2026.
More than 30,000 fraud cases involving thousands of crores of rupees were reported by the State Bank of India (SBI) between April 2023 and March 2026, according to information disclosed by the bank under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The figures were provided by SBI’s Fraud Prevention and Monitoring Department in response to an RTI application filed by Nagpur-based activist Abhay Kolarkar.
According to the RTI reply, SBI reported a total of 30,746 fraud cases during the three-year period, involving an aggregate amount of Rs 6,313.35 crore.
The year-wise data shows that 14,717 fraud cases involving Rs 2,445.76 crore were reported during 2023-24. In 2024-25, the number stood at 13,782 cases involving Rs 2,122.36 crore. During 2025-26, the bank reported 2,247 fraud cases involving Rs 1,745.23 crore.
The RTI response indicates that cyber fraud constituted a significant portion of the overall fraud incidents reported by the bank.
According to the data, SBI recorded 13,237 cyber fraud cases involving Rs 90.97 crore during 2023-24. In 2024-25, the bank reported 10,260 cyber fraud cases involving Rs 66.70 crore. For 2025-26, the bank reported 83 cyber fraud cases involving Rs 9.06 crore.
The reply notes that the figures exclude reclassification cases.
The RTI response further provides a break-up of digital frauds reported between April 2023 and March 2026.
UPI-related frauds accounted for the highest number of cases at 12,868, involving Rs 71.51 crore. Internet banking frauds followed with 8,657 cases involving Rs 79.58 crore.
The bank also reported 1,102 ATM fraud cases involving Rs 9.58 crore and 296 mobile banking fraud cases involving Rs 3.66 crore during the period.
Employee-linked fraud cases reported
The RTI data also sheds light on internal fraud cases involving bank employees.
According to the reply, SBI reported 114 employee-linked fraud cases involving Rs 137.04 crore in 2023-24. During 2024-25, 100 such cases involving Rs 70.98 crore were reported, while 89 cases involving Rs 103.06 crore were reported in 2025-26.
The figures have been reported in accordance with the Reserve Bank of India’s Master Direction on Fraud Risk Management for Commercial Banks issued on July 15, 2024, the bank stated.
No data available on ‘digital arrest’ frauds
In response to a query seeking details of SBI account holders allegedly trapped in “digital arrest” frauds, the bank stated that the information was “not available.”
Digital arrest scams, in which fraudsters impersonate law enforcement or government officials and coerce victims into transferring money, have emerged as a growing cybercrime concern across the country in recent years.
West Bengal records highest number of frauds
According to the RTI reply, West Bengal recorded the highest number of fraud cases among all states during the three-year period.
The state reported 3,426 fraud cases involving Rs 143.67 crore, making it the state with the largest number of reported fraud incidents in SBI’s network between April 2023 and March 2026.
The information was furnished by Rakesh Aima, Deputy General Manager and Central Public Information Officer, Fraud Prevention and Monitoring Department, SBI Corporate Centre, Mumbai, under the provisions of the RTI Act.
The RTI disclosure provides a rare insight into the scale and nature of frauds reported within India’s largest public sector bank and highlights the continuing challenges posed by cybercrime, digital payment frauds and internal irregularities in the banking sector.