Right to Know vs Right to Privacy: India’s RTI-DPDP Act Conflict Explained : By Saniya Mujawar

LSI: National: Thursday, 20 August 2026.
How Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act changes RTI privacy exemptions and reshapes the balance between transparency, accountability and data privacy.

The Right to Know vs. The Right to Privacy: India’s Data Law Dilemma
Introduction
India has two landmark citizen-rights laws less than 20 years apart—one demanding openness, one demanding restraint. The Right to Information Act, 2005, came as a hope for democratic India, granting citizens the power to hold those in power accountable. While in 2023, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act was enacted to secure the personal data of individuals in the digital economy. The two fundamental rights-based laws, both meant to protect the citizen, now pull in opposite directions. This raises a question the Supreme  Court itself is now being asked to answer.
Table of Contents

• The Right to Know vs. The Right to Privacy: India’s Data Law Dilemma

• Introduction

• Understanding the Two Laws

• The Right to Information Act, 2005

• The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

• The Flashpoint: Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act

• The Exemption Gap: How Public Authorities Are Treated Differently

• Judicial Intervention

• CPIO v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019)

• Conclusion

Understanding the Two Laws
The Right to Information Act, 2005
The landmark case of State of U.P. vs. Raj Narain (1975) first recognized the right to information as a part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression [Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution]. The Supreme Court of India held that people are masters in a democracy and have the right to know how the government works, making disclosure of official information to the public a crucial rule.
Under the RTI Act, citizens can file RTI applications, and the Central/State Public Information Officers, within the proviso, use such information for the benefit of the public at large. Section 7 of the RTI Act makes a proactive obligation on the public authorities to disclose such information upon request.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
The DPDP Act is an enactment made in India laying down the directives on how personal data should be collected, stored, processed, and administered. The core principle of the DPDP Act is safeguarding the personal information of an individual. The historic Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India case, decided by a nine-judge bench, declared that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The DPDP act operated between the data principal (person whose date is collected) and the data fiduciary (company or app that collects the data), governing on how to use the data collected and granting statutory power to the principal to control their data.
The Flashpoint: Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act
Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amends Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Section 8(1) of the RTI Act stated that personal information of an individual could be disclosed in the question of public interest, but the adoption of the DPDP Act section 44(3) removes the condition of public interest and replaces it with a broad exemption, putting a blanket ban on the personal information in RTI applications.
The Right to Information Act never defined what constitutes “personal information”; consequently, the DPDP Act’s broad definition now fills that gap. The new rule makes it undisputed that any “personal information” cannot be disclosed, whatever the reason may be.
The Exemption Gap: How Public Authorities Are Treated Differently
The DPDP Act, 2023, grants broader immunity to the public authorities than to private data fiduciaries. The private data fiduciaries have to face strict consent mandates, retention caps, and high compliance penalties, while, on the contrary, the public bodies enjoy systematic derogations for public welfare and national security. This creates an accountability imbalance where the commercial data collection is over-surveilled while the large-scale data acquisition operates under near-absolute immunity.
Here lies the deeper asymmetry: while ordinary citizens face a stricter bar to access the personal information under RTI, public authorities operate under relatively relaxed obligations. Section 17(2)(a) of the DPDP Act exempts notified state instrumentalities from the Act altogether when processing data serves the state interest, while Section 17(4) waives specific citizen-facing duties—such as data erasure and grievance redressal—for government processing more broadly.
Judicial Intervention
CPIO v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019)
Back in 2019, RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal wanted to know something the judiciary didn’t much want to share: judges’ asset declarations and the correspondence behind judicial appointments, both held by the Chief Justice’s office. He files an RTI. The CJI’s office pushed back.
The case went all the way to a five-judge Constitutional Bench, which ruled that yes, the CJI’s office counts as a “public authority” under the RTI Act—so the information isn’t automatically off-limits. But it isn’t automatically fair game either. The Court’s real contribution here was refusing to pick a winner between privacy and transparency. Neither right trumps the other by default; each request gets weighed on its own, against the public interest at stake.
That’s the balancing act Section 44(3) is accused of throwing out. And oddly enough, both camps in the DPDP-RTI fight now lean on the same 2019 ruling to make their case—which is probably why the Supreme  Court can’t just wave the issue away this time.
Conclusion
Both statutes trace back to the same constitutional commitment: the dignity and rights of the individual citizen. And yet, in practice, they now work at cross purposes. The RTI Act rests on the idea that citizens have a right to scrutinize how public power is exercised. The DPDP Act rests on the idea that individuals have a right to control their own data. Neither premise is flawed on its own terms. The problem is how Section 44(3) settles the conflict between them—not by weighing the two interests against each other case by case, but by deciding the matter in advance, squarely in favor of privacy, with no room for exception.
That decision now sits with the  courts. The Constitutional Bench will have to do something close to what the Court did in Agarwal nearly a decade ago—work out where privacy ends and public accountability begins. It’s not a question with an obvious answer, which is presumably why the Court didn’t dispose of it at the first opportunity. Until there’s a ruling, India’s transparency framework runs on a provision that hasn’t really been tested against hard facts. And it’s the ordinary RTI applicant, not the legislature or the judiciary, who ends up finding out what that means in practice.

• Right to Information in India: A Citizen’s Gateway to Transparency

• Power To The People: A Critical Analysis Of The Right To Information Act 2005

• The Constitutional Test: Proportionality and the Puttaswamy Judgment

• The RTI Act’s Latent Mandate for Reasoned Transparency

RTI Penalty on PIO Quashed: Chhattisgarh High Court Protects Fair Hearing Rights Under RTI Act 2005

Bank of Baroda Writes Off ₹35,715 Crore of Loans above ₹100 Crore, Refuses To Disclose Big Defaulters’ Names under RTI

Moneylife: National: Thursday, 20 August 2026.

State-run Bank of Baroda (BoB) has written off loans worth ₹35,715 crore belonging to borrowers with outstanding loans of ₹100 crore and above over the six financial years from FY20-21 to FY25-26, while cumulative recovery of less than 28% from these accounts is at ₹9,946 crore. However, BoB yet again refused to disclose the names of the large borrowers whose loans were technically written off or whose accounts were settled after haircuts, citing exemptions under the RTI Act.
The figures, disclosed by the bank in response to an RTI application filed by Pune-based activist Vivek Velankar, also show that Bank of Baroda reported ₹7,817 crore as the amount written off as a haircut while settling loans of borrowers with dues above ₹100 crore from FY20-21 to FY25-26.
₹35,715 Crore Written Off
BoB's RTI reply, dated 30 July 2026, was issued in response to Mr Velankar's application dated 21 June 2026. The bank provided year-wise figures for write-offs involving loan accounts of ₹100 crore and above.
BoB reported the following technical write-offs:

The largest write-offs were recorded in FY20-21 and FY21-22, when ₹11,916 crore and ₹11,261 crore, respectively, were technically written off.
The bank's reply specifically describes the figures as 'technical write-off', meaning the amounts have been written off from the bank's books for accounting purposes. A technical write-off does not by itself mean that the bank has stopped pursuing recovery.
Only ₹9,946 Crore Recovered
Despite the ₹35,715 crore in technical write-offs involving accounts above ₹100 crore, BoB disclosed cumulative recovery of ₹9,946 crore from such accounts.
The year-wise recovery figures supplied by the bank are:

The cumulative recovery is equivalent to about 28% of the ₹35,715 crore technically written off over the period covered by the figures.
Mr Velankar said the numbers were particularly concerning because the loans involved borrowers with dues of more than ₹100 crore.
"The reply I received has been deeply shocking," he said, pointing out that Bank of Baroda had written off ₹35,715 crore in loans involving large borrowers while recovering only ₹9,946 crore.
₹7,817 Crore Haircut in Settlements
The RTI application also sought details of large loan accounts settled through the national company law tribunal (NCLT) or other forums after accepting a haircut, including the loan amount and the haircut agreed to settle the loans.
In response, BoB declined to provide borrower-wise information, but disclosed an aggregate figure for the period from FY20-21 to FY25-26.
According to the reply, the amount of haircut described by the bank as the write-off amount taken by the bank to settle loans involving technically written-off accounts above ₹100 crore is:

The highest amount was recorded in FY21-22 at ₹3,132 crore, followed by ₹2,331 crore in FY20-21 and ₹1,831 crore in FY22-23.
Mr Velankar said this meant Bank of Baroda had effectively forgone thousands of crores while settling large loan accounts.
"It must be noted that these cases were filed before the NCLT precisely to recover money from wilful defaulters. The bank ultimately had to waive thousands of crores in the process and yet it continues to shield the identities of these very defaulters," he said.
Bank Refuses to Disclose Names
The most contentious aspect of the RTI reply is the Bank of Baroda's refusal to provide the names of the borrowers.
Mr Velankar had specifically sought the names of loan takers whose loans above ₹100 crore were technically written off during the relevant financial years, along with the amount written off.
Bank of Baroda rejected the request, saying the information was personal in nature and related to third-party information and that disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. It cited Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
For the request concerning borrowers whose loans were settled through NCLT or similar forums by accepting haircuts, the bank again refused borrower-wise details, citing exemptions under Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Thus, while the bank disclosed the aggregate figures, it did not provide the names of the borrowers or account-wise details that would identify the cases behind the ₹35,715 crore technical write-offs and ₹7,817 crore haircut figure.
Data Begins from FY20-21 despite Wider RTI Query
The RTI application sought information covering a longer period. However, the bank's disclosed year-wise figures for technical write-offs, recoveries and haircuts begin from FY20-21.
For the technical write-off and recovery queries, BoB said the information sought is not readily available in the requested form and that compiling and collating it would disproportionately divert resources under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
It nevertheless provided the aggregate and year-wise figures available for accounts of ₹100 crore and above from FY20-21 onwards.
Similarly, for the haircut-related query, the bank provided figures from FY20-21 to FY25-26 rather than borrower-wise information for the entire period sought.
Questions over Accountability
Mr Velankar has questioned why large borrowers whose accounts result in substantial losses for banks should remain unidentified while small borrowers often face public recovery action.
"Banks that are quick to publicly shame small borrowers publishing their names and addresses in newspapers and auctioning their homes and properties to recover relatively modest sums adopt a soft, accommodating stance when it comes to large borrowers," he said.
He also questioned the absence of accountability for those responsible for sanctioning and managing the large loans.
"What makes this even more troubling is that the board of directors responsible for sanctioning these large loans so recklessly in the first place, for failing to recover them after write-off, and for settling cases by foregoing thousands of crores through haircuts, faces absolutely no accountability or action whatsoever," Mr Velankar, who is also president of Sajag Nagrik Manch, said.
The RTI response, however, does not provide information establishing whether any particular loan was sanctioned recklessly, whether a borrower was a wilful defaulter, or whether any bank official or director faced disciplinary or legal action. Those aspects therefore cannot be inferred from the figures disclosed in the reply.
The figures nevertheless highlight the scale of loan losses involving large borrower accounts at Bank of Baroda. Against ₹35,715 crore in technical write-offs reported for accounts above ₹100 crore between FY20-21 and FY25-26, the bank disclosed recovery of ₹9,946 crore, while separately reporting ₹7,817 crore in write-offs/haircuts associated with settlement of such accounts.

You may also want to read...

Bank of Baroda Writes Off Rs44,481 Crore Bad Loans of Big Defaulters; Recovers Just 25% in the Past 10 Years

Public authority can’t be forced to get info from third parties for RTI applicants: Bombay High Court

Bar and Bench: Bombay: Thursday, 20 August 2026.
The RTI Act does not indicate that a public authority is under an obligation to obtain information from third parties to satisfy RTI applicants, the Court held.

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday ruled that a public authority is under no legal obligation under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) to collect or obtain information from a private body merely to furnish it to an RTI applicant [Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Yogesh Mehta & Ors.].
A Division Bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V Shirsat made the observation while quashing certain orders passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC).
The CIC had directed the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to collect certain information from the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), so that the same may be given to RTI applicants.
SEBI and BSE challenged such directives before the High Court. Granting them relief, the Court held,
"The provisions (of the RTI Act) do not indicate that a public authority, like SEBI in the present case, which is a regulatory body empowered to call upon third parties to provide information in terms of its own governing statute, is under an obligation to obtain information from third parties to satisfy persons applying for such information."
The CIC had interpreted the definition of "information" under the RTI Act to hold that SEBI was bound not only to provide data already available in its records but also to actively collect information from private third parties like BSE to satisfy citizen queries.
The core issue before the High Court, therefore, was whether the power of a regulator (like SEBI) to request data could be cited to compel it to collect third-party information for RTI applicants.
SEBI had argued that forcing a regulator to act as an information-gathering agent for RTI applicants exceeds the statutory mandate of the RTI Act. 
The High Court found force in this submission. It clarified that a public authority is only required to furnish the information it actually holds when the RTI request is submitted.
The High Court also relied on Supreme Court rulings, which clarified that the RTI Act does not cast an obligation upon public authorities to collect or collate information not already available with it.
The High Court concluded that CIC had overstepped in this case.
"We find that the said reasoning of the CIC is in the teeth of the position of law clarified by the Supreme Court and therefore, it cannot be sustained and the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside."
Consequently, the Court set aside the CIC orders under challenge.
Senior advocate JJ Bhatt, with advocates Misha Patel, Omprakash Jha, Shivani Kumbhojkar and Mugdha Narkar, briefed by The Law Point, appeared for SEBI. 
Senior advocate Pesi Modi and advocates Kalpana Desai, Kingshuk Banerjee, Arnav Mohanty, Ritvik Kulkarni, Arnab Ray and Surya Ravikumar, briefed by Khaitan and Co., appeared for BSE.
[Read judgment]

9 Karnataka RTI applicants behind half of 45,000 pending pleas challenge ban

Indian Express: Bengaluru: Thursday, 20 August 2026.
The Karnataka High Court granted an interim stay on the blacklisting order but orally warned the applicants, including a journalist, that the RTI Act’s benefits ‘will go’ if the law is misused.

The Karnataka High Court said it would have to intervene on behalf of 'genuine applicants'. (File Photo)

More than half of the 45,000 pending second appeals under the Right to Information Act in Karnataka were filed by nine people whom the state information commission has subsequently blacklisted, the Karnataka High Court was informed on Wednesday.
As the court heard the nine RTI activists’ petitions challenging the Karnataka Information Commission’s blacklisting order, the KIC’s counsel said their 20,000-plus second appeals were clogging the system and preventing the hearing and deciding of “genuine appeals”.
“If we weed out four of the petitioners, the total pendency before the KIC would come down by 50 per cent,” said advocate G B Sharath Gowda.
Surprised at the statement, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, “Applications filed by genuine applicants are kept pending.”
One of the petitioners is Jagadeesh M, an advocate and former zilla parishad member who reportedly filed 1,294 RTI applications over six to seven years.
“You have filed one application a day,” the judge said of him.
Another petitioner, G R Sudheendhra, who runs a fortnightly magazine, has filed 6,482 appeals pending before the commission.
“Whatever information I do not get, I file RTI applications for,” his counsel submitted.
Justice Govindaraj then said, “Don’t you have anything else to publish that you are filing applications? Investigating journalism is not RTI journalism.”
The judge also said the benefit of the RTI Act “will go” if the law is misused, adding that the court would have to intervene on behalf of “genuine applicants”.
The commission blacklisted most of the applicants in January 2025 and also imposed a cost on them. Their counsel argued that the RTI Act has neither a provision to blacklist an applicant nor a limit on the number of applications.
The government’s advocate contended that officials were unable to carry out their regular work because of frivolous RTI applications.
The court said it would have to consider both the petitioners’ claim that their applications were genuine and the commission’s contention that their veracity needed examination. However, it granted an interim stay on the blacklisting order.
The court also directed the petitioners to submit affidavits by September 21, detailing all their RTI applications, including where the requested information was planned to be used. It also directed the commission to furnish a list of appeals filed by each of the petitioners.
Petitioners and their pending RTI appeals
Total second appeals pending before the KIC: 45,000
Davalasab M Miyyanavar: 14,478 pending appeals
G R Sudheendhra: 6,482 pending appeals
Dillibabu A: 753 pending appeals
M Shankar: 782 pending appeals
D Mahesha: 540 pending appeals
K Sathish: 334 pending appeals
V Ramakrishnappa: 256 pending appeals

Delhi HC Rejects Petition To Declare Rajiv Gandhi Foundation 'Public Authority' Under RTI Act

ETV Bharat: New Delhi: Thursday, 20 August 2026.
The single bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that the petitioner, Shanmuga Patro, had failed to appear for the hearing on several previous occasions.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition seeking to declare the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation a 'public authority' under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
During the hearing, the single bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that the petitioner, Shanmuga Patro, failed to appear for the hearing on several previous occasions.
The petitioner had approached the High Court in 2011, challenging a 2010 decision by the Central Information Commission (CIC) that had refused to classify the Foundation as a public authority under the RTI Act.
The petition argued that the activities of the Foundation directly impact the general public. Therefore, it should be brought within the ambit of the RTI Act.
It further stated that the foundation had received various facilities and concessions from the government, including a plot of land measuring approximately 9,319.42 square yards—along with the building on it on Rajendra Prasad Road in New Delhi.
The petition further noted that following the demise of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991, the then vice-president had appealed to the public to contribute towards the causes with which Rajiv Gandhi had been associated. Subsequently, the establishment of the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation was announced in the Union Budget of 1991-92.
Citing the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund (PMNRF) and the National Defence Fund, the petitioner pointed out that both these entities are considered public authorities under the RTI Act despite not receiving any government grant. Therefore, the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation should also come under the purview of the RTI Act, he contended.

Public Authority Not Obliged Under RTI Act To Collect Or Collate Non-Available Information From Third Parties: Bombay High Court

Verdictum: Bombay: Thursday, 20 August 2026.
In the matter, private individuals filed applications, seeking specific information from SEBI regarding market operations connected to the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited.

Justice Manish Pitale, Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat, Bombay High Court 

While setting aside directions issued by the Central Information Commission compelling regulatory bodies to procure information from private entities, the Bombay High Court held that the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not cast any legal duty on a public authority to collect or obtain records that are not currently held in its official custody.
The Bench noted that although Section 2(f) of the Act includes information relating to a private body accessible under any other law, this statutory access power does not empower the information regulator to force a public authority into initiating fresh collection processes solely to satisfy an information seeker's request.
A Bench comprising Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat, while referring to CBSE and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others, (2011) 8 SCC 497 observed, “…the RTI Act does not place an obligation upon a public authority like SEBI to collect or collate information not available with it and then to furnish the same to the applicants. The said position has been clarified in no uncertain terms”.
Senior Advocate J. J. Bhatt appeared for the petitioner.
The matter originated when private individuals filed applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking specific information from the Securities and Exchange Board of India regarding market operations connected to the Bombay Stock Exchange Limited. The regulatory body declined to provide the requested data on the fundamental ground that the documents were not maintained in its official database or existing records.
Aggrieved by the refusal, the applicants approached the Central Information Commission, which passed a primary order on May 25, 2009 holding that any information accessible to a public authority under its governing statute is automatically accessible to an applicant under the access regime. The Commission accordingly issued mandatory directions compelling the regulatory authority to obtain the required records from the stock exchange and supply them to the applicants.
The petitioners, alongside the stock exchange, challenged these directives through a cluster of nine writ petitions before the Bombay High Court, which granted interim stay orders and tagged the proceedings together to adjudicate the common question of statutory obligation.
Examining the statutory framework of Sections 2(f), 2(h), 2(j), and 8, the High Court observed that an information seeker's right is strictly confined to records held by or under the direct control of the public authority at the time of the request. Relying upon the binding principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court held that Section 22 does not erase preconditions or enable public authorities to undo statutory limitations on access. The Court reasoned that the statutory power of a regulator to call for third-party information under its parent Act cannot be translated into a statutory duty to gather non-available data under the disclosure statute.
Accordingly, the Court allowed all nine writ petitions, quashed and set aside the lead order dated May 25, 2009 together with all derivative orders passed by the Central Information Commission, and made the rule absolute.
Cause Title: Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Yogesh Babulal Mehta & Ors. (WP No. 1664 of 2009).
Appearances: Petitioner: J. J. Bhatt, Senior Advocate, Misha Patel, Omprakash Jha, Shivani Kumbhojkar, and Mugdha Narkar, Advocates.
(Click here to download the Judgment)

Social Justice Ministry contradicts itself on records behind the Trans Amendment Act : By Partha Sarathi Biswas, Esha Mitra

Queerbeat: National: Wednesday, 19 August 2026.

In two RTI responses, the ministry says it has no documented records of the evidence or consultations behind the Act. In the third, it says the records exist but can’t be made available.
The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment has given contradictory responses to three Right to Information (RTI) applications about the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. We filed these applications seeking official documentation of the processes the ministry followed while drafting the Trans Amendment Act, including the evidence it relied on and the stakeholders it consulted. 
The new law amends the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, which codified the civil rights of India’s trans citizens. The amendments roll back their right to self-identify their gender; introduce government-appointed medical boards to determine who legally qualifies as trans; and potentially criminalise community structures that support trans persons. 
We filed the first RTI application on 21 April 2026, requesting the social justice ministry for the following records relating to the Trans Amendment Act: 

1. All reports or files used to draft the 2026 Act
2. Cases that the ministry received regarding the fraudulent usage of transgender cards/facilities in India in the past five years (A transgender identity card is a certificate issued by the social justice ministry. It enables trans people to change their name and gender in official documents and access certain government benefits. The government recently told the Supreme Court that cards issued as per the 2019 Trans Act  would not be invalidated by the 2026 Amendment.)
3. Any recommendations—from persons, social organisations, or NGOs—concerning the alleged misuse of the 2019 law that were considered in drafting the amendments
4. Details of the members of the drafting committee of the 2026 Act 
5. Number of meetings held by the drafting committee and the minutes of each meeting

In response to the first question, the ministry wrote, “No reports, files, or separate documents… were used/maintained” to draft the Trans Amendment Act. On the second and third questions about cases of fraudulent usage and any recommendations made to the social justice ministry, it replied, “not available.” On the fourth question about the drafting committee, the ministry wrote, “No such drafting committee exists.” Following from this, it noted, in relation to the fifth question: “no such meetings/minutes are available.” 
On 13 July, we filed a second RTI application, this time with the Ministry of Home Affairs. We did so to ascertain whether this ministry had received any inputs from state officials over potential security threats arising from the alleged misuse of transgender cards. Our second application requested the home ministry for details of the number of reports it had received from state governments or district collectors about the “fraudulent usage of transgender cards.” This RTI application also requested copies of any correspondence carried out by the home ministry on this issue. Finally, the application asked for details of any legal opinions that the ministry might have sought on the alleged misuse of transgender identity cards. 
The home ministry redirected this RTI application to the social justice ministry. “No such information is available in the records maintained by the undersigned CPIO [Chief Public Information Officer],” the social justice ministry responded. 
Finally, to ensure that we had covered all bases, we filed a third RTI application with the social justice ministry on 30 July. Many of our questions were similar to those we had asked in the first application. 
The third application requested the ministry for copies of any files, file notings, reports, letters, or submissions used to draft the Trans Amendment Bill. We also asked for copies of any letters or reports the ministry had received about legal issues that other departments or state governments faced in implementing the Trans Act, 2019. As with the previous applications, we asked for copies of any reports, inputs, or letters the ministry had received about the alleged misuse of transgender cards. Finally, we requested copies of any communication about the Trans Amendment Act between the ministry and the National Council for Transgender Persons (NCTP)—a statutory body meant to advise the government on policies relating to trans and intersex people. 
This time, the social justice ministry had a different response. It said that records “relating to detailed consultations, internal deliberations, inter-ministerial consultations, correspondence, and related materials” all formed part of the “decision-making process” that culminated in the submission of a Cabinet Note—an official proposal or policy document that a ministry submits to the Cabinet or relevant Cabinet Committee for approval. 
The social justice ministry refused to share any records of this Cabinet Note. It cited Section 8 1 (i) of the RTI Act, which exempts the disclosure of cabinet papers, including records of deliberations among the Union Council of Ministers—the group of ministers appointed to assist the prime minister in running the central government. 
“Certain portions of such records also contain internal inputs and details of officials, disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act,” the ministry added. Section 8 (1) (g) exempts the disclosure of any information that would “endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source or information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes.” 
However, the ministry’s response offered an incomplete reading of the exemption relating to cabinet papers. As Venkatesh Nayak, the director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative in India, has previously noted, the RTI Act permits the disclosure of cabinet papers once the decision involving these documents has been finalised. In June 2012, in a case involving Venkatesh, the Chief Information Commission—the central government body that oversees the RTI Act’s implementation—held that all cabinet notes and material related to a bill must be placed in the public domain within seven days of being tabled in Parliament. 
When we spoke to Venkatesh over the phone, he termed the social justice ministry’s refusal to share the Cabinet Note on the Trans Amendment Act “ridiculous.” Section 8(1) (i), he said, “makes it clear that once the matter is completely over, all cabinet papers, internal deliberations, reasons for the cabinet decision or materials to make that cabinet decision—all of that has to be in the public domain.” 
Venkatesh also argued that the ministry needed to have “very cogent reasons” for withholding the identities of the officials involved in drafting the law, since they were performing a public duty that directly affected India’s citizens. Even if the ministry had the grounds to protect their identities, he added, it “could have easily redacted the names of the officers from the files and shared the content of the files at least.” 
He was equally critical of the ministry’s initial responses, in which it claimed that it had no records of the processes it followed to formulate the Trans Amendment Act. “How can there be a bill without a drafting committee—somebody should have worked on it, it would not have materialised out of thin air,” he said. “It is a public law and affects the rights of people; there is every right, not only for transgender persons, but definitely for the citizenry of the country to know who was involved in the drafting of this law.”
At the same time, whether or not a law is grounded in reliable research seems to be left to the ministry involved. Neither India’s laws nor its Constitution legally mandate that bills or amendments be informed by an evidence-based approach, noted Namrata Mukherjee, a Senior Resident Fellow in the Legal Design and Regulation Vertical at the private think tank Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.  
“Ideally, legislation and policy must be informed by an evidence-based approach. Technically, is there any mandate as such in the law? No. But should this be a part of legislative drafting culture? Yes,” Namrata said. By and large, policymaking in India tends to be “discretionary,” she noted. This means that the degree to which a particular ministry depends on reliable evidence, records that evidence, or seeks the expertise of stakeholders and external consultants “depends on whether they want to do it or not,” Namrata added. 
We sent requests for comment to the information officer who had responded to our RTI applications as well as a senior bureaucrat from the social justice ministry. This copy will be updated if they respond. 
We have also filed an appeal with the social justice ministry under the RTI Act to obtain the cabinet papers relating to the Trans Amendment Bill.
Why these RTI responses matter
The absence of any public records that can shed light on the Indian government’s rationale for the Trans Amendment Act becomes significant when we look back at how this Act came about.
In early March 2026, when Social Justice Minister and senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Virendra Kumar introduced the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2026 in the Lok Sabha, a nationwide uproar followed. Members of the  National Council for Transgender Persons (NCTP) revealed that they were neither informed nor consulted about the amendments. Queer and trans rights groups demonstrated against the Bill across India. Opposition politicians condemned it as “draconian.” 
Despite this outcry, the Bill was passed by voice vote in both the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha amid walkouts by Opposition members. By the end of March, the Bill had received the President’s assent and was enacted into law. Throughout this time, confusion prevailed over what had prompted the Trans Amendment Act and why it had been passed in such haste. 
The government offered several explanations. A Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Trans Bill claimed that the provision in the 2019 Act that earlier allowed trans persons to self-determine their gender made it “impossible to identify the genuine oppressed persons.” It further contended that the 2019 Act’s definition of trans persons was “vague,” rendering the implementation of its provisions “unworkable.” The social justice ministry never elaborated on the evidence that informed these conclusions. Neither did it offer clarity on who it had consulted before pushing the amendments through.  
Meanwhile, in the Lok Sabha, just as the discussion on the Trans Bill began on 24 March, BJP leader and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said that the government’s proposed amendments were “not very big.” He added that the standing committee on social justice and empowerment had been engaged in “extensive discussions” over these amendments for the past year. But when queerbeat contacted four of 31 members of this standing committee—including its chairman and BJP leader PC Mohan—to ask whether the committee had deliberated the amendments at length, they contradicted Rijiju’s claim.  
Days before this Lok Sabha debate, social justice ministry officials also summoned NCTP members to a meeting in Delhi, as queerbeat has earlier reported. The Council members asked officials why they hadn’t been consulted on the amendments. The officials said that they had been “talking to delegations for a long time” and that these delegations had made submissions to the ministry, one NCTP member told queerbeat. 
More recently, during the monsoon session of the Parliament, the social justice ministry revealed that its senior officials had met “a delegation of transgender persons” before the Trans Amendment Act came into force. The ministry was responding to a Lok Sabha question by Thiru DM Kathir Anand, a Member of Parliament from the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam.
Given this backdrop, the social justice ministry’s reluctance to offer any clarity on the processes behind the Trans Amendment Act raises concern, said Venkatesh. “Only when we get hold of the cabinet notes can one find out about what all took place in the decision-making process inside the government,” he told us. “Access to such information is absolutely crucial if you want to be a responsible democracy.”  
The ministry’s RTI responses reinforce the government’s non-consultative approach to the Trans Amendment Bill, said Anil Ukarande, founder-director of YUTAK LGBTQ Trust, a queer rights organisation in Pune. This approach showed a “wilful disregard for the rights of the community,” he added. 
Petitions challenging the Trans Amendment Act are currently being heard before the Supreme Court of India.
Credits
Authors
Partha Sarathi Biswas : Partha Sarathi Biswas (he/him) is a senior journalist who has worked with publications such as The Indian Express and DNA. At present, he is on an academic break and pursuing a Master’s in Sociology from Savitribai Phule Pune University.
Esha Mitra : Esha Mitra is an award-winning journalist and producer who has reported on issues of socio-political inequalities and oppression across South Asia.
Editor
Nikita Saxena : Nikita Saxena (she/her) is an independent reporter and editor who has contributed to publications such as Rest of World, The Caravan, and The News Minute.
Illustrator
Mia Jose : Mia Jose (she/they) is a non-binary illustrator from Kerala whose work highlights personal stories marked by gender, body experiences, and their South Indian heritage. When not lost in their sketchbook, they can be found devouring all things camp and horror.
Copy Editor
Anishaa Tavag : Anishaa Tavag (she/they) is a Bengaluru-based writer, editor, dancer, and certified teacher of yoga and the Alexander Technique.

Rajouri shrine: J&K Waqf Board denies RTI info on donations, offerings

Hindustan Times: Jammu: Wednesday, 19 August 2026.
The reply has been furnished by the Waqf board in an RTI application by a Jammu-based RTI activist Raman Kumar Sharma, who sought financial year-wise details of cash offerings and donations received at the shrine from 2020-21 onwards

The RTI activist has objected to the manner in which the application has been dealt with, saying that the information sought pertained to financial records maintained by the Waqf Board. (HT Photo for representation)

The J&K Waqf Board has declined to provide information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act regarding donations and offerings received during the financial year between 2020-21 to 2026 at Baba Ghulam Shah Badshah Shahdara Sharif shrine at Rajouri citing staff shortage.
The reply has been furnished by the Waqf board in an RTI application by a Jammu-based RTI activist Raman Kumar Sharma, who sought financial year-wise details of cash offerings and donations received at the shrine from 2020-21 onwards.
He also sought the assessed value and quantity of gold, silver, jewellery, precious metals, precious stones and other valuables received as offerings in the holy shrines during the same period.
The activist sought a certified copy of the standard operating procedure (SoP), policy or guidelines governing the opening and accounting of donation boxes installed at the shrine and other places.
In its reply, the Waqf Board stated that it did not have sufficient staff to prepare the required information as it was voluminous and the applicant was asked to attend the Waqf office on any working day, after prior intimation, for perusal of the records.
The RTI activist has objected to the manner in which the application has been dealt with, saying that the information sought pertained to financial records maintained by the Waqf Board.
“If the records are available, staff shortage should not become an excuse for providing access to information under the RTI Act,” he said.

Info panel brings all private varsities in Punjab under RTI umbrella

Hindustan Times: National: Tuesday, 18 August 2026.
The commission clarified that the ruling would apply to all private universities across Punjab that have been established through state legislation

In a decision that has brought all 18 private universities in Punjab under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, the Punjab State Information Commission has ruled that private universities established through Acts of the state legislature are “public authorities” under the transparency law.
Passing an order on August 14 in the case of Akal University, Talwandi Sabo, Bathinda, chief information commissioner Inderpal Singh declared the university a public authority under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act and directed it to appoint a public information officer (PIO) and first appellate authority (FAA). The university has also been directed to make mandatory disclosures prescribed under the Act on its official website.
The commission clarified that the ruling would apply to all private universities across Punjab that have been established through state legislation.
At present, only some private universities in the state maintain dedicated RTI cells or make statutory disclosures on their official websites, either voluntarily or in compliance with specific directives. Following the commission’s ruling, all 18 private universities will be required to put in place formal mechanisms for receiving and responding to RTI applications and ensure greater disclosure of information in the public domain.
The order came on an appeal filed by Ramandeep Kumar, a former assistant professor at Akal University’s physics department, who had sought his salary slips from July 2015 to October 2021. Akal University had contested the maintainability of his RTI application, arguing that it was not a public authority under Section 2(h).
Rejecting the contention, the commission observed that Akal University had been established through an Act enacted by the Punjab Legislature. Section 2 (h)(c) specifically includes any authority, body or institution established or constituted by a law made by a state legislature within the definition of a public authority.
The commission also took note of the university’s governance structure, including the Punjab governor being its Visitor and government nominees being represented on various committees.
These provisions, it said, indicated the university’s statutory character and its linkage with government oversight.
The order further emphasised that the RTI Act seeks to promote transparency and accountability, with maximum disclosure and minimum exemptions. The commission referred to Supreme Court judgments underscoring citizens’ right to information as an essential component of democratic governance.
The case also raised questions over the university’s claim regarding the non-availability of records. The university submitted that records relating to the Kalgidhar Trust/Society campus at Baru Sahib in Himachal Pradesh had been destroyed or damaged in flash floods in 2022. However, the appellant pointed out that proceedings concerning gratuity deductions and financial recoveries had taken place in 2023.
The commission has directed the university’s PIO to produce the complete file relating to the recoveries and gratuity deductions made from the appellant in 2023. If no such recoveries were made, the university will have to submit an affidavit confirming this.
The chief finance and accounts officer has also been impleaded as a necessary party and directed to file sworn affidavits regarding the location and destruction of the relevant records, including salary bills for July 2015 to October 2021.
The commission warned that failure to comply could lead to bailable warrants against the chief finance and accounts officer or the PIO-cum-registrar. The matter has been listed for further hearing on October 14.