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

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

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

Penalise Kejriwal, GU urges Guj HC

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

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

CIC orders DU Faculty of Law to justify withholding of exam evaluation records: Satyendra Wankhade

Bar and Bench: New Delhi: Thursday, 17^th September 2026.
The CPIO had submitted that the evaluation process was confidential and held in a fiduciary capacity.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the Delhi University (DU) Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to justify why records on how the Faculty of Law evaluates semester exam answer scripts were withheld. [Rishabh Mishra v, The CPIO, University of Delhi]
Responding to the CPIO's argument that many of the appellant's queries were really seeking clarifications or opinions rather than facts, Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi held that a CPIO cannot be compelled to answer for reasoning that isn't on record.
"The CPIO is not required to create information, give an opinion, interpret records, or furnish explanations which are not available on the record," the Commission said.
However, it clarified that existing records such as marking schemes, written instructions to examiners, notices, circulars and guidelines do constitute information under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, subject to exemptions under Section 8 or Section 9.
The CPIO had submitted that the evaluation process was confidential and held in a fiduciary capacity.
The Commission held that the mere description of information as 'confidential' does not, by itself, constitute a valid ground for denial under the RTI Act. It added that any denial must be traceable to a specific exemption under Section 8 or Section 9, and that the fiduciary exemption under Section 8(1)(e) cannot be invoked mechanically without the university establishing that relationship for the particular information sought.
The order came on a second appeal under the RTI Act filed by one Rishabh Mishra. His application sought the marking scheme, examiner training records, safeguards to keep evaluators from knowing students' identities, quality checks on the evaluation process and details of any digital evaluation used for the Faculty of Law's three-year LLB semester exams.
The CPIO forwarded the query to the Joint Registrar (Examinations) and told Mishra that a response from that office was still awaited. Dissatisfied, Mishra filed a first appeal. The First Appellate Authority directed the University to respond to him directly within two weeks. When the University did not comply, Mishra filed a second appeal with the CIC.
The Commission found that the CPIO had substantially complied with the First Appellate Authority's order but had not adequately linked the confidentiality claim to any specific exemption.
It directed the CPIO to file a signed statement identifying each withheld item, the exact provision relied upon and where Section 8(1)(e) is claimed, the fiduciary relationship involved. The CPIO must also say whether any non-exempt portions of the withheld records can be separated and disclosed, as allowed under Section 10 of the Act. It has two weeks to comply.
[Read Order]

No Law Lets the Police Jam Your Phone: IFF Files RTIs on Delhi Police's Signal Jammers

IFF: New Delhi: Thursday, 17^th September 2026.
In July 2026, mobile internet around Jantar Mantar was suspended under written orders from the Ministry of Home Affairs. Voice calls failed too, and no published order covered them.

Between 20 June and 25 July 2026 the sit-in at Jantar Mantar. On 20 July, the day of the Sansad Chalo march, and on 22 July, the day of the clashes at Tolstoy Marg and Sansad Marg, mobile networks in central Delhi went dark. The Ministry of Home Affairs ("MHA") issued six orders under Section 20(2)(b) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 suspending mobile internet within roughly 1.5 kilometres of the site. People nevertheless walked two kilometres to make a voice call, and press reports attributed to police officials the statement that portable jammers were switched on to limit coordination among protesters and to reduce live streams of police action. No statute gives the Delhi Police a power to jam telecommunication. Section 48 of the 2023 Act makes possessing or using such equipment a crime unless the Central Government permits it, for a specific purpose. The only guidelines that exist, issued by the Cabinet Secretariat in 2023, cover VVIP security against radio-controlled bombs and low-powered jammers in examination halls. Nothing covers crowd control. On 8 September 2026 we filed three RTI applications with the Delhi Police, on the equipment it holds and the rules for its use on what was deployed at Jantar Mantar and on whose order; and on the record behind its statement of 8 September that no jammers were used at the Satya Niketan rescue site. We will publish every reply, and every silence.
Background
For the Jantar Mantar began on 20 June 2026 we have already documented the two Delhi Police vehicles parked at the protest running live facial recognition on the crowd, and the list of 2,873 "criminal antecedents" that system produced. This post is about another tool that effects digital rights at same site that made the phones stop working.
On 20 July 2026, the day of the Sansad Chalo march, disruption was reported from about 10.30 am. Subscribers received a message from Airtel that internet services in the area had been stopped on government instructions. That message is the trace of a written order. The MHA issued six orders between 17 and 23 July 2026, dated 17, 20, 22 and 23 July, under Section 20(2)(b) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024, suspending mobile internet within approximately 1.5 kilometres of Jantar Mantar. But the orders as made available suspended data but they did not suspend voice or SMS. Yet The Wire reported that people at the site walked nearly two kilometres to make calls. On 22 July, the day tear gas was used and injured police officers were taken to Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, reports attributed to police the statement that jammers were activated as the clashes began. A technology outlet, attributing the reasoning to officials, reported that portable jammers were placed to limit real-time coordination among protesters and to reduce the chance of live streams of police action.
The Delhi Police has not, in any published document, confirmed or denied that it used jammers at Jantar Mantar. Its fact-checks during those weeks addressed other claims. The allegation has since recurred for an anti-reservation demonstration at the same site on 21 August 2026, protesters again said jammers had been deployed, a claim that could not be verified.
Subsequently on 6 September 2026 a multi-storey building collapsed at Satya Niketan, killing seven young people. Within hours, social media filled with claims that jammers had been installed at the rescue site to suppress information. On 8 September the Delhi Police posted an emphatic denial on X that no jammers were used and networks were fully operational with police, NDRF and fire teams coordinating by mobile, media and citizens broadcasting live. We have no reason to doubt it since jamming at a disaster site would obstruct rescue coordination and engage duties under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. But the denial has a legal consequence and we need to hence establish the authority and statute from which jamming equipment is being used by the Delhi Police, which is distinct from an internet shutdown or a network suspension. Here, the two mechanisms produce a similar result and are governed very differently.
A suspension order under Section 20(2)(b) is a written direction to a licensed telecom service provider to withhold a specified service, in a specified area, for a specified period. It can be confined to mobile data and leave voice and SMS running. Under the Suspension Rules, 2024 it must be issued by the Union or State Home Secretary, state reasons, be published, be capped at fifteen days, and be placed within twenty-four hours before a review committee that meets within five days and can set it aside. Rule 3(4) permits an order only after the competent authority has evaluated whether the objective can be achieved by other reasonable means. The service provider knows of the order. Subscribers receive a message, as they did on 20 July. Nothing is switched off at the network; the network is told to withhold. For Delhi, where police and public order are Union subjects under Article 239AA(3)(a), the competent authority is the Union Home Secretary, which is why the July orders came from the MHA.
A jammer is a radio transmitter. The Cabinet Secretariat's own definition, at paragraph 1(a) of its Jammer Guidelines 2023, is a transmitter designed to block all radio receivers within its range on the frequency bands it covers. A cellular jammer radiates on the bands assigned to the service providers so that every handset within its radius stops hearing the base station. The effect is indiscriminate and covers voice, SMS and data, and depending on the bands, Wi-Fi and GPS, for every device, whether it belongs to a protester, a resident, a shopkeeper, a journalist, a patient or a police officer not on a separate radio net. Prima facia on our analysis there is no order to produce, no service provider to inform, no message to subscribers, no committee, no time limit and no paper trail unless the police choose to keep one.
Analysis
Now let us look at what is the governing legality around jamming equipment. The only provision in force directly applicable to jammers is Section 48 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, effective from 5 July 2024. It provides that no person shall possess or use any equipment that blocks telecommunication unless permitted by the Central Government, or by an authority the Central Government has authorised for a specific purpose. Contravention is an offence under Section 42(3)(a), punishable with imprisonment up to three years, a fine up to fifty lakh rupees, or both. The Act binds the State, as a "person" under Section 2(j) includes any body of individuals, and the rule that the Crown is not bound unless named has never applied in India (Union of India v. Jubbi, AIR 1968 SC 360). There is no exemption for police. Section 48 removes the criminal consequence of possession and use for a permitted person. It does not confer on that person a power to interfere with the communications of others. Further, the permission is purpose-specific with the words "for specific purpose" qualifying the authorisation.
The only administrative framework is the Cabinet Secretariat's Jammer Guidelines 2023 (No. 11/11/2022-SS, Office of the Secretary (Security)). They govern jammers for VVIP and VIP security against radio-controlled improvised explosive devices ("RCIEDs") and low-powered jammers for examination halls. Counter-drone and prison jammers are routed to the MHA under its office memorandum of 10 March 2023. Paragraph 3(c) permits Central Ministries, State and UT administrations, defence forces and CAPFs to use jammers only from Bharat Electronics Limited and the Electronics Corporation of India Limited, and only for the specific purpose for which permission was granted. Paragraph 3(g) requires that information on the deployment of all RF jamming solutions be maintained and shared with the Secretary (Security), the SPG and the IB. Paragraph 4(l) requires that any jammer near an SPG protectee be deployed in consultation with the SPG. The application proforma at Annexure I(A) is designed entirely around a threat perception to a VIP. The guidelines do not mention law and order, protest, assembly or crowd control. They say nothing about duration, radius, public notice, hospitals or emergency calls. They are not made under any statutory rule-making power and are not published in the Gazette.
Further, Chapter IV of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 holds the force's public order powers. Specifically under Section 28 it can issue regulations for order in public places, Section 30(3) on prohibiting assemblies for a limited period, Section 31 on arrangements at places of public assembly, Section 33 on orders for the prevention of riot. None authorises interference with telecommunication or the operation of a radio transmitter. Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 permits orders directed at persons in urgent cases of apprehended danger. It cannot direct a service provider and it cannot authorise jamming. In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637, the Supreme Court held that telecommunication may be suspended only under the suspension rules and that Section 144 CrPC was not a substitute. The same reasoning excludes Section 163 BNSS.
What follows from this legal analysis is that we can assume the Delhi Police holds jammers procured from BEL or ECIL with the approval of the Secretary (Security). That satisfies Section 48 for possession. However, such procurement says nothing about the lawfulness of switching the device on at a public assembly. As an analogy, a licence to hold a firearm is not authority to fire it. In PUCL v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301, the Supreme Court treated even an express statutory power to intercept communications as one that could be exercised against citizens only with procedural safeguards, and read them in. Section 48 does not purport to be a power at all. There is no statute that says when, where, for how long and on whose authority a police force may jam the public's communications. 
If the permission the Delhi Police holds is for protectee security against RCIEDs, deployment at a protest for crowd control is used outside that permission, and on the terms of Section 42(3)(a), is used without authorisation. While we anticipate that the Government may reason that Parliament House and SPG protectees were in the vicinity during the Monsoon Session. That is an argument to be met on the record in response to our RTIs, not conceded. An RCIED jammer accompanies a protectee or a convoy and moves with it. A jammer parked at a protest site for the duration of a march is a different deployment with a different object. If the justification is protectee security, then the permission, the threat assessment and the SPG consultation required by paragraph 4(l) will all exist, and they can be produced. Hence, we have filed RTIs. 
We have taken this action to check on the proliferation of jamming equipment that may be used as a circumvention of the nominal legality and safeguards for internet shutdowns. Just in the Jantar Mantar protests the use of jamming resulted in the limitation on the following legal activities: 

1. Live Streaming : Preventing citizens from recording and transmitting police conduct in a public place is not a legitimate aim and it inverts the logic on which the Supreme Court mandated CCTV in police stations in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, (2021) 1 SCC 184, that recording police conduct protects rights.Given that a data-only suspension order was already in force,  a barrage jammer that additionally cut voice and SMS for every resident, patient, shopkeeper and reporter in the radius cannot be the least restrictive measure when a less restrictive one was operating at the same time. 
2. Hospitals and 112 : A jammer prevents calls to 112. Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and Lady Hardinge Medical College both lie within two kilometres of Jantar Mantar. RML received the injured police officers on 22 July. The right to emergency medical care is part of Article 21 (Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, (1996) 4 SCC 37). A measure that severs the public's means of summoning that care, without notice, engages the right directly, and where harm results, public law compensation follows (Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746). 

The denial of 8 September demonstrates that the Delhi Police treats the fact of jammer deployment, or non-deployment, at a given site on a given day as something it can verify and publish within two days. Paragraph 3(g) of the guidelines requires deployment records to be maintained and shared; records therefore exist by design. Anuradha Bhasin requires that orders restricting communication be published so that affected persons can challenge them. Sections 4(1)(c) and (d) of the RTI Act require a public authority to publish relevant facts and reasons for decisions affecting the public. A force that can deny a deployment within forty-eight hours cannot credibly claim, under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, that the fact of a deployment six weeks earlier is a secret. The prompt statement on Satya Niketan, set against the silence on Jantar Mantar, is itself material.
Action
On 8 September 2026 we filed three applications under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 with the Public Information Officer, Police Headquarters, Delhi Police. Each defines "jamming equipment" to include vehicle-mounted, portable, manpack and static jammers, anti-drone systems with jamming capability and harmonious call blocking systems, whether owned, leased, hired or borrowed, so that no category can be read out of the request.

1. On the equipment and the rules (Registration No. DEPOL/R/E/26/10072): The number, type, make, model, frequency bands and custodian of every unit the Delhi Police holds; the sanction orders and contracts with BEL and ECIL; every permission from the MHA, the Cabinet Secretariat or the Department of Telecommunications, including under Section 48 and the 2023 guidelines; every standing order or SOP governing deployment, the officers competent to authorise it, and limits on duration, radius and power; whether a deployment register is kept, and if so its format and a year-wise count of deployments since 2023 broken down by purpose (protectee security, public events, law and order or protest management, counter-drone, examinations); expenditure by financial year; any assessment of the effect on 112, hospitals and the public; correspondence with the DoT, TRAI and service providers; and seizures of unauthorised jammers and FIRs registered. Where no SOP exists, the application asks the force to say so.
2. On Jantar Mantar, 20 June to 25 July 2026 (Registration No. DEPOL/R/E/26/10074): Whether any jamming equipment was deployed, activated or kept on standby at Jantar Mantar or within two kilometres of it, and for each deployment the time of activation and deactivation, location, model, bands, radius, unit and authorising officer; specifically for 20 and 22 July; certified copies of every order, requisition, deployment plan, wireless message and file noting; the register entries for the period; the threat assessment stating the purpose; any intimation to the DoT, service providers, the Lieutenant Governor, the MHA, emergency services, RML Hospital or Lady Hardinge; whether the Delhi Police sought or obtained any order under Section 20(2)(b) or the 2024 Rules, or made any request to a service provider to suspend or degrade services, with copies and the reasons recorded; any Section 163 BNSS order referring to mobile services, live streaming or jamming; whether any officer told the press on 22 or 23 July that jammers were activated, and the record of that statement; and the complaints received about loss of connectivity and the replies sent.
3. On Satya Niketan, 6 to 8 September 2026 (Registration No. DEPOL/R/E/26/10077): Whether any jamming equipment was deployed or present at or within two kilometres of the collapse site; the file, notings, verification reports and correspondence on which the X post of 8 September 2026 was prepared and approved, including who verified the position at the site and any confirmation of network status obtained from a service provider or the DoT; complaints received about connectivity at the site; and the designation of the officer who approves fact-check posts on the Delhi Police's official accounts, with the SOP governing them.

Alongside these RTIs we will in the coming months taking up advocacy around the following policy reforms and writing to public authorities for the following actions: 

1. The Cabinet Secretariat should clarify, in writing, that the Jammer Guidelines 2023 do not authorise deployment for law and order, protest management or crowd control, and the Wireless Planning and Coordination Wing of the Department of Telecommunications should treat any such deployment as unauthorised use under paragraph 3(f).
2. The Department of Telecommunications should amend the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024 to state expressly that no telecommunication service may be blocked or degraded by any means, including radio-frequency jamming, other than under a written order under Section 20(2)(b).
3. Pending legislation, no jammer should be switched on against a public assembly without a written authorisation by a named senior officer stating a purpose within Article 19(2) or 19(3), a defined radius and duration, prior intimation to hospitals and emergency services within the radius, a technical requirement to preserve emergency calls where feasible, a contemporaneous log, and post facto review.
4. Parliament must legislate. Every comparable democracy that permits the State to jam communications does so by statute, for named purposes, with a regulator informed. India should not be governed on this question by a procurement circular.

Transparency work of this kind is slow and depends entirely on our members. If you believe that attending a protest should not cut you off from a hospital, become an IFF member and help us see this through.
Important documents

1. RTI application on jamming equipment held by the Delhi Police and the rules governing its deployment, dated 8 September 2026, Registration No. DEPOL/R/E/26/10072 [Link]
2. RTI application on the deployment of jamming equipment and disruption of mobile services at Jantar Mantar, 20 June to 25 July 2026, dated 8 September 2026, Registration No. DEPOL/R/E/26/10074 [Link]
3. RTI application on jamming equipment at the Satya Niketan collapse site and the basis for the Delhi Police statement of 8 September 2026, dated 8 September 2026, Registration No.DEPOL/R/E/26/10077 [Link]
4. Cabinet Secretariat, Jammer Guidelines 2023, No. 11/11/2022-SS [Link]
5. Delhi Police Act, 1978 [Link]
6. FCC Enforcement Advisory 2014-05 on jammers and state and local law enforcement [Link]

Citizens’ right to know and the long wait for an Information Commission: Dr Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz

The Daily Star: Bangladesh: Wednesday, 16^th September 2026.

For two years, citizens’ call to fill the vacant posts of the Information Commission of Bangladesh has gone largely unheeded, leaving it unable to perform its essential statutory role. A gazette notification issued on July 9 by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting confirmed the reconstitution of a selection committee to recommend candidates for the posts of chief information commissioner and two information commissioners and there has been news of a call for applications from interested candidates by the committee subsequently but no further developments have since been publicly reported. What happens to a legal right when the very institution created to protect it can no longer perform its essential function?
Over the past two years, citizens have continued to seek information and press public authorities for accountability, demonstrating both the resilience of the Right to Information Act and the consequences of leaving citizens largely on their own to enforce a right guaranteed by law. A review of RTI cases during this period reveals citizens seeking information on hospitals, schools, roads, public expenditure, social-security benefits, land administration, electricity, the environment, and local government. They were not pursuing abstract notions of transparency, but trying to solve problems affecting everyday life.
Citizens sought information about absentee doctors, medicine allocations, procurement, ambulance services, dialysis facilities, vaccination, and unauthorised charges. At the Nilphamari Mother and Child Health Welfare Centre, RTI disclosure reportedly exposed prolonged unauthorised absence of medical personnel, affecting services to thousands of mothers and children. At the Nilphamari 250-bed Hospital, more than 50 RTI applications were reportedly ignored before dialogue with officials helped secure information and service improvements. Or consider public money. Citizens asked about government vehicles and fuel expenditure, road budgets, contractor lists, work-completion certificates, and procurement. In one case concerning trees around the Teesta canal, RTI information showed that 342 government trees had been sold for Tk 24.7 lakh, leading citizens to question their valuation.
The infrastructure cases are particularly revealing. A road in Saidpur had remained problematic for about a year. After an RTI application sought information about its budget and completion, the work was reportedly completed within a day, although officials did not supply the requested information. Elsewhere, RTI inquiries helped restart an incomplete road and prompted official inspection of an unrepaired bridge.
This illustrates one of the most intriguing findings: sometimes the question itself produces an answer in the form of action. RTI applications reportedly contributed to roads being completed, a bridge being inspected, dengue-control measures being undertaken, a waste bin being installed, dormant electricity infrastructure being activated, a missing citizen charter being displayed, an ambulance being opened for public use, and an unauthorised veterinary fee being withdrawn. The prospect of having to explain an administrative failure sometimes seems enough to make an authority act. That demonstrates RTI’s power, but also presents a danger. We must not confuse action with accountability. If a road is repaired after an RTI application but the authority does not disclose its budget, contractor, or expenditure, the immediate problem may be solved, but the citizen’s legal right remains unfulfilled. The RTI law was enacted not simply to persuade government offices to act, but to establish a durable culture of openness and accountability.
Another troubling development is that some applicants reportedly faced verbal abuse, threats of legal action, home visits, collection of personal information, political labelling, and pressure to settle matters informally. Officials sometimes tried to substitute telephone conversations or verbal explanations for written responses. In one case, additional activists reportedly filed applications collectively after an individual applicant faced pressure, apparently to prevent him from being singled out. Such experiences strike at the philosophy of the RTI Act. Asking a public authority how it has exercised public power or spent public money is not an act of hostility, but an exercise of citizenship.
Social-protection cases offer another important lesson. Citizens sought lists of recipients of old-age, widow and maternity allowances, VGD rice, TCB cards, agricultural inputs and other benefits. Their questions were elementary: Who is entitled? Who was selected? Who received the benefit? Why was someone excluded? Without such information, citizens cannot know whether scarce public resources are being distributed fairly. Public authorities themselves are bound by the RTI Act to disclose essential information proactively; however, a recent review of some 37 ministries and nine divisions found that a majority of them have failed to publish their latest annual reports on their websites, despite the legal requirement, while some had never published one at all.
The experience, therefore, presents a paradox. On the one hand, RTI has demonstrated considerable grassroots strength. Citizens continued to file applications, appeal, organise collectively, and demand answers. Even without an effective apex enforcement mechanism, a single RTI application could sometimes expose administrative failure and produce corrective action. On the other hand, that resilience risks concealing the seriousness of the institutional vacuum. A statutory right should not depend upon the persistence, courage, or collective strength of the person exercising it. When an authority refuses information, the citizen must have somewhere effective to go. That is precisely why the Information Commission exists.
When that final link in the enforcement chain is weakened, the burden shifts from the institution to the citizen. People must repeatedly pursue officials, appeal, negotiate, mobilise others and sometimes withstand intimidation simply to make a right already guaranteed by law meaningful.
Bangladesh’s experience during this institutional vacuum has therefore reaffirmed the importance of the RTI Act. Citizens have demonstrated that they still believe in their right to know. The state must now demonstrate the same commitment. A right to information cannot remain indefinitely dependent on citizens’ determination to enforce it. The right to know needs its guardian back. How much longer must citizens wait? What can justify a two-year delay in appointing the Commissioners needed to make the law fully enforceable?
It’s worth recalling that Information Adviser Zahed Ur Rahman, while talking to journalists in Rangpur on August 19, said that an “effective and independent” Information Commission would be formed within a month. We hope that the government will honour that pledge and demonstrate its commitment to the RTI Act by appointing the commissioners without further delay. With the International Day for Universal Access to Information approaching later this month, there could hardly be a more appropriate way to mark the occasion, or a more convincing affirmation of citizens’ right to know.

---

Dr Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz are chairman and assistant director (RTI), respectively, at Research Initiatives, Bangladesh (RIB). They can be reached at rib@citech-bd.com.

---

Views expressed in this article are the author's own. 

Odisha spends over Rs 3.31 crore on CM’s quarters, denies RTI details citing security

The Statesman: Bhubaneswar: Wednesday, 16^th September 2026.
The Odisha government has spent over Rs 3.31 crore from the state exchequer on repair, renovation and construction works at two official quarters of Chief Minister Mohan Charan Majhi in Bhubaneswar, but has declined to disclose the administrative and technical approvals for the works, citing security concerns.

Chief Minister Mohan Charan Majhi

In its reply to an RTI query filed by activist Pradip Kumar Pradhan, the General Administration and Public Grievance Department said Rs 2,32,52,855 was incurred on works at Government Quarter No. VIIDS-1 in Unit-V, while Rs 98,56,883 was spent at Government Quarter No. B-1 in Unit-II during 2024-25 and 2025-26.
The department said Majhi is a Z+ protectee and the security of his official residence forms an integral part of the overall security architecture.
Disclosure of engineering and structural particulars, it said, could reasonably be expected to prejudicially affect the security of the protected premises and public safety.
It further said the administrative and technical approvals relating to the Chief Minister’s residence may contain detailed engineering, architectural and structural specifications and, therefore, could not be disclosed.
Pradhan, State Convener of the Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan (OSSA), a forum of RTI activists, has questioned the grounds for withholding the information.
He said he had sought details of the approvals under the RTI Act but was denied the information on security grounds. He also said the department had treated the information as the Chief Minister’s personal information.
Pradhan questioned how the administrative approval for repair and renovation of the quarters could attract the exemption under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, which covers information whose disclosure could prejudicially affect specified interests relating to the sovereignty, integrity or security of the country, among other protected interests.
He argued that the authorities had not adequately explained how the specific information sought fell within the statutory exemption and claimed that invoking such provisions to withhold information of public interest undermined the spirit of the transparency law.

Tamil Nadu Information Commission slaps fine on tehsildar citing workload for failure on RTI plea

DT Next: Tamil Nadu: Wednesday, 16^th September 2026.
During the hearing of an appeal, State Information Commissioner Abay Kumar Singh said the reasons given by the Information Officer for not providing the details could not be accepted

The State Information Commission has imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 on a special tehsildar for failing to provide information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, citing shortage of officials and heavy workload.
During the hearing of an appeal, State Information Commissioner Abay Kumar Singh said the reasons given by the Information Officer for not providing the details could not be accepted. He also directed the official to file a compliance report on September 29.
V Loganathan, a resident of Kovilambakkam, had sought certain revenue-related details from the Revenue Divisional Office (RDO), South Chennai.
The then Information Officer of the RDO, C Vanitha, failed to provide the information Loganathan sought. Subsequently, he filed an appeal with the State Information Commission, which was heard by Abhay Kumar Singh.
In her reply to the Commission, Vanitha said she had been responding to RTI petitions. However, owing to a shortage of officials and the heavy workload of handling RTI petitions from five revenue taluks, she could not provide the information sought by the petitioner.
She also assured the Commission that she would discharge her responsibilities properly in future.
In his order, Abay Kumar Singh rejected the reasons given by the Information Officer and imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. At the time, Vanitha was working as special tahsildar (land acquisition) in the Highways Department.
The Information Commissioner directed her to submit a compliance report on September 29.

RTI reply raises questions on Jagannath Temple’s Mukti Mandap representation

Times of India: Bhubaneswar: Tuesday, 15^th September 2026.
An RTI reply from the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration (SJTA) has sparked a debate over the exact number of ‘Brahmin sasana’ villages entitled to representation on the Jagannath temple’s Mukti Mandap, the apex advisory council of Brahmin scholars on matters relating to the 12th century shrine.

The confusion arose after the SJTA furnished an apparently contradictory response to an RTI query filed by Puri resident Saroj Kumar Mishra regarding the number of Brahmin sasana villages authorised to sit on the Mukti Mandap, a 16-pillared elevated open platform located on the temple premises.
According to the RTI reply on Aug 19 and reviewed by TOI, “As per the temple’s record of rights (ROR), altogether 30 Brahmin sasanas are allowed to sit on Mukti Mandap.” However, the list attached to the reply contains the names of only 22 villages, raising questions about the discrepancy.
Sources in the SJTA said 16 villages originally enjoyed representation on the Mukti Mandap. Subsequently, the state govt amended the Jagannath Temple (administration) Act, 1952, and notified the inclusion of 14 additional Brahmin sasanas. However, only six of those newly added villages were reflected in the temple’s ROR.
Residents of villages whose names are yet to be incorporated into the ROR alleged that the omission has led to repeated embarrassment and disputes over their entitlement to participate in the Mukti Mandap. “Our sasana was granted representation through a govt notification in 2018. However, the temple authorities have not yet incorporated our village’s name into the ROR. As a result, we often face objections and criticism from some other members while exercising our rights,” said Saroj Kumar Mishra of Pratap Ramachandrapur Brahmin sasana.
Deba Rath of Ubhayamukhi Ramachandrapur Brahmin sasana voiced a similar concern. “We urge the SJTA to immediately update the ROR and include our village name so that there is no ambiguity regarding our status,” Rath said. Mukti Mandap president Biswanath Mishra maintained that official recognition must be guided by the ROR. “We should go by what the ROR says,” he told TOI.
SJTA officials said the matter would be examined. “We will review the relevant notifications and records and take appropriate steps to remove any confusion and bring clarity to the issue,” a senior SJTA officer said.

Forest Rights Act Has Legal And Implementation Problem: By - Aditya Shekhar

Punjab Newsline: Chandigarh: Tuesday, 15^th September 2026.
Only one of the two has actually been solved.

Nineteen years have passed since Parliament passed the Forest Rights Act, 2006. Today, almost no one says India lacks a law to protect forest dwellers. The Act exists. The Rules exist. The machinery to process claims exists too. The real question is different. Is this machinery working the way Parliament wanted it to work?
The Act was passed to correct an old wrong. Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers had lived on forest land for generations. They depended on this land for their food and their livelihood. But they never held a paper that proved this. Their life on the land was real. Their right to it was simply never written down anywhere. The 2006 Act was meant to fix this. It turned a lived relationship with the land into a right that could be enforced in law.
Now look at the numbers. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs gave these figures to the Rajya Sabha this July. As of June 30, 2026, the country had received 54.01 lakh claims. This covers 20 states and one Union Territory. Of these claims, 25.42 lakh had led to titles. Another 10.46 lakh were still pending. And 18.13 lakh claims had been rejected. That is more than two out of every five claims that were actually decided. In simple terms, for every two families who got a title, more than one family was turned away.
The government calls this "disposal" of claims. But this word hides more than it tells us. A claim can be disposed of by approval. It can also be disposed of by rejection. And rejection often happens for reasons that have nothing to do with whether the family actually has a right under the law. For the family on the receiving end, this is not just a number in a file. It can mean losing the only land they have ever known.
Look closer, and the picture gets worse. Jammu and Kashmir's own government told its Assembly in February that it had rejected 87 percent of all claims filed under the Act. The Rajya Sabha reply confirmed this with hard numbers. Out of 46,090 claims received in the Union Territory, only 6,020 titles were granted. As many as 39,924 claims were rejected. Community rights are faring even worse than individual rights. The Ministry's own Monthly Progress Report for March 2026 recorded more than 47,900 rejections of Community Forest Rights and Community Forest Resource Rights claims across the country. West Bengal, Jammu and Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Chhattisgarh reported the highest numbers. This matters because Community Forest Resource rights were meant to give real power to Gram Sabhas over their own forests. This is the part of the law meant to do the most good. So far, it has done the least.
The law was never silent on fairness
It would be wrong to think the Act leaves claimants at the mercy of officials with no checks on their power. The law deliberately keeps the final word away from the Forest Department and the usual revenue officials. Instead, the Gram Sabha sits at the centre of the process. It receives claims. It examines evidence. It makes the first decision. This design exists for a simple reason. The kind of proof that matters here, memory, custom, long years of living on the land, rarely shows up in a government file.
The Rules add real teeth to this process. Rule 12A says Forest and Revenue officials must be present when a claim is verified on the ground. They must record what they observe. If a claim is changed or turned down, the claimant must be told. Only then can they file an appeal. If a claim is incomplete, the Rules say it should go back for another look, not get thrown out. Rejection cannot happen for the sake of convenience either. Higher committees must give clear, specific reasons whenever they change or reject a Gram Sabha's recommendation. The Rules say plainly that a claim cannot be rejected on technical grounds alone. Officials at the block, panchayat or forest range level have no power on their own to reject or change a claim.
The Rules also understand something simple. Forest communities were never going to have title deeds. That was the entire point of the Act. It was meant to recognise rights that had never been written down. So officials cannot demand one specific kind of paper as proof. The absence of paperwork, on its own, cannot defeat a claim. Satellite images and mapping technology can help verify a claim. They cannot replace the process the law requires.
None of this is vague. The safeguards in the law are clear and mandatory. What is unclear is whether officials on the ground actually follow them. An independent fact finding committee looked into how the Act was being carried out in several districts, including in Odisha. It found villages where claims had remained unanswered for almost ten years, it also found claimants who were never given a written order, or even any proper reason, explaining why their claims were rejected, this is not a problem with the law, it is a failure to properly follow the law which already exists.
When rejection becomes a habit, not a finding
There is an important difference between a claim being rejected because it does not satisfy the requirements of the Act, and a claim being rejected simply because it is difficult or inconvenient to process, some claims genuinely do not fulfil the requirements of the Act, rejecting such claims is fair, as long as the proper procedure given under the law is followed, but what is not fair is rejecting a claim simply because a family is not able to produce one particular document
. Or because a government record stays silent on their years on the land. Or simply because verifying the claim takes effort.
This is not a small detail. The entire idea behind the Act was that these rights existed long before anyone wrote them down. If the absence of a paper record becomes the reason to deny a right, the process ends up repeating the very injustice the Act was meant to undo.
Courts have said this plainly. In Ashadul Sekh v. State of West Bengal, the Calcutta High Court held that removing forest dwellers without following the Rule 12A process has no legal basis. Protecting the environment cannot come at the cost of skipping the law.
Rights and conservation are not enemies
Many people assume that forest rights and forest protection pull in opposite directions. They think that giving a family the right to live on forest land is somehow a loss for conservation. The law does not support this idea. Section 3 lists specific and limited categories of rights. People who hold these rights also carry duties toward wildlife, forest cover and biodiversity. The law was built to balance the two, not trade one for the other.
The Supreme Court's recent decision in Abdul Khalek v. State of Assam shows how this balance is meant to work. The Court did not say that anyone living on forest land can stay there automatically. It said something narrower, and more important. A person holding rights under the Forest Rights Act is a lawful occupant, not an encroacher. They cannot be evicted without notice, without a chance to show evidence, and without a reasoned decision. Due process is not a favour done to forest dwellers. It is how the State decides who has a right to stay and who does not.
This same idea runs through both cases. Protecting the environment is not an exception to constitutional process. It is a part of it. The State certainly has the power to protect forests. But it cannot use that power as if the Forest Rights Act simply did not exist.
What real implementation would look like
If the next phase of this law is to mean anything, the focus must shift. It should move away from counting how many claims were disposed of. It should move toward asking how those claims were decided.
A good starting point is simple. Every rejected claim should come with a clear, specific reason written down. A rejection that just says "insufficient evidence" tells a family nothing about what went wrong. District level data on rejections, along with the reasons behind them, should be public as a rule, not an exception. Right now, the J&K and community rights figures came out only because someone asked a question in Parliament. That should not be the only way such information becomes public. The appeal process the Rules already provide needs to actually work. An appeal that a poor, forest dependent family cannot reach or afford is not a real remedy. And whatever role satellite images and mapping tools play, they should support a human decision. They should not replace the judgment of the Gram Sabha or the value of oral and customary evidence.
Government reports also need better measures of success. Titles given out and claims disposed of are easy numbers to publish. But they say nothing about quality. Better measures would include how many rejections come with clear reasons, how fast appeals are resolved, and how much community forest land has actually been recognised.
What the Act was really promising
Set aside all the procedure for a moment. The Forest Rights Act was never only about land titles. It was an attempt to give real meaning to the Constitution's promise of social and economic justice. This matters most for communities whose bond with the land was built on custom, not paperwork.
Eighteen lakh rejections do not, by themselves, prove that the Act has failed. Many of those claims may genuinely not meet the legal requirements. But this number does prove one thing. These rejections deserve at least as much attention as the twenty five lakh titles the government likes to talk about.
Getting this right does not mean going soft on forest protection. It does not mean approving every claim regardless of evidence either. It simply means examining every claim the way the law requires. It means giving reasons when a claim is refused. And it means making sure claimants can genuinely challenge decisions that go against them.
The real test of the Forest Rights Act was never about how fast a state clears its backlog. The real test is simpler than that. Can a forest dwelling family, whose only proof is generations of dependence rather than a government file, go to the State and get back a decision that is lawful, reasoned and fair? That is not too much to ask for. It is exactly what constitutional governance is supposed to guarantee.
Author is an Assistant Professor of Law at ICFAI Law School, The ICFAI University Jharkhand. Views are personal.