Why SHANTI Act’s nuclear liability limits are under Supreme Court scrutiny.

Indian Express: Ameel Sheikh: New Delhi: Sunday, May 24, 2026.

The protections written into SHANTI were the product of a decade of pressure from foreign reactor manufacturers and governments backing them.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 19) described a constitutional challenge to India’s new nuclear energy law it is hearing, as a “very sensitive legislative policy issue.”

The bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi assured the petitioners that it would clarify whether a statutory cap can restrict a court’s power to fix compensation in the event of a nuclear accident.

The petition challenges the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, as it allows the “private sector and foreign companies to operate nuclear power plants in India, [and] has also capped the liability of these operators at an absurdly low level and exempted the supplier from any liability,” in violation of the Constitution.

“Government can do whatever it wants by way of policy, but it cannot sacrifice Article 21 rights of citizens on the altar of policy,” Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, told the bench.

How nuclear liability works and how it changed

Before SHANTI, India’s nuclear liability framework rested on the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, which established a no-fault regime. Victims of a nuclear incident did not have to prove negligence, only damage.

The operator of the plant was liable under the law, and the cap per operator for large reactors was Rs 1,500 crores, with “the rupee equivalent of three hundred million Special Drawing Rights or such higher amount as the Central Government may specify by notification.”

The 2010 Act also included Section 17(b), which gave the operators a right of recourse against suppliers, i.e., if an accident occurred because a manufacturer had supplied defective equipment, the operator who had paid out compensation could recover that amount from the supplier. The provision also covered “supply of equipment or material with patent or latent defects or substandard services.”

This was the mechanism that kept manufacturers legally accountable for what they built. SHANTI repealed the 2010 Act. Under Section 11, the operator is liable for nuclear damage, but Section 13, read with the Second Schedule, fragments that liability by reactor size.

A reactor with thermal power of up to 150 MW, which covers fuel cycle facilities and nuclear material transport, carries a maximum operator liability of Rs. 100 crores. Reactors between 150 MW and 750 MW attract Rs. 300 crores. Only the largest reactors, above 3,600 MW, reach the maximum of Rs. 3,000 crores. When the operator’s share is exhausted, Section 14 requires the Central Government to cover the remainder up to the total SDR ceiling. Beyond that, no claim lies against anyone.

Section 16, which governs recourse against suppliers, narrows that right to two situations: one where it is written into a contract, or where the incident was caused by someone acting with “an intention to cause nuclear damage.”

Design defects, manufacturing failures, and substandard components do not independently trigger supplier accountability under the new framework. Whether a supplier faces any liability depends entirely on what the procurement contract says. The old Section 17(b) is gone.

Why private operators and suppliers were granted protection

The protections written into SHANTI were the product of a decade of pressure from foreign reactor manufacturers and governments backing them.

When the 2010 Act was being negotiated during the Indo-US civil nuclear deal, American and French reactor companies argued that Section 17(b)’s right of recourse made India an unattractive market. They wanted supplier liability capped or removed as a condition of entry. The provision survived that pressure in 2010. SHANTI resolved the dispute in the supplier’s favour.

In SHANTI’s Statement of Objects and Reasons, this is framed as a matter of economic necessity. India has set a target of 100 GW of nuclear capacity by 2047. To reach it, the government determined that private and foreign participation were unavoidable and that a “pragmatic civil liability” framework was required to bring that capital in. The liability structure, caps on operators, no statutory exposure for suppliers, and residual liability absorbed by the state are the price of that participation.

The petition challenges SHANTI under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, arguing that the Act’s liability structure is a violation of rights the Supreme Court has already declared non-negotiable.

The Article 21 argument runs on two tracks. The first is the doctrine of absolute liability, as laid down in the 1987 Shriram Oleum Gas case. That judgment held that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is “absolutely liable to make good all damage arising therefrom, wholly independent of fault, negligence, or the exercise of due care.”

The petition argues that SHANTI “imposes illusory ceilings on liability, exempts operator liability in certain circumstances and completely exempts supplier liability” and that Parliament cannot by statute reduce what the court declared a constitutional obligation.

The second concerns the Polluter Pays Principle under Article 21, which the court read into the right to life through Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action (1996). The principle requires that the cost of harm rest with whoever caused it. Under SHANTI, when an operator’s liability is exhausted, the Central Government absorbs the remainder, the cost shifts to the taxpayer. The petition describes this as “shifting the financial burden of a private or commercial profit-driven nuclear activity onto the general public” and argues Parliament cannot legislate that transfer either.

The Article 14 challenge targets the structure of the Second Schedule, which fragments operator liability by reactor size and sets caps, as low as Rs. 100 crores for smaller reactors, that the petition argues bear no rational relationship to the scale of harm a nuclear incident can cause. Arbitrary ceilings on compensation for victims of a hazardous activity, the petition contends, fail the test of reasonableness under Article 14.

The Article 19(1)(a) challenge goes to Section 39, which empowers the central government to classify nuclear information as restricted and prohibit its publication in any form, overriding the RTI Act.

The right to information has been held to be a fundamental right flowing from Article 19(1)(a) by the Supreme Court. The petition argues that a blanket power to suppress information about facilities whose accidents could affect entire populations cannot survive constitutional scrutiny, particularly because access to that information is the precondition for any meaningful claim by victims.

At the hearing, Justice Bagchi said that “When the State, in its own policy, decides to cap liability of a private entity, we are not here to second guess decision making of the State in its subjective.”

The CJI framed the court’s concern more narrowly, not whether the caps exist, but whether a court’s power to award compensation can be restricted by them.

Bhushan pointed out that the total cap, operator and government combined is under Rs 4,000 crores. If the court awards more, the Act provides no mechanism for payment.

What victims can actually claim

Under SHANTI, victims of a nuclear incident can claim compensation for loss of life or personal injury, damage to property, economic loss where notified by the government, costs of environmental restoration, and costs of preventive measures taken after an incident. Claims are filed before a government-appointed Claims Commissioner, or before a Nuclear Damage Claims Commission in cases of wider damage. Civil courts have no jurisdiction.

The financial limits determine what that right is worth in practice. The operator’s liability runs from Rs. 100 crores for small reactors to Rs. 3,000 crores for the largest. The government covers anything above that, up to the total of approximately Rs 3,900 crores. The petition sets that figure against the historical record—Three Mile Island cost between USD 970 million and USD 1 billion in 1980 dollars; Chernobyl between USD 235 billion and USD 700 billion; Fukushima an estimated USD 440 to 445 billion. The petition states the SHANTI cap is “roughly a thousand times” lower.

The time limits are a separate problem. Section 67 extinguishes the right to claim within “ten years, in the case of damage to property” and “twenty years, in the case of personal injury to any individual” from the date of the incident.

Radiation-induced cancers, genetic damage, and congenital conditions can emerge decades after exposure and may not be diagnosable within that window.

The 2010 Act’s Section 35 explicitly preserved the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts as an avenue of last resort. SHANTI’s Section 81 bars civil courts. Section 39 empowers the government to classify nuclear information as restricted and prohibit its publication in any form, overriding the RTI Act, thus leaving victims without access to the records needed to establish what went wrong.

The CJI’s assurance that statutory caps “may not limit the power of the Court to fix compensation” is where the matter rests for now. How that power would be exercised, against whom, and through what mechanism, is what the court will have to work out in July.

Madras HC seeks GCC's reply on fund misuse in bridge work

New Indian Express: Chennai: Sunday, May 24, 2026.

Though Rs 20 lakh each was allocated for land acquisition and lighting arrangements, no actual land acquisition was carried out, as only six houses were relocated, the petition said.

The Madras High Court has sought reply from the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) on a petition seeking inquiry into “misappropriation of funds” in the construction of a minor bridge connecting Aspiran Garden Second Street and Kilpauk Garden Road across the Otteri Nullah in Chennai.

A vacation bench of justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan issued notice to the GCC when the petition filed by Prabhakaran of Choolaimedu came up for hearing. The bench directed the GCC to file the reply in a week.

The petitioner alleged public funds were utilised in an improper way by the civic body. Though Rs 20 lakh each was allocated for land acquisition and lighting arrangements, no actual land acquisition was carried out, as only six houses were relocated. He further said Rs 20.25 lakh was allocated under the head of shifting charges and Rs 31.96 lakh under “unforeseen items”.

Stating that he has obtained the information through RTI Act queries, the petitioner said the materials prima facie disclose cognisable acts of corruption, abuse of official position and diversion of public funds attracting provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and others. A representation was sent to the DVAC on April 8, 2026, seeking a probe, he said.

Noting that one of the officials concerned had already retired and another one is due for retirement, he said unless immediate inquiry is not taken, there is likelihood of the officials evading accountability.

Gold medals bearing student's name awarded to someone else:NLU changes awardee minutes before convocation, student moves HC

Bhaskar English: Jodhpur Sunday, May 24, 2026.

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has issued a notice to National Law University (NLU) Jodhpur, seeking its response in a case involving two gold medals that were prepared in a student’s name but were awarded to another student during the convocation ceremony.

The decision to change the recipient was reportedly taken just five minutes before the convocation procession began. A single bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit directed the university administration to clearly explain its position regarding the issuance of the petitioner’s marksheet before the next hearing. The matter will now be heard in the second week of July 2026.

Judicial aspirant Anuj Shukla, the petitioner, is arguing the case himself with assistance from his senior, Nikhil Ajmera. Anuj Shukla is arguing his own case in court with the help of his senior Nikhil Ajmera. 

Shocking decision 5 minutes before convocation procession

Anuj Shukla, a resident of Bhilwara, completed his LLB from NLU Odisha between 2018 and 2023. At the university’s convocation ceremony held on July 26, 2023, he received eight gold medals from President Droupadi Murmu. After completing his LLB, Shukla enrolled in the LLM (IPR Law) programme at NLU Jodhpur for the 2023–24 batch.

At the university’s 17th convocation ceremony on February 23, 2025, he was scheduled to receive two gold medals. A university committee had recommended his name for the awards during its meeting on February 8, 2025. The recommendation was approved by the Academic Council on February 15. Shukla’s name had already been printed in the convocation brochure, and the medals themselves carried his name.

However, just five minutes before the ceremony began on February 23, the Controller of Examinations stopped him from receiving the awards. Shukla was informed that, due to a “re-evaluation”, he was no longer eligible for the gold medals. Without giving him an opportunity to be heard, both medals were awarded to another student from the same batch.

The complicated game of 're-evaluation' and the university's policy

The controversy centres on the ‘Research Methodology’ paper in the first semester of the LLM programme. Shukla had originally scored 82 marks in the examination, but after re-evaluation the marks were reduced to 65.

On January 4, 2024, he sent an email seeking clarification regarding the reduction in marks, but received no response. The examination department had issued his grade sheet based on the original score of 82 marks, resulting in a total score of 441 out of 480 and a CGPA of 9.19 out of 10.

Based on these figures, the committee on February 8 had declared Shukla eligible for the medals, ranking him ahead of his classmate with 875 marks compared to 872. However, on the day of the convocation, the Controller of Examinations allegedly relied on the revised marks and reversed the decision. President Droupadi Murmu had awarded the gold medal to Anuj Shukla upon completion of his LLB.

Only the 'Academic Council' has the authority to award/cancel gold medals

Representing himself before the High Court, Shukla raised several legal objections in his petition. He argued that under university regulations, only the Academic Council has the authority to award or cancel gold medals, and that the Controller of Examinations has no such power.

According to the petition, the last-minute decision taken on February 23 received approval from Vice-Chancellor Professor Harpreet Kaur only on February 25, after the medals had already been distributed. The petition further states that on March 17, 2025, the examination department handed Shukla a new marksheet that had been authenticated retrospectively with a date of February 23.

Shukla refused to accept the document and claims that he has still not received a proper marksheet.

Shocking revelation when response sought through RTI

Seeking clarity, Shukla filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act requesting details of the meeting allegedly held on February 23, 2025. In a response dated September 23, 2025, the university’s Public Information Officer provided documents that revealed a meeting had been conducted to transfer the gold medals from the petitioner to another student at the last moment.

The records stated that four senior university professors attended the meeting. However, none of the signatures on the documents carried a date. The documents also suggested that the decision to change the medal recipient was implemented on February 23 itself, while the Vice-Chancellor’s approval was obtained only on February 25.

High Court Hearing and Instructions to NLU

The case first came up before Justice Sunil Beniwal on November 6, 2025, when notices were issued to the university. During the latest hearing on May 22, Advocate Shreyansh Mardia appeared on behalf of NLU Jodhpur and sought time to file a reply to the petitioner’s amendment application.

Granting the request, Justice Sanjeet Purohit also issued strict directions regarding the withholding of the petitioner’s marksheet and asked the university to clarify its position before the next hearing.

Online RTI facility extended to Gujarat civic bodies, local offices

Times of India: Gandhinagar: Saturday, 23 May 2026.
Filing Right to Information (RTI) applications in Gujarat has become significantly easier as the state’s online RTI portal has finally been extended to local civic bodies, collectorates, and police Commissionerate. Moving beyond the offices of various departments located in the Gandhinagar secretariat, citizens can now file applications and first appeals digitally up to the taluka and village levels.

RTI activist Alpesh Bhavsar, who had been following up the issue with the general administration department and various other departments which receive a majority of RTI applications, said, “RTI applicants up to the village level can now file applications, make payments, and even file first appeals online. We were demanding this from the govt since last Oct, Now, almost all govt offices up to the taluka level will be covered by the online portal. Citizens will no longer have to visit these offices to file an application or spend money on Speed Post,” Bhavsar said.
Bhavsar said that a PIL was filed in the high court on the issue in 2018. In Dec 2021, the portal onlinerti.gujarat.gov.in was formally launched. “Until 2025, only 27 departments were mapped on the portal. It covered only those offices located in the sachivalaya,” Bhavsar said.
Since Oct 2025, Bhavsar made 10 representations to the GAD and other departments, after which most district-level offices of departments have now got mapped. “It is in the interest of the Digital India movement to make RTI application services online, as paperless services will also reduce environmental damage.”
Pankti Jog, executive secretary of Mahiti Adhikar Gujarat Pahel said that the development has brough a big relief to RTI applicants and citizens. She said that applicants had to visit post offices to avail speed post activity. “People up to the block-level can now file RTI applications online. We expect that since the process has now been made less cumbersome, more and more people will be able to file RTI applications,” she said.

'Paperless governance': Gujarat govt begins to link district, taluka-level offices to State’s online RTI portal : Dilip Singh Kshatriya

New Indian Express: Gujarat: Saturday, 23 May 2026.
RTI activist Shailendra Sinh Jadeja had launched a sustained campaign in 2016 demanding a fully functional online RTI system in Gujarat.

After years of pressure from RTI activists, legal intervention and repeated citizen complaints, the Gujarat government has finally begun linking district and taluka-level offices to the state’s online RTI portal.
This move marks a major shift toward digital access to information and paperless governance.
In a significant administrative development, the Urban Development Department, Home Department, Panchayat Department and Revenue Department have now initiated the exercise of mapping their field-level offices on the state RTI platform.
It comes after years of legal pressure, citizen activism and repeated representations highlighting how ordinary people were being forced into an exhausting and expensive offline RTI process.
According to official details, the mapping of seven municipal corporations, more than 160 municipalities, police commissioner offices, district panchayats and collector offices has already been completed.
The process is now gradually expanding deeper into district and taluka administration. The roots of this digital transparency battle go back nearly a decade.
RTI activist Shailendra Sinh Jadeja had launched a sustained campaign in 2016 demanding a fully functional online RTI system in Gujarat.
The campaign soon entered the legal arena when a Public Interest Litigation was filed before the Gujarat High Court in 2018, pushing the state government to act.
The legal and public pressure eventually led to the launch of the online RTI portal www.onlinerti.gujarat.gov.in by the Chief Minister in December 2021.
However, despite the launch being projected as a major transparency reform, the portal largely remained restricted to secretariat-level departments for years.
By 2025, only 27 secretariat departments had been mapped on the portal, leaving citizens helpless whenever they needed information from district collectors, municipalities, Mamlatdar offices, Taluka Development Offices or local panchayat administrations.
As a result, thousands of RTI applicants continued struggling with the outdated offline filing system. The difficulties were not merely procedural; they were financial and logistical as well.
Gujarat’s RTI application fee remained fixed at Rs 20, but the traditional mechanisms to pay that fee had virtually collapsed.
Stamp papers of Rs 20 became unavailable, court fee stamps and revenue stamps were difficult to obtain, postal orders disappeared from smaller post offices and even Registered AD services were discontinued in many locations.
This forced citizens to depend on costly speed post services merely to exercise their legal right to information.
RTI activists repeatedly argued that the system itself had become a barrier to transparency. Citizens and activists submitted several representations before the General Administration Department and the RTI Cell, demanding a practical and fully digital mechanism.
The issue gained fresh momentum in October 2025 when Ahmedabad-based RTI activist and RTI Ekta Manch member Alpesh Bhavsar filed an RTI application seeking details about the implementation status of district-level mapping on the online portal.
What emerged through the RTI replies exposed a striking administrative slowdown.
Despite repeated reminders issued earlier by the General Administration Department, several departments had still failed to connect their district and taluka offices to the online RTI system.
Bhavsar then escalated the matter further by sending detailed representations to four crucial departments: Panchayat, Revenue, Housing and Urban Development.
When no substantial response arrived, he intensified the legal-information route by filing RTI applications directly before the departments concerned. The replies that followed painted a mixed but revealing picture of the government’s internal progress.
The Revenue Department admitted in its response that the “mapping work is in progress,” indirectly acknowledging that large sections of its field administration remain outside the digital RTI framework.
Notably, the Home Department instructed the office of the Inspector General of Police to ensure that all police commissioner offices are linked to the online RTI portal, bringing law enforcement administration closer to digital accountability.
The Panchayat Department, on the other hand, reportedly mapped several District Panchayats and Taluka Panchayats but has still not provided complete information in response to the RTI applications, raising further questions over departmental coordination and transparency.
What makes the development even more significant is the fact that the Revenue Department and the Housing and Urban Development Department consistently record the highest numbers of RTI applications and appeals in Gujarat, as highlighted in the latest Annual Report of the Gujarat State Information Commission.
The issue has also revived a larger debate around the government’s commitment to the Digital India Mission launched in 2015.
While governments across the country continue promoting “paperless administration” and environmental sustainability, activists argue that many departments have failed to translate those promises into practical systems accessible to common citizens.
For ordinary people, the stakes are enormous.
Offices such as Mamlatdar offices, municipalities, TDO offices and collectorates handle everyday issues related to land, taxation, construction permissions, local governance and welfare benefits, making them among the most RTI-sensitive institutions in the state.
Now, after remaining confined to secretariat corridors since 2021, Gujarat’s online RTI portal has finally begun reaching district and taluka administrations.
For RTI activists and citizens who spent years fighting procedural barriers, the move is being seen not merely as a technical upgrade, but as a delayed victory for transparency, accessibility and the legal right to information.

Citizen-led campaign forces Gujarat government to expand online RTI access to local bodies

 Counterview: Ahmedabad: Saturday, 23 May 2026.
After years of persistent efforts by RTI activists and a citizen-led campaign, the Gujarat government has finally started connecting district and taluka-level offices of key departments to its online RTI portal. The development brings relief to thousands of citizens who previously faced significant hurdles in filing RTI applications for local bodies.

The movement for a comprehensive online RTI portal in Gujarat began around 2016, when Rajkot-based activist Shailendra Singh Jadeja took up the cause. He filed a Public Interest Litigation (Writ Petition PIL No. 203/2018) before the Gujarat High Court. In December 2021, the state government launched the portal. However, for nearly four years, only 27 secretariat departments were mapped on it. Citizens seeking information from district or taluka-level offices had to file physical applications, a process filled with practical problems.
The RTI application fee in Gujarat is ₹20, but stamp paper of that denomination is now hard to find. Court fee stamps and revenue tickets are also not easily available. Small post offices rarely stock postal orders, and with the discontinuation of Registered AD services, citizens have been forced to use costlier Speed Post. These difficulties were repeatedly raised by citizens and RTI activists with the General Administration Department and the RTI Cell.
The turning point came in October 2025 when Alpeshkumar Dineshkumar Bhavsar, an Ahmedabad resident and member of the RTI Ekta Manch, filed an RTI application with the General Administration Department. The response revealed that despite repeated reminders from the RTI Cell since 2021, various departments had failed to map their district-level offices. Following this, Bhavsar submitted detailed representations on October 17, November 21, and December 10, 2025. When no satisfactory action was taken, he filed additional RTI applications on January 2, 2026, seeking information on the processing of his representations.
Subsequent RTI applications filed on March 6 and April 13, 2026, targeting the Panchayat, Urban Development, Revenue, and Home departments, finally yielded concrete results. The Urban Development Department reported that mapping of approximately 177 public authorities had been completed. This includes 7 municipal corporations and over 160 nagarpalikas (municipalities) across the state. A comprehensive list obtained through RTI responses covers major municipal corporations like Ahmedabad, Surat, Vadodara, Rajkot, and Gandhinagar, as well as smaller town municipalities such as Amreli, Ankleshwar, Bharuch, Bhuj, Godhra, Himmatnagar, Morbi, Navsari, Porbandar, and many others.
The Home Department issued instructions to the Inspector General of Police to connect all Commissioner offices, ACP offices, and Superintendent of Police offices to the online portal. The Revenue Department confirmed that mapping is “in progress,” with collector offices having been mapped. The Panchayat Department has mapped some district and taluka panchayats, though complete information is still pending.
Internal government correspondence obtained through RTI shows that the General Administration Department had issued directives as early as September 2021. A later letter dated September 6, 2023, cited a Supreme Court order of March 20, 2023, which mandated full implementation of the online RTI web portal across the entire state within three months. On February 23, 2026, the Additional Secretary of the General Administration Department issued another reminder, directing all departments to expedite mapping and provide a certificate of completion within 15 days. The Urban Development Department responded on March 16, 2026, instructing all its sections to complete the mapping urgently.
Despite this progress, activists have flagged several technical issues with the portal that remain unresolved. The date on which a Public Information Officer uploads information or a response is not clearly mentioned, making it impossible for applicants to calculate the 30-day appeal deadline. When filing a first appeal within the statutory timeframe, the portal still insists on a mandatory “reason for delay” field. The names, designations, and contact numbers of PIOs and First Appellate Authorities are not visible on the portal. Printouts from the portal have extremely small, often unreadable fonts. These issues have led to first appeals being wrongly rejected, as happened with an Agriculture Department matter where the PIO’s response lacked a clear date.
According to the Gujarat State Information Commission’s annual report, the Revenue, Home, and Urban Development departments receive the highest number of RTI applications and appeals. Connecting their district and taluka-level offices will therefore benefit the largest number of citizens. The activists’ press note states that citizens will no longer need to visit offices in person or spend money on Speed Post, saving time, effort, and money while also reducing paper usage.
The successful campaign has been driven primarily by two individuals: Shailendra Singh Jadeja of Rajkot, who initiated the High Court petition, and Alpeshkumar Bhavsar of Ahmedabad, who methodically filed RTI applications and representations from October 2025 through April 2026. While the expansion of the portal represents a major victory for transparency, activists caution that without addressing the technical shortcomings, the digital initiative will not fully achieve its potential.

Gujarat SIC fines Mamlatdar for ‘negligence’ in complying with order on RTI, ‘misleading’ Commission - Written by: Parimal A Dabhi

The Indian Express: Ahmedabad: Saturday, 23 May 2026.
Order was given to the PIO, but that officer has not done the affidavit, says Gujarat State Information Commission

Tuvar had sought documents related to certain revenue entries concerning a land parcel in Dhanera in 2025. (Representational image/AI generated)

The Gujarat State Information Commission (SIC) has imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on a Mamlatdar from Dhanera tehsil of Banaskantha district for allegedly not taking appropriate action in providing the information sought by an RTI applicant and misleading the Commission.
State Information Commissioner Bharat Ganatra passed an order on May 11 while acting on a complaint filed by one Indra Tuvar, a resident of Dhanera town in Banaskantha district, in connection with an application moved by him under the provisions of the Right to Information Act. The Mamlatdar, J R Mehta, was the Public Information Officer (PIO) under the RTI Act at the relevant time.
As per the case details, Tuvar had sought documents related to certain revenue entries concerning a land parcel in Dhanera in 2025. As he did not get the information sought after filing the first appeal since it was reportedly ‘unavailable’, he moved a second appeal before the Commission. Acting on that appeal, the Commission had on August 26, 2025, passed an order directing the PIO to once again search for the information sought by Tuvar and provide it to him free of cost. If it is still not found, then prepare an affidavit on the stamp paper of Rs 300 and send it to the latter within 15 days, the Commission directed the PIO.
Speaking with The Indian Express, Tuvar said that after the order from the Commission, he did not get information within the stipulated time. He moved another application before the Mamlatdar seeking information on the action taken by her following the order of the Commission.
“I got a reply that a team was formed to search the information and that it was not found. However, I was not given an affidavit then. I lodged a complaint with the Commission seeking action against the Mamlatdar. The complaint was kept for hearing by the Commission and before that I got a call from the office of the Mamlatdar and a talati (revenue clerk) gave an affidavit to me (stating that the information sought could not be found by a team appointed for the purpose). The affidavit was signed by the talati, not the Mamlatdar,” said Tuvar.
Subsequently, during the hearing of Tuvar’s complaint, the affidavit was placed before the Commission even as the Talati, K T Pansal, virtually appeared on behalf of the Mamlatdar.
Taking note of this, the Commission recorded in its order, “…the affidavit has been done by K T Pansal, Kasba Talati (Dhanera). It means, the order was given to the PIO (Mamlatdar) with reference to the application…but that officer has not done the affidavit and this fact comes out from the records.”
“This act of the PIO and Mamlatdar, on the basis of the records, seems to be misleading the Commission. And negligence of the PIO (Mamlatdar) is established that she did not take appropriate action on the complainant’s application,” the Commission said in its order.
Eventually, the Commission imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on Mehta and directed that the amount be paid by her from her own purse within one month of the order.
When enquired, Mehta said she has already deposited the fine amount.

2,761 complaints pending before Maharashtra women’s commission, govt yet to appoint chairperson & six members: RTI reply

The Times of India: Pune: Friday, 22 May 2026.
Over 2,700 complaints were pending before the Maharashtra State Commission for Women at the end of the last financial year, with key positions in the panel remaining vacant, an RTI reply obtained by city-based activist Vihar Durve has revealed.

The post of chairperson has been vacant since March 20, when Rupali Chakankar resigned. In addition, the tenure of six non-official members ended in Jan, leaving the commission significantly understaffed. As per its mandated structure, the commission is meant to have nine members, including a chairperson, six non-official members, a member secretary and an ex-officio police officer.
According to data provided by the commission, 2,761 complaints were pending as of March 31, 2026. During the financial year 2025-26, the panel disposed of 15,560 cases. The reply to RTI query was issued on May 18 by the commission’s public information officer.
Marital disputes accounted for the largest share of pending cases at 1,020, followed by complaints related to social issues, including rape and allied offences, at 741. Property disputes made up another 319 pending cases. The commission also reported 169 workplace harassment complaints and 35 sexual harassment cases awaiting resolution.
In total, the commission handled 18,321 complaints over the last financial year, of which 16,150 were newly registered and 2,171 were carried forward from previous years. The data also indicated a steady rise in pendency. Pending cases stood at 2,550 in Dec 2025, rose to 2,637 by the Jan-end (2026) and reached 2,761 by March-end.
Activist Durve said the delay in appointing a new chairperson and members could hamper the commission’s functioning and slow down the disposal of complaints. “The delay amounts to a violation of the Maharashtra State Commission for Women Act, 1993,” he said, adding that repeated high court directives on timely appointments had not been complied with.
Women’s rights activists emphasised the need for experienced and grassroots-level professionals to be appointed to the panel. They argued that individuals with direct experience in handling issues like domestic violence, workplace harassment, and gender rights would be better equipped to address the growing caseload. “One cannot rely on purely political appointments. The commission needs people who understand ground realities,” an activist said.
Meanwhile, complainants have expressed concern over delays in case hearings. One woman who approached the commission said there was an urgent need for faster resolution of cases to ensure timely justice for those seeking help.

'Hamara Paisa, Hamara Hisaab': How Semi-Literate Villagers in Rajasthan Exposed Crores in Corruption & Won India the Right to Information : By Avantika Krishna

The Better India: Himachal: Friday, 22 May 2026.
When activists, journalists, and ordinary villagers united in a small Rajasthan village, they exposed ghost projects, confronted corrupt officials in public hearings, and launched a grassroots movement that empowered rural India and gave birth to the nation's landmark Right to Information Act.

A village in Rajasthan became the starting point of a movement that would permanently reshape how citizens engage with power. Photograph: (AI generated image for representation)

In the heartland of Rajasthan, nestled on the slopes of the Aravalli range, lies a village that changed the course of Indian democracy.
Devdungri, a small settlement in Rajsamand district’s Bhim block, is widely recognised as the birthplace of India’s Right to Information (RTI) movement. Here, in a simple mud-and-stone house, three activists began a conversation with rural workers that would eventually reach the floor of Parliament.
Three people, one question
In 1987, three people from vastly different backgrounds came together in Devdungri. Aruna Roy, a former Indian Administrative Service officer who had resigned to work with the rural poor, joined hands with Shankar Singh, a local activist with exceptional communication skills, and Nikhil Dey, who had returned from the United States with a commitment to social change.
They settled in Devdungri, living simply alongside the community they had come to work with.
“The idea of living in Devdungri was to live with the people, like them,” Roy later recalled in an interview with The Week.
One of the first people they connected with was Lal Singh, a police constable who had been dismissed for protesting the alleged misuse of constables as domestic servants.
“I met them within months of their arrival. We used to roam around on bicycles,” Lal Singh now secretary of the School for Democracy, a non-profit in Rajasthan recalled.

A modest mud-and-stone home in Devdungri became the platform for conversations between activists and villagers helped shape a national movement. Photograph: (Outlook India)

At the time, rural workers across Rajasthan had limited means to verify whether government relief works were being implemented fairly, or whether wages recorded on official muster rolls had actually been paid.
Working alongside villagers like Lal Singh, the activists began organising workers to collectively raise questions about their dues.
As Roy later reflected, “When people came with grievances, it became clear that access to information was critical to securing basic rights.”
The question at the heart of their work was deceptively simple: if public money belongs to the people, why should people not be able to see how it is being spent?
Building the Jan Sunwai
Out of years of grassroots organising grew the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), formally established on 1 May 1990 during a rally attended by 1,000 people from 27 villages.
The organisation developed a tool that would become one of its most enduring contributions to Indian democracy: the jan sunwai, or public hearing.
The concept was elegant in its simplicity. Government officials were invited to bring their account books, which were then read aloud in a public space. Villagers could listen, cross-check, and speak up verifying whether work documented on paper had actually been completed on the ground, and whether wages recorded in their names had reached them.
In December 1994, MKSS held its first jan sunwai in Kot Kirana village in Pali district. Subsequent hearings followed in Vijaypura, Jawaja, and other villages.

Aruna Roy, Shankar Singh and Nikhil Dey built the movement by living and working alongside rural communities. Photograph: (The Week)

What these hearings demonstrated, above all, was that ordinary citizens many of them semi-literate, many of them women were entirely capable of scrutinising official records when given access to them.
According to accounts documented by MKSS and reported by journalists who attended, villagers used the platform to formally raise discrepancies between what official records showed and what they had experienced on the ground. The jan sunwai gave these observations a documented, public platform for the first time.
Alongside the jan sunwais, MKSS also ran informal classes for children in the area who could not access formal schooling part of a broader effort to build a community grounded in an understanding of its rights.
Shankar Singh, who had given up an opportunity to become a government schoolteacher to join the movement, spearheaded its communication strategies using art, puppetry, theatre, dance, and music to engage the public.
His Ghotala Rath Yatra, a satirical street performance built around a decorated handcart, travelled from village to city, drawing people into conversations about governance and accountability through irony and song.
The jan sunwai model eventually drew a formal response from the state. On 5 April 1995, the Rajasthan Chief Minister pledged in the Assembly that the government would grant public access to development records an acknowledgement that the public hearing process had surfaced questions requiring a policy response.
“Hamara Paisa, Hamara Hisaab”
When the state government’s promise remained unimplemented, MKSS launched a 40-day dharna at Beawar’s historic Chang Gate in April 1996.
The sit-in drew thousands from rural Rajasthan, with women forming the largest contingent.

MKSS used songs, street theatre and puppetry to turn discussions on governance into conversations people could join. Photograph: (Outlook India)

Lakshmi Narayan, a vegetable vendor at Chang Gate, recalled: “The place bustled with journalists and others from Jaipur, Delhi and beyond. Protesters came from nearby villages, and local traders provided accommodation, food and drinks throughout the dharna.”
It was at Beawar that the movement found its defining voice.
Sushila, an MKSS member who had studied only up to Class 4, was asked by a journalist why an uneducated woman wanted the RTI.
Her response, documented and widely recalled by those present, became the movement’s most enduring slogan:
“When I send my son to the market with ten rupees, I ask him to account for how he spent it. The government spends crores of rupees in our name. Why can we not ask for an accounting? Hamara paisa, hamara hisaab (our money, our accounts).”
The phrase captured something legal language never quite could: that transparency was not a technical demand, but a matter of basic dignity.
From village square to parliament
The sustained organising by MKSS, and the public evidence gathered through jan sunwais, helped build a broader coalition.
In 1996, the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information was established, bringing together civil society organisations from across India.
The testimonies and documented findings from Devdungri’s public hearings formed part of the evidence presented before parliamentary committees, making the case that transparency was a right, not a privilege.
As a former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court said at the RTI Mela in Beawar  held to mark twenty years of the Act “The idea for RTI was born from the soil, from the struggle of ordinary workers and farmers, in villages more than in cities. It came from people like you.”
Rajasthan passed the first state-level RTI law in 2000. Tamil Nadu, Goa, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Delhi followed.

“Hamara Paisa, Hamara Hisaab” became the slogan that transformed the language of transparency into a demand for dignity. Photograph: (X/@nikhilmkss)

After years of sustained advocacy, the Right to Information Act was passed by Parliament in May 2005, received presidential assent in June, and came into force on 12 October 2005.
What RTI made possible
Once the law was in place, the accountability model pioneered in Devdungri could function at scale.
In Janawad Panchayat in Rajsamand district, over 70 villagers came together to collectively examine their panchayat records using Rajasthan’s RTI law demonstrating, in practice, that communities could read official documents, cross-reference them with their own experiences, and build a verified, evidence-based picture of how public funds had been used in their name.
The process they undertook prompted a formal government inquiry.
Corroborated by the RTI records the villagers had gathered, the inquiry found that a significant number of listed development works could not be verified on the ground.
A subsequent inquiry, held in 2001, found evidence of misappropriation of funds, and the outcome included a state mandate for annual social audits of panchayat funds a structural reform that continues to shape local governance in Rajasthan.
What the Janawad case illustrated most powerfully was not simply what had gone wrong, but what citizens could build: a replicable, community-led process for verifying public spending that was rigorous enough to trigger official accountability.
Passing It On: RTI and the Next Generation
From the beginning, the movement understood that lasting change required building knowledge across generations not just winning individual cases.
Within Rajasthan’s broader RTI ecosystem, this took several forms.
RTI Manch, a Jaipur-based organisation that works in close collaboration with MKSS, built a network of nearly 100 student volunteers from the University of Rajasthan.
These students carried RTI awareness into villages near Jaipur, explaining both the Act and MGNREGA entitlements to residents, while also setting up RTI kiosks at the university and in public spaces across the city.
The movement also found its way into classrooms.
The Government of Rajasthan included a chapter on the RTI movement in the state’s high school textbooks, acknowledging the contributions of MKSS and the people of Beawar and Bhim.
The chapter remained in the syllabus across changes in political leadership a marker of cross-party recognition of the movement’s place in the state’s democratic history.
Perhaps the most vivid account of how RTI was introduced to younger generations comes from Shankar Singh himself.
He described a volunteer named Vineet who visited villages with a small projector, casting the Rajasthan government’s Jan Soochna Portal onto a white wall.

Children and villagers learning to access public information reflecting the movement’s effort to pass the idea of accountability to future generations. Photograph: (The Week)

First, Vineet screened a short film on RTI to draw in children who believed they were simply watching a movie. Then he asked a child to bring their family’s ration card, entered the number into the portal, and projected the result onto the wall.
The child saw his father’s photograph appear and called out in surprise.
Vineet then showed the family’s complete ration record how much wheat they had received, and when.
In that moment, the idea that a government database contained information that belonged to them and that they could access it became immediate and real.
As Aruna Roy has said: “The demand for transparency stems from our fundamental right to a dignified life.”
The Work Continues
Two decades after the RTI Act came into force, the law continues to evolve and so does the citizen engagement that gave birth to it.
According to the Central Information Commission’s 2023–24 annual report, 1.75 million RTI applications were filed across the country, reflecting the scale at which ordinary Indians have adopted the tool that Devdungri helped build.
Shankar Singh framed the road ahead in characteristically collective terms:
“This era of RTI will continue only if there is a movement today. In places where people are fighting and struggling together, they get the information they need.”
The legacy of Devdungri is not simply the legislation that emerged from it it is the proof of concept that preceded it.
Before there was a law, there was a group of villagers in Rajasthan who established that reading a government file aloud in a public space was a legitimate act of citizenship.
The jan sunwai model they built has since informed social audit frameworks across India and has been referenced in governance discussions internationally.
Justice Shah, speaking at Beawar in 2025, captured the spirit of what that museum and the movement behind it could represent going forward: a place where “the past helps inspire democratic initiatives in the present and future”, and where the story of ordinary citizens shaping national policy is preserved for generations to come.
Devdungri stands as evidence that lasting change can begin in a village square when ordinary people decide they have the right to know and, in knowing, find the tools to shape the world they live in.
Sources:
'Devdungri Remains A Testament To The History Of India's RTI Act': Outlook India, Published on 20 March 2024
'How a series of small dharnas in a remote village in Rajasthan snowballed into the RTI Movement': by Bharat Dogra for Press Institute of India, Published on 10 November 2024
'Jansunwai – Public Hearing and Accountability': MKSS official website
'How a grassroots movement ignited India's RTI revolution': The Week, Published on 4 October 2025
'RTI Act: A powerful tool in fighting hunger': Good Food Movement, Published on 14 February 2025
'RTI activist Shankar Singh on building social movements': India Development Review (IDR), Published on 15 January 2026
'RTI Success Stories': by Asha Kanta Sharma for RTI India, Published on 4 March 2018

High Court stays Himachal government notification exempting Vigilance Bureau from RTI Act

The Indian Express: Himachal: Friday, 22 May 2026.
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has stayed the state government’s notification exempting the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (SV&ACB) from the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The state government had issued the notification on March 12, while the interim order was passed on May 19.

The state government, however, justified exempting the Vigilance Bureau from the RTI framework on the grounds that investigations into corruption cases often involve sensitive information. (File Photo)

A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma issued notices to the state government, the Vigilance Bureau and other departments, seeking their response in the matter. The next hearing has been scheduled for June 24.
Challenging the government’s notification before the High Court, the petitioner argued that under Section 24(4) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, information can still be sought in cases involving serious allegations of corruption or human rights violations. The plea contended that the government’s decision violated the provisions of the RTI Act.
The state government, however, justified exempting the Vigilance Bureau from the RTI framework on the grounds that investigations into corruption cases often involve sensitive information. It argued that maintaining confidentiality was necessary to ensure investigations are not compromised.
According to the petitioner, a complaint naming 15 individuals had been submitted to the Vigilance Bureau, but action was initiated against only three persons. The petitioner then filed an RTI application seeking the status of the investigation.
In its reply dated May 2, the Vigilance Bureau informed the applicant that the Himachal Pradesh government, through its March 12, 2026 notification, had excluded the bureau from the ambit of the RTI Act.
Jai Ram Thakur welcomes move
Former Chief Minister and Leader of Opposition Jai Ram Thakur welcomed the High Court’s interim stay and launched a sharp attack on the state government’s functioning.
Thakur said the Chief Minister’s attempt to “shield corruption and authoritarian functioning” had failed after the High Court stayed the March 12 notification exempting the Vigilance Bureau from the RTI Act, 2005.
He claimed that the BJP had earlier warned the state government that such “authoritarian decisions” would not stand judicial scrutiny.

Bat for the better: On the BCCI and the RTI Act, Courts must treat tax exemptions to the BCCI as a form of state grant

The Hindu: Editorial: Friday, 22 May 2026.

The RTI Act was originally designed to scrutinise the state, a limit that the BCCI has repeatedly tested thanks to its outsized power. The BCCI is a private body that operates commercially and lacks direct public financing. RTI disclosures could expose competitive information and compromise the flexibility required to govern a sport, especially since the BCCI already has anti-corruption measures and comes under judicial review if required. If the BCCI is brought under the Act’s remit, there is also a risk of political forces abusing transparency requirements to exert greater influence on cricket administration. Even so, the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) recent decision to exclude the BCCI from the RTI Act is unlikely to go uncontested because the body has also monopolised a national sport. The BCCI benefits from national symbolism, police deployment at matches, concessional land allotments, and State hospitality; uses public stadium infrastructure; enjoys the regulatory privileges accruing to its monopoly status; and negotiates with foreign boards in ways that sometimes overlap with diplomacy. These liberties have thus sustained civil society concerns about being unable to scrutinise its conflicts of interest and governance arrangements.
Under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, the BCCI is not a constitutional or statutory body and was not created by government notification, leaving the matter to turn on whether it can be said to be under state control or financing. Following disputes in 2005 and 2013, the Supreme Court repeatedly said in 2015-16, when the BCCI was adopting the Lodha committee recommendations, that it performs public duties. The Law Commission furthered this position in 2018 because, it added, the BCCI also serves as a National Sports Federation without the Sports Ministry recognising it as one and received tax exemptions worth ₹2,100 crore in 1997-2007 alone, a figure the Commission interpreted as foregone state revenue. Subsequently, former Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu ruled the BCCI to be a public authority under Section 2(h). The Madras High Court stayed the order, and the CIC has now reversed the ruling. The CIC has admitted that the BCCI exerts a significant influence on public life while insisting that its decision is based on Section 2(h) alone. There is a contradiction between writ jurisdiction applying to the BCCI as the Court affirmed in 2015 even as the body is private enough to conceal its internal records. At this time, Section 2(h) should be amended to include any body discharging public duties, especially with monopoly power, perhaps by creating a category that simultaneously protects the BCCI’s commercial interests. Courts must also treat tax exemptions as a form of state grant.