RTI : Madras High Court Makes Display Of Fee Structure Mandatory In Tamil Nadu Private Schools

The Tribune: New Delhi: Thursday, 9^th July 2026.
The Madras High Court has ordered all private schools in Tamil Nadu to display their approved fee structures on school notice boards, addressing long-standing concerns of parents over alleged overcharging by educational institutions.

The Madras HC directive has been welcomed by parents and educationists (ETV Bharat)

The directive comes against the backdrop of repeated allegations that several private schools in the state collect fees far above the levels prescribed by the government, prompting demands for stricter regulation and greater accountability.
In response to these concerns, the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission (SIC) on May 25 directed all private schools in the state to display government-approved tuition fee details prominently on their notice boards.
Subsequently, on June 1, the Director of Private Schools issued a circular making it mandatory for all private educational institutions - including nursery, primary, matriculation, CBSE and other board-affiliated schools - to comply with the order.
While the move was widely welcomed by parents and education activists, private school managements opposed the directive, arguing that they were not subject to such disclosure requirements.
Challenging the order, K Palaniyappan, general secretary of the All India Private Educational Institutions Association (AIPEIA), approached the Madras High Court seeking to quash the directive. The petition came up for hearing before Justice M Dhandapani.
After hearing submissions from both sides, the court observed that although private schools may not fall within the scope of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, they are nevertheless required to maintain transparency under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act.
The court therefore upheld the government's decision and directed all private schools in Tamil Nadu to display their tuition fee details on notice boards accessible to parents and the public. With the dismissal of the petition, compliance with the directive has now become mandatory for private schools across the state.
The judgment has been welcomed by parents and educationists, who believe that public display of fee structures will improve transparency, reduce disputes over fee collection and help parents make informed decisions regarding their children's education.

Set up by deed, not Act, Ram Temple Trust falls outside RTI purview : Manikant Mishra

The Tribune: New Delhi: Thursday, 9^th July 2026.
The answer to why the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust is exempt from the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act lies not in the political prominence of the temple but in the legal framework governing its administration.

In a detailed 13-page order, the Central Information Commission (CIC) last year held that the Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust was not a "public authority" under Section 2(H) of the RTI Act and was therefore not obliged to appoint public information officers or disclose information under the transparency law.
The CIC concluded that the Trust was an independent body created pursuant to the Supreme Court's 2019 Ayodhya judgment and was neither owned, controlled nor substantially financed by the Centre or Uttar Pradesh Government.
Calls for greater transparency in the functioning of the Trust have resurfaced following the recent controversy surrounding its affairs and alleged theft.
The CIC's reasoning relies on a crucial legal distinction. It held that when the Centre framed the scheme for constituting the Trust following the Supreme Court's verdict, it merely implemented the apex court's directions. The Trust itself was created through a trust deed and was not established by the Constitution, an Act of Parliament, a state law or a government notification creating a statutory authority, which are among the routes through which an institution can qualify as a "public authority" under Section 2(H) of the RTI Act.
According to the CIC, the Centre has no administrative or financial control over the Trust, government nominees do not enjoy voting rights in its meetings and vacancies among non-government trustees are filled internally. It also held that the Trust receives no government funding and therefore does not meet the statutory tests of government control or substantial financing required under the RTI Act.
Tirupati, Vaishno Devi and others come under RTI
The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams function under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, with its administration regulated under a statutory framework and subject to government oversight.
Similarly, the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board was established under the J&K Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988. The board is a statutory authority headed by the Lieutenant Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, making it subject to the RTI Act.
Most major temple administrations, including the Guruvayur Devaswom in Kerala, the Shri Jagannath Temple Administration in Odisha and Siddhivinayak Temple in Maharashtra, were constituted under specific state laws. Their powers, composition, administration and accountability mechanisms are laid down by legislation, bringing them within the definition of "public authority" under the RTI Act.
In each of these cases, the institutions derive their authority from statutes enacted by legislatures rather than from independent trust deeds.
Kashi Vishwanath is UP's notable exception
Within Uttar Pradesh, the Kashi Vishwanath Temple stands out as a notable exception.
Its affairs are governed under the Uttar Pradesh Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983, through which the state legislature created the Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust. Since the temple administration functions under a statutory framework and remains subject to government oversight prescribed under the Act, it falls within the ambit of the RTI Act.
The Ram Temple Trust, however, has no comparable governing legislation. Instead, it was constituted pursuant to the Supreme Court's directions in the Ayodhya judgment through a trust deed, with the government playing only the role assigned to it by the court in framing the scheme and facilitating the Trust's creation. The absence of a statute creating or governing the Trust ultimately became the defining factor behind the CIC's conclusion that it is not a "public authority" under the RTI Act.
With the CIC’s explanation in the order, it becomes clear that it is legal structure, not religious importance, which determines the RTI coverage of a temple institution.

RTI flags Congress occupied former 24 Akbar Road headquarters without authorisation since 2013

Millennium Post: New Delhi: Thursday, 9^th July 2026.
An official Right to Information (RTI) reply has stated that the Congress has remained in ‘unauthorised occupation’ of its former headquarters at 24, Akbar Road in New Delhi since June 26, 2013.

The RTI response also says that the Union government has not received any rent for the property during this period and that the party’s outstanding dues are still being assessed.
The RTI reply, furnished by the Directorate of Estates, which falls under the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, states that Bungalow No. 24, Akbar Road, located in Lutyens’ Delhi, was allotted to the Congress party on August 7, 1992.
However, its allotment was cancelled with effect from June 26, 2013, and the bungalow has remained under the party’s unauthorised occupation ever since, according to the government.
The RTI applicant also sought copies of notices, if any, issued by the government asking the Congress to vacate the bungalow.
The Directorate declined to provide the information, stating that such records are not maintained in a compiled form and that compiling them would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
Meanwhile, the recent RTI also sought information regarding 11, Ashoka Road, another address in Lutyens’ Delhi and the former headquarters of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which leads the Central government.
The Directorate of Estates confirmed that the bungalow was allotted to the saffron party on March 21, 1985.
However, it said the property now forms part of the Lok Sabha Members’ Pool, and the application regarding information on rent collection and the entity paying rent has been subsequently transferred to the Lok Sabha Secretariat.
The reply further states that the outstanding dues of the BJP towards the government, if any, are under review and yet to be determined.

No Blanket RTI Immunity for MP Lokayukt Police Wing, Supreme Court Rules

Moneylife: New Delhi: Thursday, 9^th July 2026.

In a significant judgment strengthening the Right to Information (RTI) regime, the Supreme Court has struck down a Madhya Pradesh (MP) government notification that exempted the special police establishment (SPE) of the Lokayukt organisation from the purview of the RTI Act. The Court held that the SPE, which investigates corruption and certain economic offences involving public servants, cannot be classified as an 'intelligence and security organisation' entitled to exemption under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
In an order last month, a bench of justice JK Maheshwari and justice Atul S Chandurkar said, "we are of the considered opinion that the notification dated 25 August 2011 issued by the general administration department (GAD) of Madhya Pradesh to the extent it seeks to exclude the SPE from the purview of the Act of 2005 in view of Section 24(4) thereof, is liable to be set aside as being bad in law as it provides for matters not enumerated under Section 7 of the Act of 1947. The SPE, having been conferred jurisdiction only to investigate offences punishable under the Act of 1988, Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII of the Penal Code, cannot be termed an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation for the purposes of Section 24(4) of the Act of 2005."
"The notification dated 25 August 2011 does not conform to Section 24(4) of the Act of 2005 and is, thus, excessive in nature...the notification dated 25 August 2011 issued by the GAD seeking to exclude the SPE from the applicability of the provisions of the Act of 2005 is struck down," the apex court said.
The bench dismissed an appeal filed by the SPE against a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment and struck down a 2011 state government notification that had excluded the SPE from the ambit of the RTI Act.
The Court, however, clarified that it had not examined the validity of the same notification insofar as it applied to the state bureau of investigation of economic offences, meaning that part of the notification would continue to operate.
The appeal arose after an RTI applicant sought information from the special police establishment. The investigating agency relied on a notification dated 25 August 2011 issued by the MP government under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, claiming exemption from the Act as an 'intelligence and security organisation'.
The principal question before the Supreme Court was whether the SPE, constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947, to investigate corruption and specified offences involving public servants, could legally be treated as an intelligence and security organisation under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
One notable aspect of the judgment is the Court's decision to examine the validity of the notification even though the RTI applicant had not specifically challenged it before the High Court.
The apex court observed that, while specific pleadings are ordinarily required before subordinate legislation is struck down, courts are not precluded from examining its legality if the issue arises directly during proceedings and the affected government is given a full opportunity to justify the provision.
The judges noted that the state government had been granted an adequate opportunity to defend the notification through detailed submissions and arguments before the Supreme Court.
The Court analysed Section 24 of the RTI Act, which exempts only intelligence and security organisations established by the central or state governments from the Act's provisions.
It observed that the organisations listed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act such as intelligence agencies, armed forces and national security organisations are fundamentally engaged in intelligence gathering or national security functions.
By contrast, the SPE's statutory mandate is confined to investigating offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, criminal breach of trust, cheating and specified offences relating to forged documents committed by public servants or employees of government bodies.
The Court said this limited jurisdiction clearly distinguished the SPE from organisations engaged in intelligence or security work.
The Bench examined the legislative framework governing the MP Lokayukt organisation and the special police establishment.
It noted that the Lokayukt was established to investigate allegations of corruption against public servants and functions as an independent anti-corruption institution.
The judgment referred to the statement of objects and reasons of the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt Act, 1981, as well as the organisation's own description on its official website, both of which emphasise its role in preventing and investigating corruption rather than performing intelligence or security functions.
The Court further observed that successive notifications issued under the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act consistently restricted the SPE's jurisdiction to corruption offences and a limited class of Indian Penal Code (IPC) offences involving public servants.
Therefore, it held, neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE has any statutory responsibility relating to intelligence gathering or national security.
The Supreme Court held that the 2011 notification exceeded the powers conferred by Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
It observed that subordinate legislation can always be tested against the parent statute and struck down if it travels beyond the authority granted by Parliament.
Quoting earlier precedents, the Bench reiterated that delegated legislation enjoys no greater immunity than ordinary executive action and must conform to the limits prescribed by the enabling statute.
The Court concluded that the notification failed this test because the SPE could not legally be categorised as an intelligence and security organisation.
Rejecting the state government's argument that the notification was intended to protect informers and ongoing investigations, the Court pointed out that the RTI Act already contains safeguards under Section 8.
Information whose disclosure could impede an investigation or endanger the life or safety of informers is already exempt from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h).
Consequently, extending a blanket exemption under Section 24(4) was not legally justified.
Holding that the special police establishment's statutory functions are confined to investigating corruption and specified criminal offences and do not relate to intelligence or security, the Supreme Court declared that the 2011 notification excluding the SPE from the RTI Act was ultra vires Section 24(4).
The Bench upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment, struck down the notification to the extent it exempted the SPE from the RTI Act, and dismissed the criminal appeal.
However, it clarified that the judgment does not affect the notification's applicability to the state bureau of investigation of economic offences, as that question was not before the Court.
On 6 September 2024, the Maharashtra government decided to put the anti-corruption bureau (ACB) out of the RTI ambit, sparking a wave of protests from activists across the state. The notification was surreptitiously posted only on the ACB’s website, not on the Maharashtra government’s website, as is the norm. (Read: Congress-NCP govt removed Anti-Corruption Bureau from RTI just before polls)
This had drawn ire from RTI activists, especially those who had lodged formal complaints against powerful politicians in Maharashtra for corruption.
In October 2024, the then governor of Maharashtra, Vidyasagar Rao, used his power to scrap the notification. The press statement issued by the Raj Bhavan stated, “The Governor took the decision to withdraw the notification issued by the State Government on 6 September 2014 after considering representations from various RTI activists and taking cognisance of newspaper reports which reflected the view that the notification was in violation of the RTI Act. The Governor also got the issue legally examined before taking the decision to withdraw the notification.” (Read: Maharashtra Governor puts ACB back in RTI Act)

CIC Directs Power Grid to Disclose Tenders Under RTI Act

Rediff Money Wiz: New Delhi: Thursday, 9^th July 2026.
CIC advises Power Grid to ensure upfront disclosure of tender & bidder documents under RTI Act. Emphasizes transparency & Section 4(1)(b) compliance.

Photograph: Courtesy, Power Grid Corporation

The CIC has observed that state-run Maharatna power transmission company Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd (POWERGRID) "does not disclose" tender-related information in the public domain which otherwise should ideally be available upfront to maintain transparency in the system.
It advised the public sector undertaking to proactively disclose tender, bidder and award-related documents under the RTI Act
The Central Information Commission (CIC) issued the advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act while disposing of an appeal seeking information related to POWERGRID's 765 KV Phagi-Bhiwani Circuit-I transmission line passing through Bagholi village in Rajasthan's Jhunjhunu district.
Information Commissioner Jaya Varma Sinha directed the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to furnish a revised reply on one of the RTI queries relating to the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) after finding that the relevant information had not been provided.
The Commission said the utility should place key tender-related records in the public domain, including the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), terms and conditions, information to bidders (ITB), minutes of pre-bid consultations and award letters.
Also, the estimated amount at which the tender was awarded, dates of commencement and completion of work, and the names and designations of the engineer-in-charge and supervisor.
It further observed that documents such as completion certificates, Measurement Books (MB), Quality Check Reports (QCR), Bills of Quantity (BoQ) and contractor registration certificates are generally disclosable on demand as they do not attract exemption under the RTI Act.
"A pertinent issue emanating from the instant case is that the Respondent Public Authority, in compliance with Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act, does not disclose tender-related information in the public domain which otherwise, should ideally be available in the public domain upfront to maintain transparency in the system.
"In view of the above, an advisory under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act is issued to the Respondent Public Authority for upfront disclosure of documents/ information related to tenders, award letters, etc. under Section 4 of the RTI Act to make it easy for a layperson to get relevant information through website," the CIC said.
It said every public authority shall make constant endeavour to take steps in accordance with the requirements of Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act to provide as much information suo moto to the public so that the public does not have to resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain basic information," the order said.
Under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, every public authority is required to proactively publish details across 17 specific categories.
Referring to the Supreme Court's 2023 judgment in Kishan Chand Jain vs Union of India & Ors., the Commission said information commissions have a duty to continuously monitor compliance with the proactive disclosure requirements under Section 4 of the RTI Act to promote transparency and accountability.

Delay in migrating to online mode impacting timely RTI replies

The Hindu: Chennai: Thursday, 9^th July 2026.

Tamil Nadu Information Commission writes to State government calling for “urgent” intervention.
Expressing concern over the considerable delay in providing replies to petitions filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Tamil Nadu Information Commission has urged the State government to facilitate online management of RTI applications/responses in all the Departments of Secretariat, offices of the Heads of Departments and District Collectorates.
In a letter to the Chief Secretary, the then Chief Information Commissioner said that the process of filing RTI petitions through online mode had commenced, though not effectively, in the Departments of Secretariat and some District Collectorates. However, there was a lot of confusion in that process which in turn caused considerable delay in furnishing replies by the Public Information Officers to the petitioners. 
During the enquiry before the Commission, the PIOs had expressed difficulty in handling the RTI petitions online. “This requires urgent attention so that the prescribed time limit of 30 days in the RTI Act for furnishing of reply by the PIOs can be strictly adhered to,” the then CIC Md. Shakeel Akhter said in his letter sent days before his retirement from service last month.
Complaints of delay
He said filing of petitions under Section 6(1) and first appeals under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, in all the Departments of Secretariat, HODs/District Collectorates had not been achieved so far and because of that a lot of petitioners complained on this issue when they attended the enquiry in the Commission. Mr. Akhter was appointed as CIC in June 2023 and he held the post for three years.
“It is high time steps are taken to make filing of petitions under Section 6(1) and first appeals under Section 19(1) through online for all the Departments of Secretariat, HODs/District Collectorates,” he said.
Mr. Akhter said the Act was enacted with the preamble to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority in order to strengthen the core constitutional values. It meant harmonising the conflicting interests of governance to preserve the confidentiality of sensitive information and the rights of citizens to know the functioning of government processes in such a way as to preserve the paramountcy of the democratic ideal.
He said the link to the official website of the Commission could be provided to the website management for information of all stakeholders so that anybody could file petitions under the Act through the link apart from the existing working process.
Proactive disclosure 
In his earlier communication, Mr. Akhter drew the attention of the State government to Section 4(2) of the Act which emphasised on providing much information suo motu to the people at regular intervals through various means of communication, including internet, so that applicants made minimum use of this Act to obtain information.

Ahmedabad: 9 AMC libraries shut, 52 lack AC facilities: RTI

Times of India: Ahmedabad: Wednesday, 8^th July 2026.

Nine of the 57 libraries run by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) are currently closed, while 52 do not have air-conditioning facilities, according to information obtained through an RTI application. The reply also revealed that three libraries lack drinking water facilities, raising concerns about the availability of basic amenities for readers.
Advocate Atik Saiyed, who filed the RTI application, alleged that AMC-run libraries are failing to provide adequate facilities to citizens.
“The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation claims to be developing Ahmedabad as a ‘Mega City’ and a ‘Smart City’, but it has failed to provide proper reading and learning facilities to residents. Students and readers visiting libraries during summer face considerable hardship,” Saiyed said.
“The administration collects crores of rupees in taxes but has failed to provide basic amenities to readers. While air conditioners operate round the clock in the offices of politicians and officials, students striving to build their future are left to study under ceiling fans in difficult conditions,” Saiyed alleged.
Saiyed demanded that the AMC upgrade its libraries and ensure they are equipped with all essential facilities for students and readers.

NSE's 16-Year War against Transparency Must Finally End : Sucheta Dalal

Moneylife: Pune: Wednesday, 8^th July 2026.

Sixteen years. That is how long the National Stock Exchange (NSE) has fought to avoid being held directly accountable under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Last week, the Delhi High Court finally dealt a decisive blow to that resistance, dismissing the Exchange's appeal and affirming that the NSE is, indeed, a ‘public authority’ under the RTI Act. The judgement is about far more than one exchange or one law. It raises fundamental questions about transparency, regulatory accountability and the governance of India's most important market institution.
On 1st July, a division bench of the Delhi High Court upheld an April 2010 judgement by a single judge declaring that the NSE is a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of the RTI Act. That judge was justice Sanjiv Khanna, who went on to become the chief justice of India in 2025, but NSE’s appeal dragged on until last week. The legal battle may still not be over. The NSE can still appeal the Delhi High Court judgement before the Supreme Court. (RTI Act applies To National Stock Exchange: Delhi High Court)
Meanwhile, the RTI Act itself has been defanged and eviscerated so much over the past decade that the Exchange may find it easier to accept the judgement and stonewall queries as many government departments have begun to do. Whether NSE chooses to do so may, ultimately, depend as much on the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) as on the Exchange itself.
The battle to bring exchanges under RTI began with a citizen approaching the central information commission (CIC), asking it to declare the Exchange a ‘public authority’. A full bench of the CIC agreed; NSE promptly challenged the decision before the Delhi High Court. Justice Khanna delivered a comprehensive ruling in 2010 backing the CIC stand. He noted that the NSE performs essential public functions and can only operate through recognition granted under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (SCRA). Further, the SCRA and the SEBI Act have extensive regulatory powers, including approval of rules/bye-laws, board nominations, oversight of operations, power to supersede governing bodies, etc. This amounts to ‘deep and pervasive control’ by the government, not mere regulation. NSE contested the ruling and ensured that it benefited enormously from legal delays.
Ironically, the 16-year delay has only strengthened the case for greater public scrutiny of the Exchange. The NSE is far more than a profit-making company. It is a near-monopoly market infrastructure institution (MII) that functions as a de facto public utility, handling trillions of rupees of daily transactions while, simultaneously, regulating thousands of systemically important market participants.
For over two decades, the NSE cultivated an image of exemplary governance. That illusion collapsed after Moneylife published a whistle-blower's letter in 2015 exposing the co-location (Colo) scandal (Blowing the Whistle on Manipulation in NSE). The letter described how select brokers obtained an unfair trading advantage by accessing backup servers with lower latency. This arrangement discriminated against other Colo traders as well as ordinary investors and appeared to enjoy official protection within the Exchange, which refused to act on specific complaints.
The investigation that followed exposed serious governance failures, capricious appointments and the fact that its then managing director (MD) was making decisions on the guidance of a ‘Himalayan Guru’ with an email ID, with whom she shared confidential financial projections, board agendas and human resource allocations. These leaks as well as the highly irregular appointment and salary of the group operating officer went unquestioned by the board and the regulator right until the colocation investigation.
Had the NSE been subject to the RTI Act, it might have found it far harder to use its market dominance, immense profitability and advertising clout to discourage scrutiny, capture its regulator and silence critical questions from the media. Even today, NSE has 90% share of the cash equity market and around 80% of the derivatives market. Its market dominance gives it enormous pricing power and fee income, allowing it to run a highly profitable operation. Earlier this month, a division bench of justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla upheld the 2010 ruling and reiterated that the NSE qualifies as a public authority under the RTI Act.
The IPO Paradox
It may be argued that NSE’s long-awaited initial public offering (IPO) will compel mandatory disclosures under the listing agreement leading to greater transparency. Paradoxically, it will also alter management incentives and subject an already very profitable exchange to the relentless pressure of having to deliver revenue and profit growth every quarter.
When a public utility faces intense pressure to optimise revenues and margins to maximise short-term shareholder value, the temptation to cut corners, encourage frothy trading volumes and skirt its compliance and supervisory obligations as a first-level regulator is even greater. Remember, NSE’s reluctance and failure to regulate broker-members who whipped up large trading volumes by misusing client funds has already led to as many as 32 broker defaults and expulsions between May 2019 and early-2022. Investors losses due to these defaults were in thousands of crore rupees.The tension between profit maximisation and public obligations of exchanges is a globally recognised concern. This makes it even more important that the RTI Act applies to the Exchange's regulatory functions.
Earlier this month, the NSE filed a formal Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP) for listing of its shares on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE). This happened after it negotiated with SEBI to settle or abandon investigations triggered by the Colo scam. The NSE agreed to a ₹1,491.21–crore settlement for the Colo and dark fibre cases, in addition to previous payments of ₹643.05 crore (TAP architecture case) and ₹72.65 crore for a massive technical glitch leading to trading stoppage in 2021. (Read: NSE Discloses ₹1,491 Crore Settlement Bid, Sweeping Legal Overhang Ahead of IPO)
Given NSE’s market dominance, SEBI can easily settle the RTI issue with a binding administrative directive to all exchanges to comply with the Act, appoint public information officers (PIOs) and put in place systems for receiving and answering public queries. The long legal standoff has comprehensively dismantled arguments against the RTI Act, based on commercial confidentiality or the sufficiency of SEBI's oversight. Not only does SEBI have the legal authority to do so, but its official stance before the CIC had strongly supported RTI compliance in 2010. That it stood by silently and allowed NSE to challenge the CIC order in court is an example of regulator capture.
What remains on trial is SEBI’s ability to exert itself in favour of transparency and accountability. Writing in Moneylife in 2010, the late Prakash Kardaley, an RTI activist, asked:  “What is wrong in being transparent, unless one desperately wants to cover up one’s own misdeeds? Transparency in public life, either as the spirit or as a piece of legislation, when codified into a law, knows its legitimate Laxman Rekha. It does not cause any unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy. It does not expect disclosure of any information that would be detrimental to society at large. On the other hand, it attacks excessive and unnecessary secrecy that, in fact, is injurious to the well-being of society. Any opposition to the spirit of transparency, therefore, must be seen as profound disrespect to society.” Subsequent events at the NSE only revealed how prescient this was.
The Delhi High Court has removed another legal challenge to bringing the NSE within the RTI framework. SEBI no longer has any credible reason to remain passive. By issuing clear directions requiring every recognised exchange to appoint PIOs and comply with the Act, it can end years of needless litigation and, finally, align India's largest market institution with the transparency standards it expects of everyone else.

CIC Advises NHAI To Publish Contract And Safety Documents

Construction World: National: Wednesday, 8^th July 2026.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has advised the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to publish contract agreements, safety plans and key project documents in the public domain to promote transparency and accountability. Information Commissioner Jaya Varma Sinha issued an advisory under the Right to Information Act after finding that the authority was not placing contract agreement related information on its website. The commission said contractual and safety documents directly affect public safety and accountability in infrastructure projects.
According to the order, proactive disclosure would enhance transparency in public procurement and execution of highway projects, ensure accountability of contractors and the authority in adhering to safety norms, and empower citizens to monitor compliance with safety standards and contractual obligations. The advisory arose from a second appeal by an applicant who sought certified copies of documents relating to construction of flyovers at Shivpuri Bypass Crossing and Medical College Crossing in Jhansi. The commission noted that while the central public information officer had provided the Letter of Award, copies of the contract agreement and approved safety plans had been denied.
The body held that the exemption relied on to withhold the documents had been wrongly applied and was contrary to the RTI Act, and it directed the central public information officer to furnish the requested material. The commission reminded the authority of its obligation to proactively disclose information and referred to the Supreme Court's 2023 judgment in Kishan Chand Jain versus Union of India to stress that transparency laws work when accountability governs the relationship between right holders and duty bearers. It advised the authority to publish the specified documents and to keep them regularly updated.
The commission said that publishing these records would reduce routine RTI applications and strengthen public oversight of highway project delivery and safety compliance. The advisory aims to foster greater openness in infrastructure governance and to build public confidence.

Panchayat secretary faces bailable warrants over non-compliance

Times of India: Mumbai: Wednesday, 8^th July 2026.
Chandigarh: The Punjab State Information Commission has issued bailable warrants against a panchayat secretary for failing to appear before it despite repeated notices.

State information commissioner Harpreet Sandhu passed the order against public information officer (PIO) and panchayat secretary posted at Wazir Bhullar gram panchayat in Rayya block of Amritsar district.
A show-cause notice was earlier issued to the PIO in connection with an appeal arising from a RTI application of Feb 26, 2024, but he failed to appear.
The commission said the continued absence of the officer delayed adjudication of the appeal and adversely affected the proceedings, terming his conduct as gross negligence. "This reflected a lack of diligence and disregard for the proceedings. All PIOs are duty-bound to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act and attend proceedings whenever required," the commission said, warning that deliberate non-compliance could invite action under the Act.
Exercising powers under Section 18(3)(a) of the RTI Act, the commission ordered the issuance of bailable warrants against the erring official. It also directed Amritsar (Rural) SSP to ensure service of the warrants and secure the officer's presence before it on Oct 9 at 11 am, along with the information sought in the RTI application.

RTI activist Jeetendra Ghadge questions Maharashtra SIC order denying access to corruption sanction data

Times of India: Mumbai: Wednesday, 8^th July 2026.
A recent order of the Maharashtra State Information Commission (SIC) upholding the Anti-Corruption Bureau's (ACB) response to an RTI application seeking details of prosecution sanctions in corruption cases has triggered fresh debate over transparency in anti-corruption investigations.

Mumbai-based RTI activist Jeetendra Ghadge, founder of The Young Whistleblowers Foundation, has criticised the order, alleging it effectively shields information on prosecution sanctions sought, granted, refused or pending under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The RTI application had sought statewide data from January 2020 on sanction proposals, decisions on those proposals, copies of sanction or rejection orders, and details of cases allegedly delayed for want of government approval.
After hearing the matter, the SIC dismissed Ghadge's appeal, accepting the ACB's contention that the information sought was not maintained in the compiled format requested and that the information available with the public authority had already been provided.
Ghadge has argued that the Commission should have examined whether the Public Information Officer was required under Sections 5(4) and 6(3) of the RTI Act to obtain records from other authorities or transfer the application to departments holding the information.
He also contended that while compiled statistics may not exist, individual records such as sanction proposals, pending files and sanction or rejection orders could still be disclosed under the RTI Act.
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires prior government approval before investigation against a public servant in specified circumstances, making the sanction process a key stage in corruption cases.
"This was never about statistics alone. It was about finding out whether corruption complaints are being buried because prosecution sanctions are refused or indefinitely delayed. When the transparency watchdog refuses to enforce the RTI Act in such a matter, the public loses its only independent window into how anti-corruption laws are functioning," Ghadge said.
He further alleged that permitting public authorities to deny information on the ground that it is "not compiled" could weaken transparency and accountability under the RTI Act.
The order was passed by State Information Commissioner Dr. Pradeep Vyas. Ghadge has also raised concerns over Vyas hearing the matter, noting that Vyas's name had figured in the investigation into the Adarsh Housing Society scam. Public records show Vyas was arrested during the probe and later granted bail. The case remains pending before the courts, and there has been no final finding of guilt against him.
Ghadge has appealed for wider public attention to the issue, saying access to information on prosecution sanctions is essential to independently assess whether corruption investigations are progressing or being delayed.
The ACB's position, as recorded by the Commission, is that the information sought is not maintained in the form requested and that all available information had already been furnished. Meanwhile, SIC Mumbai Dr Pradeep Vyas did not respond to the message regarding the same order when contacted.

CIC tells MCD to publish residential lift plans, maps, approvals in wider public interest

The Print: New Delhi: Wednesday, 8^th July 2026.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has advised the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to proactively place in the public domain residential lift installation plans, building maps, approvals and related records, observing that such information is of “recurring public relevance”.

It will help promote transparency and reduce the need for individual RTI applications, Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari said in an advisory issued under Section 25 of the RTI Act while disposing of show-cause proceedings against an MCD public information officer (PIO) over delay in providing information in a matter relating to records on lift installation in a residential apartment complex.
The Commission noted that the information sought in the matter pertained to “permissions, sanctions, plans and allied documents concerning installation of lifts in residential premises”, which are matters having “wider public interest and recurring public relevance”.
Observing that sanctioned building plans are already disclosed proactively by the civic body, the Commission said, “Now, it makes sense to also proactively disclose information relating to the installation of lifts in the buildings including those provided via retrofitting/retro-installation.” It accordingly advised the MCD to proactively place in the public domain information and documents relating to grant of permissions or sanctions for installation of lifts, applicable guidelines, procedures, formats and related records in compliance with the spirit of Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, “so as to promote transparency and reduce the need for individual RTI applications”.
The advisory came after the Commission accepted the PIO’s explanation for the delay and found no mala fide intention or deliberate obstruction warranting penal action under the RTI Act. PTI MHS RT
(This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.)

THRC suggests probe by Revenue Secretary on complaint related to RTI appeal hearing

Tripura Times: Agartala: Wednesday, 8^th July 2026.
The Tripura Human Rights Commission (THRC) has suggested the state Revenue Department to examine allegations of misconduct against officials of the Directorate of Land Records and Settlement (DLRS) during the hearing of a Right to Information (RTI) appeal.

In an interim order, the Commission, headed by Justice Arindam Lodh, asked the Secretary of the Revenue Department to conduct an inquiry into the allegations and submit a report before the next scheduled hearing.
“Before taking cognizance of the complaint, the Commission thinks it appropriate to send the copy of the complaint to the Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of Tripura with request to make an inquiry /investigation as to the allegation lodged by the complaint and to submit a report by the next date,” the order of the commission reads.
The complaint was filed by advocate Uttam Das, a member of the Tripura Bar Association, who alleged that officials involved in the RTI appeal proceedings behaved in an inappropriate and unprofessional manner during a hearing held on July 01.
According to the complaint, the RTI application was submitted on April 2, but no reply was received within the time prescribed under the RTI Act. The applicant subsequently filed a first appeal and later issued a reminder. Although the department eventually provided a partial response, Das alleged that several documents sought under the application were still not supplied.
The complaint further claimed that tensions arose during the hearing after the complainant referred to the penalty provisions contained in Section 20 of the RTI Act. It alleged that the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) accused him of violating the decorum of the proceedings, wasting official time and arguing unnecessarily before the First Appellate Authority (FAA).
Das also alleged that the First Appellate Authority did not intervene despite the situation escalating and that the SPIO left the hearing before the proceedings concluded. The complaint additionally accused the RTI Cell dealing assistant of making dismissive remarks, allegedly stating that even approaching the Human Rights Commission would have no consequences.
The petition also alleged that the SPIO remarked that the RTI application fee should be increased to discourage what he described as misuse of the Act. It further claimed that records relating to land conversion and associated procedures were deliberately withheld despite being available with the department.
After examining the complaint, the Human Rights Commission observed that the allegations warranted an independent verification before any further action could be considered. It has therefore sought a detailed inquiry report from the Revenue Department.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 28, by which time the Commission expects the Revenue Department to place its findings on record.

RTI shows plasma is leaking out of AIIMS : Swapnil R Mishra

Mumbai Mirror: Mumbai: Wednesday, 8^th July 2026.
Days after a Mirror exposé on blood plasma being sent out of Mumbai’s government hospitals triggered an official inquiry, an RTI query has revealed that the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Nagpur, has sold over 1,000 litres of surplus plasma collected from voluntary donors.

The commercial exploitation of this priceless blood component has been going on since 2023, earning the institution over Rs 16.44 lakh, the RTI application has revealed. AIIMS Nagpur, however, did not disclose the identity of the recipient organisation or if approvals were taken for the sale, leaving key aspects of the transactions outside public scrutiny.
The information was furnished in response to an RTI application filed by Mumbai-based activist Chetan Kothari on June 7, 2026.
In its reply dated July 7, AIIMS Nagpur’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) and Administrative Officer, Shabbir Sheikh, confirmed that the institute’s blood bank, operational since June 14, 2022, has regularly supplied surplus FFP to outside clinics.
The documents show that 10 consignments were dispatched between March 2023 and October 2025, each priced at Rs 1,600 per litre. Collectively, the 10 consignments accounted for more than 1,000 litres of surplus plasma and generated revenue of Rs 16,44,523.20. AIIMS also clarified that the supplies were made for monetary consideration rather than through an in-kind exchange, with the proceeds credited to the institute’s Bank of Baroda account.
While the records establish the volume of plasma supplied and the revenue earned, they reveal little about the administrative framework governing the transactions.
The RTI applicant sought the identity of the organisation that received the plasma, along with copies of the administrative approvals authorising the supplies. AIIMS declined both requests, invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and stating that the information related to a third party and could not be disclosed.
The reply leaves unanswered who received the plasma collected from voluntary blood donors, how the recipient was selected and under what administrative approval the supplies were authorised.
Responding to queries from Mumbai Mirror, a Maharashtra State Blood Transfusion Council (SBTC) official said the council would examine why the recipient’s identity had not been disclosed.
“We will look into the matter and ascertain the reasons for not disclosing the name. We will seek the necessary information from AIIMS Nagpur and examine whether the reply is in accordance with the applicable provisions,” the official said.
Vijay Nayak, deputy director, AIIMS, did not respond to Mirror’s requests for comment till press time.
The RTI records also raise questions about the selection process. Asked whether any tender had been floated before the supplies were made, AIIMS responded: “Nil.”
The documents do not indicate whether any competitive process was followed, whether multiple eligible plasma fractionators were considered, how the recipient was identified, or the basis on which the uniform price of Rs 1,600 per litre was fixed. They are also silent on the duration and terms of the arrangement.
The records provide a rare glimpse into a little-known segment of India’s blood supply chain, where surplus Fresh Frozen Plasma (FFP), no longer required for transfusion, is transferred to licensed plasma fractionation facilities for the manufacture of plasma-derived medicines such as albumin, immunoglobulins and clotting factor concentrates.
Under India’s regulatory framework, licensed blood banks are permitted to transfer surplus plasma that is no longer required for clinical transfusion to authorised plasma fractionation facilities. Instead of being discarded, the plasma is processed into plasma-derived medicinal products used in the treatment of burns, trauma, immune deficiencies, haemophilia and several other serious medical conditions.
PLASMA TRAIL OUT OF AIIMS, NAGPUR
AIIMS supplied:
128.02 litres on March 15, 2023. Price: Rs 2,04,832
86.80 litres on June 19, 2023. Price: Rs 1,38,880
93.669 litres on September 22, 2023. Price: Rs 1,49,870
64.641 litres on October 27, 2023. Price: Rs 1,03,425
92.427 litres on February 22, 2024. Price: Rs 1,47,883
86.669 litres on May 24, 2024. Price: for Rs 1,38,670
117.272 litres on August 30, 2024. Price: Rs 1,87,635
155.534 litres on January 21, 2025. Price: Rs 2,48,854
106.281 litres on August 19, 2025. Price: Rs 1,70,049
96.514 litres on October 28, 2025. Price: Rs 1,54,422

Kerala Information Commission pulls up PSC, orders release of Planning Board recruitment records

Onmanorama: Kerala: Tuesday, 7^th July 2026.
RTI reveals nearly 2,000 trains also ran behind schedule in just 17 months, exposing the growing

The Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) suffered a setback on Monday after the State Information Commission directed it to disclose examination records related to the controversial recruitment for the post of Chief (Industry & Infrastructure) in the Kerala State Planning Board.
Allowing a second appeal filed by candidate Shyamkrishnan K, the Commission directed the PSC's State Public Information Officer (SPIO) to furnish all the requested records within seven days and submit a compliance report. It observed that withholding the information without any legal basis under the Right to Information (RTI) Act was "unjustified and unacceptable."
The Commission ordered the PSC to provide copies of the answer scripts, the marks secured by all candidates in Paper I, Paper II and the interview, copies of the examination papers, the work experience certificates submitted by the first and second rank holders, and the order or decision fixing the maximum interview marks at 25.
The case stems from allegations of irregularities in the recruitment examination held on July 13, 2023, which was conducted as a common test for three Planning Board posts — Chief (Industry & Infrastructure), Chief (Perspective Planning Division) and Chief (Plan Co-ordination Division). A total of 228 candidates appeared for the examination. The rank list for the Industry & Infrastructure post was published on May 31, 2025, and the first-ranked candidate, Arun J Prathap, was appointed the following month.
The controversy surfaced after Shyamkrishnan, who secured the third rank, obtained a copy of his answer script under the RTI Act and found that answers to Questions 9 to 18 had not been evaluated during the digital On-Screen Marking (OSM) process. A preliminary verification by the PSC confirmed that the same 10 questions had remained unevaluated in the answer scripts of all 228 candidates. Despite this, the Commission allegedly did not revise the evaluation or disclose the lapse.
Seeking further details, Shyamkrishnan filed an RTI application on July 10, 2025, requesting the marks of all candidates, copies of the work experience certificates of the top two rank holders and the order fixing the maximum interview marks. The PSC declined to provide the marks, arguing that the examination was common to three posts and that one of the rank lists was yet to be published. It also refused to provide the order relating to the interview marks, while agreeing only to furnish the work experience certificates upon payment of the prescribed fee.
After the PSC rejected his first appeal, Shyamkrishnan approached the State Information Commission.
The Commission found that the applicant had sought information only in relation to the Chief (Industry & Infrastructure) post, whose rank list had already been published. It held that the PSC had failed to justify why the marks of candidates in that rank list could not be disclosed merely because the rank list for another post arising from the common examination was still pending.
The Commission further observed that even if there was a court order restraining appointment, it could not be cited as a reason to deny information under the RTI Act. Holding that all the requested records were disclosable, it directed the PSC to provide the information within seven days and submit a compliance report to the Information Commission, disposing of the appeal.

371 trains cancelled in 18 months in Nagpur, over 5 lakh passengers affected: RTI

Nagpur Today: Nagpur: Tuesday, 7^th July 2026.
RTI reveals nearly 2,000 trains also ran behind schedule in just 17 months, exposing the growing reliability crisis on one of Central India's busiest rail corridors

For lakhs of passengers, a confirmed railway ticket no longer guarantees a journey. Over the past one-and-a-half years, frequent train cancellations and delays have turned travel to and from Nagpur into an ordeal, forcing commuters to scramble for costly alternatives, postpone important engagements, or abandon travel plans altogether.
An analysis of data obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act has revealed that 371 trains were cancelled between January 1, 2025, and May 31, 2026, potentially disrupting the travel plans of more than 5.19 lakh passengers. The figures, obtained by Nagpur-based RTI activist Abhay Kolarkar from Central Railway, paint a grim picture of mounting inconvenience for one of the country’s busiest railway hubs.
The cancellations affected thousands of passengers travelling for work, education, medical treatment, family emergencies and holidays. Many found themselves making last-minute arrangements, often paying several times the normal fare for flight tickets, while others were left with overcrowded private buses or expensive road travel as their only options.
Railway experts estimate that a typical long-distance train comprising 22 to 24 coaches accommodates around 1,400 to 1,600 passengers. During festive seasons and vacation periods, this number often crosses 2,000 due to unreserved and waitlisted travellers. Even using the conservative estimate of 1,400 passengers per train, the cancellation of 371 services could have impacted nearly 5,19,400 commuters.
The RTI data also highlights specific periods when the disruption peaked. May 2025 witnessed the highest number of cancellations at 84 trains, followed by 64 cancellations in January 2025 and 56 in February 2025. These months coincide with heavy passenger demand, making the impact even more severe.
For many travellers, especially senior citizens and middle-class families, the cancellations translated into financial and emotional hardship.
“Air travel remains beyond the reach of many people, while private buses are uncomfortable and often unsuitable for elderly passengers and children. For most families, trains are the only affordable and reliable option. When services are cancelled repeatedly, people are left with very few choices,” said a senior citizen.
However, cancellations tell only part of the story.
The RTI records show that 1,949 trains were delayed during the same 17- month period, further affecting passengers who managed to retain their bookings.
Of these, 1,016 trains originated late from Nagpur, while 933 trains reached Nagpur behind schedule, reflecting persistent operational challenges across the railway network.
The worst disruption among terminating trains was recorded in June 2025, when 107 trains arrived late, while May 2026 witnessed the highest number of delayed departures from Nagpur, with 79 trains originating behind schedule.
Frequent delays not only prolong journeys but also disrupt connecting trains, business schedules, medical appointments and family commitments, leaving passengers uncertain about reaching their destinations on time.
The RTI findings have once again raised questions about the reliability of railway operations despite the growing dependence on rail transport. With Nagpur serving as a major railway junction connecting north, south, east and west India, commuters believe that improving punctuality and reducing cancellations should be among the highest priorities for railway authorities to restore passenger confidence.