Allahabad HC Imposes Rs.6.7 Lakh Cost on Litigant for Misusing RTI Act : By Saket Sourav

LSJ: Allahabad: Sunday, 23 August 2026.
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition and imposed costs totalling Rs.6,70,000 on a petitioner-in-person, holding that he had persistently misused the Right to Information Act, 2005 to harass the Registry and obstruct the administration of justice, and had further defied the Court's direction to appear in person.

Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery was hearing a writ petition filed by Vemula Venkata Vinay Babu alias Vinay Vemula challenging an order dated 28.07.2023 passed by the Commissioner, State Information Commission, U.P., Lucknow, which had dismissed his RTI appeal on the ground that the information sought had already been furnished to him by registered post.
The petition, initially filed through counsel, was later pursued by the petitioner in person after his application to discharge his advocate and appear through video conferencing was only partly allowed the Court having permitted him to appear in person, but not exclusively through video conferencing, a mode of appearance it held to be a matter of convenience and judicial discretion rather than a fundamental right.
The Court recorded that by its earlier order dated 24.07.2026 it had directed the petitioner to appear in person on the next date, failing which the petition would be decided ex-parte, and had also flagged that he had filed a stream of RTI applications concerning the Court's own internal administration ranging from office note sheets and file movement registers to video-conferencing server logs and cause-list arrangements that had no bearing on his case. Despite this, the petitioner appeared once again only through video conferencing and, when offered a date of his convenience, insisted he would not travel to Prayagraj, citing logistical difficulties, even though the record showed he had appeared in person on several earlier occasions.
The Court also considered and dismissed a separate application by the petitioner seeking to punish three of the four respondents for allegedly failing to file a counter affidavit, noting that the counter affidavit of the sole contesting respondent had in fact been filed and served well before the application was moved, and that no such direction had been issued against the other respondents in the first place. Terming the application misconceived and contrary to record, the Court dismissed it with costs of Rs.50,000.
On the petitioner's RTI applications, the Court noted that a Deputy Registrar's report showed 24 such applications filed between 04.06.2026 and 17.07.2026, seeking information such as Bench Secretary log entries, Cisco Webex session logs, and reasons why particular matters were listed or passed over. Holding that such applications served no purpose but to burden Court staff and interfere with judicial functioning, the Court directed that all of them be consigned to record and imposed a cost of Rs.5,000 on each, amounting to Rs.1,20,000 in total.
It is the Court's discretion to allow Video Conferencing or not. If a direction is passed by the Court to appear in-person, that has to be followed without any unreasonable excuse.
On the merits, the Court examined the petitioner's original RTI application and found that each of the queries raised largely concerning police records of complaints made against him had in fact been answered by the authorities, and that the petitioner had neither denied receipt of the earlier registered-post reply nor placed any contrary material on record. The Court also noted a report annexed to the petition indicating that the petitioner was harassing a complainant and her daughter who had lodged a complaint against him. Finding no ground to interfere with the impugned order, the Court dismissed the writ petition, and imposed a further cost of Rs.5,00,000 to discourage litigants from disrupting Court proceedings in this manner.
The Court directed that the cumulative costs of Rs.6,70,000 be deposited by the petitioner with the High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks, failing which the Registrar General was directed to take appropriate steps for recovery.
Appearances: For the Petitioner: Mr. Prateek Samadhiya, Advocate.
Case Title: Vemula Venkata Vinay Babu Alias Vinay Vemula vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, Writ - C No. 547 of 2024
(Click here to Download the Order)

Failure to provide information: Keralam Survey Director ordered to pay ₹1 lakh compensation

The Hindu: Thiruvananthapuram: Sunday, 23 August 2026.
An 82-year-old Kerala man is set to receive ₹1 lakh in compensation after the State Information Commission found that a Public Information Officer gave a false and misleading reply to his RTI application seeking access to his property records

Kerala Chief Information Commissioner V. Hari Nair

The Keralam State Information Commission has ordered the Director of the Department of Survey and Land Records, Dr. J.O. Arun, to pay ₹1 lakh in compensation after the Public Information Officer gave a false and misleading reply to an individual who had sought information through an RTI (Right to Information) application.
The Chief Information Commissioner V. Hari Nair, in an order dated August 19, has directed P. Vishwambharan, the former Survey Superintendent at Kollam Collectorate and the then Public Information Officer, to pay a fine of ₹20,000.
The origins of the case are from an application filed under the RTI Act by the applicant Kurien George in 2013, with the Directorate of Survey and Land Records.
The application sought the right to personally inspect the relevant file at the Kollam Survey Superintendent’s office regarding the extent or the area of the applicant’s property.
Although the application was transferred from the Survey Directorate to the Kollam District Survey Superintendent under Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act 2005, the Public Information Officer gave an incorrect reply without granting the applicant, the right to inspect the file.
After failing to obtain the information even through the first appeal, the petitioner approached the Information Commission. Following continued proceedings before the Information Commission and the Kerala High Court, the High Court referred the appeal petition to the Information Commission for consideration.
The State Information Commission issued its final order after conducting a hearing in which the then Public Information Officer (who had since retired) and the first appellate authority were tagged on as additional respondents.
The Commission found that P. Vishwambharan, the Public Information Officer at the time, who gave an incorrect reply without granting the applicant the right to inspect the file relating to the petitioner’s property, had committed a serious violation of the law. The fine was imposed on Mr. Vishwambharan on the basis of this finding of the Commission.
The Survey Director, who appeared before the Commission, admitted the lapses committed by the Public Information Officer and the first appellate authority and promised that all steps would be taken to prevent the recurrence of such lapses in future.
However, the State Information Commission pointed out that an apology would not suffice to allay the physical, mental and financial hardship that the petitioner, Kurien George, now 82 years old, had undergone all these years and thus ordered the Survey Director to pay the petitioner ₹1 lakh in compensation.

Torn, missing records no ground to deny RTI information: HC

Times of India: Patna: Saturday, 22 August 2026.

A 12-year legal battle by Md Rizwan of Siwan has culminated in a landmark Patna high court verdict holding that torn or missing public records cannot be a ground for officials to refuse information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
A single bench of justice Rajkumar allowed Rizwan’s writ application, filed in 2016, and quashed a 15-year-old order of the state information commission, which had dropped his RTI plea for a certified copy of revenue register-II of his Raiyati land after the record was declared untraceable.
Justice Rajkumar directed the district magistrate and revenue officials in Siwan to search for the missing register in courts and district record rooms within four weeks and reconstruct it if it could not be traced. If found torn, the document must be digitally enlarged by experts, the court ordered.
The verdict, which has implications for RTI applicants across Bihar, was delivered on Aug 11 and came into the public domain on Thursday night.

HC stays Punjab Information Commission order treating inquiry officer as ‘public authority’ under RTI Act

The Tribune: Chandigarh: Saturday, 22 August 2026.
Retired judge was empaneled by Punjab Government as inquiry officer

Photo for representation

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the operation of an order passed by the Punjab State Information Commission holding retired Additional District and Sessions Judge Bhavnesh Chand Gupta to fall within the definition of “public authority” under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Justice Kirti Singh issued notice to the Commission and other respondents for November 2 and ordered that the operation of the impugned order dated August 3 shall remain stayed till further orders.
The matter was placed before the Bench after Gupta approached the High Court seeking quashing of the order passed by the Commission in an appeal.
The Bench was told that the commission, vide the impugned order, held Gupta to fall within the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. He was further directed to personally furnish information to the RTI applicant within 30 days. Directions were also sought to quash the order dated April 3, 2025, by which the petitioner was suo motu impleaded as a “necessary party being the custodian of the record”.
Appearing before Justice Kirti Singh’s Bench, counsel Esh Gupta contended that the petitioner  a retired judicial officer was from time to time empaneled by the Punjab government as an inquiry officer for conducting departmental inquiries under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970.
The matter originated after the respondent-applicant filed a RTI plea dated July 13, 2023, seeking information “regarding the inquiries pending before or decided by the petitioner during different periods”.
Esh submitted that the petitioner had not been the recipient of the RTI application and was not a party to the proceedings at the earlier stages. “It was only vide order dated April 3, 2025, that respondent-Commission suo motu impleaded the petitioner as a necessary party,” it was added.

National Assembly secretariat spent over Rs35 million of public funds to block right to information requests: report

The Current: PK: Friday, 21 August 2026.

The National Assembly Secretariat spent over Rs35 million from 2022 to 2026 on private lawyers to contest information requests made under Right to Information (RTI) laws.
The Pakistan Information Commission released the figures following Appeal No. 5626-04/2026, which journalist Saddia Mazhar filed under the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017.
The disclosed records show the highest annual payout occurred in FY2022-23, when the Secretariat paid Rs20.4 million to eight lawyers. Payouts totaled Rs2.64 million in FY2023-24, Rs11.1 million in FY2024-25, and Rs1.61 million in FY2025-26.
Since January 2022, the Secretariat empanelled 10 special counsel: Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Irfan Qadir, Ilyas Siddiqui, Arfat Ahmed Chaudhary, Amaad Nasir Kundi, Lamia Niazi, Sanaullah, Ahsan Bhoon, Anwar Mughal, and Farhad Ali Khan Durrani.
Advocate Ahsan Bhoon collected the highest single payment to an individual lawyer, taking home Rs9.9 million in FY2024-25. Advocate Irfan Qadir received Rs7.5 million, Barrister Lamia Niazi received Rs6.9 million in FY2022-23, and Advocate Ilyas Siddiqui received Rs2.85 million. Advocate Arfat Ahmed Chaudhary received payments across all four fiscal years Rs1.35 million in FY2022-23, Rs960,000 in FY2023-24, Rs1.2 million in FY2024-25, and Rs900,000 in FY2025-26 totaling Rs4.41 million.
The legal fees stem from litigation that began when the Pakistan Information Commission issued show-cause notices to the secretary of the National Assembly Secretariat over RTI appeals. The Secretariat challenged the notices in the Islamabad High Court, which remanded the cases back to the Commission for final adjudication.
Zafar Sultan, Director General of the National Assembly’s Media Wing, confirmed the Secretariat engaged private lawyers and paid around Rs35 million in legal fees. Sultan stated, “The lawyers were engaged during the tenure of the PTI, and no counsel has been hired during the tenure of the current government.”
However, RTI records reveal the Secretariat filed 14 cases, 12 cases in 2023, one case in 2024, and one case in 2025 while filing zero cases in 2022 or 2026.
The records show the Secretariat spent public funds on external private counsel despite the presence of the Attorney General for Pakistan and federal law officers, who constitute the official legal team of the federation.

एक माह में आरटीआई के लंबित मामलों का निष्पादन अनिवार्य, लापरवाही पर कार्रवाई

Dainik Bhaskar: Bihar: Friday, 21 August 2026.
राज्य सूचना आयोग, बिहार के कड़े रुख के बाद गया जिला प्रशासन ने सूचना के अधिकार के तहत लंबित आवेदनों के निपटारे को लेकर जिलेभर में सख्ती बढ़ा दी है।

प्रथम अपीलीय प्राधिकार सह जिला पदाधिकारी, गयाजी ने जिले के सभी लोक सूचना अधिकारियों को स्पष्ट निर्देश जारी करते हुए कहा है कि सूचना प्रकोष्ठ में लंबित पड़े सभी आवेदनों का एक महीने के भीतर अनिवार्य रूप से निष्पादन किया जाए। सभी लोक सूचना अधिकारियों को लंबित आवेदनों को एक महीने के अंदर निपटाने को कहा गया है। साथ ही निष्पादित मामलों की कार्रवाई रिपोर्ट निर्धारित प्रपत्र में जमा करनी होगी। चेतावनी दी गई है कि भविष्य में सूचना संबंधी मामले लंबित पाए जाने पर दोषी अधिकारियों के विरुद्ध सख्त अनुशासनात्मक कार्रवाई की जाएगी। इधर डीएम के पत्र के आलोक में डीईओ ने सभी जिला कार्यक्रम पदाधिकारी, विद्यालय अवर निरीक्षक, बीईओ और सभी कोटि के एचएम को निर्देश जारी किए हैं।
किस मामले के बाद जारी हुआ आदेश? यह कड़ा कदम मनोज कुमार वर्मा, पिता स्वर्गीय. विशेश्वर प्रसाद, ग्राम अमवां, थाना बोधगया बनाम लोक सूचना अधिकारी-सह-प्रखंड विकास अधिकारी बोधगया से जुड़े मामले में राज्य सूचना आयोग, बिहार द्वारा दिए गए आदेश के आलोक में उठाया गया है। आयोग द्वारा 11 मई 2026 को पारित आदेश के तहत गया जिला पदाधिकारी को निर्देश दिया गया था कि वे अपने अधीनस्थ सभी अधिकारियों को लिखित में सख्त हिदायत जारी करें कि आरटीआई आवेदनों को अनावश्यक रूप से लंबित न रखा जाए।

Karnataka High Court Flags 'Misuse' Of RTI Act, Seeks Details From Activists Who Filed Thousands Of Applications & Appeals

Live Law: Karnataka: Friday, 21 August 2026.

The Karnataka High Court has on August 19 [Wednesday] directed several petitioners who have been blacklisted by the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) to file detailed affidavits justifying the thousands of RTI applications and appeals they have filed, observing that such large-scale filings ex-facie appears to be a misuse of the RTI Act.
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj was hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging the blacklisting orders passed by KIC against multiple RTI activists.
The Court expressed serious concern over the alleged misuse of RTI Act, noting that a few individuals have filed thousands of appeals, clogged the system and affecting administration. To address the issue at hand, the court passed the following directions:
“…. Each of the petitioners is hereby directed to file a detailed affidavit before this Court within 30 days from today (i.e., on or before September 21, 2026). The affidavit shall specifically detail the following: i) the total number of applications/appeals filed, ii) the date on which each application was filed, iii) the authority before whom each application was filed, iv) the specific documents and information sought in each application, v) the reasons for which the information was sought and vi) the purpose/place for which the said information/documents are intended to be utilized.”
The additional directions issued are as follows:
“The Karnataka Information Commission is directed to furnish a complete list of all the appeals filed by each of the petitioners before the Commission. This list shall be furnished to the respective petitioners on or before August 28, 2026. In view of the submissions made by Sri G.B. Sharath Gowda that the petitioners are insisting on the disposal of their appeals despite the pendency of these writ petitions, it is clarified that the Karnataka Information Commission need not proceed with the hearing/disposal of the appeals that are pending before it, which are the subject matter of these petitions, until further orders of this Court….”
When the matter was taken up initially, the Court expressed strong reservations about the sheer volume of applications/appeals filed by the petitioners before the Public Information Officers and KIC. When one petitioner- Jagadeesh M-who is a lawyer and Zilla Parishad member, claimed to have filed 1,294 appeals over six years seeking information about welfare schemes, the bench remarked:
“…So, at the rate of one application a day. This dumping of applications is not good. The issue happening is that they are not able to work because they are only looking at your applications, some of the information available on website that also, you are applying for”.
Subsequently, the court also noted that one petitioner- Davalsab M- had filed 14,774 second appeals before the Commission, while another fortnightly magazine owner-G R Sudheendra- had filed 6,482 appeals.
The bench orally observed,
“…9600 grievances cannot be genuine. No person can have 9600 grievances, then he has a lot of trouble in life…. Firstly, it will affect the functioning of administrative mechanism. It is not just RTI applications, there are other works also…Secondly, genuine applications are pending…Thirdly, the benefit of legislation if its misused will go…Like any good legislation if its misused it will create problems, if your clients are resorting to this, we have to intervene at the behest of genuine people”, the court said.
Similarly, when Sudheendra claimed to be running a fortnightly magazine and filing applications for investigative journalism purposes, the bench questioned:
"Investigative Journalism is not RTI Journalism….You have to do investigative journalism, not like this. So, you are going to publish 6,700 articles [referring to similar number of RTI applications preferred by him]? How many pages does your publication have?"
The Court orally observed that while the magazine reportedly has 100-200 pages published every 14 days, the volume of applications raised serious questions about their genuineness.
The petitioners, primarily, contended in unison that since the information was not furnished initially, the petitioners filed first and second appeals before KIC in exercise of their legal rights. They argued that this exercise of legal remedy cannot be faulted, and consequently, the petitioners ought not to have been blacklisted.
However, the court also took note of the respondent counsel's submission that KIC currently has approximately 45,000 pending appeals. According to the respondents, if just four such petitioners presently before the court were weeded out, nearly 20,000 appeals would be disposed of.
Advocate G.B. Sharath Gowda, appearing for KIC further submitted that the petitioners' appeals are clogging the system and coming in the way of genuine appeals being heard. On similar lines, it was also told by the AGA for the state that the volume of applications is affecting the daily functioning of public authorities and coming in the way of proper administration.
The amicus curiae, Maitreyi Krishna, appearing in the matter submitted that there is no specific provision under the RTI Act empowering the Commission to blacklist applicants. However, the Court noted that this aspect of power of KIC to blacklist requires consideration.
The matter will be taken up again on September 28.
Case Title: G.R Sudheendra v. State of Karnataka & POther Connected Matters.
Case No: WP 17771/2026 & Ors.

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

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

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

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

• Introduction

• Understanding the Two Laws

• The Right to Information Act, 2005

• The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

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

• The Exemption Gap: How Public Authorities Are Treated Differently

• Judicial Intervention

• CPIO v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019)

• Conclusion

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

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

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

• The Constitutional Test: Proportionality and the Puttaswamy Judgment

• The RTI Act’s Latent Mandate for Reasoned Transparency

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

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

Moneylife: National: Thursday, 20 August 2026.

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

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

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

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

You may also want to read...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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