School fee structure is public info, can’t be kept secrect: Tamil Nadu Information Committee

Times of India: Chennai: Saturday, 30 May 2026.
All private schools in the state matriculation, govt-aided and CBSE should promptly display the Class-wise fee structure on their notice boards at the entrance, publish the same on their websites as well as the enrolment application forms issued to students, the state information commission has ordered.

Information commissioner V P R Ilamparithi appointed school education dept director (private schools) S Suganya as the public information officer to ensure compliance and asked the official to file a compliance report before the commission in person on June 15.
In a detailed order, the commissioner said transparent fee structure in private schools was essential as parents oftn pay beyond their capacity to ensure that their wards get a good education. “Every penny the parents pay should be accounted for,” the commissioner said.
The directions were pronounced when an appeal under RTI claiming delayed and incomplete information regarding fee structures of private schools came up for hearing. The appellant M Liyakathi Ali had in 2022 filed an RTI plea before the public information officer of Coimbatore district chief education office seeking govt’s directives regarding fee fixation by private schools. But the plea was forwarded to the district education officer, who in turn forwarded the plea to all private schools in the district, instead of furnishing the reply. Since the first appeal to the chief education officer was also forwarded to the district education officer, the applicant approached the info panel with the second appeal.
When the matter came up for hearing on April 8, the PIO (PA to chief education officer) submitted that a reply to the original petition was furnished in June 2025. Liyakath Ali said it was complete as it said the information can be obtained on the website. The applicant sought action against the PIO for providing false and misleading information and compensation for mental agony and financial loss.
Criticising the district appellate authority CEO (private schools), PIO (CEO’s PA) as well as the DEO of Coimbatore district for violating RTI Act, unreasonable delay in providing information and for furnishing false and misleading information, the commission sought explanation from all three as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against them. The commission also awarded ₹25,000 to the appellant. The commission also ordered the CEO to conduct an inquiry and submit a report in person along with a copy of the information furnished to the appellant along with acknowledgement of receipt of the reply on June 15.

'Disturbing Trend Of Dragging Advocates': Karnataka HC Quashes FIR Against Accused's Lawyer Who Filed RTI Seeking Info On Complainant : Sebin James

Live Law: Karnataka: Saturday, 30 May 2026.
Cautioning against 'increasingly disturbing trend' of dragging lawyers into criminal proceedings, Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR against a lawyer booked for forgery and offences under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, who had appeared for the co-accused in a matrimonial case and sought RTI information on the complainant.

The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna underscored that the independence of the Bar cannot be meddled with when the lawyers are merely discharging their professional obligations.
"Before parting with the matter, this Court considers it both necessary and appropriate to record its deep, disquiet and increasingly disturbing trend that has surfaced in recent times. This Court is encountering plethora of cases, wherein Advocates, who merely represent parties before Courts of law in the discharge of their professional obligations, are themselves being dragged into criminal proceedings and arrayed as accused.
The only “fault” attributable to such Advocates, is that they appeared for their clients and articulated their cause before the concerned judicial forum. Such tendency strikes at the very heart of independence of the bar, by necessary extension the purity of administration of justice itself. Advocates are officers of the Court, they function within the confines of professional duty, acting upon the instructions of their client and presenting their cause within the four corners of law. If every Advocate, merely by a reason of appearing for a litigant is exposed to criminal prosecution and trauma of investigative proceedings, the inevitable consequence would be a chilling and paralyzing effect upon fearless discharge of professional responsibilities. The majesty of legal profession cannot be permitted to be diminished by disgruntled litigants to wield criminal law as a weapon of intimidation against the members of the bar"
The petitioner-lawyer [accused no.4) had represented accused numbers 2 & 3 in two separate proceedings initiated by the complainant against them in 2017 and 2018: a matrimonial case seeking restitution of conjugal rights and a dowry demand case coupled with caste abuse matter.
The petitioner lawyer had filed two RTI applications with a School seeking details about the complainant's caste. The school, upon two consecutive queries, provided the lawyer with the necessary information.
In October, 2024, the complainant woman instituted fresh criminal proceedings against the petitioner and his clients by filing a complaint before for offences under Sections 336(2), 336(3) (forgery) and 340 BNS and Sections 3(1)(r) (intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view) & (s) (abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view) of SC ST Act. of the SC/ST Act.
The court recalled that even in 2024, while granting an interim relief in favour of the accused lawyer in the same case, the High Court had briefly examined the offences alleged to be committed by him. Then, the court had found that even upon a bare reading of the complaint, not a single ingredient of forgery or atrocity was attracted against him. The said interim order had been in force till the disposal of the case.
"The role attributed to the petitioner is singularly confined to procuring certain documents from the school in which the 2nd respondent/complainant has studied and that too at the instance of accused Nos.2 and 3 whom the petitioner represented in his professional capacity, as an Advocate. Beyond this limited and purely professional act, the complaint is conspicuously silent as to any participation, connivance, fabrication or fraudulent intent on the part of the petitioner”, the court said.
Relying on the apex court's decision in Karuppudayar v. State, Gunjan @ Girija Kumari v. State [2026 LiveLaw (SC) 684], and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020), the Court held that for the offence under SC/ST Act to be made out, the alleged insult or abuse must take place 'in any place within public view', a necessary ingredient absent in the current case.
"….The complaint even when read as a whole and accepted as true, fails to disclose foundational ingredients that would constitute the offence so alleged. There is not even a whisper of any overt act attributable to the petitioner which could legitimately invite the rigour of penal provisions against him," the Court held in its order.
The court also did not approve of the actions by the complainant-government servant.
“…Such conduct, particularly emanating from a public servant, displays a reckless misuse of authority and abuse of coercive powers vested in the state machinery. The complainant, therefore, deserves to be unequivocally admonished for such irresponsible invocation of criminal process against the petitioner, an Advocate…."
The Court warned that any repetition of such conduct in the future, without any legal foundation, would invite 'strict judicial scrutiny'.
Accordingly, the court allowed the writ petition preferred by the lawyer and quashed the pending criminal proceedings in Crime No. 94/2024 before an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Bengaluru.
(ClickHere to Read/Download Order)

RTI breaches high walls of Chandigarh Golf Club

Hindustan Times: Chandigarh: Saturday, 30 May 2026.
Disposing of a petition from the club, pending since 2012, the HC bench of justice Kuldeep Tiwari said the UT administration exercises substantial control over, and extends substantial financing indirectly to, the club

The court noted that the club is situated in the heart of Chandigarh, occupying 132 acres of prime land, the market value of which was recorded at ₹1,000 crore in 2012 and may currently be considerably higher. (HT Photo for representation)

The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has held that the Chandigarh Golf Club (CGC) comes under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and is liable to provide information as per law.
Disposing of a petition from the club, pending since 2012, the HC bench of justice Kuldeep Tiwari said the UT administration exercises substantial control over, and extends substantial financing indirectly to, the club. “ …thereby bringing it within the definition of a public authority under Section 2(h)(ii) of the RTI Act. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order declaring the Golf Club a public authority and directing it to put in place an appropriate mechanism for compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act,” the court ruled, adding that since the petition remained pending since 2012, the club is directed to implement an appropriate mechanism for compliance with RTI law within a month.
The public authority refers to an organisation, established, constituted, owned, controlled or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the central or state government.
Club plea against 2012 order of central info commission
The petition was from the club against the 2012 decision of the Central Information Commission, New Delhi, which declared the club a public authority under the RTI law and directed it to implement an appropriate mechanism for compliance with RTI law. The plea from the club argued it is neither directly nor indirectly dependent upon any financial assistance extended by the administration or any other governmental organisation, nor is it in any manner subject to or under the control of the administration. It is a duly registered private society functioning under the exclusive control and supervision of its own managing committee, it had argued.
‘Club deriving benefits of concessional land allotment’
The court noted that the club is situated in the heart of Chandigarh, occupying 132 acres of prime land, the market value of which was recorded at ₹1,000 crore in 2012 and may currently be considerably higher. It came into being pursuant to a lease in March 1988. The monthly rent was to be decided by the estate office and an annual lease amount of ₹3,960 for the golf course at the rate of ₹30 per acre per annum was decided. It found that against the assessed rent of ₹33.4 lakh, computed at 2003 rates, the club has been paying merely ₹8,530 a month, which constitutes no more than 0.255% of the assessed rent.
“Consequently, this court has no hesitation in concluding that the Golf Club is substantially financed by the Chandigarh administration from public funds and, therefore, qualifies to be declared a “public authority” under the RTI Act,” it held.
It also took into account that in March 2018, the terms and conditions of the lease were amended, and the UT administration can nominate three members – one permanent and two mid-week. It also took note of a 2012 communication from the UT estates office that the club, deriving all benefits of concessional allotment of land and utilising public property (land and building), is under an obligation to comply with the requirements of the RTI Act as a “public authority”. “All this reflects that the control of Chandigarh administration is not merely supervisory in nature or regulating through a statute, rather it has effective control in the prominent affairs of the Golf Club, specifically upon the land and its building,” the bench held dismissing the plea.

TN panel tells CBSE, private schools to display class-wise fee at entrances : Subashini Vijayakumar

The New Indian Express: Chennai: Saturday, 30 May 2026.
The commission has directed Director of Private Schools S Suganya to submit a compliance report by June 15.

In a sweeping directive to ensure transparency in collection of school fees, the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission has ordered district education authorities to ensure public display of fee structure by all private, CBSE, and aided schools across the state.
Bringing to end the three-and-a-half-year battle of a Coimbatore resident to obtain information on school fees under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, information commissioner VPR Ilamparithi directed schools to display class-wise fee structures at their entrances, on their websites, and furnish them along with the admission application forms.
Coming down heavily on officials for the prolonged delay in furnishing the information, the commission also directed the School Education Department to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation to the applicant, M Liaquath Ali of Coimbatore, and sought explanations from the officials who repeatedly transferred the RTI application instead of providing the requested details.
The commission has directed Director of Private Schools S Suganya to submit a compliance report by June 15.
The order was passed recently on the second appeal filed by Liaquath Ali, who had sought information in October 2022 on the fee structure prescribed for private matriculation higher secondary schools under government guidelines.
According to the commission’s order, the RTI application was transferred between the office of the Chief Educational Officer, the District Educational Officer (Private Schools) and school principals in Coimbatore, resulting in a delay of more than two-and-a-half years. The panel noted that even after receiving its notice, officials had failed to furnish complete information to the applicant.
Notice issued to PIOs of TN education officers
The petitioner said lack of clarity on school fee norms caused financial hardship and mental distress to his family during the Covid-19 period.
Holding that the delay and failure to provide complete information had caused unnecessary hardship, the commission ordered compensation of Rs 25,000 to the petitioner and directed the authorities to submit proof of payment.
It further issued show-cause notices to the then Public Information Officer/Personal Assistant to the Chief Educational Officer and the District Educational Officer (Private Schools), asking why penalties of Rs 25,000 each should not be imposed under the RTI Act.
Report by June 15
The state information commission has ordered Director of Private Schools to submit a compliance report by June 15. The order was issued on a petition filed by a Coimbatore resident after his query under RTI was kept pending for over 3 years

RTI Response Reveals that the Viksit Bharat Sampark Whatsapp Initiative was Allocated Funds amounting to 18 Crores : Jhanvi Anam

 IFF: New Delhi: Saturday, 30 May 2026.
An RTI was filed with Digital India Corporation in order to seek details on the Viksit Bharat Sampark's WhatsApp initiative's start date, outreach medium, funds allocated, etc. Therefore, IFF publishes an analysis of the response received

Recently, an RTI response was shared with the Internet Freedom Foundation revealing the allocation of funds towards the Viksit Bharat Sampark Whatsapp initiative. The response also disclosed that the outreach mediums included WhatsApp chatbots, AI bot calls, and manual calls, and relied on beneficiary databases developed for flagship schemes as well as TRAI’s universal wireless telephone subscriber database. IFF had previously written about it here and filed an RTI in the regard as well. 
This blog further analyses the RTI response. 
Background
In March 2024, several WhatsApp users had received messages from a verified business account named “Viksit Bharat Sampark.” The message contained a letter from Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking feedback and suggestions on Government of India initiatives. Following this, an RTI application was filed seeking details on the Viksit Bharat Sampark’s WhatsApp initiative’s start date, outreach medium, the number of people contacted, the source of and extent of data collected, financial allocation, data sharing practices, suggestions received, and whether any private institutions had been contracted for the initiative. 
The first RTI response however only disclosed limited information. The response disclosed that the WhatsApp outreach initiative had started on 15 March 2024 and that no expenditure had been incurred by MeitY “so far”. The remaining information was withheld under Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(t), and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. These provisions relate to information such as commercial confidence or intellectual property, cabinet papers or records of ministerial deliberations, and personal information where disclosure may amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
The applicant then filed a first appeal, arguing that the RTI application had been repeatedly transferred following a complaint before the Central Information Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act, alleging obstruction in the dissemination of information. During the CIC proceedings, MyGov issued a revised disclosure. This response disclosed the following information: 

• The Vikisit Bharat Sampark's whatsapp initiative had begun on 14 February 2024
• The initiative was framed as a feedback collection mechanism for six flagship schemes: PM Kisan Samman Nidhi, PM SVANidhi, PM-JAY Ayushman Bharat Cards, Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana 2.0, Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Rural), and Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban). 
• It also stated that an Inter-Ministerial Committee and Technical Committee chaired by the Secretary, MeitY had been set up for operationalising the feedback mechanism.
• The outreach was conducted through WhatsApp chatbots, AI bot calls and manual calls.
• Till 17 March 2024, around 39 lakh people had been contacted through manual calls, 6.45 crore through AI bot calls, and 41.99 crore through WhatsApp chatbots. 
• BSNL was the implementing agency
• The beneficiary databases for the mentioned flagship schemes along with TRAI’s universal wireless telephone subscriber database, were used for the initiative.
• Importantly, the revised response disclosed that Rupees 18,97,89,468, including applicable taxes, had been allocated by MyGov, Digital India Corporation, on behalf of MeitY for the initiative. 

We would like to thank @Viceroy_India for sharing the RTI Response with IFF
However, for questions on the number of suggestions received, with whom the data could be shared, and which ministries the suggestions had been shared with, the response stated that no information was available. It also stated that no contract had been given to any private institution. 
Analysis 
The whatsapp message from Viksit Bharat Sampark was circulated through a verified ‘public and government service’ account. The message carried a letter from Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking feedback on government initiatives. 
However, soon after it was circulated, several concerns were raised. Firstly, it was observed by the Trinamool Congress (“TMC”) that the message was a violation of the Model Code of Conduct (“MCC”). It was highlighted by TMC leader Derek O’Brien, that while the attached letter was dated 15 March 2024, it was circulated and received by voters on 16 March 2024, which was after the MCC had come into effect. He further argued that the language of the message was not a neutral government communication because it highlighted the achievements of the BJP led Central Government and stated that it had been sent under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. On this basis, the complaint alleged that public funds and government communication channels were being used to reach voters and promote the achievements of the incumbent political leadership. Secondly, several WhatsApp users in India and abroad also raised concerns about how their phone numbers had been accessed for this outreach and noted privacy concerns around a possible “data breach.” The issue therefore became about the use of public funds, public databases, and government communication channels for a large-scale outreach exercise during an election period.
The RTI response however reveals that there was no data breach as such, the route of acquiring data has been clarified through the disclosure. It further reveals that the outreach was conducted through WhatsApp chatbots, AI bot calls, and manual calls, using beneficiary databases for flagship schemes, along with TRAI’s universal wireless telephone subscriber database and disclosed that Rupees 18,97,89,468 had been allocated by MyGov, Digital India Corporation, on behalf of MeitY. The concern is therefore not limited to whether the data was leaked or breached, but whether existing legal frameworks provide sufficient safeguards against such use cases.
Importantly, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”) and associated Rules, while not yet in force, puts the expectation on public authorities to undertake proactive compliance measures. Further, the DPDPA and associated Rules permit the State and its instrumentalities to process personal data without consent in limited circumstances. First, such processing is allowed under Section 7(b) of the DPDP Act when it is necessary to provide or issue a subsidy, benefit, service, certificate, licence, or permit, especially where the individual has previously consented to such processing or where the data is available in a government-maintained database. However, even this carveout is not unrestricted. The processing must relate to a State function, government policy, or publicly funded scheme, and must comply with prescribed standards on lawful processing, accuracy, security safeguards, notice to the Data Principal, grievance access, and accountability.
Second, the State may process personal data without consent to perform functions under any law, or in the interests of sovereignty, integrity, or security of the State. Separately, notified government instrumentalities may also be exempted from the requirements of the DPDP Act altogether under Section 17(2)(a). Since these provisions operate outside the ordinary notice and consent framework, they significantly reduce the control that individuals have over the use of their personal data.
The present case highlights the exact concerns that were raised by many. While the outreach may arguably fall within the broad wording of Section 7(b), the present case demonstrates the limitations of a framework that permits extensive state processing outside the ordinary consent architecture. Individuals whose data was originally collected for welfare delivery or telecommunications regulation may not have reasonably expected that the same datasets would later be used for alleged political campaigns disguised as feedback mechanisms. 
Further, IFF had previously written about this issue and highlighted the following: 
“The message, broadcast to millions of people through WhatsApp, may be viewed in the context of the upcoming elections as the communication happened around the time the Model Code of Conduct went into effect. Reports of the message being received by individuals surfaced as early as March 16, the same day the ECI announced the election dates. The MCC prohibits the party in power from the misuse of official mass media during the election period for partisan coverage of political news and publicity regarding achievements. The ECI, through the MCC, also prohibits the issuance of advertisements at the cost of the public exchequer in newspapers and other media during the election period. This may lead us to question - Does the timing of the communication, which happened around the time the election dates were announced and the MCC went into effect, have potential electoral implications?”
Therefore, the concern is that the present legal framework may allow such repurposing of data without sufficiently clear limits. 
Action
IFF has publicised the information disclosed through the RTI response in order to enable public access and also enable discussion. 

Underfunding the Freedom of Information budget undermines Nigerians’ access to information : Ayomide Eweje

Business News Nigeria: Nigeria: Friday, 29 May 2026.

The Nigerian Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to information, and the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2011 reinforces this right. Yet it remains theoretical. Despite the legal guarantees of the FOI Act, a report by Media Rights Agenda reveals almost noncompliance across public institutions. This noncompliance reflects a deeper freedom crisis.
In 2026, the federal government of Nigeria allocated $49 billion to the national budget, but only $139,000 went to FOI implementation. Such underfunding underscores the government’s low priority for citizens’ right to information and undermines their rights. Addressing this crisis requires mandating dedicated budget allocations for FOI implementation across all public institutions, strengthening oversight by the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation, and promoting citizen-led accountability and civic pressure.
The consequences of underfunding FOI implementation are immediate and structural. Limited resources often result in poor record-keeping, delayed responses, and weak transparency. Many public institutions lack the capacity and the incentive to comply with FOI obligations. Accountability becomes impossible without citizens’ access to information and the inability to scrutinise undisclosed public records, budgetary allocations, and administrative decisions. The risks are severe, as the lack of transparency fuels corruption, weakens journalism, and steadily erodes public trust. At a broader level, the denial of access to information weakens democracy, reducing it to a system where citizens can vote but cannot hold leaders accountable.
Mandatory FOI budgeting will allocate the resources to translate the right to information from legal intent into real implementation. The National Assembly should require every public institution to include dedicated budget lines for FOI activities, because laws without funding remain ineffective. Embedding FOI into budget planning shifts transparency from a policy obligation to an operational priority.
The National Assembly can refuse to approve budgets that exclude FOI funding, while the Budget Office can issue clear compliance guidelines for all ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs). Also, MDAs can allocate a minimum percentage of overhead costs specifically for FOI implementation, including record management and response systems.
Mandatory FOI budgeting will strengthen record-keeping systems, enable faster responses to information requests, and gradually institutionalise transparency across government institutions. India’s mandatory funding of the Right to Information (RTI) implementation in the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) under its Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions significantly improved access to information and government transparency. The ministry allocated $364,000 for the 2026-2027 budget year for DoPT’s implementation of the RTI Act. The government also ensured RTI’s effective implementation through capacity-building and public awareness campaigns. Implementing a similar budgeting approach for FOI in Nigeria will improve access to information.
Strengthening oversight and enforcement is essential for the effective implementation of the FOI Act. The Office of the Attorney General of the Federation (OAGF), as the oversight body for FOI implementation, plays a central role in setting the tone for compliance across public institutions. However, weak funding has significantly limited its enforcement capacity.
To address the underfunding gap, the OAGF should establish a dedicated FOI Oversight Fund to support monitoring and enforcement activities. Also, the OAGF should conduct mandatory annual compliance audits for all MDAs to assess their adherence to the FOI Act, with sanctions for MDAs that do not comply.
Strengthening oversight through monitoring and enforcement activities will improve accountability across MDAs, create consequences for non-compliance, and help restore public confidence in governance systems.
Transparency cannot rely solely on government action; sustained citizen and civil society pressure must also drive it. Governments often respond more effectively to pressure than to policy declarations, making public demand a critical enforcement tool for the implementation of the FOI Act.
Civil society organisations can lead campaigns to educate citizens on their FOI rights and push for compliance across public institutions. The media also plays a key role through investigative reporting that exposes noncompliance and highlights implementation gaps. In addition, public scorecards or rankings of MDAs can create healthy competition and shame non-performing institutions into action.
Civic engagement has consistently driven governance reforms in contexts where institutional enforcement is weak, such as Nigeria’s #EndSARS movement, which forced public scrutiny of police practices and triggered reform commitments. Strengthening citizen and civil society pressure will increase public awareness of FOI rights, deepen accountability through sustained scrutiny, and empower citizens to take a more active role in democratic governance.
A functional transparency system would help to improve access to information. Citizens will access public records without unnecessary barriers, while institutions will operate with greater openness and discipline. Transparency will reduce opportunities for abuse of power and improve the quality of governance.
(Ayomide Eweje is a writing fellow at African Liberty.)

NLU Jodhpur student denied gold medals minutes before convocation; moves Rajasthan High Court

Bar and Bench: Jodhpur: Friday, 29 May 2026.
The plea contends that the medals had the student's name inscribed on them and were listed against his name even in the official convocation brochure.

Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur) and NLU Jodhpur

A student of National Law University, Jodhpur has moved the Rajasthan High Court after he was denied two gold medals just minutes before the University's 17th convocation ceremony in February 2025.
The plea contends that the medals had the student's name inscribed on them and were listed against his name even in the official convocation brochure. The Rajasthan High Court is now examining the matter.
Justice Sunil Beniwal had issued notice in the matter on November 6, 2025.
The petitioner, Anuj Shukla, an LL.M. (IPR Laws) student of the 2023-24 batch, had been recommended for the Smt. Vandana Devendra Mehta Gold Medal for highest CGPA among LL.M. (IPR Laws) students and the Nani A Palkhivala Memorial Gold Medal for highest CGPA across all LL.M. streams.
The University's Gold Medal Committee recommended him on February 8, 2025, and the Academic Council approved the recommendations on February 15, 2025, over a week before the ceremony.
Allegedly, a few minutes before the convocation began, Shukla was told by the Controller of Examination (COE) that since he had applied for re-evaluation of a first semester answer sheet, he would not be receiving the gold medals.
The student had no prior intimation of this. When he requested a proper hearing, the COE refused. When he asked that the medals at least be held back until a hearing could be conducted, he was told to return to his seat as the Vice Chancellor (VC) was occupied with guests. Both medals were then awarded to another student from his batch, K Ankita Rao.
The re-evaluation concerned Shukla's answer sheet in Research Methodology, where his original marks of 82 out of 100 were reduced to 65 upon re-evaluation. The University had, however, issued him grade sheets retaining the original marks of 82, consistent with what the petitioner describes as an established practice of retaining original marks where the re-evaluated decrease is marginal.
On that basis, his cumulative score across both semesters stood at 875 out of 1000, with a CGPA of 9.19. The Gold Medal Committee's own minutes record that he had outscored K Ankita Rao.
A response obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information (RTI) Act revealed that a fresh Gold Medal Committee meeting had been convened at 9:30 AM on the morning of the convocation itself, after Ankita Rao approached the COE claiming the medals were being awarded erroneously. The Committee took an interim decision to redirect the medals to her. This decision was, however, approved by the Vice Chancellor only on February 25, 2025, two days after the medals had already been handed over at the ceremony.
The petitioner has argued that under Clause 15(k) of the Schedule to the National Law University Act, 1999, the power to award gold medals vests exclusively in the Academic Council. The reversal was never placed before the Academic Council and was without legal authority, he contends.
The alleged irregularities did not end there. A new Statement of Marks was issued to Shukla on March 17, 2025, bearing the date February 23, 2025. When he returned it and sought a correctly dated document, the request went unheeded. He has also alleged that he was informally warned that non-cooperation could result in adverse character certificates being issued against him.
Hence, Shukla filed a writ petition before the High Court, leading to the notice by Justice Beniwal. He has sought quashing of the decision of February 23, 2025, and the award of the medals as originally approved by the Academic Council.
The case has three respondents - the University, the academic council, and the student who received the medals instead of the petitioner. Notice is yet to be served on the third respondent, and the matter is expected to proceed fully once service is complete.
The matter now stands before Justice Sanjeet Purohit, who, on May 22, directed the University to complete instructions on the issuance of the petitioner's mark-sheet and listed the case the case for the second week of July.
The University is being represented by Advocate Shreyansh Mardia.
The petitioner is appearing in person at the current stage, having previously been represented by Advocate Nikhil Ajmera.

RTI Penalty on PIO Quashed: Chhattisgarh High Court Protects Fair Hearing Rights Under RTI Act 2005 : By ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Legal Service India: Chhattisgarh: Friday, 29 May 2026.
High Court rules that RTI penalties under Section 20 cannot be imposed without proof of application receipt, proper inquiry, and fair hearing to the Public Information Officer.

The Right to Information Act, 2005, aims to promote transparency while balancing the duties of public servants. In a significant ruling, the High Court of Chhattisgarh has clarified important safeguards available to Public Information Officers (PIOs) when facing penalties for alleged delays or non-supply of information. The court emphasised the need to follow proper procedures, including giving a fair opportunity of hearing and exhausting statutory remedies before imposing penalties.
Factual And Procedural Background
Shri Shatruhan Lal Dadsena, the petitioner, was serving as secretary of Gram Panchayat Dongarigardh in District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, and was also the public information officer for that office.
Respondent No. 3, Shri Nitin Singhvi, filed four separate RTI applications on 21 August 2018 seeking details related to:

• Forest rights leases
• Constitution of Forest Rights Committee
• Objections sent to higher committees
• Related official letters under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006

Petitioner Contention
The petitioner claimed that he never received these four RTI applications, and there was no record of them in the panchayat office.
After about six months, on 22 February 2019, Respondent No. 3 filed four separate complaints directly before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission under Section 18(1)(c) of the RTI Act without approaching the First Appellate Authority.
The Commission entertained the complaints and, after issuing notice, passed an order on 29 May 2021 imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000 on the petitioner in each of the four complaints (total Rs.100,000) and recommended disciplinary action against him for delay in furnishing information.
Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh.
Timeline Of Events

Dispute Before The Court
The main dispute was whether the State Information Commission was justified in imposing the maximum penalty on the PIO without proper proof that the RTI applications were received by him, without following the first appeal route, and without granting a meaningful opportunity of hearing.Human rights advocacy
Grounds Raised By The Petitioner
There was no proof that the RTI applications were received by him.
The complainant directly approached the State Information Commission without exhausting the statutory remedy of first appeal.
He appeared for the video conferencing hearing but could not connect due to internet failure at the NIC centre.
The Commission still proceeded to pass an ex-parte order.
Filing four separate RTI applications on the same subject amounted to harassment.
Key Legal Issues

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
The Court referred to the Bombay High Court judgement in Goa Cricket Association vs State of Goa (Writ Petition No. 739 of 2010, decided on 22 March 2013, 2013 (4) MhLJ 453). In that case, the Bombay High Court held that Section 18 of the RTI Act is meant for specific complaints and does not normally allow bypassing the first appeal under Section 19 when the grievance relates to non-supply or delay in information.
The judge also relied on Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai vs Rui Ferreira and Ors (W.P. Nos. 132 and 307 of 2011, decided on 28 July 2011, 2011 (5) MhLJ 765), where it was observed that parties cannot bypass the statutory appeal mechanism under Section 19 and directly approach the Commission under Section 18 for grievances arising from non-furnishing of information.
On the question of penalty under Section 20(1), the court discussed the Delhi High Court ruling in Shamik Nag vs. The Public Information Officer, Oriental Bank of Commerce (WPC No. 8913 of 2016, decided on 4 August 2017). This judgement clarified that a penalty can be imposed only after a proper inquiry and after giving the PIO a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as mandated by the proviso to Section 20(1). The burden to prove reasonable and diligent action lies on the PIO, but this burden can only be discharged if a genuine hearing is provided.
Findings of the Court
In the present case, the judge found that the petitioner had raised a credible defence that the RTI applications were never received. There was no conclusive evidence of delivery or acknowledgement.
The Commission did not conduct a proper inquiry into this aspect. Additionally, the technical failure during the video conferencing hearing was not adequately considered, and no further opportunity was given, violating principles of natural justice.
The Court also noted that the information was eventually supplied after the notice from the Commission.
Important Legal Principles

Final Decision of the Court
On 13 May 2026, the High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 29 May 2021 passed by the State Information Commission in all four complaint cases.
The court directed a refund of any amount deposited by the petitioner within eight weeks.
Point of Law Settled in the Case
The judgement settles that complaints under Section 18(1)(c) of the RTI Act should not ordinarily be entertained when the grievance is of delay or non-supply of information without first exhausting the appeal remedy under Section 19.
It further reinforces that imposition of a penalty under Section 20(1) requires the following:
Clear evidence of receipt of application;
Deliberate default or mala fide action;
A meaningful opportunity of hearing to the PIO; and
Fair consideration of technical difficulties during virtual hearings.
Case Details

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice, as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Group housing societies must share records under RTI if Registrar can access them: Haryana SIC - Bhartesh Singh Thakur

The Tribune: Haryana: Friday, 29 May 2026.
As of now, the group housing societies have been taking the plea that they are not covered under the RTI Act as they are not getting any aide or support from the state, thus do not come under the RTI ambit

In an order having implications on group housing societies across the state of Haryana, State Information Commission (SIC) has made it clear that if the record of any group housing society is accessible to the office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the same should be provided under the RTI Act. As of now, the group housing societies have been taking the plea that they are not covered under the RTI Act as they are not getting any aide or support from the state, thus do not come under the RTI ambit.
“Once the respondent public authority (Registrar, Co-operative Societies) has the legal authority to access the information from the society, the same cannot be denied to the appellant merely on the ground that the society is not a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act,” the commission has held.
The bench of Dr Ajay Kumar Sura, State Information Commission, has passed these orders while directing the office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies Haryana to provide the complete “unedited videography” of the entire proceedings of General Body Meeting of New Haryana Officers Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., which has retired IAS/IPS and HCS officers as its members. The commission said that the Registrar is empowered to obtain information from a cooperative society over which it exercises supervisory or administrative control.
In this case, retired District and Sessions Judge, Kuldip Jain, vide his RTI application dated September 5, 2023, had sought a certified copy of the unedited video of the entire proceedings of the meeting of New Haryana Officers Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., Panchkula, held on July 8, 2023, and also the minutes of the meeting from the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana.
The minutes of meeting were furnished to Jain but not the video.
The society declined to furnish the copy of videography on the ground that it was the property of the society and further contended that it “does not fall within the ambit of ‘public authority’ as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.”
During the hearing on January 9, 2025, Satwanti Ahlawat, retired IAS and then president of the society, submitted that their society “is fully owned, controlled and financed by its members, not by the Haryana Government; therefore, it does not come within the purview of the RTI Act.” In another hearing on October 8, 2025, the subsequent president of the society, Renu Phulia, retired IAS, in her comments, stated that the information sought concerned “personal discussion of members related to the affairs” of the society, which had no public-interest connection; therefore, they couldn’t be directed to provide such information.
After hearing the arguments, the commission observed, “…the issue in the present case is not whether the society itself is a public authority, but whether the information sought by the appellant (Jain) is accessible to the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies.”
SIC added that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, “exercises statutory, supervisory and regulatory control over the affairs of Cooperative Societies and had admittedly directed the society, vide latter dated August 7, 2023, to furnish the copy of complete videography of General Body Meeting”.
“This itself establishes that the information can be called for by the Registrar from the society in exercise of statutory powers. The commission further observes that under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, the term ‘information’ includes information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force,” said the order.
The order further stated that if the society failed to comply, the Registrar should initiate appropriate action under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act and related rules.

Aadhaar Info Can Be Disclosed In Serious Forgery Cases With Safeguards; Accused Cannot Use Privacy As Shield: Andhra Pradesh High Court : By - Ritika Verma

Live Law: Hyderabad: Friday, 29 May 2026.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that Aadhaar-related information may be disclosed for criminal investigation of cases involving serious allegations of forgery with necessary safeguards, observing that a person accused of forgery cannot get away, if he has committed the offence, on ground of protection of his right to privacy.
A Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao observed that while Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 places safeguards on disclosure of Aadhaar information, there is no absolute prohibition against release of such information when required for investigation.
The Court observed:
“As can be seen from the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, there is no absolute bar for release of such information. However, such information, as is permissible under the provisions of the Aadhar Act 2016, can be released only after necessary safeguards are in place. It is for that purpose that the release of such information is restricted and is permissible only when an order of a court which is not inferior to a High Court is obtained.In the present case, a person who is alleged to have committed an offence of forgery for personal gain, cannot be permitted to get away with such an offence, if he has committed such an offence, on the ground of protection of his privacy. In any event, the Aadhaar Card is officially said to have been issued in the name of appellant himself. In such circumstances, the question of privacy also may not arise.”
The case arose from a Writ Appeal filed by the appellant claiming ownership over a piece of land. According to the appellant, another individual had impersonated him by creating a fake Aadhaar Card and fraudulently executing two sale deeds in favour of a third party.
Upon discovering the alleged fraud, the appellant lodged an FIR and while also instituting a civil suit seeking declaration that the sale deeds were null and void. An interim injunction was granted restraining interference with the appellant's possession over the land. Subsequently, the District Registrar is also stated to have cancelled the impugned sale deeds.
During investigation, the appellant sought Aadhaar details and biometric information connected to the allegedly forged Aadhaar Card through an application under the Right to Information Act. However, the request was rejected on the ground that disclosure was barred under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The appellant thereafter approached the High Court seeking directions for furnishing of Aadhaar-related information to aid investigation. A Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that such information could only be disclosed in accordance with the Aadhaar Act, 2016, and that no request had been made by the investigating authorities.
Challenging the order, the appellant contended before the Division Bench that the investigation into the alleged forgery could not effectively proceed without the Aadhaar information and biometric details.
Accepting the contention, the High Court noted that Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act permits disclosure subject to safeguards and appropriate judicial orders. The Court further observed that since the Aadhaar Card had allegedly been issued in the appellant's own name, the question of privacy protection may not strictly arise in the facts of the case.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the order of the Single Judge and directed the concerned authorities to release such Aadhaar-related information as permissible under the Aadhaar Act, 2016, to the investigating officer for purposes of investigation.
(Click Here ToRead/Download Order)

Arappor flags three missing water ATMs in RTI audit

DT Next: Chennai: Friday, 29 May 2026.

An RTI-based field audit by Arappor Iyakkam has revealed that three water ATMs installed under the Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) free drinking water scheme were missing from their designated locations, raising serious questions over the implementation and monitoring of the project.
The NGO said the project, launched in June 2025, aimed to provide free, round-the-clock automated drinking water facilities at 53 locations across Chennai. However, contract documents and work orders related to the initiative were not available on the CMWSSB website, prompting it to seek details through the Right to Information Act.
Using RTI responses, the NGO collected information on installation costs, maintenance contractors, geo-tags, and water quality reports. Volunteers later conducted field inspections at 28 of the 53 locations and found widespread operational lapses.
According to the audit, only eight water ATMs were functioning properly, while 17 locations suffered from issues such as dry taps, unclear water, leakage, or the absence of drinking tumblers. Most notably, three ATMs were found to be completely missing from the locations listed in official records.
M Radha Krishnan of Arappor Iyakkam said that the RTI replies from the local zonal office claimed that the ATM at Kamarajar Salai in Ramapuram was functioning efficiently and even included daily water quality certificates from June 19, 2025, to February 25, 2026. However, volunteers found that no machine existed at the site.
The unit, maintained by M/s Kalaichandran, was claimed to have supplied 30,500 litres of water, he said. Shopkeepers and residents in the locality told volunteers that no water ATM had ever been installed there.
Similarly, water ATMs were missing from Ambattur Industrial Estate Road and Madhavaram Red Hills Road. At the Madhavaram Red Hills Road location, volunteers found only a concrete pedestal. Residents reportedly told the NGO that the ATM had functioned only briefly after installation before breaking down and later being removed entirely.
The audit also found that water ATMs installed at Mathur MMDA, Thiruveedi Amman Temple, Murasoli Maran Park, Stephanson Road-Cooks Road Junction, Perambur Bus Stand, and MGR Nagar Bus Stand were defunct. In contrast, units at the Vadapalani bus terminus and Shivan Park in KK Nagar were functioning properly, Radha Krishnan said.
Arappor Iyakkam has urged authorities to investigate the missing units, restore the facilities, and ensure regular maintenance, particularly in areas near schools and other public gathering points.
Responding to the allegations, a CMWSSB official said all water ATMs were geo-tagged and maintained by two private contractors. Denying that any units had gone missing, the official said three defunct machines had been relocated from sites with low public usage.

Maharashtra SIC orders Thane Municipal Corporation to pay ₹10 lakh for delay in providing RTI info

Times of India: Ahmedabad: Friday, 29 May 2026.

The Maharashtra State Information Commission (SIC) has imposed a compensation of Rs10 lakh on the Thane Municipal Corporation for an “inexcusable delay” in providing information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The commission noted that the civic body’s failure to produce documents had severely diluted the appellant’s property rights.
The order, passed by state information commissioner Shekhar Channe (Konkan Bench) at the end of April, directed the municipal corporation to pay the compensation via cheque within 30 days. The commissioner invoked special provisions under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, which allows the commission to compensate complainants for any loss or detriment suffered.
The matter originated from an RTI application filed by Parashuram Patil, who sought official records concerning a property within the municipal corporation limits. He requested details of the property’s transfer process and historical documents dating back to the period between 1986 and 1996.
Patil, who is currently embroiled in a civil court dispute regarding the property, required these documents to establish his legal rights. However, he faced persistent administrative hurdles. The TMC administration reportedly cited the age of the records and dissolution of the concerned ward committee as reasons for the delay.
Frustrated over the delay, Patil filed a second appeal with the SIC. During the hearing, commissioner Channe observed that citizens cannot be deprived of their rights simply because records are old or difficult to trace. The commission adopted a “sensitive and comprehensive approach,” ruling that the loss of documents by a public authority is an unacceptable excuse that unfairly prejudices the applicant.
In response to the commission’s scrutiny, the Thane administration officials stated that a special search team of clerks and staff had been formed to locate the missing records. They further informed the commission that show-cause notices have been issued to negligent employees, and disciplinary action is underway.
RTI activists have hailed the decision as a landmark assertion of transparency. Activist Vihar Durve noted that many applicants face similar stonewalling, and such a heavy penalty will serve as a deterrent.
“This order gives hope to applicants,” said another activist. “It is very rare to come across such orders. This gives hope to applicants,” he added.