How University of Madras denied transparency in PhD thesis fee hike : Shankar Prakash

The South First: Madras: Tuesday, 24 February 2026.
Research scholars are being forced to pay ₹25,000 for thesis submission, a 250-fold increase from the previous ₹100.

The current crisis at the University of Madras is rooted in three decades of
state higher education policy. (iStock)

The Syndicate resolution, Senate approval, and official circular are all absent from the public record. Just an oral instruction at the PhD section, enforced by administrative practice and driven by the university’s financial crisis. PhD students, who cannot question this lack of transparency, are paying the hiked fee in silence.
Since mid-2023, the University of Madras has been collecting fees under an order that
may not legally exist.
Research scholars are being forced to pay ₹25,000 for thesis submission, a 250-fold increase from the previous ₹100, based on what the university’s former Vice-Chancellor himself described as merely a “proposal”.
The Syndicate resolution, Senate approval, and official circular are all absent from public record. Just an oral instruction at the PhD section, enforced by administrative practice and driven by the university’s financial crisis. PhD students, who cannot question this lack of transparency, are paying the hiked fee in silence.
For over two years, there has been a struggle with the university, not over academic disputes, but for a single document: the written authorisation for this massive fee hike.
Evasive response
Through repeated Right to Information applications filed since October 2023, this author has demanded proof that this increase was approved as per the university’s statute.
The university’s response has been silence, evasion, and outright defiance of the State Information Commission’s orders. This opacity raises serious questions about institutional governance. It suggests an administration that, faced with financial distress, has prioritised revenue collection over due process and transparency. The burden has fallen on its most vulnerable students.
The contradiction is stark and easily verifiable. The university’s website continues to list thesis submission fees as ₹100 for full-time scholars and ₹5,000 for part-time candidates. Yet the same institution demands ₹25,000 and ₹35,000, respectively, at the point of submission. This discrepancy exists without any accompanying public circular, updated prospectus, or gazette notification that would normally accompany such a substantial revision.
Under the Madras University Act, 1923, and UGC regulations, fee revisions require Syndicate approval, Senate ratification, and public notification. The university appears to have bypassed this statutory process. This is not a matter of administrative discretion; it is ultra vires, an act beyond legal authority.
Beating about the bush
When this author filed an RTI application on 11 October 2023 seeking authorisation documents, the university’s Public Information Officer failed to respond within the mandatory 30-day period. After a first appeal, the university provided unrelated documents that did not address the fundamental question: Where is the written order authorising this fee increase?
The consistent failure to produce these documents raises a troubling possibility. Either a formal resolution authorising this hike does not exist, or the university is unwilling to subject it to public scrutiny. For an institution that has served Tamil Nadu for 169 years, such opacity regarding a 250-fold fee increase is deeply concerning.
Since this potentially unauthorised hike began in mid-2023, conservative estimates suggest at least 500 research scholars submit their theses annually (approximately 300 full-time and 200 part-time). Over three years (2023-2025), even by this modest calculation, the university has collected approximately ₹4 crore from students under this questionable fee structure.
The scale of this collection raises serious questions. If proper legal authorisation exists, why has it not been produced despite repeated RTI requests?
This is not an isolated incident of administrative confusion. It reflects a concerning pattern in how the University of Madras handles information disclosure under the RTI Act. In 2022, a Criminology Department topper had to invoke RTI to receive his rightfully earned gold medal. The university initially claimed “lack of funds”, but RTI records revealed that sufficient funds were available in the medal account. The administration had simply not acted.
Confidentially, missing!
In 2010, when an applicant sought the exam valuation manual, the university first claimed it was “confidential”. When the Information Commission rejected this justification, the response changed to the document being “missing”.
A pattern emerges: initial resistance, followed by incomplete responses, and eventual compliance only after prolonged appeals. Despite the State Information Commission directing proper disclosure in the current case, the University continues to provide inadequate replies. This suggests an institutional culture where transparency obligations are treated as inconveniences rather than legal imperatives.
Beyond the RTI struggle, a collective of concerned PhD students attempted to address this fee hike through the university’s internal mechanisms. They met with the Registrar and Dean (Research),
presenting their case for a rollback of fee hike. No substantive action followed. The students then escalated the matter beyond the campus, submitting a formal representation to the Deputy Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. This, too, yielded no tangible outcome.
Commercialisation of education
The current crisis at the University of Madras cannot be understood in isolation. It is rooted in three decades of state higher education policy that prioritised expansion over sustainability. Successive DMK and AIADMK governments engaged in what scholars call “competitive commercialisation”.
Facing electoral pressures to expand access to higher education, the state sanctioned hundreds of self-financing engineering and arts colleges rather than strengthening existing public institutions.
By 2015-16, nearly 95% of engineering colleges in Tamil Nadu were self-financing. This strategy did improve the gross enrolment ratio (GER) in higher education, making degrees more accessible across social strata. However, this expansion came at a cost. The proliferation of self-financing colleges, deemed-to-be universities and private institutions has created a two-tier system.
Quality public university education, once the backbone of social mobility in Tamil Nadu, has been systematically under-resourced. Meanwhile, the private sector increasingly treats education as a commodity rather than a public good.
The danger is no longer theoretical. It is materialising before us. As public universities weaken financially whilst private institutions flourish, affordable quality education is rapidly becoming the preserve of the economically privileged. For students from socially and economically weaker sections, the path forward narrows to two bleak options: forgo higher education entirely, or burden themselves with crippling education debt.
We have seen this trajectory destroy an entire generation in the United States, where student
debt now exceeds $1.7 trillion and millions remain trapped in decades-long repayment cycles.
Why are we deliberately walking down this same ruinous path? Tamil Nadu built its reputation on democratising education, on creating pathways for social justice over money. Are we now prepared to dismantle that legacy, sacrificing our most vulnerable students at the altar of fiscal mismanagement?
What next?
The path forward requires three commitments. First, the University must honour its RTI obligations and produce the authorisation documents or refund the fees collected.
Second, the State government must stabilise the university’s finances without placing the burden on students.
Third, and most crucially, Tamil Nadu must ensure that state universities remain accessible to socially and economically marginalised students, particularly in PhD programmes where financial barriers are already substantial.
State universities were founded on a promise: that talent, not wealth, determines who contributes to knowledge. A 250-fold fee increase, implemented without transparency, betrays that promise. For 169 years, the University of Madras has been a ladder for social mobility. It must remain so.
(Shankar Prakash is a social and behavioural science researcher. He posts on X as @shankarprakasha. Views are personal).

From Right To Information To Right To Denial Of Information : By Shailesh Gandhi

ETV Bharat: Opinion: Tuesday, 24 February 2026.
What we are witnessing is not reform, but reversal. RTI is quietly being transformed into RDI—Right to Deny Information.

Activists shout slogans during a protest against the amendments to
the Right to Information (RTI) Act in the Lok Sabha of the Indian
parliament, in New Delhi on July 25, 2019. (AFP)

India's Right to Information did not begin as legislative generosity. It began as a constitutional promise. In a landmark judgment, Justice K. K. Mathew declared that citizens have "a right to know every public act" of their functionaries, tracing this right directly to Article 19(1)(a). Parliament gave that promise statutory form through the Right to Information Act, 2005, which shifted Indian democracy from passive voting to active participation.
The RTI Act treated the citizen as sovereign and disclosure as the norm. Information could be denied only through ten narrowly drawn exemptions under Section 8. This design enabled ordinary citizens to expose corruption, arbitrariness, and misuse of power—functions that no vigilance body or anti-corruption agency had ever performed effectively at scale.
Privacy was never ignored. Section 8(1)(j) protected personal information unrelated to public activity or interest, or whose disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy—unless a larger public interest justifies disclosure. Parliament went a step further.
Recognising that officials might struggle to define privacy, it inserted a decisive proviso: information that cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be denied to any citizen. This single sentence anchored privacy within democratic accountability. That safeguard was dismantled not by a constitutional amendment, but by a Supreme Court judgement. In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, the Supreme Court reduced an 87-word clause to its first six words—"information which relates to personal information"—and used this fragment to justify blanket denials. Almost any record can be linked to a person; corruption, by definition, always involves people. What followed was predictable: discretion widened, disclosure shrank, and the citizen lost ground.
Instead of correcting this distortion, the government chose to modify the law. The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act amputated Section 8(1)(j), deleting 81 words and retaining only the six that had already done the damage. It simultaneously defined "person" in a startlingly expansive manner—covering individuals, companies, associations, the State, and artificial legal entities. In effect, almost all information now "relates to a person" and is therefore exempt.
This is not merely a drafting choice; it is a structural inversion of RTI. To reinforce it, the DPDP Act imposes penalties of up to ₹250 crore and overrides RTI. A Public Information Officer now faces personal risk for disclosure, but none for denial. The rational bureaucratic response is silence.
The Economic Survey 2026 echoes this shift, expressing concern about privacy and governance under RTI and pointing out that many countries restrict the disclosure of personal information. What it omits is crucial: RTI’s express purpose is to curb corruption, and India has conspicuously failed to do so through institutional mechanisms alone. RTI succeeded precisely because it empowered citizens as decentralized auditors. There is no evidence that RTI harmed governance or worsened corruption. On the contrary, it forced accountability where institutions failed.
The turning point came with Puttaswami, which elevated privacy to a fundamental right. Yet the judgment itself records that the Constituent Assembly explicitly considered and rejected proposals to constitutionalise privacy, including secrecy of correspondence. Privacy was debated—and deliberately excluded. To resurrect it as a fundamental right despite this record requires creativity of the highest order. When paired with the diluted
RTI jurisprudence, this creativity has had one clear outcome: the steady erosion of the citizen’s right to know. Privacy is not a universal, context-free moral absolute. It is a social construct that must bend when public power is exercised. To grant public officials a privacy shield against scrutiny is to protect the powerful from the powerless. Transparency, not secrecy, is the currency of democracy.
What we are witnessing is not reform, but reversal. RTI is quietly being transformed into RDI—Right to Deny Information. Unlike overt censorship, this shift attracts little public resistance. Fundamental rights are rarely abolished in one stroke; they are hollowed out incrementally, through interpretation, amendment, and bureaucratic fear.
Since 1950, courts have expansively interpreted most fundamental rights. The Right to Information stands as the sole exception—systematically narrowed by both judiciary and executive, while citizens look away. A democracy that stops asking questions does not remain a democracy for long.
The country urgently needs a public debate on where privacy ends, and accountability begins. If it does not, the Right to Information will survive only in name—its spirit quietly extinguished.
The author Shailesh Gandhi is a former Chief Election Commissioner.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of ETV Bharat.

Can a woman seek her husband’s salary details under RTI Act? Here’s what Rajasthan High Court says : Written by: Ashish Shaji

The Indian Express: Article: Tuesday, 24 February 2026.
In the absence of any overriding public interest, the disclosure of such information has no relationship with any public activity or public interest, the Rajasthan High Court noted.

The Rajasthan High Court held that information relating to an
officer in an organisation falls within the ambit of
“personal information”. (Image generated using AI)

Rajasthan High Court news: The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a wife’s plea seeking her husband’s salary details under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, reiterating that it falls within the ambit of personal information.
Justice Kuldeep Mathur, in an order passed on February 3, held that there was no illegality or infirmity in the state’s action in refusing to supply the information relating to a third party.
What was the case?

• The petitioner woman had sought copies of the payslips/details of the salary paid to her husband for the period from January to March 2024.
• The information sought under the RTI Act was denied on the ground that it was personal in nature and pertained to a third party.
• Therefore, it was held that the information sought was exempted from disclosure under the Act’s provisions.
• Feeling aggrieved, the woman approached the high court.

Court’s observations

• No illegality or infirmity in the action of the respondents in refusing to supply the information relating to a third party, the high court observed.
• Conscious of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and Others, wherein it has been held that information relating to the performance of an employee or officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer, governed by service rules, and falls within the ambit of “personal information”.
• Disclosure of such information, in the absence of any overriding public interest, has no relationship with any public activity or public interest.
• In view of the aforesaid discussion, no merit in the present petition.

Girish R Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and Others

• In this case, the petitioner had applied to the regional provident fund commissioner seeking information concerning a person employed as an enforcement officer in a sub-regional office.
• The information sought was related to the officer’s appointment, promotion, transfer orders, disciplinary proceedings, copies of memos and show-cause notices, as well as details of movable and immovable properties, investments, gifts received and income tax returns.
• The information was denied, and the Central Information Commission (CIC) upheld the denial.
• The Supreme Court held that the performance of an employee/officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer, and normally such aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”.
• It added that the disclosure of such information has no relationship to any public activity or public interest.
• The apex court noted that the disclosure of the information would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual.
• The ruling argues that if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer of the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure, appropriate orders could be passed, but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.
• Details disclosed by a person in their income tax returns are considered “personal information” and are exempt from disclosure, unless they involve a larger public interest.
• The top court held that the disclosure of such information would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
• Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act says that there shall be no obligation to provide any information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
• Provided that the central public information officer or the state public information officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.

(Ashish Shaji: Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express, where he specializes in legal journalism. Combining a formal education in law with years of editorial experience, Ashish provides authoritative coverage and nuanced analysis of court developments and landmark judicial decisions for a national audience.)

While Everyone Blames The Govt For Killing RTI, Courts Just Did It Quietly : Dr. Ajay Kummar

BW Legal World: Article: Tuesday, 24 February 2026.
The Central Information Commission rules in January that advocates cannot file RTI applications for the cases they are handling

Last month, I had to tell a client something I never imagined I'd have to say in my decades of practice: "I can't file that RTI application for you."
Not because the information was classified. Not because it would harm national security. But because I'm a lawyer, apparently, that now disqualifies me from seeking information on behalf of clients.
The Central Information Commission ruled in January that advocates cannot file RTI applications for the cases they're handling. The decision relies on a Madras High Court precedent that's now spreading across the country like wildfire. Information officers everywhere are citing it. State commissions are following it. And just like that, a law that says "any citizen" can seek information now means "any citizen, except your lawyer."
My client was a widow from a small town in Bihar. Her husband died in police custody. The post-mortem report kept changing. She couldn't read or write. She'd saved money for months to hire me. And I had to explain that while I could argue her case in court, I couldn't file a simple RTI application to get the documents we needed.
She looked at me like I was speaking a foreign language. "But sir, you're my lawyer. How can they say you can't ask for my papers?"
Good question. I'm still looking for a good answer.
The Opposition's Selective Outrage
For years now, every opposition leader with a microphone has blamed the Modi government for "destroying" the RTI Act. The 2019 amendments became their favorite political football. Rahul Gandhi tweets about it. Parliamentary sessions feature dramatic speeches about transparency under threat.
But here's what's funny in a dark, ironic way. While they were busy organizing press conferences about government amendments that at least went through Parliament, got debated, got voted on, something far more damaging happened through judicial interpretation. And the opposition?
Because you can't organize a dharna against a High Court judgment. You can't make it a Modi- versus-transparency issue when it's courts adding restrictions. So they stay quiet, and the real damage to RTI happens in plain sight while everyone's looking elsewhere.
A tribal community in Chhattisgarh approached their lawyer about illegal mining on their land. The lawyer tried to get environmental clearances through RTI. Rejected. An SC/ST entrepreneur in Maharashtra, blacklisted after refusing to pay bribes, needed tender documents. His advocate filed RTI. Rejected.
Where's the press conference about that?
What Actually Happened
The RTI Act's language is crystal clear: "Any person who desires to obtain information under this Act shall make a request in writing."
Not "certain persons." Not "persons who meet our approval." Just "any person."
When Parliament wanted exemptions, they wrote them down. Section 24 lists exactly which agencies are exempt 19 of them, named specifically. Section 8 details exactly what information can be denied ten categories, defined clearly.
Parliament knows how to write restrictions. They're not shy about it. They didn't write this one about advocates.
But the Madras High Court found it anyway, buried somewhere between the lines. The reasoning? RTI shouldn't become "a tool in the hands of the advocate for seeking all kinds of information in order to promote his practice."
Now that interpretation is law, applied by information commissions from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. And here's the beautiful irony: we've created a system where being honest about helping your client disqualifies you, but filing the same RTI without mentioning you're a lawyer presumably works fine.
So we're teaching advocates: transparency about seeking transparency is a mistake.
Let Me Tell You Who This Actually Hurts
It's not me. I have resources. I can navigate systems. I can tell my literate clients to file RTI themselves and I'll draft the application.
But what about the advocate running a small practice in Begusarai or Barabanki? The one who mostly does legal aid work? Whose clients are daily wage workers, small farmers, people who've never filled out a government form in their lives?
That advocate just lost one of the few tools that actually worked. Because let's be honest about our legal system discovery procedures don't work. Order XI CPC applications get dismissed. Section 91 CrPC summons get ignored. Courts take months to get basic documents from government departments.
RTI worked. Thirty days, by law. Information officers had to respond. There was accountability.
And now? We're telling the most vulnerable litigants: "Your lawyer can't use the one mechanism that actually delivers results. You'll have to do it yourself. Good luck figuring out what information you need and how to ask for it."
The Constitutional Questions Nobody's Asking
I studied constitutional law. I've argued Article 14 cases. And I cannot, for the life of me, find the constitutional logic here. Same information. Same public authority. Same request. But if I file it as a citizen with "general interest," it's fine. If I file it as an advocate helping a client, it's impermissible.
What's the reasonable classification? What's the intelligible differentia? Where's the nexus to the object sought to be achieved?
Article 14 says equality before law. The Supreme Court has said more times than I can count  that arbitrariness violates this guarantee.
This is arbitrariness on steroids.
Then there's Article 21. Access to justice is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court said so in Anita Kushwaha. But access to justice means effective legal representation. And effective representation in 2026 requires access to information.
We're essentially creating a new right: the right to a lawyer who can't access the information needed to effectively represent you.
I'm sure the framers of the Constitution would be thrilled.
The Misuse Argument Doesn't Hold
Every time anyone questions an irrational restriction, someone waves the misuse flag. "But advocates will misuse RTI!"
Will they? Some might. Just like some citizens misuse it. Some journalists misuse it. Some NGOs misuse it. I've seen RTI applications asking why elephants don't wear clothes and requesting romantic advice from the Prime Minister's Office.
Did we ban citizens? Did we ban journalists? No. Because the RTI Act already has provisions for dealing with misuse.
Various sections in the act, like Section 8(1), Section,6 (2), section 7 (9), lets information commissions reject frivolous applications and impose costs. Section 8 protects legitimately sensitive information national security, commercial confidence, personal privacy, ongoing investigations.
The safeguards exist. We're just choosing to ignore them in favor of a blanket professional ban that solves nothing and creates new problems.
Because here's what's actually going to happen: advocates will keep filing RTI applications. They'll just stop mentioning they're advocates. They'll file in their personal capacity. They'll file through their clerks. They'll find workarounds.
We haven't prevented misuse. We've just made the system more dishonest.
What Needs to Happen
The Supreme Court needs to look at this. Not five years from now. Not after it becomes so entrenched that nobody remembers "any person" used to actually mean any person. Now.
Because right now, this interpretation is spreading. Every information officer in every state is learning that "lawyer for client" means automatic rejection. It's becoming standard practice. And once something becomes standard practice in our system, changing it requires an act of divine intervention.
The questions are straightforward: Does "any person" in Section 6(1) permit categorical exclusions based on profession? Can courts add restrictions that Parliament didn't write? Does this violate Articles 14, 19, and 21?
These aren't radical questions. They're basic statutory interpretation and constitutional law. The Supreme Court answers these kinds of questions regularly. This one just happens to affect millions of litigants and thousands of advocates.
The Bigger Pattern
Here's what bothers me most. The RTI Act has been under attack from multiple directions. The 2019 amendments. The misuse of Section 8 exemptions. The years-long delays in appeals. The vacancy crisis in information commissions.
Each attack gets different levels of attention based on who's doing it. Government amendments? Front-page news. Opposition outrage. Prime-time debates.
Judicial interpretations that may have even bigger impact? Page 17, if we're lucky.
I'm not saying the 2019 amendments were perfect. I'm saying the asymmetry in scrutiny is glaring. And dangerous.
Because if we only pay attention to restrictions we can blame on the government, we miss the ones that slip through quietly. The ones that transform "any citizen" into "certain citizens" without anyone noticing. The ones that unintentionally devastate access to justice while claiming to prevent misuse.
A Personal Note
I've spent thirty years in court, both as an advocate and a journalist, and I’ve seen government officials lie about the existence of documents. I've watched files disappear. I've heard "the record is not available" more times than I can count.
RTI changed the game. Suddenly, there was a timeline. There was accountability. There were penalties for noncompliance.
I've used RTI to expose land grab scams. To get medical records in custodial death cases. To obtain tender documents proving corruption. To retrieve files mysteriously "lost" when they became inconvenient.
Every single time, it helped my client. Every single time, it advanced justice. Every single time, it made the system slightly more honest.
And now I'm supposed to accept that this was somehow improper? Was seeking information to help my client "misuse" a transparency law?
I don't accept that. I can't accept that.
The Bottom Line
The opposition can keep blaming the government for RTI's problems. That's politics. That's their job.
But the rest of us lawyers, activists, journalists, citizens who actually care about transparency rather than just scoring political points need to wake up to what's happening.
Yes, the 2019 amendments weakened RTI. They did. But at least we could see them coming. We could debate them. We could vote against the government if we disagreed.
This interpretation? It appeared like a ghost. No debate. No vote. No public discourse. Just courts reading restrictions into a statute that doesn't contain them, and commissions applying those restrictions nationwide
And the truly tragic part? The people this hurts most are exactly those who need RTI most. The poor. The illiterate. The marginalized. The ones who can't navigate government systems on their own. The ones who need their advocates to fight for them.
We've just tied one hand behind their advocates' backs.
Right now, somewhere in India, there's an advocate probably young, probably idealistic, probably handling more legal aid cases than paid ones trying to explain to a client why she can't file RTI for information they desperately need.
That advocate shouldn't have to make that explanation. That client shouldn't have to hear it. The RTI Act says "any citizen." It should mean any citizen.
If we're serious about transparency, access to justice, and the rule of law, we need the Supreme Court to make that clear.
Because right now, the law is becoming whatever courts say it is, regardless of what Parliament actually wrote.
And that should worry all of us far more than any government amendment ever could.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publication.
(Dr. Ajay Kummar (Guest Author) :Dr. Ajay Kummar Pandey is a Senior Advocate at the Supreme Court of India with over 30 years of experience and Founder & Managing Partner of 4C Supreme Law International. He is also a President of the Supreme Court Life Member Bar Association.)

200 big cats poached in 20 years, RTI reveals central India as hotspot

The Times of India: Dehradun: Monday, 23 February 2026.
As many as 200 big cats were poached across India between 2005 and Dec 2025, with central India emerging as a major hotspot, according to a Right to Information reply from Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB) under the ministry of environment, forest and climate change.

The data showed that 59 of the total poaching cases occurred in central Indian habitats. Statewise figures shared by WCCB indicated that the highest number of tiger poaching cases were recorded in Madhya Pradesh (36), followed by Uttar Pradesh (14), Karnataka (13), Maharashtra (nine), Assam (six), Uttarakhand and Kerala (four each) and Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh (three each).
Wildlife experts linked the killings to international demand for body parts.
Dr YV Jhala, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) expert on big cats and former senior scientist and dean of Wildlife Institute of India, said, “These numbers are concerning since only a small portion of poached tigers and leopards are seized by authorities. Poaching remains lucrative despite stringent laws when there is a high-price market for parts and products of big cats. This demand continues to exist in neighbouring countries such as China and South East Asian nations.”
Giving perspective to the data, Jhala added, “The data indicates seizures in these states, not the actual quantum of poaching, as stricter enforcement results in more recoveries. We need to evaluate seizure numbers in the context of tiger population trends and then infer the consequences of poaching. Field understanding shows that Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Odisha and North Eastern states are hotspots of poaching-driven declines of large cats.”
India is home to around 3,600 tigers, accounting for nearly 75% of the global tiger population, as per the latest tiger estimation by ministry of environment, forest and climate change through Wildlife Institute of India and National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA). The country has around 13,800 leopards across tiger range forests, according to another assessment.
The RTI data showed that 92 leopards were poached during the same period. As per WCCB records, the highest number of leopard poaching cases were registered in Himachal Pradesh, 21, followed by Andhra Pradesh, eight, Jammu and Kashmir, six, Punjab, five, Uttar Pradesh, five, Uttarakhand, five, Madhya Pradesh, five, and Tamil Nadu, five.
Nearly 35% of leopard poaching cases occurred in Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and Uttarakhand. Experts said this pattern indicated a possible rise in human-wildlife conflict linked to fragmentation of forest stretches, encroached wildlife corridors and increasing vehicular and human movement near big cat habitats.
The activist who obtained the RTI information, Amit Gupta, said, “The data shows that while tiger poaching remains concentrated in central India, leopard poaching is more widespread across the country, particularly in Himalayan states like Himachal Pradesh.”

Congress to launch legal fellowship, RTI drive, podcast series: Abhishek Singhvi

The Economic Times: New Delhi: Monday, 23 February 2026.

The Congress's law department is launching a new fellowship for young lawyers to assist parliamentarians and understand the party's workings and social media strategy. Additionally, initiatives to revitalize the Right to Information Act and a podcast featuring legal experts discussing national issues were announced. These programs aim to engage young legal minds with the Congress's principles.
Abhishek Singhvi, who heads the Congress department of law, human rights and RTI, said on Sunday that the party department will host young lawyers as legal fellows for three months to provide them an opportunity to assist the Congress parliamentarians and thus understand the working of the Opposition party and its social media.
"The INC Legal Fellows programme, designed to engage young minds who are inquisitive and inclined towards the ideals, rules, and principles for which the Congress stands for...", Singhvi said at a presser.
The party department will also launch a scheme to focus on reactivating the Right To Information Act. Another initiative will be the starting of a podcast of senior lawyers and eminent persons to articulate on subjects of national importance. Singhvi announced these initiatives of his party department, incidentally, when his Rajya Sabha term from Telangana is now due for renomination.

Crores spent, garbage remains: Ganderbal’s waste management falters

Greater Kashmir: Ganderbal: Monday, 23 February 2026.
The RTI, filed by social activist Manzoor Ahmad Wani, provides block-wise details of expenditure during the period

Crores spent, garbage remains: Ganderbal’s waste management falters___Representational image

Despite an expenditure of more than Rs 6.50 crore over the past five years on rural solid waste management, Ganderbal continues to struggle with poor sanitation and ineffective waste disposal systems on the ground.
Information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act reveals that Rs 6.50 crore was spent on Solid Waste Management (SWM) in rural areas of the district between 2020 and 2025. However, residents and social activists say the investment has failed to translate into visible improvements.
The RTI, filed by social activist Manzoor Ahmad Wani, provides block-wise details of expenditure during the period.
According to the data, Lar block received Rs 1.05 crore, Sherpathri Rs 29.63 lakh, Safapora Rs 38.60 lakh, Gund Rs 1.03 crore, Kangan Rs 98.05 lakh, Ganderbal block Rs 1.17 crore and Wakura Rs 1.58 crore for improving rural sanitation infrastructure.
Despite this substantial spending, locals say the situation in many villages remains unchanged. Several areas continue to witness irregular waste collection, absence of waste segregation at source, underutilisation of available infrastructure and poor long-term sustainability of waste management systems.
“Despite this significant financial investment, an assessment of ground realities suggests that the solid waste management system has not delivered the expected results,” Manzoor Ahmad said. “Many rural areas continue to face irregular waste collection, lack of segregation, inadequate utilisation of infrastructure and weak sustainability. This problem is not limited to Ganderbal alone but is visible across much of Kashmir.”
Social activists have also questioned the effectiveness of planning and execution, suggesting that better monitoring and community participation could have improved outcomes. Some have argued that channelising a portion of these funds towards welfare schemes, including housing support under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, might have delivered more tangible benefits to economically vulnerable families.
They said the RTI findings should act as a wake-up call for the authorities to reassess existing strategies, strengthen accountability mechanisms and adopt a more result-oriented approach to rural development and sanitation initiatives.
With mounting concerns over environmental health and public hygiene, residents say mere allocation of funds is not enough unless backed by effective implementation, sustained awareness campaigns and regular monitoring at the grassroots level.

From Being Forgotten To Being Found: Balancing Digital Reputation With Right To Information & Freedom Of Press.

Live Law: Akshita Saxena : Sunday, Febrauary 22, 2026.

The Right to be Forgotten has rapidly gained currency with the advent of technology and personal data protection. Rooted in individual privacy and dignity, it allows individuals to seek removal or de-indexing of personal information that is outdated, or perhaps disproportionately harmful.

India, following the recognition of right to privacy as a fundamental right by a 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., has embraced the Right to be Forgotten through judicial orders.

However, as digital ecosystems mature, a deeper problem has emerged— erasure does not always preserve rights or triumph truth.

In many cases, initial accusations receive massive coverage from the media, etching the public memory. Whereas subsequent acquittals are ignored, resulting in lasting damage to an individual's reputation. Objectively speaking, harm is then not caused by the presence of outdated information, but by the absence or invisibility of correct and exculpatory information.

For instance, Right to Be Forgotten pales into insignificance in high profile cases, where no matter the redaction— the public knows the identity of the accused.

The Madras High Court had, back in 2021, recognised this predicament when it said that erasure may prove to be “counterproductive” for a person if they want to prove their innocence.

Even speaking constitutionally, the Right to be Forgotten presents a fundamental conflict with the Right to Information and the Freedom of Press. This gap has given rise to an emerging idea: the Right to be Found.

While not formally recognised in any jurisdiction, the Right to be Found offers a more nuanced approach to digital reputation, one that may be better suited to constitutional democracies.

What Is Right to Be Found?

The Right to be Found refers to an individual's right to ensure that accurate, updated, and exonerating information about them is visible, discoverable, and contextualised online, particularly when older adverse material continues to dominate public perception.

The Right to be Found doesn't seek deletion or suppression information. It rather promotes updating of archive reports, linking of acquittal or quashing orders to prior allegations, and contextualisation of information so that truth is not fragmented by algorithms. In essence, it addresses informational imbalance in the public domain.

A writ of mandamus may be issued to media houses, to update their prior reports with subsequent developments and/or to run a fresh report intimating the public of the latest development. This would instantly serve a dual purpose— preserve individual dignity by contextualisation and foster the citizens' right to information.

Why Right to Be Found?

The Right to Be Forgotten often attracts criticism for encouraging historical amnesia. Courts may be understandably reluctant to delete judgments or news reports that were factually correct at the time of publication.

The Right to be Found avoids this problem. It retains the historical record while ensuring that subsequent developments—such as acquittals—are equally accessible. This preserves the “whole” truth instead of erasing history and strengthens the integrity of public records.

Erasure-based remedies also sit in direct tension with freedom of expression. De-indexing orders against search engines or takedown directives to media houses can appear as judicially mandated silence.

The Supreme Court recently said that a Delhi High Court order directing a digital platform to remove certain news reports concerning the arrest of a former banker in a money laundering case, following his discharge, would not operate as a precedent in other cases.

This, because the Top Court felt that erasure of past information is not innocuous. Rather, it raises the question of how the right to privacy and the right to be forgotten under Article 21 of the Constitution is to be reconciled with Freedom of Press under Article 19(1)(a).

A mature understanding of digital rights must acknowledge that the Press has a legitimate constitutional right to report arrests, remands, and ongoing criminal proceedings when they concern matters of public interest or public importance. Such reporting, if accurate at the time of publication, does not become unlawful merely because the accused is later acquitted. The Indian Constitution is not known to mandate erasure of truthful journalism. Nor does it impose retrospective silence on the press. What it demands however, is fairness.

In this context, the Right to be Found promotes freedom of speech and expression. It requires addition of context rather than removal of content, making it more compatible with constitutional free-speech guarantees.

Also significant to note that modern reputational harm is rarely caused by publication alone; it is caused by algorithmic prioritisation. Search engines amplify the first arrest report but rarely elevate the acquittal that followed years later.

The Right to be Forgotten responds by hiding information. The Right to be Found responds by correcting algorithmic asymmetry.

If the Right to be Found is recognised, privacy will imperturbably be balanced with citizens' right to information and the freedom of press. Instead of censoring information in a democracy, the Right to be Found obligates digital platforms to provide complete, accurate information and paves way for redemption of the affected party. Past arrest which culminates into acquittal— has to be reported. Past conviction, which is later overturned— has to be amplified.

Limitations

The Right to be Found concededly can't be applied universally and its limitations become particularly pronounced in matrimonial and family law disputes, where privacy interests are fundamentally different from criminal or commercial cases.

In matrimonial cases, visibility itself can be harmful. Unlike criminal cases involving public wrongs, matrimonial disputes are intensely personal, emotionally charged and closely tied to dignity, sexuality, mental health, and family reputation.

A Right to be Found, by increasing visibility of judgments (even favourable ones), may re-traumatize spouses and perpetuate the social stigma both parties want to escape.

Another complication is that family disputes often involve cross-allegations, settlements without adjudication, withdrawals and mediation-based resolutions. In such cases, there is no truth to be “found”.

Recognising this limitation however, does not weaken the concept— it anchors it in Constitutional realism. Constitutional rights are not abstractions applied uniformly across all contexts but have to be enforced with careful calibration by the Judiciary.

Right to Be Forgotten: Easier Conceptually, Harder Constitutionally

The Right to Be Forgotten is procedurally straightforward—content is removed or de-indexed. However, it faces resistance from media organisations, invites constitutional scrutiny under free speech, and raises concerns about transparency and public interest.

Right to Be Found on the other hand, though presents technical challenges, such as linking content across platforms and dealing with proprietary search algorithms, is normatively easier to justify as it does not silence anyone but— promotes accuracy and completeness.

From a constitutional perspective, courts may find it easier to mandate contextualisation and updating, rather than erasure.

Comparative Perspectives

The EU does not recognise a Right to be Found as such. In fact, France is credited for the birth of the Right to be Forgotten and focuses on de-indexing under privacy principles. Even the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) explicitly recognizes the Right to Erasure under Article 17.

However, a closer look at the provisions— Article 16 (right to rectification) and Article 5 (accuracy, transparency and fairness), require data controllers to ensure that information is not misleading due to incompleteness— achieving the functional equivalent of the Right to be Found.

In the United States, adoption of the Right to be Forgotten seems unlikely, given the country's emphasis on First Amendment freedoms. In Search King, Inc. v. Google Technology, Inc. (2003), a US Court dismissed a lawsuit against Google and held that its search rankings are subjective results which are constitutionally protected “opinions”.

Right to be Found on the other hand, does not stifle expression and is arguably more aligned with the First Amendment.

Towards Informational Justice, Not Informational Silence

The digital age has made memory permanent but correction optional. The Right to be Forgotten responds by hiding the past; the Right to be Found responds by completing the narrative, with truth and completeness.

While no jurisdiction has formally named this right, many have already embraced its logic. As courts grapple with reputational harm in algorithm-driven ecosystems, the future likely lies not in erasure, but in visibility of truth.

For countries like India—where dignity, reputation, and fairness are constitutional values—the Right to be Found may well represent the next evolution of digital rights jurisprudence.

Views Personal. Author may be reached at akshita@livelaw.in

₹6.5 crore spent, but garbage still piles: RTI exposes Ganderbal’s waste management failure

Kashmir Reader: Manzoor Vani: Srinagar: Sunday, February 22, 2026.

Effective governance is not measured by money spent, but by outcomes that improve lives.

Between 2020 and 2025, a total of ₹6,50,18,607 (approximately ₹6.5 crore) has been spent on Solid Waste Management (SWM) in District Ganderbal, as per information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act through an application filed by me. The block-wise expenditure details are as follows:

– Block Lar: ₹1,05,77,187

– Block Sherpathri: ₹29,63,807

– Block Safapora: ₹38,60,040

- Block Kangan: ₹98,05,902

– Block Ganderbal: ₹1,17,01,671

– Block Wakura: ₹1,58,10,000

Despite this significant financial investment, an honest assessment of ground realities suggests that the Solid Waste Management system has not delivered the expected results. Many rural areas continue to face irregular waste collection, lack of segregation, inadequate infrastructure utilisation, and poor sustainability of the system. This challenge is not limited to Ganderbal alone but is visible across much of Kashmir. This situation raises an important question about development priorities and governance effectiveness. Public expenditure must translate into visible and measurable improvements in people’s lives. 

When outcomes remain limited despite large spending, it becomes essential to reassess planning, execution, monitoring, and accountability mechanisms. If a portion of these funds had been directed toward welfare-driven initiatives—such as supporting families living in inadequate housing under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY)—the impact on social security, dignity, and public trust could have been far more meaningful and tangible. Effective governance is not measured by how much money is spent, but by outcomes that genuinely improve people’s lives. The experience of rural waste management in Ganderbal should serve as an opportunity for course correction, stronger community participation, and a shift toward result-oriented and accountable governance.

The writer is a social and RTI activist from District Ganderbal

PMO funds? Don’t ask ..!!

Deccan Herald: Bangaluru: Sunday, February 22, 2026.

The government reasons that these funds are not supported by any budgetary allocation approved by Parliament. So, questions about their affairs cannot be admitted there.

Soon after the Union government notified the rules to implement the 2023 Digital Personal Data Protection Act, in November last year, a Gen-Z influencer Instagrammed a biting explainer in Hinglish: “On the one hand, the government has empowered itself to compel private entities to hand over people’s personal data like private chats, photos, location, and biometrics, without obtaining their consent, for protecting the country’s sovereignty and integrity. On the other hand, it has amended the RTI Act to deny them access to all personal information about public servants for protecting their privacy... Since when did our democracy start functioning like this?” she asked

Even as we scratch our heads for an answer to this elementary question, the media has reported a recent communication from the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to the Lok Sabha Secretariat. Apparently, questions about the PMCARES Fund, Prime Minister’s Relief Fund (PMNRF), and the National Defence Fund (NDF), which the PMO administers, are not admissible under the House business rules. For several years, the government has fought citizens tooth and nail to keep PMCARES and PMNRF out of the ambit of the RTI Act. Now our elected representatives are being gagged with a “thou shalt not ask!” commandment. Is Article 105 of our Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech in Parliament, due for a sabbatical? Will the Speaker bend or defend our MPs’ right to know?

The government reasons that these funds are not supported by any budgetary allocation approved by Parliament. So, questions about their affairs cannot be admitted there. RTI replies I obtained from central public sector enterprises and the data gleaned from their annual CSR expenditure reports show that between 2020-2021, they had contributed more than Rs 2,330 crore to the PMCARES Fund. The President, the first citizen of our country, is the majority shareholder in these companies. Should other citizens not ask how this money was spent during the COVID pandemic? As I am an Intervenor in the PMCARES Fund case pending in the Delhi High Court, propriety prevents me from commenting further except to say that the 40th hearing to decide whether it can be made answerable to the people under the RTI Act will be on the 1st of April! As for the PMNRF, the Central Information Commission ruled in 2012 that names of institutional donors are not sarkari secrets. In 2015, a single bench of the Delhi High Court upheld this decision as a reasonable one and directed the PMO to respond to such RTI enquiries. In 2018, a division bench of the court gave a split decision in an appeal. One judge held that the PMNRF is like any other public authority under the RTI Act, subject only to its permissible exemptions to disclosure. The other judge ruled that it is like an NGO and no information about its affairs can be accessed under the RTI Act. They recommended that the Chief Justice refer the issue to a third judge. In 2026, we are still waiting for that judge to hear this case.

Few people are aware that the PMNRF and the NDF serve another public purpose, above and beyond those underpinning their establishment. This novel application was created by the judicial arm of the State. Both funds are used for depositing the costs which courts and tribunals impose on litigants for wasting their precious time. Since 2001, in at least 100+ cases, high courts, tribunals like ITAT, NCLT, CESTAT, and DRAT, and even the Supreme Court, have imposed costs totalling over Rs 3 crore to be deposited in these funds. In more than 35 cases, the dissenting judge of the Delhi High Court issued such orders favouring PMNRF! Are these truly voluntary contributions? Again, not many people remember that between 1964 and 1965, Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri answered at least two NDF-related questions in Parliament. One was about the money donated by ‘left communist group’ members detained in Kerala’s jails, for the country’s defence during the Indo-Pak war. Another was about more than a hundred NDF receipt books that went missing in Delhi. In 1965, his Education Minister, noted jurist M C Chagla, assured the Lok Sabha that information about contributions from Delhi’s school-going students, allegedly collected without issuing proper receipts, would be tabled soon. The claimants to Shastri’s legacy, who mostly use his birth anniversary as a counter-event for Gandhi Jayanti, would do well to emulate the high standards of transparency and accountability he set at the PMO. 

(The writer wakes up every morning thinking someone somewhere is hiding something)

RTI Act is a people-centric and powerful law, says Information Commissioner B. Venkat Singh.

The Hindu: Kalaburgi: Benga;luru, Sunday, FEb 22, 2026.

B. Venkat Singh says the Act plays a crucial role in ensuring transparency in governance and serves both as a protection and a caution for public servants.

Describing the Right to Information (RTI) Act as a people-centric and powerful legislation, Karnataka State Information Commissioner (Kalaburagi Bench) B. Venkat Singh said the Act plays a crucial role in ensuring transparency in governance and serves both as a protection and a caution for public servants.

He was addressing district-level officers and Public Information Officers (PIOs) of various departments after inaugurating a workshop and interactive session on the RTI Act organised at the district administration auditorium in Koppal on February 21.

Mr. Singh said the primary objective of the RTI Act is to enable public participation in governance. The Act provides citizens with the right to seek information about government schemes and functioning, thereby strengthening transparency and accountability. Although the Act has been in force for nearly two decades, many officials still lack adequate clarity about its implementation, he observed, stressing the need to circulate RTI manuals and reference books to officers at district, taluk, and gram panchayat levels.

Providing statistics on the functioning of the Kalaburagi Bench, he said that since its establishment, 16,640 cases had been registered, of which 10,423 had been disposed of. In the three months since he assumed office, 1,400 cases had been heard and 605 disposed of. A total of 6,655 cases are still pending, including 764 from Koppal district. He added that second appeals, which earlier required applicants to travel to Bengaluru, can now be filed at the Kalaburagi Bench from February onwards, benefiting people from all seven districts of Kalyana Karnataka.

state Information Commissioner (Bengaluru Bench) Harish Kumar described the RTI Act as one of the most revolutionary laws enacted in independent India. Access to information relating to government schemes and benefits is a fundamental right of every citizen, he said, noting that Karnataka was the first State to implement the RTI Act after it came into force on October 5, 2005.

He urged officials not to fear the Act but to understand it clearly. Public Information Officers must ensure that information is provided within the stipulated time frame. He noted that a significant number of RTI applications relate to the Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Revenue, and Public Works Departments, with nearly 30% concerning gram panchayats.

Another State Information Commissioner, Badruddin K., advised officials to handle RTI applications with confidence and clarity. He stressed that transparency naturally fosters confidence and urged departments to proactively upload information under Sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) of the Act on their websites to reduce workload and improve efficiency. Applications should be disposed of well within the 30-day limit to avoid unnecessary pressure, he said.

Deputy Commissioner Suresh B. Itnal said the RTI Act has helped correct administrative lapses and improve transparency. He directed all offices to promptly dispose of RTI applications and display boards indicating the names of Public Information Officers and First Appellate Authorities.