skip to main |
skip to sidebar
DT Next: Tamilnadu: Saturday, 17 January 2026.
The State government has
constituted a search committee, headed by retired Justice KBK Vasuki, to
identify eligible members for the body. An official notification said
applications from eligible candidates would be received till January 27.
Amid activists'
allegations of inefficiency of the Right to Information (RTI) agency and
attempts to kill its purpose, the State government has initiated the process to
bolster the Tamil Nadu Information Commission by appointing two additional
Information Commissioners.
The State government has
constituted a search committee, headed by retired Justice KBK Vasuki, to
identify eligible members for the body. An official notification said
applications from eligible candidates would be received till January 27.
At present, the Tamil Nadu
Information Commission comprises the Chief Information Commissioner and five
Information Commissioners Md Shakeel Akhter, P Thamarai Kannan, P Priyakumar, K
Thirumalaimuthu, VPR Elamparithi, and M Natesan. The State government has
decided to increase the strength by appointing two more commissioners.
The search committee is
headed by Justice KBK Vasuki, with retired IAS officer MP Sivanarul and retired
IPS officer K Radhakrishnan as members. The committee has invited applications
from qualified and eligible candidates.
The State Information
Commissioners will be appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of a
committee comprising the Chief Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and a
Cabinet Minister nominated by the Chief Minister. The government is planning to
complete the appointments ahead of the forthcoming Assembly elections.
According to the
notification, aspirants must apply in the prescribed format, which can be
downloaded from the State government website
(www.tn.gov.in/job-opportunity.php). The completed application should be sent
by post and by e-mail (chairperso2026@gmail.com) on or before January 27.
Applications should be
addressed to Justice KBK Vasuki, President, Search Committee, Second Floor,
No.108, Armenian Street, Parrys Corner, Chennai–600001.
Candidates from fields
such as law, science, social service, management, journalism, mass media,
administration, and governance are eligible to apply. After scrutiny, the
search committee will forward a panel of names to the government.
Times of India: Ahmedabad: Saturday, 17 January 2026.
The SIC had ordered
disclosure of service records information concerning three judicial officers in
response to an RTI application filed by a private individual
The Chhattisgarh High
Court has ruled that information relating to the service records of judicial
officers including their educational or job-related certificates, complaints
made against them, and details of departmental or other inquiries is exempt from
disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Chhattisgarh State
Information Commission (SIC) had ordered disclosure of such information
concerning three judicial officers in response to an RTI application filed by a
private individual.
A Bench of Justice Sachin
Singh Rajput held, “The information sought for is maintained by the petitioners
being employer of the judicial officers can be treated as records pertaining to
personal information of those judicial officers and publication of the same is
prohibited under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, as this is the matter between
the employer and the employee and are governed by the Service Rules, therefore,
falls under the expression 'personal information' and disclosure of which has
no relationship to any public activity or public interest."
The High Court further
held, "The information sought pertains to judicial officers of the State
of Chhattisgarh which have been kept safely and confidentially by their
employer (High Court administration) and a bare perusal of the application made
under Section 6 (1) of the RTI Act does not show that such information was
required for any public purpose, rather it appears to have been sought for the
personal use of the applicant."
Background
The RTI application was
filed in 2017 seeking details of complaints lodged against three judicial
officers, the inquiries conducted into those complaints, and the certificates
they had submitted during their appointment process. In 2019, the State Information
Commission directed the High Court administration to furnish the requested
information.
Aggrieved by this
direction, the High Court’s administrative side represented through the
Registrar General and Public Information Officers approached the High Court by
way of writ petitions. These petitions were allowed by a common order.
Finding
The High Court, however,
rejected one of the preliminary objections raised by the petitioners. They had
argued that the SIC’s order was invalid because it was passed by a single
Information Commissioner, whereas the RTI Act envisages a multi-member commission.
Disagreeing with this contention, the Court held that individual Information
Commissioners are legally competent to hear and decide appeals independently.
The RTI Act, the Court explained, permits internal allocation of work among
commissioners, and a decision by a single commissioner cannot be treated as an
overreach of jurisdiction.
The Court clarified, “each
member of the State Information Commission and the Central Information
Commission is equally competent to decide the issue involved on its own merits
and there is no question of the Commissioner alone usurping the jurisdiction of
the Commission and passing the order in his individual capacity, as argued by
the counsel for the petitioners. ”
The Court also dismissed
the argument that the SIC had ordered a “roving inquiry” into the conduct of
judicial officers. It held that, "The State Information Commission has
nowhere asked the petitioners in this case to create the information and then
to provide the same to the applicant. Rather, being the repository of the
record pertaining to the judicial officers, the information sought for can well
be said to exist and accessible to the public authority as is provided under
Section 6 of the RTI Act."
The High Court held that
the requested material also falls within the protection of Section 8(1)(e) of
the RTI Act, which exempts information held in a fiduciary relationship from
disclosure.
The Court reasoned that
documents such as complaints, certificates, and inquiry records are submitted
by judicial officers to the High Court in confidence and are held by the Court
in a fiduciary capacity. Such information, the Court held, cannot be disclosed
unless the applicant clearly establishes an overriding public interest.
Finding that no such
public interest had been demonstrated by the RTI applicant, the Court quashed
the SIC’s directions .
Cause Title: High Court of
Chhattisgarh & Others v. Rajkumar Mishra & Anr., [2026:CGHC:2344]
(Click here to read/download Judgment)
Moneylife: National: Friday, 16 January 2026.
A fresh set of replies
received under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by transparency campaigner
commodore (Cmde) Lokesh Batra (retd) has raised new questions over who
ultimately bore the cost of printing high-value electoral bonds after the
Supreme Court struck down the scheme in February 2024 and why key bills remain
unpaid or unaccounted for more than a year later.
The RTI responses,
received from the department of economic affairs (DEA) under the Union ministry
of finance (MoF) and the Indian Security Press (ISP) at Nashik, relate
specifically to the printing of 8,350 electoral bonds (EBs) of ₹1 crore
denomination each, which were printed after the Supreme Court’s landmark
judgment dated 15 February 2024.
Cmde Batra had sought
point-wise information on the total amount levied on the government towards
printing electoral bonds, including goods and services tax (GST), the date of
the final bill for the 8,350 high-value bonds printed after the judgment, the date
of payment, and details of any correspondence between the government and ISP
Nashik regarding the final bill.
In its RTI reply dated 31
December 2025, DEA stated that an amount of ₹1.90 crore, inclusive of GST, had
been levied on the government towards the printing of electoral bonds, along
with ₹6,720 for a 'device to verify mask-a-print security'.
However, the ministry also
admitted that the final bill for printing the 8,350 electoral bonds of ₹1 crore
denomination 'has not been received by the government of India till date',
rendering questions on the date of payment inapplicable.
DEA further says that no
information existed on any communication or notings exchanged with ISP Nashik
on the pending bill.
In parallel, information
sought from the Nashik ISP, the government-owned security printer, shows that
the press had indeed printed and supplied the 8,350 electoral bonds of ₹1 crore
denomination in February 2024. In earlier disclosures and subsequent RTI
proceedings, ISP indicated that its cost for printing these 8,350 bonds was
about ₹3.72 lakh, a fraction of the total amount cited by the DEA for printing
electoral bonds overall.
In a detailed RTI
application and subsequent appeal filed on 22 June 2025, Cmde Batra
specifically asked ISP to disclose the date on which the final bill for these
bonds was forwarded to DEA, the date of receipt of payment, or alternatively,
whether the cost had been borne internally by ISP from its own budgetary head.
The appeal notes that more than a year had elapsed since the bonds were printed
on 21 February 2024, yet no clarity had emerged on billing or payment.
The RTI replies, read
together, point to a puzzling gap in the official record. While the DEA
confirms that over ₹1.90 crore has been levied for printing electoral bonds in
total, it simultaneously states that the final bill for the specific batch of
8,350 bonds of ₹1 crore denomination printed after the Supreme Court judgment
has not been received. On the other hand, ISP confirms printing and supply but
offers no public clarity on whether it has been paid for this specific job or
has absorbed the cost itself.
Cmde Batra has questioned
why no reminder appears to have been issued by the government to ISP Nashik for
submission of the final bill, and whether the cost has effectively been written
off, likening it to a non-performing asset. “After all, this is taxpayers’
money. The government must come out with a clear answer,” he says.
The issue assumes
significance against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s strong observations on
transparency in the electoral bond scheme. In February and March 2024, the apex
court had directed full disclosure of electoral bond details and criticised selective
sharing of information, leading to eventual disclosure by State Bank of India
(SBI) to the election commission.
Earlier RTI disclosures,
reported by Moneylife in April 2024, had shown that the Union government spent
nearly ₹14 crore on electoral bonds over the years, including commission paid
to SBI, printing costs, and GST. Of this, around ₹1.90 crore was attributed to
printing and supply charges paid to ISP Nashik for over 6.82 lakh bonds printed
between 2018 and February 2024.
However, the latest RTIs
introduce a new and narrower question: who paid or who is yet to pay for the
printing of electoral bonds authorised and executed after the scheme had
effectively been struck down by the Supreme Court.
With both the DEA and ISP
pointing to gaps in billing and payment records, the matter underscores
continuing opacity in the financial unwinding of the now-scrapped electoral
bond scheme, even as public authorities insist that no further information is
available on record.
Kashmir Life: Srinagar: Friday, 16 January 2026.
Jammu and Kashmir
authorities have issued strict instructions to all Central Public Information
Officers (CPIOs) to ensure that all Right to Information (RTI) applications,
including those received offline, are uploaded onto the Union Territory’s
Online RTI Portal.
The directive, issued by
the Public Works (R and B) Department on January 12, 2026, comes after
observations that several CPIOs were not uploading offline applications,
causing inaccuracies in the RTI database and inconvenience for applicants.
The Online RTI Portal,
launched on December 10, 2024 by the General Administration Department, allows
citizens to submit RTI requests, track their status, and receive responses
electronically without visiting government offices in person. It also maintains
a comprehensive record of all applications received by CPIOs and appeals
handled by First Appellate Authorities (FAAs).
Officials have been
directed to upload offline RTI applications received via speed post, hand
delivery, or other means, enabling applicants to track their requests using the
IPO Number or Postal Consignment Number. Nodal officers at the Public Authority
level have also been instructed to monitor compliance regularly.
The move is part of the UT
administration’s effort to improve transparency, maintain accurate RTI records,
and streamline citizen access to information under the RTI Act, 2005.
Bar and Bench: Chhattisgarh: Friday, 16 January 2026.
The Court observed that
such information would constitute "personal information" and is part
of the judicial officers' service records held by their employer in a fiduciary
capacity under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
The Chhattisgarh High
Court has held that information relating to the job certificates of judicial
officers, complaints made against them, and details of departmental or other
inquiries against them is not liable to be disclosed under the Right to Information
(RTI) Act, 2005 [High Court of Chhattisgarh & Ors. v. Rajkumar Mishra &
Anr.]
Justice Sachin Singh
Rajput made the observation while setting aside directives issued by the State
Information Commission (SIC) to disclose such information pertaining to three
judicial officers. A private individual had sought this information under the
RTI Act.
The Court ruled that such
information is part of the judicial officers' service records and would
constitute "personal information" under Section 8 of the RTI Act, the
disclosure of which has no connection with any larger public interest.
"The information
sought for is maintained by the petitioners being employer of the judicial
officers can be treated as records pertaining to personal information of those
judicial officers and publication of the same is prohibited under Section 8(1)(j)
of the RTI Act, as this is the matter between the employer and the employee and
are governed by the Service Rules, therefore, falls under the expression
'personal information' and disclosure of which has no relationship to any
public activity or public interest," it said.
The Court opined that such
information appears to have been sought only for the RTI applicant's personal
use, which cannot be permitted.
"The information
sought pertains to judicial officers of the State of Chhattisgarh which have
been kept safely and confidentially by their employer (High Court
administration) and a bare perusal of the application made under Section 6 (1)
of the RTI Act does not show that such information was required for any public
purpose, rather it appears to have been sought for the personal use of the
applicant," it said.
The RTI applicant had
filed his RTI application in 2017, seeking details of complaints received
against three judicial officers in the State, enquiries made against them and
the certificates they submitted to secure their jobs.
In 2019, the Chhattisgarh
State Information Commission (SIC) directed the disclosure of such information.
This was challenged in
writ petitions filed by the High Court's administrative side, through its
Registrar General and Public Information Officers. On January 14, the High
Court passed a common order allowing these petitions.
Notably, the Court
rejected certain arguments made by the petitioners (High Court administration)
regarding whether a second appeal under the RTI Act could be decided by a
single State Information Commissioner or must be examined by a coram of several
members, since the law envisages a multi-member commission.
The petitioners argued
that the SIC order could not have been passed by a single member.
The Court disagreed,
holding that individual Information Commissioners are empowered to hear and
decide appeals, and that the RTI Act allows for an internal allocation of work
among its members.
"Each member of the
State Information Commission and the Central Information Commission is equally
competent to decide the issue involved on its own merits and there is no
question of the Commissioner alone usurping the jurisdiction of the Commission
and passing the order in his individual capacity, as argued by the counsel for
the petitioners ... The broad language of the RTI Act indicates an intention to
grant the CIC comprehensive authority to ensure the effective and efficient
functioning of the commission," the Court said.
The Court also rejected an
argument that the SIC had essentially allowed the conduct of a 'roving enquiry'
against judicial officers.
"The State
Information Commission has nowhere asked the petitioners in this case to create
the information and then to provide the same to the applicant. Rather, being
the repository of the record pertaining to the judicial officers, the
information sought for can well be said to exist and accessible to the public
authority as is provided under Section 6 of the RTI Act," it said.
The Court, however,
eventually disagreed with the SIC on whether such information can be disclosed.
It noted that the
information sought would also fall under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, which
protects information held in a fiduciary relationship from being publicly
disclosed.
It held that complaints,
certificates, and inquiry records submitted by judicial officers are held by
the High Court in this fiduciary capacity and cannot be disclosed unless a
clear public interest is shown.
The High Court found that
the RTI applicant had not shown any overriding public interest. It, therefore,
set aside the SIC's orders for the disclosure of such information.
Advocates Amrito Das,
Abhijeet Mishra and Yashraj Verma appeared for the petitioners (High Court
administration)
The Chhattisgarh State
Information Commission (CSIC) was represented by advocate Shyam Sunder Lal
Tekchandani.
[Read Order]
The Daily Star: Bangladesh: Thursday, 15 January 2026.
While 2025 was a year
marked by despair over the paralysis of Bangladesh’s right to information (RTI)
regime, the beginning of 2026 has brought a welcome note of resistance and
resolve. One may recall that the departure of all three information commissioners
in September 2024 effectively rendered the Information Commission defunct,
leaving RTI users frustrated and the law itself dangerously adrift. Yet, rather
than surrendering to institutional inertia, RTI activists who persisted in
using the law throughout 2025, however hesitantly, began the new year with a
clear and defiant pledge: transparency and accountability will not wither
through neglect.
At a meeting held in Dhaka
on January 8, activists from across the country, joined by prominent
representatives of leading civil society organisations, announced plans to form
a citizens’ platform to coordinate collective action, support embattled RTI users,
and confront the persistent intransigence of public authorities who continue to
treat the RTI Act of 2009 with derision. This moment of mobilisation is
significant because the RTI regime stands at a critical juncture today. For
around 17 years, Bangladesh’s RTI law has survived not because of robust
institutional enforcement but because of the quiet perseverance of a relatively
small yet committed group of users—journalists, activists, and ordinary
citizens—trained and supported by a handful of dedicated NGOs. Their steady
engagement demonstrated that access to information could improve service
delivery, expose maladministration, and strengthen democratic participation. It
was never a mass movement; it was a living one.
That fragile ecosystem has
been severely shaken in recent times. With the Information Commission inactive,
oversight mechanisms have effectively vanished. Public officials, already
inclined towards secrecy, now face little consequence for ignoring requests,
delaying responses, or invoking exemptions indiscriminately. Predictably, RTI
applications have declined and successful disclosures have become rare. A law
that exists only on paper risks becoming a symbol rather than a tool.
Yet, the response of RTI
activists at the dawn of 2026 signals an important truth: transparency is not
solely an institutional function; it is also a civic practice. Laws alone do
not guarantee accountability; citizens do, too. When oversight bodies fall
silent, organised public pressure becomes indispensable. The proposed citizens’
platform reflects this understanding. Its objective is not confrontation per
se, but rather coordination, sharing strategies, offering legal and moral
support to users facing obstruction, and reminding public authorities that the
right to information is neither suspended nor negotiable.
This development also
invites broader reflection on why RTI regimes struggle not only in Bangladesh,
but also globally. Across countries, similar patterns recur: bureaucratic
resistance rooted in colonial-era secrecy; weak record management; overbroad exemptions;
under-resourced oversight bodies; and political cultures uncomfortable with
scrutiny. Even mature democracies struggle with delayed disclosures and
administrative gatekeeping. The lesson from this is sobering but instructive:
transparency requires constant vigilance. This is more so in Bangladesh where
an interim government that came to power riding on popular support for
democracy and people’s power seems to have fallen into familiar patterns of
resistance to transparency and accountability.
Bangladesh’s experience
underscores another uncomfortable reality. While governments often champion
transparency rhetorically, commitment tends to waver when disclosure becomes
inconvenient. The absence of information commissioners for more than a year is
not a technical oversight; it reflects a deeper ambivalence towards
accountability. Restoring the commission with qualified, independent, and
adequately supported members is therefore essential, a task that the interim
government was well-placed to perform but failed to do. However, restoration
alone will not suffice unless accompanied by a clear political signal that the
RTI Act truly matters.
In this context, the
emergence of a citizens’ platform serves as a corrective to the state’s
failure. But civil society and citizens cannot, and should not, permanently
fill an institutional vacuum. However, history shows that reform is often
propelled from below. In the absence of formal enforcement, collective civic
action by an alert citizenry can keep the law alive, prevent further erosion,
and build pressure for institutional revival.
The timing is also
crucial. As Bangladesh approaches another political transition, commitments to
democratic governance will inevitably be tested again. Political parties,
policymakers, and public officials should recognise that a functioning RTI
regime is not a threat but an asset. Transparency enhances trust, improves
policy outcomes, and strengthens the legitimacy of public institutions.
Conversely, neglecting RTI fuels suspicion, alienation, and cynicism—costs no
society can afford.
The activists who gathered
in Dhaka on January 8 have issued a quiet but powerful reminder: that rights,
once granted, cannot be allowed to lapse through indifference. Their
determination to organise, support one another, and persist despite
institutional paralysis deserves not only admiration but also support from
civil society, the media, and all citizens who value accountable governance.
The RTI story for
Bangladesh in 2026 is still being written. It can either become a lullaby of a
democratic promise quietly allowed to fade, or a testament to how citizens can
revive a stalled reform through collective resolve. The choice lies not only with
the state, but with all of us. Transparency, after all, is not merely a legal
entitlement; it is a shared civic responsibility.
The forthcoming national
election provides a timely opportunity for political parties to renew their
pledge to the people for better governance, an objective that can best be
achieved with the active participation of citizens ready to unearth the failings,
inaction, negligence, misdeeds and outright corruption of public officials
entrusted with serving the public interest, through the effective use of the
RTI Act. But for the citizens’ resolve to be fully unleashed, political parties
aspiring to form the next government must make their commitment unmistakably
clear: that they are genuinely prepared to promote a participatory democracy in
which citizens are encouraged to act as vigilant watchdogs of good governance.
No other law matches the
scope of the RTI Act in enabling this vital democratic purpose. To demonstrate
their seriousness, political parties must commit that, if voted to power, they
will immediately fill the three vacant information commissioner posts with
independent, competent, and politically neutral individuals. Equally important
is a clear pledge to make the law more citizen-friendly by removing provisions
that obstruct transparency and deter accountability.
(Dr Shamsul Bari and Ruhi
Naz are chairman and deputy director (RTI), respectively, at Research
Initiatives, Bangladesh (RIB). They can be reached at rib@citech-bd.com.
Views expressed in this article are the author's
own.)
The Week: New Delhi: Thursday, 15 January 2026.
A large number of RTI
applications directed at the CGHS are landing on an abandoned
"parallel" portal "inadvertently" opened by the Department
of Personnel and Training (DoPT), leaving the applicants without any replies
and prompting the Central Information Commission (CIC) to order immediate
corrective measures.
In a series of orders in
the first week of January, Information Commissioner Jaya Varma Sinha was
informed by the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) that its headquarters
"neither received the instant RTI Application nor received the First Appeal
at the initial stage on their online CGHS portal" as the applicants had
filed those on "some other portal which has inadvertently been opened by
the DoPT" and which remains abandoned.
The CGHS added that
"their office has sent many requests to close the abandoned portal".
Many RTI applicants who
had sought various information from the CGHS in 2024 had not received any
response from the public authority, prompting them to approach the CIC with
their appeals.
Taking note of the
recurring issue, the CIC issued an advisory under section 25(5) of the Right to
Information (RTI) Act, stating that there exists "a parallel RTI portal
for the Respondent Public Authority, which has been abandoned, but few applicants
are still filing RTI applications on that portal".
The commission advised the
CGHS to initiate steps, in consultation with the DoPT, for the removal of the
abandoned portal and transferring the pending RTI applications to the active
system so that those can be dealt with in accordance with the Act.
The CIC noted that the
lapse surfaced only after hearing notices were issued by it.
"Upon receipt of the
hearing notice from the Commission, the Respondent ... has provided the
relevant information in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act to the
Appellant," one of the orders said.
In one appeal related to a
proposal to open a CGHS health centre in Punjab's Patiala, the CGHS told the
CIC that the RTI application and the first appeal were "not received on
online-RTI portal CGHS Delhi (Registration Code-CGHSD)" and were received
only along with the CIC notice. The applicant was later informed that the
health centre was approved.
In another matter
concerning queries on reimbursement and complaints under the Ayushman Bharat
scheme, the CGHS submitted that the information sought "does not pertain
to CGHS" and reiterated that the RTI application and the first appeal were
filed on the abandoned portal.
(This story has not been
edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)
Garhwal Post: Dehradun: Thursday, 15 January 2026.
 |
| By Dr BP Maithani |
In our democratic journey,
the Right to Information (RTI) Act of 2005 was hailed as a landmark
administrative reform. It represented a shift in the relationship between
citizens and the state turning secrecy and silence in public administration
into a regime of disclosure and accountability. The enactment of the RTI Act
was believed to be signalling a welcome change in the thinking of our policy
makers as it accepted the need to move from the culture of secrecy to greater
openness. The right to information had the widest possible reach, covering the
legislative, judiciary and executive branches of the governments as well as
non-government institutions receiving government grants and subsidies. The
access to information was extensive with maximum possible disclosure and
minimum exemptions. Few exemptions allowed under section 8 of the Act were also
not absolute as they could be subjected to public interest test – overriding
exemptions if the benefit of disclosure of information outweighed the harm
caused to the public authority or the protected interest. It was thus one of
the most progressive laws ever passed by parliament with stringent penalties
for failing to provide the required information or preventing access to
information in any way. The Act also imposed obligations on public authorities
to disseminate maximum information suo-motu with a view to reducing the cost to
the citizens and the work load of the public authorities. In the words of the
then Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, “The independent appeal mechanism along
with extensive disclosure obligations and the provision of punitive action
added teeth to the right, making RTI a potent instrument for good governance.”
Right to Information was seen as a “sunshine law” that could open up the vaults
of public power.
There was curiosity mixed
with apprehension in different quarters. The government of Uttarakhand was
prompt in initiating preparatory action immediately after the RTI Bill was
passed by the Parliament. A taskforce was constituted in the nodal department to
make systematic arrangements for creating required institutional infrastructure
for handling RTI requests of the citizens. The commitment of the high ranking
officers was total who had volunteered to be designated as Public Information
Officers (PIOs), and First Appeal Authorities (FAAs). Initially, the Chief
Secretary and the Principal Secretaries were designated as First Appeal
Authorities and the Secretaries/ Additional Secretaries as Public Information
Officers. The then Chief Secretary, Dr RS Tolia, took voluntary retirement one
year ahead of his active service and was appointed as the first Chief
Information Commissioner in the Uttarakhand Information Commission. However,
the euphoria did not last long. As soon as the citizens started exercising their
new found right under this law, the public authorities started feeling the heat
emanating from the information seekers and the dictates of the independent
appellate authority, the State Information Commission. The pressure mounted
over time as more and more users of RTI started seeking information
inconvenient to public authorities, disturbing their established “work
culture”. The feel good factor turned to souring of relations and soon the
public authorities became defensive and reactive.
This led to the dilution
of the commitment in the implementation of the RTI Act as senior officers
started relinquishing the responsibilities as PIOs and FAAs by delegating the
responsibility to the junior officers down to the level of section officers and
undersecretaries, thereby degrading the RTI implementation process. The main
reasons for not being able to cope with the challenge was noncompliance of the
mandate of maintaining the official records duly catalogued and indexed in a
manner which would have facilitated the supply of requisite information in
time, the mind-set of not revealing in-house secrets to outsiders and of course
the fear of exposing the irregularities committed under the opaque regime. This
set the new phase in the administration of RTI regime marked by tightening of
the grip on both the demand and the supply sides of RTI management. The demand
constrained was created by increasing threats, intimidation, assaults and
killing of RTI activists. RTI activists seeking public interest disclosures are
socially boycotted, mocked, abused and serially threatened. Two decades on, the
brutal reality of RTI implementation is that more than 100 RTI activists have
been killed in the country, 187 assaulted, 191 harassed or threatened. These
are the figures which are reported in the national dailies based on the report
of crime record bureaus. There must be many more such cases which go unrecorded
and reported. For example, 4 RTI activists killed by criminals in Uttarakhand
do not find mention in any report and are not known to the people even in
Dehradun. This was evident from the RTI debates conducted by the RTI Club in
the Universities and colleges where the students highlighted killing of RTI
activists in Bihar, Maharashtra, etc., but not in Uttarakhand. For the sake of
record, it would be appropriate to mention here the names of RTI martyrs of
Uttarakhand who were murdered for exposing corruption in the state. They are
(1) the late Jagdish Prasad Chauhan of Ferupur Village Haridwar on 14-02-2012,
(2) the late Raj Kumar Raheja of Karanpur village, Kashipur on 12-08-2013, (3)
the late Gajpal Singh of Kandola village, Pauri on 8-08-2014, and (4) the late
advocate Rajesh Suri of Dehradun on 30-11-2014.
Section 27 of RTI Act
authorises the appropriate governments to make rules to carry out the
provisions of the Act. But the rule making power of the state governments is
limited largely to fixing of the fee for seeking information and prescribing
the procedure for hearing and deciding appeals by the information commissions.
The Uttarakhand government while exercising its rules making power, notified
the new Rules in 2012 which totally distorted the whole process of seeking and
supplying information under the Act. The four page rules prescribed initially
in 2005 were expanded to 15 pages of guidelines making the procedure cumbersome
and difficult to carry out the provisions of the Act. It created the stalemate
in the implementation of RTI because State Information Commissioners resolved
not to adopt the new rules prescribed by the state government which were
against the very spirit of the Act. It took one full year of intense lobbying
by the Uttarakhand RTI Club and the State Information Commission, including judicial
intervention to get the Rules amended in 2013 to restore implementation
process. It is not that this type of antipathy towards RTI Act is prevalent in
Uttarakhand only. The situation in other states is much worse.
A study conducted by
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative shows that against the notional Rs 10
application fee charged by the central government and 24 state governments,
Arunachal Pradesh charges a whopping Rs 500 application fee for information
related to tenders, bids, quotations or business contracts and Rs 50 for other
information. Sikkim charges Rs 100, Haryana, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh Rs
50, and Odisha, Maharashtra and Gujarat charge Rs 20 application fee for
seeking information. Similarly, while the central government and 23 state
governments do not charge any fee for filing first appeal, some state
governments namely Sikkim, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh charge Rs 100, each,
Odisha Rs25 and Maharashtra Rs 20. Then there are States where State
Information Commissions are virtually defunct and states where pendency of
second appeals has mounted so much that it will take years for the appellants
to get their chance of hearing. This situation has arisen mainly because the
Information Commissions are grossly understaffed due to administrative neglect.
In Uttarakhand also the State Information Commission could not function for
months for want of the requisite Information Commissioners two times during the
last five years. The state of apathy is such that the activists are forced to
file public interest litigations in the courts to get the vacancies filled in
the Information Commissions. In 2023, advocate Anjali Bharadwaj had to file PIL
in the Supreme Court seeking filling up of 8 vacancies out of 11 sanctioned
posts in the Central Information Commission, which were lying vacant for a long
time. As a result, the pendency of second appeals had risen from 3134 on 1
November 2023 to 20,437 on 1 December 2024. When responses are delayed for
years the right becomes illusory. By 2024-`25, appeals and complaints pending
across states and central information commission have reportedly soared in to
hundreds of thousands.
Legislative amendment is
another pet tactic of bureaucrats` and politicians to get rid of the
inconvenient RTI queries. The first unsuccessful attempt to weaken the grip of
RTI was made early in 2006 when ‘opinion’ and ‘advice’, read file notes, were
sought to be excluded from the definition of information. Under the
bureaucratic pressure the cabinet had decided to remove file notes as an item
of information but due to strong resistance from the civil society
organisations, the cabinet decision was not notified. The political class too
has not been happy with the way the RTI Act became a potential tool in the
hands of citizens to demand accountability from public authorities. In 2010,
RTI activists Anil Bairwal and Subhash Chandra Agrawal had separately sought
information from some political parties about the donations received by them.
Barring CPI, all other parties responded saying that they did not come under
the purview of RTI Act and hence they were not obliged to provide the requisite
information. The duo filed appeals with the Central Information Commission
against the denial of information which resulted in the landmark ruling of the
CIC in 2013 declaring that the political parties fall under the ambit of the
RTI Act because formation and operation of the political parties is regulated
by the Election Commission which is a public authority. Besides the political
parties are also substantially financed directly and indirectly by the
government it said. This raised a storm in the political circles creating an
awkward situation in which the lawmakers themselves opposed the idea of being
governed by the law made by them. In view of the strident opposition of
political parties the government decided to amend the RTI Act to keep political
parties out of its purview stating that any association or body of individuals
registered or recognised as political party under the Representation of the
Peoples Act 1951 shall not be treated as Public Authority as defined under
section 2(h) of the RTI Act 2005.
The political class was
not satisfied with this liberty from RTI. In a discussion in the Rajya Sabha in
2016, some members asked if the government would consider amending RTI Act
since it was passed in a hurry in 2005 and is being misused by citizens who
with no locus standi (Paanwala, Chaiwala) end up asking the government
questions about the country`s missile system or international relations. It was
also said that RTI was preventing the officials from taking decisions and some
RTI activists have made it a business. Some MPs while venting ire against RTI
Act reportedly went to the extent of suggesting that the Act was passed under
US pressure. No wonder that the government effected a major degrading amendment
in 2019 in the RTI Act. With this amendment, the central government downgraded
the status of the Chief Information Commissioners and Information Commissioners
and gained discretion to determine the tenure, salaries and conditions of
service of the central and state information commissioners thus diminishing
their autonomy and increasing potential executive interference.
More recently, the Digital
Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act 2023 stealthily dilutes the core of the RTI
Act. Earlier, the RTI Act empowered citizens to access information about public
official`s credentials, assets and conduct if public interest so warranted. The
DPDP Act has amended some overlapping provisions especially section 8(1)(j) of
the RTI Act in a way that broadens exemptions under the cover of personal data.
The new Act creates a blanket exemption for personal information without an
overriding public interest test even if the person is known to be corrupt. DPDP
Act imposes fines up to Rs 250 crores for wrongful disclosure of personal data.
The fear of such harsh penalties will deter any PIO or appellate authority to
disclose requisite personal information of the erring person. The RTI Act is
based on the principle that, in democracy, the government holds information as
a custodian and all information by default belongs to citizens. The DPDP Act
weakens this premise by giving primacy to data protection and privacy often
overriding transparency. It thus undermines the basic democratic principle of
the rule of the people. It is unfortunate that the dilution of RTI Act through
legislatively amendments is being effected at a time when we pride ourselves to
be living in new India and when the country is aspiring to be a developed
nation by 2047. One of the indicators of a developed society is good
governance, free of corruption and characterised by equality, transparency and
accountability. Our ranking in the Transparency International`s corruption
index last year was 96 against previous year`s 93. This shows that we are
moving in the opposite direction.
The two decades of RTI Act
presents a story of both promise and challenge. Originally the law was
transformative. It empowered citizens to access information about working of
the state, strengthened accountability and opened the governance. But over time,
this promise has been undermined by institutional neglect and legislative
dilution. Yet all is not lost. The basic structure is intact. What is needed is
a renewed commitment both in law and practice.
(The writer is President,
RTI Club, Uttarakhand. Views expressed are personal)
The Indian Express: Chandigarh: Wednesday, 14th
January 2026.
Court grants interim
relief, issues notice to Punjab government in FIR linked to social media query
on official helicopter use
The Punjab and Haryana
High Court on Monday granted interim relief to a law student–RTI activist and
three journalists, staying further investigation in an FIR registered against
them over a social media post questioning the use of Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant
Singh Mann’s official helicopter during his absence abroad.
Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj
issued notice of motion to the State of Punjab, returnable on February 23.
The petitioners, namely,
Manik Goyal, a law student and RTI activist, and journalists Baljinder Singh
alias Mintu Gurusaria, Maninderjeet Singh and Mandeep Singh Makkar, had
approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR No. 67 of 2025. The FIR was registered
on December 12, 2025, at the Cyber Crime Police Station, Ludhiana, under
Sections 353(1), 353(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The case arises from a
social media post made by Goyal on December 9, 2025, flagging the movement of
the Chief Minister’s helicopter, bearing registration number VT-PSG, on
December 8. At the time, Chief Minister Mann was on an official visit to Japan
from December 1 to 10.
According to the
petitioners, the FIR “originates from a bona fide public query” raised by Goyal
regarding the use of the helicopter on a date when the Chief Minister was
“admittedly out of India on an official foreign delegation”.
The petition states that
the information shared in the post was sourced from FlightRadar24, a publicly
accessible and lawful flight-tracking platform. By entering the helicopter’s
registration number, Goyal observed that on December 8 the aircraft undertook
multiple sorties within Chandigarh, flew to Amritsar, travelled onward to
another location and then returned to Chandigarh. The post, the plea says,
merely shared publicly available data and raised issues of transparency in the
use of public resources.
The issue subsequently
triggered wider discussion, with the three journalist-petitioners raising
similar questions on their respective platforms and interviewing Goyal. The
petition alleges that instead of clarifying the matter, the State chose to
initiate criminal proceedings.
It further points out that
there is no private complainant in the case. The FIR, it says, was registered
solely on the complaint of a police officer, Inspector Satbir Singh, and does
not disclose any grievance raised by a member of the public. The plea also
claims that while the FIR acknowledges that the helicopter flew on the relevant
date and was used by a person holding a constitutional post, it conceals the
identity of that person and the purpose of the flight.
The petitioners argue that
even if the allegations in the FIR are accepted at face value, no cognisable
offence is made out. They contend that raising questions, sharing publicly
available information and participating in public debate are protected under
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and that the FIR is intended to stifle
dissent and independent journalism.
The plea also refers to
Goyal’s earlier attempts to seek information through RTI applications filed in
2024 regarding government expenditure on helicopters and aircraft since March
2022, which were rejected on the ground of security exemptions under Section 24
of the RTI Act.
Senior advocate R.S. Bains
argued the case for the petitioners, assisted by advocate Loveneet Thakur.
The interim order stays
all further proceedings in the FIR until the next date of hearing.
TMV: Article: Wednesday, 14th January 2026.
The Indian Railways has
informed the Central Information Commission (CIC) that its methodology for
calculating passenger train fares is a trade secret and falls under commercial
confidence, and therefore cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information
(RTI) Act.
The CIC’s observation came
while disposing of an RTI appeal seeking detailed information on the base fare
calculation mechanism, including dynamic pricing and Tatkal bookings, for train
tickets and specifically for the Paschim Superfast Express.
In its reply, the Railway
Board said fares are class-based, with variations arising from the facilities
provided in different classes. However, it maintained that the classification
and methodology of fare fixation are considered intellectual property and trade
secrets , making them exempt from disclosure under Section 8 of the RTI Act,
which protects sensitive information such as national security, trade secrets,
and personal privacy.
Railway officials cited
earlier CIC rulings that upheld the non-disclosure of pricing methodology,
emphasizing that Indian Railways functions as a commercial utility while
simultaneously fulfilling social obligations in the national interest . The
Railway Board’s Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO) added that disclosure
of detailed pricing mechanisms was not justified in public interest, since any
profit earned is transferred to the public rather than retained for private
gain.
While the Railways refused
to disclose its internal formulas, it provided general information on fare
policies , including that fares are determined according to travel class, are
influenced by Tatkal and dynamic pricing, and are guided by commercial
considerations balanced with public interest.
The CIC noted that the
appellant had already received all disclosable information and that authorities
are not required to create or interpret data beyond existing records. Finding
no infirmity in the Railway Board’s response and noting the appellant’s absence
during the hearing, Information Commissioner Swagat Das said no further
intervention was required and dismissed the appeal.
Bar and Bench: New Delhi: Wednesday, 14th
January 2026.
There cannot be any
difference between the privacy rights of a public or a private trust under the
RTI Act, the Court remarked.
The Delhi High Court on
Tuesday remarked that even if the PM Cares Fund is run or controlled by the
government, it would not lose the right to privacy under the Right to
Information Act (RTI Act) [Girish Mittal v CPIO Dy Commissioner of Income Tax].
A Division Bench of Chief
Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia clarified that it is
not talking about the right to privacy flowing from Article 21 of the
Constitution, but the right available to third parties under Section 8(1)(j) of
the RTI Act, which bars disclosure of personal information.
“Even if it is State,
merely because it is State, it does it lose its right to privacy… How can you
say that? Merely because there is an entity discharging certain public
functions, or if it is managed, supervised and controlled by the government, it
is still a juristic personality. How can you deny such a right [right to
privacy] conferred on it merely because it is a public authority,” the High
Court remarked.
Chief Justice Upadhyaya
explained that the RTI Act forbids information to be provided about third
parties and there cannot be any difference between the privacy rights of a
public or a private trust under the Act.
“Suppose there is a
society or a trust running a school or a football club. Would that society have
a right to privacy [under RTI Act] or not… Can you say that without notice to
that trust, this information can be given to you? You can't different between
the third parties. It can be a private individual, trust, body, society or a
cooperative society. It can be anything. Public or not, that would not
differentiate, as far as third-party rights under the RTI Act is concerned,”
the Court stressed.
The Bench made the remarks
while hearing an appeal seeking disclosure of information and documents
submitted by the PM CARES Fund while seeking exemption under the Income Tax
Act.
The Central Information
Commission had allowed the plea and directed the Income Tax Department to
disclose the information sought.
However, a single judge of
the High Court set aside the CIC directive.
In January 2024, the
single-judge ruled that CIC does not have the jurisdiction to direct furnishing
of information provided for in Section 138 of the Income Tax Act. It added that
Section 138 (2) of the Income Tax Act prevails over Section 22 of the Right to
Information Act (RTI Act).
The RTI applicant Girish
Mittal then moved the Division Bench against the single-judge directive.
Today, advocate Pranav
Sachdeva appeared for Mittal to argue the case. He said that PM Cares Fund is
not covered under the exemption granted in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and
that a public charitable trust established by the government cannot have the
right to privacy under this statute.
“Privacy of individuals is
to be protected. But this sort of entity [PM Cares Fund] will not have any
privacy,” he said.
Sachdeva added that the
protection under Section 138 of the Income Tax Act would not apply to the PM
CARES Fund, and even if it did, it would be overridden by Section 22 of the RTI
Act.
After hearing Sachdeva,
the Court listed the case for further hearing on February 10 when Additional
Solicitor General N Venkataraman will make the submissions for the Income Tax
Department.
ETV Bharat: Dehradun: Tuesday, 13th January
2026
Uttarakhand Information
Commission Directs Providing Of Information On Subordinate Judiciary Under RTI
(IANS). The personal identity or name of any judge or officer will not be made
public, and permission will have to be taken before providing information
In an important decision
taken in Uttarakhand under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Uttarakhand
Information Commission has directed the disclosure of information related to
complaints filed against officials and judges of the subordinate judiciary.
This will be the first time in the country that such information will be made
public. The appeal and order in the matter could set a precedent for the
country.
The December 29, 2025,
order, accessed by ETV Bharat, was passed under the chairmanship of Chief
Information Commissioner Radha Raturi.
The matter pertains to an
appeal filed by Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer Sanjeev Chaturvedi seeking
information on rules, complaints and action taken against the subordinate
judiciary.
The RTI application filed
by the appellant on May 14, 2025, sought information on the service rules,
conduct rules and disciplinary action procedures applicable to the subordinate
judiciary in Uttarakhand. It also sought information on where and how complaints
against judicial officers related to corruption or other matters are filed.
It was also sought how
many complaints were filed against officers and judges of the subordinate
judiciary between January 1, 2020 and April 15, 2025, and how many of these
cases resulted in the recommendation or implementation of disciplinary or
criminal action. The appellant had asked for certified copies of the file
notings and documents generated during the RTI application process.
However, the Public
Information Officer (PIO) did not provide the appellant with complete
information, stating that the information requested was confidential and
related to a third party. He also argued that permission from the competent
authority was required before providing such information.
Dissatisfied with this
response, the appellant filed a departmental appeal and then a second appeal
with the Information Commissioner, following which the directive was issued.
During the course of the
proceedings, where both the appellant and the PIO were present, the appellant
argued before the Commission that the information regarding the number of
complaints and their disposal process was in the public interest and could not
be considered confidential. The PIO reiterated that the complaints, involving
judicial officers, were sensitive and could not be made public without
permission.
After hearing arguments,
the Information Commission stated in its order that merely stating that
information is confidential is not sufficient grounds for withholding it. The
Commission acknowledged that information regarding the number of complaints and
the process for their disposal in the subordinate judiciary falls within the
scope of transparency.
However, the Commission
also clarified that the personal identity or name of any judge or officer will
not be made public. The Commission directed that necessary permission should be
obtained from the competent level before providing information regarding the
number of complaints and the process.
The Information Commission
has directed the PIO to provide the requested information to the appellant
within one month of obtaining permission from the competent authority. The
Commission also clarified that until such permission is granted, the appeal will
be considered partially accepted.
Experts believe this order
is an important step towards increasing transparency in the judicial system. It
will clarify how complaints are monitored and processed in the subordinate
judiciary. Furthermore, this order will set a precedent for individuals seeking
information related to judicial administration through RTI in future.
Moneylife: National: Tuesday, 13th January 2026
India's Right to
Information (RTI) Act empowers ordinary citizens to demand transparency from
government bodies and public authorities. However, the central information
commission (CIC) the final watchdog for RTI appeals now drowns under 32,232
pending cases as of January 2026. This includes 3,591 unresolved complaints and
a substantial 28,641 second-level appeals, with clearance projected at 40
months.
What the Shocking Numbers
Reveal
Picture this: In December
2025, CIC managed hearings for just 814 cases despite the mountain of backlog.
At this pace, it would take over three years exactly 40 months to wipe the
slate clean, assuming no new cases arrive. Second appeals, where citizens
challenge denials of information, make up nearly 90% of the pile, showing how
frustration builds when first-level appeals fail. For everyday people filing
RTIs about local issues like road repairs or pension delays, this means waiting
years for answers that may no longer matter.
Years of Skeleton Staff
Crippled CIC
The RTI Act clearly states
CIC should have one chief information commissioner and up to ten Information
commissioners to handle the load. Yet, as of late November 2025, only two
commissioners were active, leaving thousands of cases in limbo. The commission
last worked at full strength back in December 2016 almost a decade ago before
vacancies dragged on despite court orders. This chronic shortage let complaints
and appeals snowball, turning a quick redressal system into a bureaucratic
nightmare.
New Faces Bring Hope But
Will It Last?
Good news finally arrived
in December 2025: Raj Kumar Goyal was sworn in as the new chief, alongside
eight fresh information commissioners like Jaya Verma Sinha and Swagat Das.
This restored the full 11-member team after nine empty years, responding to Supreme
Court nudges over the 31,000+ backlog. As of early January 2026, these new
appointees were still settling in, but experts predict faster hearings ahead.
If they hit the ground running, the 40-month timeline could shrink
dramatically, breathing life back into RTI.
Rushed Hearings Hurt the
Common Man
Even when cases reach
hearing, problems persist. CIC schedules allot only two to five minutes per
matter barely enough time for an appellant to explain their side amid technical
glitches or incomplete records. Cause lists on the CIC website confirm this
tight squeeze, leaving many feeling unheard. For a farmer seeking crop subsidy
details or a student probing exam irregularities, such brevity discourages
follow-ups and erodes faith in the system.
Why This Threatens RTI's
Very Soul
Long waits make RTI a
joke: By the time information trickles in, elections pass, schemes change, or
issues fade. Applicants give up, officials dodge accountability, and corruption
festers unchecked. The backlog's root understaffing has been fixed on paper,
but success demands better processes, like longer hearings and real-time
tracking. Only then can RTI reclaim its role as the common man's weapon against
secrecy, ensuring government answers swiftly and fairly.
(Chandramouli Mohan
retired as a senior manager from a public sector bank after 38 years of service
in various capacities in several places across the country. He has been an RTI
and consumer activist since his retirement in March 2020.)
Amid activists'
allegations of inefficiency of the Right to Information (RTI) agency and
attempts to kill its purpose, the State government has initiated the process to
bolster the Tamil Nadu Information Commission by appointing two additional
Information Commissioners.
.JPG)
.JPG)
