Right to Information Must Be a Living Reality for Citizens — AG

Ghanaian Times: Ghana: Saturday, 25 October 2025.

Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Dr Dominic A. Ayine

The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Dr Dominic A. Ayine, has urged the Right to Information Commission (RTIC) to ensure that access to information becomes a practical reality for every Ghanaian, rather than just a legal provision.
“The Right to Information Commission (RTIC) must remain at the forefront of Ghana’s democratic progress, ensuring that access to information becomes not just a legal provision but a lived reality for every citizen,” he stated.

Dr Ayine (seventh from right) with Ga Mantse, King Tackie Teiko
Tsuru II (middle), Ms Lartey (fourth from left) and other dignitaries
after the opening ceremony Photo: Victor A. Buxton

Dr Ayine was addressing stakeholders in Accra at the RTIC’s fifth anniversary stakeholders’ conference on the theme: “RTI at 5: Championing Transparency and Accountability through Access to Environmental Information in a Digital Era.”
The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice stressed that the essence of the Right to Information Act, 2019 (Act 989) was to promote transparency, accountability, and good governance values that can only be achieved when the public accesses information without barriers.
He also urged the Commission to bring to public notice the existential threat the nation faces from environmental degradation, particularly from illegal mining and deforestation.
“Transparency in environmental governance allows citizens to understand the impact the Commission makes in disseminating environmental information, as a central pillar of its awareness campaigns,” he emphasized.
Dr Ayine commended the Commission for its numerous public education initiatives, cooperative engagements with institutions, and other efforts. He urged the Commission to remain innovative and resilient in fulfilling its mandate.
He further entreated the Commission not to allow its Five-Year Strategic Development Plan, titled “Pathway to Open and Transparent Governance,” to remain a document on the shelf but to make it a living blueprint that guides its operations toward measurable outcomes.
The Executive Secretary and Commissioner of RTI, Ms Genevieve Shirley Lartey, said that despite limited funding and logistical challenges, the Commission had made commendable strides by training hundreds of information officers, strengthening institutional frameworks, and providing continuous technical support to public institutions to ensure that Ghanaians were aware of the Act.
Ms Lartey stated that the Commission’s interventions have led to a steady increase in public requests for information, reflecting growing awareness and trust in the system.
She added that despite existing challenges, the Commission remained determined to realise its vision of ensuring equitable access to information.
Ms Lartey emphasized that the Commission was committed to deepening digital access, enhancing institutional transparency, and fostering citizen empowerment through technology and data.

Failure to Fill CIC Vacancies Negates RTI Act's Purpose: Transparency Activists Write to PM, LoP

The Wire: Delhi: Saturday, 25 October 2025.
The activists pointed out that eight commissioner posts have remained vacant since November 2023, despite repeated directions from the Supreme Court to ensure timely and transparent appointments.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has been operating with only two information commissioners since September 14. The post of the chief information commissioner and eight commissioners are currently vacant, a situation which transparency activists say “negates the very purpose of the RTI Act.”
In a letter addressed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and leader of opposition Rahul Gandhi, RTI activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri of Satark Nagrik Sangathan urged the government to fill all the nine vacancies “immediately” and “in a transparent manner.”
The activists pointed out that eight commissioner posts have remained vacant since November 2023, despite repeated directions from the Supreme Court to ensure timely and transparent appointments.
“The eight posts of information commissioners have been vacant since November 2023. As a result, the backlog of appeals/complaints has been increasing and is now nearly 30,000. Consequently, people are having to wait for a long time for disposal of their appeals/complaints. This negates the very purpose of the RTI Act, which is to ensure timebound access to information,” the activists wrote.
The CIC comprises of the chief information commissioner and not more than ten information commissioners. They are appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the prime minister as chairperson, the leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha and a Union cabinet minister nominated by the prime minister.
Supreme Court’s orders ignored
“The issue of persistent delays in filling vacant posts in information commissions across the country led the Supreme Court to note in October 2023 that the failure to appoint commissioners in a timely manner is leading to a situation where “the right to information which is recognised under an act of parliament becomes a dead letter”,” the activists underlined in the letter addressed to the members of the selection committee.
The apex court had mandated proactive disclosure of key details such as advertisements inviting applications, criteria adopted for shortlisting candidates, names of search committee members, and lists of applicants and shortlisted candidates. Moreover, after the appointment process, all the deliberations and files are required to be placed in the public domain, as per the Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling.
However, Bhardwaj and Johri said these directives have not been followed. “It is a matter of grave concern that in the appointment process currently underway, the names of applicants, short-listed candidates and the short-listing criteria have not been placed in the public domain.”
Again, on January 7, 2025, the court directed the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to file an affidavit outlining timelines for the selection process and to disclose the names of search committee members and applicants. Further, the Supreme Court ordered that the affidavit should specify that candidates who did not apply in response to the advertisement shall not be offered appointments.
Past appointments also mired in controversy
The letter also highlights previous irregularities in the appointment of commissioners. In November 2020, a candidate who had not applied in response to the official advertisement was reportedly shortlisted and appointed in a “completely arbitrary manner”.
In November 2023, appointments of the chief and two information commissioners were made without the participation of the leader of the opposition, even though the RTI Act mandates that the selection committee must include them.
“There is no provision in the RTI Act which allows for a truncated selection committee to make appointments,” the activists emphasised, contrasting it with the Lokpal Act, which explicitly allows for such exceptions, “wherein there is a specific clause saying that no appointment shall be invalid merely due to absence/vacancy in the selection committee.”
They called on the current selection committee to “ensure that the stipulated appointment process and the measures for ensuring transparency, as also directed by the Supreme Court, are complied with.”
Right to information undermined
The letter underscores that the RTI Act, one of the country’s most empowering legislations, is used extensively by people, including the poor and marginalised, to access information about their rights.
“It is imperative that the CIC function effectively with a full complement of commissioners, so that people seeking information from public authorities under the central government can exercise their fundamental right to information meaningfully,” the activists wrote.

The Potholes in Bengaluru Say Much About Our Right to Information : By Madan B. Lokur

The Wire India: National: Friday, 24 October 2025.
The municipal authorities and the contractors are clearly not accountable to anybody. It seems they are above the law or that the rule of law does not deter them from acting in the manner they do.

I read the news today, oh boy
Four thousand holes in Blackburn,
Lancashire
And though the holes were rather small
They had to count them all
Now they know how many holes it takes to
fill the Albert Hall.
Thus sang the Beatles in ‘A Day in the Life‘.
I read the news today about hundreds and thousands of holes in the roads in Bengaluru, Karnataka and remembered this song from the 1960s. How many holes will it take to fill the Greater Bengaluru Authority?
The latest rumour was the “offer” by Kiran Mazumdar Shaw to finance filling up the holes. Shaw has denied this. But shouldn’t the municipal authority in Bengaluru hang its head in shame? Is there anything called (mis)governance? Is there anything known as accountability?
Right to information
Ordinarily, it would have been easy to get the names of the contractors who had constructed these roads, when and what they were paid. The trick lay in an application under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). In fact, it would have even been easy to get the contracts entered into by the municipal authorities with the contractors and find out whether there was any clause for maintenance of the roads and for what period. Every resident of Bengaluru has a right to this information, more particularly (and tragically) after some scooterists toppled over and died while navigating a hole in the road. But the question is, will any resident be given the information or would it be denied on the grounds of privacy, a new buzzword of the establishment.
The farce going on in Bengaluru raises two questions of concern. The first concern is about the right to information. A recent Report Card released by the Satark Nagrik Sangathan relating to the RTI Act discloses a tragic state of affairs with vacancies in the position of Information Commissioners not only in the Central Information Commission but also in the State Information Commissions.
About Karnataka, less said the better. Instead of a full complement of 11 Information Commissioners, the Karnataka State Information Commission is functioning only with eight of them. There are more than 47,000 appeals and complaints pending at various stages. The estimated time required for disposal of a complaint/appeal is one year and nine months. So, by the time anybody obtains information about the contractor, the number of holes would probably have more than doubled.
Information versus privacy
Along with this is the additional concern of privacy. Should the name of the contractor be disclosed? Is it not in public interest to disclose the name of the contractor? Apparently it is not in public interest to reveal such information. Section 8 of the RTI Act permitted disclosure of personal information in the larger public interest. Now, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) comes in the way of getting any such information under the RTI Act. In a rather unusual legislative operation, Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amended Section 8 of the RTI Act. The effect of the amendment is that no public authority is obliged to give information which relates to personal information. The bar is absolute. So, even if somebody were to ask for the name of the contractor of a particular road, the municipal authorities can ensure rejection of the request in a few minutes and without the person having to wait for one year and nine months for the rejection. This is otherwise known as “instant justice” a term common in relation to fake encounters and also a synonym for “bulldozer justice” – in both situations, the result is instantaneous.
While on the issue of the right to information and privacy, it is worth recalling the preamble to the RTI Act. This reads:
“An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority…”
The amendment of the RTI Act through the DPDP Act effectively emasculates access to information and negates the promotion of transparency and accountability. I wonder if our legislators thought of this.
Concern of accountability
The second concern is about accountability. The municipal authorities and the contractors are clearly not accountable to anybody. It seems they are above the law or that the rule of law does not deter them from acting in the manner they do.
The law requires the government of the day to grant sanction to prosecute an errant officer. The problem of accountability in situations of violations of law is that sanction is rarely given, if at all. Once sanction is refused, only the court can set aside the refusal. It is common knowledge that our courts move at their own pace. Therefore, for a citizen to get a judgement in his or her favour and against the officer can take years through labyrinthine trial and appeal procedures. Thereafter, assuming sanction to prosecute is granted, the prosecution itself can take another several years. By that time, the litigant is exhausted and accountability loses its meaning.
Jurisprudence of accountability
It is high time we had a fresh look at the absence of accountability jurisprudence. There are several instances where high-handed actions have been taken by officers and officials with innocent persons having spent several years in jail. In hardly any case have the officers or officials paid for their illegality or unlawful activity. Perhaps the only case where substantive compensation was given to the victim of violations of the law, fabrication of evidence, was Nambi Narayanan who was awarded Rs 50 lakhs for his illegal arrest and harassment.
The Hindu recently published a review of the book The Cell and the Soul: A Prison Memoir by Anand Teltumbde. In the review, it is mentioned that the author wanted to sue a police officer for defaming him in a press conference, but the Maharashtra government denied him sanction to do so. Teltumbde says that he couldn’t help feeling dejected by a system not accountable to the people. He asks, “On what grounds can the government refuse anyone permission to prosecute an officer who had blatantly violated the law?”
On the other hand, G.N. Saibaba was prosecuted for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act without any sanction in accordance with law. Yet he was convicted and remained in jail for several years. Eventually the Bombay high court held that his prosecution was not in accordance with law since there was no sanction on record to prosecute him. Before he could be released from jail, the prosecution approached the Supreme Court and stalled his release. The Supreme Court required the Bombay high court to have a fresh look at his case and this time he was found not guilty on merits. The high court did not vary its conclusion that his prosecution was without appropriate sanction in accordance with law. Did Saibaba get any compensation? Was anybody held accountable for unlawfully prosecuting him?
One would expect the government of the day to suo motu identify the errant contractors and pin them down for the holes in the roads in Bengaluru and hold them accountable. But this appears to be a pipe dream.
(Madan B. Lokur is a former judge of the Supreme Court of India.)

At 20, RTI is a promise broken

Deccan Herald: Opinion: Friday, 24 October 2025.
Weakened by amendments and institutional neglect, the transformative law now risks being irrelevant

As India’s Right to Information (RTI) law completes 20 years, it has lost much of its potency and is facing an existential challenge. Hailed as a unique legislative measure that empowered citizens and sought to make governance transparent, the law has been rendered powerless through amendments by the government, efforts to stall its functioning, and a refusal to provide it with the necessary infrastructure and resources.
A progressive, transformative legislation such as the RTI law, which aligned with the country’s democratic system and the best principles of governance, should have been a cause for celebration on its 20th anniversary. Instead, it now presents an occasion to examine its failures and an uncertain future.
The picture is grim the Central Information Commission is without a head, and has only two commissioners where there should be 11. Over four lakh cases are pending across the country. Six information commissions became defunct at the state level in the last year. Applicants continue to be denied responses to queries made under the law. Deadlines prescribed for the responses are not adhered to, and those who violate them are not penalised. There have been multiple cases involving officials getting away with incorrect responses.
Citizens who seek information under the law continue to be attacked; scores of activists have been killed. A nexus formed among the officials, politicians, and vested interests has grown in strength, hindering the functioning of the law. These forces have also enjoyed the backing of governments that see the obstruction of information in their interest.
The Supreme Court’s directions towards corrective action have not yielded results. It has criticised the delay in official appointments and told the government to initiate timely action on the matter. But the situation remains unchanged. In 2019, the government assumed the powers to decide the salaries and service conditions of the Information Commissioners, making them virtually subordinate to the dispensation. When the Commission is stripped of powers to act independently, it stops serving the purpose it was created for. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 comes with provisions that curb the right to know under the RTI law, in the name of the right to privacy.
The RTI was envisioned to deepen democracy by holding governments accountable for their actions. The shrinking and progressive neutralisation of this law is part of a larger pattern, where democratic institutions and the foundational ideas of transparency and openness in governance are being systematically undermined.

NHRC Takes Note of RTI Activist’s Death After Abduction in Gujarat Written by: Shivam Sharma

Times Now: New Delhi: Thursday, 23 October 2025.
The Commission has observed that the contents of the news report, if true, raise a serious issue of violation of the human rights of the victim.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), India has taken suo motu cognizance of a media report that a differently-abled RTI activist was found dead in a canal after being abducted by unidentified persons from an area near his residence in the Tharad district, Gujarat on 12th October, 2025. Reportedly, the victim’s body was found in a canal on 14th October, 2025.
The Commission has observed that the contents of the news report, if true, raise a serious issue of violation of the human rights of the victim. Therefore, it has issued a notice to the Director General of Police, Gujarat, calling for a detailed report on the matter within two weeks.
According to the media report, carried on 15th October, 2025, the victim had filed complaints with the authorities regarding alleged forged beneficiary documents and other irregularities by the local builders in the slum redevelopment project under the Public-Private Partnership scheme.

RTI plea on hazardous waste unanswered for over 1 yr now: Bhopal activist

 Times of India: Bhopal: Thursday, 23 October 2025.

What should have taken 30 days has remained differed for over one year now. A Right to Information (RTI) application was submitted to the Bhopal Municipal Corporation (BMC) last year by Nitin Saxena seeking details on hazardous household waste management, including collection, disposal, and scientific handling from 2017-18 onwards. Despite the mandatory requirement under the RTI Act for a response within 30 days, BMC has yet to answer this application or provide the public records, claimed Saxena here on Wednesday.

Remove red-tapism in information requests

 New Indian Express: Editorials: Thursday, 23 October 2025.
The right to information is not a bureaucratic courtesy; it is a constitutional guarantee that empowers the citizen and disciplines the state

As of the end of 2024, total number of second appeals and complaints pending in Central information commission stands at 22,596
A villager’s seven-year wait for information ending in two appeals and an eventual dismissal by the Odisha Information Commission (OIC) has rightly drawn the ire of the Orissa High Court. The case, which the court last week sent back to the State Information Commissioner for a fresh hearing, stands as a travesty of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The story began in 2017, when a resident of Bhadrak district petitioned the state chief secretary, seeking removal of illegal encroachments from a government plot in his village. His representation set off a chain of administrative directions, but no real action followed. Left in the dark, he turned to the RTI Act in 2018 only to be told in the first appeal that “information is not available.”
Worse followed. In February 2024, the OIC chose to rely on a joint affidavit filed by the First Appellate Authority and the Public Information Officer to drop the matter altogether. That prompted the villager to seek judicial redress and the High Court did not mince words. It held that the OIC had “mechanically accepted” the state authorities’ version, ignoring glaring contradictions. “If such a stand of the state authorities is accepted at face value… without due scrutiny, the right of a citizen to get information as codified by the Act, 2005, would be a dead letter,” the court observed.
That sharp observation cuts to the heart of the problem. The RTI Act was enacted to “contain corruption and hold governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed.” When information commissions the very institutions meant to uphold the Act allow themselves to be “entrapped in officialdom and red-tapism,” as the court put it, they erode public faith in transparency itself.
This order should serve as a wake-up call to all state information commissions. The right to information is not a bureaucratic courtesy; it is a constitutional guarantee that empowers the citizen and disciplines the state. Transparency in public authorities is the cornerstone of accountable governance, and information remains the most powerful weapon in the citizen’s arsenal. To fulfil their mandate, information commissions must stand firmly independent of the administrative machinery not become a part of it.

Why Karnataka HC’s refusal to stay SIC’s order banning individual from future RTI requests unsettles a constitutional guarantee

The Leaflet: Bengaluru: Thursday, 23 October 2025.
While SICs/CIC may reject particular applications if they fall under the exceptions catalogued in the RTI Act, they cannot impose overarching bans on citizens' right to information.

ON OCTOBER 15, THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REFUSED to stay an order of the Karnataka State Information Commissioner (‘SIC’) blacklisting a person from making further requests for information under the Right to Information (‘RTI’) Act . While doing so, it emphasised that it will not permit the Act to be abused through the filing of an excessive number of applications (which in the present case was 476).
The High Court said that it would first examine the nature of the applications and hear the case on its merits before deciding whether the order was permissible. In taking such an accommodating stance towards the order, the Karnataka High Court seems to have missed a rather obvious legal position that the Act vouchsafes no power upon the State or Central Information Commission (‘CIC’) to debar individuals from exercising their right to information.
Unfortunately, this practice of blacklisting individuals on the grounds of alleged misuse of the Act is not unheard of. The first such order was passed as far back as 2010, when the Punjab SIC imposed a one-year ban on an RTI activist from seeking information under the Act. Since then, similar orders have been passed by the SICs of at least four more states – Delhi, Gujarat, Karnataka, and Odisha. These orders are generally justified on the ground that the person being debarred has ‘harassed employees’ under the Act, or ‘misused’/‘abused’ the provisions of the Act. This piece contests the validity of this practice. It avers that such orders are ultra vires to the Act and, by extension, the constitutional right to information.
Legal validity of the Orders
The right to information is a fundamental right recognised under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The RTI Act is a channelisation of that right into a concrete structure, allowing the smooth flow of public information to those seeking it. Any restriction placed upon the right should be constitutionally permitted and duly enacted by the legislation. Consequently, such limitations cannot stem from executive orders.
Which application(s) should be rejected for apparent misuse? Are all bound to be disposed of down the drain? Or only those where it is evident that the applications constitute misuse?
The Supreme Court has stressed a strict reading of limitations of fundamental rights and mandates that any such limitation must be clearly established by a legislative Act with minimal space for the executive’s discretion (See, for instance, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)). Keeping this sacrosanct proposition in mind, the argument is structured in two frames. First, it examines whether resisting information on the grounds of abuse of the Act by filing excessive applications (‘misuse exception’) is permissible. Second, it considers whether any penal consequences such as a future bar from exercising the right for such abuse are plausible.
The fanciful exception
The Act enumerates the process, scope, and limitations of the right. Under Section 8 of the Act, Public Authorities are exempted from furnishing information on certain subjects. The provision enumerates ten such subjects. These include information that is related to national security, may jeopardise international relations, is subjudice, involves personal information of third parties, and so on. Nothing even remotely similar to the ‘misuse exception’ finds mention in the Section. That being said, the judiciary has not been entirely averse to such an idea.
A noteworthy example is the Supreme Court’s decision in Indian Soaps & Toiletries Makers Assn. v Ozair Husain (2013), which concerned an appeal against a Delhi High Court decision that had ordered the Union government to ensure that the packaging of every drug explicitly clarifies whether its ingredients are of vegetarian or non-vegetarian origin. The top Court overturned the decision, holding that though there was a right to know, information could be furnished only “to the extent it is available and possible”. The Court exclaimed that otherwise, the various kinds of vegetarians in India (Jains, “eggetarians,” etc.) could also demand information about “the origin of a vegetarian ingredient.” Employing this sort of slippery slope argument, the SC implicitly recognised expediency and potential misuse that may overburden the State as a limitation on the right.
However, this decision does not relate to the Act. It dealt with the extent of the unsolicited and relevant information that must be provided to the general public. The Act, on the other hand, creates a conduit that allows individuals to demand information held by the Public Authorities through a pathway specially dedicated to this purpose. It sets up institutions that ensure dissemination of information without straining either the government or the seeker. Any stoppages in that pathway paved by the Act must be found in the Act itself, and ‘misuse’ as an exception is nowhere mentioned.
Notwithstanding this, the potential for the misuse of the Act has received judicial acknowledgement. In Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011), the Supreme Court dissuaded citizens from “[i]ndiscriminate and impractical demands”, which “would be counter-productive” and “result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information.” Overlooking the apathetic attitude of the Court towards the statutory duty of “collecting and furnishing information”, the words posture as paraenesis for proper use, and not law backed by sanctions.
Importantly, there are precedents of denying information on grounds beyond the limits of Section 8. The CIC in Mr Ramesh Chand Jain v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2012) cited the extra-statutory ground of previous conveyance of information to reject the application. This has further been approved by the Delhi High Court in Shishir Chand v. The Central Information Commission (2023) and has since become a recognised exception.
Since then, similar orders have been passed by the SICs of at least four more states Delhi, Gujarat, Karnataka, and Odisha.
Moreover, Section 7(9) of the Act accommodates administrative remedies against excessive or vexatious use, by allowing information that disproportionately diverts resources to be denied. Thus, a most favourable reading of the aforementioned facts, perhaps, may yield the hypothesis that the misuse of the Act by filing an excessive and vexatious number of petitions is a reason for denying information. But even if we were, for argument's sake, to concede this, a subtle difference between other exceptions and the misuse exception obscures the Act’s position.
All exceptions noted above, other than the misuse exception, are based on the substantial nature of the information requested. Therefore, it becomes easy to determine which applications are to be rejected. For instance, any application that seeks information already furnished to the applicant will not be accepted. The misuse exception is based on the seeker’s exploitative behaviour regarding the Act. In such scenarios, it would be difficult to determine which particular application must be rejected. Take, for instance, the Karnataka High Court decision mentioned at the onset. Which application(s) should be rejected for apparent misuse? Are all bound to be disposed of down the drain? Or only those where it is evident that the applications constitute misuse? Moreover, when can we say such abuse has taken place? Is it purely a question of the number of applications within a specific time frame, or something else?
These questions, inter alia, require legislative clarification to satisfy the stringent conditions set out in Shreya Singhal.
In accepting such restrictions, we recognise that rights unaccompanied by accountability can result in disorder.
Penalties
Penalties, however, are even less amenable to such interpretation. As mentioned at the start, no provision empowers the CIC/SIC to pass orders barring individuals from filing subsequent applications as a measure of punishment. The Act, interestingly, does empower the CIC/SIC to impose penalties (public inquiries or fines) on public officers if, while deciding appeals or complaints, it finds that the concerned officer has, without reasonable cause, refused to receive an application, failed to furnish information within the prescribed time, or maliciously denied the request for information (as per Section 20 of the Act).
Importantly, in Mohd. Shakeel Saifi v. PIO (2016), the CIC held that this provision could be invoked to penalise public officers who file malicious applications to harass co-workers. While the CIC insisted that public authorities must be wary of maliciously filed applications from anyone, it attached penal consequences only to those filed by public officers.
This may be an executive overreach. The Act provides for penal consequences only under specific circumstances i.e., when public officers shirk their statutory duty to furnish information without reasonable cause. In accessing information under the Act, the public officers are akin to every other citizen. Deploying Section 20 in such cases would treat public officers as a separate class of citizens and might very well transgress the principle of intelligible differentia under Article 14. This question, however, remains outside the scope of this piece.
On barring citizens from filing future applications, the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Shishir Chand is of much relevance. In that case, a citizen had filed multiple applications for information already provided to them, and, as a riposte, the SIC of the State barred them from filing any future application on the subject. The High Court overturned the sanction, asserting that CIC/SICs cannot ban citizens’ future exercising of their right. They may reject particular applications if they fall under the exceptions catalogued in the Act (including when the information has already been provided), but they cannot impose overarching bans on citizens' right to information.
Such orders allow the CIC/SICs to impose blanket bans on citizens’ right to information without any credible and clear criteria. The very determination of what constitutes ‘abuse’ is replete with vagueness. The absence of any clear statutory standard leaves such assessments open to subjective interpretation and arbitrary application, and chips away at the decision in Shreya Singhal. This is a paradigmatic example of executive overreach. In this case, the ‘misuse exception’, merely for rejecting applications, let alone orders inflicting blanket bans, ought to emerge from legislative Acts.
Conclusion
Penalties aimed at preventing the misuse of fundamental rights are not unprecedented. Courts occasionally issue gag orders, and statutes criminalise defamation or speech that offends religious sentiments. In accepting such restrictions, we recognise that rights unaccompanied by accountability can result in disorder. Yet, the Constitution accords fundamental rights a sanctity that shields them from the whims of executive convenience.
Orders blacklisting individuals from filing RTI applications whether temporary or permanent represent precisely that: an assertion of administrative ease over constitutional principle. If ‘misuse’ of the Act is indeed a genuine concern, the remedy lies in prompt legislative intervention, not in ultra vires executive sanctions.

Tanfed does not come under RTI: Info Commission

Times of India: Chennai: Thursday, 23 October 2025.
TN Cooperative Marketing Federation (Tanfed) will not come under the ambit of the RTI Act since it is neither substantially financed by state govt nor owned or controlled to declare it a public authority, state information commission ruled.

Rejecting an appeal filed by Neiveli-based petitioner B Jothibasu, who said state govt has substantial share capital (63 lakh) in Tanfed and hence is a public authority under Sec 2(h) of RTI, the commission accepted Tanfed's arguments that state govt's stake is less than 0.5% when the working capital, including borrowings of the federation, is taken into account. Tanfed submitted that it has borrowings to the tune of 130 crore, while the share capital is 3.77 crore, in which state govt has a share of 63 lakh.
Jothibasu filed an RTI plea in 2023 to Tanfed seeking information on fertilizer procurement by the federation. His plea was rejected on the claim that cooperative societies will not come under the RTI ambit. Since his first appeal was rejected on similar grounds, he approached the commission with his second appeal.
Information commissioner R Priyakumar, who disposed of the petition, cited the Supreme Court's judgement in the Thalapallam case in which the words "substantially financed" in the RTI Act were interpreted in such a way that the degree of financing must be actual, existing, positive, and real to a substantial extent, not moderate, ordinary, or tolerable. "Merely because TN govt holds a stake in Tanfed, which is not predominant or substantial, it cannot be decided that it becomes a public authority. If decided, the other members' right to privacy will be adversely affected. Particularly when an organization is in a competitive position in the market, it will adversely affect its right to maintain its trade secrets and other organizational secrets," the order said. The appeal was quashed on the basis that the appellant failed to prove beyond doubt that the organization in question was a public authority.

RTI a significant gift to new generation, says former judge

The Hindu: Kozhikode: Thursday, 23 October 2025.

Former Kerala High Court judge R. Basant inaugurating a
seminar on the RTI Act, organised by the State Information
Commission to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the
Act, in Kozhikode on Wednesday. K. Ragesh

Former Kerala High Court judge R. Basant said that the Right to Information (RTI) Act strengthened democracy in the country and played a major role in exposing corruption.
Inaugurating a seminar on the RTI Act organised by the State Information Commission, commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Act in Kozhikode on Wednesday, Mr. Basant said RTI was the greatest gift to the new generation and urged the public to use it strongly. “The RTI Act had a deep impact on administration and politics in the country. It could ensure transparency in administration and reduce corruption,” he said and urged the public to use it more seriously and not to misuse it.
Chief Information Commissioner V. Hari Nair presided over the seminar. District Collector Snehil Kumar Singh delivered the keynote address. State Information Commissioners T.K. Ramakrishnan and M. Sreekumar spoke.

70% Students Fail Class 10 Under Delhi’s NIOS Project in 4 Years, RTI Reveals

 Times Now: Delhi: Wednesday, 22 October 2025.
A Delhi government initiative aimed at helping academically weaker students has seen poor results, with only 3 in 10 students clearing the NIOS Class 10 exams between 2020 and 2023, according to RTI data.

Under the ‘NIOS Project,’ an average of 70 per cent of students who took the 10th Class examination have failed in the last four years this was revealed by the Delhi Directorate of Education (DoE) in response to a Right to Information (RTI) application filed by PTI.
The project was launched by the Delhi government to reduce the rate of students failing in the 9th and 10th grades and the number of students dropping out of school.
Under this project, students who fail in the 9th and 10th grades and those who are weak in academics are registered with the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS) and separate classes are held for them.
The Directorate informed that 8,563 children were registered in 2017, 18,344 in 2018, 18,624 in 2019, 15,061 in 2020, 11,322 in 2021, 10,598 in 2022 and 29,436 in 2023 under the project. As per the information received through RTI, only 3,748 students could pass the examination in 2017, 12,096 in 2018, 17,737 in 2019, 14,995 in 2020, 2,760 in 2021, 3,480 in 2022 and 7,658 in 2023. This shows that in the last four years, only 30% of NIOS students passed the exam.

The principals of the respective schools are responsible for registering students under this scheme.
For students registering under the NIOS Project, an examination fee of Rs 500 per subject has been set. If a subject includes practicals, such as painting, home science or computer science, an additional Rs 120 is required for each practical subject.
In addition, the registration fee for five subjects is Rs 500, with an additional Rs 200 per subject, and a separate Rs 230 per subject is charged for Transfer of Credit (TOC).
A teacher from a government school in Delhi, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, “There are two main reasons behind children’s failure. The first is no coordination.” He explained that teachers associated with the project do not inform the parents of registered children whether their children are attending school or not.
Another reason, he said, is that students involved in the project do not experience the same school environment as other children, as teachers do not hold classes for academically weaker students.
Besides this, a major factor is that the principals, to improve their school’s 10th-grade results, enrol students in NIOS who are weak in their studies. This separates these children from other students, the teacher pointed out.
Ashok Agarwal, president of the All India Parents Association and a senior advocate at the Delhi High Court, told the agency, “Weak children from poor families come to school for regular education, but to improve their 10th grade results, government schools select these students and send them to NIOS, which offers a very substandard curriculum, unlike the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) curriculum.” Aggarwal said that even if children pass the exam, they will only be admitted to the Arts stream in 11th grade. He said that the NIOS project is a gamble with the future of children.
Deputy Director (DDE) of the NIOS Project at the Delhi Directorate of Education, Hari Ram Sharma, could not be contacted despite repeated attempts.

Arappor Iyakkam alleges threats to RTI petitioners in Tiruvannamalai and Tirunelveli

 DT Next: Chennai: Wednesday, 22 October 2025.
In a similar incident, A Thiruselvan from Irrukkandurai panchayat, Tirunelveli district, had sought copies of the approved quarrying plan and implementation details of a local panchayat resolution

Activists of Arappor Iyakkam on Tuesday showed their
findings based on the RTI reply to the media (File photo)

Arappor Iyakkam has urged the State government to take immediate action to protect citizens who file Right to Information (RTI) applications, citing a series of incidents in which applicants were allegedly threatened after their identities were revealed by Public Information Officers (PIOs).
In a letter addressed to the Chief Minister, the organisation’s convenor, Jayaram Venkatesan, said that the identity of RTI applicants continued to be compromised by government officials despite repeated directions from the Centre since 2011 and a Calcutta High Court order in 2014 prohibiting disclosure.
“Day in and day out, people seeking information under RTI face threats. PIOs continue to reveal the identity of applicants to vested interests, who in turn intimidate or even attack them,” the letter stated.
The organisation cited three recent cases. In Keezhpennathur, Tiruvannamalai district, Janakiraman, who sought details under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana and Amrut 2.0 schemes, was allegedly summoned by Town Panchayat President Saravanan and other staff and pressured to give a written promise not to file RTIs again. His family members continue to face reminders to submit the letter.
Another Keezhpennathur resident, Ajith Kumar, who sought information on Town Panchayat funds, was similarly threatened through his family and asked to withdraw from seeking information.
In Tirunelveli, A Thiruchelvan, who filed an RTI seeking quarry approvals, was allegedly threatened by quarry owner Peter Robin, who warned his son Tony against filing such applications. A complaint was lodged with the Sub-Collector, but the action taken remains unclear.
Arappor Iyakkam has sought disciplinary action against the PIOs and officials who disclosed applicants’ identities, as well as against those who issued threats. The organisation also called for the protection of the affected applicants and the early implementation of a Whistleblower Protection Act to safeguard RTI activists and honest public servants.
“The government’s silence in this regard would only mean tacit approval of this violation,” the letter warned.

Big cat, big loss: In 4 years, Maharashtra has lost 142 tigers, 537 leopards, reveals RTI query

Times of India: Nagpur: Tuesday, 21^St October 2025.
In a worrying trend, accidents, poaching, and electrocution accounted for a significant number of 142 tiger and 537 leopard deaths reported in Maharashtra from Jan 2022 to Sept 2025. The big cat fatality data was provided by the principal chief conservator of forests (PCCF), Nagpur, in response to a Right to Information (RTI) query.

The report states that 35 tigers and 115 leopards have died in Maharashtra this year till Sept. In comparison, 26 tiger deaths were reported in 2024, 52 in 2023, and 29 in 2022. Among this year’s tiger deaths, 21 were due to natural causes, five from accidents, another five linked to electrocution and poaching, and four due to unspecified reasons.
Of the 142 tiger fatalities reported since 2022, natural deaths accounted for 84 cases, while 23 were killed in accidents and 29 fell to poaching. In six cases, the cause of death remained unclear. Experts say poachers commonly use electrocution and traps in forest fringes.
“Poachers target big cats mainly for their body parts and claws, which have high value in the black market. They are also killed to prevent attacks on livestock,” said a wildlife crime analyst.
Leopard deaths, which stood at 115 so far in 2025, included 44 from natural causes, 42 from accidents, two from hunting, three from electrocution, and 21 from other causes. In the past, the state had recorded 144 leopard deaths in 2024, 138 in 2023, and 140 in 2022.
The data was issued in response to a RTI filed by Abhay Kolarkar.
The data confirms that Maharashtra’s tiger population stands at 444, as per ‘Status of Tigers in India 2022’ report published by the National Tiger Conservation Authority. Officials said most natural deaths are linked to intra-species conflicts, old age, and diseases, while accidental deaths involve vehicle hits and electrocution near forest fringes. Experts also attributed the high accident rate to highways and railway lines passing through wildlife corridors.

"Caution must be exercised while responding to questions under RTI": No replies that would embarrass government, says Home Department

Kerala Kaumudi: Thiruvananthapuram: Tuesday, 21^St October 2025.

The Home Department has asked to exercise caution while responding to questions under the Right to Information Act on issues that put pressure on the government. The warning comes in the backdrop of the government being put on the defensive by the RTI reply that there was no police investigation into the Thrissur Pooram disruption.
DySP MS Santosh, who was the Public Information Officer at the police headquarters, was first suspended and later recalled and warned. In this order, the Home Department makes it clear that there should be no replies that would embarrass the government.
Although such instructions are given secretly, this is the first time it is said so in a government order. There are allegations that this instruction destroys the essence of the Right to Information Act.
A channel reporter had raised five questions regarding the Thrissur Pooram disruption investigation and the transfer of the Thrissur City Police Commissioner. Before the Junior Superintendent of the section could reply, the DySP gave incomplete information. "The Thrissur City Police did not conduct an investigation into the Pooram disruption. Therefore, the information is not available there."- This was the reply. The application was forwarded to the Thrissur Commissioner's office as well. The ADGP in charge of law and order was investigating Pooram disruption on the instructions of the Chief Minister.
Lack of vigilance by the DySP
The government assessed that the DySP had recklessly shirk his responsibility and had not exercised due care and caution. The misunderstanding that no investigation was being conducted in the Pooram disruption had spread throughout the state. The failure to send the question regarding the transfer of the Thrissur Commissioner to the government for a reply was also a lapse.
Order is illegal
The law states that RTI officers in government offices should work under the control of the RTI Commission. The government cannot dictate how the reply should be. It was alleged that the government order is contrary to this.

• It is the Right to Information Commission that should take action if the officer gives a wrong answer. It was against this that the DySP was suspended and later taken back and warned.
  
• Officers are protected under Section-21 of the Right to Information Act for actions taken in good faith. The law states that no lawsuit or prosecution can stand against them.
  

"I disposed of 5699 applications and 88 appeals expeditiously while serving as the Information Officer at the Police Headquarters from August 12, 2021 to September 19, 2024. I have not been fined or punished by the Right to Information Commission." - DySP Santosh's reply to the government

Jammu Kashmir Assembly Denies RTI Plea, Cites Legislative Privilege Over Question Details

 Kashmir Life: Srinagar: Tuesday, 21^St October 2025.

Jammu Kashmir Legislative Assembly at Jammu

In its reply to an application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Assembly Secretariat cited Section 8(1)(c) of the transparency law to deny details of the questions disallowed by the Speaker during the budget session held in March–April this year.
“The information sought comes under the exemption clause in terms of Section 8(1)(c) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which applies to the non-disclosure of information whose disclosure would breach the privilege of Parliament or State Legislature,” the Assembly Secretariat stated in its response.
It further explained that the exemption is intended to shield the Assembly’s proceedings from external interference.
“This exemption ensures that the Legislature can conduct its proceedings without external interference by preventing the disclosure of information protected by legislative privilege,” said the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Assembly Secretariat, citing inputs from the Question Branch.
The application was filed by Syed Adil, an activist from Central Kashmir’s Ganderbal district. He had sought details of the questions that were disallowed, along with the names of the MLAs who had submitted them and the reasons for their disallowance. (KNO)

GST Return Data Not Accessible under RTI unless Covered By S. 158(3) Or Supported By Larger Public Interest: Bombay HC

 Taxscan: Bombay: Tuesday, 21^St October 2025.
Bombay High Court held that GST return data is confidential and cannot be disclosed under RTI unless it falls within Section 158(3) of the GST Act or serves a larger public interest.

In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court held that GST return data is confidential and cannot be accessed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 unless the case falls within the exceptions mentioned in Section 158(3) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or is supported by a larger public interest.
Adarsh S/o Gautam Pimpare, the petitioner, filed a writ petition challenging the orders passed by the Assistant State Tax Commissioner, the Deputy State Tax Commissioner, and the State Information Commissioner. The petitioner had filed an RTI application seeking information on the GST submissions of six industries in Udgir, District Latur, from the financial years 2008 to 2023.
The petitioner argued that GST returns are public documents and that the information should have been provided without issuing notices to the concerned industries. They claimed that the industries had obtained government tenders by manipulating documents and by not submitting proper GST returns, which led to misuse of public funds. The counsel further argued that the information was necessary to substantiate these irregularities.
The respondents argued that the information sought was third-party information protected under Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of the RTI Act and that Section 158(1) of the GST Act expressly prohibits disclosure of GST returns except in the circumstances mentioned under Section 158(3). They submitted that the petitioner’s allegations were unsupported by evidence and that there was no element of public interest involved to justify disclosure.
The Bench comprising Justice Arun R. Pedneker observed that the Public Information Officer acted correctly by issuing notices to the concerned industries under Section 11 of the RTI Act since the information requested related to third parties.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481, the court explained that Sections 8 and 11 of the RTI Act must be read together and that third-party information should be treated as confidential unless its disclosure serves a larger public interest.
The court further explained that Section 158(1) of the GST Act clearly restricts the disclosure of GST returns and related documents to third parties. Being a special and later enactment, the GST Act prevails over the RTI Act.
The court observed that the petitioner’s allegations of large-scale fraud were bald and unsubstantiated, and that no larger public interest was demonstrated to justify disclosure of the information sought.
The court held that the authorities had acted in accordance with the law and that the petitioner had failed to establish any valid ground for disclosure. The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.

RTI : In Maharashtra, 12,431 men got benefits under govt’s flagship scheme for women - Written by Vallabh Ozarkar

The Indian Express: Article: Tuesday, 21^St October 2025.
In all, the RTI response shows that 12,431 men and 77,980 women were wrongly disbursed Rs 1,500 for 13 months and 12 months, respectively.

The scheme grants Rs 1,500 per month to women aged 21-65
from families earning below `2.5 lakh annually
(Express/Amit Chakravarty)

The Maharashtra government has found that at least 12,431 men were granted benefits under its flagship Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana the scheme for women that gives Rs 1,500 every month to those aged 21-65 from families earning less than Rs 2.5 lakh annually, according to data accessed by The Indian Express under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Responding to RTI queries from this newspaper, the Women and Child Development (WCD) Department, which runs the scheme, stated that these men have been removed from the list of beneficiaries, following verification, along with 77,980 women who were also identified as ineligible.
In all, the RTI response shows that 12,431 men and 77,980 women were wrongly disbursed Rs 1,500 for 13 months and 12 months, respectively, under the scheme this works out to around Rs 24.24 crore for men, about Rs 140.28 crore for women, and at least Rs 164.52 crore overall.
The scheme was launched in June 2024, four months before the Assembly elections. In August 2024, the government announced an outlay of Rs 199.81 for the scheme’s publicity campaign. At the time, the Shiv Sena-BJP Mahayuti government under then Chief Minister Eknath Shinde had faced flak from the Opposition, which described it as a pre-election populist measure.
Currently, approximately 2.41 crore women receive benefits under the scheme, costing the government nearly Rs 3,700 crore per month.
In a separate RTI response, the WCD Department stated that at least 2,400 government employees, including men, were among those who availed undue benefits under the scheme and that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against them.
However, no action or recovery process has been initiated yet in any case of wrongful disbursement, the RTI response stated.
On August 25 this year, the state’s Women Child Development Minister Aditi Tatkare had posted in Marathi on X that “out of the beneficiaries under the Mukhyamantri Majhi Ladki Bahin Yojana, preliminary information from the Department of Information and Technology showed that around 26 lakh beneficiaries do not appear to meet the scheme’s eligibility criteria… across all districts in the state”.
She further wrote that “the Women and Child Development Department has provided the preliminary data to the respective district authorities for physical verification. Based on the detailed verification at the regional level, the eligibility or ineligibility of these beneficiaries will be confirmed”.
The Minister had posted that “after verification, those found ineligible will face appropriate action under the guidance of Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, Deputy CM Eknath Shinde, and Deputy CM Ajit Pawar, while eligible beneficiaries will continue to receive benefits”.
Asked about the RTI data, a state government official described the irregularity as the “tip of the iceberg”. “We are yet to calculate the total amount paid to these ineligible accounts. These figures may rise as verification continues,” the official said, adding that disbursement of funds to 26.34 lakh suspect accounts was suspended in June-July 2025 pending verification.
In the case of men claiming benefits, officials blamed the lack of adequate checks and balances as the scheme was rolled out. In one of the RTI responses, the WCD said male beneficiaries received monthly payments of Rs 1,500 each from July 2024 to July 2025.
“An estimated 12,431 men have availed benefits under the scheme. Benefits to male beneficiaries were stopped from July 2025. No decision has yet been taken at the government level regarding recovery of funds,” it stated.
In another response, the WCD Department stated: “Under the scheme, an estimated 77,980 women beneficiaries have been declared ineligible. They were found ineligible based on government resolutions dated June 28, July 3 and July 12, 2024, which outlines the eligibility and ineligibility criteria. Action against these beneficiaries is yet to be decided at the state level.”
Officials told this newspaper that the “irregularities” were uncovered during a verification exercise that mainly identified submission of wrong data, and misrepresentation of income and assets, as reasons behind the misuse of the scheme.
“Some beneficiaries were availing multiple government schemes at the same time. In several households, more than two members were receiving benefits. Thousands of government staffers were found taking benefits despite being ineligible. Some had annual incomes exceeding ?2.5 lakh,” an official said.
On the government employees among beneficiaries, the RTI response stated that they were found across multiple departments, including “six in Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & Fisheries, 219 in Commissioner of Social Welfare, 47 in Commissioner of Tribal Development, 128 in Commissionerate of Agriculture, 817 in Directorate of Ayurveda… 1,183 are Zilla Parishads”.
“Several more names have surfaced during data reconciliation and are under scrutiny,” the official said, adding that “to prevent further misuse, a statewide e-KYC verification drive has been launched for all existing and new beneficiaries which will be completed soon”.