RTI key to ensuring human rights, good governance : Muhammad Zamir

Financial Express: Bangladesh: Monday, 22 December 2025.
We have recently celebrated Human Rights Day in Bangladesh. In this context, several legal analysts as well as social icons have underlined the importance and significance of transparency, culpability and accountability. There have also been references throughout the world pertaining to free speech and Right to Information to enable those seeking upholding of human rights to receive the requisite attention.

In this context one needs to refer to an observation made by Sultana Kamal- "Without building that space free from fear and oppression, talk of dignity, justice or equality will remain hollow". Similarly, Barrister and Legal Analyst Sara Hossain has pointed out that Human Rights encompasses not only the rights to life and liberty, but also equality and non-discrimination. She has also underlined the need for economic, social and cultural rights.
The evolution of the digitalised world has brought with it different connotations. There is now an agreed understanding that the process of governance should not only be transparent in decision making, but also that the outcome of implementation of such decisions, has to be consistent with accountability. This awareness has arisen from the sensitisation that the real authority within a country rests with its citizens and within an institution with its stakeholders. Consequently, today, special emphasis is laid on how governance should be carried out and whether it is being done responsibly and meaningfully.
There have been attempts on different occasions to broadly describe good governance. Some have referred to it as an 'indeterminate term used in international development literature to describe how public institutions conduct public affairs and manage public resources in order to guarantee the realisation of human rights'. Governance has also been labelled as "the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented)". It has also been agreed by academics that the term governance 'can apply to corporate, international, national, local governance or to the interactions between other sectors of society'. The term "good governance" has also lately found acceptance as a benchmark of behaviour whereby it can be used as a model to compare ineffective economies or political bodies with viable economies and political bodies.
Such a distinction is often undertaken on the basis of the premise that liberal democratic States concentrated in Western Europe, Japan, Canada and the USA, often possess institutions that rely on open governance and accountability that can act as standards by which to compare other States' institutions when talking about governance.
Good governance can generally imply many things in different contexts. In international affairs, analysis of good governance can look at any of the following relationships - between governments and markets, between governments and citizens, between governments and the private or voluntary sector, between elected officials and appointed officials, between local institutions and urban and rural dwellers, between legislature and executive branches, and between nation states and institutions.
The varying types of comparisons comprising the analysis of governance in scholastic and practical discussion can also cause the meaning of "good governance" to vary greatly from practitioner to practitioner. There is consensus however that three institutions function as integral parts within its equation - the State, the private sector and civil society.
It may be noted however that the need and demand for reform within the matrix can vary depending on the priorities of each country's society and that in turn will determine the required various types of governance reform.
In this context, it would be useful to recall that the International Monetary Fund (IMF)'s declaration of 1996 noted- "promoting good governance in all its aspects", includes "ensuring the rule of law, improving the efficiency and accountability of the public sector, and tackling corruption, as essential elements of a framework within which economies can prosper." The IMF, through this view, underlined that corruption within economies is caused by the ineffective governance of the economy, either too much regulation or too little regulation. As a result, it is generally accepted that to receive loans from the IMF, countries must have certain good governance policies, as determined by the IMF, in place.
The United Nations also emphasises on good governance for achieving required reform in human development and political institutions. According to the UN, good governance has eight characteristics. It has to be: consensus oriented, participatory, accountable, transparent, responsive, equitable and inclusive, while upholding the rule of law.
The World Bank is more concerned on the other hand with the reform of economic and social resource control. In 1992, it underlined three aspects of society which they felt affected the nature of a country's governance - 'type of political regime; process by which authority is exercised in the management of the economic and social resources, with a view to development; and capacity of governments to formulate policies and have them effectively implemented'.
The stipulations indicated in the preceding paragraphs can appear to be restrictive to some but these factors are stressed on because it is felt that there is a close link between poor governance and corruption.
At the same time, concepts such as civil society, decentralisation, peaceful conflict management and accountability are also used for defining the concept of good governance. Consequently, at times, emphasis on good governance is equated with promoting democratic government. In this context, one needs to underline the significant part that will have to be played by political parties within the democratic system.
They have a pivotal role in the State's development, either negatively (e.g. organising and instigating violence) or positively (e.g. by leading dialogue in a fractured society). However, differences in approach should not lead to a fractured situation. This can then affect governance and create instability.
We need to understand that responsible behaviour on the part of those associated with politics is a prerequisite for economic development. The identifying of problem areas and discovering requisite solutions require sometimes a bi-partisan approach and open discussion within the Parliament. If this does not take place, it affects growth and potential foreign direct investment. It also leads to unnecessary recriminations that are best avoided than undertaken.
It would be worthwhile to recall the observations made earlier by analyst Nayef Al- Rodhan and the proposed eight minimum criteria for ensuring good national governance. They are- a) participation, equity, and inclusiveness, b) rule of law, c) separation of powers, d) free, independent, and responsible media, e) government legitimacy, f) accountability, g) transparency, and h) limiting the distorting effect of money in politics. These factors can be also described as expressions of the fundamental values of democracy and more liberal constitutionalism.
Any discussion about good governance should also include references to corporate governance. Deterioration in standards within this framework can greatly affect good governance and the sense of responsibility and accountability within the broader context. In this context there is general anxiety about the ill-equipped structure that exists within Bangladesh's corporate governance infrastructure. This definitely reduces the ability of certain participants to successfully overcome inbuilt challenges.
One must not forget that the attempt to create good governance was taken forward in Bangladesh with the adoption of the Right to Information Act, 2009 and the constitution of the Information Commission.
 It needs to be understood that the importance of the RTI Act lies in the recognition and protection of the constitutional rights of citizens, a challenge to the culture of secrecy, a change in the mindset of government officials and NGOs, and the empowerment of people to overcome the culture of silence. This is most likely to reduce corruption, improve governance and strengthen democracy. This approach includes - ensuring public health accountability, best use of resources, strengthening service providers, reducing poverty and ensuring transparency and liability in all government, non-government offices and autonomous organisations.
This facilitated transparency and accountability within the government institutions and Non-governmental Organisations which receive funding either from the government or from external partners (foreign funding).
The Act however did not cover the private corporate sector. This, by implication, restricted the process of proactive disclosure. This is a drawback that needs to be remedied. I believe that if the Act can be amended, it will then improve corporate governance and also reduce corruption.
No discussion about good governance will however be complete without touching on the important issues of the relationship between the Executive and the Legislature and also the fundamental relationship between the Executive and the Judiciary. These Organs play a fundamental role not only in the upholding of human rights but also the fundamental principles and the fundamental rights as enunciated in the Constitution. It is this necessity that demands non-interference in the activities expected from each of these Organs. It is only through this that the hopes and aspirations of the people can be guaranteed.
Another important element that helps to strengthen the prospect of human rights and good governance is decentralisation. A top-down approach, without necessary dialogue with those at the grassroots level, can sometimes lead to wrong or misplaced strategic initiatives. On the other hand, a participatory decision making arrangement, after consultation with all stakeholders will be better for governance for all parties at different tiers. This is unfortunately forgotten at times and leads to complications.
One cannot conclude any discussion on the subject of good governance and human rights without referring to the need for establishing an Ombudsman, who can be impartial, rise above partisan politics and ensure accountability within the system of governance. Article 77 of our Constitution suggests that the Parliament may, by law, provide for the establishment of the office of Ombudsman. Consistent with this principle, the Ombudsman is expected to exercise such powers and perform such functions as Parliament may, by law, determine, including the power to investigate any action taken by a Ministry, a public officer or a statutory public authority.
This concept has proven to be very successful in the Scandinavian countries, particularly in Sweden and Norway and has extended the reach of efficient and corruption-free governance in these nations. We should also seriously consider replicating this in Bangladesh. The presence of an Ombudsman would not only ensure true independence for bodies like the Anti-Corruption Commission and the Public Service Commission but also guarantee lack of external interference pertaining to their activities.
There also needs to be revival of a strong and efficient Human Rights Commission and a functional Information Commission in Bangladesh. That is absolutely necessary.
(Muhammad Zamir, a former Ambassador is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance, can be reached at muhammadzamir0@gmail.com)

Two decades on, RTI faces systemic dilution : Deepender Deswal

Tribune India: Haryana: Monday, 22 December 2025.
Enacted to ensure transparency and empower citizens through access to official records, the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 was once seen as a formidable tool to curb corruption. Two decades on, however, activists in the state allege that the law is being steadily hollowed out through administrative inertia, selective interpretation and chronic delays.

RTI activists claim that information is now routinely denied by invoking the exemption of “personal information”, often without applying the test of larger public interest. RTI activist PP Kapoor alleged that state public information officers (SPIOs) appeared to be “trained more in refusing information than in providing it within the statutory framework”.
“Even at the first appellate stage within departments and during second appeals before the State Information Commission, authorities selectively cite Supreme Court judgments and restrictive provisions to block disclosure,” Kapoor said.
Highlighting procedural violations, an RTI applicant shared his experience of filing four applications through the state’s online portal with the Education Department and the Police in August. “Despite the mandatory one-month deadline, no replies were received. Even the first appeals failed to evoke any response, though appellate authorities are equally bound by timelines,” he said.
Kapoor pointed to staff shortages crippling the Haryana State Information Commission (HSIC). Against a sanctioned strength of one Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and 10 State Information Commissioners (SICs), the Commission is currently functioning with just one CIC and six SICs.
“As a result, hearings are pushed back by several months, and certified copies of orders take two to three months to reach applicants. The situation is worsening, even compared to regular courts, indicating a visible attempt to stifle the flow of information,” he alleged.
He further claimed that penalties imposed on erring SPIOs are rarely enforced. “Nearly Rs 2.5 crore in penalties is pending recovery. I approached the Lokayukta, but the complaint remains unresolved,” Kapoor said.
Echoing these concerns, Subhash, convener of the Haryana Soochna Adhikar Manch, alleged a lack of political and bureaucratic will to uphold transparency. “Authorities are legally required to promote awareness of the RTI Act, but little effort has been made. There is no structured training for SPIOs, and in some cases even sarpanches are designated as SPIOs without adequate understanding of the law,” he said.
Subhash added that many government offices do not display mandatory details of SPIOs and appellate authorities. He said that as of the end of March, 4,775 appeals were pending before the HSIC, underscoring the mounting backlog.
While acknowledging misuse of the Act in some cases, Subhash argued against blanket restrictions. “There are instances where RTI is used to settle personal scores or intimidate officials. The Commission should identify and deal firmly with such misuse rather than denying information across the board,” he said.
Despite repeated representations and protests including demonstrations outside the HSIC in Chandigarh activists see little intent to strengthen the transparency regime. “The RTI Act may not be repealed, but it is being weakened systematically,” Subhash alleged.
He also expressed concern over the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which removed the earlier safeguard permitting disclosure of personal information in cases of larger public interest. “This has made it much easier for authorities to reject RTI applications by citing ‘personal data’, raising serious questions about the future of transparency and accountability,” he added.

RTI reveals massive administrative delays in Maha scholarship disbursement

 Hindustan Times: Mumbai: Monday, 22 December 2025.
Only 723,133 out of a total 969,029 students who applied for scholarships through the state’s Maha DBT portal during this period have received financial assistance while 142,383 applications are pending

The response received on December 18 by Amar Ekad, president, Care of Public Safety Association, raises serious concerns about administrative efficiency (or the lack of it) and its impact on students from economically weaker sections.
The Maharashtra government runs multiple scholarship schemes to support students pursuing higher education however a staggering 1.42 lakh students have been deprived of scholarship benefits over the last five academic years, an application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act on December 5 has revealed. The response received on December 18 by Amar Ekad, president, Care of Public Safety Association, raises serious concerns about administrative efficiency (or the lack of it) and its impact on students from economically weaker sections.
As per data obtained through the RTI query, only 723,133 out of a total 969,029 students who applied for scholarships through the state’s MahaDBT portal during this period have received financial assistance while 142,383 applications are pending, leaving thousands of students struggling to manage their educational expenses.
The RTI data reveals that 75,203 applications are pending at the college level, primarily due to delays in document verification and institutional recommendations; whereas 67,180 applications are awaiting final approval from the higher education department. Ironically, this backlog persists despite the scholarship process being fully online. Applications are reportedly getting stuck at various stages such as document scrutiny, college verification, and departmental approvals. In many cases, scholarship applications have been pending beyond one academic year, severely disrupting the students’ academic planning and financial stability.
Ekad said, “For many students, scholarships are not merely a financial aid but a necessity to pay tuition fees, hostel charges, and daily living expenses. The prolonged delays have forced students to either borrow money, discontinue their education temporarily, or face immense financial stress.” Calling the situation a serious administrative failure, he said, “The existence of an advanced digital platform like MahaDBT makes such large-scale pendency unacceptable.” Ekad demanded immediate disciplinary action against colleges that are deliberately delaying or blocking scholarship applications, and urged the state government to streamline the verification and approval process to ensure timely disbursement of funds.
An officer from DHE said, “In most cases, the delay is caused by the college administration. We have sent them multiple reminders and just recently, we organised a two-week drive to help colleges verify pending cases so that students can access the government schemes they are eligible for.”
A student shared her experience saying, “I am a B Pharmacy second-year student. I haven’t even received the first-year scholarship instalment yet, so I am facing difficulties paying my tuition fees. It makes me worry every day about how I will manage all my expenses without the scholarship. I am still waiting for the first-year scholarship and have approached the college multiple times, but I haven’t received satisfactory answers from them. I am not the only one; many of my friends are in an even worse situation, still waiting for their scholarships.”
The 14 major scholarship schemes implemented by the Directorate of Higher Education through the MahaDBT portal include: Rajashri Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj Tuition Fee Scholarship, Dr Punjabrao Deshmukh Hostel Maintenance Allowance, Eklavya Scholarship, State Government Minority Scholarship, and Open Merit Scholarship among others. These schemes are crucial for students who depend entirely on scholarships to continue their education.

Govt depts & bodies owe BMC 3,000cr+ in property tax dues: RTI

Times of India: Mumbai: Sunday, 21 December 2025.
Govt departments and public authorities owe the BMC more than Rs 3,000 crore in property tax dues and the civic body has managed to recover only Rs 243 crore from them over the past five years, information shared by the BMC under the Right to Information (RTI) Act has revealed.

The data was provided by the civic body in response to an RTI query filed by civic activist and advocate Godfrey Pimenta, who had questioned why "honest taxpayers should bear the burden" while govt bodies continue to default on property tax payments.
According to the reply dated Dec 12, 2025, property tax arrears owed by the state and Central govts and various authorities under their jurisdiction stood at Rs 3,283 crore as of Oct 31, 2025. The defaulters include agencies such as Mhada, Indian Railways and other state- and Centre-run bodies. In its response, the BMC stated that demand notices have been issued to these authorities under Section 202 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
However, recovery has remained slow, with only Rs 243 crore collected from these govt entities in the past five years. The civic administration said that repeated correspondence has been sent to the state and central govts by the deputy chief accountant (finance) and concerned departments seeking clearance of the dues. "Follow-ups are carried out through periodic meetings with the relevant authorities to recover the outstanding arrears," the BMC added in its reply.
When contacted, civic officials confirmed the pending dues and said that they are following up with the concerned agencies. "However, our teams have been working hard to ensure that recoveries are also done in case of defaulters," said an official.
Pimenta, though, pointed out mounting arrears from govt bodies put additional pressure on civic finances and could lead to increased tax burden on individual citizens.
For the BMC, property tax is the biggest revenue source currently. In the year 2024-25, the civic body collected property tax of the tune of Rs 6,198 crore. If a property owner in Mumbai fails to pay the tax, the BMC can initiate recovery proceedings under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, beginning with the levy of interest and penalties on the outstanding amount and the issuance of demand and reminder notices.

Underreported backlog? RTI raises questions on armed forces tribunal data : By Venkatesh Nayak

Counterview: New Delhi: Sunday, 21 December 2025.

Recently, a prominent English-language daily reported statistics relating to the pendency of cases before tribunals established under various central laws. Replying to an Unstarred Question raised by the DMK MP from Perambalur, Tamil Nadu, Thiru Arun Nehru, the Union Minister for Law and Justice tabled data on case disposal and pendency pertaining to 16 major tribunals (click HERE).
The news report calculated the total pendency at around five lakh cases. Embedded within the data table—covering tribunals such as the NCLT, NCLAT, TDSAT, ITAT, NGT, DRTs, DRAT, CESTAT, and Administrative Tribunals at the Central and State levels—was information relating to the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT). The report stated that pendency before the AFT stood at about 6,900 cases.
In August this year, I filed an information request under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), seeking case pendency data from the AFT. A comparative analysis of the data supplied by the Principal Bench of the AFT, based in Delhi, with the data tabled in Parliament yields the following conclusions:

1. The case disposal and pendency figures tabled in Parliament for multiple years are significantly lower than those revealed by the AFT under RTI; and
2. The media report does not correctly calculate the total pendency figures tabled in Parliament.

Background to the RTI intervention
The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) was established by an Act of Parliament, namely the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, to provide for:
a) the adjudication or trial of disputes and complaints relating to the appointment and service matters of individuals serving in the Army, Navy, and Air Force; and
b) the adjudication of appeals arising from orders, findings, or sentences of court martial held in respect of personnel of the aforementioned three defence forces.
The AFT was established with its Principal Bench located in Delhi. Today, regional benches function at ten locations across India: Chandigarh, Lucknow, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Jaipur, Guwahati, Kochi, Jabalpur, and Jammu. The Principal Bench, as well as the Chandigarh and Lucknow Benches, have three judicial and three administrative members each. The other regional benches have one judicial member and one administrative member each. The Chairperson is always a judicial member.
In March 2021, Col. Rajyavardhan Rathore (retd.), a BJP MP from Rajasthan, sought information on case pendency and vacancies in the AFT. In response to his Unstarred Question (No. 2663), the Minister of State in the Union Defence Ministry tabled data showing a pendency of 18,829 cases as of February 2021, along with vacancies in 23 of the 34 posts created across the 11 benches (click HERE).
After coming across this data earlier this year, I decided to seek more detailed information on case admissions, disposals, and pendency, along with budget and expenditure statistics of the AFT.
The RTI intervention
In August 2025, I submitted an RTI application (click HERE) by post to the AFT’s Principal Bench, seeking the following information (notably, the AFT has still not been onboarded onto the Union Government’s RTI Online Facility):

1. Year-wise number of cases admitted for hearing by every bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal till date;
2. Year-wise number of cases disposed of by every bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal till date;
3. Number of cases pending before every bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal as on date;
4. Number of cases pending before every bench for more than 15 years;
5. Number of cases pending for between 10–15 years;
6. Number of cases pending for between 5–9 years;
7. Number of cases pending for less than 5 years;
8. A list of cases transferred from the High Court of Delhi to the Armed Forces Tribunal between 2009–2010, along with the original writ petition number, transfer application number, names of the petitioner and respondent, and the case number assigned by the Tribunal; and
9. Year-wise total expenditure incurred by the Armed Forces Tribunal between the financial years 2009–10 and 2019–20 (bench-wise data not required).

The AFT’s reply
After about a month, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the AFT replied, supplying statistics on case admission, disposal, and pendency from 2009 up to September 2025, and expenditure figures from 2012–13 to 2022–23, free of charge (click HERE). However, the CPIO denied access to the remaining information, stating that the AFT did not maintain records in the form sought and that he was obliged to share only such records as fall within the definition of “information” under the RTI Act.
Subsequently, in October, I filed a first appeal against this portion of the reply. Although I am still awaiting a formal order, the First Appellate Authority appears to have intervened, as the CPIO transferred the remaining queries to all regional benches. These benches are now responding to the RTI queries one by one. The CPIO of the Principal Bench has since supplied some additional information. As responses from a few benches are still pending, this dispatch is limited to a comparative analysis of the data initially shared by the CPIO and the data tabled in the Lok Sabha last week.
Findings from the comparative analysis
The dataset tabled by the Union Ministry of Law and Justice in the Lok Sabha last week contains case disposal and pendency data only for the years 2020–2025, covering a period of six years. It does not include information on the backlog accumulated between the AFT’s inception and 2020. In contrast, the data obtained under RTI from the AFT provides case admission, disposal, and cumulative pendency data for all benches from their respective dates of establishment in 2009 up to September 2025.
The following findings emerge from the comparative analysis after exporting the RTI data into a spreadsheet for calculation (click HERE):

1. The recent media report based on the Union Law and Justice Minister’s reply mentions only 6,904 pending cases. This is erroneous, as this figure pertains only to the year 2025 in the parliamentary dataset. When data from 2020 to 2025 is aggregated, the pendency is nearly three times higher;
2. The Ministry’s reply does not provide a consolidated figure for total pendency before the AFT as on date. According to RTI data, pendency stood at 27,692 cases across all 11 benches as of September 2025 (click HERE to see page 4 of the CPIO’s reply);
3. Even this figure appears to be understated. Data for the Chennai and Kochi Benches for the years 2012–14 show more cases disposed of than the sum of pending cases from previous years plus fresh admissions. This discrepancy does not appear in the data for other benches. After correcting for this anomaly, the actual pendency as of September 2025 is 28,005 cases;
4. Significant discrepancies exist between disposal figures tabled by the Ministry and those supplied by the AFT under RTI for each year from 2020 to 2025, with variations running into several hundred cases annually;
5. Analysed independently, the AFT’s own dataset shows that 1,18,088 cases were admitted between 2009 and September 2025. Of these, 90,126 cases (76.32%) were disposed of, leaving a pendency of 23.68%. After correcting for discrepancies in Chennai and Kochi Bench data, the disposal figure rises to 98,003 cases and pendency to 28,005 cases, with only marginal changes in percentages;
6. The Principal Bench accounts for nearly half (48.01%) of total pendency, followed by Chandigarh (22.47%). Jaipur and Lucknow account for 7–9% each, while Guwahati accounts for less than 0.5% (click HERE for graphical representation);
7. The impact of 23 vacancies across AFT benches, as admitted by the Government in 2021, is evident in the increase in backlog during 2020–21. These years also coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, which likely contributed to reduced disposal rates; and
8. The AFT provided expenditure data only for the years 2012–13 to 2022–23. Budget Estimates from Union Budget documents have been used for subsequent years. Annual expenditure rose from ₹20.68 crore in 2012–13 to ₹54.15 crore in 2023–24. Minor variations exist between RTI-provided figures and those tabled in Parliament. The Budget Estimate for 2025–26 is ₹56.11 crore.

End note
With pendency accounting for less than 25% of cases admitted since inception, the backlog at the AFT is not, by itself, alarming. However, once data on the duration of pendency is received from all benches, a clearer picture may emerge. A further dispatch will be issued once complete information becomes available.
---
Director, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi

No data with Chief Secretary office on staff covered under Job Security Act: RTI reply

Tribune India: Haryana: Saturday, December 20, 2025.
Subhash of Haryana Soochna Adhikar Manch had filed an RTI application

Even as the state government has enacted the Haryana Contractual Employees (Security of Service) Act, 2024 to provide job security to contractual employees, the Chief Secretary’s office has no data regarding the number of employees who have got cover under the Act till September 2025, an RTI reply has revealed.
The Act had been enacted on December 6, 2024, and amended on April 9, 2025. It was aimed at ensuring stability to contractual, daily wage and Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam Limited (HKRNL) employees. RTI activist Subhash of Haryana Soochna Adhikar Manch said the Chief Secretary’s office seems to lack the consolidated data regarding the employees covered under the Act.
However, in response to the specific question regarding the total number of employees covered under the Job Security Act, the reply stated that the Human Resource Department of the Chief Secretary’s office had issued a letter on August 18, 2025, to all Administrative Secretaries, HoDs, MDs and Chief Administrators of Boards and Corporations, Divisional Commissioners and DCs, directing them to upload details of daily wage and contractual employees fulfilling the conditions of the Act on an online portal.
The reply further stated that the portal has not yet been developed and is in the preparatory stage. In reply to another query, it stated that a committee was constituted for the development of online portal on August 6, 2025. The committee comprises the Joint Secretary, Human Resource-1, as Chairman, Senior Director IT (NIC) as Co-Chairman, Programmer T&A, and Superintendent HR-1, as members. The committee was required to submit the portal module to the Chief Secretary’s office by August 14, 2025.
The activist said it was evident from the RTI reply that the government had been slow in compiling the data of employees, who were to be covered under the Act.

RTI response flags pending scholarship applications of 1.4L students in Maha

Times of India: Pune: Saturday, December 20, 2025.
Over 1.4 lakh scholarship applications of higher education students in Maharashtra are pending at the college and departmental levels, pointing to significant delays in the implementation of state scholarship schemes, according to the reply of a query filed under the Right to Information Act (RTI).

Data obtained by the Care of Public Safety Association (COPS), which filed the RTI with the education department, showed that 75,000 applications are pending at the college level, while another 67,000 are awaiting clearance from the higher education department. The delays have affected thousands of students who rely on scholarships to continue their education.
A total of 14 scholarship schemes are administered by the Directorate of Higher Education (DHE). The RTI response attributed delays at colleges to poor processing and verification of applications and, in some cases, missing documents.
A senior DHE official told TOI on Friday: "The delay is by the college administration in most cases. We have been sending several reminders. Recently, we conducted a fortnight camp for colleges to submit verification of pending cases so that the beneficiaries are able to take advantage of the govt schemes." The official said the pending cases also include scholarships offered by the social welfare department and other state departments.
Despite high enrolment, scholarship coverage remains limited. RTI data showed that between 2021–22 and 2025–26, 9.7 lakh students applied for scholarships under various state govt schemes, but only 7.3 lakh received financial assistance.
The state govt implements scholarship schemes through the MahaDBT portal, developed by the information technology department in Mantralaya. Fourteen schemes are administered by various departments, but five account for most applications the Rajarshi Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj Tuition Fee Scholarship, Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Hostel Maintenance Allowance Scheme, Eklavya Scholarship, the State Govt Sponsored Minority Scholarship and the State Open Merit Scholarship.
COPS president Amar Ekad said, "The govt has failed to ensure timely processing and disbursal of scholarships, resulting in financial uncertainty for deserving students." He demanded immediate action against colleges that have kept applications pending and called for stricter departmental monitoring. "Delays in scholarship approvals are forcing students from economically weaker sections to either borrow money or discontinue their education," he added.

Supreme Court Clarification on RTI Act Limitation: Act Cannot Be Used to Probe Suspension Orders

Indian Masterminds: New Delhi: Saturday, December 20, 2025.
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that judicial officers should not use the RTI Act to uncover reasons for their suspension, highlighting proper disciplinary and administrative procedures for judges and emphasizing integrity within the judiciary.

In a significant observation touching both judicial conduct and administrative discipline within India’s legal system, the Supreme Court of India held that a serving judicial officer is not expected to invoke the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 to find out the reasons behind his suspension.
The apex court’s remarks emerged during a hearing in which a suspended judge sought a judicial review of his suspension order, as well as details regarding the administrative reasoning behind it.
The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, underscored that resorting to RTI in such circumstances reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the proper legal and administrative avenues available to judicial officers.
Background of Supreme Court Clarification on RTI Act Limitation
The Right to Information Act, enacted in 2005, is India’s flagship transparency law designed to empower citizens by enabling access to information held by public authorities.
Over the past two decades, the RTI Act has played a transformative role across governance and public accountability. However, its application within judicial administrative processes especially those that are internal or disciplinary has remained complex and nuanced.
Recently, this complexity became a subject of scrutiny when a Principal District and Sessions Judge from Panna, Madhya Pradesh, challenged his suspension and filed RTI requests seeking details of the administrative decision. The Supreme Court’s observations during the hearing highlight both the limits of RTI applicability and the expectations of conduct for judicial officers.
The petition in question involved Rajaram Bhartiya, a senior judicial officer who served as the Principal District and Sessions Judge in Panna. Bhartiya was placed under suspension on 19 November 2025, just days before his scheduled retirement.
According to the brief order on record, the suspension included a transfer of headquarters, allegedly to prevent tampering with evidence and ensure a fair enquiry.
Instead of pursuing administrative or judicial remedies, the petitioner submitted multiple applications under the RTI Act seeking the reasons for suspension, believing transparency through RTI would clarify the basis for the contested order.
The Supreme Court took strong objection to this approach, stating that an experienced judicial officer should not resort to RTI to obtain such information.
Key Supreme Court Observations on on RTI Act Limitation
RTI is Not the Correct Mechanism for Judicial Officers
The Supreme Court emphasized that the RTI Act is not intended to be a substitute for established administrative and disciplinary procedures applicable to members of the judiciary.
The bench highlighted that if the suspended judge had questions regarding the suspension, the appropriate route would have been to file a representation with the competent authority or challenge the order through proper judicial review processes.
The Court said:
> “The petitioner is said to have submitted applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to uncover the reason for his suspension. Adopting such a recourse is completely unheard of and is not expected from an officer with his experience.”
Representation Before High Court Preferred Over RTI
The apex court pointed out that representation before the originating High Court would have been a more constructive initial step than filing RTI requests.
This representation could have informed the judiciary regarding the reasons for suspension and facilitated either communication of reasons or initiation of disciplinary proceedings as per due process.
Growing Judicial Concern: “Trend of Hitting Sixes”
In the same hearing, the Supreme Court flagged what it described as a worrying trend in the judiciary judges passing a large number of orders just before retirement, analogized by CJI Surya Kant as “hitting sixes in the final overs of a cricket match”.
This comment, widely reported in legal media, reflects the Court’s concern about judicial conduct perceived to be driven by extraneous or ulterior motivations.
The bench remarked that while erroneous orders may be corrected through appellate processes, orders that are “palpably incorrect” or based on dishonest factors might merit disciplinary scrutiny.

By overriding RTI Act, new law triggers transparency concerns : Written by Amaal Sheikh

The Indian Express: Article: Saturday, December 20, 2025.
The issue with Section 39 is not that the N-power-related information can be withheld the RTI Act already permits this but the manner and finality of the exemption.

The Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Bill, 2025 (SHANTI Bill) has come under criticism for explicitly overriding the Right to Information Act of 2005. Section 39, which deals with secrecy and disclosure of information, has been a major bone of contention.
What Section 39 says
Section 39 empowers the Centre to declare certain information as “restricted”. This includes “the location, quality and quantity of prescribed substance and transactions for their acquisitions…, or disposal…”, and information relating to “the theory, design, siting, construction and operation of nuclear power plant or reactor or plants for the treatment and production of any of the prescribed substance and for the separation of its isotopes”.
Restrictions also extend to regulatory interactions, covering “submissions made available to the Board or other regulatory bodies during the course of their work and declared as strategic, sensitive or confidential for business purpose by the applicant”.
The section states: “No person shall (a) disclose or obtain or attempt to obtain any restricted information; or (b) disclose, without authority of the Central Government, any information obtained in the discharge of any functions or performance of official duties under this Act.”
Section 39(4) states “Notwithstanding anything contained in the RTI Act, 2005, the information declared as restricted information or prohibited under this section shall be debarred from disclosure under the provisions of that Act”. In effect, once information is notified as restricted under Section 39, the RTI Act does not apply to it at all.
Current exemptions under RTI
The RTI Act, which was enacted to “promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority”, already contains limits on disclosure. Section 8 allows information to be withheld where disclosure would “prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence.”
The RTI Act also protects information covered by commercial confidence, trade secrets, fiduciary relationships, cabinet deliberations, and personal information. Section 9 allows rejection where disclosure would “involve infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State”.
Crucially, Section 8(2) provides that “a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.”
The Atomic Energy Act of 1962 contained secrecy provisions, allowing the government to restrict disclosure of information relating to atomic energy plants and processes. However, these provisions predated the RTI Act.
After RTI came into force, in theory, transparency obligations prevailed unless an RTI exemption applied. The SHANTI Bill reverses that hierarchy.
Concerns regarding Section 39
The issue with Section 39 is not that the N-power-related information can be withheld the RTI Act already permits this but the manner and finality of the exemption. Under the RTI framework, exemptions are conditional; a public information officer must justify a denial, and that decision can be challenged through a first appeal, second appeal and information commissions or courts. The public interest override remains available throughout.
Section 39 removes this framework. Once information is notified as restricted, it is taken outside the scope of the RTI Act altogether. There is no balancing exercise, no appeal, and no opportunity to argue that public interest warrants disclosure.
Activist Anjali Bharadwaj told The Indian Express that Section 39 creates new secrecy categories that “attack the basic transparency law (RTI)”.
By excluding RTI, Section 39 could also deter whistleblowing and independent scrutiny in case of nuclear disasters, especially with private entities entering the sector.
Lastly, denials under the RTI Act can be challenged through statutory appeals. Under Section 39, “the RTI Act doesn’t apply at all, making it impossible to even ask for information and tracking secrecy to a whole new level.”

India Doesn’t Know How Many Foreigners With Expired Visas Are in the Country : By Rajeev Bhattacharyya

The Diplomat: South Asia: Friday, December 19, 2025.
The ministry has often resorted to knee-jerk reactions while tackling illegal immigration, best evidenced by its policies in Assam.

North Block which houses India’s Ministry of Home 

Affairs, in New Delhi, India.

Strange as it may seem, the Indian government does not have data on the number of foreign nationals from neighbouring countries who are overstaying in the country after their visas have expired.
In reply to an application under the Right to Information Act (RTI) seeking details about foreign nationals who have not returned to their countries after expiry of their visas, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said that “data of such illegal immigrants/students from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Maldives who have not returned to their countries after expiration of their visas between 2020-24 is not centrally available.”
Furthermore, the ministry, in its typical style of passing the buck, pointed out that the power to detect, restrict movement, and deport illegal immigrants has been delegated under existing laws to state governments and union territories.
“Hence, you may seek information directly from state governments/union territories,” the reply added.
The RTI application was sent by this correspondent in the backdrop of widespread rumors that many foreign nationals, especially from Bangladesh, have not returned to their countries after the expiry of their visas. On August 27, a special flight from Pune ferried 27 Bangladeshi nationals, who were found overstaying in the country, to West Bengal. They were deported to Bangladesh through the border.
Earlier, Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal stated that there were a large number of Bangladeshi citizens staying illegally in India, who were required to be deported. More serious has been the case of illegal immigrants in Assam who have vanished and evaded deportation after being convicted by the Foreigners’ Tribunals. The Assam government has claimed before the Supreme Court that 70,000 foreign nationals are untraceable.
That a wide and efficient network of touts facilitates illegal immigration into India is not in doubt.  The network also provides the immigrants with Aadhar and other documents, helping them settle safely across the country. This makes the task of detection for the police incredibly difficult. As such, the government’s inability to arrive at a precise figure about illegal immigrants in the country can be understood.
However, the government’s ignorance about the total number of foreign nationals who are overstaying in the country after expiry of their visas is unreasonable since the records are well-documented.
Former government officials engaged with security agencies have expressed diverse views on the home ministry’s reply to the RTI application.
Pallab Bhattacharya, former chief of Assam Police’s Special Branch, told The Diplomat that the home ministry’s reply represents a “tactical use of procedural formalism” to avoid substantive disclosure.
“The larger policy implication is troubling: If the Central Government genuinely lacks centralized data on visa overstayers despite statutory registration requirements and electronic tracking systems, it represents a serious failure in immigration monitoring a matter of national security concern far beyond this individual RTI application,” he said.
Bhattacharya added that the reply has several inconsistencies.
“The MHA issued detailed instructions in May 2025 to all State Governments and union territories, setting 30-day deadlines for verification and deportation of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar. These instructions require states to maintain records and share reports with the Centre on the 15th of every month. The Bureau of Immigration has been asked to publish lists of deportees on public portals and share data with UIDAI (Unique Identification Authority of India), the Election Commission and the MEA (Ministry of External Affairs). The question is, if MHA is collecting monthly reports from states since May 2025, how can it claim in December 2025 that centralized data is unavailable?”
Another official who had served with a central security agency five years ago expressed the opinion that the ministry is reluctant to share information for two reasons.
“First, it could mean diversion of resources and spending time to draw up a list from which there is no gain. And secondly, the ministry knows that several provisions provide a shield against sharing all kinds of information, even if they are not sensitive,” he claimed.
The ministry has often resorted to knee-jerk reactions while tackling illegal immigration, best evidenced by its policies in Assam. Last May, an Assamese Muslim woman, Sakina Begum, was deported to Bangladesh after being declared a foreigner by a Foreigner Tribunal (FT) in October 2012 and interned in a detention camp till her release on bail as per an order of the Supreme Court in view of the COVID-19 pandemic.
In 2021, the MHA issued a controversial directive to the National Register of Citizens (NRC) Secretariat in Assam to issue ‘rejection slips’ to people delisted from the register. The order did not conform to the laws and procedures laid down for the completion of the exercise.
These incidents indicate the confusion that prevails in the ministry on certain issues and regions of the country. The muddle is the result of several anomalies, including the lack of long-term planning.

Judicial Officer Not Expected to Use RTI Act to Know Reasons for Suspension: Supreme Court

Moneylife: New Delhi: Friday, December 19, 2025.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday remarked that a judicial officer was not expected to file requests under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to uncover the reasons for his suspension.

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the observation while declining to interfere with the suspension of Rajaram Bhartiya, the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Panna in Madhya Pradesh.
“The petitioner is said to have submitted applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to uncover the reason for his suspension. Adopting such a recourse is completely unheard of and is not expected from an officer with his experience,” the Court said.
The Bench further observed that Bhartiya ought to have submitted a representation to the competent authority against the suspension order, which would have enabled the High Court “either to convey the reason of suspension and or to formally initiate the disciplinary proceedings as contemplated in the suspension order itself.”
The Court was hearing a petition filed by Bhartiya challenging the November 19 order placing him under suspension.
The suspension order recorded that he was placed under suspension with immediate effect and that his headquarters were changed “to prevent the possibility of tampering with the evidence and witnesses and to ensure a free and fair enquiry.”
Bhartiya is a member of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Services who joined service as a Civil Judge Class II in 1994 and was promoted as an Additional District Judge in 2009. He was then elevated as a Principal District Judge in 2022.
He would have retired on November 30 but Supreme Court's earlier order directing the Madhya Pradesh government to enhance the retirement age of judicial officers to at least 61 years means he would now retire in November 2026.
While declining to stay the suspension, the top court on Wednesday granted liberty to Bhartiya to submit a comprehensive representation to the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking recall of the suspension or any other relief as per the rules.
The High Court was directed to take an appropriate decision on the representation as early as possible, but not later than four weeks.
During the hearing, the counsel for Bhartiya submitted that a judicial order cannot be the basis for suspension. It was argued that he could have been transferred instead.
The plea stated that Bhartiya's a judicial order - setting aside a penalty imposed by the Panna Collector in an illegal mining case - was the alleged reason behind his suspension.
CJI Kant questioned why the judge had passed such order before his retirement.
“Did he issue notice? What if he [judge] makes a palpable incorrect order? Why before retirement he passed this? This is becoming a growing trend now when these kinds of orders are passed before retirement. He started hitting sixers just a fortnight away from retirement," the Court remarked.
Courtesy: Bar & Bench

Supriya Sule asks why RTI is partially not allowed in SHANTI bill if it involves private players

New Indian Express: New Delhi: Thursday, 18 December 2025.
NCP (Sharad Pawar) MP Supriya Sule raised a slew of concerns over the new the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Bill (SHANTI Bill), which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 17. Supriya questioned the government on privatising the PSU of Nuclear Power Corporation of India, when it is profitable.

Supriya also highlighted that the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005 is partially not allowed in the new bill. She said this undermined transparency, and the national security argument will not apply since private players are involved. Dr. Jitendra Singh the Minister of State in the Department of Atomic Energy introduced the bill in the upper house.

Government proposes RTI restrictions on SHANTI Bill : By Chetan Chauhan

 Hindustan Times: New Delhi: Thursday, 18 December 2025.
The SHANTI Bill allows private nuclear energy involvement but restricts sharing of "restricted" info under RTI, raising transparency and public safety concerns.

The Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Bill that aims to allow private sector in nuclear energy debars sharing of any information declared as “restricted” by the Central government under the watershed Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The bill was passed in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday.
The proposed law under section 39 prevents sharing of any information that is “detrimental to national security or public interest” and provides for specifics of the restricted information.
The sub-sections say restricted information includes location, quality and quantity of prescribed substance and transactions for their acquisition, anything about design and operation of the nuclear power plant, research and technological work on materials and processing.
It also prevents sharing of “photograph, plan or model” of the nuclear power plant and related to any process in the plant.
In addition to it, the sub-section also provides that “submissions made available to the (Atomic Energy) Board or other regulatory bodies during the course of their work and declared as strategic, sensitive or confidential for business purpose by the application” would be restricted.
The proposed bill also gives powers to the Central government to “prohibit” publication of any information related to nuclear power through a notification. It also says that any information declared “restricted” or “prohibited” under the law cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information Act.
With this, the Central government has imposed restriction on the RTI use without amending the transparency act. In the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, the government had restricted sharing of personal information of any personal citing privacy regulations.
During discussion on the bill in the lower house, Supriya Sule (NCP-SP) asked the government why restrictions on the RTI Act has been imposed through the SHANTI Bill. “When private players are being allowed where does the question of national security come,” she said during discussion on the proposed law.
The proposed bill also gives powers to the Central government to “prohibit” publication of any information related to nuclear power through a notification. It also says that any information declared “restricted” or “prohibited” under the law cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information Act.
With this, the Central government has imposed restriction on the RTI use without amending the transparency act. In the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, the government had restricted sharing of personal information of any personal citing privacy regulations.
During discussion on the bill in the lower house, Supriya Sule (NCP-SP) asked the government why restrictions on the RTI Act has been imposed through the SHANTI Bill. “When private players are being allowed where does the question of national security come,” she said during discussion on the proposed law.

RTI activists produce fresh response to challenge cop action over Pandian security

Times of India: Bhubaneswar: Wednesday, 17 December 2025.
Three RTI campaigners, who were booked by city police in 2024 for allegedly circulating “fake and misleading” information about the security cover of ex-CM Naveen Patnaik’s aide and former BJD member V K Pandian, have now produced fresh information to challenge the police action against them.

“Police accused us of spreading lies even though the information we shared was obtained through RTI regarding Pandian’s security cover. On Nov 11, we again sought the same details from the commissionerate police. The reply we received matched the earlier one. This clearly proves we were falsely implicated, only because Pandian was highly influential,” said RTI campaigner Prakash Das.
According to the RTI response, Pandian was provided with 2 personal security officers, 1 havildar, 4 armed police reserve personnel as house guards, 1-4 escorts in a vehicle during road journeys, 4 women constables, and 1 section force. All of these were sanctioned by the previous BJD govt.
In April 2024, Saheed Nagar police registered a case against Das, Srikant Pakal and Pradip Pradhan, days after they released a letter at a press conference detailing Pandian’s security cover. Then police commissioner Sanjeeb Panda called the letter “forged” and denied that such information was ever provided by the commissionerate police. Subsequently, a case was filed against the trio.