Sambhajinagar bench of information commission sees 10 per cent rise in complaint redressal in 2025

Times of India: Aurangabad: Thursday, 22 January 2026.

The Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar bench of the State Information Commission (SIC) witnessed a roughly 10% rise in redressal of complaints in 2025, significantly reducing its backlog compared to the previous year.
According to an official release, the bench successfully reduced its pending complaints from 165 at the end of 2024 to just 51 by the end of 2025. Additionally, the bench disposed of 10,783 second appeals filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. This improved performance brought the total pendency of second appeals down to 3,946 by the close of the year.
Under the RTI Act, Section 18 governs the handling of complaints, while Section 19 deals with second appeals.
Divisional information commissioner Prakash Indalkar credited the bench's efficiency to strategic administrative planning and a public-centric approach. "The Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar bench emphasized the swift and transparent disposal of cases. Disciplined hearing schedules, streamlined operations, and effective use of technology were key factors in clearing the backlog of appeals and complaints," the release quoted Indalkar as saying.
He further emphasised that the primary objective of the SIC is to ensure citizens receive timely justice. "Moving forward, we will maintain continuous efforts to minimize pending cases and ensure the effective implementation of the Transparency Act," he added.
With these results, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar now boasts the second-lowest pendency of second appeals among the nine SIC benches in Maharashtra. The Greater Mumbai bench holds the best record with the lowest pendency at 3,722 cases.
In contrast, the Nashik bench reported the highest backlog with 13,588 pending second appeals, followed by Amaravati (12,786) and the Mumbai bench (11,541), according to official data.

Arunachal: APIC imposes Rs 25,000 penalty on RWD engineer for RTI violations

The Sentinel: Itanagar: Thursday, 22 January 2026.
The Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission (APIC) imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 on (PIO) for gross violations of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, and warned of stricter action

The Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission (APIC) on Tuesday imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 on a public information officer (PIO) for gross violations of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, and warned of stricter action, including disciplinary proceedings or an arrest warrant, if compliance is not ensured.
According to an official release from the Commission, the penalty has been levied on PIO-cum-Executive Engineer Rido Allo of the Palin/Jamin division in Kra Daadi district for failing to adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act. The order was issued under APIC case numbers 708/A/2025 and 709/A/2025. The Commission directed the officer to deposit the penalty amount in favour of the Registrar, APIC, through a treasury challan under the Head of Account "0070 - Other Administrative Charge" on or before 20 February. Proof of payment must be submitted along with the complete information sought by the appellant on the next date of hearing.
The APIC cautioned that failure to comply will invite further action under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act, including recommendations for disciplinary measures and the issuance of an arrest warrant under Section 18(3)(a) to compel attendance before the Commission.

A private state, a public you; The State claims privacy for PM-CARES and Ministers’ messages while law lets it break into your phone. This one-way transparency makes secrecy a privilege of power. : Saurav Das

Frontline Magazine: New Delhi: Thursday, 22 January 2026.

The Delhi High Court recently remarked that the PM-CARES
Fund, even if it is a State, even if it is a government entity, does
not lose its “right to privacy” merely because it is managed and
controlled by the government. In the picture, commuters at
Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus, Mumbai, on
February 3, 2021. | Photo Credit: VIVEK BENDRE

The Delhi High Court recently said something that should have triggered alarm across a country that once celebrated the Right to Information Act as a democratic milestone. The court orally remarked that the PM-CARES Fund, even if it is a State, even if it is a government entity, does not lose its “right to privacy” merely because it is managed and controlled by the government.
The PM-CARES Fund (Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund) is a public charitable trust established in 2020 for responding to emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic. It is chaired by the Prime Minister, with other Ministers acting as trustees.
The remark of the bench, consisting of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, is not the final verdict. But in a constitutional democracy like India, remarks are not harmless. They are often rehearsal speeches for the judgment that follows. More importantly, they reveal what an institution is beginning to feel in its bones.
By making this remark, the two judges collapse three distinct concepts into one. Privacy, which exists as a right of the individual against the State. Confidentiality, which may apply in limited contexts but only after satisfying strict statutory and public-interest tests. And secrecy, which is an exception to democratic governance, not its norm, and certainly not a constitutional right. By treating these as interchangeable, the judges’ remark effectively elevates secrecy into a constitutional value. Yet the right to privacy was recognised to protect personal choices, intimate decisions, and personal data that form part of an individual’s identity—not to shield public power from scrutiny.
This remark arrives in a familiar landscape. The Delhi High Court, in August 2025, held that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s educational qualifications—including his degree and marks—are “personal information” protected from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. This section exempts personal information from disclosure, unless there is a greater public interest in its disclosure.
On one side, privacy for those in high power. On the other hand, as unfolding events detailed below show, transparency and invasion for the people.
In 2025, the proposed Income Tax Bill, which will come into effect from April this year, gave us the chilling phrase: “virtual digital space” and the legal power for tax authorities to override access codes to enter it. E-mails, servers, cloud storage, social media, digital wallets, and more are all defined as such a space. The intent is not subtle. If an officer suspects tax evasion, the Bill authorises breaking into a person’s “virtual digital space”.
While the government argues that such powers existed even earlier, that it merely “recognises” it now, it still raises questions of safeguards, overreach, and constitutionality. But beyond these questions, people have also started asking about this State that wants your passwords, while refusing to answer how publicly collected donations were used by it.
The State’s new hunger
It is easy to sell the new Income Tax provision as a weapon against the ultra-rich. But law is never a story about intentions alone. It is a story about design and drift. Once a power exists, it seeks use, which becomes a habit, and then seeks expansion.
If the past 11-year history has taught us anything—or for that matter, what the ED did in West Bengal against the Trinamool Congress, where it raided the party strategist’s office in a six-year-old cold-storaged case, allegedly to “steal” the party’s strategy before the crucial State election—is that such powers are seldom used to meet good ends.
The fact that such sweeping powers without any safeguards and a tardy justice system will be “recognised” in law now is reason enough to suspect it.
Thanks to social media, the public’s response, especially among salaried Indians drowning in income tax, TDS, GST, VAT, cess, and a daily experience of collapsing civic services, has been rage and bitter humour. The tone is familiar: taxed like a first-world country, serviced like a failed one.

The purpose of this RTI was narrow: will these
public representatives subject themselves to the same
scrutiny that they impose on the people? The replies
were revealing. | Photo Credit: Saurav Das

Surveillance does not arrive alone. It arrives alongside systems like NATGRID—India’s integrated data-sharing platform for the police and investigating agencies to access government and private databases in real-time, which is now expanding in scale and usage. A recent report notes that NATGRID is processing around 45,000 requests a month, and its access is being widened beyond central agencies to every police station. The National Population Register, which has the family-wise details of 119 crore residents in India, has been linked to NATGRID too.
These are not abstract developments. They are a choice about what kind of republic we are becoming. Many asked, “If you can look into our phones, can we look into yours?”
In this context, this author filed a simple set of RTIs. If the State can legally break into the citizen’s “virtual digital space” messages, e-mails, social media on suspicion of evasion, then Ministers who govern the taxpayer and under whom so many irregularities continue to occur, ought to answer a basic question: what records exist of their official communications on private messaging platforms? WhatsApp. Signal. Other apps.
 
Will they be willing to share their data too, for people who “suspect” their work to break in and probe?
The RTI application, filed with the offices of the Prime Minister, the Home Minister, and the Finance Minister (the one who brought in the Bill) stated: “Kindly furnish the chat records (of WhatsApp, Signal, and any other messaging applications as used) of the phone used by… [each of them] for giving official orders to their officers. The record of the past 1 year may kindly be furnished in any format as available”.
The redaction of messages related to national security was proactively sought for. The purpose of this RTI was narrow: will these public representatives subject themselves to the same scrutiny that they impose on the people?
The replies were revealing. The Prime Minister’s Office dismissed the query as “speculative and roving in nature,” and asserted that it does not constitute “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Home Ministry’s reply, sent in Hindi, said that the information sought falls within a protected category under the RTI Act, Section 8(1)(j), and is “personal information” of a “third-party” and hence, exempt from disclosure. Regarding the Finance Minister, the Ministry of Electronics and IT (Cyber Law division) responded, in effect, that no such information is available in its records.
These responses raise a question that should unsettle any democratic mind: how does a government govern without maintaining records of the communications by which it governs? And even otherwise, why not the same level of transparency when it comes to decision-makers?
The court’s gift to power and its own opacity
This is where the Delhi High Court’s PM-CARES Fund remark becomes more than a passing curiosity. The High Court’s remark on privacy once imagined as a shield for the vulnerable individual means that privacy has begun to travel upward, attaching itself to the State’s own creations.
In that sense, despite the PM-CARES Fund being run by the highest constitutional functionaries, performing quintessentially public functions using public donations, and being granted 100 per cent tax exemption at the cost of the public exchequer, the Delhi High Court’s remark is simply power laundering itself through constitutional language.
This cannot be seen in isolation since a republic does not collapse in one grand blow. It collapses after a thousand cuts of various intensities. One such blow is when the citizen is asked to be transparent while the State is permitted to be private.
This inversion is not confined to the executive but has been practised grotesquely by the judiciary for the longest period. In this author’s case before the Delhi High Court challenging the Supreme Court Registry’s refusal to share even basic information about misconduct complaints against former Acting Chief Justice of Madras High Court, T. Raja, the Supreme Court’s counsel repeatedly avoided answering a “yes or no” question: were any complaints received at all?
Instead, the counsel fell back on an astonishing claim: “such information is not maintained.” The hearing has been adjourned, with written submissions sought, and the matter listed again.
This remark, also on the Supreme Court Registry’s affidavit, should be looked at as an institutional confession. If the Supreme Court, which runs the collegium system, which oversees the in-house mechanism, which is the apex custodian of judicial integrity, claims it does not maintain even the existence of complaints—then what is the accountability mechanism, really? A ritual? A private exchange of letters? A whisper network among the powerful? He-said-she-said is all that there is.
Here too, opacity becomes a mode of governance. And if that is the institutional posture, on what moral or constitutional authority can a judge born of the same system crack the whip and compel transparency from bodies like the PM-CARES Fund, as the law itself demands?
An institution that routinely instructs citizens to respect the rule of law appears strikingly comfortable functioning without the most elementary documentary trail that makes accountability possible.
Audits that scream
The point here is that people might finally be seeing through this duplicity of the State and its institutions. Social media is flooded with posts urging Indians to “travel abroad to realise what a scam India is”, usually in reference to the country’s crumbling infrastructure and poor public amenities.
It is not as though people are unwilling to be transparent or not pay taxes. They are simply failing to see the benefit. What happens to the taxpayer’s money?
A case in point is what happened recently with the Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PMKVY), which was launched in 2015. The government’s auditor, CAG, exposed a catalogue of systemic irregularities in this skill development initiative scheme of the Government of India.

These responses raise a question that should
unsettle any democratic mind: how does a
government govern without maintaining records
 of the communications by which it governs?
| Photo Credit: Saurav Das

The government released Rs.10,194 crore to the implementing agencies and provided skill certification to 1.10 crore beneficiaries officially. The performance audit revealed that the scheme’s databases allowed phantom entries, invalid bank details, duplicated accounts, and serious foundational failures of integrity.
Bank account details for 94.5 per cent of beneficiary records were invalid or blank. Even among the remaining entries, the same 12,122 account numbers were reused for 52,381 different names, suggesting large-scale ghost or proxy beneficiaries.
Auditors found absurd entries like “11111111111” or “123456” entered as account numbers, or random text and special characters in place of account information. The scathing CAG report bluntly stated that the scheme’s database “did not provide adequate assurance about the identity of participants”.
The CAG noted with concern that the implementing Union ministry provided no information on efforts to trace or pay these “candidates”, raising suspicion that many never existed or could not be reached due to bogus records.
Although most media outlets missed calling a spade a spade, the opposition called it a “massive scam” and demanded an investigation. Instead of jumping into action, the government has remained mum. This reflects a broader trend of impunity, where financial opacity persists because those responsible are rarely held accountable.
The Leader of Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, highlighting another tragic death of a young man due to civic failure, tweeted today: “India’s urban collapse isn’t about lack of money, technology, or solutions. It’s about lack of accountability. TINA: There Is No Accountability.” Indeed, heads ought to have rolled by now.
It is for these reasons alone why tax-paying citizens feel mocked, and agitated, when asked to surrender passwords to a tax officer who would go through every intimate part of their private lives to ensure they have honestly paid their “due”.

Social media is flooded with posts urging Indians
to  “travel abroad to realise what a scam India is”,
usually in reference to the country’s crumbling
infrastructure and poor public amenities. In the
picture, a road near ITO Chowk in New Delhi,
on September 15, 2025. | Photo Credit:
SUSHIL KUMAR VERMA

The demand is not merely invasive. It is actually morally offensive because the State does not show the same ferocity towards its own leakages, towards corruption, irregularities, and fraud. The Lokpal was sold as the republic’s anti-corruption conscience but its record, and the opacity around it, tells a diametrically opposite story.
Now, rights for the State
Then came something even more philosophically revealing: the Supreme Court’s decision to entertain the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) Article 32 petition in its clash with the West Bengal government and Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee.
Article 32 is the Constitution’s most sacred promise to citizens: the right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. Yet here, a coercive arm of the State, the ED, invoked it. Despite objections that a State agency could not file an Article 32 petition as it is only available to a citizen, the Supreme Court spoke of “lawlessness” if it did not intervene and went ahead to issue a notice.
So, the State’s agency arrives at the Court not merely as an investigator, but almost as a rights-bearing entity, seeking constitutional protection, seeking the court’s extraordinary jurisdiction. It is simply bizarre.
Fundamental rights were meant to restrain the State. When State agencies begin to occupy the posture of the rights-holder, the Constitution’s geometry changes. The citizen is no longer the centre of gravity. Now read this in the context of courts increasingly willing to frame privacy as a shield for powerful institutions, whether it is a leader’s academic record, or a government-linked corpus.
The one-way republic
What should a constitutional democracy do instead? A democracy does not collapse because the State wants to fight tax evasion. It collapses when it fights evasion by treating the citizen as inherently suspect while treating itself as inherently exempt from the same norms.
If the State wants deeper access to citizens’ private digital lives, it must accept deeper public scrutiny of its own communications, records, and accountability structures.
Ministers issuing official orders on private messaging platforms must maintain records and disclose what can be disclosed. Courts must resist the temptation to gift privacy as a cloak to entities created by power. The judiciary must not operate accountability mechanisms as black boxes and then demand public trust after forgetting that trust is earned, not ordered.
Right now, the direction of travel is clear: privacy and secrecy are rising upwards, towards power, and transparency and exposure are flowing downwards, towards the people. A republic cannot survive this for long.
(Saurav Das is an investigative journalist writing on law, judiciary, crime, and policy.)

Gujarat: RTI activist barred from representing other citizens

Times of India: Ahmedabad: Thursday, 22 January 2026.
The Gujarat State Information Commission (GSIC) barred RTI activist Khushal Verma from appearing in hearings on behalf of other citizens, citing concerns over proxy use and possible misuse of the Right to Information Act.

The direction was issued by the state chief information commissioner, Dr Subhash Soni, while disposing of a complaint filed by Suresh Dabhi under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act. Dabhi alleged a delay in disclosing information regarding an alleged illegal construction and authorised Verma to represent him before the commission. However, neither Dabhi nor Verma was present during the hearing held on Jan 1, 2026.
In its order, the commission noted that Verma had already been subject to restrictions in an earlier case. "Khushal Verma was already directed not to file more than 25 RTI applications in a calendar year," the order noted, referring to a decision passed in a separate appeal on Jan 29, 2025.
Taking note of Verma's repeated authorisations to represent other applicants, the commission observed that such a practice raised the possibility of indirect filing and pursuit of RTI matters.
"Considering the possibility of other persons using Verma for filing and pursuing RTI matters, and keeping in view his conduct under the RTI Act, he is restrained from appearing in hearings on behalf of other citizens before the public information officer, first appellate authority or the commission," the order stated.
At the same time, the commission refused to initiate penalty proceedings against the public information officer (PIO) of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation's north zone. The complaint sought action under Sections 20(1) and 20(2) of the Act, alleging failure to provide information within the statutory time limit.
The commission accepted the PIO's submission that notices relating to the alleged illegal construction were issued, and that copies of three notices were supplied to the complainant free of cost on July 24, 2025. Regarding police correspondence and a report to the deputy municipal commissioner, the order recorded that no such records existed at the relevant time. "No question of withholding information arises," the commission held.
It further recorded that during the hearing of the first appeal, the complainant was again provided information in person and acknowledged receipt by signing the original records on Oct 11, 2025.
An RTI activist from the city, Bharatsinh Jhala, said the order reflected the commission's attempt to strike a balance. "It flags concerns about bulk filings and proxy representation by activists, while also reiterating that penalty provisions will not be invoked if officials demonstrate timely compliance," he said.

NITI Aayog reports on government's women safety schemes should be public: CIC

Deccan Herald: New Delhi: Wednesday, 21 January 2026.
In a recent order, Information Commissioner P R Ramesh dealt with an RTI plea seeking records related to women safety schemes implemented by the Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD).

The Central Information Commission has said that third-party evaluation reports prepared by the NITI Aayog on women safety schemes implemented by the Ministry of Women and Child Development should be placed in the public domain.
The CIC said that these reports which evaluate the implementation, efficiency and effectiveness of such schemes are institutionally independent and evidence-based assessments intended for policy reforms, mid-course correction and improved governance.
They are "independent and objective assessment of government schemes and programmes, commissioned by the Government of India," the CIC noted.
In a recent order, Information Commissioner P R Ramesh dealt with an RTI plea seeking records related to women safety schemes implemented by the Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD), including the One-Stop Centre and Women Helpline schemes, and their evaluation by NITI Aayog.
The CIC, while upholding the ministry's stand that supplying nearly 1,870 pages of internal file notings would "disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority" under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, made observations on proactive disclosure of evaluation reports.
The order stated that "third-party evaluation reports, particularly those assessing the implementation and effectiveness of women safety and welfare schemes funded from the public exchequer, ought to be placed in the public domain in the interest of transparency and public awareness".
In a related matter involving the MWCD, the CIC also reiterated the importance of suo motu disclosure under the RTI Act.
"The public authority (MWCD) is advised to take necessary steps for suo motu disclosure of maximum information on their website about the name of successful bidder (name of company) executing the work, amount for which the contract was awarded, completion date of the contract, scope of work, percentage of work completed from time to time, et cetera," the order reads.
The commission advised the MWCD that such disclosure would facilitate informed public discourse, enhance accountability and improve governance.

Orissa High Court quashes one year RTI filing ban imposed by Odisha information panel : Subhashish Mohanty

Telegraph India: Bhubaneswar: Wednesday, 21 January 2026.
Court says information body lacks authority to restrict number of RTI pleas and directs officials to provide remaining details sought by the applicant

The Orissa High Court has quashed an order by the Odisha state information commission that had barred an RTI applicant from filing any applications for a period of one year.
In September 2025, the state information commission had debarred Chittaranjan Sethy, an RTI activist from Nimapara in Puri district, citing “abuse” and “misuse” of the RTI process. The commission had observed that Sethy’s conduct merited strict action and accused him of misusing his right under the RTI Act, 2005, by filing excessive and repetitive applications that burdened the public authorities.
“The applicant being a citizen of India has the right to get information under the RTI Act, but he is also duty-bound to obey the law of the land and procedures. His conduct indicates a clear misuse of the Act,” the commissioner had said while imposing the ban.
Sethy had sought information related to income, expenditure and development work from Nimapara block and Mateipur gram panchayat, filing 61 applications in 2023 alone. He had requested month-wise and year-wise details, using his below poverty line (BPL) card to waive application fees. The commission stated that he filed over five applications per month on average and that many were repetitive in nature.
Challenging the decision, Sethy moved the Orissa High Court.
Eminent RTI activist and advocate Pradeep Kumar Pradhan said: “The case was heard by Justice R.K. Pattanaik. The high court’s verdict is a significant victory for the RTI movement in Odisha.”
The court observed that the complete information sought had not been provided to Sethy and directed that the remaining details be supplied. It also struck down the restriction on the number of applications an individual can file in a year.
“The restriction imposed on the petitioner allowing only 12 RTI applications per calendar year is not justified,” the court said in its order. “Even if the petitioner is in the habit of filing multiple applications, the State Information Commission had no authority to impose such a restriction under the RTI Act.”
The court concluded that the commission’s direction was beyond its jurisdiction and, to that extent, the impugned order stood quashed.
Sethy, 51, welcomed the verdict and said: “This is a victory not just for me but for thousands of RTI activists working at the grassroots to expose corruption. Even though I have studied only till Class VII, no threat or inducement has stopped me from filing RTI applications. After I received training in RTI, I made it my mission to fight for accountability.”

(Download Order)

State Info Commissioner Has No Power To Review Its Own Orders In 2nd Appeals, Rules HC

Times of India: Nagpur: Wednesday, 21 January 2026.
In an important ruling reinforcing the statutory limits of transparency watchdogs, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court on Saturday held that the State Information Commissioner has no power under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to review its own appellate orders or to constitute a bench of two commissioners for that purpose in second appeals.

A division bench of Justices Anil Pansare and Nivedita Mehta delivered the verdict while allowing a writ petition filed by Shriram Satpute, quashing a December 17, 2016, order passed by a two-member bench of the State Information Commission in a review application. The court held that the decision was vitiated by "2 illegalities", the absence of statutory power to review and the lack of jurisdiction to form a division bench.
The case arose from Satpute's RTI application filed on January 11, 2013, seeking information from the Forest Department at Mukutban regarding excavation allegedly carried out using JCB machines in Pimpri Jungle. After the Public Information Officer failed to furnish the information, Satpute filed a first appeal. The First Appellate Authority directed disclosure on February 14, 2014, but the PIO subsequently claimed that no such information was available.
Aggrieved, Satpute approached the State Information Commission in a second appeal under the Act. In a detailed order in the second appeal decided in 2014, the then State Information Commissioner directed disciplinary action and a departmental inquiry against the appellate authority for violating the RTI Act's Section 19(6) by not deciding the first appeal within the stipulated time.
However, that order was later allegedly reviewed and diluted by a special two-member bench of the commission, constituted by the Chief State Information Commissioner, which withdrew the disciplinary proceedings against the forest officer. This review order became the subject of challenge before the high court through counsels Gayatri Sharma and Tushar Mandlekar. Assistant govt pleader Kaustubh Lule represented the state.
The State Information Commission argued that, although the RTI Act does not expressly provide for a power of review, such authority was inherent, given the quasi-judicial nature of its functions. The HC bench rejected this contention, noting that the commission itself admitted that "there is no express power in the statute to review the order passed by the appellate authority."
Relying on its earlier ruling in Dominic s/o Gabriel Philip vs State Information Commissioner (Writ Petition No 2522 of 2016), which attained finality, the bench reiterated that "power of review under the provisions of the Act of 2005 is not available." It also recorded that there was no provision in the RTI Act allowing the constitution of a two-member bench to decide on review applications.
"Resultantly, the commission's orders suffer from two illegalities," the court observed. "One is that power of review is not available and secondly, the constitution of a bench, consisting of two members to review the judgment or order is also not available."
The HC accordingly quashed and set aside the review order of December 17, 2016, and disposed of the writ petition without costs.

Orissa HC partially sets aside OIC order debarring RTI applicant from filing request

New Indian Express: Cuttack: Wednesday, 21 January 2026.
The court ruled the Odisha Information Commission cannot bar a citizen from filing RTI requests, directing it to provide pending information and striking down limits on applications.

The Orissa High Court has set aside, in part, an order of the Odisha Information Commission (OIC) debarring RTI applicant Chittaranjan Sethy from filing further applications, holding that such restrictions were not justified under the RTI Act.
The single judge bench of Justice RK Pattanaik was hearing a writ petition filed by Sethy challenging the OIC’s order dated September 13, 2025, by which he had been debarred from approaching the commission for one year on the ground of “abuse of the RTI process”.
The commission had earlier observed that Sethy had filed a large number of RTI appeals and complaints across various departments, allegedly resulting in wastage of public resources and administrative time. A total of 61 cases filed by him in 2023 were heard together and dismissed by a common order. While debarring him from the commission for one year, the OIC had allowed him to file a maximum of 12 RTI applications in a calendar year before various public authorities.
After examining the applications and the information sought, the high court noted that the entire information had not been supplied to the petitioner.
The court observed that, except for the information already provided, the remaining information should be shared with him in accordance with law.
The court further held that the restriction imposed by the commission - preventing the petitioner from filing applications before it and limiting him to 12 RTI applications in a year - was not justified. The bench concluded that the commission could not have imposed such a restriction on the petitioner even if he was in the habit of filing numerous RTI applications.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with directions to supply the balance information. The impugned OIC order dated September 13, 2025, was set aside to that extent.

Karnataka Information Commission issues show-cause notice to GBA for not submitting Quit India Movement Martyr’s Memorial site joint survey report

The Hindu: Bengaluru: Tuesday, 20 January 2026.
The Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) has issued a show-cause notice to the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA), asking why it should not impose a fine of ₹25,000 for not submitting a report for a joint survey conducted by the then Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and the present GBA on the encroachment of the Quit India Movement Martyr’s Memorial site at Mysore Bank Circle in the city by a temple trust

KIC expressed concern, saying that if GBA Chief Commissioner M. Maheshwar Rao does not give appropriate directions and take action for the preservation of the memorial, there is no doubt that the memorial will disappear from the pages of history.
The Martyrs’ Memorial has allegedly been encroached upon by the Shanaishchara Temple Trust, which is constructing a huge statue in the space without taking permission from government authorities, including the GBA.
Activist H.M. Venkatesh, member of Naija Horatagarara Vedike, a forum of social activists, had expressed outrage over the failure of the State government and the GBA to protect the memorial of those who sacrificed their lives for the country. He had, on April 11, 2025, written to the Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister, Chief Secretary, and the civic body to protect the memorial.
The GBA and Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru Urban District had conducted a joint survey in 2022–23 regarding the encroachment of the martyrs’ memorial. Mr. Venkatesh had filed a petition with the GBA under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, for the provision of the survey report. The GBA, which replied to Mr. Venkatesh on December 23, 2025, said that no information related to the said matter was available in the office.
Later, Mr. Venkatesh had filed an appeal with the KIC in this regard.
The KIC Commissioner, who conducted the inquiry into the case, said, “On examining the case, the information sought by the appellants is of paramount public interest, as it is a memorial to the martyrs, a symbol of patriotism. In 1942, students and workers participated in the Quit India movement against the British, and during that time, the students were martyred by British bullets, and therefore, in 1972, a 10-foot-long memorial stone was installed at the Mysore Bank Circle. However, the administration’s refusal to protect the memorial and the information sought by the appellants shows the ignorance of the authorities.”
The Commission said that at present, the documents show that the memorial has become a lamp-lighting stone inside the temple. “GBA officials forgot to provide the information recorded in the Karnataka State Gazetteer, Volume 5, 1972, and gave false information under the RTI Act,” the Commission lamented.
The GBA officials have been ordered to issue a written explanation under the RTI Act for giving false information that the information was not available and forgetting the protection of public property and that it is a monument of national importance.
The Commission has also recommended disciplinary action against the Public Information Officer under the Act for allegedly mishandling the nation’s most important public asset. It has directed the filing of objections and adjourned the hearing to January 20, 2025.

Advocates can’t seek info under RTI Act for clients’ cases: CIC

Ahmedabad Mirror: Ahmedabad: Tuesday, 20 January 2026.
Says using the transparency law in this manner fails to advance its core objectives

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ruled that advocates cannot use the Right to Information (RTI) Act to seek details regarding cases they are handling for clients, observing that using the transparency law in this manner fails to advance its core objectives.
Dismissing a second appeal filed by an advocate on the termination of a fruits/vegetables supply contract in Haryana, Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi noted that the appellant had sought information “on behalf of his brother, who used to be supplier of vegetables/fruits to the respondent public authority”. The commission said in the absence of any explanation as to why the supplier himself could not seek the information, “it appears that the appellant has sought information on behalf of his client per se, which is not permissible”.
Quoting a Madras High Court order, the CIC underlined that “a practising advocate cannot seek information relating to the cases instituted by him on behalf of his client”. The HC had cautioned that otherwise, “every practising advocate would invoke the provisions of the RTI Act for getting information on behalf of his client”, which “does not advance the objects of the scheme of the RTI Act”. PTI

Central Information Commissioner reviews RTI implementation in Punjab

Babushahi.com: Chandigarh: Tuesday, 20 January 2026.
Punjab makes commendable progress in implementing RTI Act: Vinod Kumar Tiwari

The Central Information Commissioner, Vinod Kumar Tiwari, IFS (Retd.), today visited the Punjab State Information Commission Headquarters in Chandigarh.
During his visit, he held a detailed and productive meeting with Chief Information Commissioner, Punjab, Inderpal Singh Dhanna, and State Information Commissioners of Punjab – Dr. Bhupinder Singh Batth, Harpreet Sandhu along with Additional Chief Secretary D.K. Tiwari.
The meeting focused on the effective implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, with special emphasis on institutional reforms, transparency, accountability, and strengthening mechanisms for efficient information delivery.
V.K. Tiwari appreciated the work of the Punjab State Information Commission and said that Punjab has made commendable progress in implementing the RTI Act
During the meeting, Chief Information Commissioner of Punjab, Inderpal Singh Dhanna, highlighted the state commission’s commitment to ensuring efficient and timely delivery of information to citizens.
He said that Punjab State Information Commission is committed to time-bound and effective delivery of information.
During the meeting, V.K. Tiwari also shared insights from his experience as a Central Information Commissioner, highlighting best practices, current challenges, and practical ways to improve case disposal and strengthen the overall RTI framework
The interaction served as an enriching platform for exchanging ideas on boosting the efficiency of the Punjab State Information Commission.
Chief Information Commissioner Dhanna, along with State Information Commissioners and Additional Chief Secretary D.K. Tiwari presented a token of appreciation to VK Tiwari, acknowledging his valuable perspectives and describing the discussion as highly constructive and beneficial.
Harpreet Sandhu, expressed gratitude to the Central Information Commissioner of India, Vinod Kumar Tiwari, for his meaningful insights on RTI transparency during his visit to the Punjab State Information Commission.

Electronics City Industrial Township Authority is a ‘public authority’, rules State Information Commission

The Hindu: Bengaluru: Tuesday, 20 January 2026.
The Karnataka State Information Commission has brought the Electronics City Industrial Township Authority (ELCITA) under the purview of the Right to Information Act by declaring it as a “public authority,” and has asked the authority to furnish information within a timeframe in future.

Stating that though ELCITA does not have an elected body, the commission has said that it has been set up by the government and had all the powers of a local body, including collection of tax. It had been set up under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, and was acting like a town municipality by being responsible for management, finances and development issues.
The commission has also ordered the ELCITA to appoint assistant public information officer and first appeal authority.
The recent order by Information Commissioner Rudranna Harthikote came on an appeal by Ganesh Kumar M., who said that the ELCITA was formed through a government gazette without which it cannot exist and questioned the tax collection power if it was a private entity. He had sought details about development works and the tendering process.
In its defence, the authority cited Supreme Court order in the Thalappalam Cooperative Bank v/s Kerala government and two cases settled by the Madras High Court and argued that it does not fall under the ambit of being a “public authority.”
However, the commission noted that Electronics City was developed by the Karnataka government-owned KEONICS in 1970 to promote electronic industries that was later transferred to Electronics City Industrial Association for managing the area in 1997.
The ELCITA was formed in 2013 under Karnataka Municipalities Act 1964 to manage public services such as roads, water supply and cleanliness. Of the total tax collected, which is a responsibility of the government, by the authority, 30% is shared with three village panchayats, it noted.
Mr. Harthikote has pointed out that any authority formed through a law passed by Parliament or the State legislature or the government order comes under the RTI Act as “public authority” and hence ELCITA also comes under the ambit of the RTI Act.
While any authority that secures financial aid directly or indirectly becomes a “public authority”, the ELCITA also has government nominees in its management. The order also cites a Madras High Court case in which Tiruppur Area Development Board was declared as “public authority” and brought under the purview of RTI Act. Similarly, the Noida Authority has been declared as a “public authority.”

National transparency at stake: CIC delays bank inspection reports Under RTI Act

Mathrubhumi: New Delhi: Tuesday, 20 January 2026.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has stayed the disclosure of bank inspection reports, lists of loan defaulters and other supervisory information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, citing the need to await directions from the Supreme Court.

Recognising the wide national implications, the transparency watchdog ruled that no Non-Performing Assets (NPA) data, penalty details or related enforcement information will be released until the apex court decides on pending petitions filed by banks, which are scheduled for hearing on Tuesday.
The CIC directed its Registry to list the matter after the Supreme Court hearing, as several petitions seek reconsideration of the landmark Jayantilal N Mistry judgment, which had mandated disclosure of RBI inspection reports.
Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi said it would be appropriate to await the Supreme Court’s guidance, given the significance of the issues involved and the apex court’s scheduled hearing.
In a series of interim orders on appeals filed by State Bank of India, Bank of Baroda, Axis Bank, RBL Bank, Yes Bank, Citibank NA and Ahmednagar Merchants’ Co-operative Bank, the CIC observed that the questions raised require authoritative clarity from the Supreme Court.
The Commission noted that the related writ petitions are listed for hearing on Tuesday, January 20, 2026, and stated that no information should be disclosed until final adjudication.
In one order, the CIC said the case before the Supreme Court “is listed on January 20, 2026, and the decision in Reserve Bank of India & Ors vs Jayantilal N Mistry & Ors is expected to be reconciled by the Supreme Court.”
The cases stem from objections raised by banks to the Reserve Bank of India’s decisions to disclose information such as inspection and risk assessment reports, lists of NPAs and wilful defaulters, show-cause notices, penalties imposed after statutory inspections and related enforcement actions.
The RBI, relying on Supreme Court precedent, had held that such records are “liable to be disclosed” under the RTI Act after severing exempt portions and that it does not share a fiduciary relationship with regulated entities.
Banks, however, challenged the RBI’s stance before the CIC, arguing that disclosure of supervisory and regulatory information would harm their commercial interests and that key aspects of the Jayantilal N Mistry ruling are under reconsideration by the Supreme Court.
In the Axis Bank case, relating to documents connected with a monetary penalty imposed after inspections, the Commission noted that similar matters had earlier been referred to a larger bench and stayed disclosure in the interim.
In the Citibank NA matter, involving inspection reports and show-cause notices, the RBI told the CIC it was bound by the apex court ruling and that any deviation could invite contempt proceedings. Nevertheless, the Commission deferred a final decision and directed that “the respondent shall not disclose the sought information to the original RTI applicant till the final disposal of the instant appeal.”
In another order concerning Ahmednagar Merchants’ Co-operative Bank, the CIC explicitly linked its approach to the upcoming Supreme Court hearing, reiterating that it would be appropriate to await the top court’s guidance.
Similar interim relief has been granted in cases involving SBI, Bank of Baroda, RBL Bank and Yes Bank, where disclosure of NPAs, wilful defaulters’ lists, inspection reports and enforcement actions has been stayed pending consideration by a larger bench of the CIC.
The Commission has referred all such matters to the Chief Information Commissioner for listing before a larger bench and clarified that disclosure will remain stayed until final decisions are taken, with the Supreme Court hearing expected to be a key turning point in the national debate on banking transparency under the RTI law.

ELCITA a public body, comes under RTI Act: Karnataka Information Commission

New Indian Express: Bengaluru: Tuesday, 20 January 2026.
ELCITA had argued that it did not fall under the definition of a public authority, citing Supreme Court and High Court judgments related to cooperative societies.

The Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) has ruled that the Electronics City Industrial Township Authority (ELCITA) is a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, directing it to furnish information sought under the Act and comply with statutory transparency requirements.
The order was passed in an appeal filed by Ganesh Kumar M against the Public Information Officer (PIO) and First Appellate Authority of ELCITA. The appellant had sought detailed information in February 2025 regarding works undertaken by the authority, tender documents, bidder details, and payment records related to tender processes.
During the hearing, ELCITA argued that it did not fall under the definition of a public authority, citing Supreme Court and High Court judgments related to cooperative societies, contending that it was neither substantially financed nor controlled by the government. The authority maintained that regulatory or supervisory control alone would not bring an institution under the RTI Act.
Rejecting these arguments, the Commission observed that Electronics City was developed by the Karnataka government through KEONICS in 1970, and that ELCITA is a statutory body constituted under Section 364-A of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, through a government notification issued in 2013. The Commission noted that ELCITA performs core civic functions such as providing roads, water supply, sanitation, and crucially, collecting property tax a function of the government.
It also highlighted that ELCITA collects taxes as per government guidelines and transfers 30 per cent of the revenue to three gram panchayats within its jurisdiction. Government officials from multiple departments are members of ELCITA’s board, and the authority operates under laws enacted by the State Legislature.
Citing constitutional provisions and multiple judicial precedents, the Commission ruled that ELCITA exercises municipal powers and is, therefore, a statutory public body. The Commission directed ELCITA to appoint a Public Information Officer, Assistant PIO and First Appellate Authority, and ordered it to provide the requested information within 10 days, warning of penalties and disciplinary action for non-compliance.

Constitutional Council declines RTI request on AG nomination

Island.lk: Sri Lanka: Sunday, 18 January 2026.
The Constitutional Council (CC) has refused to disclose certain information sought under the Right to Information Act, No. 12 of 2016, regarding its decision on the President’s nominee for the post of Auditor General.

The information request was submitted on 1 January 2026 by Attorney-at-Law Aazath Atham Lebbe, following a newspaper report. The request sought details on the total number of members of the Constitutional Council, as well as the names of members who voted in favour of, against, or abstained from voting on the nomination of Army Officer Mr. O. R. Rajasinghe.
In its response dated 13 January 2026, the Information Officer of the Constitutional Council has stated that information relating to the total number of members and their designations is already available on the official website of the Parliament of Sri Lanka.
However, the Council has declined to disclose the names of members who voted in favour of or against the nominee, citing Section 5(1)(g) of the Right to Information Act, No. 12 of 2016 as the basis for refusal.
Section 5(1)(g) of the Act states that a request for access to information “shall be refused, where … the information is required to be kept confidential by reason of the existence of a fiduciary relationship.”
This decision has raised serious concerns over transparency in the Constitutional Council’s decision-making process, particularly for high-level constitutional appointments that are of significant public interest. The names of members who voted are public documents, and the general public is entitled to know this information because such appointments directly affect governance, accountability, and the exercise of public power, Atham Lebbe has argued.
“The Constitutional Council is established to act in the public interest and is accountable to the people; it is not empowered to withhold information on the basis that a fiduciary relationship exists where none can logically apply to the disclosure of votes on public office appointments. Moreover, even if an exemption were to be invoked, Section 5(4) of the Act makes clear that a request shall not be refused where the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the harm that would result from its disclosure, and public confidence and trust in democratic institutions is a quintessential public interest.”

HC quashes SIC order, rules RTI cannot breach judicial privacy

Times of India: Raipur: Sunday, 18 January 2026.
The Chhattisgarh high court set aside an order passed by the State Information Commission (SIC) that directed the court's registry to provide personal information of 3 judicial officers to an RTI applicant.

Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, while allowing a batch of writ petitions filed by the HC and its Public Information Officer (PIO), on January 14 ruled that information related to departmental enquiries, service certificates, and complaints against judicial officers constituted "personal information" and "fiduciary" data. The court further emphasised that judicial service cannot be equated with ordinary govt employment. It noted that judicial officers exercise sovereign power and are under the administrative and disciplinary control of the high court as per Article 235 of the Constitution of India.
The matter originated from an application filed by Rajkumar Mishra, a resident of Chirmiri. Mishra sought confidential details regarding 3 judicial officers, including the certificates submitted by them to secure their jobs and records of departmental enquiries initiated against them.
The PIO of the HC and the First Appellate Authority initially rejected the request. However, on Jan 7, 2019, the State Information Commissioner allowed the second appeal and directed the HC to provide the requested information free of cost within 30 days. HC subsequently challenged this directive.
HC dismissed the petitioners' argument that the SIC order was void because it was passed by a single commissioner instead of a multi-member bench. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the court noted that the absence of an explicit provision for benches did not negate the authority of an individual commissioner to decide appeals. However, the court found merit in the argument that the requested data was protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.