RTI कार्यकर्ता का हत्या: 20 लाख रुपये के ठेके पर बनी हत्या की साजिश का खुलासा

Navbharat Times: Ahmedabad: Monday, 27 October 2025.

गुजरात के बनासकांठा में एक सनसनीखेज हत्या का खुलासा हुआ है। दिव्यांग आरटीआई कार्यकर्ता रस‍िक परमार की 20 लाख रुपये के ठेके पर हत्या कर दी गई। आरोप है कि बिल्डरों ने अपने घोटालों को उजागर करने वाले परमार की हत्या करवाई थी। पुलिस ने एक बिल्डर समेत चार लोगों को गिरफ्तार किया है।
गुजरात के बनासकांठा में नहर में फेंका गया एक दिव्यांग आरटीआई एक्टिविस्ट का शव, 20 लाख रुपये की कॉन्ट्रैक्ट किलिंग का मामला निकला है। आरोप है कि कुछ बिल्डरों ने अपने घोटालों को उजागर करने वाले एक्टिविस्ट रसिक परमार की हत्या करवाई थी। थराद पुलिस ने शनिवार को एक बिल्डर समेत चार लोगों को गिरफ्तार किया है। ये सभी बनासकांठा के रहने वाले हैं। रसिक परमार अहमदाबाद म्युनिसिपल कॉर्पोरेशन (AMC) के साथ काम करने वाले बिल्डरों के कई घोटालों का पर्दाफाश कर चुके थे।
पुलिस के अनुसार, आरोपी कलपेश छाछणी ने हत्यारों को 20 लाख रुपये दिए थे। परमार ने AMC से जुड़े बिल्डरों के घोटालों की पोल खोली थी। हत्या का मामला दर्ज होने के बाद पुलिस की आठ टीमों ने जांच शुरू की। तकनीकी निगरानी और सीसीटीवी फुटेज की मदद से पुलिस को एक आरोपी का सुराग मिला। पूछताछ में आरोपी ने अपना जुर्म कबूल कर लिया।
12 अक्टूबर को, छाछणी ने परमार को किसी बहाने से पाटन जिले के सामी ले गया। वहां बाकी आरोपी इंतजार कर रहे थे। उन्होंने रसिक परमार का गला घोंट दिया और शव को नहर में फेंक दिया। पुलिस ने बताया कि राजू कराटे और कमलेश सोलंकी नाम के दो और लोग इस मामले में शामिल हैं, जो बिल्डरों की अनियमितताओं से जुड़े थे। उन्हें भी जल्द गिरफ्तार किया जाएगा।
दिवंगत रसिक परमार के भतीजे द्वारा दर्ज कराई गई FIR के मुताबिक, 55 वर्षीय परमार कुछ साल पहले बिजली का झटका लगने से दोनों हाथों और एक पैर से दिव्यांग हो गए थे। अपनी इस शारीरिक अक्षमता के बावजूद, वे सामाजिक और नागरिक मुद्दों पर सक्रिय थे। उन्हें भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ लड़ने वाले एक योद्धा के तौर पर स्थानीय स्तर पर जाना जाता था।
FIR में यह भी बताया गया है कि परमार ने PPP योजना के तहत हुए झुग्गी पुनर्विकास प्रोजेक्ट में कथित अनियमितताओं का खुलासा किया था। इस प्रोजेक्ट में 1,449 घर और 130 दुकानें बननी थीं। उन्होंने फर्जी लाभार्थी दस्तावेजों और स्थानीय बिल्डरों की अन्य गड़बड़ियों को लेकर AMC, गांधीनगर कलेक्टर कार्यालय, मुख्यमंत्री कार्यालय और हाई कोर्ट में बार-बार शिकायतें की थीं।
शिकायतकर्ता ने बताया कि परमार को कराटे और सोलंकी से बार-बार धमकियां मिल रही थीं। थराद पुलिस ने भारतीय न्याय संहिता की धाराओं के तहत हत्या और आपराधिक साजिश का मामला दर्ज किया है। यह घटना बताती है कि कैसे सच सामने लाने वाले लोगों को अपनी जान गंवानी पड़ सकती है, खासकर जब वे शक्तिशाली लोगों के काले कारनामों का पर्दाफाश करते हैं। यह मामला भ्रष्टाचार के खिलाफ लड़ाई में आने वाली मुश्किलों को भी उजागर करता है। पुलिस अब बाकी आरोपियों की तलाश में जुटी है ताकि इस पूरे गिरोह का पर्दाफाश हो सके।

Residents, activists start campaign against framing of rules under RTI Act

The Hindu: Chennai: Monday, 27 October 2025.
The participants stressed the need for rollback of the amendment that disempowers residents who seek data under RTI.

Residents and civic activists in Chennai and various districts of the State on Sunday launched a campaign against the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act), 2023 and demanding a rollback of the RTI Amendment by the Central Government as the new rules are expected to be framed shortly.
The participants stressed the need for rollback of the amendment that disempowers residents who seek data under RTI. They also opposed the new provisions of the Act, that seeks to silence and penalise journalists, that may extend to ₹250 crore on the pretext of breach in observing the obligation of Data Fiduciary. The penalty can also be doubled to ₹500 crore. 
Anjali Bhardwaj, co-convener - National Campaign for People’s Right to Information said: “The DPDP Act is extremely problematic and poses a grave threat to freedom of the press and to fundamental rights of citizens, including the Right to Information and Right to Free Speech and Expression. The amendment made to section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act through the DPDP Act seeks to exempt all personal information from disclosure.”
“For any information the officials don’t want to give, they are citing Section 8 (1) (j) which is bad enough. What we have seen now is that the scope of it has been totally increased under the DPDP Act. The Supreme Court has also held that the Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right. People have a right to privacy that is something the RTI law also recognises through Section 8 (1) (j). The Central Government has now brought the digital personal data protection law. This law is basically to give control on our personal data to the Central government. There is no other logical way of explaining. The broad stroke is the government has brought the data protection law to fully control and centralise the control on our personal data. Why do I say that? There are two broad provisions under this law. One is that Section 44 (3) of the data protection law amends the RTI Act. What it says is that Section 8 (1) (j) we are deleting everything in that section. The nuanced section is being deleted, and all that we are going to say is that all personal information will be exempt. Everything deleted, no larger public interest. Now this is huge, because if we look at it , in all our use of the RTI Act in the last 20 years, whenever we have used it to fight corruption, wherever we have used it to fight human rights violations, wherever we have used it to expose wrongdoing and ensure accountability, we have asked for personal granular information. It rains, and there is a road that is being constructed for crores of rupees, and the first rain, the road breaks. What will I ask for in the RTI? The first question I ask is to give me the name of the contractor. Give me that name of the government official who signed. Give me that name of the government official who went for inspection after the work was done and released the money. Now the name of the government official is personal information. Their personal information cannot be revealed. How do we fight corruption? “
Pointing to the recent announcement by the Central government that the rules will be formulated this year, she said: “The law must not be operationalised in its current form. A thorough review and revision of the problematic provisions of the law must be undertaken urgently. By not providing any exemption for journalistic work from the obligations, the
Data Protection Act will limit journalism to PR.”
Arappor Iyakkam convenor Jayaram Venkatesan said residents and farmers from various districts of Tamil Nadu have started a campaign to oppose the law and framing of the new rules.
“The DPDP Act and the RTI Act amendment made through the DPDP Act is an assault on the democratic rights of citizens. If this act is operationalised through which all personal data is exempted, it will result in denial of most information that citizens access today regarding their grievance status and corruption issues. It will be a huge blow to transparency and accountability fixing in governance. It will affect civil society, journalists, and people from all walks of life,” said Mr.Jayaram Venkatesan.

Four held for murder of disabled RTI activist

Times of India: Ahmedabad: Sunday, 26 October 2025.
The murder of a physically challenged RTI activist, whose body was dumped in a canal in Banaskantha, has turned out to be a Rs 20 lakh contract killing allegedly orchestrated by some builders whose irregularities he had exposed.

On Saturday, the Tharad police arrested four people including the builder for the murder of Rasik Parmar, a resident of Vadaj in Ahmedabad. Parmar had exposed several scams of builders executing housing projects of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) in the past decade.
Those arrested were Gangaram Parmar, Suresh Parmar, Pankaj Parmar and Kalpesh Chachani, all residents of Banaskantha.
S M Varotariya, deputy superintendent of police, Tharad, said, "Chachani had contracted the assailants for Rs 20 lakh. Parmar had unearthed scams of builders associated with the AMC. After the murder case was registered, eight teams were formed, and based on technical surveillance and CCTV footage, the cops got details of one of the accused. During the interrogation, the accused confessed to the crime."
On Oct 12, he took Parmar on some pretext to Sami in Patan district, where the other accused were waiting. There, they strangled Parmar, and disposed of his body in a canal.
"We have found the involvement of Raju Karate and Kamlesh Solanki, who were allegedly involved in the irregularities, and they will be arrested soon," said Varotariya.
According to the FIR filed by the deceased's nephew, 55-year-old Parmar had paralysis in both arms and one leg after suffering an electric shock some years ago. Despite his disability, he was active in social and civic issues and recognised locally as a crusader against corruption, the FIR states.
The FIR states that Parmar exposed alleged irregularities in the slum redevelopment project under the PPP scheme, which involved 1,449 houses and 130 shops. He repeatedly filed complaints with the AMC, the Gandhinagar collector's office, the chief minister's office, and the high court regarding forged beneficiary documents and other irregularities by local builders.
The complainant said, "Parmar got repeated threats from Karate and Solanki." Tharad police registered a case of murder and criminal conspiracy under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

‘This Govt Doesn’t Like it When People Watch It’: Justice AP Shah on Why We Need the RTI

The Wire: New Delhi: Sunday, 26 October 2025.
Former Delhi high court Chief Justice and law commission chairman Justice A.P. Shah spoke recently on why the RTI cannot be allowed to die a slow death.

This is the full text of the speech that Justice A.P. Shah who retired as Delhi high court Chief Justice delivered at the RTI Mela and Sammelan in Beawar, Rajasthan to mark 20 years of the Right to Information legislation on October 12, 2025. The original speech is in Hindi and has been translated into English.
Namaste, dear friends, I am delighted to be here today on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the RTI [Right to Information] Act. I am especially grateful to Aruna-ji [Aruna Roy] and Nikhil-ji [Nikhil Dey], Shankar-ji [Shankar Singh] and everyone at MKSS [the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan], for inviting me here today.
Many of you already know what the RTI Act is. But before the RTI Act existed, what was it like?
Imagine that the government is like a big, closed box. Inside that box are all the files, all the records, that actually belong to you. Before the RTI Act, this box was locked, and the key was with politicians and officers. They could do whatever they wanted, and keep you in the dark. In 2005, when the RTI Act came about, it was like a key that broke the lock on that box.
The RTI law says: The government's information is your property. Just like you can own your field and your home, you also have a right to know how money is spent in your village or district, how that school teacher was appointed, and why you did not get your ration card.
RTI is a simple but powerful tool that helps every person demand an answer from the government.
When writing our constitution, our founding fathers knew that a government must be transparent. The Supreme Court India’s highest court has also said many times that the “Right to Know” is a fundamental right that belongs to everyone. The RTI Act simply put this existing power of the people down on paper.
What is especially interesting about this law is that it was not created by the parliament or because a politician felt they should help the people. The idea for RTI was born from the soil, from the struggle of ordinary workers and farmers, in villages more than in cities, it came from people like you. A team of brave activists, led by people like Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey, Shankar Singh and their colleagues at the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), started a movement. They started by simply asking to see muster rolls in Rajasthan. These roles contained the list of people paid for road work or drought relief. The officers tried to hide the books. But the activists and the villagers stood strong. They held public hearings asking for every expense to be read out loud, so that everyone could see if the money was stolen or if the work was actually done. The struggle of Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey, and the villagers forced the government to show the files.
Over time, this led to an RTI law first in the state of Rajasthan, and eventually for all of India, in 2005.
One very important feature of the RTI law is the cost of getting the information you want. It takes time and money to ask a question. The people who wrote the RTI law did not want to put a burden on the poor. So, they added Section 4 in the law which contains a promise that “the government must put information out in the open”, even before you ask for it.
Section 4 basically asks the government to put up a public notice board, which includes names of all beneficiaries, all spending details, and information about all schemes for everyone to see.
Because of the push from activists, some states have started to put out information publicly. As more information started coming out, people could find out, for example, about “ghost employees”, or the names of people who were being paid, but who did not actually exist. This has happened in Rajasthan through the Jan Soochna Portal, and in Karnataka through the Mahiti Kanaja. Other states are also doing similar things. Many lakhs of citizens have used it to get information about their rights. Section 4 is extremely important, and we must demand that every state and every village follows it fully.
Over the last 20 years, the RTI has shone the light on dark secrets of powerful governments. It has helped expose financial fraud and theft in pension schemes, where people were stealing money meant for the elderly and the poor. It has helped citizens question how money was spent from important government funds meant to help the people. It has also forced the highest institutions to open their books and be accountable to the public.
The other thing is the timeline provided by the RTI. Whatever your question is, the RTI Act requires that the government officer must answer every RTI application within 30 days. If they do not answer, they can be penalised. If you push through, it can make sure that you get your pension in time, your ration card, and so on.
The RTI Act has been generally working very well. Many people from all walks of life have used it to obtain information. But governments do not like it much.
Remember that the RTI Act has taken power away from the corrupt and given it to the people. But governments, especially the present government which has been in power since 2014, do not like it when their power to act in secret is taken away. They do not like it when people are always watching them. They like the locked box better.
So the government is trying to weaken the RTI law in some ways. For example, in 2019, they brought in an amendment that affects how the RTI Act works. If you have a problem with an officer who does not give information you asked for, you would approach an Information Commission. These commissions are like judges for RTI cases. They are powerful, independent bodies, and they can fine and punish an officer who refuses to give information. Earlier, the Information Commissioners had a fixed, secure job for five years. This meant they could do what they wanted, without being afraid of anyone else. But after 2019, the rule changed – the Central government can now decide their salary and how long they would hold their post. This would make anyone afraid to do their job properly.
Another thing that the government has done is to just not fill the jobs at all. When an Information Commissioner retires, the government is very slow with appointing a new one. As a result, RTI appeals get piled up. If you have to wait for two or three years for an answer to your question, the RTI law is completely useless. In fact, the Supreme Court has also told the government that it is making the RTI a “dead letter”, a body with no life, because it is not filling these empty seats.
So, the government is trying to kill the law slowly, both through making judges afraid, and by delaying appointments and cases.
Recently, the most dangerous blow has come from a new law called the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act of 2023. According to the government, this law is supposed to protect your privacy, but it has a hidden clause that might kill the RTI Act altogether.
In the old RTI Act, one rule said that “even if some information is personal (like a public servant's salary or their assets), it must be disclosed if it is in the larger public interest (like exposing theft and corruption).” This rule is for use especially against corrupt officers. But this rule has been completely removed by the new DPDP Act. Now, with the amendment, any information that is “personal” can be denied. What the “personal” means is also left extremely wide. An officer can potentially claim that any file about them is personal, whether it is their degree, their property records, or any disciplinary action against them…
In other words, an officer can now look at an RTI application and simply deny it, saying it is personal.
Aruna Roy and Nikhil Dey have rightly warned us: If this stands, the RTI Act will be dead. It will become the “Right to Deny Information Act” (RDI).
Even as we consider the changes to the RTI Act and how the government is making every effort to weaken it, we must also remember the brave souls who have paid the ultimate price for using this law. The RTI is a dangerous tool because it challenges powerful and corrupt people. Some say that nearly 100 people have been killed for filing RTI applications. Hundreds, maybe thousands more, have been threatened, assaulted, or had false criminal cases filed against them. The government has never protected these people.
A law called the Whistleblowers Protection Act was passed in 2014, to protect anyone who exposes corruption in government, but this government has not implemented it. The law is just on paper.
In conclusion, I would like to remind you of this: The RTI Act is the most powerful law in your hands. It was born from the struggle of common people like you. It has exposed corruption and delivered your basic rights. But now, this most powerful law, which gives you power directly in your hands, is under attack. The government has weakened RTI judges, they are deliberately leaving posts in Information Commissions empty. The government has also introduced a new law, the DPDP Act, which allows practically all information pertaining to an individual officer to be classified as “personal information” and not revealed to the public, even if it is in the public interest to do so.
We must always remember that the power belongs to us, and we must defend it to the fullest.
So what can we do? The best way to save the law is to keep using it, and keep filing RTI applications for your questions that have not been answered by the government. Keep asking local leaders to put all public information on a notice board and on a website, so that we do not have to even ask for it. Pressure the government to change the DPDP Act, and ask for protection for RTI activists, so that people who fight for the truth do not have to fear for their life.
This is not a political battle. This is a personal battle, for your power as a citizen, and for our democracy.
We must use our collective voice, assert our power as citizens, and ensure that the people's law is not defeated.
Do not let the box be locked again. Keep your key, and keep the government accountable.
I am also extremely pleased to be here today at a time when the world's first RTI Museum is currently being concepalised and constructed here.
The people of the city of Beawar, its surrounding areas, and their contribution to transparency, accountability, and democratic participation, should be acknowledged not just in Rajasthan or India but across the world. This would also honour and acknowledge the role ordinary citizens play in keeping democracy alive.
I would very much like to be a part of this important initiative, and suggest that this must be developed as a live and living  museum, where the past helps inspire democratic initiatives in the present and future. The museum can then become a place that can keep recording people's struggles and collective public action for transparency and accountability as they unfold.
Finally, this museum should be a space that furthers the values of the Indian Constitution in every way. I therefore hope the museum will also become a repository for pro-people precedents in administration, progressive judgments in our courts, and a place that demonstrates how transparency and accountability to the people can help build a truly participatory, "social democracy".
I promise to keep myself connected to this most important people’s movement.
Thank you.
(Justice Ajit Prakash Shah is former chief justice, Delhi high court and former chairperson, Law Commission of India.)

Copy Of Passport Can't Be Given To Third Party Under RTI Act: Karnataka High Court

 Live Law: Bengaluru: Sunday, 26 October 2025.
The Karnataka High Court has said that information relating to the passport of a person accused of cheque dishonour, including a copy of the passport is personal in nature and cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information Act.

The court also observed that the disclosure was exempted under Section 8(1)(h) as being information the disclosure of which would impede the probe and Section 24(4) as per which the Act is not applicable on special intelligence and security organization/units organized and established by the State Government.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said:
“The disclosure of the information like a passport, in my considered opinion, being personal in nature would cause immense harm and injury to a person. The details of a passport are private to a person and if those details of a passport are made available to any third party, including the petitioner who has filed Section 138 of NI Act proceedings, it could cause a danger to the life or physical safety of the concerned person.”
Praskash Chimanlal Sheth had filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the said matter, the accused having absconded, a lookout circular had been issued, in pursuance of which the accused had been detained at Mumbai International Airport and later released.
He had made an application under RTI for furnishing a copy of the passport of the accused, the date on which the LOC was issued against the accused, and a copy of the LOC issued against him.
The same came to be rejected on the ground that the information sought for cannot be furnished in view of Rule 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and further on the ground that the document sought for pertains to the Special Branch and in terms of the notification issued, the RTI Act does not apply to Special Branches in District Police Offices. The order was confirmed in appeal. Against this the complainant approached the high court.
The bench noted that exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act is available to information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Apart from 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, the court noted that the authorities, had categorically rejected the disclosure of the same on account of the RTI Act not being applicable to special units in terms of the notification issued under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
For Context Section 24(4) of the RTI Act provides that nothing contained in the RTI Act would apply to such an intelligence and security organization being organized and established by the State Government, as the government may from time to time by notification in the official gazette specify.
The bench then said “Since it is contended that there is a notification which has been issued exempting the special branches of the District Police Officers in terms of Subsection (4) of Section 24, the RTI Act would not be applicable.”
Rejecting the petition the court clarified that “In the event the petitioner seeking for and the said information for use in the prosecution of the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act, the petitioner could always make an application in the said proceedings for the summoning of those documents, which the Court in its wisdom, could consider. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application.”
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17341 OF 2025
(Click Here to Download Order)

Passport details are private, can’t be disclosed under RTI: Karnataka High Court

 Deccan Herald: Bengaluru: Sunday, 26 October 2025.
It was also stated that the document sought pertains to the Special Branch, and in terms of the notification issued, the RTI Act does not apply to Special Branches in District Police Offices.

If details of a passport are made available to any third party, including a complainant in proceedings under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (cheque bounce), it could cause a danger to the life or physical safety of the concerned person, the Karnataka high court has observed in a recent judgement. Justice Suraj Govidaraj said this while rejecting the petition filed by a Mumbai based businessman seeking information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act a copy of the passport of the accused and copy of the Lookout Circular (LOC) issued against him.
The petitioner Prakash Chimanlal Sheth had filed the cheque bounce case against the accused before a magistrate court at Puttur, Dakshina Kannada district. Since the accused is absconding, LOC was issued against him. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the LOC, the accused was detained at Mumbai International Airport but was later released.
The petitioner filed an application under the RTI seeking a copy of the passport and the LOC issued against him. He also sought all information and records available with SP, Mangaluru office, about the detention of the accused at Mumbai International Airport on December 1, 2023 and about his release on the same day. This application was rejected by the Public Information Officer (PIO) at the SP office on the grounds that the information sought could not be furnished in view of prohibition under Rule 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.
Further, it was stated that the document sought pertains to the Special Branch, and in terms of the notification issued, the RTI Act does not apply to Special Branches in District Police Offices. The appeal against this order was also rejected by the Appellate Authority at the SP office, Mangaluru. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC). The petitioner moved the high court after the KIC also rejected his appeal on March 19, 2025.
After examining the materials, the provisions of the RTI Act, and the Apex Court decision in the Puttaswamy case, Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that the information sought would be governed by the law of privacy and hence cannot be granted. “The disclosure of the information like a passport, in my considered opinion, being personal in nature would cause immense harm and injury to a person. The details of a passport are private to a person and if those details of a passport are made available to any third party, including the petitioner who has filed Section 138 of NI Act proceedings, it could cause a danger to the life or physical safety of the concerned person,” Justice Suraj Govindaraj said.
The court further said, “In the event the petitioner seeks the said information for use in the prosecution of the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act, the petitioner could always make an application in the said proceedings for the summoning of those documents, which the court, in its wisdom, could consider. It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application.”

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

Ghanaian Times: Ghana: Saturday, 25 October 2025.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At 20, RTI is a promise broken

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remove red-tapism in information requests

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

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

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

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

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