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

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

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

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

Counterview: New Delhi: Sunday, 21 December 2025.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

North Block which houses India’s Ministry of Home 

Affairs, in New Delhi, India.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Government proposes RTI restrictions on SHANTI Bill : By Chetan Chauhan

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

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

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

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

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

Relief under RTI Act for woman who was deprived of land ownership

The Hindu: Chennai: Wednesday, 17 December 2025.
After a decade’s struggle to get her property back, the victim approached TNIC for relief, State Chief Information Commissioner Md. Shakeel Akhter directed Narayani to approach the District Registrar, Chengalpattu, with all relevant documents for registration of her land.

More than a decade after her agricultural land was erroneously recorded as temple property, abruptly depriving her of ownership, a woman turned to the Right to Information (RTI) Act to uncover the truth.
In 2012, S. Narayani of Chennai, was shocked to know her ancestral land measuring 75 cents at Tiruporur in Chengalpattu district had been shown in the encumbrance certificate as property belonging to the Arulmigu Kandaswamy Temple, Tiruporur.
Along with her son, S. Rajkumar, Ms. Narayani approached officials of the Revenue, Registration, and Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) departments seeking an explanation as to how the family’s private land was listed as temple property. However, their repeated representations evoked no response from the officials.
“We had all the land records such as parent documents, patta, chitta and other revenue certificates to establish our ownership. But the officials could not produce a single document to justify how our land was shown as government property. They refused to entertain our request to change the records based on facts,” Mr. Rajkumar said.
No response to RTI Act plea
With no relief forthcoming, Ms. Narayani filed an RTI Act application in 2022 with the District Registrar-cum-Public Information Officer (PIO), Chengalpattu, seeking details on how the ownership of her land had been altered. When the application drew no response, she moved an appeal before the Tamil Nadu Information Commission (TNIC) the following year.
When the matter came up before State Chief Information Commissioner Md. Shakeel Akhter, he summoned the PIOs of the three departments and directed them to explain how private patta lands in Survey Nos. 56/1, 56/3 and 56/5 had been converted into temple property, and to produce supporting documents.
Though the officials initially maintained the lands belonged to the temple, they failed to furnish any records to substantiate their claim.
Wrong entries acknowledged
After several adjournments spanning over two years, the Registration Department’s PIO submitted a report stating that mistakes and erroneous entries had been made in 2007. The officials responsible had since retired, the report said, and no action could be initiated against them.
The PIO further informed the Commission that the petitioner could approach the appropriate authorities for registration of the property, provided there was no objection from the Revenue Department regarding the genuineness of the patta or any pending litigation.
Passing orders after hearing both sides, Mr. Shakeel Akhter directed Ms. Narayani to approach the District Registrar, Chengalpattu, with all relevant documents for registration of her land, a move that would restore her ownership and rights over the property.

RK Goyal takes oath as CIC; watchdog at full strength after 9 years

 Business Standard: New Delhi: Tuesday, 16 December 2025.
The Central Information Commission has attained full strength after nine years following the appointment of a new chief and eight information commissioners, amid concerns over backlog and transparency

President Droupadi Murmu with newly sworn-in CIC
Raj Kumar Goyal (Photo: PTI)

After a gap of nine years, transparency watchdog, the Central Information Commission, has returned to full strength with the appointment of former Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Raj Kumar Goyal as chief information commissioner (CIC) and eight other information commissioners, all of whom took the oath of office on Monday.
The post of CIC had fallen vacant after Heeralal Samariya completed his term on September 13. The Commission is headed by a CIC and can have up to 10 information commissioners. With the latest appointments, the body has reached full strength for the first time in more than nine years, transparency activists said.
Right to Information activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johari said the Centre appointed the CIC and eight information commissioners “after repeated directions of the Supreme Court to fill vacancies”. They said the Supreme Court, since December 2018, had in multiple orders directed the filling of all vacancies in view of the large backlog of appeals and complaints before the Commission. The watchdog will finally function at full strength after December 2016, they said. The backlog currently exceeds 31,000 appeals and complaints, and it takes more than a year for a matter to be heard by the Commission, according to the activists, who were petitioners in a related Supreme Court case.
The Supreme Court, in its 2019 judgment and subsequent orders, had also directed the government to ensure transparency in the appointment process for information commissioners under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. “We are constrained to note that important information such as the short-listing criteria adopted by the search committee and the list of applicants and short-listed candidates was not placed in the public domain,” Bhardwaj and Johari said in a statement.
A three-member panel headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi last week recommended the names of the Chief Information Commissioner and eight information commissioners for appointment. President Droupadi Murmu administered the oath of office to Goyal as CIC at a ceremony at Rashtrapati Bhavan. Later, in the presence of two incumbent information commissioners, Anandi Ramalingam and Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Goyal administered the oath of office to the eight new appointees.
Goyal is a retired 1990-batch IAS officer of the Arunachal Pradesh-Goa-Mizoram-Union Territories (AGMUT) cadre. He superannuated on August 31 as secretary in the Department of Justice under the Ministry of Law and Justice. He has also served as secretary (border management) in the Ministry of Home Affairs and held key positions at the Centre and in the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.
The eight information commissioners include former Railway Board chair Jaya Verma Sinha; former Indian Police Service officer Swagat Das, who held senior roles in the Intelligence Bureau, the Home Ministry and the Cabinet Secretariat; Central Secretariat Service officer Sanjeev Kumar Jindal; former IAS officer Surendra Singh Meena; and former Indian Forest Service officer Khushwant Singh Sethi. Senior journalists P R Ramesh and Ashutosh Chaturvedi, and former Indian Legal Service officer Sudha Rani Relangi, have also been sworn in as information commissioners.
The names of the CIC and the eight information commissioners were cleared at a meeting of the Modi-led selection committee, which included Union Home Minister Amit Shah and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi. The Congress leader flagged the lack of representation from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes among the shortlisted candidates.

How RTI activists keep the law alive : Shamsul Bari, Ruhi Naz

The Daily Star: Bangladesh: Tuesday, 16 December 2025.

The absence of Bangladesh's three information commissioners vacancies that, almost a year and a half on have left the Right to Information (RTI) regime severely debilitated, with replacements still inexplicably pending. However, instead of lamenting about it today, let's learn how the country's dedicated RTI activists our "RTI warriors" are coping with the situation. Trained over the years by a handful of committed NGOs, these individuals are locally recognised for helping people use the law to promote transparency and oversight in governance. In the absence of a functioning information commission, their work has become riskier and more complex, demanding greater perseverance and strategic acuity.
Encouragingly, although some have grown disheartened and stepped back, a significant number continue with remarkable determination and tenacity. Rather than retreating in the face of bureaucratic inertia, these RTI warriors have adopted a strategy of persistence: signalling to public officials that even without formal oversight citizens remain vigilant, committed to monitoring public services, and prepared to demand accountability.
The experiences they shared several of which will be mentioned later show how ordinary citizens have continued to use the RTI Act not only to resolve immediate problems but also to signal institutional scrutiny, promote transparency, and sustain civic pressure on authorities. These examples demonstrate the power of citizen engagement, even when institutional support is temporarily lacking, and offer critical insights into the resilience, strategies and impact of Bangladesh's RTI movement.
The following case studies highlight how RTI has been used to ensure public health accountability, protect infrastructure, and safeguard citizens' rights despite the challenges posed by a dormant information commission.
Ensuring public health accountability
In June 2025, Mukta Akter used the RTI Act to address the denial of free medicines to her sick brother at Jaldhaka Sadar Hospital in Nilphamari district. Despite entitlement under government policy, hospital staff told her to buy medicines privately and responded dismissively when questioned.
Mukta, trained in RTI law by an NGO, filed an RTI application requesting (i) lists of medicines provided by the hospital and those purchased externally, and (ii) the hospital's annual government allocation for medicines for FY2024-2025.
Fearing scrutiny, the hospital immediately provided all required medicines free of cost, corrected staff behaviour, and improved procedures demonstrating RTI's power to secure services, enforce transparency, and catalyse institutional reform while strengthening public trust.
Protecting public infrastructure
In Sarkar Para, Nilphamari Sadar upazila, residents were isolated after a private landowner illegally excavated a pond beside an unpaved road, which then collapsed during heavy rain. Trespass over adjoining private land by the neighbouring population became impossible when the owner blocked access. The excavation violated buffer requirements and provisions of the Penal Code, 1860, and the Land-related Offences Prevention and Remedy Act (LCPRA), 2021.
On November 26, 2025, RTI-savvy residents filed applications with the Nilphamari Settlement Office and the assistant commissioner (Land), seeking mouza maps and khatiyan records to establish the road's legal status. Confirmation of the land as public triggered the AC (Land)'s obligations under the LCPRA to investigate, issue recovery orders, and complete remedial action within three months. The case illustrates RTI's value as a non-judicial tool for evidence-gathering and administrative accountability, enabling communities to protect infrastructure and enforce legal remedies efficiently.
The deterrent power of RTI
On September 29, 2025, following a severe accidental electrocution, Dayal Chandra Roy's son was admitted to Nilphamari Sadar Hospital. Although entitled to free treatment, the attending doctor demanded that the father supply a required utensil and purchase medicines externally. After an altercation on the matter, the doctor abruptly referred the child elsewhere for treatment.
Aggrieved by the doctor's decision, the father, with support from a local RTI advocate, threatened to file an RTI application, signalling scrutiny of the denial of treatment, the availability of medicines, and the doctor's administrative conduct. The hospital superintendent intervened immediately: care continued uninterrupted, regular updates were ordered, and the doctor and nurse apologised. The episode demonstrates RTI's deterrent effect compelling responsible conduct and reinforcing transparency under the prospect of legal oversight.
These cases show the continuing, practical power of the RTI Act, 2009 even without a fully operational information commission. Strategically invoked, RTI enables citizens to secure essential services, correct administrative failures, protect public assets, and hold officials to account. They also testify to the resilience, creativity and impact of Bangladesh's RTI activists in promoting transparency, safeguarding rights, and reinforcing institutional accountability.
We hope the interim government now preparing for a free and fair general election will heed citizens' aspirations for transparent, accountable governance, as illustrated earlier, and promptly revitalise the RTI regime and advance a more robust, citizen-friendly RTI law. It is equally fundamental that all political parties seeking a mandate to govern uphold and promote the RTI Act as a cornerstone of good governance and participatory democracy.
(Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz are chairman and deputy director (RTI), respectively, at Research Initiatives, Bangladesh (RIB). They can be reached at rib@citech-bd.com.)

Former bureaucrat Goyal takes oath asCIC; eight commissioners also sworn in : By Vrinda Tulsian

 Hindustan Times: New Delhi: Tuesday, 16 December 2025.
Former IAS officer Raj Kumar Goyal assumed charge as the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) on Monday, while eight other information commissioners took the oath of office, bringing the Central Information Commission to its full sanctioned strength after a gap after several years.

President Droupadi Murmu administered the oath of office to Goyal at a ceremony held at Rashtrapati Bhavan. Vice President CP Radhakrishnan was also present at the ceremony.
Goyal, a 1990-batch (retired) IAS officer of the Arunachal Pradesh-Goa-Mizoram-Union Territories (AGMUT) cadre, superannuated as secretary, Department of Justice under the Ministry of Law and Justice, on August 31. He has earlier served as secretary (border management) in the ministry of home affairs and held senior positions in the Centre and in the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. The post of CIC fell vacant after Heeralal Samariya completed his term on September 13.
The eight new information commissioners are former Railway Board chairman and chief executive officer Jaya Varma Sinha; former Indian Police Service officer Swagat Das, who served in the Intelligence Bureau, the home ministry and the cabinet secretariat; central secretariat service officer Sanjeev Kumar Jindal; former IAS officer Surendra Singh Meena; and former Indian Forest Service officer Khushwant Singh Sethi. Senior journalists P R Ramesh and Ashutosh Chaturvedi, and former Indian Legal Service officer Sudha Rani Relangi, have also been sworn in as information commissioners.
The appointments fill all sanctioned posts in the Commission. Under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, the Central Information Commission is headed by a Chief Information Commissioner and can have up to 10 Information Commissioners. The Commission functions as the final appellate authority for RTI matters involving central public authorities, Union ministries, departments and public sector undertakings.
At various points in recent years, the Commission had been functioning with multiple vacancies, contributing to delays in the hearing and disposal of RTI appeals and complaints, according to data placed before Parliament and disclosures by the Commission.
A three-member panel headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi recommended their names for the appointment last week.
Gandhi recorded a note of dissent during the meeting of the selection panel, officials said. In his dissent, Gandhi raised concerns over the composition of the shortlisted candidates and sought details on social representation among applicants. He stated that the list did not adequately reflect representation from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Economically Backward Classes and minority communities, and submitted his objections in writing.
Government officials, however, said the selection process was carried out in accordance with the prescribed procedure and that the committee finalised the appointments after considering eligible candidates and institutional requirements.
The appointments come amid continued scrutiny of the functioning of information commissions following amendments to the RTI Act in 2019, which changed the tenure and service conditions of Information Commissioners and vested the Union government with the power to notify these through rules. Opposition parties and civil society groups have raised concerns in Parliament and outside over the impact of vacancies and appointment processes on the implementation of the transparency law.

RTI में जानकारी न देने पर सोसायटी प्रबंधक पर जुर्माना:राज्य सूचना आयोग ने 30 हजार रुपए का फाइन लगाया

Dainik Bhaskar: Dhar: Monday, 15 December 2025.

मध्य प्रदेश राज्य सूचना आयोग ने RTI अधिनियम की अनदेखी और गंभीर लापरवाही पर कड़ी कार्रवाई करते हुए आदिम जाति सेवा सहकारी समिति बरमंडल के प्रबंधक पर 30 हजार रुपए का जुर्माना लगाया है। खास बात यह है कि किसी सोसायटी प्रबंधक पर RTI मामले में इस स्तर की कार्रवाई प्रदेश में पहली बार हुई है।
यह मामला RTI कार्यकर्ता श्रीराम मारू द्वारा मांगी गई जानकारी से शुरू हुआ था। समिति के लोक सूचना अधिकारी—यानी प्रबंधक—ने न सिर्फ तय समय-सीमा में सूचना उपलब्ध नहीं कराई, बल्कि प्रथम अपील में भी सुनवाई नहीं हुई। मामला जब राज्य सूचना आयोग पहुंचा, तो यहां भी आदेश का पालन नहीं किया गया। आयोग ने स्पष्ट निर्देश दिए थे कि अपीलकर्ता को निशुल्क सूचना दी जाए, लेकिन प्रबंधक ने इसे भी नजरअंदाज कर दिया।
फर्जी साइन कर पत्र जमा किया
जांच आगे बढ़ी तो कहानी और चौंकाने वाली निकली। आयोग की सुनवाई में खुलासा हुआ कि प्रबंधक ने अपीलकर्ता के फर्जी हस्ताक्षर कर एक संतुष्टि पत्र जमा कराया था, ताकि मामला बंद हो सके। हस्ताक्षर मिलान में यह चाल पकड़ी गई, और आयोग ने इसे गंभीर धोखाधड़ी मानते हुए प्रबंधक के सभी तर्कों को खारिज कर दिया।
1 दिसंबर 2025 को हुई सुनवाई में आयोग ने दोनों प्रकरणों में कुल 30 हजार रुपए का जुर्माना लगाने का आदेश दिया। जुर्माने की राशि एक माह के भीतर जमा कर संबंधित जानकारी सहकारिता आयुक्त एवं पंजीयक संस्थाएं, भोपाल को भेजना अनिवार्य किया गया है। साथ ही प्रबंधक की सेवा पुस्तिका में भी इस कार्रवाई का उल्लेख दर्ज करने के निर्देश दिए गए हैं।
अधिकारियों को दी चेतावनी
प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी को भी आयोग ने कड़ी चेतावनी दी है कि आगे से ऐसे मामलों का समय पर और नियमों के अनुसार निराकरण किया जाए, अन्यथा उन्हें भी अनुशासनात्मक दंड का सामना करना पड़ेगा।
RTI कार्यकर्ता श्रीराम मारू का कहना है कि वे पिछले 11 वर्षों से सोसायटियों से जुड़ी जानकारी जनहित में मांगते आ रहे हैं, लेकिन विभाग अक्सर इसे RTI के दायरे से बाहर बताकर जानकारी देने से बचता रहा। उन्होंने उम्मीद जताई कि इस कार्रवाई के बाद अब आम लोगों को भी सोसायटियों से पारदर्शी जानकारी मिलने का रास्ता आसान होगा।