गजब खेला: RTI की स्क्रिप्ट बताते हैं कटघोरा के वन अधिकारी,आवेदन लगाता उनका एक्टिविस्ट मित्र, 50-50 का बंटवारा

Saty Sanwad: Raipur: Tuesday, March 25, 2025.

शासकीय कार्यों और शासकीय धन का उपयोग के मामले में पारदर्शिता लाने के उद्देश्य से लागू किया गया सूचना का अधिकार कानून भ्रष्ट आचरण और भ्रष्टाचार की पोल खोलने में मददगार साबित हो रहा है और भ्रष्टाचार करने वाले सलाखों के पीछे तक जा रहे हैं। उन पर अनुशासनात्मक कार्रवाई भी हो रही है तो दूसरी तरफ कुछ ऐसे भी लोग हैं जो इसे रुपए कमाने का जरिया बनाए बैठे हैं।
सूत्रों की मानें तो कोरबा जिले में वन विभाग के एक अधिकारी जो कटघोरा वन मंडल से वास्ता रखते हैं, वह अपने पड़ोसी जिले के आरटीआई एक्टिविस्ट मित्र के साथ विभागीय सारी जानकारियां साझा करते हैं। विभाग की पोल पट्टी इन्हें अच्छे से पता होती है और इस कारण यह अपने एक्टिविस्ट मित्र के माध्यम से प्रदेश भर में वन विभाग के खिलाफ आरटीआई लगवाया करते हैं। आरटीआई के खेल में पोल पट्टी की जानकारी यह वन अधिकारी प्रदान करता है और उनका मित्र आईटीआई लगाता है। फिर इसके एवज में जो भी समझौता राशि हासिल होती है उसका 50-50 बांट लिया जाता है। इसकी चर्चा कोरबा से लेकर पड़ोसी जिला ही नहीं बल्कि प्रदेश के उन पीड़ितों में भी है जो इनके चंगुल में फंस चुके हैं। वन विभाग के इस अधिकारी के काफी किस्से भी चर्चित रहे हैं। पूर्व् में पड़ोसी सीमावर्ती जिले के वन मंडल में पदस्थ रहने के दौरान काफी सुर्खियों में रहने वाला यह अधिकारी अब तक विभागीय जांच और कानून के शिकंजे से बचता आया है, लेकिन कहावत है न कि- बकरे की अम्मा आखिर कब तक खैर मनाएगी, एक न एक दिन तो ये कानून के लपेटे में आएंगे ही।

Time to bury the right to information? : Rashme Sehgal

National Herald: Opinion: Tuesday, March 25, 2025.
Will the amendment in the RTI Act through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 destroy all public discourse?

"On one hand, India has been topping the charts on misinformation and disinformation and on the other hand, the Modi government is bent on weakening the Right to Information (RTI) Act implemented by the Congress-led UPA government by bringing in the Data Protection law," Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge said in a post on X on 4 March.
Whether it is information in the public sector like the list of ration cards, beneficiaries of MGNREGA, names of people involved in public welfare schemes, voter list in elections, or the names of billionaires who fled abroad after taking loans from government banks it is important for the public to have the names of all these in the public domain, he asserted.
The National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) started a signature campaign in March 2025 to urge the government to “roll back” the amendment in the RTI Act through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act. “What is happening in the name of data protection is information protection,” said activist Medha Patkar, who noted that “people of Narmada Valley were able to root out 1,600 fake registries with the RTI Act”, but something like that would no longer be possible with the fresh amendments.
The RTI Act has been used to expose irregularities and corruption both before and after 2014 when Narendra Modi took over as prime minister. Several such pieces of information related to the prime minister himself. For instance, a disclosure by the government under the Act revealed that the Indian mission in Moscow had spent Rs 15 crore on two visits by the PM to Russia in 2024, both for two days each.
The July 2024 trip to Moscow cost the mission Rs 5.12 crore, including Rs 1.87 crore for a community reception. The October visit to Kazan, however, cost the embassy Rs 10.24 crore, with a staggering Rs 6.56 crore shown as ‘miscellaneous’ expenses. The information raised questions but produced no answers, of course.
If the Union government is to be believed, it wants to protect citizens’ ‘right to privacy’. It has, therefore, banned release of all ‘personal information’ under the Right to Information’ Act, which, one might add, already provides for non-disclosure of personal information unless related to public interest and activities. The DPDP Act, by contrast, seeks to exempt all personal information, whether related to public activities or not.
No citizen can now seek information on voters whose names may have been deleted, their names, addresses and religious affiliation to enable a social or public audit. No information can be sought from banks or the government about the names of borrowers whose loans have been written off.
However, the government’s touching faith in citizens’ right to privacy does not prevent it from demanding information about the marital status of couples and insisting that live-in-relationships be registered with the government. Nor does it shy away from exposing inter-faith couples to the risk of violence by making their personal details public.
The DPDP Act, passed in August 2023 and notified on 11 August the same year, protects the privacy of officials, contractors and politicians, but not citizens’ right to information. Rules, however, are yet to be framed and notified, adding to the growing anxiety among RTI activists described as ‘busybodies’ by the solicitor-general of India.
Pleas for not operationalising the amendment to section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act have been ignored until now. This is the section which exempts disclosure of personal information if it has no public bearing.
***
The ‘privacy’ issue is being cited by Delhi University to justify its refusal to disclose details of Prime Minister Modi’s Bachelor’s degree. The solicitor-general argued that RTI activists and citizens had no business seeking such personal details.
What Delhi University was asked to reveal under RTI were the names of all students who graduated in 1978. These names should have been available in the public domain because DU would have held a convocation and the names of graduating students in any case are made public on websites or otherwise, argues RTI activist Anjali Bharadwaj.
While the Central Information Commission had directed DU to disclose the details sought, DU challenged it. The case has lingered in Delhi High Court for eight years and can now be disposed of once the DPDP Act is operationalised.
Transparency activist Commodore Lokesh Batra filed RTI applications seeking information about the number of applications received for appointment as SEBI (Securities Exchange Board of India) chairperson, the post which fell vacant at the end of February 2025. The Union finance ministry replied to Batra on 17 March, saying 98 applications were received but refused to disclose their names on the grounds that it was ‘third party information’.
RTI applications to obtain asset details, educational qualifications and records of elected representatives and government functionaries can now be denied with the justification that the information is private and, therefore, confidential.
Bhardwaj, a vocal RTI campaigner and co-convenor of NCPRI, points out that the DPDP Act states that no names, criminal records, contact details or history of assets will be disclosed. “The Association for Democratic Reforms fought a long battle to ensure that candidates contesting elections would have to disclose their criminal records. This apparently will no longer be required," she says.
Similar demands for information about who are being enlisted to receive food grains and who are being denied will no longer be entertained. Similarly, details of villagers denied job cards under MGNREGA and those being covered can no longer be secured.
Nikhil Dey, who along with Aruna Roy was at the forefront of NCPRI, says, “They have destroyed the RTI Act and by doing so, they will end up destroying all public discourse. RTI has been made irrelevant because now one cannot ask for any personal details."
Ahmedabad-based RTI activist Pankti warns that the new law will end all transparency in governance. “Who will conduct social audits on schemes such as PDS (public distribution system) or MNREGA? Who will monitor governance? All disclosures will be withheld on the ground that the privacy of the concerned government officials would be affected."
Venkatesh Nayak, programme head of the Access to Information Programme points out that if one fundamental right, the Right to Privacy, clashes with another Right to Information one cannot be subjugated by the other.
There is a suspicion that the new law is designed to protect big tech companies, corporate interests and industry. The Act was passed faster than a bullet train and without being placed in the public domain. Members of the parliamentary standing committee on communications and information technology, NCPRI activists alleged, were asked to endorse a Bill they had not even seen.
Worse, the DPDP Act can be used as one more tool to harass organisations and the public at large, especially those involved in public monitoring of programmes or fact-finding on the ground.
Rolly Shivhare, an activist based in Bhopal says, “We do a lot of field work. If we want to know whether ration is reaching every home in a village or the pension status of village elders, our workers fan out to collect the information. Under the DPDP Act, we are now expected to document each individual’s consent and if this is not done, we can be fined up to Rs 500 crore. The RTI had fines that started at Rs 500 and went up to Rs 25,000. Now we will be constrained in conducting ground-level surveys because which organisation is in a position to pay such enormous fines?"

‘Stop killing the RTI Act’: Civil societies urge government to rollback amendments weakening public accountability - Himanshu Nitnaware

Down To Earth: New Delhi: Tuesday, March 25, 2025.
Suprme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan said the amendment violates people’s Right to Information, which the apex court had upheld as a fundamental right

Civil society members, including activists, lawyers and experts, have demanded the immediate rollback of amendments made to the Right to Information (RTI) Act through Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act.
More than 30 organisations and groups, including the National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRI), Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), Satark Nagarik Sangathan (SNS), Common Cause and the Internet Freedom Foundation, made the demand on March 21, 2025, alleging that the amendments fundamentally weakened the RTI Act.
Speaking at a press conference at the Press Club of India in Delhi, members said the amendments restricted access to public data and information, which is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. They argued that these changes removed provisions that enabled the public to seek accountability and expose corruption in government entities and among officials.
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act had adequate safeguards for personal information while also recognising circumstances under which such information should be disclosed to ensure government accountability, stated Anjali Bhardwaj, affiliated with NCPRI and SNS.
“However, the new amendment provides an unconditional exemption for all personal information, removing previous provisions that allowed disclosure in cases related to public activity, public interest, or where there was no unwarranted breach of privacy,” she said.
Bhardwaj added that the amendment had also removed a crucial provision stating that “information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person”.
The critics argued that such amendments undermined transparency and weakened the public’s ability to hold authorities accountable. They warned that it would hinder access to governance-related information, such as details on the Public Distribution System (PDS) and electoral rolls.
“These amendments and the blanket exemptions granted under the guise of protecting privacy are designed to kill the essence of the RTI Act,” Nikhil Dey of NCPRI and MKSS said.
Dey also criticised the DPDP Act, 2023, as a “double-edged sword,” arguing that while the RTI Act restricted access to public information, the centralisation of power through the government-controlled Data Protection Board could be weaponised.
The Act allows the imposition of fines up to Rs 500 on individuals seeking information without the consent of the concerned person, particularly those critical of the government, including journalists and civil society members, said Bhardwaj. “Under this law, they will be labelled ‘data fiduciaries’,” she warned.
Aruna Roy of NCPRI and MKSS emphasised that the RTI Act was used by millions to access information and was also a tool for grievance redressal and exposing corruption.
“The Act must be viewed as a fundamental right that enables people to exercise their rights meaningfully and actively contribute to democratic processes,” she said, adding that it needed to be strengthened rather than weakened and should be recognised as a constitutional right.
Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan said the blanket ban on the disclosure of personal information under the DPDP Act violated people’s right to information, which the Supreme Court had upheld as a fundamental right in several judgments.
M M Ansari, former Central Information Commissioner, noted that the RTI Act had been repeatedly weakened through amendments. He cited the 2019 changes that diluted the autonomy of information commissions and the latest amendments, which drastically expanded the scope of the privacy exemption.
Civil society members called on the government to withdraw the amendments immediately and restore the RTI Act’s provisions that ensure transparency and accountability.

डेटा प्रोटेक्शन एक्ट से RTI पर हमला, लोकतंत्र और पारदर्शिता खतरे में; 500 करोड़ का लगेगा जुर्माना

Right News India: Delhi: Monday, March 24, 2025.
केंद्र की मोदी सरकार द्वारा लाया गया डेटा प्रोटेक्शन एक्ट (Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023) सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम (RTI Act, 2005) को कमजोर करने की दिशा में एक बड़ा कदम माना जा रहा है। इस नए कानून के तहत सरकार व्यक्तिगत डेटा को छुपाने का अधिकार हासिल कर सकती है, जिससे भ्रष्टाचार को उजागर करने वाले खोजी पत्रकारों और RTI कार्यकर्ताओं पर भारी जुर्माना लगाने का रास्ता खुल गया है। प्रेस क्लब ऑफ इंडिया में आयोजित एक प्रेस कॉन्फ्रेंस में विशेषज्ञों ने इस बदलाव को लोकतंत्र पर सीधा प्रहार बताया।

RTI Act 2005: पारदर्शिता का हथियार अब कमजोर
सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 ने नागरिकों को सरकारी विभागों से जानकारी प्राप्त करने का अधिकार दिया था। इसका मकसद सरकार में पारदर्शिता, जवाबदेही बढ़ाना और भ्रष्टाचार को रोकना था। लेकिन डेटा प्रोटेक्शन एक्ट के तहत किए गए संशोधनों से अब यह अधिकार खतरे में पड़ गया है। विशेषज्ञों का कहना है कि सरकार इस कानून का इस्तेमाल अपनी और अपने करीबियों की कमियों को छुपाने के लिए कर सकती है।
डेटा प्रोटेक्शन एक्ट: भ्रष्टाचार को ढाल, जनता पर जुर्माना
नए कानून के तहत, अगर कोई पत्रकार या RTI कार्यकर्ता सरकारी घोटालों को उजागर करता है, तो उस पर 500 करोड़ रुपये तक का जुर्माना लगाया जा सकता है। सुप्रीम कोर्ट के वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता प्रशांत कुमार ने कहा, “मोदी सरकार ने RTI को कमजोर कर लोकतंत्र पर हमला किया है। अब भ्रष्टाचार उजागर करने की सजा 500 करोड़ का जुर्माना है।” उन्होंने आगे कहा कि यह कानून व्यक्तिगत सूचना को छुपाने का अधिकार सरकार को देता है, जिससे खोजी पत्रकारिता पर रोक लगेगी और जनता के सवाल दब जाएंगे।
व्यक्तिगत डेटा के नाम पर सच को दफन करने की तैयारी
डेटा प्रोटेक्शन एक्ट में संशोधन के बाद, बैंक घोटाले, राशन कार्ड धांधली, और वोटर लिस्ट में हेरफेर जैसी जानकारियों को “पर्सनल डेटा” बताकर जनता से छुपाया जा सकता है। NCPRI की कार्यकर्ता अंजलि भारद्वाज ने चेतावनी दी कि अगर यह कानून लागू हुआ, तो मीडिया भी इसकी चपेट में आएगा। उन्होंने कहा, “यह कानून RTI को मार डालेगा और भ्रष्टाचारियों को बचाने का हथियार बन जाएगा। इसे पूरी तरह खत्म करना चाहिए।”
सरकार का मनमाना अधिकार, जनता के सवालों पर ताला
प्रेस कॉन्फ्रेंस में वक्ताओं ने बताया कि डेटा प्रोटेक्शन एक्ट के तहत एक सरकारी बोर्ड तय करेगा कि कौन सा खुलासा “अवैध” है और किस पर कितना जुर्माना लगेगा। सरकार जिसे चाहेगी, उसे इस कानून से छूट दे सकती है, लेकिन बाकी सब पर सख्ती बरती जाएगी। इसका मतलब है कि जनता को अब सरकार से सवाल पूछने का हक भी सीमित हो जाएगा। वक्ताओं ने मांग की कि RTI में हुए संशोधन को तुरंत वापस लिया जाए।
लोकतंत्र पर खतरा: RTI की हत्या का मतलब अधिकारों का अंत
वक्ताओं ने जोर देकर कहा कि RTI का कमजोर होना सीधे तौर पर नागरिकों के सभी अधिकारों को प्रभावित करेगा। अंजलि भारद्वाज ने कहा, “RTI की हत्या लोकतंत्र पर प्रहार है। यह कानून जनता को अंधेरे में रखने और भ्रष्टाचार को बढ़ावा देने का जरिया बन गया है।” प्रशांत कुमार ने भी चिंता जताते हुए कहा कि यह कानून सरकार को मनमानी करने की ताकत देता है, जिससे पारदर्शिता और जवाबदेही खत्म हो जाएगी।
जनता की मांग: RTI को बचाओ, भ्रष्टाचार को उजागर करो
प्रेस कॉन्फ्रेंस में एकजुट स्वर में मांग उठी कि डेटा प्रोटेक्शन एक्ट के जरिए RTI में किए गए बदलावों को रद्द किया जाए। वक्ताओं ने कहा कि यह कानून न केवल RTI को नष्ट करेगा, बल्कि खोजी पत्रकारिता और नागरिकों के सूचना के अधिकार को भी कुचल देगा। जनता और कार्यकर्ताओं का मानना है कि सरकार को अपनी गलतियों को छुपाने के बजाय पारदर्शिता को बढ़ावा देना चाहिए।

Over 33,000 villages in state have no libraries: RTI

Hindustan Times: Mumbai: Monday, March 24, 2025.
At least 1,000 public libraries have shut down in the past three years and only 127 out of the state’s 27,951 gram panchayats have libraries within their premises

While the recent Marathi literary conference in New Delhi attracted participation from top politicians in the state, most students and residents of rural Maharashtra lack access to public libraries, shows information obtained through the Right to Information (RTI) Act by activist Abhay Kolarkar.
Out of 44,738 villages in the state, at least 33,588 villages do not have a single government-subsidised library, as per data provided by the Directorate of Libraries in response to Kolarkar’s application. At least 1,000 public libraries have shut down in the past three years and only 127 out of the state’s 27,951 gram panchayats have libraries within their premises, the data shows.
“Promoting book culture is not a priority for the government,” Kolarkar told Hindustan Times. He said that while crores of rupees were spent on events like the literary conferences, there was little effort to make Marathi literature accessible to rural students. “Students in villages are deprived of access to books beyond their school curriculum,” he noted.
The Maharashtra Public Libraries Act, 1967 was enacted establish, maintain, and develop public libraries and promote the culture of reading in the state. As per data from the Directorate of Libraries, there are 11,150 libraries across Maharashtra. But many of them are located in major cities, which have multiple libraries.
Moreover, only 329 libraries among them are categorised as class A, indicating adequate book count, storage space and reading room and facilities such as internet facilities and subscriptions. Libraries categorised as class B, C and D number 2,072, 3,972 and 4,777, respectively.
Well-known author Shripad Bhalchandra Joshi condemned the state government’s lack of commitment to libraries and the lack of a dedicated book and library policy in Maharashtra.
“Had politicians been genuinely interested in promoting books and libraries, book lovers wouldn’t be pushed to the brink of suicide,” he said, decrying the lack of incentive for purchasing quality books and the 18% goods and services tax (GST) on books.
“Instead of spending crores on extravagant literary festivals, the funds should be redirected towards payment of long-pending salaries of library staff and library development, ensuring every village has access to books.” he said.

‘Home, revenue, UDD officials handle 69% of RTI load’

Times of India: Ahmedabad: Monday, March 24, 2025.
Three departments of the state govt home, revenue, and urban development accounted for a majority of applications made under the Right to Information (RTI) Act in the year 2023-24, according to a report of the Gujarat Information Commission (GIC) tabled in the ongoing assembly session.

Of the total 1,31,875 applications received by all departments during the year, 91,551 applications (69.42%) sought information about the services and operations of the home, revenue and urban development departments. Almost a third of all applications (30.53%) pertained to the home department, 19.54% applications pertained to the revenue department and 19.35% applications were made to the urban development department.
Besides, the GIC received a total of 7,082 appeals and complaints, out of which 7,051 cases were resolved. In 118 cases, penalties were imposed by the commission, the report said. Of these, 6,077 (86.19%) were appeals, while 974 (13.81%) were complaints. Financial penalties amounting to Rs 8.84 lakh were imposed during the year on public information officers (PIOs) of various departments.
The number of RTI applications filed in 2023-24 increased by 8.54% compared to the previous year. In 2022-23, 1,21,490 applications were made under the RTI Act, which increased to 1,31,875 in the year 2023-24. The report said that in 2023-24, no orders were issued under the RTI Act for compensation to complainants, and no recommendations for departmental inquiries were made.
The overall rejection rate of applications by various departments and their subordinate authorities was 5.23%. However, departments such as law (17.95%), finance (16.27%) and general administration (11.97%) had higher rejection rates compared to other departments of the state govt.

Authorities ask RTI applicant to pay Rs 24,100 as fee

Daily Excelsior: Srinagar: Monday, March 24, 2025.

In violation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 and after a delay of nearly two months, authorities in north Kashmir’s Handwara have asked an RTI applicant to pay Rs 24,100 as fee to obtain the requested land ownership details.
The applicant, Rasikh Rasool Bhat, an RTI activist, has been informed by the Tehsildar Handwara that the requested details have been consolidated and are ready for sharing.
“However, as per the applicable rules, a demarcation fee of Rs. 24,100 must be deposited since our field agency conducted an on-site demarcation of each survey number,” read the communication sent to the applicant.
It added that the fee is mandatory for such processes and must be paid before the information can be provided in Government account 0029-LR as mandatory under the reverent provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Land Revenue Act.
The applicant, through an RTI application, had sought land ownership details along the Handwara-Bangus Road-a matter already before the National Green Tribunal for alleged violations.
He stated that the Land Revenue Act (LRA) and the Right to Information (RTI) Act are two distinct laws, each serving different purposes.
He noted that the LRA governs the management, maintenance and registration of land records, while the RTI Act ensures that citizens have access to information held by public authorities, fostering transparency and accountability.
“When land records are considered public information, they fall under the purview of the RTI Act, meaning citizens can request and access these records without necessarily following the provisions of the LRA,” he said.
Rasikh further alleged that the Tehsildar initially asked him to wait for 30 more days for accurate information.
“However, after more than thirty days, the Tehsildar invoked irrelevant LRA charges under the RTI Act, which is totally unjustified,” he said.
“When officials do not fully understand the provisions of the RTI Act or the public’s right to access land records, it can lead to delays, refusals, or confusion, making it harder for citizens to exercise their right to information,” he stressed.
The RTI activists said that the lack of awareness can undermine the effectiveness of the law, impacting democracy by reducing citizens’ ability to hold Government agencies accountable and make informed decisions.
“Addressing this issue would require more training for officials, clearer guidelines, and public awareness campaigns to ensure the RTI Act is correctly applied,” they said.
It is to be noted here that earlier, in a different case regarding the Handwara-Bangus Road, the authorities had denied the applicant the land ownership details, citing third party information. However, after the first appeal, the information sought was provided.

Stop destruction of RTI Act, Jairam Ramesh tells Vaishnaw

The Hindu: New Delhi: Monday, March 24, 2025.
The Congress leader wrote to the IT Minister: “In the interests of transparency and accountability, I would urge you to pause, review and repeal Section 44 (3) of the Data Protection Act, 2023 which destroys the RTI Act, 2005”

Congress leader Jairam Ramesh on Sunday (March 23, 2025) urged Minister of Electronics and Information Technology Ashwini Vaishnaw to stop an amendment that would lead to the “destruction” of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Section of the 2005 law “that gives citizens equal right to information as legislators who represent them is totally eliminated,” Mr. Ramesh said.

In the letter to Mr. Vaishnaw, Mr. Ramesh excerpted the original text of the RTI Act’s Section 8(1)(j), which allows citizens to apply with public authorities for information that is personal in nature, as long as there is a public interest in doing so. In the excerpt, Mr. Ramesh struck through the text that the amendment had been deleted.
Over 30 civil society bodies have raised alarm about the amendment, which has been enacted through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, but not yet notified the law requires the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, which are currently in draft stage, to be published in the Gazette of India, giving activists and the Opposition some time to push back on the change.
The previous form of the amendment allowed for public authorities to disclose personal information such as copies of ledgers of subsidy beneficiaries if there was a “larger public interest” justifying their release. But the amendment effectively prohibits the disclosure of any personal information.
Mr. Vaishnaw has argued that the Supreme Court’s 2017 judgement affirming the right to privacy had anyway rendered Section 8(1)(j)’s wiggle room “infructuous”. But activists have ferociously pushed back against that argument saying the RTI Act had already made a conscious balance between personal privacy and the right to information. While Mr. Vaishnaw insisted that personal information that is anyway required to be proactively published by other laws will continue to be available essentially allowing public authorities to curate what personal information is released in public interest.
“In the interests of transparency and accountability, I would urge you to pause, review and repeal Section 44 (3) of the Data Protection Act, 2023 which destroys the RTI Act, 2005,” Mr. Ramesh wrote.

Sec 44(3) of Data Protection Act 'destroys' RTI Act: Congress

Times of India: Ahmedabad: Monday, March 24, 2025.
Congress on Sunday told the Modi govt that a provision in the Data Protection Act, 2023, which amends the RTI Act, destroys the equal right to information that citizens have with legislators.
Congress MP Jairam Ramesh wrote to Union IT minister Ashwini Vaishnaw that section 44(3) of the Data Protection Act abridges the provision laid down in Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
He said replacement of the provision in the RTI Act by the provision made in Data Protection Act "totally eliminates" the equal right to information that citizens have with the legislators. He said the existing Section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act has enough guardrails to protect unwarranted invasion of privacy. In the interests of transparency and accountability, Ramesh urged the minister to "pause, review and repeal" Section 44(3) of the Data Protection Act "which destroys the RTI Act, 2005".

Civil society groups oppose impending RTI Act change, say data protection Act ‘fails to protect privacy’ : Mrinalini Dhyani

The Print: New Delhi: Sunday, March 23, 2025.
30+ groups voice their concerns over the yet-to-be-implemented Digital Personal Data Protection Act, a provision of which amends RTI Act.

More than 30 civil society organisations have united to oppose changes to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Addressing media persons Friday, the members of these groups warned that an amendment passed in 2023 by means of a provision in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, will significantly reduce the amount of information government agencies are obligated to disclose. They emphasised that access to such information is crucial for ensuring accountability and uncovering corruption.
The amendment is yet to be implemented as the necessary subordinate legislation to enforce the DPDP Act has not yet been issued.
The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act introduces a broad exemption for all personal information, eliminating previous provisions that permitted disclosure when the information was linked to public activity, served public interest, or did not constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
“Now, simply publishing someone’s name without consent could have severe consequences,” warned Nikhil Dey, co-founder of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) and co-convenor of National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI).
Dey said that the issue extends beyond RTI activism, merging concerns of both privacy and transparency. “This law fails to truly protect privacy or data.”
The amendment also removes a key provision of RTI Act stating that information which cannot be withheld from Parliament or a state legislature should also be accessible to the public. This change was introduced through the final section of the DPDP Act, 2023, which primarily focuses on establishing guidelines for safeguarding Indians’ personal data on digital platforms.
Describing it as a “double-edged sword” and likening it to another “weapon like UAPA”, Anjali Bhardwaj, co-convenor of the NCPRI and a founding member of Satark Nagrik Sangathan, criticised the amendment for dismantling key safeguards.
“While the RTI Act now restricts access to information, the Data Protection Act classifies researchers, journalists and activists as data fiduciaries, requiring them to obtain consent for data collection. Any complaint against them would be handled by the government-controlled Data Protection Board, which has the power to impose fines of up to ₹500 crore,” she said.
Apar Gupta, founder-director of the Internet Freedom Foundation, described the Right to Information (RTI) and the Right to Privacy as siblings both rooted in Part III of the Indian Constitution and essential to democracy. “Democracy isn’t just about voting; it’s about holding the government accountable, which we do by questioning decisions through RTI. At the same time, the state must respect personal privacy,” he said.
Gupta criticised the DPDP Act for creating unnecessary friction between these rights. He said that prior expert committees, including the Justice A.P. Shah Committee, had recognised this balance, and past discussions had concluded that RTI should not be amended, as Section 8(1)(j) already protects privacy, while allowing disclosure in the public interest.
“This crucial balance has now been erased, stripping authorities of their ability to assess cases individually,” he warned, adding that the new law ultimately fails to protect privacy.
The press conference featured several prominent RTI activists, legal experts, media representatives and civil society members, including MKSS founder Aruna Roy, Senior advocate and public interest litigator Prashant Bhushan, former civil servant and transparency advocate Kamal Jaswal, former central information commissioner M.M. Ansari, and journalist and researcher Pragya Singh.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)

200 Maha govt docs sent on ‘loan transfer’ to get 10 med colleges cleared: RTI

Times of India: Mumbai: Sunday, March 23, 2025.
Maharashtra's 10 newly minted medical college hospitals are up and running but at a cost. To meet the National Medical Commission's (NMC) staffing requirements for initial approvals, 200 doctors were transferred on a "loan basis" from established govt hospitals, leaving those institutions short of their expertise. While some doctors returned to their original posts after the inspections, many remain at the new colleges as the state only recently commenced the recruitment process.

The issue came to light through an RTI request filed by a city doctor, a former student of J J Hospital, asking for a list of doctors sent on a loan basis for NMC inspection to new hospitals. These hospitals in Mumbai, Nashik, Jalna, Amravati, Gadchiroli, Buldhana, Washim, Bhandara, Hingoli and Ambernath were virtually inaugurated PM Modi last Oct.

Officials from the DMER said these transfers were carried out only in cases of surplus staff. "For instance, if there were two professors for a subject, one was sent on loan," said a senior DMER official. "This was done to get the new medical colleges operational as quickly as possible. Recruitment takes time, as several factors have to be considered."
Just a year earlier, the Directorate of Medical Education and Research (DMER) apologised to the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court for transferring 33 faculty members in a similar manner to the then-upcoming hospital in Parbhani prior to an inspection by the NMC.
The response to an RTI query revealed that in Mumbai alone, 56 doctors from JJ Hospital were, on paper, shown as working at the newly established Government Medical College, which was formed by merging G T Hospital and Cama Hospital.
"We were posted there for six months on paper but continued working at JJ since the new college was yet to be formed. As soon as the inspection was completed, we were sent back," said a doctor from JJ who was part of the transfer.
After GMC Mumbai began functioning, some faculty members from established hospitals were promoted and permanently transferred there. "There is still a deficit, but for now, it's just enough to keep the medical college running. Some doctors have been hired on a contractual basis to fill in," said a doctor from GT Hospital.
DMER officials have assured that doctors currently stationed at the new institutions will return to their original hospitals once fresh recruitment is completed. Data on how many have already returned was unavailable. However, some warn this pattern is not new. "This happened in the mid-2000s with established hospitals. Recruitment didn't happen for years and the same doctors were moved around. The biggest loss is felt by hospitals where these doctors are pulled from as expertise there is drained away," said the RTI applicant.
Dr Pratik Debaje, president of Maharashtra Association of Resident Doctors (MARD) at GMC Nagpur, echoed these concerns. He said hospitals from which senior doctors are sent on a loan basis suffer long-term consequences. "When postgraduate guides are reduced, academics are hampered. Medical college hospitals are not limited to lectures or classrooms," Dr Debaje said.

Why are Judges in India not required to declare assets: Here is the history of how the Supreme Court has been ruling against it for years

OpIndia: New Delhi: Sunday, March 23, 2025.
In 1997, the Supreme Court of India adopted a resolution requiring asset declarations by judges to be confidential. Over the years, the stance has been legally challenged under the RTI Act, with the Supreme Court consistently ruling against mandatory public disclosure. The court has cited personal information exemptions unless public interest is clear in the disclosure request.

On 21st March, reports emerged that Delhi Fire Services found a pile of cash at Delhi High Court Judge Yashwant Varma’s official residence during a firefighting operation. Reports further suggested that Justice Varma was not at his residence at the time, and an internal inquiry was initiated by the Supreme Court of India. Justice Varma also faced transfer to Allahabad High Court.
However, within 24 hours, the Supreme Court issued a clarification that the collegium’s decision to transfer Justice Varma was not linked to the alleged incident. However, an internal inquiry was confirmed. Notably, DFS also denied finding any cash during the firefighting operation. Though the reports of finding cash at the High Court judge’s residence were declared mere rumours, it reignited the discussion over declaring assets by judges, which is currently only optional as per the Supreme Court’s resolution from 1997.
Judges in the Indian judiciary system are required to declare their assets. But there is a catch. It is done internally to the Chief Justice of India, and these asset details are available to the public only on a voluntary basis. That means, if a judge does not want the people of India to know about his or her assets, it is at their discretion.
The practice of internal declaration was established by a 1997 Supreme Court resolution. Public disclosure is not mandatory, which has been reflected by the court’s emphasis on privacy under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The stance has also been upheld in several key rulings, including in 2019, that allow disclosure only if a larger public interest is demonstrated.
Historical context, current status and controversy
In 1997, the Supreme Court of India adopted a resolution requiring asset declarations by judges to be confidential. Over the years, the stance has been legally challenged under the RTI Act, with the Supreme Court consistently ruling against mandatory public disclosure. The court has cited personal information exemptions unless public interest is clear in the disclosure request.
As of March 2025, the practice has continued. In 2023, a parliamentary committee recommended mandatory declarations by judges, but it did not lead to a fruitful result. In November 2024, government informed Rajya Sabha that there is no plan to make asset declaration mandatory for judges of the Supereme Court and High Courts.
The issue has remained controversial, as in 1991, the Supreme Court itself admitted that judges are public servants, however, later rulings, including 2008 contention of Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan and the 3rd January 2025 ruling by Lokpal suggested otherwise. For all other public servants like MPs, MLAs, etc., declaring assets is essential. So much so, a candidate cannot contest an election in India without declaring assets, and if the declaration is found to be dubious, the candidature can be challenged in a court of law.
Detailed history of Supreme Court rulings on judges’ asset declarations
On 7th May 1997, the Full Court of the Supreme Court of India passed a resolution that required all judges to declare their assets to the Chief Justice of India (CJI). This resolution stipulated that judges must declare their assets, including those held by their spouses and dependent family members. The declaration has to be made upon assuming office and whenever a substantial acquisition is made thereafter.
Notably, the CJI maintained in 1997 and in a 2009 judgment that the records are for internal purposes. The resolution was passed as a response to growing concerns about judicial integrity and the need for accountability. However, the resolution did not extend to public disclosure and set a precedent for internal transparency without granting public access.
The resolution was later adopted by the Delhi High Court on 26th July 1997, and it was reiterated on 8th July 2009, enforcing its application across the judiciary. The internal mechanism was said to be aimed at ensuring accountability of the judges. However, the opaque nature left the door open for future debates on public transparency that are still ongoing.
The RTI Act and judicial challenges
When the Right to Information Act was enacted in 2005, it intensified scrutiny on judicial transparency. The Act granted citizens the right to access information held by public authorities, including the judiciary. However, the Act has several exemptions for personal information that does not relate to public activity or interest, unless disclosure serves a larger public interest, as explained by Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The provision of exemptions became the focal point of legal battles over asset declarations by judges.
In 2009, activist Subhash Chandra Agarwal filed an RTI application in which he sought information on whether Supreme Court judges had declared their assets as per the 1997 resolution. When the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Supreme Court denied the request citing exemptions, Agarwal decided to appeal to the Central Information Commission (CIC).
The CIC directed the Supreme Court to provide the information. CIC’s decision escalated the matter to the courts and highlighted the battle between transparency and privacy that was going on behind the curtains.
Key judicial rulings – Upholding non-disclosure
Interestingly, since then, the fight to make judges declare their assets publicly has been ongoing via different pleas, and every time the apex court has ruled against mandatory public disclosure of the assets. One of the pivotal cases was Subhash Chandra Agarwal’s in the Delhi High Court against the apex court. The court, on 2nd September 2009, said in its judgment that while information on whether declarations were made could be disclosed, the contents of the declarations were protected, reinforcing the confidentiality established in 1997.
Agarwal challenged the decision of the Delhi High Court in the apex court. The Supreme Court of India, in 2010, in Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court and reiterated that asset declarations by judges are confidential and do not fall under the purview of public disclosure unless there is a clear public interest.
The fight continued for several years and, on 13th November 2019, in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, a five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, delivered a landmark decision. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Sanjiv Khanna, upheld the CIC’s order and the Delhi High Court’s judgment, requiring the Supreme Court CPIO to furnish information on whether judges had declared their assets.
However, the court clarified that the details of the assets themselves were not to be disclosed, as they constituted personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, unless disclosure served a larger public interest. The loophole hunting continued while declaring assets by the judges.
The court emphasised that the CJI does not generally hold asset declarations in a fiduciary capacity. However, each case has to be evaluated individually to determine if disclosure is necessary. The judgment offered no general finding on universal disclosure of asset details and left the decision to be made on a case-by-case basis, which experts believe provides a balance between public interest and privacy.
However, the question remains stagnant if other public servants are required to declare their assets, why not judges?
Implementation and voluntary disclosure
Following the ruling, the practice of declaring assets remains internal and confidential. Public disclosure is voluntary, and it is up to the judges to decide if they want to let the people know what they or their family members own. The Supreme Court’s official website lists judges who have submitted their declarations, noting that placing them on the website is on a voluntary basis. Interestingly, the page contains only names and no details of the assets.
Similarly, the Delhi High Court has published declarations in the public domain, but only 8 out of 39 judges have publicly declared their assets. Out of these, Justice Yashwant Varma’s file leads to a dummy PDF and not the actual declaration, considering it might be a clarical mistake.
Ongoing debates and recommendations
In 2023, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice, in its report on judicial accountability, recommended that judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts should mandatorily declare their assets, similar to politicians and bureaucrats. The committee argued that such declarations would enhance trust and credibility in the judiciary, stating, “Declaration of assets by the judges of the higher judiciary will only bring more trust and credibility into the system.” However, as of March 2025, no legislative changes have been made to mandate public disclosure.
Conclusion
It is high time that the Supreme Court stepped up and held itself to the same standards it expects from others. Judicial independence does not mean public accountability can be ignored. The argument of privacy cannot be selectively invoked. It must be noted that transparency is the bedrock of democracy. If politicians and bureaucrats must declare assets, judges too must lead by example instead of shielding themselves behind outdated resolutions.

No ‘25 RTI application cap’ exists, GIC sets record straight

Times of India: Ahmedabad: Sunday, March 23, 2025.

Govt officers in Gujarat have been put on notice: the Gujarat Information Commission (GIC) will not tolerate the misinterpretation of its rulings. Amid growing complaints that officials were falsely citing an alleged "25 applications cap" to reject RTI requests, the GIC issued a sharp clarification on March 19. It stressed that its past orders applied only to specific applicants and warned of action against officials who misuse them. The commission made it clear that every RTI application must be decided based on the Act's provisions, not on "misquoted" rulings. Activists say the clarification was long overdue.

In a statement posted on social media, the GIC clarified that its previous rulings applied only to specific cases involving individuals such as Khushal Verma, Nanaji Kalubhai Jitiya and Harsh Brahmbhatt. "These orders, in certain contexts, addressed situations where the applicants had filed an unusually high volume of requests or had failed to provide necessary assurances. They do not automatically extend to other citizens exercising their rights under the RTI Act," the commission stated.
The GIC further warned, "Any further misinterpretations or wilful misapplications of its specific orders will be viewed seriously. Proceedings may be initiated against concerned officers who continue to incorrectly interpret and apply these orders."
The commission noted that some public information officers (PIOs) and first appellate authorities were incorrectly citing past rulings such as an order dated Feb 6, 2025 to reject unrelated applicants' first appeals, falsely claiming they had exceeded an application limit.
The commission made it clear that no such universal cap exists and that each application must be evaluated on its own merit under the RTI Act. Activists welcomed the GIC's clarification. "Some govt departments were conveniently quoting orders out of context to reject appeals. We brought this to the commission's attention, and a much-needed clarification was issued," said Pankaj Bhatt, an RTI activist from Kalupur.
With the GIC's warning in place, officials misusing the RTI framework to restrict access to information may now face serious repercussions.

Over 120 child marriages reported annually in Madurai district for past four years: RTI reply

The New Indian Express: Madurai: Saturday, March 22, 2025.
The RTI reply also revealed that no central or state government funds were allocated for preventing the marriages.

An RTI reply from the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the District Social Welfare Office in Madurai stated that over 120 child marriages were reported every year for the past four years in the district. RTI Activist NG Mohan had sought information from the PIO regarding the number of child marriages reported and prevented, cases registered, and funds allocated for prevention from April 2020 to November 2024.
According to the reply, 79 child marriages were reported in 2020, with 60 prevented and 19 cases registered. Over 100 cases were reported annually from 2021 to November 2024. For the past four years, over 120 child marriages have been reported. From January to November, 2024, a record number of cases were reported, which totalled to 171. The RTI reply also revealed that no central or state government funds were allocated for preventing the marriages.
Speaking to TNIE, Mohan said, "Awareness campaigns describing the legal age, health complications, mental maturity, and need to mention the education status of the girl child are in place. However, stringent action is required to prevent child marriages."
"Hardly 2% of the marriages are reported and we continue to witness child marriages across rural areas. The department of School Education raised an awareness campaign through a mobile van with a counsellor. Films would also be screened on the consequences of child marriages but it has stopped now," said Health Activist Veronica Mary.
She further said that child marriages could get converted to teenage pregnancies. However, village health nurses can ensure that husbands of minor girls are booked under the Pocso Act.
On request of anonymity, an official from the social welfare department said, "We receive several calls through 1098. Mostly, the girl child's partner informs us and most cases have been reported from rural areas."

Civil society organisations call on govt. to stop gutting of RTI Act

The Hindu: New Delhi: Saturday, March 22, 2025.
The RTI Act’s qualified exemption on providing personal information is on track to become a blanket prohibition, alarming activists, who have called on the government to reverse course

Over 30 civil society organisations are urging the Union government to avoid gutting the Right to Information Act, 2005, the National Council for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) announced on Friday (March 21, 2025). An amendment to the RTI Act passed in 2023 which has not yet come into effect would drastically limit the amount of information that government agencies would be required to share, activists said, upping pressure on the government to keep the law intact.
The issue is around Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI’: Act, which allows government agencies to refuse applications for information if they relate to an individual’s personal information. “Studies show that this exemption is among the most common grounds to refuse information” from being provided, Nikhil Dey, an NCPRI co-convenor, said at a press conference on Friday.
However, the section has a proviso, which allows for personal information to be disclosed if there is public interest in doing so. This has allowed RTI activists over the years to conduct so-called social audits, such as verifying if rations were indeed distributed to people that a dispensary claims they were, by obtaining its log sheets and visiting households one by one.
In 2023, the Union government, in spite of NCPRI and other civil society organisations’ protests, removed the proviso altogether through an Act of Parliament, imposing a blanket prohibition on providing personal information, no matter what. This was done through the last section of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which is otherwise concerned with setting guidelines for securing Indians’ personal information on digital platforms.
Since the subordinate legislation for kicking in the DPDP Act has not yet been notified, the amendment has not kicked in. The draft DPDP Rules, 2025, should in their final form not notify this amendment, and Parliament should pass a law undoing the amendment from the Act as well, said Anjali Bhardwaj, co-convenor of the NCPRI.
The other organisations supporting this effort include the Article 21 Trust, the Center for Financial Accountability, the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, and the Software Freedom Law Center, India.
The Union government has not addressed these concerns in detail, with officials simply saying that the Supreme Court’s judgement that personal privacy was a fundamental right was now in conflict with the RTI Act. Activists strongly rebuked this argument.
M.M. Ansari, a former Central Information Commissioner, said the proviso was already “very balanced” since it provided adequate safeguards for personal information but also recognised the circumstances under which such information should be disclosed. Mr. Ansari recounted several instances where the CIC often ordered disclosure of personal information including when there were questions about educational qualifications of elected representatives, and decision making processes on important policy matters.

RTI activist files complaint against three IPS officers for filing false report

Times of India: New Delhi: Friday, March 21, 2025.
RTI activist Snehamayi Krishna, the petitioner in the Mysore Urban Development Authority scam case, on Wednesday has filed a complaint against 3 IPS officers, claiming that false reports were submitted in an attempt to protect the accused.

He alleged that though there is a lot of evidence in the MUDA case. he filed a complaint against the Central Vigilant Commission against the three IPS officials, including the investigation officer, who filed a false report to hide the allegations.
Earlier, activist Krishna, filed a writ appeal in the high court's divisional bench urging a CBI investigation.
Krishna said he filed an appeal against the single bench order, which declined to give permission for a CBI inquiry into the 50:50 site scheme allegedly involving chief minister Siddaramaiah and his family members.
The petitioner sought a CBI probe, stating that he does not have faith in an inquiry by the Lokayukta, which functions under the state govt. The single bench court dismissed his petition.
What is Muda scam all about?
The controversy revolves around the alleged irregularities in the allotment of compensatory sites. At the heart of the scam is a 3.2-acre parcel of land that was gifted to the chief minister's wife, Parvathi, by her brother Mallikarjunaswamy in 2010.Following the acquisition of the land by Muda, Parvathi sought compensation and was subsequently allocated 14 plots. These plots are said to be substantially more valuable than the original piece of land.
The opposition parties claim that the total value of the scam could potentially fall within the range of Rs 3,000 crore to Rs 4,000 crore.
Karnataka's CM Siddaramaiah, aged 76, is facing prosecution while in office, making him the second CM in the state's history to face such charges. The first was BJP's BS Yediyurappa in 2011.

RTI query exposes Rs 7 cr fund misuse in festivals, formation day events

Times of India: Koppal: Friday, March 21, 2025.
An RTI response has uncovered alleged financial irregularities to the tune of around Rs 7 crore during Kanakagiri and Anegondi festivals and silver jubilee celebrations of the district's formation last year.

Brinjal, usually considered as garnish in most of the dishes, was extensively used during last year's Kanakagiri festival, with records showing a consumption of 2.56 tonnes at Rs 75 per kilogram, incurring a total expense of Rs 1.92 lakh. Additionally, 145kg of ginger, a spice typically used in small amounts, especially in sambar, was used at a cost of Rs 36,250.
These financial details were uncovered through a Right to Information (RTI) request filed by social activist Ravi Agoli. "The financial records for all three celebrations for 2023-24 highlight these inflated costs. It is not a coincidence that district in-charge minister Shivaraj Tangadagi oversees Kannada and culture department, where many of these irregularities are concentrated," Agoli alleged.
For the fiscal year 2023-24, the allocated budgets included Rs 8.23 crore for Kanakagiri Utsav (on March 2 and 3, 2024), Rs 4.82 crore for Anegondi Utsav (March 11 and 12), and Rs 1 crore for the Koppal district's Silver Jubilee celebrations (March 10 and 12). "These documents indicate that nearly half of these funds have been misappropriated," Agoli said.
Tangadagi has rejected the allegations. "Such claims are typical when it comes to large-scale events. Funds are disbursed only after thorough document verification. Since these events were held simultaneously, some confusion may have arisen," he said.
However, Gangavathi MLA Gali Janardhana Reddy challenged the minister's rationale. He said, "Kannada and culture department, which allocated Rs 8.23 crore for the Kanakagiri festival, was reluctant to release funds for Anegondi festival, which is equally important as Hampi. Ultimately, only Rs 4.82 crore was granted. Even after a year, those who incurred expenses for the festival have yet to receive payment. The minister, who accuses us of unnecessary spending, doubled the funding for the Kanakagiri festival, which happened in his own constituency, and also misused half the amount."
The RTI response has uncovered other irregularities. The bills for vegetable purchases list an address associated with an aluminum utensils shop. "The bills, amounting to lakhs, were handwritten and contained altered details." Agoli said. "The total bill was submitted without a breakdown of expenses, which included a Rs 2 lakh charge. Despite this, the former ADC Savitri Kadi approved the bills without any objections."
Agoli has filed a complaint with the governor, chief minister and chief secretary, urging an investigation into the financial details of these festivals and calling for appropriate legal action against any officials and contractors found to be involved in misconduct.

ડેટા પ્રોટેક્શન બિલનાં નામે RTI કાયદામાં ફેરફારનો વિરોધ

Sandesh: Gujarat: Friday, March 21, 2025.

ડિજિટલ પર્સનલ ડેટા પ્રોટેકશન બિલના નામે માહિતી અધિકાર અધિનિયમના કાયદામાં થયેલા ફેરફાર સામે RTI કાર્યકરો દ્વારા ભારતભરમાં વિરોધ પ્રદર્શન કરી ભારે વિરોધ નોંધાવી રહ્યાં છે ત્યારે કરજણ તાલુકામાં પણ મૂળનિવાસી એકતા મંચના અધ્યક્ષ એડવોકેટ મિનેષ પરમારની આગેવાની હેઠળ મહામહિમ રાષ્ટ્રપતિને માહિતી અધિકાર અધિનિયમમાં જે સંશોધન કરી સુધારો કરાયો છે. તેને રદ કરવાની માંગ સાથે કરજણના પ્રાંત અધિકારી મારફ્તે આવેદનપત્ર પાઠવ્યું હતું.
અત્યાર સુધી કોઈ રસ્તાનું બરાબર કામ ન કરનાર કોન્ટ્રાક્ટરનું નામ એજન્સીનું નામ તેને ચૂકવવાની રકમ વિગેરે વિગતો મળી શકતી હતી. એ જ રીતે મનરેગા યોજનામાં પણ ભ્રષ્ટાચાર કરનાર તથા શ્રમજીવીને થયેલા ચુકવણાની વિગતો રેશનકાર્ડમાં મળતા અનાજની વિગતો સરકારી આવાસ યોજના જેવી અનેક જન હિતની અને જાહેર હીતની માહિતી મળી શકતી હતી.
પરંતુ હવે DPPD અંગેના નવા કાયદા હેઠળ RTI કાયદાની કલમ 8 (1)માં જે સુધારો કરયો છે. જે નવા સુધારા પ્રમાણે વ્યક્તિગત કે, અંગત માહિતીના નામે આ બધી વિગતો RTI અરજી કરનારને મળે નહીં. જેથી RTIનો કાયદો નકામો બનાવી દેવાની ચેષ્ટા સામે વિરોધ નોંધાયો છે. RTI કાયદાની કલમ 8 અર્થવિહીન બનાવી દીધી છે. જેથી ભ્રષ્ટાચારને વધુ પ્રોત્સાહન અને વેગ મળશે.
માહિતી અધિકાર અધિનિયમનો કાયદો વહીવટની પારદર્શિકાનું ઘોર ઉલ્લંઘન આ ફેરફારના કારણે થઈ રહ્યું છે. જેને મૂળ નિવાસી એકતા મંચ અધ્યક્ષ એડવોકેટ મિનેષ પરમાર સખત શબ્દોમાં વખોડે છે.