DPDP Act rules collectively cripple rti endanger journalism says digipub.

Newsclick: New Delhi: Thursday, November 20, 2025.

The Rules notified recently create avens for disproportionate State overreach, covert interference with editorial independence.

DIGIPUB News India Foundation, a collective of digital news portals and independent journalists, has expressed its deep concern over the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules (DPDP), 2025, notified by the government on November 13, making the Act concerned enforceable with immediate effect.

In a press statement, DIGIPUB, whose members include News Minute, The Wire, AltNews, Newsclick, Newslaundry, The Quint, Boomlive, Article 14, HW News, Scroll, Cobrapost among others, said the concerned Act and the Rules “collectively cripple the Right to Information Act”, and also “endanger journalism”.

DIGIPUB urged the government and the department concerned to initiate a “transparent, formal and time-bound” consultation in the issues submitted by it, as also amend provisions that undermine media freedom, Right to Information and integrity of the digital space.

“By excluding journalists from any statutory exemption and granting the State broad access and enforcement powers, the open the door to indirect censorship, a chilling effect on free expression, and disproportionate surveillance of legitimate newsgathering activities”, read the statement.

It added that the Rules and the Act also “endanger source confidentiality, hinder public interest investigations, obstruct anti-corruption disclosures, and weaken the information framework essential for democratic accountability”, and called for restoration of “clear, statutory exemption for journalistic and public interest processing”.

Details of graft cases against MPs, MLAs can’t be denied under RTI.

Times of India: Chennai: Venkatadesan: Thursday, November 20, 2025.

The state information commission has directed the directorate of vigilance and anti-corruption (DVAC) to furnish details of corruption cases it has registered against MPs and MLAs, rejecting its denial of such information. Chief Information Commissioner Md Shakheel Akhter ordered DVAC SP and public information officer V Saravana Kumar to provide the details sought by a petitioner under the Right to Information Act. The directions came while disposing appeals by Aadithya Cholan of Ramapuram, who was not satisfied with the replies he received to his original petition and first appeal. 

The petition was filed in Nov 2024, and the first appeal in Jan. 

While the second appeal was filed before the commission in April, Aadithya Cholan moved the Madras high court seeking directions to the information commission. The high court passed an order directing the commission to consider the petitioner's second appeal on its merits and in accordance with the law, and to pass orders within a period of 12 weeks. When the appeal came up for hearing on Nov 12, DVAC S P V Saravana Kumar submitted the agency's reply to the petition dated Dec 17, 2024. But the appellant contended that it was incorrect information and that the reply was rejected under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.

The commission has now directed the PIO to furnish modified, correct information as per their records to the petitioner by Speed Post within a month. They were also instructed to submit the postal tracking of the petitioner and a copy of the reply sent to the petitioner on Jan 8, 2026.

Separate Section created in DPDP Rules for persons with disabilities : Aroon Deep, Abhinay Lakshman

 The Hindu: New Delhi: Wednesday, 19 November 2025.
In the draft rule regarding consent mechanism, persons with disabilities had been clubbed with children; activists hail separation of Sections in the notified rules, but raise concern over lack of clarity on laws of guardianship

Representative image. | Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto

Following pushback over the course of this year from disability rights activists, the Electronics and Information Technology Ministry has made changes to the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, to separate persons with disabilities from a rule that, in a draft, clubbed them with children for the sake of consent by a guardian.
While disability rights activists, who referred to the clubbing as the “infantilisation” of persons with disabilities, hailed this change in the notified rules, they said their concerns over the provisions remain. The notified rules do not contain illustrations on implementation to cover a range of instances where disabled people may or may not be able to use the Internet freely. Further, the language of the 2023 DPDP Act continues to group children and persons with disabilities together.
The DPDP Act, 2023, and the rules significantly restrict what minors can do online, such as setting up a social media account, without a parent’s consent. In the draft rules, this requirement was spelled out in detail in a section that included persons with disabilities, causing concern among disability rights groups. They argued that the Act and the draft unnecessarily required guardian consent for all types of data collection by websites.
Nipun Malhotra, of the Nipman Foundation, which has been advocating for changes to this Act and rules, said it was a “major victory” to have the Sections governing consent mechanisms for children and persons with disabilities separated. “The restrictions relating to behavioural monitoring, tracking, targeted advertising that apply to children do not apply to persons with disabilities anymore. These are useful features for persons with disabilities,” he said.
However, Mr. Malhotra noted that concerns remain regarding the practicalities of implementing the rules and the language in the principal Act, where children and persons with disabilities are included in the same section. “How the rules will be implemented and what will be clarified in due course. This is anybody’s guess,” he said.
The part of the rules that deals with consent for children’s data includes multiple illustrations of different scenarios under which consent should be obtained, along with a schedule that exempts and clarifies these requirements. While the separation of the Sections has clarified that these restrictions will not be applicable to persons with disabilities, the Section for persons with disabilities does not have any illustrations to capture the nuances of how guardianship operates, a key issue with the draft rules as pointed out in a report by the policy think tank PACTA and the NGO Saksham Disability.
Another issue pointed out by activists and civil society organizations was that the draft rules did not clarify which law of guardianship for persons with disabilities either the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation, and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999, or the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 would be considered for implementation.
The Saksham report had raised concerns about this, given that under the NT Act, the need for guardianship is partly determined by a person’s “decision-making capacity,” a term that the 1999 law does not clearly define. This, activists say, is not in consonance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, while guardianship under the RPWD Act is.
It further noted that small surveys had shown that not many persons with disabilities were aware of the law under which their guardianship is registered.
The notified rules, while creating a separate Section, have left the language in the Section for persons with disabilities unchanged. In Section 11 of the notified rules, they continue to provide for implementation in cases of guardianship under both the NT Act and the RPWD Act.
Mr. Malhotra said that the rules have defined “designated authority” in relation to guardianship as one governed by the RPWD Act, 2016. “But there remains the contradiction because further down in defining persons with disability, the rules provide for persons with physical disability as well. This contradicts because guardianship under the RPWD Act does not provide guardians for people with physical disabilities.”

India’s New Data Privacy Rules Are Here: What You Need to Know About DPDP 2025

 Current Affairs: National: Wednesday, 19 November 2025.
Government of India officially notified the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Rules, 2025, completing the implementation of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

Government of India officially notified the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Rules, 2025, completing the implementation of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. This milestone lays down a comprehensive and citizen-centric legal framework that protects individual privacy while supporting the responsible use of digital personal data by organisations. The notification follows an inclusive national consultation process that received 6,915 inputs from stakeholders including startups, civil society groups, industry bodies, government departments, and concerned citizens.
A New Era of Responsible Data Governance
Together, the DPDP Act and Rules aim to establish a balanced ecosystem where privacy, innovation, and digital growth can thrive in tandem. The framework is based on the SARAL principle: Simple, Accessible, Rational, and Actionable.
The law applies to all digital personal data, providing clear rules, citizen rights, and corporate responsibilities, making it easy for individuals to understand, access, and control their data.
Key Highlights of the DPDP Rules, 2025
1. Phased Implementation
A practical 18-month compliance period gives organisations time to adapt their systems, adopt privacy-by-design practices, and align operations with the Act’s requirements.
2. Mandatory Consent Notices
All Data Fiduciaries must issue simple, clear, purpose-specific consent notices before processing any personal data. Consent Managers must be India-based entities offering transparent, interoperable platforms for users to manage permissions.
3. Personal Data Breach Protocol
In the event of a data breach, organisations must promptly notify affected individuals in plain language, detailing the nature, impact, response, and support mechanisms available.
4. Citizen Empowerment through Digital Rights
The Rules reaffirm and operationalise citizens’ digital rights,

• Right to Consent or Refuse
• Right to Know Purpose and Use
• Right to Access, Correct, Update, or Erase Data
• Right to Nominate Another Person
• Right to Timely Response (within 90 days)
• Right to Protection During Breach

Special safeguards are included for children and persons with disabilities, ensuring consent is obtained through verified guardians when required.
5. Clear Grievance Mechanism
Organisations must publish contact details for data-related queries. Significant Data Fiduciaries have enhanced duties like independent audits, risk impact assessments, and government-mandated data localisation when applicable.
6. Fully Digital Data Protection Board
The Data Protection Board of India will operate as a digital-first authority, consisting of four members. Citizens can file complaints online, track cases through a portal, and appeal decisions before TDSAT, the designated Appellate Tribunal.
Penalties Under the DPDP Act
The framework includes strict penalties for non-compliance,

• Up to ₹250 crore for failing to implement security safeguards
• Up to ₹200 crore for data breach non-disclosure or violations involving children
• Up to ₹50 crore for other rule violations
• These penalties are designed to enforce accountability and good data practices.

Alignment with RTI Act and Privacy Rights
The DPDP Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to align with the Supreme Court’s recognition of privacy as a fundamental right. It ensures,

• Personal data is protected from disclosure unless public interest outweighs the harm
• Section 8(2) of the RTI Act remains intact, preserving transparency in governance
• A clear and court-aligned balance between privacy and access to public information

Key Static Facts: DPDP Rules, 2025

• Notified on: 14 November 2025
• Act Enacted on: 11 August 2023
• Consultation Feedback Received: 6,915 inputs
• Compliance Period: 18 months
• Governing Authority: Data Protection Board of India
• Key Concepts: Data Principal, Data Fiduciary, Consent Manager, Data Processor
• Appellate Authority: TDSAT
• Penalties: Up to ₹250 crore for serious violations

Ashwini Vaishnaw: DPDP Act enhances RTI with greater transparency on what tech firms collect

 Moneycontrol: New Delhi: Tuesday, 18 November 2025.

Minister for Electronics and Information Technology Ashwini Vaishnaw
addressing a press briefing on November 17 in New DElhi

The amendments to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, brought about through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, will not weaken, but instead strengthen its provisions, Minister for Electronics and Information Technology Ashwini Vaishnaw said on November 17, days after the amendments came into force.
"The RTI Act very clearly says that any information which is required to be disclosed in the public interest would be disclosed. That absolutely remains as it is. The framework doesn't get diluted," Vaishnaw said during a media briefing in New Delhi.
"On the contrary, citizens get more information because various provisions in the DPDP Act  where they will get Right to Information about what information tech companies, and what private information has been collected by tech companies, as part of the various provisions. Right to information is actually enhanced by the rule," Vaishnaw added.
Under the DPDP Act, data principals or a user have the right to access information about what categories of personal data is being processed, third parties with whom it is being shared and so on.
Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, amends the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The amendment says that public authorities and information commissioners must apply the DPDP Act’s definition of “personal data” while deciding RTI requests.
This effectively raises the threshold for disclosing personal details of individuals unless a larger public interest is clearly established.
Vaishnaw and IT secretary S Krishnan also said that a frequently asked question document on the RTI amendment has been finalised and will be put out soon.

Vacancies in Information Commissioner posts undermining RTI Act: Supreme Court

 New Indian Express: Ahmedabad: Tuesday, 18 November 2025.

Observing that the vacancies in the Information Commissioner posts undermine the functioning of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Supreme Court on Monday directed Himachal Pradesh to fill all vacant posts in its State Information Commission (SIC) within two months. It also instructed Jharkhand to complete its long-pending appointment process within one month.
A two-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Surya Kant and including Justice Joymalya Bagchi, was hearing a petition filed by Anjali Bhardwaj, Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.) and Amrita Johri.
The plea was on the prolonged failure of the Union government and several states to appoint Information Commissioners.
Lawyer Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, pointed out that the Central Information Commission (CIC) has been without a chief for more than two months and that eight of the ten sanctioned Information Commissioner posts are vacant.
He submitted that the CIC currently faces a backlog of nearly 30,000 cases. Bhushan contended that several SICs are also functioning with serious shortages.
Bhushan further noted that the situation in several State Information Commissions was also alarming. In Jharkhand, the SIC has been defunct for more than five years and now the commission has even stopped registering new cases. In Himachal Pradesh, the SIC has been defunct for more than four months.
He highlighted that in Chhattisgarh, the SIC is functioning with a single commissioner despite pendency of nearly 35,000 appeals and complaints. Similarly, in Maharashtra, the SIC is functioning with eight commissioners. while three posts are lying vacant and the backlog of cases is nearly 1 lakh, Bhushan pointed out.
In Tamil Nadu, the government has sanctioned only seven posts of commissioners even though the SIC has among the largest backlogs in the country at 41,000, he said. In Madhya Pradesh, the SIC is functioning with four commissioners. while 20,000 matters are pending, he added.
In several other states also, despite large backlogs, several posts of commissioners are lying vacant. It was highlighted that governments are completely undermining peoples’ Right to Information by not appointing information commissioners in a timely and transparent manner, leading to buildup of large backlogs and long delays of more than one year in the disposal of appeals and complaints. The issue of ensuring transparency in the appointment process as laid down in the Anjali Bhardwaj judgment of 2019 was also highlighted.
The lawyer added that since the last hearing on October 27, 2025, the Karnataka government has filled all the vacancies in the commission and the SIC is now functioning at its full strength of 11 commissioners.
The counsel for the Union of India stated that the selection committee meeting will be held at the earliest and the appointment process will be completed.

What are Digital Personal Data Protection Rules? : Aroon Deep

The Hindu: Editorial: Monday, 17 November 2025.
Has the Data Protection Board of India already been formed? Who are data fiduciaries and data principals? How does the DPDP Act aim to protect children? How has the Right to Information Act, 2005 been amended? What has the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan said?

THE GIST

• The DPDP Act, 2023 is India’s data protection law just as other major countries have their own data protection regimes.
• Data principals are required to take “informed” consent from their users, and anyone whose data they collect, by giving a summary of what data they are collecting, and how they will use it.
• The 2023 Act amended Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which allows citizens to request public information from government bodies.

The story so far:
The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules (DPDP), 2025 were notified this week, kicking off the formation of the Data Protection Board of India (DPBI), and the legal framework for safeguarding the data of Indians online. The DPDP Act itself was passed in Parliament in August 2023, and the draft of the Rules that were notified on November 14, 2025 were released for consultation in January.
What do the DPDP Act and Rules do?
The DPDP Act, 2023 is India’s data protection law just as other major countries have their own data protection regimes such as that in Europe (the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)) and Singapore (Personal Data Protection Act, 2012). Like these regimes, the Act sets out some baselines for how companies (“data fiduciaries”) should handle data of their users in India (“data principals”). For instance, there must be access control and encryption, along with security audits for large firms (“significant data fiduciaries”).
Further, data principals are required to take “informed” consent from their users, and anyone whose data they collect, by giving a summary of what data they are collecting, and how they will use it. The Act also gives users the right to erase or modify data they provide to firms, or to delete it. After a specified period of inactivity, firms are under an obligation to delete the data they have on users. A Data Protection Officer (DPO) has to be appointed by large firms, who will oversee compliance.
The Act also restricts targeted advertising and certain data collection from children. The Rules carve out an exemption here for parents tracking their children’s location.
To allow users to exercise rights across a variety of fiduciaries (accounts over several platforms), the Act and Rules set out the framework for a “Consent Manager,” a service that will allow users to manage their data across several fiduciaries, similar to the permissions manager settings on a smartphone.
Data breaches must be reported as soon as possible, the Act says.
Fines for non-compliance for different parts of the law range from ₹10,000 to ₹250 crore.
Are these requirements in force?
No. While over two years have gone by since the Act was notified, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has chosen to give firms up to 18 more months to comply. Some requirements, like having a DPO be appointed for large firms, goes into effect one year from now.
However, some parts of the Act have kicked into action such as the DPBI’s formation. The DPBI will oversee the Act’s implementation and will be a subordinate office of the MeitY. The body will have four members.
Another part of the Act that goes live is the amendment to the Right to Information Act, 2005, which has been furiously resisted by digital rights and transparency groups alike.
Why is the amendment controversial?
The 2023 Act amended Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which allows citizens to request public information from government bodies. That section allowed government bodies to refuse requests for “personal information”, but said that this exemption would not apply if there was a larger public interest in disclosing the information.
The DPDP Act removed that carve-out, allowing government organisations more discretion in what is and isn’t personal information, and decline it even if doing so would be in the public interest. The 2023 law was not going to be in force including this amendment until the Union government notified it. Transparency activists, such as those belonging to the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) and the National Campaign for the People’s Right to Information (NCPRI), spent years (since the DPDP Act’s 2022 draft was published) resisting this change.
But on Friday, the government disregarded that pushback, and specifically invoked its power to push the amendment through in the form of a notification. Another amendment, to the Information Technology Act, 2000, is not yet in force.
Organisations like the MKSS have worked with grassroots movements to get access to ration “muster rolls” and work order logbooks, allowing them to scrutinise public records for signs of graft and misspending. By implementing a broader definition to what constitutes as “personal information”, they have argued, citizens may have no room to conduct such social audits. The amendment could also be used to shield powerful officials’ misconduct, they have said. Nikhil Dey, an MKSS founding member, vowed that “‘[w]e the people’ will fight back” after the amendment went into force.

Too little, much later : The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules undermine right to information

The Hindu: Editorial: Monday, 17 November 2025.

Over eight years have passed since the Supreme Court of India held privacy to be a fundamental right. In the interceding years, three separate drafts for a data protection law have been floated, with little visibility into how the final contours of the Act took shape. The 2023 law achieved simplification of the 2018 draft, with some important protections for user data baked into law. But this was at the cost of giving a wide berth for government organisations to handle the data of Indians, putting in place an anaemic Data Protection Board of India (DPBI), and cruelly amending the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, setting back major advances in transparency achieved over the last two decades. The Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, notified on November 14, 2025, do little to repair the glaring gaps and damage from the parent Act. In fact, they delay the implementation of practically all key protections to 2027, while implementing the dilution of the RTI Act immediately; public information officers are now authorised to decline any personal information except what is already required to be published by other laws an all-too-thin slice of the pie for citizens seeking accountability. This is after the government dragged out a three-month consultation period for draft rules which were already delayed, and launched the final form in the heat of the day the Bihar Assembly election results were announced.
The delays to reach this point were unfortunate, in January, when the draft Rules were put out, and are inexcusable now. Little has been changed in the Rules’ final form, and the 12-18 months of a compliance timeline, even for giants of the technology industry that have known about this framework well in advance, does not stand the test of good faith. The lack of independence of the institutional framework underpinning these equivocations is particularly worrying: as an example of why, the DPBI will operate under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. A result of this is that the same government organisation courting big-ticket investments into India from the world’s main data guzzlers, firms such as Google, Amazon and Meta, will supervise the body investigating their future mishandling of the data of Indians. Firms handling the data of Indians have few reasons to be upset with Friday’s Rules, as they will have over a year to fully implement the document’s limited aspirations. But for the citizen seeking the aim in the Act and Rules’ title privacy and accountability from public and private actors with whom sharing data has become an implicit and unavoidable condition of modern digital existence they will now find that their status quo largely continues: of being open books to the state and Big Tech, on the reflective side of a mirror that hides what is behind it.

'Unchecked Powers to Govt, New Barriers to Transparency': IFF on Digital Personal Data Protection Act

The Wire India: Delhi: Sunday, 16 November 2025.
The IFF said Rule 23 of the DPDP Rules, 2025 “grants unchecked power” to the government to demand personal data from Data Fiduciaries without consent, citing “vague justifications like national security.”

While the union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has on Friday (November 14) notified the rules of the controversial Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2025, with immediate effect, critics have said it creates new barriers to transparency and individual freedoms.
“The DPDP Act, 2023 and its implementing DPDP Rules, 2025, instead of protecting citizens’ data rights, have created new barriers to transparency and individual freedoms. The DPDP Act itself instituted onerous duties on individuals and carved out broad exceptions that weaken the fundamental right to privacy,” said the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) in a statement.
While the ministry has said that the DPDP Act’s administrative rules will kick into action and, over the next 18 months, there will be step-wise notification of its other rules, the IFF said that it had urged the government to "avoid long deferrals and to specify clear, phased but shorter implementation timelines so that individuals do not remain without meaningful remedies while infrastructures for protection of personal data are built."
The government has also operationalised with immediate effect Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which has a direct bearing on Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Provisions related to penalties are also being brought into immediate effect.
“IFF is especially dismayed that the DPDP Rules, 2025 provides statutory backing for enabling personal data collection by state agencies with scant oversight, thereby entrenching state control over personal data,” the IFF said.
The IFF said that Rule 23 of the DPDP Rules, 2025 “grants unchecked power” to the government to demand personal data from Data Fiduciaries without consent, citing “vague justifications like national security.”
“With no clear safeguards, oversight, or challenge mechanism, this provision risks enabling surveillance, over-collection of data, and privacy violations. In practice, this means that the government can compel any data holding entity (such as an internet platform or telecom provider) to furnish user data en masse, merely by invoking broad reasons like “sovereignty,” “integrity of India,” or any function of law,” it said.
It further added that the categories of data access are so broadly defined that they invite abuse and prohibit disclosure of government demands in relation to national security.
“To compound the problem, the DPDP Rules, 2025 impose obligations where data fiduciaries are prohibited from disclosing government demands to Data Principals related to national security, eliminating an important check of transparency. Such gag rules prevent the public from ever knowing the extent of state surveillance,” it said.
While opposition lawmakers and privacy activists and journalists have sought the repeal of Section 44(3) of the Act that amends  Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act based on which even personal information could have been disclosed, the government has defended the legislation.
The IFF has also reiterated its call for a Data Protection (Amendment) Bill to "restore a strong RTI framework and introduce a journalistic purpose exemption so that privacy is not used as a blanket excuse to deny information," reconstitute the Data Protection Board of India both on its independence and powers to make it an independent regulatory body and narrow state exemptions and surveillance powers.
"Blanket, secret data demands have no place in a rights respecting democracy. The government should also initiate surveillance law reform, to bring intelligence gathering under checks and balances as urged by civil society," it said.
This article went live on November fifteenth, two thousand twenty five, at thirty-three minutes past three in the afternoon.

Officials advised to provide information under RTI Act within stipulated period

Times of India: Mysuru: Sunday, 16 November 2025.
Karnataka State Information Commissioner Rudranna Hartikote advised officials to provide information requested under the Right to Information Act within the stipulated period.

In a training workshop organised at the zilla panchayat in collaboration with the district administration, all district-level officials and public information officers of Hassan district discussed awareness, dialogue, and the proper use of the RTI Act with the public.
Hartikote said the Act helps bring transparency to administration, provides information to the public, and aids in eradicating corruption in a democratic system.
The primary objective of the workshop is to encourage officials by conducting training sessions in all districts, reviewing changes, and revisiting commission and court decisions. He noted that training was already conducted in 15 districts.
He stressed the importance of understanding the rules for effective implementation and mentioned that reading Form 6(1) helps in providing information and processing applications.
Hartikote instructed officials to provide information within 30 days without neglecting applications received under the RTI Act and to avoid delays and negligence by providing available office information without compiling it.
He advised treating citizens who visit the office courteously. The responsibility of effectively implementing the RTI Act lies with all of us, which will benefit applicants, he said.
7,335 applications
From Jan 1, 2025, to Oct 10, 2025, 7,335 applications were submitted in the district, with 7,191 disposed of and 144 pending. Of the 1,059 applications that went to the first appeal, 984 were disposed of, and 75 were pending. He mentioned that compared to other districts, the performance is satisfactory. He stated that 307 cases from Hassan district are in the commission for the second appeal.
Rs 10 crore fine
So far, the commission has imposed fines of Rs 10.1 crore on 10,719 cases, with 3,084 employees paying Rs 2.7 crore. In the district, 217 officials have been fined Rs 18.9 lakh, with Rs 4.4 lakh fines paid in 45 cases.
When he assumed office, 55,498 applications were pending in the commission, which was reduced to 35,344 through regular hearings. He mentioned that discussions are ongoing to expedite application disposal by visiting districts. Another commissioner, Rajshekhar S, stated that obtaining information is a fundamental right. No one should refuse to provide information, and providing it within the stipulated period benefits applicants.

Pkl SIC imposes Rs 25,000 penalty on SPIO-DTP for withholding RTI info

The Times of India: Panchkula: Saturday, 15 November 2025.
The State Information Commission (SIC), Panchkula, imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 on then SPIO/district town planner (headquarters), Haryana, for failing to provide information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. SPIO-DTP is currently posted with the Gurugram Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA), Gurugram.

According to the Commission, SPIO-DTP did not furnish the required information to the complainant despite a clear directive issued by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on June 13, 2023, which was communicated to him on June 23, 2023. The SIC noted that the SPIO ignored repeated notices and failed to appear before the Commission on multiple hearing dates. He also did not submit a reply to the show-cause notice issued to him.
The Commission observed that the officer "has not acted diligently under the RTI Act, 2005" and failed to provide information within the mandated time-frame without presenting any reasonable cause. The order further stated that the SPIO made no sincere effort to comply with the RTI request or directions of the FAA.
Holding him responsible for withholding solicited information, the Commission ruled that this was a fit case for imposing a penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, which allows for Rs 250 per day of delay, up to a maximum of Rs 25,000. The Commission remarked that the RTI Act places a clear duty on designated officials to ensure timely and transparent delivery of information, and non-compliance invites strict action.
As SPIO-DTP failed to justify the delay or demonstrate any attempt to fulfil his obligations under the Act, the SIC imposed the maximum permissible penalty.

Key amendments to RTI Act comes into force as Meity operationalises DPDP Act : Aihik Sur

 Moneycontrol: National: Saturday, 15 November 2025.
Through these changes, public authorities and information commissioners must apply the DPDP Act’s definition of “personal data” while deciding RTI requests.

India began operationalising the data protection act on November 14

A key amendment to the RTI Act, brought in through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP) Act, that critics say dilutes provisions of RTI, came into force on November 14, according to a gazette notification by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.
The notification was brought into force Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, which amends the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Through this change, public authorities and information commissioners must apply the DPDP Act’s definition of “personal data” while deciding RTI requests.
This effectively raises the threshold for disclosing personal details of individuals unless a larger public interest is clearly established.
This provision has been met with criticism by several quarters of the society, including media industry, civil society and so on, as they argue that it may restrict disclosure of personal information in RTI responses. Responding to criticism, IT minister Ashwini Vaishnaw earlier this year, aid that the law will not restrict disclosure of personal information in RTI responses.
"Therefore, any personal information that is subject to disclosure under legal obligations under various laws governing our public representatives and welfare programmes like MGNREGA, etc will continue to be disclosed under the RTI Act. In fact, this amendment will not restrict disclosure of personal information, rather it aims to strengthen the privacy rights of the individuals and prevent the potential misuse of the law,” Vaishnaw said in a letter to former minister Jairam Ramesh.
The IT ministry has notified a three-stage schedule for enforcing the DPDP Act. The provisions that take effect immediately include establishing the Data Protection Board and key penalty, appeal and rule-making powers.
A second set of provisions will come into effect one year from now, including provisions that deal with consent, duties of data fiduciaries, data principal rights and so on.

Digital Personal Data Protection Act notified after two years, RTI Act amended

The Hindu: Delhi: Saturday, 15 November 2025.
Much of the Act goes into force in late 2026 mid-2027; a much-resisted Right to Information Act, 2005 amendment is in force immediately

Image used for representation purpose only.
Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto

The Union Government notified large parts of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, on Friday (November 14, 2025), addressing the need for a law to protect the data privacy of Indian citizens. The DPDP Rules, 2025, are also a significant step forward in compliance with the Supreme Court’s 2017 K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India judgment affirming the right to privacy.
A draft of the Rules was circulated in January and mulled over for a significant period of time.
The law, passed in August 2023 in Parliament, requires firms to safeguard digital data of Indian citizens, with exemptions for the “State and its instrumentalities”, and prescribes penalties for firms that breach these obligations.
Meanwhile, transparency activists have said the law weakens the Right to Information Act, 2005, by removing the obligation of government bodies to provide “personal information” if the public interest outweighs a public official’s right to privacy.
That amendment is in force from Friday (November 14, 2025). However, “data fiduciaries,” who collect and use personal data, will have until November 2026 to comply with some provisions, such as putting out the details of their designated Data Protection Officer (DPO). That same month, the Consent Manager framework, which allows firms to exercise data removal and amendment rights on behalf of “data principals” (users), will also come into force.
It may take until May 2027 for large tech firms to be subject to the full force of the Act, which also provides for the constitution of the Data Protection Board of India (DPBI) by the Centre. Another notification there were a total of four on Friday (November 14, 2025) sets the number of members in the DPBI at four. The board can hold inquiries in response to complaints and impose penalties in case of data breaches. The board’s members, who have not yet been chosen, will be appointed by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).
The DPDP Act, 2023 has gone through three major drafts since 2017, with the first draft in 2018 imposing conditions like data localisation that were furiously resisted by technology firms. The latest version of the Act, which strips out many of the requirements of the original draft, has been relatively better received among large Indian and global tech firms, which as “significant data fiduciaries,” would face additional compliance requirements.
Nasscom, which represents the main IT and technology firms, said in a statement issued through its Data Security Council of India (DSCI) initiative that it welcomed the Rules, but had problems with the Act that could not be solved by “subordinate legislation”, such as tight rules around parental consent and short disclosure deadlines for breaches.
“On international data transfers, Nasscom-DSCI recognises the importance of developing mechanisms that support interoperability and facilitate co-operation with India’s key trading partners,” Nasscom said.
Delhi-based digital rights advocacy Internet Freedom Foundation said the notified Rules “do not address key structural concerns repeatedly raised by civil society” and rued the fact that they “[defer] most core obligations and rights” by a year and a half. The Rules “provides statutory backing for enabling personal data collection by state agencies with scant oversight, thereby entrenching state control over personal data,” the IFF said.

Jawabdehi Yatra: What's Fueling This Fiery March Across Rajasthan? : Geetha Sunil Pillai

The Mook Nayak: Rajasthan: Friday, 14 November 2025.
The yatra not only challenges governmental apathy but also empowers citizens to assert their rights. Experts believe this movement will strengthen RTI's legacy and pave the way for social justice in Rajasthan.

The primary aim of this march is to press the state government
for a robust Social Accountability Law and the immediate
implementation of three landmark laws passed two years ago.

A fresh wave of demand for accountability is sweeping across Rajasthan. The 'Jawabdehi Yatra' (Accountabulity March) organized by the Soochna and Rozgar Andolan (Information and Employment Rights Campaign) Rajasthan, kicked off with great fervor on November 11 from Beawar's iconic Chang Gate, the very spot where India's Right to Information (RTI) movement was born 30 years ago in 1996. The organisation is a citizen movement to establish greater transparency and accountability in governance.
The primary aim of this march is to press the state government for a robust Social Accountability Law and the immediate implementation of three landmark laws passed two years ago: the Gig Workers Act, Minimum Income Guarantee, and Right to Health. The yatra is set to conclude on November 26 in Jaipur, where a major public dialogue is anticipated.
The journey was inaugurated by renowned social activist Aruna Roy, a Ramon Magsaysay Award recipient. The initial leg from Chang Gate to Ajmeri Gate saw hundreds of activists, villagers, and youth participating amid enthusiastic crowds. The 16-day march will traverse five divisions, including Ajmer and Udaipur, with stops in rural areas like Delwara and Suhawa villages. At each halt, locals welcomed the group with drums, tilaks, and folk songs, while public meetings fostered open discussions.
2 years ago, Rajasthan passed 3 landmark laws- Gig Workers, Minimum Income, & Right to Health. But without rules, there is no implementation.
Objectives and Key Demands
At the heart of this nine-year struggle is the passage of Rajasthan's 'Social Accountability Law', which the government has promised multiple times but failed to enact. Organizers emphasize that without rules, laws remain mere paper documents. In particular, the non-implementation of the 2023 Gig Workers Law, Minimum Income Guarantee, and Right to Health has left millions of laborers, farmers, and the poor in distress. The yatra also protests efforts to weaken RTI, underscoring the need for transparency and administrative accountability.
Villagers shared grievances at stops, irregularities in MGNREGA wages, delays in ration and pension distribution, and water shortages in places like Suhawa. The rallying cry is: "We Have Questions... We Demand Answers! Pass the Accountability Law!" Aruna Roy stated, "This yatra reminds the government that the real owners are the people. Governance without accountability is incomplete."
Echoing the 2016 campaign, where marches from 33 districts converged in Jaipur for a 22-day sit-in this current 16-day effort (November 11-26) will conduct awareness drives across villages and towns. Upon reaching Jaipur, plans include a meeting with Chief Minister Bhajan Lal Sharma to push for concrete action on the demands.
The yatra not only challenges governmental apathy but also empowers citizens to assert their rights. Experts believe this movement will strengthen RTI's legacy and pave the way for social justice in Rajasthan.

RTI exposes parking fee disparity at railway stations : B. Madhu Gopal

 The Hindu: Visakhapatnam: Friday, 14 November 2025.
Contractors flout railway contract terms; Duvvada only NSG-3 station charging rail users between ₹30 (including GST) to ₹60 parking fees without any security

Questions are being raised over the rationale behind the parking fees fixed for two-wheelers and four-wheelers (cars) at railway stations of the East Coast Railway Zone (ECoR). Contractors operating these parking lots, are selected by the railways through e-auction, with the lowest bidder (L1) awarded the contract.
The tender has certain rules that must be scrupulously followed by the licensee (parking contractor). These include: payment of insurance premium for vehicles parked within the licensed parking area against theft, damage, fire or other accidents.
Ironically, notice boards displayed at most parking areas state that the management is not responsible for theft of belongings or damage to vehicles a direct contradiction of the contract terms.
Data obtained under the Right To Information (RTI) Act by Kanchumurthi Eswar, secretary Duvvada Railway User’s Association (DRUA) and member of the Zonal Railway Users’ Consultative Committee (ZRUCC) revealed that at Duvvada, which is classified as a Non-Suburban Group (NSG-5 station), the parking fees are significantly higher when compared to Bhubaneswar, which is classified as NSG-2 station, and other NSG-3 stations such as Sambalpur, Khurda Road, Cuttack and Rayagada.
Interestingly, even within the Duvvada railways station, the parking rates differ between Platform (PF)-1 and Platform (PF)-4.
At Duvvada, four-wheeler parking charges are ₹30 (including GST) for the first two hours, ₹40 for two to six hours, ₹50 for six to 12 hours and ₹60 for 12 to 24 hours. However, in Bhubaneswar, the parking charges (excluding GST) are ₹20, ₹30, ₹40 and ₹60. At NSG-3 stations the parking fee (including GST) at Sambalpur is ₹18, ₹30, ₹42, and ₹65; at Khurda Road parking fees are fixed at ₹15, ₹30, ₹40 and ₹60; at Cuttack ₹20, ₹30, ₹40 and ₹60 and at Rayagada it is ₹20 (including GST) for six hours or part thereof.
The parking fees for two-wheelers also shows a similar trend at these railway stations.
Mr. Eswar said: “Farmers from over 14 nearby villages, residents, and daily wage workers employed in and around Duvvada rely on the railway station. There are no sheds for parking vehicles on Platform -1 side, and no plans for a covered parking at the new station building, under construction on PF-1 side.”
He shared that a car parked on PF-4 side of the Duvvada railway station went missing recently. He urged officials to intervene and take measures to ensure parity in parking fees, along with provision for covered parking at the new station building.

RTI exposes missing ICU duty records at St George’s Hospital

Mumbai Mirror: Mumbai: Friday, 14 November 2025.
At Mumbai’s St George Hospital, what should have been a routine disclosure under the Right to Information Act has instead exposed a glaring structural failure one that strikes at the heart of accountability in a government hospital’s most sensitive department.

A routine query has uncovered major accountability gaps
no preserved rosters, attendance logs to show who was on
uty in the ICU

When Advocate Tushar Bhosale filed an RTI seeking the ICU’s shift-wise duty schedules from 2024 onward, he expected a simple roster. What the hospital admitted instead was staggering: “Although ICU duty schedules are prepared every 2 to 3 months, they are not preserved. There is no official record of which doctor was responsible for patient care on a given day. No archival rosters. No attendance logs. No trace,” read the RTI reply.
Advocate Bhosale further said that for an ICU where decisions can determine life or death the absence of preserved duty logs is not merely sloppy administration; it is an institutional blind spot that turns off scrutiny. Without those records, the hospital cannot establish who held clinical charge during critical hours. Any internal audit, external review, or medico-legal investigation is left to guesswork. Section 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act requires public authorities to maintain records in a way that makes them accessible. Medical regulatory frameworks from the former Medical Council of India to today’s National Medical Commission require hospitals to document staff deployment and patient care responsibilities.
Meanwhile, Advocate Bhosale also filed a parallel complaint on the Aaple Sarkar portal, raising even more serious concerns: alleged irregularities in ICU attendance, including claims that entries were routed through a Registered Medical Practitioner who acted as an intermediary, purportedly allowing doctors to mark their attendance even when they were not present.
The Medical Education Department forwarded the complaint to the hospital, forcing an examination that internal mechanisms failed to trigger.
“On November 10, hospital officer Deepak Lad confirmed that a committee would be constituted to investigate. A committee is a standard response but its timing is telling. These lapses came to light not because the hospital caught them, but because an external complainant compelled the system to act,” confirmed a MEDD official.
What began as a simple request for a roster has instead revealed a system unprepared or unwilling to document responsibility in one of its most critical departments.
“The ICU duty roster at St George’s Hospital is prepared by JJ Hospital and updated every 2 to 3 months. Only recent schedules are retained, and requests for detailed duty information including those that may compromise staff safety often amount to unnecessary targeting of our institution,” said Dr Vinayak Sawardekar, Medical Superintendent of St George’s Hospital.

TN police refuse to share data on extrajudicial killings, cite workload

The News Minute: Tamilnadu: Thursday, 13 November 2025.
TNM filed an RTI request with the Tamil Nadu DGP’s office after several incidents of custodial deaths and extrajudicial killings were reported across the state recently.

Tamil Nadu DGP office

“It is not possible to collect and provide the requested information,” the Tamil Nadu police has said in response to TNM’s request for data on extrajudicial killings.
The surprising reply citing administrative constraints that could affect their routine duties was given in response to a Right to Information (RTI) request submitted by TNM to the Director General of Police (DGP) office on July 27. The request seeking details of extrajudicial killings in Tamil Nadu from 1990 to March 2025 was made after several incidents of custodial deaths and extrajudicial killings were reported across the state recently.
In the reply that TNM received on November 11, the DGP’s office said that the requested data is not maintained at the headquarters and that compiling information from all district and city police offices would place a burden on the department.
“Collecting and compiling such data would divert the regular work of this department and adversely affect day-to-day functioning. Therefore, it is informed that it is not possible to collect and provide the requested information,” the DGP’s office said in a written response.
SC judgement cited
The reply also referred to a Supreme Court judgement in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) vs Aditya Bandhopadhyaya, delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice RV Raveendran and Justice AK Patnaik. In the case, the court observed, “The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spend 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties.”
The case was regarding an RTI application by a student Aditya Bandhopadhyaya, who sought copies of his evaluated class 12 answer sheets. The CBSE had denied the request, arguing that the answer sheets were confidential and disclosure could compromise the integrity of the examination process.
However, students have the right to inspect their own answer sheets, the Supreme Court had said, observing that the evaluated answer sheets qualify as information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. At the same time, the court cautioned against the misuse of the RTI Act through indiscriminate or impractical demands that do not serve transparency or accountability.
‘Lack of transparency’
RTI activist SP Thiyagarajan said the police response shows the department’s lack of transparency.
“The requested details are information that can be declared to the public. If they do not have the data, they should forward the request to the designated office and inform the petitioner about the action. In this case, they should have sent the request to either the commissionerate or SP office of all the districts. The response shows a lack of transparency,” he said.
"Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to voluntarily disclose a broad range of information to the public within 120 days of the Act’s enactment. This has not been done in the 20 years since the Act was passed. Even when a petition is filed, they refuse to provide answers,” Thiyagarajan added.
Aseervatham, a human rights activist associated with the NGO People’s Watch, alleged that the police refusing to provide the data was in an effort to prevent scrutiny.
“Even though the DGP office has the data, they do not want it to be shared with the public. They do not agree that most of the killings were done extrajudicially,” he said.
“They want to hide the killings. If one gets the data, they may approach the court seeking a probe using the RTI response as evidence. That's why they categorically denied the request,” he stated.