SIC cracks down on RTA Amritsar, raises fine for RTI violation

The Times of India: Patna: Wednesday, 10 December 2025.
The Punjab State Information Commission has taken firm action against the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Amritsar, for persistent non-compliance with repeated directions in an RTI appeal case.

The commission enhanced the penalty imposed on the public information officer (PIO) and ordered recovery of the amount from the officer's salary. State Information Commissioner Pooja Gupta, who heard the matter, also conveyed "severe displeasure" to the principal secretary, department of transport, Punjab, over the "casual attitude of their subordinate officers."
The case relates to an appeal in which the appellant filed an RTI application on April 3, 2023. As recorded in the order, then State Information Commissioner Asit Jolly conducted three hearings, but no one appeared from the office of the RTO, Amritsar. A penalty of Rs 10,000 was imposed on April 22, 2024, for non-appearance, but there was still no compliance.
After Jolly's superannuation, the case was reallocated, and despite repeated notices, including a bailable warrant issued on September 23, 2025, the PIO again failed to appear. The commission observed that such disregard for the RTI Act "needs to be condemned" and that erring officials must receive "a right kind of message" to ensure transparency in public administration.
After examining the case record, the commission noted that the conduct of the PIO "shows carelessness and irresponsible behaviour towards the orders of the Commission," calling it "not acceptable at all." The order states that despite ample opportunities, the respondent failed to comply, resulting in a delay of two years in providing information to the appellant.
Taking a serious view, the commission enhanced the penalty on the PIO from Rs 10,000 to Rs 25,000, to be imposed on the officer who was incumbent at the time the RTI application was filed on April 3, 2023. The RTA, Amritsar, has been directed to recover the amount from the salary of the concerned officer. The official must also submit an undertaking to the commission and be personally present at the next hearing.
Pooja Gupta also instructed the principal secretary, transport department, Punjab, to ensure that all officers concerned appear at the next hearing and to review all similar cases for early compliance. Further, the PIO PCS-cum-RTO, Amritsar, has been directed to attend the next hearing with the complete information sought in the RTI application and explain his conduct and the status of the complaint to enable the commission to reach a logical conclusion. The matter has been adjourned to January 13, 2026.

HC upholds penalty on ex-DCLR for RTI delay

The Times of India: Patna: Wednesday, 10 December 2025.

Refusing to quash a penalty of Rs25,000 imposed by the state information commissioner (SIC) on a former deputy collector land reform (DCLR) of the state capital (Sadar), the Patna high court directed the erring officer to deposit the fine amount within next four weeks.
The court also ordered that failure to deposit the fine within stipulated time would make the officer liable for an additional fine of Rs5,000.
A single bench of Justice Rajiv Roy while disposing of a decade-old writ petition filed by one Sudhanshu Kumar Chaubey, passed this verdict on Dec 4 which came into public domain after being uploaded on HC website on Tuesday.
Petitioner’s counsel Pawan Kumar argued that his client had wrongly been imposed with a fine allegedly for not furnishing information related to disposal of mutation cases in a circle of state capital, as sought by one Surendra Prasad Yadav under the provisions of Right to Information Act (RTI) .
The requisite information was provided at a late stage when Surendra had already appealed before the SIC.
SIC counsel Binita Singh submitted that Sudhanshu was given an opportunity give an explanation before being awarded a penalty. Yet the erring officer gave no reply for next 11 months till he was transferred to another department.
The court found that the erring officer had behaved in a non-professional manner by not replying to the commission within time frame.

PM-Led Committee Likely To Meet Tomorrow To Select New CIC

Daily Excelsior: New Delhi: Wednesday, 10 December 2025.

A three-member committee headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and also including Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi is likely to meet on Wednesday to decide the next Chief Information Commissioner and information commissioners for eight vacant positions at the Central Information Commission (CIC).
The government had informed the Supreme Court on December 1 that the Prime Minister Modi-led panel is likely to meet on December 10 to select and recommend names for these posts.
Under Section 12 (3) of the Right to Information Act, the prime minister is the chairperson of the committee, which also comprises the leader of opposition and a Union minister nominated by the prime minister, that selects and recommends the names for appointment as Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners.
According to the RTI Act, the CIC has a Chief Information Commissioner and 10 Information Commissioners who adjudicate complaints and appeals filed by the RTI applicants against the unsatisfactory orders of government officials on their applications.
The CIC, which is staring at 30,838 pending cases, according to its website, is left with just two information commissioners — Anandi Ramalingam and Vinod Kumar Tiwari — with eight vacancies.
The highest appellate authority to adjudicate RTI-related complaints and appeals had gone headless for the seventh time since 2014 after incumbent Chief Information Commissioner Heeralal Samariya demitted office on September 13.
The Commission had become headless for the first time after then CIC Rajiv Mathur demitted office in August 2014.
Samariya, who had become the Chief Information Commissioner on November 6, 2023, demitted office on attaining the age of 65 years, according to an office order issued by the Commission.
In an RTI response to activist Commodore Lokesh Batra (retired), the Department of Personnel and Training had said that 83 applications were received for the post of Chief Information Commissioner in response to its advertisement issued on May 21.
It also said that 161 applications were received in response to an advertisement issued on August 14, 2024, for the vacancies against the post of Information Commissioners in the CIC.
According to the procedure for the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner, particulars of interested persons are invited through advertisements in newspapers and through the DoPT website.
These details are tabulated by DoPT and sent to a Search Committee constituted by the Prime Minister and chaired by the Cabinet Secretary.
The names as well as the shortlisted ones along with their applications are sent to the committee headed by the Prime Minister and also comprising the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha and a Cabinet minister.
Persons recommended by the prime minister-led committee are appointed by the President.

Act fast in cash-for-vote RTI plea, Madras HC directs CIC

DT Next: Chennai: Wednesday, 10 December 2025.
SP Aadithya Cholan, Chennai Zonal Joint Coordinator of the TVK Advocate Wing, had approached the High Court seeking a direction to the CIC to act on his pending appeal

The Madras High Court has directed the Central Information Commission (CIC) to consider, within two months, a second appeal seeking information on measures being taken to prevent cash-for-votes in the forthcoming Legislative Assembly elections.
SP Aadithya Cholan, Chennai Zonal Joint Coordinator of the TVK Advocate Wing, had approached the High Court seeking a direction to the CIC to act on his pending appeal.
He had filed an RTI application seeking details of steps proposed by the Election Commission of India to curb cash distribution during the 2026 Assembly elections.
In his RTI application, he had requested information on the toll-free number for lodging complaints about cash distribution, action taken against political parties and candidates involved in cash-for-votes, whether mobile apps or websites would be launched for filing complaints, and the number of related complaints received over the past 50 years.
The Public Information Officer of the Election Commission had responded to only two of his questions. The petitioner then filed a second appeal before the CIC in August last year, challenging the incomplete response. The appeal, however, has remained undecided.
Hearing the petition, a bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan directed the CIC to hear and dispose of the second appeal expeditiously.

Gujarat Information Commission rejects retired cop’s RTI plea, cites threat to officials

The Times of India: Ahmedabad: Wednesday, 10 December 2025.
The Gujarat Information Commission (GIC) has dismissed an RTI second appeal filed by a 72-year-old retired police sub-inspector, ruling that disclosing the requested information could endanger the lives of govt officials involved in his case.

State chief information commissioner Dr Subhash Soni passed the order following a hearing on Dec 6, citing provisions under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, which protects officials from potential threats.
The Jamnagar-based retired PSI had sought details of departmental proceedings initiated against him, specifically requesting the names and designations of staff members who handled his defence reply dated Dec 28, 2023.
In Nov 2024, he was penalized with a two-year pension cut of Rs 2,000 per month following a home department inquiry into a custodial torture case that held him responsible.
The retired officer, who left service in 2018, has also approached the Gujarat high court after authorities rejected his licence application.
During the hearing, the appellant argued that crucial information from several sub-points in his original RTI application dated Jan 2, 2025, remained undisclosed. He maintained that identifying the employees who processed his representation was essential to his case.
The Public Information Officer (PIO) responded that certified documents for specific points had already been provided, while the remaining information pertained directly to individual officers.
The commission observed that the applicant, facing departmental punishment, appeared to seek information with a retaliatory motive.
The order states that revealing the names and roles of employees involved could "cause harm to their life or physical safety".
Dr Soni noted that internal notes and employee identities are recorded with confidentiality and operational safety in mind. "Disclosing them would undermine the secure functioning of govt processes," the order stated.
Regarding other requests related to the standing orders of the finance and general administration departments, the commission directed the appellant to access the documents through the departmental websites or to file fresh RTI applications with the relevant PIOs. While disposing of the appeal, the commission emphasized that transparency cannot override the safety of govt employees.

Right to Information: The limit does exist - By Joanne Jary & Cosmo Cater

Holding Redlich: Queensland: Tuesday, 9^Th December 2025.

Government agencies increasingly face complex Right to Information (RTI) requests from individuals involved in internal disputes, complaints or litigation. These scenarios test the boundaries between statutory transparency obligations, the protection of internal management discussions and the limits of using parallel disclosure regimes to obtain information.
The recent decision in the case of Stella v Griffith University [2025] QCA 203 clarifies the limits of RTI access when tribunal orders and court procedures apply, providing important guidance for agencies, applicants and legal practitioners.
Case background: Stella v Griffith University [2025] QCA 203
Mr Stella was a student at Griffith University. In 2022, the University conducted preliminary inquiries into whether Mr Stella’s social media commentary breached its Student Misconduct Policy. During those inquiries, Mr Stella provided both written and oral responses, and University staff discussed the complaint internally.
The University ultimately decided not to proceed with a formal investigation and informed Mr Stella of that outcome through a letter dated 6 September 2022, which advised him to avoid similar commentary in the future. Mr Stella believed the complaint was outside the Policy’s scope and that University officers had engaged in improper conduct.
Right to Information applications and reviews
On 27 September 2022, Mr Stella applied under the Right to Information Act 2009 (RTI Act) for all documents relating to the complaint and the University’s handling of it. The University granted partial access and refused access to other documents. An internal review resulted in limited further disclosure.
The Information Commissioner affirmed the University’s decision on the first access application and varied the decision on the second, substituting different grounds for refusal (S41 and Griffith University [2023] QICmr 64). Mr Stella then appealed to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Appeal Tribunal (QCATA), which dismissed the appeal on 18 March 2025.
Both the Information Commissioner and QCATA determined that two key documents were exempt from release.
Application to the Court of Appeal
In the Court of Appeal proceedings, Mr Stella sought an order compelling the University to disclose the same two documents, arguing the Court should examine them itself.
QCATA had previously made non-publication orders under section 66(1) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 for ‘Part B’ documents, which included the disputed material.
Court of Appeal’s reasoning
Writing the main judgment for the Court of Appeal, Justice Bradley held that disclosure orders could not be made because UCPR r 223(1) does not apply to appeals. Even if it did, disclosure would only be possible in special circumstances and where the interests of justice required it (r 223(4)(a)). Ordering disclosure in this case would directly conflict with QCATA’s existing non-publication orders.
The Court did not decide whether the documents were exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act, but observed that documents recording the University’s investigation of a complaint reflected the exercise of a management function. Such documents may therefore fall within an exemption from release under the RTI Act. The issue was left open because the disclosure application was rejected on procedural grounds.
In the end, the application for disclosure was dismissed, and costs were later awarded against the applicant.
Important observations about the Right to Information Act
In the course of their judgment, the Court of Appeal made several significant observations:
the RTI Act does not contemplate endless sequential access applications about information generated by earlier applications
decision-makers undertaking the section 49 public interest balancing test are not confined to the factors listed in Schedule 4 of the RTI Act
the effective operation of complaint processes requires that University (and by analogy, other agencies) management can discuss matters openly when performing management functions. This was an identified public interest factor and is especially relevant where RTI applicants are simultaneously involved in employment or disciplinary disputes with their agency.
Practical implications for agencies, applicants and lawyers
Agencies
Agencies must remain alert to confidentiality and non-publication orders, which may override RTI access rights. Where such orders exist, they can heavily constrain or preclude disclosure.
Applicants
RTI is the proper statutory pathway for access. Attempting to circumvent it through court disclosure procedures is unlikely to succeed. Applicants seeking documents for litigation must demonstrate a genuine legal need for those documents, particularly in appellate contexts.
Furthermore, documents created in response to one access application do not create a foothold for launching further applications in an ‘endless loop’. Attempting this practice risks being declared vexatious, either by a court or by the Information Commissioner.
Lawyers and RTI practitioners
Lawyers and legal officers, particularly those in the public sector, should be aware of the interplay between RTI rights and other procedural regimes, including tribunal orders and court appeal processes. The Stella decision suggests that even when the RTI Act process is invoked, other procedural or statutory constraints may override access.
The UCPR disclosure rules cannot be used to obtain information that has been refused under the RTI Act or is the subject of non-publication orders. Additionally, decision-makers for RTI release who undertake the section 49 public interest balancing test are not confined to only considering the factors listed in Schedule 4 of the RTI Act.
Key takeaways
While the RTI has a pro-disclosure bias, access is limited not only by statutory exemptions but also by broader procedural constraints such as tribunal suppression orders.
The decision reinforces that UCPR disclosure (and other disclosure) provisions do not grant a parallel right to access exempt or protected material and cannot be used by unsuccessful RTI applicants to bypass the RTI decision and obtain access through general procedural rules. RTI must be sought within its own framework.
In employment disputes and investigations, participants may attempt to ‘look behind’ the decision and fish for ammunition by using RTI to obtain material. This decision confirms that agency management can discuss matters openly when performing management functions, and this was an identified public interest factor tending towards exempting documents like this from disclosure to an applicant.
Finally, the decision further emphasises the importance of relevance and necessity in disclosure applications and rejects attempts to fish for documents outside the RTI process.
If you have any questions about the Right to Information process, need guidance on exemptions or procedural requirements, or require legal assistance with a request, please contact us here.
Disclaimer
The information in this article is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this article is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future.

Unaided private schools not under RTI Act: Telangana schools' management body

The New Indian Express: Hyderabad: Tuesday, 9^Th December 2025.
TRSMA president Madhusudan appealed to authorities to prevent the misuse of RTI provisions and protect unaided schools from unwarranted pressure and harassment.

The Telangana Recognised Schools Managements Association (TRSMA) on Sunday clarified that unaided private schools do not fall under the ambit of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as they are not funded or controlled by the government.
This issue has come to the forefront, as in recent times, a few individuals, for harassment and extortion, have filed applications seeking private, administrative and staff-related information of the schools.
Expressing serious concern over the misuse of RTI, S Madhusudan, president, TRSMA, said, “That such information is exempt under Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) and this trend is causing the Education Department and school managements to waste lakhs of man-hours unproductively, affecting the smooth functioning of schools and also clarified that unaided private schools do not fall under the ambit of the RTI Act, 2005, as they are not funded or controlled by the government.”
The members also submitted a representation letter to the state government. TRSMA president Madhusudan appealed to authorities to prevent the misuse of RTI provisions and protect unaided schools from unwarranted pressure and harassment.

Odisha Information Commission Reduces RTI Pendency to 14,000 Cases

Argus: Odisha: Tuesday, 9^Th December 2025.

The Odisha Information Commission has achieved a record reduction in pending appeals and complaints, bringing the backlog down from 22,611 to 14,000 cases within just seven months, officials said on Monday.
This milestone reflects the Commission’s renewed focus on speedy disposal and transparency under the leadership of State Chief Information Commissioner Shri Manoj Parida.
Strengthened Commission:
Following the appointment of four new Information Commissioners in April 2025, including the Chief Information Commissioner, the Commission has been conducting hearings throughout the week. This expansion has significantly boosted disposal rates, addressing delays caused during the Covid period and the earlier shortage of commissioners.
Special Drive for Pendency:
A special initiative has been launched to clear old cases, with strict discouragement of frequent adjournments. Priority is being given to individual applicants rather than repetitive bulk filings. Video conference hearings have increased, and weekly reviews of disposal rates are being conducted to ensure efficiency.
Landmark Judgments:
In recent months, the Commission has delivered several notable rulings. OPSC was directed to disclose interview marks to all candidates, while the Staff Selection Commission was asked to reveal marks in proficiency tests. Another ruling restricted misuse of the RTI Act by repetitive applicants, ensuring genuine seekers benefit from timely information.
Transparency and Accountability:
The Commission has emphasized proactive disclosure, directing departments to upload basic information online to reduce RTI applications by up to 60%. District Collectors have been asked to review RTI disposal quarterly. Over the years, fines totaling Rs1.47 crore have been imposed on erring officials, with disciplinary action recommended against 1,857 officers and compensation of Rs16 lakh awarded to applicants.
Future Goals:
With the High Court of Orissa upholding several of its decisions, the Commission now aims to reduce pendency further to just a few thousand cases by next year, ensuring applicants receive information within 30 days.

Pedestrian deaths account for 37% of road accident fatalities in Coimbatore

 The Hindu: Coimbatore: Tuesday, 9^Th December 2025.
Roads in Coimbatore city appear to be less friendly for pedestrians as data accessed from the police under the Right to Information (RTI) Act showed that pedestrians accounted for 37% of road traffic accident fatalities reported in the first 10 months this year.

Of the 232 persons who lost their lives in road traffic accidents in the city from January to October, 86 were pedestrians. A total of 971 accidents (fatal and non-fatal) were reported in the city during this period and 280 of them (28.83%) were involving pedestrians.
“Pedestrian deaths account for more than 20% of total road fatalities nationwide. But this figure is 37% in Coimbatore, a clear indicator of lack of facilities for the safety of pedestrians in the city. The alarming percentage of pedestrian fatalities in Coimbatore shows sheer negligence by authorities, including the Highways Department,” said K. Kathirmathiyon of Coimbatore Consumer Cause, who accessed the data from Coimbatore City Police under RTI Act.
As per the RTI reply, even though pelican signals are useful for the public to cross roads, subways or foot overbridges were necessary.
The police stated that subways or foot overbridges were necessary at Anna Statue, Lakshmi Mills junction, RK Mill junction, Fun Mall junction, airport junction, Chinniyampalayam, Gandhipuram junction, No:3 bus stop, Ukkadam, Chinthamani junction, Kavundampalayam junction, Thudiyalur junction, Singanallur junction and Ramanathapuram junction.
“The RTI reply by the police clearly states the need for safe pedestrian crossings at these places. Though there was allocation of ₹15 crore for five subways or foot over bridges for Avinashi Road flyover in the original plan, it was not executed. Similarly, ₹5 crore allocation for a subway at Gandhipuram junction for the flyover was also not utilised. Authorities are not bothered about pedestrian safety since they barely cross these roads by foot,” said Mr. Kathirmathiyon.
Officers attached to Coimbatore City Police said that they were forced to deploy personnel at busy locations, where people tend to cross the road in large numbers, due to the absence of subways or foot overbridges.
Mr. Kathirmathiyon, who is also a member of the District Road Safety Committee, had highlighted lack of facilities for pedestrians in the city in a submission given to the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety recently.

Make public details of MoU with Google on data centre in Vizag, demand rights organisations.

The Hindu: Vishakhapattnam: December 08, 2025.

Rejection of RTI application seeking access to the MoU citing confidentiality not only violates the spirit of the Act but also raises concerns about the government’s commitment to transparency in matters of critical public resources, say leaders of HRF and UFRTI.

The Human Rights Forum (HRF) and the United Forum for RTI Campaign (UFRTI) have demanded that the Andhra Pradesh government disclose details of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed with Google for the proposed data centre and allied investments in Visakhapatnam and Anakapalli districts.

In a release on Saturday, HRF’s A.P. and Telangana Coordination Committee member V.S. Krishna and UFRTC co-convener Chakradhar Buddha said, “It is widely acknowledged that such large data centres will exert significant pressure on the State’s already stressed power and water infrastructure.”

“Moreover, without access to the MoU, how will civil society organisations, concerned citizens, and researchers assess whether adequate environmental safeguards, social impact assessments, data localisation safeguards, privacy protections, requisite oversight mechanisms, and data privacy frameworks have been built into the agreement?” they questioned.

“Decisions taken in the name of people must be open to public scrutiny. The State government must immediately upload all documents relating to the MoU on an official public platform,” they demanded.

“The government has been projecting the MoU as a landmark investment and game-changer with far reaching economic benefits and that it will position the State as a digital infrastructure hub. But, it has refused to make the contents of the MoU available in the public domain. It clearly violates the basic principles of the Right to Information Act, 2005,” they observed.

Citizens had the right to know the safeguards contained in the MoU, especially given its potential impact on water, energy use, land and data governance in the State, they said.

“The Google Data Center, which is said to involve an investment of $15 billion, is signed in secrecy, erodes public trust and undermines democratic oversight. A formal RTI application seeking access to the MoU has been rejected recently by the Andhra Pradesh Government citing confidentiality. This refusal not only violates the letter and spirit of the RTI Act but also raises concerns about the government’s commitment to transparency in matters related to critical public resources,” they said.

Information Commission imposes fine of Rs 25,000 on Bengaluru sub‑division officer, Rs 50,000 on tahsildar.

English Public TV: Monday, December 08, 2025.

The Bengaluru North Sub‑Division Officer, Dr Kiran, who ignored a Right to Information (RTI) application and failed to provide the requested information on time, has been fined Rs 25,000 by the Information Commisson. The Bengaluru North Tahsildar, Madhuraj, has also been fined Rs 25,000 in two separate cases for similar lapses.

The Commission imposed the penalties not only because the officers missed the deadline for furnishing information, but also because they repeatedly failed to appear for the Commission’s hearings, showing a blatant disregard for the proceedings. In addition to the fines, the Commission issued a show‑cause notice to both officials, asking why disciplinary action should not be recommended to the government for violating the RTI Act.

Venkatesh, a resident of Belathur Colony in Bengaluru, had filed an RTI request several years ago seeking certain documents related to his land in K Dommasandra village. When the Sub‑Division Officer did not provide the information within the stipulated period, Venkatesh appealed to the Commission. The Commission ordered the officer to appear and explain, but Dr Kiran ignored the notice and continued to neglect the request.

Consequently, the Commission imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 and directed that the information be supplied immediately, warning of further disciplinary action.

Similarly, a resident Chandappa from Bengaluru had submitted an RTI application to the Bengaluru North Tahsildar requesting documents concerning his family property in Malagalu village. Tahsildar Madhuraj also failed to furnish the information and did not attend the Commission’s hearings.

Despite a show‑cause notice, he did not respond. The Commission fined him Rs 25,000 in each of the two cases (total ₹50,000) and ordered that the requested documents be provided forthwith, warning of departmental inquiry.

In recent times, the Commission has also penalised several other officials for ignoring RTI requests — Bengaluru South Sub‑Division Officer Vishwanath, Doddaballapur Sub‑Division Officer Durgashri, KR Pura Tahsildar Raju, and Devanahalli Tahsildar Anil, among others.

The Commission emphasized that anyone filing an RTI request must receive either the requested information or a proper reply within the prescribed timeframe. It also mandated that officials appear before the Commission in person or send a representative to offer an explanation. Failure to comply may result in fines and a recommendation for disciplinary action to the government. The Commission further noted that the RTI Act provides for compensation to applicants who are deliberately delayed or harassed by officials.

Tamil Nadu among five least transparent states on juvenile justice: IJR.

New Indian Express: Rajlakshmi Sampath: Monday, December 08, 2025.

An official from the Social Welfare department attributed the lack of responses to the format in which information was sought. Police officials were not available for comment.

The India Justice Report (IJR), released recently with a focus on juvenile justice and children in conflict with the law, has ranked Tamil Nadu among the least transparent states.

The IJR, a quantitative index assessing the capacity of justice systems across states and produced collaboratively since 2019 with organisations including the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, found that Tamil Nadu was among five states that did not respond to any queries sent primarily under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The other states are Jharkhand, Manipur, Tripura and Uttar Pradesh.

As a result, the report was unable to assess Tamil Nadu on most indices, apart from a few basic parameters, such as the presence of Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs), which could be verified from secondary sources. The report noted that the state “shared almost nothing.” Police headquarters did not provide information on Special Juvenile Police Units (SJPUs), while the State Child Protection Society, responsible for maintaining records on Observation Homes, Special Homes and Places of Safety, failed to furnish details on capacity, staffing or inspections.

The Social Welfare department allegedly transferred RTI applications to districts, which only provided partial responses. TN also gave “no information” on allocations or utilisation of the Juvenile Justice Fund for several years. An official from the Social Welfare department attributed the lack of responses to the format in which information was sought. Police officials were not available for comment.

SCIC Manoj Parida Drives Major Reforms in Odisha Information Commission to Fast-Track RTI Appeals Process

Prameya News: Orissa: Sunday, December 7^Th, 2025.
Odisha Information Commission Achieves Record Disposal Rate Under New Leadership

The landscape of the Right to Information (RTI) administration in the state is undergoing a massive transformation. In a significant achievement for transparency advocates, the backlog of appeals and complaints at the Odisha Information Commission has seen a dramatic decline. Over the last seven months, the number of pending cases has dropped from a staggering 22,611 down to just 14,000.
Targeting the Backlog
Previously, the Commission struggled with a mounting pile of cases due to hearing limitations during the COVID-19 pandemic and a shortage of personnel, as it was operating with only two commissioners. However, the tide turned in April 2025 following the change in government, which saw the appointment of four new Additional Information Commissioners and the new State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC), Shri Manoj Parida.
According to SCIC Manoj Parida, the Commission has adopted an aggressive approach to clear the backlog by conducting hearings throughout the week. To further expedite matters, a special drive is effectively targeting old cases, while the frequency of adjournments has been severely restricted5. The Commission is also leveraging technology, with a marked increase in adjudications conducted via video conferencing.
Landmark Decisions for Transparency
Recent months have witnessed historic judgments that empower job seekers. Shri Manoj Parida has directed the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC) to disclose interview marks for all candidates in every test. Similarly, the Staff Selection Commission has been mandated to reveal marks secured by candidates in computer and typing proficiency tests8.
Shift in Policy and Administration
The Commission is refining its operational philosophy. Rather than intimidating Public Information Officers (PIOs) with heavy penalties, the focus has shifted to ensuring information is actually supplied9. Fines are now reserved strictly for officials who display habitual and deliberate negligence10. Furthermore, to prevent the system from being clogged, restrictions have been placed on individuals who misuse the RTI Act by filing hundreds of repetitive applications.
Future Roadmap
The Commission has set an ambitious target to reduce pendency to a mere few thousand by the end of next year, ensuring that applicants do not wait longer than 30 days for a resolution. To support this, the SCIC has requested the government to appoint senior, competent officials as PIOs and has urged the Chief Secretary to mandate quarterly reviews of RTI matters by District Collectors.
Highlighting the strict stance on accountability, the Commission noted that in recent years, it has levied fines totaling Rs 1.47 crores against erring officials and recommended disciplinary action in 1,857 instances.

Whistleblower accuses Sirsa excise officer of hiding RTI records on illegal liquor trade

Tribune India: Haryana: Sunday, December 7^Th, 2025.
A local whistleblower has accused the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (DETC), Sirsa, of deliberately withholding information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act regarding illegal liquor vends and suspected hooch distillation units in the district. The allegations were made by Kartar Singh of Agarsen Colony in a complaint submitted to Superintendent of Police, Deputy Commissioner and City Police Station SHO.

Singh said he filed an RTI application on September 23, 2025, with the DC Office seeking details of liquor shops allegedly operating at prohibited locations. The DC Office acknowledged the request on October 3 and forwarded it to the SPIOs of the Excise Department and the District Education Office. Singh said he also deposited the mandatory fee as required under RTI rules.
However, no department responded within the stipulated time. Singh then filed a first appeal on November 12, which the DC Office forwarded to the First Appellate Authorities of both the DEO and DETC offices on November 18.
According to Singh, while the DEO fixed a hearing for December 9, the Excise Department denied receiving either the original RTI application or the appeal. The department, in a letter dated December 2, stated that no such papers had reached its office. Singh termed this denial false, asserting that both documents had been officially routed through the DC Office.
He alleged that the DETC’s refusal amounted to “criminal omission,” as the officer was legally bound to provide information on liquor vends, suspected hooch units and related public complaints. Singh claimed the alleged concealment was aimed at protecting vendors operating near highways, schools, public spaces and religious places locations where liquor shops are prohibited by law.
In his complaint, Singh said the Excise Department’s conduct violated the RTI Act, ignored public grievances and undermined efforts to curb illegal liquor trade and NDPS-linked activities. He argued that denying an RTI application forwarded by the DC Office was a serious breach of duty and could amount to contempt of Supreme Court guidelines.
Calling the December 2 communication “a deliberate attempt to hide information,” Singh urged authorities to register a criminal case against the DETC and ensure transparency in the enforcement of excise regulations.
Meanwhile, DETC (Excise) Kanwal Nain refuted the allegations, saying the department had already provided a detailed reply to Kartar Singh’s RTI and that the claims made by him “do not relate to our department.”

Karnataka Milk Federation a state body, fully under RTI, says state information commission

Times of India: Bengaluru: Sunday, December 7^Th, 2025.
In a decisive affirmation of transparency in cooperative institutions, Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) has ruled that the Karnataka Milk Federation (KMF) is a ‘state' body and unequivocally falls under the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

Extending this position further, the commission held that all its district-level unions, including Bamul (Bangalore Urban, Rural and Ramanagara Cooperative Milk Producers' Societies Union Ltd) and Komul (Kolar District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union), are also public authorities mandated to furnish information sought by citizens.
The order was issued by information commissioner Rajashekara S while hearing a second appeal filed by RTI applicant V Lokesh, who had sought details of an overseas tour undertaken by the Komul managing director and other officials. Lokesh filed his RTI plea on Nov 6, 2023, before the public information officer of the Kolar-Chikkaballapur Milk Union Limited (formerly Kochimul).
Rajashekara cited an earlier landmark judgment of Karnataka high court, dated Oct 22, 1993, in the KV Panduranga Rao vs Karnataka Dairy Development Corporation case, in which a three-judge bench declared KMF a ‘state' under Article 12 of the Constitution. KIC noted that this legal position makes KMF and its unions fully accountable under the RTI framework, leaving no ambiguity about their obligations to disclose information.
KIC then examined the evolution of Karnataka's dairy cooperative structure, tracing its roots to the Karnataka Dairy Development Corporation (KDCC), a fully govt-owned entity created in 1974 to implement the World Bank-funded Operation Flood programme. Following directions from the Indian Dairy Corporation (IDC) and the Union govt, KDCC was replaced with a cooperative mechanism to execute Operation Flood II. This culminated in the incorporation of KMF on Jan 10, 1983, under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act. "KMF did not arise in a vacuum," the order observed. "It is the product of a state decision, built on govt assets, govt programmes, and govt-guaranteed finances."
KIC detailed how KMF inherited all functions, assets, liabilities, and staff of KDCC with effect from May 1, 1984. Early financial support comprised 30% IDC grant and 70% loan entirely guaranteed by the Karnataka govt repayable at the rate of 8.5% over 15 years. Subsequent govt orders transferred additional dairies, infrastructure and equipment, first to KMF and later to district unions such as Bamul and Komul.
The commission also cited KMF's own bylaws, which authorise it to acquire govt dairy undertakings, manage procurement and marketing, strengthen village societies and district unions, and develop dairy-related activities. "The functional, financial, and administrative control of the state is unmistakable," the order stated.
QUOTE
The intent of RTI Act is to ensure transparency wherever public funds, public resources, or public functions are involved. KMF's very functioning depends on govt-created structures. Information relating to foreign trips or any expenditure involving public money must be disclosed
— Rajashekara S | information commissioner

No information on RTI Applications to which Info was denied: Centre

 Madhyamam: New Delhi: Saturday, 6^Th December 2025.
The response came after Trinamool Congress Member of Parliament Ritabrata Banerjee sought in the Rajya Sabha details regarding the number of applications filed under the RTI Act, 2005, during the last five years

The Centre told Parliament that it has no information on returning Information (RTI) applications with no answer or denying information in the last five years, The Wire reported.
The response came after Trinamool Congress Member of Parliament Ritabrata Banerjee sought in the Rajya Sabha details regarding the number of applications filed under the RTI Act, 2005, during the last five year.
Other details sought include ‘the number of applications with no answers or denied information and the year-wise details of applications answered.’
Regarding the number of applications returned with no answer or denying information, Jitendra
Singh the Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and the Prime Minister’s Office told the parliament that ‘the Central Information Commission (CIC) has informed that no such data is compiled by them.’
Singh, however, said that a total of 17,50,863 RTI applications were filed, 67,615 were rejected and 14,30,031 were answered.
In 2022-23, as many as 16,38,784 RTI applications were filed while 52,662 were rejected and 13,15,222 were answered.
As many as 13,33,802 and 13,74,315 RTI applications were filed in 2020-2021 and 2019-2020, respectively, he replied adding that 10,86,657 were answered in 2019-20 but data on answering quires for 2019-20 was not available.
The government’s response to RTI came into focus after the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, was notified last month for ‘staggered’ implementation.
Through Section 44(3), this Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act to ‘exempt all personal information from disclosure’.

Two Odisha Officials Fined Rs 25,000 Each For RTI Delays

Ommcom News: Bhubaneswar: Saturday, 6^Th December 2025.

Two government officials have been fined Rs 25,000 each by the State Information Commissioner for delays in providing information to an RTI applicant, Manorajan Jena.
Pradeep Kumar Sethy, Additional Tahasildar of Binjharpur Tahasil, and Sujit Kumar Swain, Additional Tahasildar of Jhumpura Tahasil, Keonjhar, failed to discharge their statutory obligations as PIOs, leading to the penalties.
Both officials were PIOs when the RTI applications were filed and didn’t provide the required information despite multiple notices, prompting the Commission to impose the fines.
The Commission has directed Sethy to pay the penalty within a month, failing which the amount will be recovered from his salary in five installments starting February 2026.
Swain has been given 30 days to pay the penalty, or it will be recovered from his salary. The Commission emphasized that transparency is a key aspect of the RTI Act and that the officials’ actions obstructed the free flow of information.

TMC’s Gokhale seeks law to record judges’ oral observations in court, make them public : Written by Jatin Anand

 The Indian Express: Article: Saturday, 6^Th December 2025.
“...The government is a house of record. Everything gets documented in writing; even files have to have notations on them. Everything has to be recorded and is available under the RTI Act,” Gokhale told The Indian Express, adding, “It is the same with Parliament...”

Trinamool Congress’s Rajya Sabha MP Saket Gokhale on Friday sought a law mandating the recording, transcription and public availability of accurate records, even oral observations by judges, of proceedings of all courts from the district-level to the Supreme Court.
Introducing a private members’ Bill Records of Court Proceedings Bill, 2025 in the Upper House during the second half of the day’s proceedings, Gokhale said it is aimed at bringing a law which would require the maintenance of “an accurate public record of proceedings of all courts in India which will be transcribed in writing”.
“…The government is a house of record. Everything gets documented in writing; even files have to have notations on them. Everything has to be recorded and is available under the Right to Information Act,” Gokhale told The Indian Express.
“It is the same with Parliament transcripts of the day’s proceedings are published every day, every word that is uttered gets into the record of Parliament. Something unparliamentary may get expunged but the rest is recorded and that too for perpetuity. As far as our judiciary is concerned, only the written orders… become a part of judicial records,” he said.
While the Government is accountable to Parliament and Parliament to the people, the judiciary “seems to be accountable only to itself”, said the MP.
“The judiciary is the only institution where the oversight, appointments everything is done within the institution; they are not accountable to any other branch of the state,” he said.
“This (the proposed law) will make judicial proceedings more transparent; why look at a case only through a summation at the end of a few years. Today, a challenge to an order is only to the text of it and not its entire context. This will enable litigants to challenge not just a particular judgment order but also the rationale behind it from point A to point Z,” he said.
Gokhale said the private members’ Bill seeks to bring the Supreme Court, all High Courts as well as subordinate courts as stated under Part VI (Chapter VI) of the Constitution under its ambit and “court proceedings” mean “all words uttered by magistrates, judges, lawyers, and any other parties involved in a matter when that matter is being heard by any court (civil or criminal) in India”.
The “transcript” refers to “an accurate verbatim record of the proceedings of the court in writing” which would be maintained as “public information”, mandate a transcript of daily proceedings being uploaded by every court on its website within 24 hours and also treated as information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Differences in 2002 and 2025 SIR revision procedures spark alarm in Gujarat

Counterview: Ahmedabad: Friday, 5^Th December 2025.

Civil rights groups and electoral reform activists have raised serious concerns over the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Gujarat and 11 other states, alleging that the newly enforced requirements could lead to large-scale deletion of legitimate voters, particularly those unable to furnish documentation linking them to the 2002 electoral list.
According to a press note issued jointly by PUCL Gujarat Secretary Mujaheed Nafis, electoral reforms activist Santoshsinh Rathod, and ADR State Coordinator Pankti Jog, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has directed that every voter must show proof of their presence or the presence of their father, mother, or grandparents in the 2002 SIR list. Failing to produce such proof may result in a notice from the Electoral Registration Officer and potential removal of names from the final rolls.
The activists object that no such rule existed during the 2001–02 revision process. Information obtained under the Right to Information Act reveals that the 2002 revision did not require voters to provide any proof of their presence in earlier lists, including the 1995 SIR.
“The 2002 SIR was based entirely on a house-to-house survey, and voters were not asked to fill any forms or submit documentation,” the release states. Enumerators physically verified residents, recorded corrections on-site, and made changes directly on a carbon-copy master list given to household heads. Names could only be deleted in cases of death or migration, and voters possessing EPIC cards could have omissions rectified without additional proofs.
In contrast, the current SIR places the responsibility on citizens instead of enumerators and demands proof of existence in the 2002 list despite no such documentation being required at that time. Activists argue that this change lacks justification and may disproportionately affect vulnerable groups such as senior citizens, migrants, tribal communities, and economically weaker families.
The press note highlights several key differences between the two processes, including:

• Absence of door-to-door verification in the present SIR.
• No mechanism to record migration in SIR forms, potentially resulting in wrongful deletion for people who recently changed residences.
• Lack of provision to group family members recorded on different pages of the roll, requiring multiple submissions through different Booth Level Officers.
• Missing framework to re-include voters holding valid EPIC cards whose names may have been removed in error.

The activists warn that without proper safeguards, improvements to the electoral rolls are impossible. “How an improvement of the electoral rolls will happen is a BIG question,” the statement concludes.
The groups have urged the Election Commission to withdraw the proof-of-2002 requirement, restore the enumerator-led verification model, and ensure that no eligible voter is removed due to bureaucratic hurdles.
Nafis, Rathod, and Jog have called on the public to remain alert and verify their electoral status amid fears that the new system may lead to large-scale voter disenfranchisement shortly ahead of upcoming elections.

In 2002, ensuring voter inclusion on list was enumerator’s duty: RTI activists

The Times of India: Ahmedabad: Friday, 5^Th December 2025.
RTI activists have highlighted significant procedural changes in how the Election Commission of India (ECI) conducts the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, comparing the 2002 process with that in 2025. They said that while in 2002, the enumerator was responsible for updating voter lists, in 2025, the onus is on the voters to establish and ensure their names are on the electoral rolls.
The activists said that while the SIR of 2001-02, which was called Special Revision of Intensive Nature, had provisions to make all kinds of amendments to voter details, the ongoing SIR does not have that provision.

RTI activist Santoshsinh Rathod, who sought information under the RTI from the Election Commission of India, said that three types of registers were maintained in the SIR of 2002 the first to make any changes in the details of voters such as spellings and the like, the second for people who had an EPIC but their names were not in the electoral rolls, and the third for listing names of voters who had shifted out of their constituencies.
"The primary objective of the SIR in 2002 was to include as many voters as possible on the electoral rolls. A document, such as a registered post letter, sent to an individual's name at their registered address was sufficient to confirm their place of residence," said Rathod.
Rathod added that the 2002 SIR did not include the clause requiring voters to provide details of their family members or relatives if the voter's name was not included in the earlier SIR.
Pankti Jog, state coordinator of the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR), said the fundamental difference between the BLO's role in the ongoing SIR and the enumerator's role in 2002 is significant. "In 2002, the enumerator was responsible and accountable for all changes that voters needed to make. All the proposed changes were to be noted down by the enumerator in the presence of the voter, who had to be given a carbon copy. In this SIR, BLOs are not accountable for any changes that a voter makes in his or her details," Jog said. She added that, in the ongoing SIR, BLOs have filled out forms only when special camps are being held.

Over 17.5 lakh RTI applications filed during 2023-24: Centre

 Hindustan Times: New Delhi: Friday, 5^Th December 2025.
Over 17.5 lakh applications were filed under the Right to Information Act during 2023-24, the Rajya Sabha was informed on Thursday.

Of the total 17,50,863 such applications filed, 67,615 were rejected and 14,30,031 were answered, according to a data shared by the Union minister of state for personnel Jitendra Singh in a written reply.
During 2022-23, 16,38,784 RTI applications were filed. Of these, 52,662 were rejected and 13,15,222 were answered, it said.
According to the data, 14,21,226 such applications were filed in 2021-22, of which 53,733 were rejected and 11,31,757 were answered.
It further said 13,33,802 and 13,74,315 RTI applications were filed in 2020-21 and 2019-20 respectively.
To a query seeking numbers of applications "with no answer or denied information", Singh said, "The Central Information Commission has informed that no such data is compiled by them."
In a separate reply, he said the one-time password feature was launched in the RTI online portal on January 2 to authenticate the users and protect sensitive personal information.
By ensuring only authorised access, the measure strengthens cyber security and aligns with the best practices, the minister said.
"OTPs are promptly dispatched from the NIC email domains. However, due to reasons such as congestion in the receiver's network, connectivity issues in the network being used by the users' service provider etc, the delivery of OTPs may take more time in some cases," he said.
However, the OTPs do not expire until they are used, thereby enabling the users to access their account as soon as the OTP arrives, Singh said.
"The RTI online portal is designed, hosted and maintained by the NIC unit of the DoPT . The NIC has informed that 27,57,506 OTPs were generated for email verification up to 28.11.2025," he added.