Digital Data Protection Act Explained: 14 नवंबर 2025 को भारत सरकार ने Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Rules, 2025 को अधिसूचित किया, जो DPDP Act, 2023 को लागू करता है। सबसे बड़ा बदलाव RTI Act की धारा 8(1)(j) में है, जहां पहले 'पब्लिक इंटरेस्ट' के आधार पर व्यक्तिगत जानकारी जारी की जा सकती थी, अब इसे पूरी तरह छूट मिल गई है—बिना पब्लिक इंटरेस्ट टेस्ट के व्यक्तिगत जानकारी देने से इनकार आसान हो गया। इससे पुलों के ठेकेदारों जैसे मामलों में भ्रष्टाचार उजागर करना मुश्किल। Rule 23 सरकार को बिना नोटिस या जज की मंजूरी के व्यक्तिगत डेटा (कॉल लॉग, लोकेशन आदि) मांगने की व्यापक शक्ति देता है, जो 'राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा' के नाम पर हो सकता है। पत्रकारों के लिए कोई स्पष्ट छूट नहीं है—वे भी 'डेटा फिड्यूशियरी' माने जाते हैं, जिससे संवेदनशील जानकारी या व्हिसलब्लोअर डेटा इस्तेमाल करने के लिए सहमति लेनी पड़ेगी, जो व्यावहारिक रूप से असंभव है। Editors Guild of India और अन्य संगठनों ने इसे प्रेस फ्रीडम पर हमला बताया, जो जांच-पत्रकारिता को बाधित कर सकता है। आलोचक इसे Article 19(1)(a) के तहत बोलने और जानने के अधिकार पर खतरा मानते हैं, जबकि सरकार का दावा है कि यह निजता और पारदर्शिता में संतुलन बनाता है। कुल मिलाकर, ये नियम राज्य को मजबूत बनाते हैं, लेकिन नागरिकों और मीडिया की जवाबदेही की क्षमता कमजोर करते हैं.... देखिये द आरटीआई फाइल्स
Monday, January 12, 2026
Battle over NPAs: BoB, SBI, RBL, Yes Bank move CIC against RTI orders, RBI backs disclosure
Business Today: New Delhi: Monday, 12Th January
2026
The RBI has consistently relied on the Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 ruling in Jayantilal N Mistry vs RBI, which held that inspection reports, defaulters’ lists and related supervisory information must be disclosed in the larger public interest.
Four major banks Bank of
Baroda, RBL Bank, Yes Bank and State Bank of India have approached the Central
Information Commission (CIC) objecting to the disclosure of sensitive
regulatory information such as lists of defaulters, non-performing assets
(NPAs), inspection reports and penalty-related documents, even as the Reserve
Bank of India (RBI) has maintained that the records are “liable to be
disclosed” under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, according to a PTI report.
The objections stem from multiple RTI applications filed by applicants Dheeraj Mishra, Vathiraj, Girish Mittal and Radha Raman Tiwari, who sought details including the top 100 NPAs and willful defaulters of Yes Bank, inspection reports of SBI and RBL Bank, and documents related to a Rs 4.34 crore monetary penalty imposed on Bank of Baroda following statutory inspection findings.
After examining the requests, the RBI concluded that the information could be disclosed under the RTI Act and sought the banks’ views under the third-party consultation provision of Section 11. Disagreeing with the RBI’s position, the banks challenged the decision before the CIC, arguing that disclosure would harm their commercial interests and expose confidential supervisory information, the PTI report added.
Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi has now referred all the cases to a larger bench of the CIC, citing the significance of the issues involved and the fact that similar matters had earlier been examined by a double bench. Disclosure has been stayed until final adjudication.
The RBI has consistently relied on the Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 ruling in Jayantilal N Mistry vs RBI, which held that inspection reports, defaulters’ lists and related supervisory information must be disclosed in the larger public interest and that the RBI does not hold such information in a fiduciary capacity for banks, as per the report.
What banks said
In one case, Bank of Baroda objected to the disclosure of documents relating to a Rs 4.34 crore penalty imposed after statutory inspections. The RBI rejected the bank’s claim that disclosure would adversely affect its business or competitive position, noting that exempt information under Sections 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act had already been severed. Bank of Baroda has since approached the Supreme Court, seeking reconsideration of the Jayantilal N Mistry judgment.
RBL Bank similarly opposed disclosure of its inspection reports for 2013-14 and 2016-17. The RBI countered that Supreme Court precedent remains binding and quoted contempt proceedings in which the apex court warned that failure to disclose inspection reports would be viewed seriously. Despite noting that no stay has been granted by the Supreme Court, the CIC has referred the matter to a larger bench.
Yes Bank has challenged the proposed disclosure of its top NPAs, willful defaulters and inspection reports, even as the RBI reiterated that the RTI Act overrides all earlier laws and that the Supreme Court has explicitly upheld disclosure of such information.
State Bank of India, meanwhile, objected to the release of show-cause notices and RBI enforcement actions from April 2015 onwards. The RBI held that the documents were disclosable after severing exempt portions, stressing that it is not in a fiduciary relationship with banks and must act in public interest.
The RBI has consistently relied on the Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 ruling in Jayantilal N Mistry vs RBI, which held that inspection reports, defaulters’ lists and related supervisory information must be disclosed in the larger public interest.
The objections stem from multiple RTI applications filed by applicants Dheeraj Mishra, Vathiraj, Girish Mittal and Radha Raman Tiwari, who sought details including the top 100 NPAs and willful defaulters of Yes Bank, inspection reports of SBI and RBL Bank, and documents related to a Rs 4.34 crore monetary penalty imposed on Bank of Baroda following statutory inspection findings.
After examining the requests, the RBI concluded that the information could be disclosed under the RTI Act and sought the banks’ views under the third-party consultation provision of Section 11. Disagreeing with the RBI’s position, the banks challenged the decision before the CIC, arguing that disclosure would harm their commercial interests and expose confidential supervisory information, the PTI report added.
Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi has now referred all the cases to a larger bench of the CIC, citing the significance of the issues involved and the fact that similar matters had earlier been examined by a double bench. Disclosure has been stayed until final adjudication.
The RBI has consistently relied on the Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 ruling in Jayantilal N Mistry vs RBI, which held that inspection reports, defaulters’ lists and related supervisory information must be disclosed in the larger public interest and that the RBI does not hold such information in a fiduciary capacity for banks, as per the report.
What banks said
In one case, Bank of Baroda objected to the disclosure of documents relating to a Rs 4.34 crore penalty imposed after statutory inspections. The RBI rejected the bank’s claim that disclosure would adversely affect its business or competitive position, noting that exempt information under Sections 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act had already been severed. Bank of Baroda has since approached the Supreme Court, seeking reconsideration of the Jayantilal N Mistry judgment.
RBL Bank similarly opposed disclosure of its inspection reports for 2013-14 and 2016-17. The RBI countered that Supreme Court precedent remains binding and quoted contempt proceedings in which the apex court warned that failure to disclose inspection reports would be viewed seriously. Despite noting that no stay has been granted by the Supreme Court, the CIC has referred the matter to a larger bench.
Yes Bank has challenged the proposed disclosure of its top NPAs, willful defaulters and inspection reports, even as the RBI reiterated that the RTI Act overrides all earlier laws and that the Supreme Court has explicitly upheld disclosure of such information.
State Bank of India, meanwhile, objected to the release of show-cause notices and RBI enforcement actions from April 2015 onwards. The RBI held that the documents were disclosable after severing exempt portions, stressing that it is not in a fiduciary relationship with banks and must act in public interest.
No law in the offing for advocates’ protection at workplace: RTI reply
New Indian Express: New Delhi: Monday, 12Th
January 2026
At a meeting with legal professionals in December, the minister promised legal reforms, including the Advocates Protection Act.
Healthcare workers were
once promised a separate law to protect them from workplace violence. Now, it’s
the turn of the lawyers.
However, an RTI has revealed that the long-awaited Advocates Protection Act, meant to protect legal professionals, is likely to meet the same fate as the proposed law for healthcare workers: it has been dropped.
The Law Ministry in the RTI reply clearly stated that “there is no proposal of the Government (Union Law Minister) to enact the Advocates Protection Bill, for the present.” The RTI response came even though Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal said last year that the Law Commission was actively working on the Act.
At a meeting with legal professionals in December, the minister promised legal reforms, including the Advocates Protection Act. Supported by a 2021 bill from the Bar Council of India, this Act aims to protect lawyers from violence, intimidation, and harassment in the course of their work.
The Act also imposes strict penalties on offenders and allows advocates to request police protection if they are threatened. Support for a separate law for lawyers grew after Rajasthan passed a similar Act in 2023.
According to Kerala-based Dr KV Babu, who had filed the RTI, “There was a reported statement from the Union Law Minister about a proposal for the Advocates Protection Act. However, the RTI response clearly shows “there is no proposal of the government to enact the Advocates Protection Bill, for the present.”
“If the government plans to pass a separate law for advocates based on the 2021 Bar Council Bill, healthcare workers and doctors should not be overlooked. They also need a law, as suggested in the 2019 draft Bill,” Dr Babu told this paper. The government drafted a separate law in 2019 to protect medical professionals, but later dropped the proposal.
Dr Dilip P Bhanushali, the former national president of the Indian Medical Association (IMA), which has over 4,00,000 members, said that lawyers have a strong organisation and are not covered by the Consumer Protection Act, whereas doctors remain held liable.
The IMA, medical groups and many resident doctors associations have long called for a separate law to protect medical professionals.
Legal reforms promised
At a meeting with legal professionals in December, the law minister promised legal reforms, including the Advocates Protection Act. Supported by a 2021 bill from the Bar Council of India, this Act aims to protect lawyers from violence, intimidation, and harassment during work.
At a meeting with legal professionals in December, the minister promised legal reforms, including the Advocates Protection Act.
However, an RTI has revealed that the long-awaited Advocates Protection Act, meant to protect legal professionals, is likely to meet the same fate as the proposed law for healthcare workers: it has been dropped.
The Law Ministry in the RTI reply clearly stated that “there is no proposal of the Government (Union Law Minister) to enact the Advocates Protection Bill, for the present.” The RTI response came even though Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal said last year that the Law Commission was actively working on the Act.
At a meeting with legal professionals in December, the minister promised legal reforms, including the Advocates Protection Act. Supported by a 2021 bill from the Bar Council of India, this Act aims to protect lawyers from violence, intimidation, and harassment in the course of their work.
The Act also imposes strict penalties on offenders and allows advocates to request police protection if they are threatened. Support for a separate law for lawyers grew after Rajasthan passed a similar Act in 2023.
According to Kerala-based Dr KV Babu, who had filed the RTI, “There was a reported statement from the Union Law Minister about a proposal for the Advocates Protection Act. However, the RTI response clearly shows “there is no proposal of the government to enact the Advocates Protection Bill, for the present.”
“If the government plans to pass a separate law for advocates based on the 2021 Bar Council Bill, healthcare workers and doctors should not be overlooked. They also need a law, as suggested in the 2019 draft Bill,” Dr Babu told this paper. The government drafted a separate law in 2019 to protect medical professionals, but later dropped the proposal.
Dr Dilip P Bhanushali, the former national president of the Indian Medical Association (IMA), which has over 4,00,000 members, said that lawyers have a strong organisation and are not covered by the Consumer Protection Act, whereas doctors remain held liable.
The IMA, medical groups and many resident doctors associations have long called for a separate law to protect medical professionals.
Legal reforms promised
At a meeting with legal professionals in December, the law minister promised legal reforms, including the Advocates Protection Act. Supported by a 2021 bill from the Bar Council of India, this Act aims to protect lawyers from violence, intimidation, and harassment during work.
T.N. Information Commission raps petitioner for abusing RTI Act with excessive requests : S. Vijay Kumar
The Hindu: Chennai: Monday, 12Th January 2026
Imposes penalty of ₹10,000 for using the Act as a tool to intimidate public authorities. The petitioner had filed 781 RTI petitions before the Principal District Judge, Theni.
The Tamil Nadu Information
Commission came down heavily on a petitioner who sent a series of petitions
seeking information for his own benefit under the Right to Information Act,
2005.
Imposing a penalty of ₹10,000 on S. Krishnaramanujam, the petitioner, for abusing the provisions of the Act, and also stalling the work of the Public Information Officer by bombarding him with queries, State Information Commissioner R. Priyakumar directed the Revenue Department officials to collect the fine amount under the Revenue Recovery Act if he failed to pay.
The petitioner had sent several letters to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theni, seeking a variety of information from the court. While replies to 33 petitions were sent, Mr. Krishnaramanujam had filed 781 RTI petitions before the Principal District Judge, Theni.
Mr. Priyakumar said if the replies were not in his favour, the petitioner used provisions under the Act to intimidate the public authorities and prevent them from discharging their lawful duties, which resulted in the waste of court time and functions.
The Commission referred to an order of the Supreme Court which said that the Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among citizens.
The apex court had further said that the Act should not be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. “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 order said.
Mr. Priyakumar said the order was relevant to the case and hence the penalty. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the same should not lead to employees of a public offices prioritising ‘information furnishing’, at the cost of their normal and regular duties.
Imposes penalty of ₹10,000 for using the Act as a tool to intimidate public authorities. The petitioner had filed 781 RTI petitions before the Principal District Judge, Theni.
Imposing a penalty of ₹10,000 on S. Krishnaramanujam, the petitioner, for abusing the provisions of the Act, and also stalling the work of the Public Information Officer by bombarding him with queries, State Information Commissioner R. Priyakumar directed the Revenue Department officials to collect the fine amount under the Revenue Recovery Act if he failed to pay.
The petitioner had sent several letters to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theni, seeking a variety of information from the court. While replies to 33 petitions were sent, Mr. Krishnaramanujam had filed 781 RTI petitions before the Principal District Judge, Theni.
Mr. Priyakumar said if the replies were not in his favour, the petitioner used provisions under the Act to intimidate the public authorities and prevent them from discharging their lawful duties, which resulted in the waste of court time and functions.
The Commission referred to an order of the Supreme Court which said that the Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among citizens.
The apex court had further said that the Act should not be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. “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 order said.
Mr. Priyakumar said the order was relevant to the case and hence the penalty. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the same should not lead to employees of a public offices prioritising ‘information furnishing’, at the cost of their normal and regular duties.
Sunday, January 11, 2026
RTI is foundation of public empowerment: Dhami
Garhwal Post: Dehradun: Sunday, 11Th January
2026
Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami today participated in a programme held at the Secretariat to mark the completion of 20 years since the implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, during which he honoured five Public Information Officers (PIOs) and five Appellate Officers for their commendable contribution towards effective implementation of the Act.
Addressing the gathering on the occasion, the CM
stated that the Right to Information (RTI) Act is the foundation of public
empowerment and transparent governance asserting that it remains the soul of
Indian democracy and a cornerstone of accountability in the administrative
system.
Those honoured included District Magistrate Bageshwar Akansha Konde, who was serving as Chief Development Officer (CDO) Haridwar at the time of the recognised work, Chief Development Officer (CDO) Dehradun Abhinav Shah, SSP Tehri Ayush Agrawal, Deputy Secretary of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Dr Prashant, Deputy Director of Elementary Education SS Chauhan, Assistant Secretary of the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission Rajan Naithani, Inspector In-charge Kotwali Pithoragarh Lalit Mohan Joshi, Senior Administrative Officer of Ramnagar Forest Division Kamala Sharma, Chief Administrative Officer of Soban Singh Jeena University, Almora Liyakat Ali Khan, and District Development Officer Haridwar Ved Prakash.
Speaking on the occasion, the CM observed that the RTI Act has opened a new chapter of trust, transparency and accountability between the administration and citizens by empowering every citizen to understand government policies, decisions and functioning and to seek answers from those in authority. He said the Act has transformed the relationship between the government and the people by making governance more open and participative. Dhami added that under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a strong culture of good governance, transparency and accountability has taken shape across the country’s administrative framework. He said initiatives such as digital governance, e-office systems, online portals, Direct Benefit Transfer and structured public grievance redressal mechanisms have further strengthened public faith in governance.
Dhami also claimed that the state government is working relentlessly to establish a transparent, responsive and citizen-centric governance system. He said administrative processes in the state have been largely digitised and most government services are now available online, which has made access to information and services easier for the public. Praising the functioning of the RTI online portal and the hybrid hearing system of the State Information Commission, he said these initiatives have made the information delivery and adjudication process more accessible and efficient. He stated that more than 13 lakh RTI applications have been received by the State Information Commission so far, the majority of which have been successfully disposed of, with only around 700 cases currently pending, reflecting the efficiency and effectiveness of the system.
Dhami commended the dedication, transparency and sensitivity of officers and employees associated with the implementation of the RTI Act but also cautioned that while the RTI is a powerful instrument, its responsible use is equally essential. He noted that instances of misuse of the Act have been observed in some cases and stressed the need for greater public awareness to prevent such practices.
Among those present on the occasion included by Chief Information Commissioner Radha Raturi, State Information Commissioners Devendra Kumar Arya, Dalip Singh Kunwar and Kushalanand Kothiyal and Vice Chairman of the Uttarakhand Infrastructure Monitoring Council Vishwas Dawar, along with senior officials from various departments.
Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami today participated in a programme held at the Secretariat to mark the completion of 20 years since the implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, during which he honoured five Public Information Officers (PIOs) and five Appellate Officers for their commendable contribution towards effective implementation of the Act.
Those honoured included District Magistrate Bageshwar Akansha Konde, who was serving as Chief Development Officer (CDO) Haridwar at the time of the recognised work, Chief Development Officer (CDO) Dehradun Abhinav Shah, SSP Tehri Ayush Agrawal, Deputy Secretary of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Dr Prashant, Deputy Director of Elementary Education SS Chauhan, Assistant Secretary of the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission Rajan Naithani, Inspector In-charge Kotwali Pithoragarh Lalit Mohan Joshi, Senior Administrative Officer of Ramnagar Forest Division Kamala Sharma, Chief Administrative Officer of Soban Singh Jeena University, Almora Liyakat Ali Khan, and District Development Officer Haridwar Ved Prakash.
Speaking on the occasion, the CM observed that the RTI Act has opened a new chapter of trust, transparency and accountability between the administration and citizens by empowering every citizen to understand government policies, decisions and functioning and to seek answers from those in authority. He said the Act has transformed the relationship between the government and the people by making governance more open and participative. Dhami added that under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a strong culture of good governance, transparency and accountability has taken shape across the country’s administrative framework. He said initiatives such as digital governance, e-office systems, online portals, Direct Benefit Transfer and structured public grievance redressal mechanisms have further strengthened public faith in governance.
Dhami also claimed that the state government is working relentlessly to establish a transparent, responsive and citizen-centric governance system. He said administrative processes in the state have been largely digitised and most government services are now available online, which has made access to information and services easier for the public. Praising the functioning of the RTI online portal and the hybrid hearing system of the State Information Commission, he said these initiatives have made the information delivery and adjudication process more accessible and efficient. He stated that more than 13 lakh RTI applications have been received by the State Information Commission so far, the majority of which have been successfully disposed of, with only around 700 cases currently pending, reflecting the efficiency and effectiveness of the system.
Dhami commended the dedication, transparency and sensitivity of officers and employees associated with the implementation of the RTI Act but also cautioned that while the RTI is a powerful instrument, its responsible use is equally essential. He noted that instances of misuse of the Act have been observed in some cases and stressed the need for greater public awareness to prevent such practices.
Among those present on the occasion included by Chief Information Commissioner Radha Raturi, State Information Commissioners Devendra Kumar Arya, Dalip Singh Kunwar and Kushalanand Kothiyal and Vice Chairman of the Uttarakhand Infrastructure Monitoring Council Vishwas Dawar, along with senior officials from various departments.
Tamil Nadu to have two more State Information Commissioners
The Hindu: Chennai: Sunday, 11Th January 2026
While constituting the Commission in 2005, the State government had issued orders for appointing one State Chief Information Commissioner and two State Information Commissioners. In 2008, it raised the number of State Information Commissioners from two to six
The State government has
decided to have two more State Information Commissioners in the Tamil Nadu
Information Commission. Besides the State Chief Information Commissioner, the
State will have eight State Information Commissioners.
While constituting the Commission in 2005, the State government had issued orders for appointing one State Chief Information Commissioner and two State Information Commissioners. In 2008, it raised the number of State Information Commissioners from two to six.
The number of appeals is among the factors being considered to increase the number of State Information Commissioners. As of now, there is one State Chief Information Commissioner and five State Information Commissioners holding the post.
As per Section 15(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, “The State Information Commission shall consist of one State Chief Information Commissioner and such number of State Information Commissioners not exceeding 10 as may be deemed necessary.”
The State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners are appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the Chief Minister, who shall be the Chairperson of the committee, the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly, and a Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Chief Minister.
While constituting the Commission in 2005, the State government had issued orders for appointing one State Chief Information Commissioner and two State Information Commissioners. In 2008, it raised the number of State Information Commissioners from two to six
While constituting the Commission in 2005, the State government had issued orders for appointing one State Chief Information Commissioner and two State Information Commissioners. In 2008, it raised the number of State Information Commissioners from two to six.
The number of appeals is among the factors being considered to increase the number of State Information Commissioners. As of now, there is one State Chief Information Commissioner and five State Information Commissioners holding the post.
As per Section 15(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, “The State Information Commission shall consist of one State Chief Information Commissioner and such number of State Information Commissioners not exceeding 10 as may be deemed necessary.”
The State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners are appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the Chief Minister, who shall be the Chairperson of the committee, the Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly, and a Cabinet Minister to be nominated by the Chief Minister.
Ex-Chief Secretary Amitabh Jain appointed Chhattisgarh State Chief Information Commissioner
Social News: Raipur: Sunday, 11Th January 2026
In a significant development aimed at bolstering transparency and the effective implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act in Chhattisgarh, the state government has appointed retired IAS officer and former Chief Secretary Amitabh Jain as the new State Chief Information Commissioner.
The announcement ends
months of anticipation surrounding the key vacancy in the State Information
Commission.
Alongside Jain, two other prominent individuals have been appointed as State Information Commissioners retired IAS officer Umesh Agarwal and senior journalist Shirish Chandra Mishra.
These appointments, made by order of the Governor of Chhattisgarh, are for a term of three years.
The long-awaited appointments come after prolonged discussions and a delay primarily caused by a pending court case related to the Chief Information Commissioner's post.
With the legal hurdles now cleared, the General Administration Department issued the official notification, paving the way for the reconstituted commission to resume full operations. These symbolic images represent the role of State Information Commissions in upholding RTI and transparency in governance across India.
According to the notification, the terms of service, salary, allowances, and other conditions for the appointees will be governed by the Right to Information (Terms of Office, Salary, Allowances and other Conditions of Service of the Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions) Rules, 2019, as notified by the Government of India on October 24, 2019.
Amitabh Jain, a 1989-batch IAS officer, retired as Chief Secretary in September 2025 after a distinguished career that included a rare extension of service.
His extensive administrative experience is expected to bring efficiency and credibility to the commission, which plays a crucial role in hearing second appeals under the RTI Act and ensuring government accountability.
The appointments are seen as a positive step toward reducing pending cases and strengthening citizens' access to information in Chhattisgarh. With the full commission now in place, citizens and activists hope for faster disposal of RTI appeals and greater transparency in public administration.
In a significant development aimed at bolstering transparency and the effective implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act in Chhattisgarh, the state government has appointed retired IAS officer and former Chief Secretary Amitabh Jain as the new State Chief Information Commissioner.
 |
| Ex-Chief
Secretary Amitabh Jain & New State Chief Information Commissioner |
Alongside Jain, two other prominent individuals have been appointed as State Information Commissioners retired IAS officer Umesh Agarwal and senior journalist Shirish Chandra Mishra.
These appointments, made by order of the Governor of Chhattisgarh, are for a term of three years.
The long-awaited appointments come after prolonged discussions and a delay primarily caused by a pending court case related to the Chief Information Commissioner's post.
With the legal hurdles now cleared, the General Administration Department issued the official notification, paving the way for the reconstituted commission to resume full operations. These symbolic images represent the role of State Information Commissions in upholding RTI and transparency in governance across India.
According to the notification, the terms of service, salary, allowances, and other conditions for the appointees will be governed by the Right to Information (Terms of Office, Salary, Allowances and other Conditions of Service of the Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions) Rules, 2019, as notified by the Government of India on October 24, 2019.
Amitabh Jain, a 1989-batch IAS officer, retired as Chief Secretary in September 2025 after a distinguished career that included a rare extension of service.
His extensive administrative experience is expected to bring efficiency and credibility to the commission, which plays a crucial role in hearing second appeals under the RTI Act and ensuring government accountability.
The appointments are seen as a positive step toward reducing pending cases and strengthening citizens' access to information in Chhattisgarh. With the full commission now in place, citizens and activists hope for faster disposal of RTI appeals and greater transparency in public administration.
Saturday, January 10, 2026
RTI activist flags multi-crore answer book tender scam at RCU : Ravindra Uppar
Times of India: Belagavi: Saturday, 10Th
January 2026
Rani Channamma University
(RCU), Belagavi, is facing allegations of a multi-crore scam in the procurement
of examination answer booklets. RTI activist Dattatraya Kulkarni submitted a
detailed complaint to the chief secretary of the Karnataka govt, accusing the
university of manipulating tender conditions, violating procurement and GST
norms, and causing huge financial losses to the state exchequer.
The complaint pertains to a tender issued for a biannual rate contract to supply theory and practical examination answer books. Kulkarni alleged that the tender was deliberately designed to favour a pre-identified bidder by inserting restrictive and illegal conditions, thereby eliminating fair competition.
According to the complaint, earlier tenders floated by the university were open to bidders from across India, resulting in competitive pricing. However, in the latest tender, RCU allegedly made GST registration in Karnataka mandatory, effectively barring bidders registered in other states. Kulkarni argued that this condition violates GST rules, which allow businesses registered in 1 state to operate nationwide, and also contravenes the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements (KTPP) Act and Supreme Court rulings that prohibit region-based restrictions in public tenders.
The tender also allegedly disqualified proprietary and partnership firms, a move Kulkarni claimed was aimed solely at restricting competition and was contrary to the provisions of the KTPP Act.
A major allegation concerns the mandatory ‘dandy watermark' with the university logo on the answer book paper. Kulkarni alleged that the university did not provide authorisation letters from the paper mill to most bidders, which are essential for obtaining such watermark paper. As a result, only the previous supplier, who allegedly had prior access and an understanding with the university, was able to submit compliant samples and qualify for the technical and financial bids.
The complaint also highlights abnormal price escalation. While universities such as Kuvempu and Haveri awarded contracts at Rs 12 - Rs 15 for 40 pages of answer sheets, RCU allegedly raised its estimates sharply to Rs 23 for 36 pages and Rs 21 for 32 pages. In comparison, recent tenders at Tumkur University reportedly went for as low as Rs 9 for 36 pages, and Mandya University Rs 12.50 for 32 pages.
Another serious charge relates to GST evasion. Kulkarni alleged that the university accepted and cleared invoices without GST, wrongly showing the supply as exempt. He maintained that printing of answer books constitutes the supply of goods and cannot be exempt from GST. He further alleged that the tender was wrongly classified under ‘services' to evade GST, causing losses running into crores of rupees.
TOI tried to approach the RCU vice-chancellor Prof CM Thyagaraja multiple times over the phone, but he did not respond.
The complaint pertains to a tender issued for a biannual rate contract to supply theory and practical examination answer books. Kulkarni alleged that the tender was deliberately designed to favour a pre-identified bidder by inserting restrictive and illegal conditions, thereby eliminating fair competition.
According to the complaint, earlier tenders floated by the university were open to bidders from across India, resulting in competitive pricing. However, in the latest tender, RCU allegedly made GST registration in Karnataka mandatory, effectively barring bidders registered in other states. Kulkarni argued that this condition violates GST rules, which allow businesses registered in 1 state to operate nationwide, and also contravenes the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements (KTPP) Act and Supreme Court rulings that prohibit region-based restrictions in public tenders.
The tender also allegedly disqualified proprietary and partnership firms, a move Kulkarni claimed was aimed solely at restricting competition and was contrary to the provisions of the KTPP Act.
A major allegation concerns the mandatory ‘dandy watermark' with the university logo on the answer book paper. Kulkarni alleged that the university did not provide authorisation letters from the paper mill to most bidders, which are essential for obtaining such watermark paper. As a result, only the previous supplier, who allegedly had prior access and an understanding with the university, was able to submit compliant samples and qualify for the technical and financial bids.
The complaint also highlights abnormal price escalation. While universities such as Kuvempu and Haveri awarded contracts at Rs 12 - Rs 15 for 40 pages of answer sheets, RCU allegedly raised its estimates sharply to Rs 23 for 36 pages and Rs 21 for 32 pages. In comparison, recent tenders at Tumkur University reportedly went for as low as Rs 9 for 36 pages, and Mandya University Rs 12.50 for 32 pages.
Another serious charge relates to GST evasion. Kulkarni alleged that the university accepted and cleared invoices without GST, wrongly showing the supply as exempt. He maintained that printing of answer books constitutes the supply of goods and cannot be exempt from GST. He further alleged that the tender was wrongly classified under ‘services' to evade GST, causing losses running into crores of rupees.
TOI tried to approach the RCU vice-chancellor Prof CM Thyagaraja multiple times over the phone, but he did not respond.
Centre’s depts stonewalling RTI query on deported Bangladeshis, says Maharashtra Congress
Times of India: Mumbai: Saturday, 10Th January
2026
The Congress has alleged that departments of the central govt have passed the buck on providing details of detained and deported illegal Bangladeshi immigrants under the RTI Act. It said ruling party leaders made false allegations for political gain without any data available with the govt.
In Mumbai, AICC secretary
and Congress spokesperson in Maharashtra Sachin Sawant alleged that the Union
home ministry had no information available on how many Bangladeshis were caught
in Mumbai over the last three years and how many were deported.
Sawant shared the RTI reply details with the media on Friday and stated that, through an associate, they filed the RTI application online, addressed to the ministry of home affairs, and the reply stated that the information was not available with the foreign division and citizenship wing of the ministry of home affairs and may pertain to the bureau of immigration, New Delhi, and the same was transferred to the concerned department.
In the RTI application, the applicant sought the total number of Bangladeshi and Rohingya nationals detained for illegally staying in Mumbai in the past three years, and how many of them were deported, along with other related information.
Sawant stated that the govt undermined the RTI law, and the very ministry responsible for this subject said that the information was not available, and the RTI application was passed from one department to another.
In the recent past, many senior BJP leaders and ministers alleged that many illegal Bangladeshi and Rohingya were staying in Mumbai, posing a security threat, but they did not provide any govt data to support their allegations.
Sawant alleged, "BJP repeatedly raising the issue of Bangladeshi and Rohingya migrants in every election to create religious polarisation. Since the BMC elections began, BJP leaders Mangal Prabhat Lodha and Amit Satam once again tried to rake up Hindu–Muslim divisions. The question of how many Bangladeshis were caught in Mumbai over the last three years and how many were deported exposed the BJP's conspiracy through replies received under the RTI from the Union home ministry."
The Congress has alleged that departments of the central govt have passed the buck on providing details of detained and deported illegal Bangladeshi immigrants under the RTI Act. It said ruling party leaders made false allegations for political gain without any data available with the govt.
Sawant shared the RTI reply details with the media on Friday and stated that, through an associate, they filed the RTI application online, addressed to the ministry of home affairs, and the reply stated that the information was not available with the foreign division and citizenship wing of the ministry of home affairs and may pertain to the bureau of immigration, New Delhi, and the same was transferred to the concerned department.
In the RTI application, the applicant sought the total number of Bangladeshi and Rohingya nationals detained for illegally staying in Mumbai in the past three years, and how many of them were deported, along with other related information.
Sawant stated that the govt undermined the RTI law, and the very ministry responsible for this subject said that the information was not available, and the RTI application was passed from one department to another.
In the recent past, many senior BJP leaders and ministers alleged that many illegal Bangladeshi and Rohingya were staying in Mumbai, posing a security threat, but they did not provide any govt data to support their allegations.
Sawant alleged, "BJP repeatedly raising the issue of Bangladeshi and Rohingya migrants in every election to create religious polarisation. Since the BMC elections began, BJP leaders Mangal Prabhat Lodha and Amit Satam once again tried to rake up Hindu–Muslim divisions. The question of how many Bangladeshis were caught in Mumbai over the last three years and how many were deported exposed the BJP's conspiracy through replies received under the RTI from the Union home ministry."
Fatehabad youth attacked for filing RTI query, 4 booked
Times of India: Chandigarh: Saturday, 10Th
January 2026
A youth was allegedly attacked in Tohana area of Fatehabad district after he sought information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act regarding documents submitted by a woman sarpanch at the time of her nomination. The police have registered a criminal case against four persons, including the sarpanch's brother, and initiated an investigation.
According to the Tohana Sadar police, a case was registered on the complaint of Praveendar of Purna Majra village. The accused have been identified as Lala, brother of the woman sarpanch, and three of his associates. The case was registered under various provisions of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS).
In his complaint,
Praveendar stated that he had a mobile phone shop on Tohana Railway Road. On
Jan 6, when he was returning home in his SUV after closing his shop, four
youths in a car allegedly blocked his way on Simbal Road.
He alleged that the accused, carrying wooden rods, got out of the vehicle. Fearing an attack, he managed to drive back towards the city via Railway Road. However, near the Girls' School street, the accused allegedly rammed their vehicle into his car from behind, breaking a window.
Praveendar further alleged that he drove to Saini Mohalla, where the attackers threatened to kill him before fleeing the spot. He identified one of the attackers as Lala, brother of the current village sarpanch Kanta Devi.
The complainant claimed that he had sought information under the RTI Act regarding alleged forged documents used by the sarpanch during the election process. He also stated that a court case related to the matter was currently pending against the sarpanch's family. The police said further investigation in the present case was underway.
A youth was allegedly attacked in Tohana area of Fatehabad district after he sought information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act regarding documents submitted by a woman sarpanch at the time of her nomination. The police have registered a criminal case against four persons, including the sarpanch's brother, and initiated an investigation.
According to the Tohana Sadar police, a case was registered on the complaint of Praveendar of Purna Majra village. The accused have been identified as Lala, brother of the woman sarpanch, and three of his associates. The case was registered under various provisions of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS).
He alleged that the accused, carrying wooden rods, got out of the vehicle. Fearing an attack, he managed to drive back towards the city via Railway Road. However, near the Girls' School street, the accused allegedly rammed their vehicle into his car from behind, breaking a window.
Praveendar further alleged that he drove to Saini Mohalla, where the attackers threatened to kill him before fleeing the spot. He identified one of the attackers as Lala, brother of the current village sarpanch Kanta Devi.
The complainant claimed that he had sought information under the RTI Act regarding alleged forged documents used by the sarpanch during the election process. He also stated that a court case related to the matter was currently pending against the sarpanch's family. The police said further investigation in the present case was underway.
Govt ducks IMF's 'C' grade criticism in stunning RTI stonewall: No answers, no fixes : Ashok Upadhyay
India Today: New Delhi: Saturday, 10Th January
2026
On the estimation of GDP and Gross Value Added (GVA) for the unorganised sector, MoSPI said it follows methodologies outlined in official documents released in 2012 and 2015, both available in the public domain.
A reply obtained under the
Right to Information (RTI) Act by India Today from the Ministry of Statistics
and Programme Implementation (MoSPI) shows that the government has not
explained why the International Monetary Fund (IMF) gave India a ‘C’ grade for
its national accounts statistics.
Instead, the ministry referred to publicly available IMF documents and existing statistical manuals.
RTI SEEKS CLARITY ON IMF GRADING
The RTI application asked MoSPI to respond to four key issues: the IMF’s evaluation of India’s GDP data quality, the method used to estimate output in the unorganised sector, the assumptions behind quarterly GDP estimates, and the progress of the ongoing GDP base-year revision.
NO CLEAR EXPLANATION OF IMF ASSESSMENT
When asked to explain the IMF’s assessment, MoSPI’s National Accounts Division did not highlight any specific shortcomings or concerns raised by the IMF. The ministry merely cited the IMF Staff Report from the 2025 Article IV Consultation, without summarising its findings or stating the government’s position.
As a result, the RTI reply does not clarify which aspects of India’s national accounts framework led to the ‘C’ grade.
UNORGANISED SECTOR ESTIMATED REMAIN UNCHANGED
On the estimation of GDP and Gross Value Added (GVA) for the unorganised sector, MoSPI said it follows methodologies outlined in official documents released in 2012 and 2015, both available in the public domain.
However, the response does not indicate whether any internal review was undertaken to assess the reliability of these estimates after major economic disruptions such as demonetisation, the rollout of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), and the Covid-19 pandemic, periods during which data availability for the informal economy was widely believed to have been disrupted.
QUARTERLY GDP BASED ON EXTRAPOLATION
The ministry confirmed that quarterly GDP estimates are prepared using the benchmark-indicator method. Under this approach, data for a quarter is extrapolated from the same quarter of the previous year using sector-specific indicators.
While the ministry acknowledged that data inputs are drawn from various government departments and private agencies, it did not disclose the assumptions used to bridge data gaps, nor did it specify steps taken to improve the robustness of high-frequency economic data.
NEW GDP SERIES TO BE RELEASED IN FEBRUARY 2026
On the long-awaited GDP base-year revision, MoSPI said FY 2022–23 has been chosen as the new base year, with revised national accounts scheduled for release on February 27, 2026.
The ministry has also published two discussion papers outlining proposed methodological changes under the production, income and expenditure approaches.
An Advisory Committee on National Account Statistics (ACNAS), chaired by economist BN Goldar, has been set up to guide improvements and the use of new data sources.
However, the RTI reply does not explain how the revised GDP series will specifically address concerns around unorganised sector estimation or respond to the IMF’s assessment of India’s data quality.
On the estimation of GDP and Gross Value Added (GVA) for the unorganised sector, MoSPI said it follows methodologies outlined in official documents released in 2012 and 2015, both available in the public domain.
 |
| The International Monetary Fund (IMF) gave India a ‘C’ grade for its national accounts statistics. |
Instead, the ministry referred to publicly available IMF documents and existing statistical manuals.
RTI SEEKS CLARITY ON IMF GRADING
The RTI application asked MoSPI to respond to four key issues: the IMF’s evaluation of India’s GDP data quality, the method used to estimate output in the unorganised sector, the assumptions behind quarterly GDP estimates, and the progress of the ongoing GDP base-year revision.
NO CLEAR EXPLANATION OF IMF ASSESSMENT
When asked to explain the IMF’s assessment, MoSPI’s National Accounts Division did not highlight any specific shortcomings or concerns raised by the IMF. The ministry merely cited the IMF Staff Report from the 2025 Article IV Consultation, without summarising its findings or stating the government’s position.
As a result, the RTI reply does not clarify which aspects of India’s national accounts framework led to the ‘C’ grade.
UNORGANISED SECTOR ESTIMATED REMAIN UNCHANGED
On the estimation of GDP and Gross Value Added (GVA) for the unorganised sector, MoSPI said it follows methodologies outlined in official documents released in 2012 and 2015, both available in the public domain.
However, the response does not indicate whether any internal review was undertaken to assess the reliability of these estimates after major economic disruptions such as demonetisation, the rollout of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), and the Covid-19 pandemic, periods during which data availability for the informal economy was widely believed to have been disrupted.
QUARTERLY GDP BASED ON EXTRAPOLATION
The ministry confirmed that quarterly GDP estimates are prepared using the benchmark-indicator method. Under this approach, data for a quarter is extrapolated from the same quarter of the previous year using sector-specific indicators.
While the ministry acknowledged that data inputs are drawn from various government departments and private agencies, it did not disclose the assumptions used to bridge data gaps, nor did it specify steps taken to improve the robustness of high-frequency economic data.
NEW GDP SERIES TO BE RELEASED IN FEBRUARY 2026
On the long-awaited GDP base-year revision, MoSPI said FY 2022–23 has been chosen as the new base year, with revised national accounts scheduled for release on February 27, 2026.
The ministry has also published two discussion papers outlining proposed methodological changes under the production, income and expenditure approaches.
An Advisory Committee on National Account Statistics (ACNAS), chaired by economist BN Goldar, has been set up to guide improvements and the use of new data sources.
However, the RTI reply does not explain how the revised GDP series will specifically address concerns around unorganised sector estimation or respond to the IMF’s assessment of India’s data quality.
Digital Personal Data Protection Act does not ‘dilute’ RTI Act, A-G says in opinion
The Hindu: New Delhi: Saturday, 10Th January
2026
Civil society groups have argued that the Act’s amendment of Section 8(1)(j), turning a partial exemption for government bodies to turn over “personal” information into a total exemption, undermined transparency. The Centre notified the RTI amendment in November 2025, even as other parts of the DPDP Act were given a 12-18 month implementation timeline.
Attorney-General for India
R. Venkataramani said in a written opinion that the Digital Personal Data
Protection Act, 2023 did not “dilute” the Right to Information Act, 2005, a
government source said.
Civil society groups and transparency advocates have argued that the Act’s amendment of Section 8(1)(j), turning a partial exemption for government bodies to turn over “personal” information into a total exemption, undermined transparency.
However, Mr. Venkataramani said that a different part of the RTI Act, which had not been amended, would allow government bodies to disclose such personal information in response to RTI requests. “Section 8(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 mandates disclosure of exempted information whenever public interest outweighs harm,” the opinion said. Mr. Venkataramani declined to confirm authorship of the opinion when contacted by The Hindu, saying he did not respond to media queries.
‘Balance between privacy and transparency’
“There is no dilution of accountability and transparency due to [the] DPDP Act. It only provides a legal framework to ensure balance between privacy and transparency, as mandated by the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy case judgment.”
The Union government, which notified the RTI amendment in November 2025, even as other parts of the DPDP Act were given a 12-18 month implementation timeline, has made a similar argument. Section 8(1) of the RTI Act lists out exemptions where “there shall be no obligation to give any citizen” information in response to a request.
The earlier language of Section 8(1)(j) exempted from providing “information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information,” with a proviso that information that cannot be denied to Parliament cannot be denied to citizens.
That proviso, along with all words after “personal information,” were deleted, elicited strong condemnation from transparency activists, who had for years pushed back against the amendment’s implementation.
Civil society groups have argued that the Act’s amendment of Section 8(1)(j), turning a partial exemption for government bodies to turn over “personal” information into a total exemption, undermined transparency. The Centre notified the RTI amendment in November 2025, even as other parts of the DPDP Act were given a 12-18 month implementation timeline.
Civil society groups and transparency advocates have argued that the Act’s amendment of Section 8(1)(j), turning a partial exemption for government bodies to turn over “personal” information into a total exemption, undermined transparency.
However, Mr. Venkataramani said that a different part of the RTI Act, which had not been amended, would allow government bodies to disclose such personal information in response to RTI requests. “Section 8(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 mandates disclosure of exempted information whenever public interest outweighs harm,” the opinion said. Mr. Venkataramani declined to confirm authorship of the opinion when contacted by The Hindu, saying he did not respond to media queries.
‘Balance between privacy and transparency’
“There is no dilution of accountability and transparency due to [the] DPDP Act. It only provides a legal framework to ensure balance between privacy and transparency, as mandated by the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy case judgment.”
The Union government, which notified the RTI amendment in November 2025, even as other parts of the DPDP Act were given a 12-18 month implementation timeline, has made a similar argument. Section 8(1) of the RTI Act lists out exemptions where “there shall be no obligation to give any citizen” information in response to a request.
The earlier language of Section 8(1)(j) exempted from providing “information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information,” with a proviso that information that cannot be denied to Parliament cannot be denied to citizens.
That proviso, along with all words after “personal information,” were deleted, elicited strong condemnation from transparency activists, who had for years pushed back against the amendment’s implementation.
Friday, January 09, 2026
RTI in Crisis: Citizen Petitions President Mahama to Dissolve Information Commission Board Over “Systemic Failure” : By Stephen Armah Quaye
Modern Ghana: Ghana: Friday, January 9Th,
2026.
In a democracy built on openness and accountability, silence from institutions mandated to speak for the people can be more dangerous than outright repression. That is the central warning contained in a strongly worded petition submitted to President John Dramani Mahama, calling for the immediate dissolution of the Governing Board of Ghana’s Right to Information Commission (RTIC) over what the petitioner describes as “persistent non-performance, abuse of discretion, and the erosion of constitutional rights.”
The petition, filed by Mr. Theophilus Ken Dorman, on December 4, 2025 and received on behalf of the president by Mrs. Vida Larbi, on January 6, 2026, invokes the 1992 Constitution and the Right to Information Act, 2019 (Act 989), and paints a troubling picture of an institution accused of abandoning its core mandate to protect and enforce the public’s right to access information held by public bodies.
According to the petition, the RTIC has consistently failed to enforce its own lawful orders, despite clear powers granted under Sections 44, 45, 46, and 82 of Act 989. These provisions empower the Commission to compel disclosure, sanction non-compliant institutions, and ensure timely administrative justice. Yet, the petitioner alleges that public institutions routinely defy RTIC directives without consequence, rendering the law “toothless” and public agitation meaningless.
Beyond non-performance, the petition raises constitutional concerns. Under Articles 23 and 296 of the Constitution, administrative bodies are required to act fairly, reasonably, and without arbitrariness. The RTIC’s alleged refusal to act, even when armed with statutory authority, is described as an abuse and misuse of discretionary power a failure that, according to the petition, undermines due process and weakens public faith in administrative justice.
At the heart of the complaint is the constitutional right to information itself. The petitioner argues that the Commission’s inaction has directly enabled the unlawful denial of this right, not only to him but to other citizens seeking transparency. This failure, the petition states, constitutes a fundamental human rights violation and encourages a culture of impunity across public institutions.
The issue, however, goes beyond individual grievances. The petition asserts that the RTIC has suffered a significant loss of public trust and credibility. “A regulatory body that cannot enforce its own orders cannot be trusted to protect public rights,” the petition notes, arguing that the Commission has been reduced to a powerless institution incapable of confronting entrenched secrecy.
Allegations of administrative incompetence also feature prominently. The petitioner cites persistent delays, weak leadership, absence of effective enforcement mechanisms, and a general lack of urgency in resolving complaints. These shortcomings, he argues, amount to gross negligence and justify the dissolution of the current board.
Perhaps most concerning is the accusation that the Commission’s failures are indirectly enabling corruption and secrecy. By allowing public institutions to ignore lawful RTI orders without sanction, the RTIC is said to be facilitating abuse of power and shielding wrongdoing from public scrutiny, the very outcomes the RTI Act was enacted to prevent.
The petition cites specific unresolved cases, including Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative versus the Ghana Police Service, Perfect Vision Initiatives versus the National Signals Bureau, and the Royal Ampong Family versus the Central Regional House of Chiefs, as examples where RTIC orders allegedly remain unenforced.
In his prayer to the President, Mr. Dorman calls for three decisive actions thus, the dissolution of the current RTIC Governing Board, the reconstitution of a new board composed of individuals with proven integrity and commitment to transparency, and an independent administrative review into the Commission’s enforcement failures.
In a democracy built on openness and accountability, silence from institutions mandated to speak for the people can be more dangerous than outright repression. That is the central warning contained in a strongly worded petition submitted to President John Dramani Mahama, calling for the immediate dissolution of the Governing Board of Ghana’s Right to Information Commission (RTIC) over what the petitioner describes as “persistent non-performance, abuse of discretion, and the erosion of constitutional rights.”
The petition, filed by Mr. Theophilus Ken Dorman, on December 4, 2025 and received on behalf of the president by Mrs. Vida Larbi, on January 6, 2026, invokes the 1992 Constitution and the Right to Information Act, 2019 (Act 989), and paints a troubling picture of an institution accused of abandoning its core mandate to protect and enforce the public’s right to access information held by public bodies.
According to the petition, the RTIC has consistently failed to enforce its own lawful orders, despite clear powers granted under Sections 44, 45, 46, and 82 of Act 989. These provisions empower the Commission to compel disclosure, sanction non-compliant institutions, and ensure timely administrative justice. Yet, the petitioner alleges that public institutions routinely defy RTIC directives without consequence, rendering the law “toothless” and public agitation meaningless.
Beyond non-performance, the petition raises constitutional concerns. Under Articles 23 and 296 of the Constitution, administrative bodies are required to act fairly, reasonably, and without arbitrariness. The RTIC’s alleged refusal to act, even when armed with statutory authority, is described as an abuse and misuse of discretionary power a failure that, according to the petition, undermines due process and weakens public faith in administrative justice.
At the heart of the complaint is the constitutional right to information itself. The petitioner argues that the Commission’s inaction has directly enabled the unlawful denial of this right, not only to him but to other citizens seeking transparency. This failure, the petition states, constitutes a fundamental human rights violation and encourages a culture of impunity across public institutions.
The issue, however, goes beyond individual grievances. The petition asserts that the RTIC has suffered a significant loss of public trust and credibility. “A regulatory body that cannot enforce its own orders cannot be trusted to protect public rights,” the petition notes, arguing that the Commission has been reduced to a powerless institution incapable of confronting entrenched secrecy.
Allegations of administrative incompetence also feature prominently. The petitioner cites persistent delays, weak leadership, absence of effective enforcement mechanisms, and a general lack of urgency in resolving complaints. These shortcomings, he argues, amount to gross negligence and justify the dissolution of the current board.
Perhaps most concerning is the accusation that the Commission’s failures are indirectly enabling corruption and secrecy. By allowing public institutions to ignore lawful RTI orders without sanction, the RTIC is said to be facilitating abuse of power and shielding wrongdoing from public scrutiny, the very outcomes the RTI Act was enacted to prevent.
The petition cites specific unresolved cases, including Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative versus the Ghana Police Service, Perfect Vision Initiatives versus the National Signals Bureau, and the Royal Ampong Family versus the Central Regional House of Chiefs, as examples where RTIC orders allegedly remain unenforced.
In his prayer to the President, Mr. Dorman calls for three decisive actions thus, the dissolution of the current RTIC Governing Board, the reconstitution of a new board composed of individuals with proven integrity and commitment to transparency, and an independent administrative review into the Commission’s enforcement failures.
GSIC bars revenue dept clerk from filing more than one RTI plea a year
Times of India: Ahmedabad: Friday,
January 9Th, 2026.
The CGHS case involved discrepancies over a prescribed drug, while the DJB official was fined ₹10,000 for evasive replies and missing statutory timelines.
The Gujarat State
Information Commission (GSIC) has barred a senior clerk in the revenue
department from filing more than one Right to Information (RTI) application a
year after he allegedly submitted 380 applications over three years and
approached the Gujarat high court multiple times over the same salary-related
dispute.
The commission held that the officer had "repeatedly misused the RTI" by filing "voluminous and repetitive pleas" on identical issues, placing an undue administrative burden on public authorities.
The order was passed by State Chief Information Commissioner Dr Subhash Soni following a hearing held on Dec 19 last month, at the commission's Gandhinagar office. Apart from the RTI applications, the officer also filed multiple first and second appeals on the same subject.
According to the commission, the applications pertained to service-related matters such as pay protection and linking of past services, issues that had already been examined and decided by the finance department on several occasions. Despite receiving detailed replies repeatedly, the officer continued to file fresh applications, the order noted.
"The records show that the complainant filed a total of 46 RTI applications on the same subject and, in addition, more than 380 general applications during the last three years," the order said, adding that such conduct amounted to misuse of the RTI Act.
The commission observed that the large volume of applications filed by a single individual had led to disproportionate use of public authority resources, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
"Due to a large number of applications filed by a single individual on the same issue, a situation has arisen where public authority resources are being disproportionately utilised," the commission stated. The GSIC also rejected the officer's demand for a refund of Rs 14 paid as copying fees, noting that certified copies of the requested information had already been supplied.
The commission further recorded that the officer had approached the Gujarat high court five times on the same issue but was denied relief in all cases.
Invoking Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, the commission imposed restrictions on future filings. "The complainant is hereby directed not to file more than one application per year under the RTI Act on matters relating to service linkage or pay protection," the GSIC order stated.
Public information officers were directed to strictly implement the decision and reject any application exceeding the permitted limit, while informing the applicant through a simple communication. The commission said the restriction was necessary to prevent abuse of the law and to ensure that genuine RTI applicants are not deprived of timely access to information.
The CGHS case involved discrepancies over a prescribed drug, while the DJB official was fined ₹10,000 for evasive replies and missing statutory timelines.
The commission held that the officer had "repeatedly misused the RTI" by filing "voluminous and repetitive pleas" on identical issues, placing an undue administrative burden on public authorities.
The order was passed by State Chief Information Commissioner Dr Subhash Soni following a hearing held on Dec 19 last month, at the commission's Gandhinagar office. Apart from the RTI applications, the officer also filed multiple first and second appeals on the same subject.
According to the commission, the applications pertained to service-related matters such as pay protection and linking of past services, issues that had already been examined and decided by the finance department on several occasions. Despite receiving detailed replies repeatedly, the officer continued to file fresh applications, the order noted.
"The records show that the complainant filed a total of 46 RTI applications on the same subject and, in addition, more than 380 general applications during the last three years," the order said, adding that such conduct amounted to misuse of the RTI Act.
The commission observed that the large volume of applications filed by a single individual had led to disproportionate use of public authority resources, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
"Due to a large number of applications filed by a single individual on the same issue, a situation has arisen where public authority resources are being disproportionately utilised," the commission stated. The GSIC also rejected the officer's demand for a refund of Rs 14 paid as copying fees, noting that certified copies of the requested information had already been supplied.
The commission further recorded that the officer had approached the Gujarat high court five times on the same issue but was denied relief in all cases.
Invoking Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, the commission imposed restrictions on future filings. "The complainant is hereby directed not to file more than one application per year under the RTI Act on matters relating to service linkage or pay protection," the GSIC order stated.
Public information officers were directed to strictly implement the decision and reject any application exceeding the permitted limit, while informing the applicant through a simple communication. The commission said the restriction was necessary to prevent abuse of the law and to ensure that genuine RTI applicants are not deprived of timely access to information.
CIC issues show-cause to CGHS official, fines DJB officer over RTI lapses : By Vrinda Tulsian
Hindustan Times: New Delhi: Friday,
January 9Th, 2026.
The CGHS case involved discrepancies over a prescribed drug, while the DJB official was fined ₹10,000 for evasive replies and missing statutory timelines.
The Central
Information Commission (CIC) has issued a show-cause notice to a Central
Government Health Scheme (CGHS) official and imposed a monetary penalty on a
Delhi Jal Board (DJB) official in two separate cases linked to the handling of
applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
In the first matter, information commissioner Jaya Varma Sinha initiated action against a CGHS official after finding inconsistencies in submissions made before the commission regarding supply of a prescribed medicine to a beneficiary. The case arose from an RTI application, filed by a CGHS beneficiary, who claimed that a medicine prescribed by a government doctor reached the CGHS Wellness Centre at Patparganj but was not issued to the patient.
The order said, “It is pertinent to mention that the commission has observed discrepancy in the submissions made by the respondent regarding non-receipt of medicine LAMITOR OD 100 MG.”
The commission recorded that the official attempted to equate a generic medicine with the sustained-release drug prescribed by the specialist. The order said the official was “trying to mislead the bench” by calling both the medicines same.
The commission held that the senior CMO-cum-APIO “not only misled the commission but also vitiated the proceedings of the hearing.”
The order directed the official to show cause as to why “maximum penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed” and why disciplinary action should not be recommended under Section 20(2) of the law.
In addition, the commission directed CGHS authorities to review several RTI queries and provide records after applying the severability clause under Section 10 of the RTI Act, which allows partial disclosure of records after removing exempt portions.
In a separate order, chief information commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal imposed a fine of ₹10,000 on a public information officer of the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) for failing to provide information sought under the RTI Act within the prescribed time.
The commission noted that the RTI application was filed in October 2022, but a response addressing the queries was provided in September 2024. The delay, the commission said, continued until its intervention.
The order observed that “information in the form of a proper reply” was given nearly two years after the application was filed.
“The reason for the delay in providing the information has nowhere been explained,” the commission said.
The RTI application was filed by Vijay Kumar Verma, who had sought details related to water bill payments and raised concerns over the calculation of consumption units and applicable rates.
The commission noted that earlier responses sent to the applicant did not address the queries and were “evasive”.
After examining the record, the commission held that the conduct amounted to a violation of the law governing access to information. It imposed a penalty of ₹10,000 on the official, directing that the amount be paid in two instalments by February 27, 2026.
The two cases, the commission noted, highlighted failures by public authorities to comply with timelines and disclosure obligations under the RTI Act.
The CGHS case involved discrepancies over a prescribed drug, while the DJB official was fined ₹10,000 for evasive replies and missing statutory timelines.
In the first matter, information commissioner Jaya Varma Sinha initiated action against a CGHS official after finding inconsistencies in submissions made before the commission regarding supply of a prescribed medicine to a beneficiary. The case arose from an RTI application, filed by a CGHS beneficiary, who claimed that a medicine prescribed by a government doctor reached the CGHS Wellness Centre at Patparganj but was not issued to the patient.
The order said, “It is pertinent to mention that the commission has observed discrepancy in the submissions made by the respondent regarding non-receipt of medicine LAMITOR OD 100 MG.”
The commission recorded that the official attempted to equate a generic medicine with the sustained-release drug prescribed by the specialist. The order said the official was “trying to mislead the bench” by calling both the medicines same.
The commission held that the senior CMO-cum-APIO “not only misled the commission but also vitiated the proceedings of the hearing.”
The order directed the official to show cause as to why “maximum penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed” and why disciplinary action should not be recommended under Section 20(2) of the law.
In addition, the commission directed CGHS authorities to review several RTI queries and provide records after applying the severability clause under Section 10 of the RTI Act, which allows partial disclosure of records after removing exempt portions.
In a separate order, chief information commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal imposed a fine of ₹10,000 on a public information officer of the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) for failing to provide information sought under the RTI Act within the prescribed time.
The commission noted that the RTI application was filed in October 2022, but a response addressing the queries was provided in September 2024. The delay, the commission said, continued until its intervention.
The order observed that “information in the form of a proper reply” was given nearly two years after the application was filed.
“The reason for the delay in providing the information has nowhere been explained,” the commission said.
The RTI application was filed by Vijay Kumar Verma, who had sought details related to water bill payments and raised concerns over the calculation of consumption units and applicable rates.
The commission noted that earlier responses sent to the applicant did not address the queries and were “evasive”.
After examining the record, the commission held that the conduct amounted to a violation of the law governing access to information. It imposed a penalty of ₹10,000 on the official, directing that the amount be paid in two instalments by February 27, 2026.
The two cases, the commission noted, highlighted failures by public authorities to comply with timelines and disclosure obligations under the RTI Act.
Thursday, January 08, 2026
File Affidavit Saying Covid Vaccine Funding Data 'Not Available': CIC To DPIIT
ETV Bharat: New Delhi: Thursday, 8Th January
2026.
The commission said the affidavit was necessary to place the department's claim of non-availability of information on record before disposing of the appeal.
The
Central Information Commission has directed the Department for Promotion of
Industry and Internal Trade to file an affidavit that information about
government funding extended to Covid-19 vaccine manufacturers during the
pandemic was "not available" with it.
The direction was issued while hearing a Right to Information (RTI) appeal filed by Mahavir Singh Sharma, who had sought details of thousands of crores of rupees released by the Union government to the Serum Institute of India and Bharat Biotech for the production of Covid-19 vaccines in 2020 and 2021. In its reply to the RTI application, DPIIT said the information sought was not held by its logistics division.
"With reference to your RTI application on the subject cited above, the requisite information sought is not available with the logistics division, DPIIT. Therefore, the requisite information may be treated as 'NIL'," the department had stated. The First Appellate Authority later upheld this response.
In its order, Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi noted that the logistics division had clearly informed the applicant about the non-availability of the information. However, the commission directed the public authority to formally affirm its stand through an affidavit.
"The respondent is directed to file an affidavit to the commission with a categorical statement that the sought information in the RTI application dated October 6, 2023, is not available with their public authority," the CIC said.
While observing that the reply given by DPIIT was appropriate, the commission said the affidavit was necessary to place the department's claim of non-availability of information on record before disposing of the appeal. It directed DPIIT to submit the affidavit within 15 days, both by post and by uploading it on the CIC's compliance portal, with a copy also to be served to the appellant (Sharma).
In his RTI application, Sharma had sought the information, "The amount of Rs 4,500 crore, which was released by the Government of India without bank guarantee to Serum Institute and Bharat Biotech during Covid, has been returned to the Government of India along with interest, or both institutes delivered the vaccine doses in lieu of the amount taken from the government."
He also asked for the information showing that the "Government of India had received all the doses of the vaccines taken from Serum Institute and Bharat Biotech to fight Covid-19 Pandemic," details of vaccines sent abroad "with the permission of the Government of India," and "the complete details of the amount received by both the institutes in exchange for the vaccines from abroad."
The applicant further asked whether "all Indian citizens were administered Covishield and Covaxin vaccines or some Indian citizens were left out," the "total amount spent by the Government of India on the purchase of Covaxin and Covishield," and whether any other Covid-19 vaccines were purchased for Indian citizens.
During the hearing, DPIIT officials maintained that the information was not held by their division and that the RTI application had originally been filed with another department (Department of Biotechnology) before being transferred to them.
The commission said the affidavit was necessary to place the department's claim of non-availability of information on record before disposing of the appeal.
The direction was issued while hearing a Right to Information (RTI) appeal filed by Mahavir Singh Sharma, who had sought details of thousands of crores of rupees released by the Union government to the Serum Institute of India and Bharat Biotech for the production of Covid-19 vaccines in 2020 and 2021. In its reply to the RTI application, DPIIT said the information sought was not held by its logistics division.
"With reference to your RTI application on the subject cited above, the requisite information sought is not available with the logistics division, DPIIT. Therefore, the requisite information may be treated as 'NIL'," the department had stated. The First Appellate Authority later upheld this response.
In its order, Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi noted that the logistics division had clearly informed the applicant about the non-availability of the information. However, the commission directed the public authority to formally affirm its stand through an affidavit.
"The respondent is directed to file an affidavit to the commission with a categorical statement that the sought information in the RTI application dated October 6, 2023, is not available with their public authority," the CIC said.
While observing that the reply given by DPIIT was appropriate, the commission said the affidavit was necessary to place the department's claim of non-availability of information on record before disposing of the appeal. It directed DPIIT to submit the affidavit within 15 days, both by post and by uploading it on the CIC's compliance portal, with a copy also to be served to the appellant (Sharma).
In his RTI application, Sharma had sought the information, "The amount of Rs 4,500 crore, which was released by the Government of India without bank guarantee to Serum Institute and Bharat Biotech during Covid, has been returned to the Government of India along with interest, or both institutes delivered the vaccine doses in lieu of the amount taken from the government."
He also asked for the information showing that the "Government of India had received all the doses of the vaccines taken from Serum Institute and Bharat Biotech to fight Covid-19 Pandemic," details of vaccines sent abroad "with the permission of the Government of India," and "the complete details of the amount received by both the institutes in exchange for the vaccines from abroad."
The applicant further asked whether "all Indian citizens were administered Covishield and Covaxin vaccines or some Indian citizens were left out," the "total amount spent by the Government of India on the purchase of Covaxin and Covishield," and whether any other Covid-19 vaccines were purchased for Indian citizens.
During the hearing, DPIIT officials maintained that the information was not held by their division and that the RTI application had originally been filed with another department (Department of Biotechnology) before being transferred to them.
हाईकोर्ट ने कहा- RTI में मांगी सूचना सार्वजनिक हित में नहीं, तो निजी मानी जाएगी
ETV Bharat: Allahabad: Thursday, 8Th January
2026.
इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने कहा, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के तहत मांगी गई सूचना यदि सार्वजनिक हित में नहीं है, तो उसे निजी सूचना माना जाएगा.
इलाहाबाद हाई कोर्ट ने
कहा है कि सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के तहत मांगी गई सूचना यदि सार्वजनिक हित में
नहीं है, तो उसे निजी सूचना माना जाएगा.
कोर्ट ने,सुप्रीम कोर्ट के फैसले का
हवाला देते हुए कहा कि यदि मांगी गई जानकारी का किसी सार्वजनिक गतिविधि या हित से
कोई संबंध नहीं है, तो उसे व्यक्तिगत जानकारी माना
जाएगा.
राज्य सूचना आयोग के समक्ष अपील दायर: ऐसे में सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम के तहत उसके खुलासे पर रोक रहेगी. यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति अरुण कुमार ने मित्रसेन कुमार सिंह की याचिका पर दिया. मऊ निवासी याची मित्रसेन कुमार सिंह ने आरटीआई के माध्यम से ग्राम पंचायत परसुपुर मुबारकपुर, मऊ के परिवार रजिस्टर में ''प्रदुम्न'' नामक व्यक्ति का नाम दर्ज किए जाने से संबंधित जानकारी मांगी थी. इसके बाद राज्य सूचना आयोग के समक्ष अपील दायर की.
हाईकोर्ट ने सूचना आयोग के फैसले को बरकरार रखा: आयोग ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट के गिरीश राम चंद देश पांडेय मामले का हवाला देते हुए कहा कि मांगी गई जानकारी व्यक्तिगत जानकारी से संबंधित है और 19 सितंबर 2024 के आदेश से अपील खारिज कर दी. याची ने इस आदेश को हाईकोर्ट में चुनौती दी. कोर्ट ने पक्षों को सुनने के बाद राज्य सूचना आयोग के फैसले को बरकरार रखा.
कोर्ट ने कहा कि याची यह साबित करने में विफल रहा कि मांगी गई जानकारी का किसी भी सार्वजनिक गतिविधि या जनहित से क्या संबंध है. हाईकोर्ट ने याचिका को खारिज कर दिया.
(Click here to Download Judgment)
इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने कहा, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के तहत मांगी गई सूचना यदि सार्वजनिक हित में नहीं है, तो उसे निजी सूचना माना जाएगा.
राज्य सूचना आयोग के समक्ष अपील दायर: ऐसे में सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम के तहत उसके खुलासे पर रोक रहेगी. यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति अरुण कुमार ने मित्रसेन कुमार सिंह की याचिका पर दिया. मऊ निवासी याची मित्रसेन कुमार सिंह ने आरटीआई के माध्यम से ग्राम पंचायत परसुपुर मुबारकपुर, मऊ के परिवार रजिस्टर में ''प्रदुम्न'' नामक व्यक्ति का नाम दर्ज किए जाने से संबंधित जानकारी मांगी थी. इसके बाद राज्य सूचना आयोग के समक्ष अपील दायर की.
हाईकोर्ट ने सूचना आयोग के फैसले को बरकरार रखा: आयोग ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट के गिरीश राम चंद देश पांडेय मामले का हवाला देते हुए कहा कि मांगी गई जानकारी व्यक्तिगत जानकारी से संबंधित है और 19 सितंबर 2024 के आदेश से अपील खारिज कर दी. याची ने इस आदेश को हाईकोर्ट में चुनौती दी. कोर्ट ने पक्षों को सुनने के बाद राज्य सूचना आयोग के फैसले को बरकरार रखा.
कोर्ट ने कहा कि याची यह साबित करने में विफल रहा कि मांगी गई जानकारी का किसी भी सार्वजनिक गतिविधि या जनहित से क्या संबंध है. हाईकोर्ट ने याचिका को खारिज कर दिया.
(Click here to Download Judgment)
4,000 RTI Complaints Cleared in a Year as Pune Bench Cuts Pending Cases by 37% : Ankur Nikam
The Bridge Chronicle: Pune: Thursday, 8Th
January 2026.
Maharashtra State Information Commission Records Faster Case Disposal in 2025, Ensuring Quicker Justice for Citizens
The
Pune bench of the Maharashtra State Information Commission shows a strong
improvement in the disposal of cases under the Right to Information (RTI) Act
in 2025.
Compared to 2024, the commission handled complaints and second appeals more efficiently, reducing long-standing backlogs and speeding up access to information for citizens across Maharashtra.
In 2024, more than 4,000 RTI complaints were pending with the Pune bench by the end of the year, while only a small number were resolved. This changed sharply in 2025.
During the year, the bench disposed of over 4,000 complaints, bringing the number of pending cases down to 906 by December 2025. This marked a 28% rise in the complaint disposal rate and eased the burden of accumulated cases.
The commission also made steady progress in handling second appeals. While over 10,000 appeals were decided in 2024, nearly 9,000 were resolved in 2025. As a result, the number of pending second appeals dropped from more than 9,000 at the end of 2024 to around 5,800 by December 2025, a reduction of 37%.
Officials noted that the pace of disposal increased notably between August and October 2025, helping the bench gain control over older pending matters. Improved classification of cases, disciplined hearings, and a strict, time-bound schedule played a key role in this progress.
State Information Commissioner Makrand Ranade said the commission’s focus remains on ensuring that citizens receive timely justice under the RTI Act. He added that the Pune bench is committed to maintaining efficiency so that the right to information is upheld without unnecessary delay.
Maharashtra State Information Commission Records Faster Case Disposal in 2025, Ensuring Quicker Justice for Citizens
Compared to 2024, the commission handled complaints and second appeals more efficiently, reducing long-standing backlogs and speeding up access to information for citizens across Maharashtra.
In 2024, more than 4,000 RTI complaints were pending with the Pune bench by the end of the year, while only a small number were resolved. This changed sharply in 2025.
During the year, the bench disposed of over 4,000 complaints, bringing the number of pending cases down to 906 by December 2025. This marked a 28% rise in the complaint disposal rate and eased the burden of accumulated cases.
The commission also made steady progress in handling second appeals. While over 10,000 appeals were decided in 2024, nearly 9,000 were resolved in 2025. As a result, the number of pending second appeals dropped from more than 9,000 at the end of 2024 to around 5,800 by December 2025, a reduction of 37%.
Officials noted that the pace of disposal increased notably between August and October 2025, helping the bench gain control over older pending matters. Improved classification of cases, disciplined hearings, and a strict, time-bound schedule played a key role in this progress.
State Information Commissioner Makrand Ranade said the commission’s focus remains on ensuring that citizens receive timely justice under the RTI Act. He added that the Pune bench is committed to maintaining efficiency so that the right to information is upheld without unnecessary delay.
Coimbatore Corporation’s proposal to create pedestrian facilities remains on paper : RTI
The Hindu: Bhubaneswar: Thursday, 8Th January
2026.
The Coimbatore Corporation’s proposal to create pedestrian facilities across the city has not progressed beyond the planning stage, even as the lack of footpaths and safe crossing points continues to pose challenges on major roads.
The
scale of the issue is reflected in road safety data. Information obtained from
the police under the Right to Information (RTI) Act shows that pedestrians
accounted for 37% of road traffic accident fatalities reported in the first 10
months of 2025 in Coimbatore.
Over the past year, the civic body announced a series of measures aimed at improving pedestrian movement. These included proposals to construct three-foot overbridges (FOBs), a street improvement plan to facilitate safer movement for school and college students, and a budget announcement to implement non-motorised transport systems at select locations in the city.
The three FOBs were proposed at the Gandhipuram town bus stand, Ukkadam bus stand, and Lakshmi Junction on Avinashi Road. Each structure was planned under the public-private partnership (PPP) mode at an estimated cost of ₹8 crore.
As part of the Safe Streets for School and College Students initiative, the Corporation proposed student-oriented infrastructure along routes with a high concentration of educational institutions. Trichy Road and Kamarajar Road in Ramanathapuram were identified for the pilot phase. The project, covering a stretch of 2.5 km and estimated to cost ₹2.5 crore, aims to improve walking and cycling facilities and regulate traffic. The area was selected due to the presence of nine educational institutions and the availability of roadside space for redesign.
However, none of these initiatives have been taken up for execution, so far.
District Road Safety Committee member K. Kathirmathiyon said there was no stretch in the city with continuous pedestrian infrastructure. He said crossings on major roads continued to be difficult for those on foot. Opposing the PPP model for FOBs, he said allowing advertisements on such structures went against road safety norms and that notices had been issued to the authorities on the matter. He added that such projects should be fully funded by the government.
Responding to the concerns, Corporation Commissioner M. Sivaguru Prabakaran said proposals for the FOBs had been submitted to the Directorate of Municipal Administration (DMA) and were awaiting approval. He said private players had expressed interest and the projects would be taken up once approvals were received, adding that the PPP model reduced the financial burden on the government.
On the Safe Streets initiative, he said the project was being implemented as a pilot and that the detailed project report was nearing completion. He also said the Corporation was planning to develop continuous footpaths covering about 31 km across the city and that a consultant would be appointed to study the proposal.
The Coimbatore Corporation’s proposal to create pedestrian facilities across the city has not progressed beyond the planning stage, even as the lack of footpaths and safe crossing points continues to pose challenges on major roads.
 |
| The civic body had planned to construct a foot overbridge at Gandhipuram town bus stand. | Photo Credit: file photo |
Over the past year, the civic body announced a series of measures aimed at improving pedestrian movement. These included proposals to construct three-foot overbridges (FOBs), a street improvement plan to facilitate safer movement for school and college students, and a budget announcement to implement non-motorised transport systems at select locations in the city.
The three FOBs were proposed at the Gandhipuram town bus stand, Ukkadam bus stand, and Lakshmi Junction on Avinashi Road. Each structure was planned under the public-private partnership (PPP) mode at an estimated cost of ₹8 crore.
As part of the Safe Streets for School and College Students initiative, the Corporation proposed student-oriented infrastructure along routes with a high concentration of educational institutions. Trichy Road and Kamarajar Road in Ramanathapuram were identified for the pilot phase. The project, covering a stretch of 2.5 km and estimated to cost ₹2.5 crore, aims to improve walking and cycling facilities and regulate traffic. The area was selected due to the presence of nine educational institutions and the availability of roadside space for redesign.
However, none of these initiatives have been taken up for execution, so far.
District Road Safety Committee member K. Kathirmathiyon said there was no stretch in the city with continuous pedestrian infrastructure. He said crossings on major roads continued to be difficult for those on foot. Opposing the PPP model for FOBs, he said allowing advertisements on such structures went against road safety norms and that notices had been issued to the authorities on the matter. He added that such projects should be fully funded by the government.
Responding to the concerns, Corporation Commissioner M. Sivaguru Prabakaran said proposals for the FOBs had been submitted to the Directorate of Municipal Administration (DMA) and were awaiting approval. He said private players had expressed interest and the projects would be taken up once approvals were received, adding that the PPP model reduced the financial burden on the government.
On the Safe Streets initiative, he said the project was being implemented as a pilot and that the detailed project report was nearing completion. He also said the Corporation was planning to develop continuous footpaths covering about 31 km across the city and that a consultant would be appointed to study the proposal.
Bribery allegations: OIC directs cops to probe RTI applicant
Times of India: Bhubaneswar: Thursday, 8Th
January 2026.
The Odisha Information Commission (OIC) directed police authorities to investigate a habitual RTI applicant facing bribery allegations. The OIC wrote to the Director General of Police, Odisha, seeking an appropriate probe into the matter.
According to the
commission, it recently received a complaint along with a video clip in which
an RTI applicant, Tankadhar Sahu of Balangir district, was allegedly seen
demanding money from a public information officer (PIO) in exchange for
withdrawing an RTI-related complaint.
After examining records, the commission found that Sahu filed hundreds of RTI applications against various govt departments, many of which are currently at different stages of hearing before the commission.
The commission said further verification indicated that the applicant frequently stays in Bhubaneswar and allegedly demands bribes from PIOs and first appellate authorities who appear for hearings before the Odisha Information Commission. It was also alleged that he sought adjournments during hearings and later withdrew cases after receiving illegal benefits.
“The matter was placed before the full bench of the commission, which decided to forward the case, along with the video clip and related materials, to police authorities for investigation. The commission also decided to keep all cases filed by the applicant in abeyance until the police investigation is completed,” the commission said.
The commission directed all PIOs and first appellate authorities to identify other instances of alleged misuse of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The commission said it would take strong action against misuse of the RTI Act.
The Odisha Information Commission (OIC) directed police authorities to investigate a habitual RTI applicant facing bribery allegations. The OIC wrote to the Director General of Police, Odisha, seeking an appropriate probe into the matter.
After examining records, the commission found that Sahu filed hundreds of RTI applications against various govt departments, many of which are currently at different stages of hearing before the commission.
The commission said further verification indicated that the applicant frequently stays in Bhubaneswar and allegedly demands bribes from PIOs and first appellate authorities who appear for hearings before the Odisha Information Commission. It was also alleged that he sought adjournments during hearings and later withdrew cases after receiving illegal benefits.
“The matter was placed before the full bench of the commission, which decided to forward the case, along with the video clip and related materials, to police authorities for investigation. The commission also decided to keep all cases filed by the applicant in abeyance until the police investigation is completed,” the commission said.
The commission directed all PIOs and first appellate authorities to identify other instances of alleged misuse of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The commission said it would take strong action against misuse of the RTI Act.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
.JPG)
