Andhra Pradesh Information Commission dismisses 160 RTI cases, raps appellant over misuse

The Hindu: Andhra Pradesh: Thursday, 2^nd July 2026.
The Commission said Naidu Nagarjuna Reddy had filed thousands of applications and over 400 second appeals, using the RTI Act as a litigation tool rather than for transparency

The Andhra Pradesh Information Commission has dismissed 160 second appeals and complaints filed by Bapatla-based RTI activist Naidu Nagarjuna Reddy, holding that he had misused the Right to Information (RTI) Act by repeatedly filing vexatious and grievance-oriented applications. The common order was issued by Chief Information Commissioner Vajja Srinivasa Rao on June 30, 2026.
The Andhra Pradesh Information Commission has passed this common order related to the Second Appeal No. 3328 of 2025.
The Commission observed that the appellant had filed thousands of RTI applications, numerous first appeals and more than 400 second appeals, many of them relating to his personal grievances and criminal cases. It noted that information was often sought in repetitive applications and that the RTI mechanism was being used as a litigation tool rather than to promote transparency and accountability.
During the hearings, the appellant acknowledged that he had never filed any public interest litigation or corruption complaint using information obtained through RTI. The Commission also recorded submissions by public authorities alleging that the appellant had harassed officials through repeated applications. Affidavits placed before the Commission referred to his criminal background and pending cases, though these were reproduced as submissions made by the respondents.
Relying on judgments of the Supreme Court, various High Courts and the Central Information Commission, the order reiterated that the RTI Act is intended to provide access to existing records and is not a forum for grievance redressal or speculative queries. It warned that indiscriminate and repetitive applications divert public resources and hamper the functioning of public authorities.
Concluding that the appellant had abused the RTI process, the Commission dismissed all 160 matters, reprimanded him and directed that repeated applications, appeals and complaints of a similar nature could be rejected in future to prevent further misuse of the RTI mechanism.

'Complete breakdown in institutional discipline': CIC pulls up CSIR-CIMFR over payment delay, RTI lapses

Deccan Herald: Bangalore: Thursday, 2^nd July 2026.
The CIC said contradictory stands taken by officials over the custody of records "reveal a disturbing state of administrative confusion and lack of accountability within the Public Authority".

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has pulled up the CSIR-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR), Dhanbad, over an RTI matter linked to delayed payment of a contractor's bills, observing that the case reflected a "complete breakdown" in institutional discipline and administrative responsibility.
Information Commissioner P R Ramesh noted that "intervention at the highest level of the institution has become necessary to restore administrative discipline and ensure compliance with statutory obligations." The case pertains to a contractor's bills remaining unpaid for over two years, while his RTI application seeking information on the delay went unanswered.
The Commission said the appellant had been "compelled to pursue both the pending payment and the reasons for such delay through repeated efforts, including recourse to the RTI mechanism", and viewed the situation with "serious concern".
The CIC said contradictory stands taken by officials over the custody of records "reveal a disturbing state of administrative confusion and lack of accountability within the Public Authority".
It added, "A situation where the CPIO identifies officers as holders of information, such officers ignore the directions of the Commission, fail to attend proceedings, and later deny custody of records altogether, cannot be countenanced in law." The Commission observed that "withholding payment for over two years, if established, is not a mere procedural lapse", adding that delayed release of legitimate dues "adversely affects the livelihood of the concerned vendor, disrupts business operations, and reflects poorly on the fairness and credibility expected of a public authority".
The CIC directed the First Appellate Authority of CSIR-CIMFR to obtain the relevant records, furnish a revised point-wise reply to the appellant and submit a compliance report, while stating that the ongoing show-cause proceedings would continue separately.
Expressing "serious displeasure" over the conduct of the officials, the CIC said their actions "have not only obstructed the flow of information but have also undermined the authority of this Commission and the transparency framework envisaged under the RTI Act".
The Commission also remarked that "public authorities exist to serve citizens and not to subject them to prolonged hardship through administrative indifference and bureaucratic apathy", adding that "a vendor who has rendered services to the organisation ought not to be compelled to spend years seeking what is legitimately due." Earlier, while initiating show-cause proceedings, the Commission had said the handling of the RTI application reflected a "lackadaisical approach towards RTI matters". It said that "non-furnishing of the relevant records would only frustrate Appellant's effort to seek judicial remedy and amounts to denial of meaningful access to justice".
It had also observed that public authorities "should not be permitted to cause financial distress to individuals or entities who have duly provided services".

Bengaluru North AC fined Rs 75,000 for RTI lapses

New Indian Express: Bangalore: Thursday, 2^nd July 2026.
The Commission directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the officer under the Karnataka Civil Services Rules and submit a compliance report.

The Karnataka Information Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 75,000 on the Assistant Commissioner of Bengaluru North Sub-Division, S Kiran, for failing to furnish information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act in three separate cases and for repeatedly remaining absent during commission hearings.
The Commission has also recommended a departmental inquiry and disciplinary action against the officer.
State Information Commissioner Rudranna Harthikote of the Commission’s Fourth Bench imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 in each case, observing that the officer had consistently failed to provide information sought by applicants and neither appeared before the Commission nor deputed a representative during hearings.
In one case, B Anjanamurthy of Gollahalli village in Dasanapura Hobli had sought records from the SDO’s office on March 25, 2024. As no information was provided within the stipulated 30 days, he approached the Commission through a second appeal. The officer failed to attend the hearing, leading to the penalty.
In another case, J Rajendraraju of Kengeri sought information relating to Gavipuram Village in December 2024. The Commission directed the officer to lodge an FIR under the Karnataka Public Records Act, 2012 if the file was unavailable. However, the directions were not complied with. Apart from imposing a Rs 25,000 penalty, the Commission ordered Rs 5,000 compensation to the applicant.
In the third case, Chalapathi J of Whitefield sought land records pertaining to Pattandur Agrahara village in November 2024. The officer neither provided the information nor appeared before the Commission despite its directions.
The Commission directed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the officer under the Karnataka Civil Services Rules and submit a compliance report. Separately, Commissioner Rudranna Hartikote has written to Chief Secretary Shalini Rajneesh seeking directions to ensure timely disposal of RTI applications across the Bengaluru district administration, stating that delay in providing information amounts to denial of justice.

RTI Act applies to National Stock Exchange: Delhi High Court

Bar and Bench: New Delhi: Thursday, 2^nd July 2026.
A Division Bench upheld a 2010 judgement of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and rejected NSE's appeal.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday ruled that the National Stock Exchange (NSE) of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act).
Being classified as a public authority makes the institution subject to the RTI Act.
A Division Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla upheld a 2010 judgement of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and rejected NSE's appeal against the judgement.
"We entirely agree, and wholeheartedly endorse the finding, of the learned Single Judge, that the NSEI is an “authority” within the meaning of the first part of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act," the Bench said.  
Justice Khanna had held that although the NSE was incorporated as a private company under the Companies Act, its recognition as a stock exchange under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, transformed it into an authority performing public functions.
He said that the recognition granted by the Central Government, later delegated to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), effectively constituted the NSE as an institution of self-government under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
The single-judge also held that NSE is a body controlled by the Central government.
The NSE challenged the judgement before a Division Bench. It argued that it was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, making it a private corporate entity rather than a government body.
The Division Bench stayed the single judge (Justice Khanna's) judgement on May 4, 2010.
In its final verdict today, it upheld the single-judge decision.
It concluded that the "justification provided by the learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment, for each of these findings, is eloquent and reasoned, and we see no cause to disturb the findings".
Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta with advocates Pranav Sarthi, Prachi Dhingra, Ishan Agrawal, Gandharv Garg, Jasleen Oberoi, Anshit Aggarwal, Mansvini Jain and Udit Bajpai appeared for the NSE.
The RTI applicant was represented through advocates Ashish Aggarwal, OP Faizi, Anand Aggarwal, Darshana Aggarwal, Nishtha Verma, Lisha Arora, Tanya Jain, Himanshu Singh, Ishita and Anjali.
CGSC BS Shukla and Dashmesh Tripathi represented the Union of India.
[Read Judgement]

National Stock Exchange of India public authority under RTI Act, says Delhi HC

The Hindu: New Delhi: Thursday, 2^nd July 2026.
The court observed that if the body is owned, controlled or substantially financed by the government, it would qualify as a ‘public authority’

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (July 1, 2026) held that the National Stock Exchange of India (NSEI) is a ‘public authority’ under the Right to Information Act.
A bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice O.P. Shukla dismissed an appeal by the stock exchange challenging a single judge’s decision which ruled that NSEI qualified as a ‘public authority’ under section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
The court observed that if the body is owned, controlled or substantially financed by the government, it would qualify as a ‘public authority’.
It stated that this was not a case where an entity was established as a private company and was regulated by statute later.
“We affirm and uphold the judgment of the learned single judge. The appeal is dismissed, with no orders as to costs,” the court concluded.
The NSEI assailed the single judge’s judgement, passed on April 15, 2010, before the division bench.
The stock exchange had challenged an order of the Central Information Commissioner before the single judge and asserted that it was not a public authority under the RTI Act.
Before the division bench, the NSEI argued that it was not owned, controlled or substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by the government, and was merely recognised and regulated by the SEBI.
The court observed that if the body is owned, controlled or substantially financed by the government, it would qualify as a ‘public authority’.
It stated that this was not a case where an entity was established as a private company and was regulated by statute later.
“We affirm and uphold the judgment of the learned single judge. The appeal is dismissed, with no orders as to costs,” the court concluded.
The NSEI assailed the single judge’s judgement, passed on April 15, 2010, before the division bench.
The stock exchange had challenged an order of the Central Information Commissioner before the single judge and asserted that it was not a public authority under the RTI Act.
Before the division bench, the NSEI argued that it was not owned, controlled or substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by the government, and was merely recognised and regulated by the SEBI.

Assam Information Commission Orders Action Against PWD SPIO for RTI Lapse

The Sentinel: Guwahati: Wednesday, 1^St July 2026.
Assam Information Commission orders disciplinary action against a PWD SPIO for withholding RTI records on key infrastructure projects.

The SPIO of the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Karbi Anglong District Territorial Building Division, is accused of missing hearings without any intimation and knowingly furnishing incorrect and incomplete information to block access to vital public documents.
In an important step to ensure public accountability, the Assam Information Commission (AIC) today used its rarely applied powers under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005, to recommend official disciplinary proceedings against the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) of the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Karbi Anglong District Territorial Building Division, Diphu.
This action is one of the few instances where the commission has recommended the initiation of formal disciplinary proceedings since its inception.
The bench of State Information Commissioner Dr Reep Hazarika expressed serious concern that the SPIO did not show up for hearings without notice and intentionally provided wrong and incomplete information to prevent access to important public documents. The withheld records involve major infrastructure works, specifically the construction of the Multi-Utility Sports Complex at KASA Stadium, Diphu, and the construction/repair of the Kajir Ronghangpi Guest House at Taralangso, Diphu.
The commission said the right to information is a key part of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and that the official's refusal was hindering the Act's effectiveness.
The Commission has taken control of the situation by instructing the Chief Engineer, PWD (Building), Assam, Guwahati, to promptly initiate the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the relevant service rules. The chief engineer has been given a strict 30-day deadline to fix individual accountability on all guilty officers holding the SPIO charge since late 2023 and to ensure the immediate release of the withheld public records.Maps
The petitioner, Longkiri Timung, submitted a letter to the Assam Information Commission on June 29, 2026, along with his June 22, 2026, note addressed to the SPIO concerned in the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Karbi Anglong District Territorial Building Division, Diphu, Karbi Anglong, a copy of the order said.

CIC asks CBSE to formulate SOP governing timelines for providing marks, answer sheets

The Hindu: New Delhi: Wednesday, 1^St July 2026.
The recommendation came while deciding an appeal by a Class 12 student who sought her assessment records used for preparing the 2021 board examination results after the examination was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic

Calling it the "dire need of today's scenario", the Central Information Commission has recommended that the CBSE introduce a Standard Operating Procedure governing the timelines for providing the marks or answer sheets on the request of students.
The recommendation came while deciding an appeal by a Class 12 student who sought her assessment records used for preparing the 2021 board examination results after the examination was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The appellant alleged that errors in the assessment process caused her "mental agony and depression", for which she had to undergo therapy.
Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi observed, "It is the dire need of today's scenario that CBSE should introduce a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) governing the timelines for submission/providing the marks or answer sheet on the request of students."
The Central Information Commission (CIC) further said, "This will be an effective step to avoid any unwarranted situations of this nature of hardship as faced by the Appellant in this matter, which is likely to affect the young minds." It accordingly "strongly recommends" under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act that the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) formulate the SOP and ensure that "such policy related information be disclosed on their official website".
A copy of the order has also been marked to the CBSE secretary for necessary action, while the First Appellate Authority has been directed to file a compliance report within four weeks.
On the appellant's grievance, the commission observed that "the denial of Appellant's own assessment marks in whatever format it may be by the CPIO [Central Public Information Officer] goes against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005." It noted that although the student's challenge to her assessment is pending before the high court, the CPIO "ought to have addressed the concern of the Appellant" by providing information relating to her own assessment after redacting details of other candidates exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.
The CIC directed the CBSE's CPIO to provide the appellant, free of cost, a revised reply along with the permissible information, specifically her assessment marks in the prescribed tabular format sought in the RTI application.
The appellant had sought the tabulation sheet for five subjects under CBSE's special assessment policy adopted after the cancellation of the 2021 Class 12 board examinations due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
During the hearing, she contended that she was entitled to know the basis of her assessment and that no exemption under the RTI Act barred disclosure of her own records.

SC Says RTI Activism Has Become a ‘New Business’, Denies Anticipatory Bail to ActivistBy : Saket Sourav

Law Street Journal: New Delhi: Wednesday, 1^St July 2026.

In a significant observation on the perceived misuse of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Supreme Court recently remarked that RTI activism has evolved into a “new business.” The observation came while the Court was hearing a plea for anticipatory bail filed by an activist accused of obstructing a public servant during a government road construction project.A Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vijay Bishnoi dismissed the plea for pre-arrest bail filed by Ramesh Kumar Behl and expressed strong disapproval of individuals who, under the guise of RTI activism, interfere with public works and harass government officials.
During the hearing, Justice Sandeep Mehta made sharp oral observations regarding the conduct of self-styled RTI activists. He remarked that RTI activism had effectively become a new profession and likened such conduct to “yellow journalism.”
The Bench observed that when government funds are allocated for infrastructure projects, designated authorities are responsible for monitoring and supervising the work. Questioning the petitioner’s role, Justice Mehta referred to him as a “so-called RTI activist” and observed that such individuals have no role in interfering with the execution of public projects.
Justice Vijay Bishnoi also questioned the petitioner’s locus standi to monitor the progress of the road construction work. The Court asked under whose authority the petitioner was supervising the project and whether he possessed any official role empowering him to oversee the work.
The Bench further observed that supervision and monitoring of public infrastructure projects fall within the exclusive domain of the authorities entrusted with their implementation. The observations reflect judicial concern that, in some cases, the RTI mechanism—intended to promote transparency and accountability—may be used to exert unauthorized influence over public administration.
The case arose from an FIR alleging that the petitioner and another accused obstructed an ongoing road construction project. According to the prosecution, the accused intimidated the site supervisor and labourers present at the location.
The FIR further alleged that the petitioner assaulted the supervisor, while the co-accused physically attacked the supervisor by kicking him. The prosecution also alleged that caste-based derogatory remarks were made against labourers working at the site.
Based on these allegations, an FIR was registered under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The petitioner approached the Supreme Court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected his application for anticipatory bail. The High Court had observed that the allegations disclosed specific involvement of the petitioner in obstructing government work and found no grounds to grant the discretionary relief of pre-arrest protection.
Upon consideration of the matter, the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s assessment and declined to interfere.
The Court noted that public projects are executed through established governmental frameworks and that interference by self-appointed monitors can hamper infrastructure development. By describing such conduct as a “business” and comparing it to “yellow journalism,” the Court drew a distinction between genuine efforts to promote transparency and actions that create administrative hurdles under the guise of activism.
Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition and permitted the investigation to proceed in accordance with law.
Case Title: Ramesh Kumar Behl v. State of Punjab | SLP (Crl.) No. 10257 of 2026

Two years on, Delhi govt recruitment board had no copy of 2024 exam paper; CIC fines officials

The Print: New Delhi: Tuesday, 30 June 2026.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has pulled up the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) after it did not provide a 2024 recruitment examination questionnaire to an RTI applicant even after two years claiming that it has not been received from the exam conducting agency. The CIC said the explanation reflected a “sheer lack of intent” to facilitate access to information.
Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal also imposed a penalty of Rs 15,000 each on two Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) of the DSSSB for “gross violation” of the RTI Act, directing that the amount be recovered from their salaries in three equal instalments.
The case arose from an RTI application filed by a candidate seeking copies of her descriptive answer sheet, the online question paper and her responses for the Senior Personal Assistant and Personal Assistant Tier-II descriptive examination held on June 1, 2024.
In a strongly worded order, Goyal said the Commission was “baffled to note the complacency with which the CPIOs have responded” and that it was “clear beyond reasonable doubt that the CPIOs have not bothered” to ensure their replies complied with the RTI Act.
The Commission noted that while the applicant was initially told the information did not pertain to the concerned branches, the officers later “arbitrarily denied the information without referring to any provision of the RTI Act.” It observed that claiming the question papers of examinations conducted in 2024 were “still to be received from the exam conducting agency even in the year 2026” displayed a “sheer lack of intent” to facilitate access to information.
The CIC further said that “DSSSB, having hired an exam conducting agency, cannot plead that the record held by the exam conducting agency could not be procured despite the passage of two years”, while failing to show any attempt to obtain the records in 2024.
It held that the conduct of the officers “amounts to causing a deliberate and intentional obstruction” to the applicant’s right to information.
During the proceedings, a newly posted examination branch officer sought the question paper from the agency through an email on April 30 this year, and the agency supplied it the same day.
The Commission observed that “no such attempt to access the available information was made” by the previous CPIO.
On the applicant’s request for her descriptive answer sheet, the Commission said the CPIO wrongly relied on an internal board policy to deny disclosure and “appears to be oblivious to Section 22 of the RTI Act”, which gives the law overriding effect over inconsistent rules.
The Commission also criticised the officers’ conduct during the proceedings, observing that one CPIO “remained nonchalant”, neither officer “paid any heed” to its interim order and their “disregard towards the provisions of the RTI Act is rather deliberate in the instant matter.” PTI MHS RT
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.

‘We are not dictatorship’: Madras High Court upholds citizens’ right to know under RTI - Written by: Vineet Upadhyay

The Indian Express: New Delhi: Tuesday, 30 June 2026.
The Madras High Court was hearing a plea filed by the public information officer and official trustee of a public trust against an order of the state information commission, directing disclosure of the financial records of the trust.

Right to information (RTI) is an integral part of right to know, the Madras High Court said. (Image generated using AI)

Observing that India is “not a dictatorship” where public authorities can keep citizens in the dark, the Madras High Court has ordered the disclosure of the financial records of a public charitable trust under the Right to Information Act (RTI), ruling that a sweeping claim of fiduciary privilege cannot defeat transparency in the functioning of statutory authorities.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan was hearing a writ petition filed by the Public Information Officer-cum-Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamil Nadu against an order of the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission (TNSIC), which had directed disclosure of the balance sheets, audit reports, immovable property register, and demand, collection, and arrears records of the V Thiruvengadathan Chetty Charities.
“This country, by its Preamble, declares it to be a sovereign, socialist, secular democratic republic. We are not a dictatorship nor do we live under an iron curtain, for the public authorities to retain information and keep it away from the citizenry,” the court said on June 4, tracing the constitutional roots of the citizen‘s right to know.
The case stemmed from an RTI application filed by S Srikumar, a member of the Arya Vysya community, who sought the trust’s financial records after raising concerns that the charity had reduced educational assistance to beneficiaries to Rs 50,000, citing a lack of funds. He sought to examine whether the trust’s finances justified the reduced assistance and whether its funds were being managed in accordance with the objects of the trust.

If information is sought to be used for voyeuristic pleasure, which would affect the right to privacy of another individual, the same has to be refused under RTI. (File image)

On August 17, 2023, Srikumar sought copies of the trust’s balance sheets for the previous five financial years, audit reports, immovable property register, demand, collection, and arrears details, besides a copy of the founder’s will and earlier court orders.
While the official trustee furnished certain judicial records, it refused to disclose the will and financial documents, claiming they were exempt under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act as information held in a fiduciary capacity.
The first appellate authority upheld the refusal. However, on October 3, 2025, the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission directed the official trustee to disclose the financial records after finding that the trust was a public charitable trust and that a larger public interest warranted disclosure.
Challenging that order, the official trustee approached the high court.
Right to know part of Constitution
Justice Lakshminarayanan said that the right to information is not merely a statutory right but flows from Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution. Referring to landmark Supreme Court decisions beginning with State of Uttar Pradesh vs Raj Narain, S P Gupta vs Union of India, Reliance Petrochemicals Limited v s Indian Express Newspapers, and the ‘Electoral Bonds’ judgment, the court held that citizens have a constitutional right to know how public authorities function. The court said that secrecy cannot become the norm in a democratic republic.
The high court further pointed out that the principle of transparency in the functioning of the official trustee is not a new concept. It said that even the colonial-era rules governing the office, framed over a century ago, required openness and permitted beneficiaries to inspect trust records, allowing only genuinely confidential information to be withheld.
“Even the colonial Government wanted the Official Trustee to be open and transparent. This position prevailed 113 years ago. Only such information, which was confidential, was called upon to be withheld from the beneficiaries,” the court said.
If such transparency existed under British rule, the court said, there was even less justification for withholding information after the enactment of the RTI Act, which has further narrowed the grounds on which public authorities can refuse disclosure.
“This shows that disclosure is the name of the game under the Rules, and refusal of information is only an exception. By virtue of the Right to Information Act, the scope of refusal has been further reduced,” the high court added.
The court accepted the information commission’s finding that disclosure served a larger public interest because the trust was created to provide educational assistance to economically weaker members of the Arya Vysya community.
According to the judgment, greater transparency would allow beneficiaries and members of the community to understand how the trust’s funds were being spent and whether financial constraints cited by the trust were genuine. “The balance sheets, audit report, immovable property register, demand, collection and arrear details of each of those properties satisfy the larger public interest,” the court said.
The high court also rejected the argument that the official trustee should be treated as an extension of the judiciary. The court held that the official trustee is appointed by the Government under the Official Trustees Act, 1913, functions as a statutory authority and therefore qualifies as a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. “The Office of the Official Trustee is not a part of the sovereign function of the judiciary. He is a statutory authority and remains one,” the court said.
‘Right to Information integral part of right to know’
Right to information is an integral part of right to know.
Unless and until, a person gets access to the information, he / she will not be in a position to know as to how a public authority functions.
This right to know has not been expressly enumerated as a fundamental right under Part-III of the Constitution.
Yet, realizing the importance, the Supreme Court, atleast 50 years ago, held that citizens have a Right to be informed about official functions and public acts.
Interpreting Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court declared that every citizen have a right to be informed.
The Supreme Court held that the right to know is an essential ingredient of a free and open Government.
The fate of a nation will obviously take precedence over the interests of an individual.
Similarly, if information is sought to be used for voyeuristic pleasure, which would affect the right to privacy of another individual, the same has to be refused.
Rejecting another argument advanced by the petitioner, the court held that while the Official Trustees Act is a special legislation governing trustees, the RTI Act is the special law dealing with access to information.
Since Parliament expressly gave the RTI Act overriding effect through Section 22, information cannot be denied unless it squarely falls within one of the statutory exemptions, the court added. The court further observed that records regularly submitted by the official trustee to the government during audits cannot simultaneously be withheld from beneficiaries.
The court, however, upheld the refusal to provide a copy of the founder’s will under the RTI Act, holding that it forms part of judicial records and can instead be obtained by following the procedure prescribed under the Madras High Court Original Side Rules.
Finding no infirmity in the information commission’s order, the high court dismissed the writ petition and directed the official trustee to furnish the financial records sought under Clause 4 of the RTI application within two weeks from the date of uploading of the judgment.
The court also imposed costs of Rs 10,000 on the incumbent official trustee, making it clear that the amount shall not be paid from the trust’s funds. “The cost shall not be borne out of the funds or accounts of the Trust,” the court directed.

New RTI Framework in Maharashtra: Key Highlights of the 2026 Rules

SCC Online: Maharashtra: Tuesday, 30 June 2026.
Maharashtra Government has issued Right to Information Rules, 2026 to streamline procedures for applications, prescribe fees, define exemptions, and strengthen appeal and accountability mechanisms.

On 12 June 2026, the Maharashtra Government notified the Maharashtra Right to Information Rules, 2026, introducing a framework that prescribes the procedure for seeking information and secures the right of citizens to obtain information from public authorities across Maharashtra.

• Key Highlights:These Rules have been framed by the Maharashtra Government under the Section 18(3), 19(10) and 27(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).
• Rule 3 prescribes the format and conditions for RTI applications, as under:
• Applications must be submitted in the prescribed format (Annexure ‘A’)
• The format must include the applicant’s details and the particulars of the information sought.
• A ₹30 application fee is required.
• The original format contained a requirement to state the “purpose of information sought,” which was later omitted through the Maharashtra Right to Information (Amendment) Rules, 2026.
• Rule 4 prescribes the following charges:
• ₹5 per page for A4 or smaller size documents
• ₹5 per page for digital/scanned copies
• Actual cost for larger documents or samples
• Inspection: first hour free, then ₹50 per hour
• Postal charges: ₹50 or actual cost where applicable
• Fees are waived for persons below the poverty line, subject to proof; however, where the information is voluminous, the first 50 pages are provided free, and charges apply for the remaining pages.
• Fees may be paid through:
• Cash
• Court fee stamp
• Demand draft / bankers’ cheque / postal order
• Treasury deposit
• Electronic modes such as UPI and online payment systems
• Every applicant is required to attach a self-attested photo identity proof along with the application, failing which the application may be returned.
• Under Rule 13, personal information is exempt from disclosure unless justified by overriding public interest, aligning with Section 8 of the RTI Act.
• A person dissatisfied with the response can file a first appeal before the First Appellate Authority in Annexure ‘B’ with a ₹50 fee and basic supporting documents.
• If still dissatisfied, a second appeal can be filed before the State Information Commission in Annexure ‘C’ with a ₹100 fee along with all relevant documents, submitted in three copies.
• Under Rule 22, in appeals or complaints, the burden of proof lies on the party making the claim, and the applicant must show denial, delay, or incorrect information.
• The Public Information Officer or authority must justify its action in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
• Under Rule 23, appeals may be withdrawn on request, but costs may be imposed if withdrawn after notice, and proceedings end if the appellant dies.
• The Commission issues written orders, and the same procedure applicable to appeals also applies to complaints.
• The Commission also has the power to pass necessary procedural orders, correct errors, and allow authorised representatives to present cases.

Private School Not Subject To RTI Merely Because PSU Paid Fees For Its Employees' Wards: Chhattisgarh High Court

Live Law: Chhattisgarh: Tuesday, 30 June 2026.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a private educational institution does not become a "public authority" under the Right to Information Act, 2005 merely because a Public Sector Undertaking reimburses the deficit arising from concessional fees charged to the wards of its employees. The Court observed that such a contractual financial arrangement cannot be construed as "substantial financing" so as to attract the provisions of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by DAV Public School, challenging orders of the Central Information Commission whereby the school was treated as a "public authority", its Principal was treated as a deemed Public Information Officer, and a penalty was imposed. The dispute arose after the wife of respondent No. 3, who had been appointed on an ad hoc basis in the petitioner school, was discontinued from service. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 filed RTI applications before the CPIO, South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL), seeking information. Although the petitioner consistently maintained that it was not a public authority under the RTI Act, the CIC directed it to furnish the information.
The petitioner contended that the Memorandum of Understanding with SECL merely required SECL to reimburse the deficit arising from concessional fees charged to the wards of its employees. It was argued that the arrangement was purely contractual and did not amount to ownership, control or substantial financing by SECL.
The Court noted that the determinative factors for bringing an institution within the fold of the Act are ownership, control, or substantial financing by the State or its instrumentalities. It reiterated that "substantial financing" means funding of such magnitude that the institution is practically dependent upon the Government for its existence, and that mere grants, subsidies, exemptions or other forms of financial assistance do not satisfy this test.
The Court found that the petitioner school was managed by the DAV College Managing Committee, had its own independent financial structure and was neither owned nor controlled by SECL. It held that reimbursement of the deficit arising from concessional education provided to the wards of SECL employees was a contractual arrangement and did not amount to substantial financing.
“… the documentary material brought on record, and the settled legal principles governing the field, this Court arrives at a firm, definitive, and well reasoned conclusion that the petitioner institution does not fall within the ambit of a “public authority” as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act,” the Court observed.
The Court further observed that the mere presence of SECL representatives in the Local Managing Committee did not establish administrative control over the institution. It also held that the Principal of the petitioner school could not be treated as a deemed Public Information Officer since the deeming fiction under Sections 5(4) and 5(5) of the RTI Act operates only in relation to a public authority.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the impugned orders of the Central Information Commission.
Case Title: DAV Public School v. Central Information Commission & Ors. [WPC No. 3145 of 2020] and connected matters.
(Click Here to DownloadOrder)

Over 1k unclaimed bodies found in Bathinda in 16 years: RTI query

Times of India: Bathinda: Monday, 29 June 2026.
Only 357 of 1,023 unclaimed bodies recovered from 2010-11 to 2025-26 under the jurisdiction of 19 police stations in Bathinda district have been identified, according to police data procured by RTI activist Sanjeev Goyal.

The RTI reply from the Bathinda SSP office, which Goyal received recently after filing his query on Feb 13, shows that recoveries peaked over the last few years. A maximum of 99 unclaimed bodies were recovered in 2021-22, followed by 93 in 2022-23, and 92 in 2024-25. Police said most of the bodies were retrieved from water bodies, including the reservoirs of the now-closed Guru Nanak Dev thermal plant.
Kotwali police station recorded the highest number of recoveries at 388, followed closely by Talwandi Sabo police station with 301. Other major recoveries were recorded at Nathana (48), Canal Colony (34), Rama (33), Bathinda Sadar (32), Rampura Sadar (28), Civil Lines (23), and Balianwali (20).
As many as 19 bodies each were recovered from Cantt and Nehiawala, 15 from Phool, 13 each from Sangat and Kotfatta, and 12 from Rampura City. Nandgarh police station saw just one recovery. The remaining police stations recorded between four and 11 recoveries.

17,435 pipe bursts in 10 years in Perumbavoor: RTI

Times of India: Kochi: Monday, 29 June 2026.
Even as various parts of Ernakulam face acute shortage of drinking water, a total of 17,435 pipe bursts in Perumbavoor area alone were reported KWA’s supply network in the past decade, causing a loss of Rs 7 crore for repairs, reveals an RTI reply.

In an RTI reply given to Govindan Namboothiri of Kochi, KWA said a total of 3,444 pipe bursts occurred under its Perumbavoor section in last 10 years. KWA suffered a loss of Rs 4 crore on repair works. Around 519 water theft cases in Perumbavoor section limits were reported during the same period.
Under Kuruppampady PH section, 13,991 pipe bursts occurred from 2016-17 to May 5, 2026, for which Rs 3 crore had to be spent on repair works, said the RTI reply.
“People in several parts of the district are suffering from acute shortage of drinking water. At the same time, crores of litres of water is being lost due to pipe bursts. KWA has been unable to take steps to prevent such pipe breaks and save precious drinking water,” said Namboothiri.
Meanwhile, KWA officials said that old pipes in the supply network are causing frequent pipe bursts. “More than 100 pipe bursts in the limits of a section is huge. One of the major reasons for the pipe bursts is that the network mainly constitutes old pipes. We will have to replace such old pipes with new ones,” said a senior KWA official.
The RTI reply also stated that two water reservoirs and one pump house under Kuruppampady section are in poor condition. Namboothiri has urged govt to take urgent steps to prevent water leaks and theft.

Centre got no proposal on Cachar airport for which tea plants were uprooted: RTI

The News Mill: Guwahati: Monday, 29 June 2026.

Centre got no proposal on Cachar airport for which tea plants were uprooted | Photo: Video grab

After around 30 lakh tea plants were uprooted as part of land acquisition for a greenfield airport in southern Assam’s Silchar, the civil aviation ministry has now said that it received no proposal for construction of such an airport.
An RTI reply from the Centre revealed that no proposal was sent to the ministry to set up the greenfield airport.
The Assam cabinet on May 29 decided that a payment of Rs 1 lakh as compensation would be provided to each of the 1,263 families of Doloo tea garden (a total of Rs 12.63 crore) as a goodwill gesture for their cooperation in the development work of greenfield airport at Silchar.
Doloo Tea Garden Save Coordination Committee (DTGSCC) on June 3 called a protest rally on June 15 against the “conspiracy to affect the livelihood of hundreds of tea garden workers”.

Security forces deployed at Doloo Tea Garden

Chief public information officer (under secretary) of the civil aviation ministry Amit Kumar Jha following a query under the Right to Information Act categorically said that the ministry has not received any proposal for construction of a greenfield airport at Cachar district of Assam.
He said that the government has formulated a Greenfield Airports (GFA) Policy, 2008 which provides guidelines, procedure and conditions for establishment of new greenfield airports in the country.
“As per the policy, an airport developer, including the state government, willing to establish an airport is required to send a proposal to the ministry of civil aviation, in the prescribed format for a two-stage process – site clearance followed by in-principle approval,” the official said in his reply to the RTI queries.
The government has accorded in-principle approval for setting up of 21 greenfield airports across the country, the May 31 reply said.
The contentious greenfield airport in Cachar district’s Doloo tea garden found no mention in the list of 21 Greenfield airports that have received “in-principle” approval from the ministry, news agency IANS reported.
Cachar district administrations deployed hundreds of security forces and over 100 earthmovers on May 12 to uproot 30 lakh tea plants and acquire 2,600 bighas (1,550 acres) of land for the greenfield airport on 5,733 acres. Before the district administration’s response, 144 CrPc was enforced to prevent demonstrations.
Doloo tea garden has roughly 1,900 regular and non-regular workers.
DTGSCC leaders Arindam Deb, Shanti Kumar Sinha, and Hillol Bhattacharjee stated it’s a plot that the Cachar district administration initiated land acquisition for a fictional airport without making a proposal to the central government.
They said the tea garden employees were being targeted to build a real estate business.

Passport-holding NRIs qualify as 'citizens' under RTI, 2010 govt records show

Economic Times: New Delhi: Monday, 29 June 2026.
Documents from 2010 reveal the Centre's interpretation of 'citizen' under the RTI Act, including Indian passport holders abroad but excluding OCIs and PIOs. This resurfaces as the legal status of Indian passports, whether proof of citizenship or a travel document, is debated. The MEA clarified passports are travel documents, not conclusive proof of citizenship, sparking political controversy and and calls for legislative changes.

Passport-holding NRIs qualify as 'citizens' under RTI, 2010 govt records show

Records of inter-ministerial deliberations from 2010 show that the Centre had interpreted the term "citizen" under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to include Indian passport holders living abroad, while excluding Overseas Citizens of India (OCIs) and Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs).
The documents, detailing consultations between the Ministries of External Affairs (MEA) and Home Affairs (MHA), have resurfaced at a time when the legal status of an Indian passport, whether it is conclusive proof of citizenship or primarily a travel document, has come under renewed public scrutiny.
The issue came up after US-based NRIs wrote to then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, urging the government to "recognise the legitimate desire of Indians living abroad to exercise their franchise and to have a voice in the governance of India."
Subsequent discussions among the MEA, MHA, Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs (MOIA) and the Central Information Commission (CIC) focused solely on interpreting the term "citizen" under the RTI Act, particularly after some RTI applicants sought to bring OCIs within its ambit.
During hearings before the CIC, the MEA maintained that the term "citizens" includes only persons holding Indian passports and living or working abroad i.e., NRIs and excludes OCIs and PIOs. Since the MHA is the nodal ministry on citizenship matters, its views were sought.
The records show that the MEA separately informed the MHA that the RTI Act's definition of "citizen" should cover NRIs but not OCIs or PIOs. The MHA endorsed this interpretation, while the DoPT and MOIA also supported referring the matter to the Home Ministry for a final view.
The deliberations were also prompted by difficulties faced by Indian RTI activists based overseas in filing applications, leading the CIC to hold meetings with government departments to streamline the process.
Why the issue resurfaced
The issue has returned to the spotlight after the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) clarified that an Indian passport is a travel document and not conclusive proof of citizenship. Speaking during Passport Seva Divas on June 24, a senior MEA official reiterated that while passports are issued after due verification, citizenship is determined under the Citizenship Act, not the Passports Act.
Legal experts say the government's position reflects the existing legal framework. While citizenship is governed by the Citizenship Act, 1955, passports are issued under the Passports Act, 1967, to facilitate international travel. Courts, including the Bombay High Court, have also held that possession of an Indian passport, by itself, does not conclusively establish citizenship.
The clarification, however, triggered a political row. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor described it as an "absurd legal paradox" and called for legislative changes to recognise passports as conclusive proof of citizenship. Leaders from the Trinamool Congress and Shiv Sena (UBT), including West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, also questioned what document citizens could rely on if a passport itself was not treated as definitive proof of citizenship.