Karnataka High Court Allows Villa Buyer To Place RTI Records In Award Challenge Over Occupancy Certificate : By - Shivani PS

Live Law Biz: Bangalore: Tuesday, 01 September 2026.

The Karnataka High Court on 25 August partly allowed villa buyer A.R. Krishnamani's petition and set aside an order of the Bengaluru Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge refusing to take on record Right to Information (RTI) replies and other official documents concerning a disputed occupancy certificate.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that a party challenging an arbitral award on the ground of fraud can produce additional evidence before a Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 only in rare and exceptional circumstances where such material is necessary to decide the fraud allegation. The Bench observed:
“A party challenging an award on the ground of fraud has no right, as a matter of course, to produce additional evidence before the Section 34 Court. Such permission may be granted only in a rare and exceptional case, where the conditions set out above are satisfied and where the reception of the material is absolutely necessary to decide the clause (b) ground, with a corresponding opportunity to the other side to meet it.”
The dispute arose from sale and construction agreements between Krishnamani and Lakepoint Builders Pvt. Ltd. for a residential villa. The developer was required to complete construction by December 2015.
Krishnamani alleged that despite paying 80% of the purchase consideration by March 2014, the construction was delayed and the villa's built-up area was 490 square feet less than agreed.
The arbitrator rejected Krishnamani's claim for delay compensation in an award dated 12 October 2021, relying on an occupancy certificate dated 27 April 2017, stated to have been issued by the Anneshwara Gram Panchayat. Krishnamani subsequently sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. In a response dated 14 February 2022, the authorities stated that the requested information concerning the occupancy certificate was not available in the Panchayat's records.
A further reply dated 7 December 2023 referred to a 15 May 2023 inspection report, which indicated that the document relied upon as the occupancy certificate had not been issued according to the Panchayat's records.
Krishnamani had challenged the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 23 August 2022, seeking its partial setting aside on the ground that it was against India's public policy and vitiated by fraud. He later sought to place the RTI material and related official documents before the Section 34 Court.
The Bengaluru Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge rejected the request on 16 September 2025, holding that following the 2019 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court could consider only material forming part of the arbitral record.
The amendment to Section 34(2)(a) replaced the words “furnishes proof” with “establishes on the basis of the record of the arbitral tribunal”, thereby restricting challenges under that provision to material placed before the arbitral tribunal.
Krishnamani then approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. He argued that the requirement that a challenge be established from the arbitral record applies to Section 34(2)(a), whereas his fraud challenge fell under Section 34(2)(b).
Lakepoint Builders opposed the petition, arguing that additional evidence cannot be introduced routinely in Section 34 proceedings and that allowing parties to improve their cases after arbitration would undermine the summary and final nature of arbitral proceedings.
The High Court held that the 2019 amendment did not impose an absolute bar on receiving additional material under Section 34(2)(b). However, such material can be received only in rare and exceptional cases where it is necessary to decide the ground raised.
The Bench found the requirement satisfied in the present case as the documents were directly connected with the occupancy certificate relied upon in the arbitral award and the allegation of fraud. It therefore set aside the 16 September 2025 order and directed that the documents be taken on record, without expressing any finding on the alleged fraud.
It further held that receiving material relating to fraud in such circumstances does not convert a Section 34 Court into an appellate court. It held:
“A Section 34 Court that receives, in a fit case, a document going to fraud is not converting itself into a Court of appeal and is not reappreciating the arbitrator's evidence. It is doing no more than the statute requires when a Clause (b) ground of fraud is raised. The safeguard against abuse lies not in a blanket refusal to look at anything outside the record, but in the strict application of the above”.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the Section 34 Court to take the RTI replies and related official documents on record and proceed with the challenge expeditiously. It left Lakepoint Builders free to contest their authenticity, admissibility and evidentiary value.
Appearances for petitioner (A.R. Krishnamani): Advocate Pradeep Nayak.
Appearances for respondent (Lakepoint Builders Pvt. Ltd.): Advocate Nishanth A.V.

Haryana info panel calls for town planner to be trained, fines him

The Times of India: Gurgaon: Tuesday, 01 September 2026.
Haryana State Information Commission (HSIC) on Monday recommended to additional chief secretary of the department of town and country planning (DTCP) that district town planner RS Batth be sent for an “appropriate training programme”. It also imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000.

HSIC has recommended the training to sensitise Batth on RTI obligations, compliance with statutory and quasi-judicial authorities, record management, public accountability and standards of conduct expected of a public servant.
According to HSIC, the direction was given after the town planner failed to provide information sought under an RTI for the last four years and repeatedly disregarded directions of the commission.
It said he should be preferably sent for the training programme at Haryana Institute of Public Administration (HIPA) or at such other institutions as the competent authority may consider appropriate.
The RTI applicant had sought information from the DTCP on the number of occupation certificates (OCs) given to group housing projects, licensed between Jan 1, 2007 and June 30, 2016. Batth was with DTCP when the RTI application was filed.
Bharat Jain, the applicant, told the commission that the department had not provided the specific information sought. Instead, it had supplied a copy of the Haryana Building Code, 2017 and referred him to the Act, rules and policies available on the department’s website. He said that it did not answer his query.
The commission had earlier directed Batth to provide complete and point-wise information within two weeks. It also issued a show-cause notice on Aug 4, 2023, after noting the delay.
The matter continued for more than four years. The commission noted that Batth repeatedly failed to appear before it despite several opportunities. It also found that he had not given a satisfactory explanation for the delay or his failure to comply with its directions.
“An SPIO (state public information officer) cannot substitute a general reference to statutes, rules or a departmental website for a reasoned and point-wise response when specific information is sought. The RTI Act does not make a citizen’s right to information dependent on the convenience or format in which a public authority maintains its records,” the commission noted.
The department eventually furnished information on different dates between 2023 and 2026.
However, the commission said subsequent disclosure did not erase the delay and thereby imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
The commission has also given Jain a final opportunity to inspect records relating to four disputed points of his RTI and obtain copies of permissible documents and asked the department to submit a compliance report within 45 days.
The competent authority has further been asked to examine whether any other official contributed to the delay or non-compliance and consider appropriate action under service rules.

'Jantar Mantar Pellet Gun Allegations Don't Qualify As Human Rights Violations': CRPF Response To RTI

ETV Bharat: New Delhi: Tuesday, 01 September 2026.
Former TMC Rajya Sabha MP Saket Gokhale, who had filed the RTI, to now appeal before Supreme Court, says response is “baffling”.

CRPF HQ (ETV Bharat)

The Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) has refused to disclose information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, regarding the alleged use of pellet ammunition against protesters during the July 20 demonstrations at Jantar Mantar in Delhi, stating that the allegations do not fall under the 'human rights violation exception' provided under law.
The CRPF's response came, after Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Saket Gokhale sought details from the Rapid Action Force (RAF), a specialised wing of the CRPF, regarding the alleged firing of pellet ammunition at protesters during the demonstrations on July 20.
The response assumes significance as security organisations, including the CRPF, are exempt from the RTI Act under Section 24(1), but the exemption does not apply to information pertaining to allegations of corruption or violation of human rights.
In his RTI application, Gokhale specifically sought a certified copy of the ammunition log/issue-and-expenditure register of RAF contingents deployed in areas including Jantar Mantar, Parliament Street and Connaught Place. He also sought details of the quantity and type of ammunition issued and used, including pellet/plastic-pellet cartridges and tear-smoke shells.
In its first response, the RAF said security organisations were exempt from disclosure under Section 24(1), except in cases involving allegations of corruption or human rights violations. However, it said the information sought related to the “operational and security-related matter” of the force and that the allegations made in the application did not come under the human-rights exception.
Gokhale subsequently filed a first appeal, challenging the denial.
The appellate authority, in an order dated August 21, again rejected the plea. It reiterated that the information sought concerned operational and security-related matters and held that the allegations did not attract the proviso relating to human rights violations under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act.
Gokhale vehemently criticised the decision, arguing that the alleged use of pellet ammunition against unarmed protesters, resulting in serious injuries, including in the eye, should qualify for scrutiny under the human rights exception. He also alleged that the authorities initially denied that pellets were used, and subsequently declined to provide details concerning the number of people affected.
Calling the CRPF’s position “baffling”, Gokhale said he would submit the RTI correspondence and the CRPF’s replies before the Supreme Court, and seek the court’s view on whether allegations concerning the use of pellet ammunition against protesters can be excluded from the human rights exception under Section 24(1).
"First the Modi-Shah government denied that pellet guns were used. Then, when exposed, they refused to give details of the total number of victims. And now, it is 'baffling' that use of pellet guns (banned under international law) on unarmed youth in India’s capital is not considered to be a human rights violation by Amit Shah’s CRPF," said Gokhle.
When this correspondent tried to get additional reactions from the CRPF, a spokesperson of the force denied to make any further comment.

No court relief for Karnataka activist who sought details of fined RTI officials - Written by: Mustafa Plumber

Indian Express: Bengaluru: Tuesday, 01 September 2026.
The Karnataka High Court termed the RTI application ‘yet another case of abuse’ of the law and said the activist failed to explain the purpose of his plea.

The activist moved the Karnataka High Court after the information commission rejected his application for details of PIOs who withheld information and the fines collected from them in 2021-22. (File Photo)

The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed by an activist who approached the court after being denied details of penalties and disciplinary action against public information officers (PIOs) who had failed to provide information under the Right to Information Act.
A bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said the Karnataka Information Commission does not maintain such information and that the activist, Ramesh Babu N, “was unable to furnish the reason why this information is sought”.
Replying to the judge’s question about the purpose for which Babu had sought the information, his counsel said the activist was a “public-spirited person”.
Section 6(2) of the Right to Information Act states that an applicant shall not be required to give any reason for requesting information or any personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting them.
“This court is of the opinion that this is yet another case of abuse of RTI Act. It is not only abuse of RTI which this court would have to look at but the effect of the abuse of the Act,” Justice Govindaraj said in his order.
“The RTI Act, being a beneficial enactment for the purpose of securing information to those in need of information, cannot be misused or abused to any person seeking information for the purpose of a roving/fishing inquiry into the action taken under Section 20,” he added.
Babu moved the court after the commission rejected his application for details of the erring PIOs and the total fines collected from them in 2021-22 as per sections 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act. He also asked for details of PIOs who refused to pay fines, as well as action initiated against them.
Advocate G B Sharath Gowda, appearing for the commission, submitted, “We are not expected to maintain these details. What happens is we direct the penalty to be paid by the PIOs to the state exchequer, and we direct the superior officer of the concerned department to collect it and deposit it with the state government.”
‘Genuine applicants pay the price’
The court also observed that if a few people misuse the RTI Act, genuine applicants may be denied the information they seek or face delays while “frivolous or vexatious applications” are considered.
“Though this court would look at encouraging applications under the RTI Act, this court would also look at discouraging the abuse of the RTI Act,” Justice Govindaraj added.
After the petition was dismissed, the court orally clarified that RTI applications should have valid reasons even though the commission or PIOs need not adjudicate them.
“If the information is sought for publishing or research, the information has to be furnished. If the petitioner had given a valid reason, we may have allowed it,” the court added.
The court also referred to a case where more than half of the 45,000 pending RTI appeals were filed by nine people whom the state information commission has subsequently blacklisted.

Privacy and Transparency: Understanding the DPDPA Amendment to the RTI Act

NASSCOM: National: Tuesday, 01 September 2026.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDPA) establishes the framework for protecting digital personal data while enabling its lawful processing. The consequential amendment made to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2025 has raised a constitutional question: how should India reconcile the right to privacy with the citizen’s right to information?

Nasscom had highlighted this issue during the stakeholder consultations in 2022 itself wherein we had emphasised the right to personal data protection must not hamper the right to information on matters of public interest.
The issue arises from Section 44(3) of DPDPA which amended Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The amendment came into force on 13 November 2025. The principal challenge is presently before the Supreme Court in Venkatesh Nayak v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 177/2026 along with other connected petitions.
Amendment to the RTI Act via DPDPA
Section 8 of the RTI Act sets out information that public authorities are not obliged to disclose.
Prior to the amendment, Section 8(1)(j) provided a balanced exemption to:
information relating to personal information where disclosure had no relationship to public activity or interest, or would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless larger public interest justified disclosure.
Section 44(3) of the DPDPA removes the public interest test. It exempts all personal information from disclosure under the RTI Act without needing to balance privacy against public benefit. 
It replaces this sub clause with this: “information which relates to personal information”.
Position before the amendment
A Public Information Officer (“PIO”) examining personal information was required to engage with questions such as: Is the information connected with a public activity or public interest? Would disclosure result in an unwarranted invasion of privacy? If privacy is implicated, does the larger public interest justify disclosure? This approach required a balancing exercise between transparency and privacy.
The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench in CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019) emphasised that “the public interest test in the context of the RTI Act would mean reflecting upon the object and purpose behind the right to information, the right to privacy and consequences of invasion, and breach of confidentiality and possible harm and injury that would be caused to the third party, with reference to particular information and the person.” For the purpose of Section 8(1)(j), the Court also clarified that it would treat the word “information,” which if disclosed would lead to invasion of privacy, to mean personal information, as distinct from public information.
Legal position post Amendment
The specific language relating to: relationship with public activity or interest; unwarranted invasion of privacy; and “larger public interest” within Section 8(1)(j) has been removed. In other words, the newly substituted clause simply refers to information which relates to personal information and broadens the scope of exemption from disclosure.
What is the constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court
The petitions challenge several provisions of the DPDP Act and Rules. In relation to RTI, the principal challenge is to Section 44(3). The petition contends that the amendment infringes Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution.
The petitioners’ argument is that the amended Section 8(1)(j) could operate as a much broader exemption from disclosure than the previous provision and information relating to a public official, public decision, public expenditure or the exercise of public power may contain personal information while simultaneously having substantial public significance. The petitioners argue that the amendment removes that balancing mechanism from Section 8(1)(j) and therefore weakens the constitutional right to information and the citizen’s right to know.
On the other hand, in a PIB statement, the government has stated that the amendment to the RTI Act does not prevent the disclosure of personal information. It simply requires that such information be assessed with care and shared only after considering the privacy interests involved. At the same time, Section 8(2) of the RTI Act remains fully operative which stipulates that a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
Core Issues before the Court
First, the amendment has not eliminated every public-interest route to disclosure under the RTI Act. This is because Section 8(2) of the RTI Act still allows disclosure where public interest outweighs the harm to the protected interest. However, before the DPDP amendment, Section 8(1)(j) itself required authorities to balance privacy against public interest when dealing with personal information. The amendment removed this specific balancing test and replaced it with a broader exemption for information relating to personal information.
In short, public interest remains a ground for disclosure under Section 8(2), but it is no longer expressly built into Section 8(1)(j) because Section 8(2), by contrast, is a broader provision that says a public authority “may” allow access where the public interest outweighs the harm.
Therefore, the legal question is not whether public interest can still justify disclosure. It is whether Section 8(2), along with the amended Section 8(1)(j), provides enough protection against the excessive withholding of personal information. This is one of the issues the Supreme Court may have to decide.
Second, the amended RTI provision uses the expression “personal information.” DPDPA, however, principally defines “personal data”, not “personal information”. Therefore, it does not expressly say that every reference to “personal information” in the RTI Act must automatically be interpreted using the DPDPA’s definition of personal data. This could become an important interpretive issue.
Conclusion
Given the need to harmonise two crucial individual rights, our objective should not be to choose any one right at the cost of the other one. It should be to establish rules that protect privacy without making legitimate accountability impossible, and preserve transparency without turning personal information into a public commodity. The Supreme Court’s judgement may shape the broader philosophy of India's digital governance framework.

Query based on conjecture, speculation not information under RTI Act: CIC

Daily Excelsior: Jammu: Tuesday, 01 September 2026.

Holding that the Right to Information Act provides access to information available and existing on record and does not require a Public Authority to furnish information involving drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has dismissed a Second Appeal and complaint concerning information sought from the Anti-Corruption Bureau, J&K, about alleged violations of jurisdictional limits.
The Central Information Commission, while deciding the Second Appeal, relied upon the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & Another Versus Aditya Bandhopadhyay & Others to examine the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
The Commission found that the information sought by the appellant under Point No.2 of his RTI application was based on conjecture and speculation, and did not conform to the definition of information under Section 2(f) of the Act.
Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment, the transparency watchdog of the country said, "RTI Act provides access to information that is available and existing. A Public Authority is not required to furnish information which requires drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions".
The Commission further said that a Public Authority is not required to provide "advice" or "opinion" to an applicant, nor is it required to obtain and furnish any opinion or advice to an applicant, adding the query raised by the appellant was not a straightforward request for an existing record but was based upon a situation described and presumed by him.
The case originated from an RTI application dated November 13, 2024, filed before the CPIO, ACB, Jammu. While the applicant sought a copy of the latest Government order pertaining to jurisdictional limits of various ACB police stations, the information sought was specifically in respect of cases where the SSP/SHO of an ACB Police Station at Jammu, Rajouri, Udhampur or Doda had allegedly exceeded/trespassed his jurisdictional limits, resulting in registration of an FIR and subsequent arrest of a Government officer/official. The applicant sought the information for the period from July 2020 to December 31, 2022.
The CPIO & ADO, ACB, J&K, in his reply dated November 21, 2024, supplied the latest Government order pertaining to jurisdictional limits of various ACB police stations. On Point No.2, the CPIO stated that information regarding details, registration, final reports, charge sheets and status of cases from September 2019 to September 2024 was already available in the public domain and had been uploaded on the ACB website.
The CPIO further stated that the procedure for laying a trap against any public servant was prescribed in and followed as per the mandate of the Vigilance Manual and in compliance with mandatory provisions from time to time.
Dissatisfied with the response concerning Point No.2, the appellant filed a First Appeal on December 3, 2024, alleging that the reply was vague, incomplete and misleading. He contended that the information supplied regarding registration, final reports, charge sheets and status of cases from September 2019 to September 2024 did not in any manner, even remotely, pertain to the information specifically sought by him. According to the appellant, the information sought related to the period from July 2020 to December 31, 2022.
The FAA & AIG (HQ), ACB, J&K, Jammu, however, upheld the CPIO's reply vide order dated December 13, 2024. The appellant thereafter approached the CIC with the Second Appeal and complaint dated December 30, 2024.
During the hearing, the appellant narrated the factual background of his suspension from service and submitted that the information sought at Point No.2 was imperative to establish certain alleged improprieties carried out against him.
The appellant alleged that the respondent office had not only failed to provide a proper reply but had also failed to appreciate that the information sought related specifically to the period from July 2020 to December 31, 2022.
The respondent, represented by Nadeem Parvez, CPIO & Senior Prosecution Officer, submitted that the reply had been provided based on the wisdom and understanding of the then CPIO. It was further submitted that even in terms of his understanding, there was no such record which could inform whether the jurisdiction was exceeded in the instant case.
After considering the rival submissions, the Commission observed that the information sought under Point No.2 does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, as the appellant had conjectured and speculated the availability of data based on a situation described by him.
The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in Section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act, the CIC said.
The Commission also termed the contention regarding the period mentioned in the CPIO's reply as a labored argument, observing that the CPIO's reply was inclusive of the time period referred to by the appellant.
"Considering the unspecific and deduction/interpretation-based nature of the RTI query, the reply provided by the CPIO does not warrant any intervention when the intent of the CPIO was to facilitate the Appellant/ Complainant with relevant information," the Commission observed.
Accordingly, the Second Appeal was dismissed.

Sri Lanka Cricket Now Open to RTI Requests: Eran

Newswire: Sri Lanka: Monday, 31 August 2026.
Sri Lanka Cricket will now be open to Right to Information requests, Cricket Transformation Committee Chairman Eran Wickramaratne said, marking a shift from the position taken by the previous administration.

Wickramaratne said the former Sri Lanka Cricket administration had maintained that it did not fall under the Right to Information Act and therefore was not required to provide information requested by the public.
He said that approach had now been changed.
“The previous position was that Sri Lanka Cricket was not subject to the RTI Act and therefore did not have to provide information. We have completely changed that,” Wickramaratne said.
He said anyone seeking information about Sri Lanka Cricket would now be able to make such requests, adding that greater transparency was necessary to address concerns surrounding the administration and finances of the sport.
Wickramaratne said many suspicions and allegations surrounding Sri Lanka Cricket had arisen because information was not readily available to the public.
“If the information is available, many of these problems do not arise,” he said.
He added that the transformation process would also examine Sri Lanka Cricket’s financial management, governance structure and whether suitably qualified individuals were serving in the appropriate positions.
Wickramaratne said a new constitution for Sri Lanka Cricket had already been prepared following consultations with multiple stakeholders and submitted to the government.
The proposed constitution is expected to be presented to the Cabinet before being taken to Parliament.
He said the reforms were aimed at establishing good governance while ensuring there was no political interference in cricket administration or team selection.
Wickramaratne also said rebuilding Sri Lankan cricket would require reforms from the school level upwards, including improvements to grounds, turf wickets and practice facilities.
He said former Sri Lanka cricketers Kumar Sangakkara, Sidath Wettimuny and Roshan Mahanama were among those contributing to the cricket-related reform process.
Wickramaratne stressed that national team selection would remain entirely with the selectors, without interference from politicians, administrators or the transformation committee.
He also said Sri Lanka needed more Test cricket and that discussions were being initiated to secure additional Test matches in the future. (Newswire)

HDC becomes first SOE to publish information proactively: Malika Shahid

Edition.mv: Maldive: Monday, 31 August 2026.
HDC said it has created a dedicated information section on its website containing a structured directory of disclosures covering its operations, responsibilities, financial information and governance processes.
Housing Development Corporation (HDC) has become the first state owned enterprise to proactively disclose information required under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

Ali Zuhair, DD of HDC speaks at the company's 25th anniversary event, Photo: Fayaz Moosa

In a statement issued, HDC said it has published all categories of information required under the RTI Act on its official website, making it fully accessible to the public.
RTI Act requires public authorities to regularly publish key categories of information, including institutional structure, services, budgets, expenditure, salaries and decision-making processes, at least once a year.
HDC said it has created a dedicated information section on its website containing a structured directory of disclosures covering its operations, responsibilities, financial information and governance processes.
The company said it was proud to be the first state owned enterprise to comply with the proactive disclosure requirements in this manner.
“HDC is always striving to manage its affairs in a transparent manner and provide better services to the public,” the company said.
The Information Commissioner’s Office has previously stated that all state institutions, including ministries and the President’s Office, are required to meet proactive disclosure obligations under the RTI Act, even in the absence of specific public requests.
Earlier this month, Information Commissioner Ahid Rasheed said in a post on X,  the President’s Office and 16 ministries had achieved near-complete compliance with proactive disclosure requirements, averaging close to 100 percent publication of mandated information.

Karnataka university wins 14-year tax battle, recovers Rs 700 crore using RTI

The Indian Express: Bengaluru: Monday, 31 August 2026.
Visvesvaraya Technological University has recovered Rs 700 crore in frozen corpus funds after a 14-year-long tax dispute, using an RTI record from 1999.

Visvesvaraya Technological University (Image from official website)

After a 14-year-long struggle, the Belagavi-headquartered Visvesvaraya Technological University (VTU) has recovered Rs 700 crore in frozen corpus funds belonging to the institute from the Income Tax department.
The funds were frozen in 2012-13 after the Income Tax Department issued a notice to VTU demanding payment of Rs 250 crore in income tax from the time the university was established. The Income Tax Department argued that VTU had not obtained tax exemption under Section 12(A) of the Income Tax Act and therefore had to pay the tax dues.
The institute had challenged the matter in court but without success.
The university finally succeeded in recovering the assets by using information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
VTU Vice-Chancellor S Vidyashankar said, “We came to know that the university had applied for tax exemption under Section 12(A) as early as 1999. However, there were no documents available to prove this. Finally, we filed an RTI application before the Income Tax Department and obtained the 1999 entry register. Through this, we are now recovering our university’s money.”
The vice-chancellor said the university has decided to deposit the money in a nationalised bank for 10 years. From the eleventh year onwards, the interest income generated from the deposit will be used to pay the salaries of the staff.

Who Is Dr. Arvinder Singh? A Disability Rights Activist Advancing Accessibility and RPwD Act Implementation in India : By Anushka Paliwal

Udaipur Blog: Udaipur: Monday, 31 August 2026.
Disability rights become meaningful when legal protections are translated into accessible services, fair procedures and equal participation. Dr. Arvinder Singh, a physician, healthcare entrepreneur, legal professional and person with locomotor disability due to polio, has increasingly focused his public work on this implementation gap.

From lived experience and healthcare leadership to legal advocacy, RTI, accessibility action and institutional engagement

As Founder and President of Panacea Disability Rights Activists (PDRA), a unit of the registered Panacea Educational Society in Udaipur, Rajasthan, he uses a combination of Right to Information (RTI) applications, accessibility observations, representations, legal proceedings, public education and constructive engagement with institutions to promote implementation of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).
His approach is deliberately rights-based. Rather than presenting persons with disabilities as recipients of charity, it emphasises dignity, accessibility, non-discrimination, reasonable accommodation, accountability and participation. The objective is not confrontation with institutions, but measurable improvement through law, evidence and sustained follow-up.
A Multidisciplinary Path to Disability-Rights Advocacy
Dr. Singh’s professional background spans medicine, management, law, dispute resolution, entrepreneurship, communication and technology. He is an MBBS and MD in Clinical Pathology, an MBA Gold Medallist from the Indian Institute of Management, and an LLB. He has also undertaken advanced learning in arbitration, commercial mediation, communication, artificial intelligence and leadership through Indian and international institutions.
This multidisciplinary background is relevant to disability-rights work because accessibility problems rarely sit within a single domain. A hospital may require clinical understanding and accessible patient flow; a bank may involve service design and legal obligations; a transport complaint may require documentary evidence and administrative follow-up; and a public-policy issue may require communication with several authorities before change becomes possible.
His lived experience of locomotor disability adds another dimension. It provides direct understanding of physical access, mobility, dignity and the practical consequences of systems that are designed without disabled users in mind.
Panacea Disability Rights Activists: From Awareness to Implementation
Panacea Disability Rights Activists operates as a unit of Panacea Educational Society, registered in Udaipur under Registration No. 165/Udaipur/2011-12. Its work is centred on disability rights, accessibility and legal empowerment under the RPwD Act, 2016.
PDRA’s work has expanded across sectors including banking, public transport, railways, police services, education, healthcare, government buildings and other public-facing systems. Its methods include:

• RTI applications to obtain official information on accessibility and compliance;

• field observations and accessibility reviews;

• representations and complaints to competent authorities;

• legal proceedings where administrative remedies remain unresolved;

• awareness programmes on disability rights and available legal remedies;

• media and public-education initiatives that explain accessibility in constructive, practical terms; and

• follow-up with institutions to encourage corrective action and sustainable compliance.

Across its recent advocacy work, PDRA has filed hundreds of RTI applications with public authorities and institutions. The value of this approach is not the number alone: RTI creates an evidence trail that can identify gaps, clarify responsibility and make subsequent representations more precise.
Examples of Rights-Based Action
1. Public transport and accessibility
In Rajasthan Roadways-related matters, RTI applications were used to seek information about facilities for persons with disabilities at bus stands, buses and depots. Where responses were incomplete or disputed, the matter was pursued through formal administrative and legal channels rather than being limited to public criticism.
This reflects a broader principle of PDRA’s work: first establish the facts, then identify the applicable duty, and finally seek corrective action through the appropriate authority.
2. Accessible policing and disability-sensitive procedures
Representations concerning the treatment and accessibility needs of persons with disabilities were taken up with Rajasthan’s Home Department and police authorities. Subsequent official communications and follow-up brought greater administrative attention to disability-friendly police infrastructure, awareness of the RPwD Act and the need for disability-sensitive handling of complaints and criminal-law processes.
The significance lies in institutional engagement: disability inclusion in policing requires not only ramps or physical access, but also trained personnel, appropriate communication and procedures that recognise the rights and needs of persons with different disabilities.
3. Banking accessibility
PDRA has used RTI, accessibility observations and formal complaints to examine barriers in banking services. Issues such as branch access, accessible ATMs, service counters and customer processes matter because financial inclusion is inseparable from independent living and equal participation.
4. Education and community inclusion
Dr. Singh and PDRA have also engaged with schools serving students with disabilities, combining awareness of legal rights with practical accessibility improvements and community participation. Such work keeps advocacy connected to the everyday environments in which children and young adults learn, travel and build independence.
A Personal Journey That Informs the Advocacy
Dr. Singh lives with locomotor disability due to polio and has used calipers, crutches and other mobility support over many years. His public journey includes an adventure world record for riding a quad bike at Khardung La in Ladakh, an achievement reported by national media and recorded by the World Book of Records.
The relevance of this achievement to disability rights is not that every person with a disability must perform an extraordinary feat. The more useful message is that assumptions about capability are often unreliable, and that opportunity, adaptation, assistive support and accessible environments can significantly expand participation.
He is also a three-time world-record holder, with other records relating to academic achievement. His documented academic journey includes a large number of degrees, diplomas and professional certifications. Because publicly reported totals have varied over time as new qualifications were added, the more durable fact is the continuing pattern of multidisciplinary lifelong learning rather than a fixed numerical count.
Recognition for Disability and Social-Service Work
On 15 August 2026, Dr. Singh received a Rajasthan Government state-level Prashasti-Patra for commendable services in social service. His disability-rights and accessibility work has also received recognition in programmes involving Rajasthan’s Social Justice and Empowerment leadership and other public and civic institutions.
He has previously received professional and international recognitions associated with healthcare, education and leadership, including an honour at the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. These achievements provide background to his public profile, but the central measure of disability-rights work remains whether institutions become more accessible and persons with disabilities gain more effective access to their rights.
Why His Approach Is Different

• Lived experience: disability rights are approached not only as a policy subject but as a daily reality.

• Legal orientation: advocacy is linked to the RPwD Act, RTI Act, administrative processes and available legal remedies.

• Evidence before allegation: official information, documents and field observations are used to establish the issue.

• Cross-sector understanding: healthcare, law, management and communication are combined rather than treated separately.

• Constructive institutional engagement: government departments and service providers are approached as essential partners in implementation while accountability is preserved.

• Follow-through: complaints and representations are monitored beyond the first letter or media report.

A Rights-Based Vision for an Accessible India
Dr. Singh’s stated vision is an India in which accessibility is incorporated into governance, education, healthcare, banking, transport, workplaces, technology and public infrastructure as a normal design standard. This aligns with the RPwD Act, 2016 and the broader principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).
For government and public institutions, the message is collaborative: India already has a substantial legal framework for disability rights, and continued implementation, monitoring, capacity-building and accessible design can convert those legal commitments into better everyday experiences for citizens.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is Dr. Arvinder Singh?
Dr. Arvinder Singh is a pathologist, healthcare entrepreneur, legal professional and disability-rights activist based in Udaipur, Rajasthan. He is the Founder and President of Panacea Disability Rights Activists and CEO of Arth Diagnostics. 
What does Panacea Disability Rights Activists do?
PDRA works on disability rights, accessibility and legal empowerment through RTI, accessibility observations, complaints, representations, legal action, awareness and institutional engagement.
What law is central to his disability-rights work?
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 is the principal legal framework around which much of the advocacy is organised, alongside relevant administrative and legal remedies.
Is the work focused only on Rajasthan?
Most direct field and institutional engagement has been Rajasthan-based, while the legal principles, educational content and guidance on the RPwD Act are relevant across India.
What is distinctive about his advocacy?
Its combination of lived disability experience, healthcare knowledge, legal training, evidence-based RTI work, organisational leadership and sustained follow-up distinguishes the approach.
Conclusion: Turning Rights Into Everyday Access
Dr. Arvinder Singh’s disability-rights work is best understood not as a story of personal triumph alone, but as an attempt to translate rights into systems. The recurring tools are simple but powerful: evidence, law, accessibility assessment, communication and persistence.
The broader lesson is equally important. Disability inclusion becomes sustainable when persons with disabilities participate in leadership, government departments remain engaged in implementation, service providers design for accessibility, and civil society uses legal processes responsibly. In that ecosystem, advocacy is not anti-institutional; it helps institutions fulfil the inclusive purpose already embedded in Indian law.

Visvesvaraya Technological University recovers over Rs 700 crore after 14-year tax battle

New Indian Express: Bengaluru: Monday, 31 August 2026.
According to a statement shared by the university, under the RTI Act, VTU pursued the legal battle and succeeded in recovering the funds.

Visvesvaraya Technological University File Photo | Express

The Visvesvaraya Technological University (VTU) announced on Sunday that it recovered over Rs 700 crore in corpus funds from the Income Tax Department (ITD) following litigation that spanned about 14 years.
The I-T Department had seized the funds during the 2012-13 academic year. According to a statement shared by the university, under the RTI Act, VTU pursued the legal battle and succeeded in recovering the funds.
“In 2012-13, ITD issued a notice to VTU demanding payment of Rs 250 crore in income tax from the time the university was established. The Department argued that VTU had not obtained tax exemption under Section 12(A) of the Income Tax Act and, therefore, had to pay the tax dues. Although VTU challenged the matter in court, the ITD succeeded at every stage of the case, from the Income Tax Tribunal to the Supreme Court,” read the statement.
At the time, VTU accounts were seized and the university had a total corpus of Rs 450 crore in various bank accounts. The funds had been accumulated from examination fees, fees collected from affiliated colleges and money reimbursed every year by KEA. Along with the Rs 250 crore belonging to the university, VTU has now recovered an amount exceeding Rs 700 crore.
The university administration has decided to use the recovered funds for the salaries of university staff. The university will keep the money deposited in a nationalised bank for a decade. From the 11th year onwards, the interest income generated from the deposit will be used to pay the salaries of the staff.
“We came to know that the university had applied for tax exemption under Section 12(A) as early as 1999. However, there were no documents available to prove this. Finally, we filed an RTI application before the ITD and obtained the 1999 entry register. Through this, we are now recovering our university’s money,” said Vice-Chancellor Prof S Vidyashankar.

Here’s what you need to know about the FOI bill and how it can hold the government accountable: Aifer Jacutin, Daniela Dizon

Explained PH: Philippines: Sunday, August 30, 2026.

Being informed has always been a priority in any democratic country. The problem is, many ordinary citizens always get trapped in the pit of misinformation. They accept information as “truth” without even verifying through credible sources. People no longer understand the borderline between truth and misinformation. Bad actors, then, utilize this advantage of misinformation to continue coercion.
In the country, citizens still struggle to analyze and even access basic government transparency records, important information, and spending records. In spite of the constitutional promise that gives the right to information, it is evident that the Philippines lacks an understanding of the Freedom of Information (FOI) law that assures public access to government information. 
The continuous political crisis, especially if rooted in misinformation, can distract the public from crucial issues; this becomes easier for political actors to maintain power even if they are generally bad-faith actors. 
Freedom of Information (FOI) Law
Senate of the Philippines Senate Bill No. 1432, also called the People’s Freedom of Information Act, seeks to institutionalize the constitutional right of Filipinos to access information on matters of public concern. Meaning, Filipinos should have the legal right to ask the government for information.
Contents of Senate Bill No. 1432

• Public records: The Government will be mandated and required to be transparent, especially if it involves the public interest. 

• Transparency: Officials would be required to publicly disclose information about their Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN). 

History of the FOI Bill 
The Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill in the Philippines was rooted in the 1987 Constitution, which lawfully recognised the concerns and rights of its people to information. It was created with the purpose of giving citizens the right to legally access government records and promote the transparency of public documents to fight corruption and strengthen democracy. The proposed bill had undergone different versions and been going around since the early 1990’s in Congress. During the 14th Congress, the aforementioned bill was finally approved by the Senate in 2009. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives and other lawmakers failed to acknowledge and pass the bill even before the session ended. 
The FOI bill had been refiled in 2013 to 2014 under President Benigno Aquino III on his transparency campaign promise. The bill has been discussed, and some versions have been approved by the Senate and the House of Representatives, but the implementation has been delayed due to some arguments that it is still limited and contains many confidential concerns. 
In 2016, President Rodrigo Duterte signed the Freedom of Information Order that requires the executive branch to respond to public inquiries. Despite this major development, some organizations and lawmakers still want to improve the proposed bill and implement a holistic FOI law that includes even the judiciary and the Congress to be a part of its scope.
Progress on the Bicameral Process
The FOI bill is still one of the most controversial transparency solutions to corruption in the Philippines, long viewed by its proponents as a cornerstone solution to the country’s entrenched culture of corruption and public distrust in the government. Since its first filing decades ago, the proposed bill has still been continuously refiled in both the Senate and the House of Representatives by lawmakers who argue that guaranteed public access to government records is essential to meaningful accountability. 
A crucial milestone was reached in May 2026, when the Senate unanimously approved Senate Bill No. 1432, also known as the People’s Freedom of Information Act, with a 22-0 standing–marking the first time the chamber passed the measure under the MArcos administration. The bill enshrines in law the right of citizens to access public records across all branches of government, mandating the disclosure of government contracts, procurement documents, and the Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) of public officials.
Shortly after, the House of Representatives passed its own version of the FOI bill, clearing the way for the measure to enter the bicameral conference committee process. In this stage, designated members from both chambers will convene to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions, with the goal of producing a unified bill that can be ratified by both chambers and transmitted to the President for signing into law. Despite this progress, the road to ratification is not without obstacles. Some lawmakers and government officials continue to express reservations, citing concerns over the confidentiality of sensitive state information and the potential for bad-faith exploitation of disclosed records.
Limitations on the existing laws
Article III, Bill of Rights, Section 7 recognizes the “right of the people to information on matters of public concern.” However, almost four decades had passed since the first FOI bill was filed, and none of its versions had ever been enacted. 
In 2016, there was progress when former President Rodrigo Duterte signed Executive Order No. 2, s. 2016, or the Freedom of Information. Although it mandates “full public disclosure of all government transactions involving the public interest,” it applies only to the Executive branch, leaving the other branches and constitutional bodies untouched.
In 2018, the Presidential Communications Operations Office (PCOO) and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) issued a Joint Memorandum Circular (JMC) reiterating EO No. 2 to the local level. Despite the progress, only a few local government units have successfully passed their ordinances. 
For the past decade, several FOI bills have been filed, and now, Senate Bill No. 1432, known as the ‘People’s Freedom of Information Act,’ is making progress as the Senate of the Philippines has approved it on its third and final reading. This bill, if enacted, will fill the gaps, recognizing the right to information covering executive, legislative, and judicial offices, constitutional bodies, local government units (LGUs), state universities and colleges (SUCs), government-owned or-controlled corporations (GOCCs), and other government instrumentalities.
Effectivity of existing initiatives
Through EO No. 2 s. 2016, the Electronic Freedom of Information (eFOI) portal was created, allowing Filipinos to request information about government transactions and operations. Two years after it started, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) revealed the problems with the FOI implementation, including high rates of declined requests, overdue responses, and unsatisfactory results on the requests.
A study showed that FOI requests were being denied because government agencies do not have the information, some requests were not viewed as valid FOI requests, and requests were addressed to the wrong government agency. The same study noted that various agencies have different rules in processing requests. In 2022, a new feature was added to lessen the number of denied requests. Today, more improvements need to be made to further enhance the citizens’ experience when requesting information and to ensure the government’s transparency and accountability.
Philippines in the FOI Global Ranking
The Philippines scored 47 in the Global Right to Information (RTI) Rating, an indication that the citizens’ constitutional right to information is extremely poor. Compared to other countries, the Philippines’ performance places it near the bottom of the RTI rankings. Looking at the status of FOI in other countries, most have enacted legislation that began decades and years ago, which they have continually developed and expanded. 
The information commission in Mexico, called INIA, was regarded as a gold standard, ranking second in the world by the Centre for Law and Democracy. It facilitates requests for public information through its portal, the National Transparency Platform.  There were also reports that journalists were able to use the portal when investigating because it is user-friendly and efficient. 
Significance of FOI Law
An enacted Freedom of Information law is necessary to keep democracy alive and to boost economic opportunities. Access to information is a basic human right that enables people to make informed decisions. In a democratic country, FOI allows citizens to hold the government accountable and exercise their voice. For countries with established domestic FOI laws, research shows that citizens’ participation is enhanced, equitable economic development is advanced, and poverty and corruption are reduced. 
Danilo Arao, an Associate Professor from the University of the Philippines – Diliman (UPD), said in an interview with Tinig ng Plaridel that, “The FOI bill, in the eyes of the powers that be, is counterproductive to historical denialism and red tagging. [With FOI] it would be more convenient for the media and ordinary people to expose fake news.” Citing the significance of FOI law in the age where information continuously flows.
The FOI law, if passed, will also be beneficial to journalists, media workers, researchers, and the general public. A legal right to information can increase government transparency, openness, and responsiveness to information requests. Thus, it will allow everyone to keep the government in check. When people are informed, they can make an informed decision on how everything affects their everyday lives.
Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) continue to call for the passage of the FOI bill. The Right to Know, Right Now! (R2KRN) Coalition stated, “The challenge before Congress is therefore not merely to pass any FOI bill, but to enact one that fully honors the constitutional command that the right to information is the people’s right, and disclosure, whether proactive or upon request, is the State’s duty.” 
An enabling law that recognizes the people’s right to information is crucial in keeping democracy alive. It is also essential for the public to assert and demand this right because silence can chain a nation. People can see and question only if they have the right to information.