KMC records tampered with: Hakim; RTI query on building off Creek Row exposes fraud

Telegraph India: Kolkata: Saturday, April 5, 2025.
The tampering came to light after a Creek Row resident filed an RTI appeal about the 1-cottah 15-chhatak plot with the civic body. He wanted to know whether the KMC had approved any new building on the plot

The Kolkata Municipal Corporation’s (KMC) assessment records were “tampered with” to get permission to construct a five-storey building off Creek Row, Calcutta mayor Firhad Hakim said on Friday.
The tampering came to light after a Creek Row resident filed an RTI appeal about the 1-cottah 15-chhatak plot with the civic body. He wanted to know whether the KMC had approved any new building on the plot.
According to Sayantak Das, who had filed the RTI, the reply revealed that a five-storey building was approved under a special provision meant for tenanted buildings.
Das said he and several other neighbours then wrote to the KMC that a two-storey building on the plot never had any tenants.
“I applied to see the inspection book (IB). I was shown both the physical copy and the copy on the online server. The discrepancy came to light at this point. The name of the tenant was there in the physical IB record, but not uploaded online,” said Das.
The IB record is the primary report prepared by KMC officials after field visits and mentions the necessary details about a property.
The plot on Mahendra Sarkar Street, off Creek Row, in Ward 50, had a two-storey building standing till last year. The demolition started a little after Durga Puja.
“The inspection book records of the KMC were tampered with. This is a criminal offence. The complainant has also filed a criminal case. We have forwarded the matter for further probe. Whoever is involved will be punished,” Hakim said.
The mayor admitted that people within the KMC could be involved in it.
“The property owners had manipulated the records, seemingly with help from someone within KMC, to show tenants were living in the building. This allowed them to take advantage of a provision in KMC’s building rules that lets additional built space in tenanted buildings compared to what is allowed in a plot of similar size and with roads having similar width, but with no tenant,” said Das.
Section 142 of the KMC’s Building Rules allowed additional built-up area in a building if it has tenants, said officials.
The special provision was included to ensure that all tenants in such buildings got space in a new building once the old one was demolished and a new building was built.
The assurance of space in the new building would convince the tenants to leave their space in a crumbling building and ensure that dilapidated buildings were pulled and new structures replaced them.
“We have revoked the permission for the new construction,” Hakim added.

“भूतों ने कर दी पेड़ों में पेंटिंग” ना प्रशासन का पता चला, ना ही निगम को, अब पर्यावरणविद के RTI से खुली नींद, जवाब दिया, हमने तो नहीं कराया…

Nwnews24: Raipur: Thursday, April 3, 2025.

छत्तीसगढ़ में “भूत” आजकल पेंड़ों में पेंटिंग कर रहे हैं। चुपके से आते हैं…..फिर पेड़ों पर लाल…हरा पेंट कर गायब हो जाते हैं। ना प्रशासन को पता चलता है और ना निगम को…उन्हें तो मालूम भी तब चलता है, जब पेड़ों पर पेंटिंग हो चुकी होती है और कुछ पर्यावरणविद RTI के जरिये इसकी जानकारी चाहते हैं। सुनकर आप हैरान जरूर हो रहे होंगे, लेकिन ये हकीकत है। मामला रायगढ़ का है, जहां NGT और राज्य सरकार के फरमान को ठेंगा दिखाकर पेंडों को लाल-हरे रंग के केमिकल पेंट से रंग दिया गया है।
ये कृत्य तब कब किया गया है, पेड़ों में किसी तरह पेंट ना करने का आदेश एक बार नहीं कई बार जारी किया जा चुका है। छत्तीसगढ़ सरकार द्वारा पेड़ों पर सौंदर्यीकरण के नाम पर पेंटिंग करने पर सख्त प्रतिबंध के बावजूद, रायगढ़ में कलेक्टर रोड पर कई पेड़ों के तनों को रंगा गया। नगर निगम ने इस कार्य से पल्ला झाड़ते हुए कहा कि उनके द्वारा ऐसा कोई कार्य नहीं कराया गया। इस रहस्यमयी पेंटिंग के पीछे किसका हाथ है, यह अब तक स्पष्ट नहीं हो सका है, और अधिकारी भी जांच से बचते नजर आ रहे हैं।
छत्तीसगढ़ सरकार ने 2021 में आदेश जारी कर सभी नगर पालिक निगम और स्थानीय निकायों को पेड़ों पर सौंदर्यीकरण के नाम पर पेंटिंग करने से रोक दिया था। इसके बाद, अगस्त 2024 में भी एक बार फिर समस्त विभागों और कलेक्टरों को निर्देश दिए गए थे कि इस प्रकार की पेंटिंग नहीं की जानी चाहिए और यदि कहीं ऐसा पाया जाता है तो दोषियों पर सख्त कार्यवाही होगी।
लेकिन नवंबर-दिसंबर 2024 में रायगढ़ के कलेक्टर रोड पर स्थित कई पेड़ों पर पेंटिंग देखी गई। यह मामला तब चर्चा में आया जब नगर निगम के कुछ अधिकारियों ने इन पेड़ों की तस्वीरें सोशल मीडिया पर पोस्ट कर वाहवाही लूटने की कोशिश की। यह सड़क नगर पालिक निगम के अंतर्गत आती है, इसलिए इस मामले में नगर निगम की भूमिका संदिग्ध मानी जा रही है।
जब इस मामले की शिकायत मुख्य सचिव से की गई, तो नगर पालिक निगम रायगढ़ ने स्पष्ट रूप से कहा कि उनके द्वारा पेड़ों पर पेंट नहीं कराया गया और इस संबंध में कोई कार्यादेश भी जारी नहीं किया गया है। ऐसे में बड़ा सवाल यह उठता है कि आखिरकार पेड़ों पर पेंटिंग किसने करवाई?
अगर नगर निगम का दावा सही है कि उन्होंने इस कार्य के लिए कोई आदेश जारी नहीं किया, तो इसका मतलब यह हुआ कि रायगढ़ में रहस्यमयी ताकतों यानी ‘भूतों’ ने रातों-रात पेड़ों की पेंटिंग कर दी! यही वजह है कि अब लोग इस मामले को लेकर प्रशासन पर तंज कस रहे हैं।
अधिकारियों की चुप्पी और फाइलों का गायब होना!
इस मामले की जांच और जवाबदेही की मांग की गई थी, लेकिन अधिकारी इस पर कार्यवाही करने से बच रहे हैं। मजे की बात यह है कि शिकायत होने तक इस कार्य का भुगतान नहीं किया गया था, और चर्चा है कि इसलिए संबंधित फाइल ही ‘गायब’ करा दी गई।
जब सूचना के अधिकार (आरटीआई) के तहत आवेदक ने 2 जनवरी 2025 को इस कार्य से संबंधित दस्तावेजों की मांग की, तो नगर निगम ने जवाब दिया कि उनके पास इस कार्य का कोई रिकॉर्ड उपलब्ध नहीं है। इसके बाद 30 जनवरी 2025 को प्रथम अपील दायर की गई, जिसकी सुनवाई 28 फरवरी 2025 को निर्धारित की गई है।
इस पूरे घटनाक्रम से नगर निगम की भूमिका पर गंभीर सवाल उठ रहे हैं। अगर उन्होंने यह कार्य नहीं कराया, तो आखिर किसने किया? और अगर किसी अन्य ने यह किया, तो नगर निगम इसके खिलाफ कार्यवाही क्यों नहीं कर रहा?
रायगढ़ के नागरिक इस मामले में प्रशासन की निष्क्रियता से नाराज हैं और मांग कर रहे हैं कि दोषियों की पहचान कर उनके खिलाफ सख्त कार्यवाही की जाए। क्या इस रहस्य से पर्दा उठेगा या यह मामला यूं ही दबा दिया जाएगा, यह देखने वाली बात होगी।

Over 100 Hoardings on Mumbai Railway Land Have No Known Owner, Reveals RTI

Moneylife: Mumbai: Thursday, April 3, 2025.
A recent right to information (RTI) query has exposed alarming irregularities in the installation of hoardings on railway land in Mumbai, revealing that no ownership records exist for 103 out of 306 hoardings. The findings point to the growing influence of the hoarding mafia operating on land owned by the Central and Western Railways, with municipal authorities failing to maintain transparency.

According to data provided to RTI activist Anil Galgali under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by the licensing superintendent’s office of the BrihanMumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC), there are 179 hoardings on Central Railway land and 127 hoardings on Western Railway land. However, the ownership details of 68 hoardings on Central Railway land and 35 on Western Railway land remain unidentified.
The breakdown of hoardings across different municipal wards further highlights the extent of the issue. On Western Railway land, hoardings are spread across wards such as A, D, G South, G North, K East, K West, P South, and R South, with 35 of them lacking ownership details. Similarly, on Central Railway land, hoardings are installed in wards including E, F South, G North, L, and T, where 68 hoardings are unaccounted for.
Following the Ghatkopar hoarding collapse incident, Mr Galgali has urged railway authorities to ensure transparency and strict compliance with municipal regulations. He also demanded that any unauthorised hoardings be immediately removed, and action be taken against those responsible.
The issue is further complicated by allegations of political and bureaucratic interference. According to Mr Galgali, a senior Indian Administrative Services (IAS) officer was allegedly removed from the licensing department due to pressure from the hoarding mafia. The move was reportedly linked to the officer’s positive stance on the new advertising policy of the BMC, which could have disrupted the financial dealings of vested interests in the hoarding industry, he says.
With growing concerns over safety, urban planning violations, and corruption, activists and citizens are now calling for urgent intervention by the railway administration and the BMC to bring accountability and curb the unchecked influence of illegal hoardings in Mumbai.

"How India's Data Protection Law is Silencing RTI Activists and Preventi...

Supreme Court Issues Showcause Notices to State Information Commissions for Non-Compliance with Hybrid Hearing Orders

Law Trend: New Delhi: Wednesday, April 2, 2025.
The Supreme Court has taken a stringent approach towards ensuring the effective implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act by issuing showcause notices to all State Information Commissions (SICs) across India. The notices demand an explanation for the non compliance with the court’s earlier directive that mandated the adoption of hybrid hearing options and e-filing for RTI applicants.

Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, overseeing the case, have ordered SICs to submit detailed compliance reports by April 28, 2025. This action follows a contempt petition by advocate Kishan Chand Jain, who argued that the SICs had not adhered to the Supreme Court’s instructions laid out in an October 9, 2023, ruling.
The October ruling was pivotal in promoting accessibility for RTI litigants, particularly those from
remote locations, by reducing the need for travel through the provision of online hearings. The court had set a clear deadline of December 31, 2023, for all SICs to implement these hybrid hearings and establish e-filing systems, intending to streamline the process and enhance the efficiency of the RTI framework.
During the proceedings, the bench emphasized the critical nature of the SICs’ role in upholding the fundamental right to information. “We direct that all SICs across the country must provide hybrid modes of hearing to all litigants for the hearing of complaints as well as appeals,” the justices reiterated from their 2023 order.
Moreover, the Supreme Court had specified that virtual hearing links should be included in daily
cause lists and had directed state governments to allocate necessary funds for the requisite technological infrastructure. These measures were designed to ensure that service of notices on
Public Information Officers (PIOs) could also be managed electronically, thereby facilitating a more efficient administrative process.

RTI info denied: Mancherial district employment officer booked

Telangana Today: Mancherial: Wednesday, April 2, 2025.
Ravi Krishna denied the information of outsourced employees in the district even as the applicant from Mandamarri paid Rs.25,085 for it.

District Employment Officer Ravi Krishna was booked on charges of duping an applicant by not providing information through the Right to Information (RTI) Act, here on Tuesday.
Ravi Krishna denied the information of outsourced employees in the district even as the applicant from Mandamarri paid Rs.25,085 for it. The applicant brought the issue to the notice of the officials concerned, but in vain. He then approached a court in Mancherial town, which in turn asked the police to register a case against the employment officer.

No bar on provision stores staying open 24x7: HC

Hindustan Times: Mumbai: Wednesday, April 2, 2025.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Accelerate Product Venture, a start-up which has a 24x7 store in Pune named ‘New Shop’

The Bombay high court on Tuesday restrained Pune police from coercing a 24x7 provision store to close by 11.00pm. Such stores are necessary to achieve progress commensurate with global standards, the division bench of justices GS Kulkarni and Advait Sethna said, noting that there was neither any legal bar on stores remaining open round the clock, not had the state imposed any restriction on such stores.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Accelerate Product Venture, a start-up which has a 24x7 store in Pune named ‘New Shop’. The firm, which plans to open a chain of 24x7 convenience stores across the country, alleged that police officials in Kondhwa, Pune were exercising power arbitrarily and coercing the shop to down its shutters between 10pm and 11pm every day.
The firm said it had obtained all requisite permissions under the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2017. It had also sought details under the Right to Information (RTI) Act regarding restrictions on store timings from the industries, energy, and labour department, but did not get any response, following which it approached the high court.
In court, the industries, energy and labour department clarified that as per the Shops and Establishments Act, 2017, there was no embargo on keeping provision stores open round the clock. The Kondhwa police conceded that oral orders seeking the store’s closure at night were issued out of confusion regarding prevailing rules and regulations and concerns about law and order.
The court said there was no justification whatsoever for the Kondhwa police to impose any restrictions on the store’s timings.
“The concept of 24x7 shops of such nature is a popular concept worldwide. It brings convenience, ease and flexibility to the consumers to make purchases, more particularly for the persons with non-standard working hours,” the court said, paving the way for the store to remain open round-the-clock.

Punjab SIC warns against misuse of RTI for personal vendetta, dismisses 24 appeals

Times of India: Chandigarh: Tuesday, April 1, 2025.

Recognising that every citizen has the right to seek information provided the request is reasonable and serves public interest the Punjab State Information Commission has warned that the RTI Act, a key tool for transparency and accountability, should not be misused for harassment or vendetta against public officials.
These observations were made by a bench comprising state information commissioners Virinderjit Singh Billing and Sandeep Singh Dhaliwal while dismissing 24 appeals/complaints filed by a Faridkot resident against multiple public authorities. The commission ruled that the information sought was either exempt under RTI Act or aimed at addressing personal grievances rather than serving public interest.
Upon examination, the bench found that the RTI applications were not only vague and ambiguous but also lacked specificity, making it difficult for both the departments concerned and the commission to determine the exact nature of the information sought. Many requests were broad, unclear, and framed in a way that caused confusion rather than promoting transparency, it said. The commission noted that such imprecise applications placed undue burden on public authorities and hinder the functioning of RTI framework.
During the hearing, the public information officer (PIO) of the executive officer, nagar council, Jaiton, Faridkot district, submitted that the appellant repeatedly filed RTI applications seeking personal information of govt employees with whom he had disputes. PIO informed the commission that an FIR was registered against the appellant on May 29, 2019, due to such conflicts.
All cases were examined separately, with departmental representatives making their submissions. Copies of these submissions were provided to the appellant, who repeatedly pointed out deficiencies and claimed the information was incomplete or unsatisfactory. Despite being advised to inspect the records, the appellant refused, alleging non-cooperation from the departments concerned.
The commission noted that the nature of RTI requests appeared vexatious, seemingly aimed at harassing officials rather than seeking information in public interest. Dismissing the appeals, it cited legal precedents set by the Supreme Court and high courts, which have consistently emphasised that the RTI Act should not be misused.
The commission issued a strict warning to the appellant against filing frivolous and vexatious RTI applications that waste public resources. It also advised concerned PIOs to exercise their discretion under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act in the future to prevent misuse. Furthermore, it directed any future RTI applications from the appellant seeking similar information may be rejected if found vexatious or lacking public interest.
The appellant was advised to ensure precision and specificity in future RTI applications and not misuse the Act for personal vendetta. Considering the pattern of the applications and the lack of public interest in these cases, penalties and compensations imposed on officials in some of the appeals were dropped.

RTI Act: Tamil Nadu info panel turns paper tiger

Times of India: Chennai: Tuesday, April 1, 2025.
Tamil Nadu state information commission is getting slower, sloppier and opaque. The panel disposed of 18,752 pending appeals last year, an increase of nearly 5,000 over the 13,850 appeals disposed of in 2021. However, in the last three years, the pendency of appeals has doubled from 21,657 to 44,906 as of Dec 2024.

What the numbers mean is that petitions taken up by the information commission for hearing have gathered dust for two to three years. This is after public information officers and appellate authorities took 90 days to reject or not reply to the original petitions.
In Dec 2024 alone, the commission disposed of 1,317 petitions, of which 47% had been pending since 2022 and 33% since 2023. And, 8% of petitions were pending for three years. "Do you think information sought in 2021 will have any value in 2024? It is as good as the petitioner not getting anything at all," said M Kasimayan, a city-based RTI activist. Kasimayan accused the information commission of backdoor dealings with the public information officers to effectively kill the RTI Act by rejecting requests to safeguard govt officers.
Arappor Iyakkam, an anti-graft NGO, recently highlighted how each information commissioner at the headquarters was handling just 10 to 12 petitions a day, whereas judges in Madras high court disposed of 50 petitions every day. Arappor wrote to the state govt to fill two vacant information commissioner posts and increase the sanctioned posts by four. It got a reply from the human resources dept that filling the existing vacancies is under consideration, while increasing sanctioned strength comes under the purview of govt policy. "There is no transparency regarding the appointment of information commissioners either, as the SC directions on the selection of information commissioners have been ignored," said Jayaram Venkatesan, Arappor convener.
The information commission has not uploaded its annual reports for the last three years. A senior official said the annual report for 2022 will be uploaded this week.

‘27 Gujarat villages under police protection, some since 2013' - RTI

Times of India: Ahmedabad: Monday, March 31, 2025.
The state police department has disclosed through a Right to Information (RTI) response that 27 villages across Gujarat are currently under police protection with some under protection for more than a decade.

The RTI application was filed by advocate Kaushik Parmar from Mehsana, seeking details on police-protected villages in the state.
The response, provided to Parmar on March 21, points to the lingering effects of caste-based and communal fissures. Among the villages under prolonged police protection is Lolia in Bagodara taluka of Ahmedabad.
Police presence has been in place here since July 1, 2013, after the murder of a dalit man following a dispute over open defecation. According to RTI documents and police sources, a violent altercation took place when the victim was attacked over the issue, resulting in the murders of two of his family members. Even after a decade, authorities deem the village too volatile to lift the security cover.
Another case that garnered significant public attention is that of Mota Samadhiyala in Una taluka of Gir-Somnath district, the site of the horrifying Una flogging case.
In 2016, four brothers Ashok, Vashram, Bechar and Ramesh Sarvaiya were stripped and publicly flogged by self-proclaimed ‘gaurakshaks' (cow vigilantes) for skinning a dead cow.
The incident triggered a massive agitation and was even debated in the Lok Sabha.
The RTI response from the district superintendent of police stated that police protection continues in the village due to ongoing tension and security threats.
Gariadhar in Bhavnagar has been under police protection since 2018, following violent clashes between savarna and dalit communities over an electricity connection dispute. Fearing a resurgence of violence, security forces continue to monitor the situation. Expressing outrage over the findings, Parmar said, "It is a sorry state of affairs in Gujarat where dalits have to live in fear. Until there is police protection, they are safe. Otherwise, they will be attacked, tormented, and tortured."

Commission vacant : By Bhavey Nagpal

Hindustan Times: Chandigarh: Monday, March 31, 2025.
Chief information commissioner Vijai Vardhan and an information commissioner, Satyaveer Singh Phulia, retired on March 24, An activist has called the situation “unprecedented” and blamed the Haryana government for leaving the commission ‘lawaaris’ (orphaned).

Even as over 7,000 appeals and complaints under the Right to Information (RTI) Act remain pending, the post of chief information commissioner and as many as seven of the ten sanctioned posts of information commissioners in the State Information Commission, Haryana, are lying vacant.
The number of vacant posts rose last week after chief information commissioner Vijai Vardhan, former chief secretary of Haryana and retired IAS, and Satyaveer Singh Phulia, also a retired IAS and one of the information commissioners, completed their three years of tenure on March 24. They took their posts on March 25, 2022, under the then chief minister Manohar Lal Khattar.
According to the commission, currently there are three information commissioners — Jagbir Singh, Pradeep Kumar Shekhawat, and Kulbir Chhikara.
Earlier, another information commissioner, Jyoti Arora, a former IAS officer, retired from the panel in January this year.
According to an RTI reply received on February 11, Panipat-based activist, PP Kapoor, found that 8,340 appeal cases were pending before the commission including the chief information commissioner, in January last year. By December end, the number came down to 7,216. Kapoor claimed that it may take nearly eight years to resolve the pending cases and said, “This is clear sign that the BJP government aims to dilute the RTI act through back door.”
Another RTI activist, Bhupinder Kumar from Yamunanagar, called the situation “unprecedented” and blamed the state government for leaving the commission “lawaaris” (orphaned).
“The backlog of appeals and complaints regarding non-disclosure of information by state government departments is continuously growing. In some cases, even after nearly a year of filing an appeal, a hearing date has not been assigned. In cases where a hearing notice has been issued, only a new bench is mentioned instead of the name of the information commissioner,” he said.
He also questioned how the commission was left “headless” for a week, despite prior knowledge that the chief would step down on March 24.
“The government has neither appointed a new chief information commissioner nor gave additional charge to any existing information commissioner, despite a letter by the secretary of the information commission,” he said.
According to the said reminder letter dated March 24, 2025, (accessed by HT) sent to the chief secretary, “The general superintendence, direction, and management of the State Information Commission rest with the state chief information commissioner.”
In the absence of a chief, the secretary said that commission faces a crisis.
Given the delays in appointing a new chief, it has been requested that the charge be assigned to senior information commissioner Pardeep Kumar Shekhawat, says the letter.
Activist Kumar said that no action has been taken so far. “In the past, during similar crises, the responsibility of the chief information commissioner was assigned to senior information commissioners, such as Urvashi Gulati and JS Kundu. At present, the appointment of a new chief information commissioner or other information commissioners seems unlikely as the selection committee must include a leader of the Opposition. Currently, the Congress, the largest opposition party, is yet to elect its legislative party leader,” he added.
However, the non-appointment of leader of largest opposition group in the state assembly delaying the appointments in the commission has been settled by the Supreme Court in January this year. Regarding a case of Jharkhand, a bench headed by Justice Surya Kant had directed that the largest opposition group in the assembly would nominate one of its elected members as a member of the selection committee for limited purpose of selection to both the posts in the commission.
A former state information commissioner, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the ongoing situation would lead to prolonged delays for litigants and hinder justice. “In fact, each appointment could take nearly three months to complete. I believe this is the first time that such a situation has arisen, with no chief information commissioner in place and seven other posts lying vacant,” he added.

The Privacy Paradox: How The DPDP Act's Section 44(3) Threatens The Soul Of The RTI Act : By Taniya Sharma

Legal Service India: Delhi: Monday, March 31, 2025.

In 2005, the right to information (RTI) Act emerged as a pillar of hope for Indian democracy, empowering citizens to hold powers accountable. Nearly two decades later, a new shadow looms over this landmark law: Section 44 (3) of the digital personal data protection Act (DPDP), 2023. Passed to safeguard personal data in an increasingly digital world, the DPDP Act has sparked fierce debate with its amendment to the RTI Act's section 8(1)(j).
What was once a carefully balanced exemption for personal information has been replaced with a blanket shield, raising alarms among activists, journalists and citizens alike. Is this a necessary step to protect privacy, as the government claims, or an assault on transparency that could erode the RTI Act's essence? This article delves into the specifies of the section 44 (3), its implications for the RTI Act, and the broader clash between privacy and the public's right to know. As India navigates this legal crossroads, the stakes couldn't be higher for its democratic fabric.
What is DPDP Act, 2023?
The digital personal data protection act 2023 (DPDP ACT) is a law enacted in India to regulate how personal data is collected, stored, processed and managed. It aims to protect individuals' privacy while ensuring that business and government can process data responsibility.
For Instance:  suppose You have deactivate your Instagram account or you may have deleted your photos , you may feel like you have deleted your data , but the reality is much more complex , you are not forgotten and your data is still persists somewhere that's why this particular act was introduced that I have a right to be forgotten this is my data and I a data principal users have the right to be forgotten .
Understanding Section 44(3) Of The DPDP Act
Section 44 (3) of the Digital personal data protection Act ,2023, brings a significant change to the right to information (RTI) Act, 2005. Specifically, it rewrites section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, which deals with when information can be kept private. The new rule is straightforward: any "personal information "can now be withheld from the public, no exceptions needed. This means that if something is considered personal like person's name, address, or other private details it doesn't have to be shared, full stop.
Compare this to the original RTI rule, and the difference is stark. Earlier, personal information could still be revealed if it served a larger public good like exposing corruption or if sharing it didn't unfairly invade someone's privacy. Authorities had to weigh these factors carefully before saying no. Now, that balance is gone. Section 44(3) makes it simpler for officials to block requests by just calling the information "personal", without explaining why it should stay hidden. it's a shift that sounds small but changes a lot.
How The RTI Act Under Threat?
The amendment introduced by Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act weakens the transparency that the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, was built to protect. Under the original RTI law, authorities could only withhold personal information if it didn't serve the public interest or if sharing it would wrongly invade someone's privacy. That test is now gone. With the new rule, officials can simply label information as "personal" and refuse to share it no justification required. This makes it far easier for them to deny requests, reducing the accountability the RTI Act once ensured.
For example, imagine a public official involved in misconduct, like misusing funds. Before, citizens could use the RTI Act to access details about their actions if it mattered to the public. Now, those same details could be hidden by calling them "personal," even if they affect everyone. This shift closes doors that were once open.
The privacy argument:
On the other side of the debate, supporters of Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act argue it strengthens a key right. In 2017, the Supreme Court of India declared privacy a fundamental right, a decision that reshaped how we view personal information. The DPDP Act, including this amendment, aligns with that ruling by putting a stronger shield around people's private details. In today's digital age where data breaches and misuse are all too common the intent is to protect citizens from having their personal lives exposed without good reason. For instance, details like someone's bank account or health records shouldn't be easily accessed, and the DPDP Act aims to ensure that.
However, this protection comes with a catch. The amendment doesn't strike a balance between privacy and the public's right to know. Unlike the original RTI Act, which allowed personal information to be shared when it served a greater good, Section 44(3) offers no such middle ground. Critics say this all-or-nothing approach goes too far, safeguarding privacy at the cost of transparency. While the goal of data protection is valid, the lack of flexibility raises questions about whether the cure might harm more than it heals.
Implications For Democracy
The changes brought by Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act ripple far beyond legal texts they strike at the heart of India's democracy. The RTI Act, 2005, gave citizens the power to watch over those in charge, ensuring public oversight kept authorities in check. Now, with personal information easier to hide, that power weakens. Less access to information means less ability to question decisions or spot wrongdoing. Worse still, this opens the door for misuse. Officials could bury inconvenient truths say, about mismanaged projects or favoritism by simply calling them "personal," dodging accountability altogether. This shift pulls away from the RTI's core belief: transparency should come first.
For a country like India, where democracy thrives on active citizens and an open government, this is a big deal. The RTI Act has long been a tool to uphold those values, exposing corruption and empowering people. Globally, nations grapple with the same tug-of-war between protecting data and keeping governance open. While privacy matters, tilting too far from transparency risks dimming the democratic spirit India has worked hard to build. Section 44(3) forces us to ask: can we protect one right without wounding another?
Conclusion
Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act pits two vital rights against each other: the need to protect privacy and the duty to keep government open. The goal of safeguarding personal data in a digital world is worthy no one wants their private details misused. Yet, the amendment's heavy-handed approach threatens to dim the RTI Act's shine.
For years, this law has uncovered corruption, given citizens a voice, and held democracy together. Now, by making it easier to hide information, that legacy is at risk. As the DPDP Act waits for its final rules, India faces a crucial choice. Can it find a way to balance privacy and transparency, or will secrecy take over?
The answer isn't clear yet, but the stakes are. Activists and everyday people keep sounding the alarm, reminding us that the right to know isn't just a perk it's a foundation of trust between citizens and those in power. If that foundation cracks under the weight of privacy concerns, we might lose more than we gain. It's a tension worth wrestling with: how do we stay safe without shutting out the light?

Vadodara man charged for extorting people using RTI info

Times of India: Vadodara: Monday, March 31, 2025.

A man allegedly extorting money from people by filing applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act was booked by Akota police. This was the third offence against him in as many days.
Police registered a case of extortion and criminal intimidation against Dahya Rajput, a resident of Karodiya.
According to the police, Rajput was threatening to file police and court cases against a businessman and demanding money from him. Rajput already extorted Rs 5 lakhs from the complainant Ramesh Dabgar, who works for the businessman, said police. Dabgar told the police that Rajput began harassing him again and demanded Rs 40 lakh for not filing cases against the businessman.
Rajput was earlier booked by Chhani and Gorwa police three days ago on charges of extortion and issuing threats. The Chhani police said that Rajput filed several cases in various courts for a piece of land with which he had no connection. He then extorted lakhs of rupees from the landowners and also threatened to harm them if he wasn't paid Rs 75 lakh. "Rajput uses the RTI Act to get information on different lands and then uses it to extort money from the owners," the police said.
A similar complaint was filed against Rajput at Gorwa police station, wherein he took signatures of some landowners on a document and then harassed them by filing cases in various govt offices. Rajput demanded money from the owners, following which they approached the police. He was arrested by the police on Friday.
City police commissioner Narasimha Komar said, "If Rajput extorted money from other people, they should come forward and file a complaint against him. We will take appropriate legal action against him," said Komar.

Asset Declaration Norms for Judges

INSIGHTS IAS: New Delhi: Sunday, March 30, 2025.
Context: Discovery of unaccounted cash at Delhi High Court judge Yashwant Varma’s residence has renewed debate on mandatory disclosure of judges’ assets.

About Asset Declaration Norms for Judges:

• Restatement of Values of Judicial Life (1997)
• Judges must declare all movable and immovable assets (in their name, spouse’s or dependents’) to the Chief Justice.
• It does not mandate public disclosure.
• Supreme Court Resolution (2009)
• Judges’ asset disclosures were made voluntarily available on the Supreme Court’s website.
• No statutory compulsion; updates have ceased since 2018.
• RTI Act Interpretation (2019)
• Supreme Court ruled that judges’ asset details do not constitute personal information, bringing them within the RTI ambit.
• Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010
• Proposed mandatory public declaration of assets by judges.
• Bill lapsed with the dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha; never reintroduced.
• Parliamentary Committee Recommendation (2023)
• Urged the introduction of legislation to ensure mandatory disclosures by SC and HC judges.
• Awaiting legislative action.

About Asset Declaration by Public Officials:

• RTI Act, 2005
• Promotes transparency; citizens can access details of public servants’ assets via RTI applications.
• All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968
• Rule 16(1): Mandatory annual declaration of assets and liabilities to the cadre-controlling authority.
• Political Candidates & MPs/MLAs
• Based on SC ruling (2002), mandatory disclosure at the time of nomination.
• Submitted to Speaker (Lok Sabha) or Chairperson (Rajya Sabha); publicly accessible.
• Union Ministers & Bureaucrats
• Declare assets to PMO or respective state departments.
• Information is often published online (e.g., PMO website, IAS officers list).

India-China Border Dispute: RTI Responses Shroud Territorial Truths : By Aryan Saini

The Probe: New Delhi: Sunday, March 30, 2025.
India-China border dispute: RTI activist Ajay Kumar seeks LAC data, but MEA evasions and MoD secrecy hide territorial truths, betraying citizens’ right to know.

The India-China border dispute remains a persistent scar on India’s sovereignty, a six-decade struggle spanning the stark, windswept plateaus of Aksai Chin and the lush, misty ridges of Arunachal Pradesh along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). The LAC, a sprawling 3,488-kilometer frontier, remains a contested boundary where national honour collides with territorial ambiguity, military might, and diplomatic deadlock.
When Bengaluru-based lawyer and RTI activist Ajay Kumar sought precise, year-wise data on Chinese occupation of Indian territory, he expected transparency from a government tasked with defending the nation’s borders. Instead, he encountered a chilling wall of evasion and secrecy. Responses from the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and Ministry of Defence (MoD) to his Right to Information (RTI) queries one claiming no records exist, the other shrouded in security exemptions reveal a profound betrayal of accountability.
This story unravels the government’s obfuscation, traces the deep historical roots of India’s border struggle from its own perspective, examines the undeniable right of voting, tax-paying citizens to know the truth, and probes the stakes of silence in the ongoing India-China standoff.
Kumar’s pursuit was both straightforward and critical: to map the extent of Chinese control over Indian land across nine pivotal dates, from the 1962 Sino-Indian War to the present. His RTIs, filed with the MEA on February 6, 2025, and the MoD shortly thereafter, aimed to pierce the fog enveloping the LAC a line neither India nor China fully agrees upon, its contours shifting with each clash and negotiation. What he uncovered was not data but a disturbing pattern: the MEA dodged with vague denials, while the MoD retreated behind legal barriers. As China fortifies its presence with roads, villages, and outposts, and India scrambles to counter, these responses raise a haunting question: does the government know or dare to admit how much of India’s territory has been lost to its northern neighbour?
The MEA’s Evasive Retreat: A Ministry Without Answers
Kumar’s first RTI, submitted to the MEA, demanded a granular timeline of Chinese occupation across key moments in the India-China border dispute. He specified nine dates: October 19, 1962 (the eve of the 1962 war), November 21, 1962 (its conclusion), May 4, 2020 (the prelude to the Galwan Valley clash), and annual markers from January 21, 2020, through 2024, culminating with the present day. His request sought the “total amount of Sovereign Indian Territory under military occupation or otherwise by the People’s Republic of China” at each point, aiming to uncover whether India has ceded or reclaimed ground over six decades of tension.
The MEA’s reply, dated February 27, 2025, from Dr. Vikram Krisnamoorthy, Deputy Secretary (China) and Central Public Information Officer, was a textbook case of bureaucratic sidestepping. Lumping all nine questions into a single, cursory response, Krisnamoorthy pointed to two Lok Sabha statements: one from February 4, 2022, asserting that China has illegally occupied approximately 38,000 square kilometers in Ladakh since the 1960s, and another from March 11, 2020, noting China’s claim to roughly 90,000 square kilometers in Arunachal Pradesh. Beyond these static figures, the reply states, “The CPIO is not in possession of any further information on these,” adding that the CPIO is “under obligation to provide an applicant only that information which exists in records.”
Kumar was stunned by the response. “The MEA’s vague response signals a reluctance to disclose detailed, time-specific information about Chinese occupation,” he told The Probe. “If the MEA cannot quantify occupation over time, it suggests a weak grasp of the LAC’s status potentially emboldening China, which has aggressively built infrastructure in disputed areas.”
He pressed further with a barrage of questions: “The problem is that we don’t know where India’s current operational border is with China. There is no border treaty and there is no agreed line. There is the Line of Actual Control, but the LAC only exists in certain places. We don’t know whether the LAC has changed. It’s a very simple question: what has been the extent of Chinese occupation over time? Have we been able to take back territories in some sectors, or have we lost territory? Who holds the information? If not the MEA, does the Ministry of Defence or intelligence agencies have the answers, and why wasn’t the RTI redirected? Are losses being concealed? Is the government hiding post-Galwan encroachments to avoid political backlash?”
The implications of this evasiveness are profound. The MEA’s reliance on outdated parliamentary replies neither of which address developments since 2020 sidesteps Kumar’s demand for a year-by-year accounting of territorial control. If such records are not maintained, it represents a staggering failure for a ministry responsible for India’s diplomatic relations and border negotiations. If the data exists elsewhere, such as with the MoD or intelligence agencies, Section 6(3) of the RTI Act mandates that the query be transferred to the appropriate authority a step the MEA conspicuously ignored. This refusal to provide clarity hints at a troubling possibility: either the government lacks the capacity to track changes along the LAC, or it is deliberately withholding information, perhaps to mask incremental losses that could spark public outrage or weaken its diplomatic stance with China.
The MoD’s Wall of Secrecy: Hiding Behind Exemptions
Undeterred by the MEA’s non-answer, Kumar filed an identical RTI with the Ministry of Defence (MoD), seeking the same year-wise data on Chinese occupation. The response, received in March 2025, took a sharply different approach: invoking Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act which exempts information that could prejudice India’s sovereignty, integrity, or security the MoD refused to disclose any details. Unlike the MEA’s claim of ignorance, the MoD suggested it possesses the requested information but considers it too sensitive for public release, offering no specific justification beyond the boilerplate legal citation.
“I was shocked to receive the response from the Ministry of Defence,” Kumar said. “What I have asked is only the extent of Chinese occupation. I have not asked any operational details. My question is, does a citizen not have the right to know how much of our country has been occupied by an enemy country? I will be going for a first appeal under the RTI Act. How are two arms of the government of India giving me two different pieces of information on the same matter?”
The MoD’s position, while legally permissible, raises serious questions about its application. Section 8(1)(a) requires that exemptions be justified with specificity why, exactly, does disclosing the extent of Chinese occupation threaten national security? Is it tied to ongoing military operations, sensitive intelligence, or delicate diplomatic talks with China? Without such an explanation, the refusal smacks of a convenient shield for concealment. “Without knowing where India’s operational border stands with China, how can citizens hold the government accountable? Have we lost ground since Galwan? Have we regained territory through diplomacy? The silence on India-China border dispute is deafening,” Kumar argued.
The stark contrast between the MEA’s “we don’t know” and the MoD’s “we won’t tell” exposes a troubling disconnect within the government. If the MEA truly lacks detailed records, how can the MoD justify withholding what it presumably holds? This inconsistency suggests either a lack of coordination between two critical ministries or a deliberate strategy to obscure the truth about the LAC’s status. For a nation locked in a protracted territorial standoff with a formidable adversary, such secrecy undermines the RTI Act’s promise of transparency, leaving citizens whose taxes fund the military defending these borders, without the basic facts they deserve.
Historical Fault Lines: A Saga of Lost Ground
The India-China border dispute is a wound etched deep into India’s national consciousness, a six-decade tale of betrayal, loss, and unrelenting resolve shaped by its historical struggle. India’s claim to its northern frontier traces back to the colonial era, forged by treaties and surveys that delineated its boundaries with Tibet, then a buffer state between British India and a fading Qing China. The 1914 Simla Conference gave birth to the McMahon Line, a boundary separating Arunachal Pradesh from Tibet, agreed upon by British and Tibetan representatives in a bilateral accord, though rejected by China, which refused to recognise Tibet’s authority to negotiate.
China, under a faltering republican government in 1914, rejected the McMahon Line as an imperialist imposition, laying the groundwork for decades of discord. When India gained independence in 1947, it inherited this line as its northeastern border, viewing Arunachal Pradesh as an integral part of its sovereign territory a stance later challenged by China’s communist regime. Similarly, Aksai Chin a desolate, high-altitude expanse in Ladakh was claimed as part of Jammu and Kashmir, based on 19th-century surveys like those of W.H. Johnson, which placed it within British India’s domain.
Tensions simmered in the 1950s as China, under Mao Zedong’s communist regime, built a strategic road through Aksai Chin to connect Xinjiang and Tibet. India confirmed this incursion in 1957 through aerial reconnaissance and patrols, igniting diplomatic protests and public outrage. From India’s vantage, it was a flagrant breach of sovereignty; China insisted Aksai Chin had long been its territory a claim India deemed baseless. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, once a fervent advocate of Sino-Indian friendship through the 1954 Panchsheel Agreement, shifted course by the early 1960s, adopting the ‘forward policy’ to establish outposts and assert control. This collided with China’s territorial ambitions, paving the way for the 1962 Sino-Indian War.
On October 20, 1962, China launched a coordinated assault across the LAC, overwhelming India’s thinly stretched defenses in the western sector (Aksai Chin) and the eastern sector (Arunachal Pradesh). By November 20–21, when China declared a unilateral ceasefire, it had secured Aksai Chin approximately 38,000 square kilometers cementing its hold over territory India claimed, leaving the nation reeling from a humiliating defeat. From India’s standpoint, this was a betrayal of trust, a stark violation of the Panchsheel principles of mutual respect and non-aggression that Nehru had championed. The war laid bare India’s military unpreparedness, shattered the dream of peaceful coexistence, and left a scar on the nation’s psyche that endures to this day.
The aftermath deepened India’s sense of loss. In 1963, China signed a border pact with Pakistan, ceding 5,180 square kilometers of the Shaksgam Valley claimed by India as part of Kashmir to Chinese control, further eroding India’s territorial integrity in the years following 1962. Over the decades, intermittent clashes kept the dispute alive. In 1975, a Chinese ambush at Tulung La in Arunachal Pradesh killed four Indian soldiers, serving as a grim reminder of unresolved tensions. A decade later, the 1987 Sumdorong Chu standoff saw India deploy troops to counter Chinese incursions near the McMahon Line, prompting China’s de-escalation after months of brinkmanship an episode India regards as a rare assertion of resolve.
The 1993 Agreement on Maintenance of Peace and Tranquility sought to stabilise the LAC, but its refusal to fix a clear boundary preserved a breeding ground for disputes. India sees China’s moves as calculated expansionism encroaching on contested zones, erecting infrastructure, and exploiting ambiguity to dominate while casting its own stance as a defense of rightful inheritance against a neighbour’s aggression. Decades later, the 2020 Galwan Valley clash, where 20 Indian soldiers fell in brutal hand-to-hand combat, rekindled this historical grievance.
From India’s view, it violated the spirit of bilateral pacts, like the 1996 accord banning firearms at the LAC, laying bare China’s disregard for trust. The dispute endures as a battle to reclaim lost honour and territory, a struggle against a neighbour wielding stealth and force to reshape borders. Yet, the government’s refusal to release clear, current data evident in responses to activist Ajay Kumar’s RTIs leaves this story unfinished: how much more has India lost since 1962, and why is this truth concealed?
The Right to Know: Voting, Tax-Paying Citizens Deserve Clarity
At the heart of Kumar’s RTIs lies a fundamental democratic principle: the right of voting, tax-paying citizens to know the truth about their nation’s sovereignty. India’s democracy thrives on its people citizens who cast ballots to shape national policy and pay taxes to fund the military that guards the LAC. The RTI Act of 2005 was a landmark in this covenant, empowering every Indian to demand accountability from a government often cloaked in bureaucratic opacity. Kumar’s queries how much territory has China occupied, and when? strike at the core of this right.
Sovereignty is not an abstract concept; it is the land the citizens live on, defend, and sustain through their contributions. A voting citizen’s ballot influences decisions on war, peace, and border security; a taxpayer’s money equips the soldiers patrolling Ladakh’s frozen heights or Arunachal’s rugged terrain. Yet, the MEA’s claim of “no further information” and the MoD’s security exemption deny them the facts needed to judge their government’s stewardship.
“Without updated data, lawmakers and citizens cannot assess whether diplomatic or military efforts have reclaimed territory or ceded more ground, hampering informed policy debates,” Kumar noted. This is not about sensitive operational details troop movements or weapon placements but the basic reality of territorial control, a truth every citizen has a stake in understanding.
India’s Constitution enshrines equality, justice, and the right to information bolstered by the RTI Act as pillars of governance, principles that ring hollow when the state withholds vital truths. The late October 2024 disengagement in Depsang and Demchok, announced before the BRICS Summit and hailed by Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar in early 2025 as a step toward de-escalation, loses its weight without data on what India lost or regained. China’s relentless buildup roads, villages like those near Pangong Tso, and outposts along the LAC casts a shadow over India’s countermeasures, such as the Vibrant Villages Program to strengthen border hamlets. Yet, without clear metrics, citizens remain powerless to judge their effectiveness or hold leaders accountable for triumphs or setbacks.
This opacity carries high stakes. India’s role in global alliances, such as the Quad with the U.S., Japan, and Australia, hinges on its ability to counter China a role undermined if its border status remains a mystery. Domestically, the government’s silence risks political fallout, especially with state elections or future national polls on the horizon, as citizens question whether territorial losses are being concealed to deflect criticism. Kumar’s frustration is visceral: “The problem is that we don’t know where India’s current operational border is with China.” For a voting, tax-paying citizen, this uncertainty is intolerable knowledge of their nation’s boundaries is not a privilege to be doled out by officials but a right inherent to their citizenship.
The RTI Act was designed to bridge this gap, ensuring that national security does not become a blanket excuse for secrecy. Yet, the government’s responses tip the scales toward concealment, eroding trust. Citizens who fund and elect their leaders deserve to know if the LAC has shrunk, if Galwan’s scars linger in lost ground, or if diplomacy has clawed back what war stole. Without this, democracy falters, and the India-China border dispute becomes not just a military challenge but a test of governance itself a test India’s leaders are failing by keeping their people in the dark.
A Frontier Shrouded in Secrecy
The India-China border dispute is a saga of historical betrayals, modern clashes, and a government unwilling to face its citizens with the truth. Kumar’s RTIs sought a simple, vital answer: how much of India has China taken, and when? The MEA’s evasiveness and the MoD’s secrecy don’t merely dodge the question they betray the trust of voting, tax-paying Indians who sustain this nation. As China fortifies its grip with infrastructure and India counters in shadows, the LAC’s shifts remain hidden, a frontier lost not just to an adversary but to a government’s refusal to disclose. In the India-China standoff, transparency is the first casualty, and the Indian people whose votes and taxes uphold the state are the last to know.

Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act

INSIGHTS IAS: New Delhi: Sunday, March 30, 2025.
Context: Activists and Opposition leaders have raised alarm over Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, citing threats to transparency under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

About Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act:
What is Section 44(3)?

• This clause amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to restrict disclosure of personal information, removing earlier safeguards like public interest tests and legislative access exceptions.

Features of the Clause:
Replaces the original wording with a broader exemption:

• “(j) information which relates to personal information.”

Removes clauses that:

• Balanced privacy with public interest,
• Allowed disclosure if information was relevant to public activity,
• Mandated non-denial of info to citizens if not denied to Parliament.

Why It’s Controversial?

• It expands the scope of denial under RTI.

About Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005:
What is Section 8?

• Lists exemptions where public authorities can refuse disclosure of certain information.

Key Exemptions under Section 8(1):

1. National security and sovereignty (Clause a)
2. Judicial restrictions or contempt of court (Clause b)
3. Parliamentary privilege (Clause c)
4. Commercial confidence or IP (Clause d)
5. Fiduciary relationships (Clause e)
6. Foreign government communications (Clause f)
7. Threat to life or safety of informants (Clause g)
8. Ongoing investigations (Clause h)
9. Cabinet deliberations (Clause i)
10. Personal information with public interest override (Clause j)

Impact of DPDP’s Section 44(3) on RTI Act’s Section 8(1)(j):

• Dilutes transparency by eliminating the public interest balancing clause.
• Hampers access to key data on public officials’ assets, salaries, and misconduct cases.
• Overrides judicial precedents that interpreted Section 8(1)(j) in favour of public disclosure.
• May lead to blanket denials of legitimate information requests, weakening democratic accountability.

Delhi Hospitals Reeling Under Severe Doctor Shortage? Check Out Govt's RTI Response

Medical Dialogues: New Delhi: Saturday, March 29, 2025.
The healthcare system in the national capital is grappling with a severe shortage of specialist doctors. Nearly 17% of medical officer posts, 38% of non-teaching specialist posts, and 22% of teaching specialist positions remain vacant at government hospitals in Delhi, as per recent data obtained through a Right to Information (RTI) query.

The RTI application filed by Dr Aman Kaushik has exposed shocking data, highlighting a growing crisis in the public healthcare sector in the capital. With patient footfall significantly higher than in other states, the shortage of staff is forcing doctors to work longer hours to make up for the gap, leading to mental and physical exhaustion. It is also severely affecting both patient care and medical education standards.
In his RTI query, Dr Kaushik sought detailed information regarding the staffing situation in various medical cadres. He requested data on the total number of sanctioned posts and the current vacancies in the Medical Officer, Non-Teaching Specialist, and Teaching Specialist cadres.
According to the RTI response, 234 out of 1,364 sanctioned posts in the medical officer cadre across Delhi government hospitals are unfilled, 281 out of 729 approved positions in the non-teaching specialist cadre remain unoccupied, and 132 out of 583 sanctioned teaching specialist posts are lying vacant.
'However 232 dossier of GDMOs and 109 dossier of NTS has been received from UPSC, and their posting is under process,' the response added.
Speaking to Medical Dialogues, Dr Aman Kaushik said, "These vacancies are indirectly impacting medical education and healthcare system in Delhi hospitals. I would request the Delhi Health Department to fill up these posts and solve this issue."
"Due to the lack of adequate specialist doctors, government hospitals are forced to increasingly depend on senior resident doctors to fill the gap," he pointed out.
Further, commenting on the matter, Dr. Rohan Krishnan, Chief Patron of the Federation of Indian Medical Associations (FAIMA) told Medical Dialogues, "The shortage of doctors is affecting both doctors and patients because they rely on each other. With fewer doctors in government hospitals, the quality of care patients receive is impacted.
Patients often complain about not getting proper treatment or not finding enough doctors, which sometimes leads to violence against doctors. The main reason for this rising violence is the lack of doctors."
Sharing his own experience, he said, "I remember during my graduation, I was told that even though we had resources for 100 people, we had to treat 10,000 patients. This shows how overburdened doctors are, which takes a toll on their mental health. They struggle to care for themselves and their families. At the same time, patients expect proper treatment, even though many doctor positions remain vacant at government hospitals."
Medical Dialogues team had reported that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare raised serious concerns over the acute staff shortage at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Delhi, and several other top hospitals in the national capital. The report revealed that AIIMS Delhi, one of India’s premier medical institutions, is operating with significant faculty and non-faculty vacancies, leading to increased workload and long waiting periods for patients.
Apart from AIIMS, the committee’s findings also indicated that several other government hospitals in Delhi are struggling with staff shortages. The gaps in staffing have led to longer waiting times, reduced patient care quality, and increased workload on available healthcare professionals.