Bailable warrants against BDPO in pending RTI case

Times of India: Chandigarh: Tuesday, June 23, 2026.
The Punjab State Information Commission (PSIC) has issued bailable warrants against the block development and panchayat officer (BDPO) of Jalalabad block in Fazilka district for repeatedly failing to appear before it or comply with directions in an RTI case pending since 2023.

State Information Commissioner Harpreet Sandhu ordered the action after the officer failed to furnish information sought through an RTI application filed on Sept 6, 2023, despite repeated opportunities and a show-cause notice.
The Commission noted that the public information officer (PIO) neither submitted a reply nor appeared before it, causing unnecessary delay in the adjudication of the matter.
Sandhu observed that the officer's conduct reflected "gross negligence, lack of diligence and disregard" for the Commission's proceedings and had impeded its effective functioning.
Invoking powers under Section 18(3)(a) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Commission ordered the issuance of bailable warrants to secure the officer's presence.
The senior superintendent of police, Fazilka, has been directed to ensure service of the warrants and produce the officer, along with the requisite information related to the RTI application, before the Commission on Aug 28.
Reiterating the responsibilities of public information officers under the RTI Act, the Commission cautioned that deliberate disregard of statutory obligations could invite appropriate action under the law.

Maharashtra RTI plea purpose disclosure clause rolled back in 1 week

Times of India: Mumbai: Tuesday, June 23, 2026.

A week after introducing it, the Maharashtra govt has withdrawn a controversial provision in its newly notified Right to Information (RTI) Rules that required citizens to state the purpose of seeking information.
A notification issued by the general administration department on June 19 stated that govt had amended RTI Rules, 2026, notified on June 12, and replaced the application format prescribed. The revised format removes the requirement that applicants disclose the purpose for which information is being sought.
The rollback came amid criticism from transparency activists, civil society groups and legal experts, who argued that the provision was inconsistent with the spirit of RTI Act, 2005. Section 6(2) of the Act states that an applicant “shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information”.
RTI activist Anil Galgali called for an inquiry by the state’s principal secretary into the circumstances under which the provision was introduced and subsequently withdrawn. “If making disclosure of purpose mandatory was legally justified, why was it withdrawn within a week? And if it was legally untenable, why was it incorporated in the original notification at all?” he said.
Many other contentious provisions, however, remain unchanged. Applicants still need to provide proof of identity, limit the “subject matter of information” section to 150 words, and submit a fee of Rs 50 and Rs 100 for first and second appeals, respectively, up from Rs 20. There are also restrictions on legal representation.
Transparency campaigners argued that these provisions may create additional procedural hurdles for citizens seeking information from public authorities. They urged govt to undertake a broader review of the rules to ensure they remain aligned with RTI Act’s objective of promoting transparency and accountability in governance.

RTI: Supreme Court sends a strong message - By Ranjit Kumar Sinha

Daily Pioneer: Delhi: Tuesday, June 23, 2026.
The Supreme Court recently refused to grant anticipatory bail to an RTI (Right to Information) activist and his associate from Punjab. The accused were facing charges for allegedly obstructing a public servant and interfering with a Government road construction project.

The Apex Court dismissed the activist’s pre-arrest bail plea. It upheld the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had also denied them pre-arrest protection.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court made strong oral observations regarding the growing misuse of self-styled activism to disrupt public infrastructure development.
Some of the Key Oral Observations by the Supreme Court reported in the media were that “RTI activism has become a new business. The Central Government has issued funds, and it will take care of the construction of the road. You are nobody.”
Labelling the unnecessary interference as highly improper, the Bench added, “So-called RTI activist! Yellow journalism.”
“Who are you to monitor the construction of all these roads? Are you some superior authority or what?” This was another remark by the judges, who questioned the standing of the petitioners to block developmental projects.
The bench indicated that public infrastructure projects are subject to monitoring and evaluation by designated, competent Government authorities and engineers, rather than private individuals.
The case stems from an FIR registered in Batala (Gurdaspur district, Punjab). The prosecution alleged that the activist and his associate not only obstructed the Rs 57-crore central Government-funded Road project but also physically assaulted the project supervisor, caused injuries, and used caste-based slurs against the labourers at the site.
The dismissal of the Special Leave Petition on June 15, 2026, by the Supreme Court has given a clear message and warning to the public, administrative bodies, and self-styled advocates that “RTI Activism Cannot Be a Profession or Business.” It rejected “Sensationalism” as Advocacy.
The Apex Court is warning that transparency tools must not be weaponised for personal gain, coercion, or financial arm-twisting under the guise of public interest.
By explicitly using the term “yellow journalism,” the bench is signalling its disapproval of activists who use loud, threatening, or sensational tactics simply to create administrative hurdles rather than seeking genuine legal remedies.
The Top Court is making it clear that specialised technical work, like road construction, is the domain of qualified professionals. Private individuals do not have the expertise or the legal standing to judge engineering quality on the spot.
The remark, “The Central Government has issued funds; it will take care of the construction,” emphasises that the State has its own auditing and monitoring mechanisms. Citizen oversight cannot replace or hijack State execution.
Further, the Supreme Court is giving a message that RTI Activists Are Not Parallel Authorities. The apex court is firmly establishing that holding an RTI card or calling oneself an activist does not grant anyone special policing powers or legal immunity.
It is signalling that individual grievances or suspicion of corruption cannot be used as a tool to physically halt massive public welfare and infrastructure projects that benefit the larger community.
Also, the Label of “Activist” is No Shield Against Criminal Liability. The Court’s refusal of anticipatory bail in a case involving physical assault and caste-based slurs sends a powerful message-noble titles or anti-corruption claims cannot justify violence, intimidation, or breaking the law.
The Top Court is making it clear that if an activist uncovers corruption through an RTI, the correct recourse is to approach court forums or anti-corruption wings legally, not to storm a project site, assault supervisors, or disrupt on-ground work.
However, this strict action against bad actors raises a vital question: how do we protect the genuine RTI movement that has exposed massive public scams in the past?
Critics believe that isolating wrongdoers should not mean defeating a powerful democratic tool that fuels successful Public Interest Litigations (PILs).
The key lies in shifting the focus from street-level confrontations to proper legal channels. Legitimate activists must use RTI data to approach the courts, the Lokayukta, or anti-corruption wings from their desks, rather than trying to act as parallel police forces on the ground.
At the same time, the Government can easily end the extortion business by proactively publishing all project details online. When daily expenses, raw material checks, and progress reports are completely transparent by default, self-styled activists lose all their power to threaten or blackmail contractors.
Ultimately, the law must learn to separate honest, civic-minded citizens from professional troublemakers. By keeping this clear distinction alive, India can safely protect the safety of real whistleblowers while ensuring that no one uses the badge of an “activist” to break the law.
To make their efforts successful, genuine activists must focus heavily on deep research. Before presenting a case to the executive, the legislature, or the judiciary, a whistleblower should collect solid, undeniable facts. Complete and well-researched paperwork leaves no room for bias and forces authorities to take real action.
At the same time, the media must not lose confidence in the power of RTI activism. While the courts are rightly punishing extortionists, mainstream media houses must continue to back honest whistleblowers. Investigative journalism thrives on RTI disclosures, and the press must remain a strong platform for exposing genuine public wrongs.
There is also an urgent need for citizens to file high-quality Public Interest Litigations (PILs) based on solid RTI data. Historically, clean and well-documented PILs have won massive praise from the judiciary. When a petitioner enters the courtroom with pure intentions and airtight evidence, it naturally evokes positive observations from judges and strengthens public faith.
Crucially, the central and State Governments must ensure that no steps are taken to dilute the RTI Act under the pretext of curbing misuse. Protecting public infrastructure is important, but tightening administrative rules too much might block honest citizens from seeking the truth. The law must remain sharp, accessible, and uncompromised.
Furthermore, there is a strong need to digitize and speed up the RTI appeal process. When information commissions clear pending cases quickly, it prevents long delays that frustrate genuine applicants. Fast-tracking official appeals keeps the process smooth and discourages people from taking arguments directly to the streets.

Andhra Pradesh Information Commission bars RTI activist for ‘misuse’, orders record seizure

The Hindu: Andhra Pradesh: Tuesday, June 23, 2026.
The Commission dismissed 39 appeals by advocate Perumal Jayachandra Reddy, citing misuse, vexatious litigation and allegations that he took money from information seekers

Image for representational purposes only. | Photo Credit: Getty/istock

In a sweeping order, the Andhra Pradesh Information Commission (APIC) has prohibited Tirupati-based RTI activist and advocate Perumal Jayachandra Reddy from filing applications, appeals and complaints under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, citing repeated misuse of the transparency law, vexatious litigation and serious allegations of financial exploitation of information seekers.
Delivering a 20-page common order on Friday (June 19, 2026), Chief Information Commissioner Vajja Srinivasa Rao dismissed 39 second appeals and complaints filed by Mr. Jayachandra Reddy, who represented the Legal Aid Welfare Society (LAWS), holding that the RTI Act confers the right to seek information only on individual citizens and not on legal entities such as societies or associations.
The Commission also directed the District Collector of Tirupati to immediately seize records allegedly maintained by Mr. Jayachandra Reddy relating to complainants V. Lalitha Devi, B. Chandraiah and other members of the public, citing larger public interest.
The order further said all pending RTI applications, first appeals and second appeals filed by Mr. Jayachandra Reddy would stand closed, and directed the Commission’s registry to circulate the order to all government departments, district collectors, superintendents of police, public information officers and appellate authorities across Andhra Pradesh.
The Commission said Mr. Jayachandra Reddy had filed RTI applications under the banner of the Legal Aid Welfare Society, represented by its president and advocate, making the applications legally untenable. Referring to Section 3 of the RTI Act, the Commission said only a “citizen” can seek information, while a society or any other juristic person cannot claim that status.
The order cited several judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts and the Central Information Commission, to show the distinction between a legal person and a citizen.
The Commission further said the appellant had repeatedly invoked the “life and liberty” provision under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act to seek information within 48 hours without demonstrating any imminent threat to life or personal liberty.
According to the order, public authorities complained that Mr. Jayachandra Reddy had filed numerous RTI applications seeking extensive records, often concerning personal grievances rather than matters of larger public interest. Officials also alleged that he repeatedly submitted similar applications, appeals and complaints despite having already received responses.
The Commission described several applications as speculative, repetitive and aimed at pressuring public authorities. It also took exception to language in some appeals warning officials of penalties and disciplinary action for non-compliance, terming such statements as intimidating.
The order referred to two complaints received against Mr. Jayachandra Reddy. In one case, a woman alleged that he collected ₹1 crore for obtaining property-related records through RTI but failed to provide the documents or return the money. In another complaint, a man alleged that Mr. Jayachandra Reddy collected ₹20,000 to file an RTI application but did not submit it.
Calling these allegations serious, the Commission said the RTI Act could not be allowed to become a tool for harassment, private litigation or financial gain. It held that repetitive applications could constitute valid grounds for refusal and cautioned public authorities against being burdened with frivolous and voluminous requests.
“Entertaining such appeals could no longer serve the objectives of the RTI Act,” the Commission said while dismissing all 39 cases.

Anna Hazare to launch fast if amendments to Right to Information Rules not revoked

The Print: Pune: Tuesday, June 23, 2026.
Activist Anna Hazare has threatened to launch an indefinite hunger strike from July 5 at Ralegan Siddhi village in Ahilyanagar district if the Maharashtra government does not immediately withdraw the “illegal” amendments made to the Right to Information Rules.
In a letter to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, Hazare said the Maharashtra Right to Information Rules, 2026, would “blunt the edge” of the RTI Act and keep citizens away from information. He claimed the amendments made on June 12 violate the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005, and undermine transparency.

Hazare objected to the hike in fees, saying no rational explanation or financial analysis was provided.
“RTI is not a revenue-generating law. If fees are raised after 20 years, penalties on officers who deny information should also be increased,” he wrote.
He opposed making ID proof mandatory, arguing that Section 6(2) of the RTI Act does not require applicants to disclose personal details or reasons for seeking information. Such a condition endangers whistleblowers and activists, he added.
The anti-corruption activist also criticised the “one subject, one application” rule, calling it unnecessary and burdensome, and said the provision to summarily close repeat applications would block access to complete or updated information.
Other objections included asking applicants for the purpose of seeking information, dismissal of appeals if the applicant remains absent, automatic closure of cases on an applicant’s death, and barring legal assistance during hearings before the Information Commission.
Hazare said the rules shift the burden onto citizens instead of fixing systemic failures. He noted that Section 4 of the RTI Act, which mandates proactive disclosure by public authorities, remains poorly implemented, forcing citizens to file applications.
“Making the process more technical, costly and administration-centric will reduce transparency,” he said, adding that the amendments were brought without public consultation.
Hazare, who led several agitations for RTI in Maharashtra since 1998 and undertook fasts in Mumbai, Ralegan Siddhi and Alandi, said he would not back down.
“If the June 12 amendments are not revoked immediately, I will begin my fast on July 5 at Yadav Baba Temple, Ralegan Siddhi, even if it costs my life,” the letter stated.
He urged the state to withdraw the rules and strengthen proactive disclosure instead of imposing new restrictions on applicants. PTI
(This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.)

SC: Collegium's selection process is not open to judicial scrutiny, RTI

Times of India: New Delhi: Tuesday, June 23, 2026.

Supreme Court on Monday emphatically said the selection of judges of Constitutional courts by the high court and Supreme Court collegiums is beyond the pale of judicial scrutiny and does not come under the ambit of Right to Information (RTI) Act.
A partial working day bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Joymalya Bagchi declined to entertain a writ petition by senior Himachal judicial officer Arvind Malhotra, who alleged the HC collegium failed to comply with an SC order mandating consideration of his candidature for elevation to HC.
"We do not want to open a Pandora's box. We will not interfere in the collegium decisions," the bench said, indicating hundreds of candidates are called for interaction prior to selecting a few and recommending their names.

Arvind Malhotra's counsel Balbir Singh said SC, in its Sept 6, 2024 judgment, had disapproved Himachal HC CJ's unilateral decision to ignore candidature of two senior judicial officers, including Malhotra, and had said selection has to be done collectively by the collegium and not individually by the CJI. Singh said the collegium did not consider Malhotra's candidature and responses.
The bench said the collegium's decision is based on its subjective satisfaction and neither HC nor SC can fault it by taking up petitions and issuing directions (on recommending one candidate or the other). "The issue of selection of candidates for appointment of judges to constitutional courts is neither amenable to judicial scrutiny nor comes under the ambit of RTI Act.
When Malhotra complained judicial officers who were junior to him had been recommended for elevation, the bench said, "It is a question of suitability as assessed by the collegium. Recommending a junior officer does not give a cause of action to a person to challenge the recommendations through a writ petition. Merely because of seniority, one is not entitled to elevation."
On June 2, the SC collegium, after considering the HP HC collegium recommendations and interacting with recommended persons, had approved appointment of three judicial officers - Chirag Bhanu Singh, Bhupesh Sharma and Yogesh Jaswal - as judges of HC.
Justices Nagarathna and Bagchi said the best it can do is give liberty to Malhotra to represent to HC to expeditiously complete the pending inquiry process. It also had a word of advice for Malhotra: "You are young and should wait."
The bench said the HC collegium recommendation has been approved by the SC collegium after considering all material provided by HC and govt, which leaves no scope for interference in it by SC on the judicial side. "Once the SC collegium approves it, we cannot enter into a debate on its correctness on the judicial side," the bench said.
In its order, the bench disposed of the petition after giving liberty to Malhotra "to seek remedies".

New Report Finds Glaring Discrepancies in CIC's RTI Statistics, Raises Questions on ‘100% Compliance’ : Elisha Vermani

The Wire: New Delhi: Tuesday, June 23, 2026.
'Does the CIC even read the data tables before they are published and tabled in Parliament is a fundamental question that they must answer,” the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative's report said.

A new report on the implementation trends of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, released by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) in June, has found glaring inconsistencies in the Central Information Commission’s annual report for 2024-25. 
In its latest report the CIC had claimed 100% compliance in the submission of RTI statistics by the public authorities under its jurisdiction. However, CHRI found that 611 public authorities were missing from the CIC’s annual report for 2024-25. In the previous year, the number of authorities missing in the CIC report was 615. The commission has claimed 100% compliance in both reports.
CHRI’s report also highlighted that the Union Territory (UT) of Ladakh has been missing from the CIC’s reports since the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019. “Having promoted the use of RTI in the undivided J&K, we are aware of the existence of a vibrant group of RTI activists in Ladakh. Unfortunately, data about their interventions does not merit a mention in the CIC’s annual reports,” the report said.
“The CIC's annual report for 2024-25 ought to have rung alarm bells within the Union Government. While the number of RTIs has increased, disposal rates have come down,” Venkatesh Nayak, Director at the CHRI’s India office, told The Wire.
Receipt and disposal of RTI applications
According to the CHRI report, five ministries Corporate Affairs, Finance, Railways, Education and Defence accounting for about 25% of the 2,303 public authorities, received more than half the total number of RTI applications filed in 2024-25. 
In a first, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, with 65 public authorities under it, received 2.54 lakhs RTI applications, overtaking the Ministry of Finance, which has over 200 public authorities. “The reasons for change in the trend are worth probing because the Corporate Affairs Ministry is a regulatory ministry with limited public dealing. The Finance Ministry’s RTI data comprises of data reported by banks, insurance companies and debt recovery tribunals amongst others, which deal with the public directly,” the report said.
“What was labelled as a law for empowering citizens belonging to the marginalised and  disadvantaged segments of society, has been used more frequently in the Corporate Affairs Ministry which has very limited dealing with them,” Nayak pointed out.
The number of RTI applications filed in 2024-25 increased by 2.52% over the previous year. However, compared with 2020-21 the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic the volume of RTI applications has grown by 34%, the report said.
Backlog
The backlog of RTI applications pending from the previous year across the 2,303 reporting public authorities increased by 3.03% in 2024-25, the report said. 
The Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs remained the only one to maintain a zero backlog. Of the remaining 54 ministries and standalone departments, only 13 reported a reduction in pending RTI applications. 
The most significant improvement was recorded by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, where the backlog fell sharply from 12,413 RTI applications in 2023-24 to 1,619 in 2024-25.
On the contrary, four ministries reported a significant increase in backlog figures, namely. These are the ministries of Education (7,282), Defence (4,516), Housing and Urban Affairs (3,919) and Labour and Employment (3,006).
The Air Force (2,999), Prime Minister’s Office (282), Election Commission of India (168), the Central Information Commission (101) and the NITI Aayog (71) also reported a significant increase in backlog figures in 2024-25 as compared to the previous year, the report said.
Increase in applications but reduction in fee collection
The CHRI report also points to a puzzling trend. While the number of RTI applications increased by 2.52% year-on-year, the fee collection including application and additional fee decreased by 6.15% and 4.21% respectively.
The Corporate Affairs ministry, despite reporting a 13.07% increase in the number of RTI applications received in 2024-25, reported a 31.36% fall fee collection (application and additional fees included), the report said. Similarly, the Ministry of Panchayati Raj received 7,143 RTI applications in 2024-25 but reported collecting only Rs 100 in application fee. In the preceding year, this ministry reported collecting Rs 210 as application fee against 6,738 RTI applications, the report said.
“As non-BPL applicants are required to pay an application fee of Rs 10/- the quantum of application fee collected would imply the submission of 5.20 lakh unique RTI applications in 2024-25 for which application fee was paid. Does this mean that the remaining 12.75 RTI applications were submitted by applicants belonging to the Below Poverty Line category?” the report asked.
“Given the fact that the heaviest workload of RTI applications is reported from ministries like Corporate Affairs, Finance and Defence amongst the top-5, whose public authorities do not have direct dealing with BPL families, the anomalies with regard to the RTI fees statistics might be blamed on poor accounting and reporting by the public authorities,” it added.
Penalties and rejection
Another inconsistency highlighted in the CHRI report relates to penalties imposed on officials for violating the RTI Act. While the CIC's annual report states that penalties amounting to Rs 1.56 lakh were imposed in 2024-25 and that nearly Rs 1 lakh was recovered from Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs), the detailed statistical tables in the same report record only Rs 453 as the total penalty amount collected across 2,303 public authorities. 
The report also points to several “bewildering entries”, including penalties of Rs 1, Rs 2, Rs 4, Rs 17 and Rs 79 reported by various ministries and departments. “These figures are much lower than the minimum penalty of Rs 250 that can be imposed under the RTI Act. Does the CIC even read the data tables put together before they are published and tabled in Parliament is a fundamental question that they must answer,” the report asked.
A similar inconsistency is present in the rejection data provided by the CIC. “According to the CIC, 3% of the RTI applications i.e., 58,501 requests were rejected by 2,303 public authorities across the Union Government including the UTs which reported their RTI data in 2024-25. However, at the end of the data table in Annexure 1 of the CIC’s annual report the total of the exemption clause-wise rejections is shown as 57,985 cases,” the report said.
Among the ministries which reported the highest number of rejections, the finance ministry (36.74%) took the lead, followed by the Union home ministry (12.71%) and defence ministry (8.51%). This, despite the home ministry not appearing in the list of ministries receiving the bulk of applications. “Just these three Ministries had contributed to more than half (almost 58%) of the total number of rejections,” the report highlighted.
The ministries of Cooperation Panchayati Raj, Tribal Affairs, Minority Affairs, Parliamentary Affairs and Development of the Northeastern Region reported NIL rejections, it added.
Surprisingly, the ECI too reported zero rejections for the corresponding years, despite instances pointed out in the report where the election body had refused to provide information. 
“The Election Commission of India (ECI) reported zero rejections for the years 2024-25 and 2023-24. However, this author was denied access to information under Section 7(9) in at least two cases by the CPIOs of the ECI during this period. This does not count as rejection for the ECI,” the report said.
‘High-level of dissatisfaction with RTI responses’
The number of first appellate appeals (FAA) were 2.5 times the number of RTI appeals rejected by the government. The ministries of Finance, Education, Railways, Defence and Home Affairs accounted for more than one half (51.85%) of the total number of first appeals filed across the Union Government (UTs included, the report said.
The poorest first-appeal disposal rates were reported by the Supreme Court of India (0.67%), the Election Commission of India (1.88%), the Comptroller and Auditor General (2.75%) and the Prime Minister's Office (6.15%). In contrast, the President's Secretariat disposed of over 90% of the 850 appeals it received, while the Central Information Commission resolved 593 of the 616 first appeals filed before it, with a disposal rate of over 96%, the report said.
“Despite all these trends, the CIC has not indicated what it plans to do to probe these matters and improve implementation of the law. The commission has to become an impartial auditor instead of remaining a mere accountant of the performance of public authorities. Further, the CIC must take resolute action to prevent the myriad errors in the data reporting which our study has pointed at,” Nayak said.
(This article went live on June twenty-second, two thousand twenty six, at forty-seven minutes past four in the afternoon.)

From penalty of Re. 1 to zero rejections that aren't zero: What CIC's RTI data really shows

Counterview: National: Saturday, 20 June 2026.

The Annual Report of the Central Information Commission (CIC) for the year 2024-25 was released in mid-February this year. Some trends with regard to the disposal of RTI applications, particularly rejections, were reported by some segments of the media. But there is much more in these statistical reports that deserves our attention with regard to the manner of implementation of The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) across the Union Government. 
Now, on the occasion of the RTI Act entering the 22nd year of its implementation, we have attempted a deep dive into the statistics published in the annual report to spot trends of improvement and deterioration across the Union Government and the Union Territories. You will recall that the RTI Act came into effect with its publication in the Official Gazette on 21 June 2005. The application and appeal-related provisions became operational later in October that year.
We have published detailed analyses of the CIC's annual reports from time to time. In the current study we have examined the RTI statistics reported by 53 ministries and the two independent departments of Atomic Energy and Space (total = 55). We have also separately studied the data of a dozen (12) key public authorities, namely the President's Secretariat, Prime Minister's Office, Supreme Court of India, Comptroller and Auditor General's Office, Election Commission of India, Cabinet Secretariat, the three defence forces Army, Navy and Air Force Delhi Police, NITI Aayog and the CIC itself. Please refer to the accompanying MS Excel spreadsheet for the data table we have compiled based on the CIC's annual reports for 2024-25 and 2023-24.
The findings from our study of the CIC's latest annual report (2024-25) in comparison with that of the immediately preceding year (2023-24) are presented under the following segments:

1. Compliance with regard to the obligation of reporting RTI statistics
2. Trends with regard to the receipt and disposal of RTI applications
3. Trends with regard to the backlog of RTI applications
4. Trends with regard to the transfer of RTI applications
5. Trends with regard to fees and penalties collected
6. Trends with regard to RTI applications replied to
7. Trends with regard to the workload of Public Information Officers
8. Trends with regard to the rejection of RTI applications
9. Trends with regard to the receipt and disposal of first appeals
10. Trends with regard to the workload of First Appellate Authorities

Our comparative analysis of the implementation trends is presented below. The major findings are summarised in the attached report, followed by detailed findings from page 6 onwards. To the best of our knowledge, no media report has attempted such a comparison yet.
Major Findings

• According to the RTI Online Portal, there are 2,914 public authorities registered on it to receive RTI applications and first appeals in digital mode. But the CIC has claimed that the submission of RTI-related statistics in 2024-25 by 2,303 public authorities amounts to 100% compliance. Surely, more than 600 public authorities could not have been added to the RTI Portal since the publication of the latest annual report. So, the CIC's claim of 100% reporting compliance is open to doubt.
• The RTI statistics of the Union Territory (UT) Administration of Ladakh have never been reported since the bifurcation of the erstwhile J&K in 2019. Having promoted the use of RTI in undivided J&K, we are aware of the existence of a vibrant group of RTI activists in Ladakh. Unfortunately, data about their interventions does not merit a mention in the CIC's annual reports.
• There is a growth of 2.52% in the volume of applications submitted in 2024-25. If the RTI statistics of the UTs are excluded, the growth in volume becomes 1.26%. However, if 2020-21, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, is reckoned as the base year, the growth in volume is 34%.
• The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (2.54 lakhs) with 65 reporting public authorities has, for the first time, overtaken the Ministry of Finance (2.20 lakhs) with more than 200 reporting public authorities in terms of the highest number of RTI applications received.
• The top five ministries Corporate Affairs, Finance, Railways, Education and Defence covering only a quarter (25.05%) of the 2,303 reporting public authorities, accounted for more than half (51.52%) of the total number of RTI applications received in 2024-25. The top ten ministries (33.04% of the reporting public authorities), each reporting receipt of more than 50,000 RTIs, account for more than two thirds of the RTI applications received in 2024-25.
• The backlog of RTI applications pending from the previous year across the 2,303 reporting public authorities increased by 3.03% in 2024-25. The Corporate Affairs Ministry had reported a backlog of 12,413 RTIs in 2023-24 but in 2024-25 it was only 1,619, indicating serious efforts to drastically reduce the backlog.
• The Indian Air Force (2,999), PMO (282), Election Commission of India (168), the Central Information Commission (101) and NITI Aayog (71) reported significant increases in backlog figures in 2024-25 as compared to the previous year.
• The UTs of Delhi and J&K reported a considerable increase in the number of RTIs received in 2024-25 in comparison with the previous year's figures.
• There is an almost 18% increase in the volume of RTI applications transferred between public authorities in 2024-25 (2,80,353) as compared with the figures reported in 2023-24 (2,37,671). The Cabinet Secretariat (51.66%) transferred one out of every two RTIs it received in 2024-25. The proportion of transfers was the lowest in the Corporate Affairs Ministry (2.21%).
• While there is a rise of 2.52% in the volume of RTI applications in 2024-25 over the previous year, the quantum of application fee collected decreased by 6.15% and the amount of additional fees collected is down by 4.21%. Despite reporting a 13.07% increase in the number of RTI applications received in 2024-25, the Corporate Affairs Ministry's fee collection (application and additional fees included) fell by 31.36% in comparison with the previous year's figures.
• In the narrative portion of its annual report, the CIC states that the total amount of penalties imposed in 2024-25 was Rs. 1,56,750, out of which Rs. 99,815 was paid by the errant CPIOs. However, in the last column of the detailed data table where the RTI statistics submitted by all 2,303 public authorities are totalled, only Rs. 453 is mentioned as the amount of penalty collected by them (see page 184). Even more bewildering are the penalty amounts claimed by the following ministries: Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension: Rs. 79 (Department of Personnel and Training); Coal: Rs. 17 (Southeastern Coal Fields Ltd.); External Affairs: Rs. 2 (Embassy of India in Argentina and Passport Seva Division: Re. 1 each); and Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME DI, Mumbai: Re. 1). The UT of Delhi collected a penalty of Rs. 4 (Directorate of Ayush: Rs. 2; Delhi Consumers Cooperative Wholesale Store Ltd. and Rajya Sainik Board: Re. 1 each). These figures are much lower than the minimum penalty of Rs. 250 that can be imposed under the RTI Act.
• At 13.81 lakhs, the number of RTIs to which the 2,303 public authorities replied in 2024-25 was 3.46% lower than the 14.30 lakh RTIs to which 2,298 public authorities replied in 2023-24.
• Many public authorities complain that they are groaning under the burden of RTI-related work, which prevents them from carrying out other mandated work. With the appointment of more CPIOs under the Union Government (excluding the PIOs appointed in the UTs), the average annual expected workload per CPIO that is, if the PIO were to dispose of all RTIs received within the same year has actually come down from 63.88 in 2023-24 to 63.02 in 2024-25. Consequently, the monthly workload has also reduced from 5.32 to 5.25 RTIs per CPIO during this period.
• In terms of the number of RTIs to which CPIOs actually replied in 2024-25 (excluding those in the UTs), the average was 49.85 RTIs per CPIO and the monthly average was 4.15 RTIs per CPIO. In 2023-24, the average was 53.15 RTIs per CPIO and the monthly average was 4.4 RTIs per CPIO. So, the average workload per CPIO fell in 2024-25 as compared with the workload in 2023-24. Details of the workload among the top five ministries, 12 key public authorities and the UTs are in the attachment.
• According to the CIC, 3% of the RTI applications that is, 58,501 requests were rejected by 2,303 public authorities across the Union Government including the UTs that reported their RTI data in 2024-25. However, at the end of the data table in Annexure 1 of the CIC's annual report, the total of the exemption clause-wise rejections is shown as 57,985 cases. We have taken this figure for the purpose of analysis instead of the figure 58,501. The rationale for this choice is mentioned in Segment VIII of the attachment.
• Almost 35% of the cases of rejection of RTIs reported across the Union Government including the UTs in 2024-25 are for unspecified reasons other than the ten exemption clauses contained in Sections 8, 9 and 11 of the RTI Act and Section 24, which partially excludes intelligence and security organisations from the general obligations of transparency. This proportion is slightly lower than the 36.47% reported in 2023-24. Public authorities in the UTs used the "others" category significantly fewer times to reject RTIs in comparison with the Union Government. The last page of the attached data table gives a snapshot view of the number of times each of the exemptions was used to reject requests during both years under study.
• Public authorities under the Finance Ministry rejected 36.74% of the cases of rejections totalled under the Union Government (UTs included). Even though the Ministry of Home Affairs does not figure in the top five list of ministries receiving the largest number of RTI applications, it takes second place with 7,370 rejections — that is, 12.71% of the total number of rejections — followed by the Defence Ministry with 4,937 rejections, or 8.51% of the total. Just these three ministries contributed to more than half (almost 58%) of the total number of rejections. The ministries of Cooperation, Panchayati Raj, Tribal Affairs, Minority Affairs, Parliamentary Affairs and Development of the Northeastern Region reported nil rejections.
• The Election Commission of India (ECI) reported zero rejections for the years 2024-25 and 2023-24. However, this author was denied access to information under Section 7(9) in at least two cases by the CPIOs of the ECI during this period. This does not count as rejection for the ECI. These two RTI applications and the ECI's responses are attached to this despatch.
• The use of national security-related grounds under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act came down by almost 50% in 2024-25 (1,008 cases) in comparison with the previous year (2,206 cases). The use of Section 8(1)(j), relating to the personal privacy of third parties, increased from 36.36% in 2023-24 to 38.69% in 2024-25. While Section 8(1)(g), pertaining to the intelligence-gathering exemption, was used in more cases in 2024-25, the exemption relating to investigation and prosecution of offenders was used in fewer cases as compared with the figures reported in 2023-24.
• For those who think that truckloads of RTI applications are filed with the Indian Army every year, threatening national security, it needs to be pointed out that Section 8(1)(a) was invoked in only one case in 2024-25. In 2023-24, this exemption was invoked in 60 cases. Of the 744 cases in which permissible exemptions were invoked by the CPIOs of the Indian Army, 737 were for protecting personal privacy under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.
• The number of appeals filed with the first appellate authorities (FAAs) across the Union Government (UTs included) was two and a half times more than the number of rejections recorded in 2024-25, indicating a very high level of dissatisfaction with the response to, or the lack of response to, RTI applications. The proportion of first appeals to the number of RTIs filed was much higher in 2024-25 as compared with the previous year. Thankfully, the FAAs disposed of more first appeals in 2024-25 than they did during the previous year, but the percentage of disposal had fallen in comparison with 2023-24.
• The ministries of Finance, Education, Railways, Defence and Home Affairs accounted for more than one half (51.85%) of the total number of first appeals filed across the Union Government (UTs included).
• FAAs in many public authorities complain that they are groaning under the burden of RTI-related work, which prevents them from doing other mandated work. Overall, 11,425 FAAs across the Union Government (UTs included) disposed of 1.12 lakh of the 1.86 lakh first appeals. This amounts to an average of 9.85 cases per FAA per year, bringing the monthly average to a figure well below one. Strangely, the number of FAAs fell by 47.15% from the 2023-24 figure. Consequently, the average workload on each FAA almost doubled from 5.07 to 9.85 in 2024-25. The reasons for this drastic reduction in the number of FAAs do not merit a discussion in the CIC's latest annual report.
• Almost 40% (73,791 cases) of the first appeals remained pending across the 2,303 public authorities across the Union Government (including the UTs) at the end of the reporting year for 2024-25. At the end of the previous year 2023-24, the pendency was slightly lower at almost 38% of the cases (67,190) filed that year.
• The poorest first appeal disposal rates in 2024-25 were reported by the Supreme Court of India (0.67%), Election Commission of India (1.88%), Comptroller and Auditor General (2.75%) and the PMO (6.15%). The lone FAA appointed in the President's Secretariat managed to dispose of more than 90% of the 850 appeals filed in 2024-25. Two FAAs of the Central Information Commission disposed of 593 of the 616 cases received in 2024-25 (96.27%), averaging 296.5 cases per FAA per year. This is one of the best performances across public authorities that handled first appeals in the hundreds, and the performance had actually improved over that reported in 2023-24.

The foregoing is only the first set of findings from our deep dive into the RTI statistics reported by the CIC. We hope to publish more trends across specific public authorities in the coming months. Based on this first set of findings, it must be said that the CIC does not appear to have deeply examined the data submitted by public authorities, ministries and departments. 
After 21 years of enforcement of the RTI Act, the CIC must make the effort to redefine its role from being a mere accountant of RTI statistics to that of an auditor of the performance of ministries, departments and public authorities vis-à-vis their obligations under the regime of transparency established by the RTI Act. There is much that needs to be done to improve the performance of CPIOs and FAAs. There is no need to look abroad for examples of good practice. Several ministries, departments and public authorities have taken the necessary steps to dispose of RTIs and appeals in a timely manner while others have been laggard. 
The CIC must initiate academic studies to analyse what has worked in some public authorities and what has hindered others from implementing the RTI Act effectively. This law, which gives effect to a fundamental right, was expected to be a game changer when implementation commenced in 2005. The wait for the game to change has been two decades long, with little documentation to show how governance processes have been reformed using RTIs as feedback for poor, weak and unaccountable administration. 
Perhaps it is time to appoint a body to examine the impact of RTI on public administration at the Union and state levels.

Andhra CIC bans 2 activists citing voluminous RTI filings

Times of India: Vijayawada: Saturday, 20 June 2026.
In a significant ruling, Andhra Pradesh chief information commissioner Vajja Srinivasa Rao has barred two RTI activists from filing further applications, appeals or complaints under the Right to Information Act, observing that they were repeatedly misusing the law to harass public authorities.

The orders relate to V Uthanna of Madanapalle and advocate Perumal Jayachandra Reddy, president of Legal Aid Welfare Society (LAWS), Chittoor. The CIC said the RTI Act, meant to promote transparency and accountability, cannot be used for intimidation, repetitive litigation or disruption of administration.
In Reddy’s case, the commission examined nearly 40 appeals and complaints against revenue authorities. It noted that several applications were filed in the name of LAWS, a legal entity, and held that the RTI Act grants the right to information only to citizens, not organisations.
The Commission found that many of Reddy’s queries sought voluminous records and appeared driven by personal grievances rather than public interest. It also flagged warnings of penalty action in applications, terming them attempts to intimidate public information officers.
In Uthanna’s case, the Commission dealt with a complaint over alleged non-compliance with an earlier order involving a government degree college for women in Madanapalle. He had sought records spanning a decade, including staff and student attendance.
The Commission noted that over 800 pages of information had already been provided free of cost and that authorities had complied with earlier directions. Despite this, repeated RTI applications and appeals were filed on similar issues, placing an undue burden on offices and affecting genuine applicants.
Referring to Supreme Court rulings, the CIC said indiscriminate and voluminous RTI requests could hamper administrative efficiency, as officials spend excessive time compiling information.
The Commission also cited complaints alleging collection of money for facilitating RTI requests and directed the Tirupati district collector to examine records linked to such claims.
The Commission also cited complaints alleging collection of money for facilitating RTI requests and directed the Tirupati district collector to examine records linked to such claims.
“We will protect the interests of genuine applicants, but repetitive and vexatious filings will not be entertained,” Srinivasa Rao said. The prohibition order has been communicated to departments, collectors, PIOs and appellate authorities across the state.

Activists Urge Maha To Abolish RTI Appeal Fees

Times of India: Nagpur: Saturday, 20 June 2026.
A Maharashtra-based transparency advocacy group has urged chief minister Devendra Fadnavis' govt to abolish fees charged for filing appeals under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, arguing the practice undermines citizens' access to information and contradicts Central Govt guidelines.

In a representation submitted to CM recently, the Association of Social and RTI Activists (ASRA) sought immediate amendments to the Maharashtra Right to Information Rules to remove fees levied on First Appeals and Second Appeals under the RTI Act, 2005.
The organisation argued the state's existing fee structure was inconsistent with Central RTI Rules, under which citizens are required to pay only the initial application fee of 10, while appeals at both levels are free of cost.
Referring to a Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) communication of April 26, 2011, ASRA said the Central Govt advised all states to harmonise their RTI fee structures with Centre's framework. It noted RTI fees across states were ‘at great variance' and cited recommendations of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, which warned RTI fees ‘should not become a disincentive for using the right to information.'
The representation stated charging citizens additional fees at appellate stage penalised them for administrative failures, delays or refusal to provide information by Public Information Officers.
"Charging a citizen, a fee to appeal against an illegal refusal by a state official is fundamentally unjust," the organisation said in the letter.
ASRA contended the present system disproportionately affects economically weaker citizens, creating avoidable financial barriers to accessing information guaranteed under law. It maintained RTI appellate process should remain ‘entirely cost-free' to ensure transparency and accountability in governance.
ASRA urged the govt to amend Maharashtra RTI Rules under Sec 19(1) and 19(3) of RTI Act and bring them in line with Central Rules.
"Eliminating these appeal fees will reaffirm the govt's commitment to open and accountable administration," the representation by ASRA president Sanjay Thul stated.
The state govt has not yet officially responded to the body's representation.

Ladakh a Transparency Black Hole; J&K RTI Filings Up by 25%, Backlogs by 63%

Kashmir Times: New Delhi: Saturday, 20 June 2026.
Six years after Ladakh was carved out as a Union Territory, its administration has not submitted a single RTI compliance report to the Central Information Commission

While the Right To Information (RTI) movement in Jammu and Kashmir is visibly gaining ground, the backlogs have increased phenomenally. Even more glaringly, the Union Territory of Ladakh remains a statistical void. Its RTI data has been absent from national records since its creation in October 2019, according to a deep-dive analysis of the Central Information Commission's annual reports for 2024-25 and 2023-24 by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI).
The report is the result of detailed research and analysis by CHRI’s Director, Venkatesh Nayak.
As for Jammu and Kashmir, while the RTI applications have gone up, so have the backlogs.
Ladakh: Six Years of Silence
Despite being home to a "vibrant group of RTI activists", acknowledged by CHRI, which had earlier promoted transparency work in the undivided Jammu and Kashmir, the Ladakh UT administration has never once submitted its RTI statistics to the CIC. More troublingly, the Commission has not commented on this lapse in any of its annual reports.
CHRI's analysis underlines that this is not a bureaucratic oversight that can be quietly overlooked. With 2,914 public authorities registered on the RTI Online Portal as of the time of analysis, the CIC's claim of "100% compliance" based on reports from only 2,303 public authorities is itself questionable.
Ladakh's absence is the most glaring illustration of that gap.
J&K: RTI Usage Surges, But Backlogs Mount
Jammu and Kashmir presents a sharply contrasting picture. The UT recorded a 25.5% increase in RTI applications received in 2024-25 compared to the previous year, among the highest growth rates of any Union Territory.
Among the UTs, GNCTD transferred 43.68% of the RTIs received in 2024-25 while J&K transferred almost 28% of the RTIs received between public authorities. Other UTs transferred fewer RTIs between their public authorities.
The number of RTIs to which J&K authorities replied also rose from 9,998 in 2023-24 to 11,579 in 2024-25. However, the UT's backlog surged by 63.02%, pointing to a system struggling to keep pace with the rising tide of citizens seeking information.
On the positive side, J&K reported a 23.77% increase in fee collections. This includes both application and additional fees, and suggests that more RTI applicants are receiving substantive responses rather than being turned away.
J&K's record on rejections was also relatively restrained. Of the 288 rejection cases accounted for in the clause-wise data, only 53 fell under the vague "others" category - a category that accounts for nearly 35% of all rejections nationally.
J&K authorities relied more frequently on Section 8(1)(h), which exempts disclosure of investigation or prosecution-related information, than on the personal privacy clause - a pattern consistent with the previous year.
On first appeals, J&K received 1,047 cases, nearly 460 more than in 2023-24. Its 184 First Appellate Authorities disposed of 877 of these (83.76%), though the average workload per FAA jumped sharply as the number of FAAs fell from 299 the previous year.
PMO, ECI and the Accountability Deficit
Despite receiving fewer RTI applications in 2024-25 than the year before (9,074 compared to 9,430), the PMO's backlog grew by 282 cases. Its lone First Appellate Authority disposed of only 78 of 1,268 first appeals - a disposal rate of 6.15%, the lowest among all 12 key public authorities studied. In 2023-24 the rate was slightly better at 7%.
236 of the 246 RTIs rejected by the PMO in 2024-25 were under the "others" category, not under any of the ten exemption clauses specified in the RTI Act. This proportion was similarly high in 2023-24, when 178 of 196 rejections belonged to this category.
The ECI reported zero rejections for the second consecutive year.  It received 480 first appeals in 2024-25. Its two FAAs disposed of only 9 of these (1.88%), down sharply from 64 disposals out of 222 appeals the previous year.
CHRI's own experience illuminates why the zero-rejection claim is misleading. Venkatesh Nayak himself filed RTI applications seeking copies of Index Cards submitted by Returning Officers during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, as well as details of expenditure-sensitive constituencies and Expenditure Observer reports.
The CPIOs denied both requests - one citing disproportionate diversion of resources under Section 7(9), and another additionally invoking Section 8(1)(g). Several other RTIs about the 2024 general elections were disposed of with the claim that the ECI does not hold the information and will not transfer the applications to state authorities.
None of these refusals were reported by the ECI as "rejections" to the CIC.
NITI Aayog received fewer RTIs in 2024-25 than the previous year, but its backlog grew by 71 cases. It also transferred 22.86% of the RTIs it received higher than most key public authorities.
Cabinet Secretariat transferred 51.66% of RTIs it received in 2024-25 - one in every two applications - the highest transfer rate of any key public authority studied.
Armed Forces Transparency Record
The report places the Indian armed forces under sharp focus for the sheer scale of its RTI backlog and rejection figures, alongside a notable change in how it handles national security claims.
RTI applications received by the Army jumped 23.52% in 2024-25 compared to the previous year. This is the second-highest growth rate among the 12 key public authorities tracked in the study. Yet the Army's backlog figure of 1,07,601 RTI applications remained identical in both 2023-24 and 2024-25. CHRI notes that the CIC has not thought fit to examine.
Rejections by the Army more than doubled - from 1,357 in 2023-24 to 2,807 in 2024-25, the highest among the 12 key public authorities. Of these, 2,063 were rejected under the catch-all "others" category rather than any of the legally specified exemption clauses. However, CHRI pointedly notes that of the 744 cases where the Army did cite a specific legal ground for rejection, 737 were to protect personal privacy under Section 8(1)(j). The national security clause, Section 8(1)(a), was invoked in just one case in 2024-25, down from 60 the previous year.
"For those who think that truckloads of RTI applications are filed with the Indian Army every year threatening our national security, it needs to be pointed out that Section 8(1)(a) was invoked in one case only in 2024-25," the CHRI report states.
On first appeals, the Army received 9,090 cases. Yet its 479 First Appellate Authorities disposed of only 693 (7.6%), an average of just 1.45 cases per FAA per year. The CIC has not queried this performance.
The Indian Air Force saw RTI filings rise 20.88% in 2024-25, and its backlog grew by 2,999 cases. Its rejection rate, however, was more defensible: only 87 of 623 cases were rejected under the "others" category. On first appeals, eight FAAs disposed of 672 of 937 cases received (71.72%) — a far stronger performance than the Army's.
The Indian Navy, by contrast, showed improvement. It was among the few key public authorities to report a reduction in RTI backlog. Its FAA disposed of 260 of 405 first appeals received (64.19%), up from 60.23% the previous year.
The Ministry of Defence received 1.15 lakh RTI applications in 2024-25, 29,433 more than the previous year, making it the fifth-largest recipient nationally. With 121 fewer CPIOs to handle a significantly larger workload, the average load per officer rose from 41.95 RTIs per year to 59.75. The Ministry also transferred 35.33% of RTIs it received to other public authorities — the second-highest transfer rate among all ministries.
It accounted for 8.51% of all rejections nationally, placing it third behind Finance and Home Affairs.
‘Does the CIC Read the Data?’
The CHRI report calls to question the CIC's own rigour in compiling and verifying the data it publishes. The report documents a discrepancy of 561 between the total rejections cited in one section of the annual report (58,501) and the figure that emerges from the clause-wise data table (57,985). Penalty figures reported by ministries - some as low as Rs. 1 or Rs. 2 - are far below the minimum Rs. 250 penalty the RTI Act permits, yet have apparently passed unchecked.
"Does the CIC even read the data tables put together before they are published and tabled in Parliament is a fundamental question that they must answer," the CHRI report concludes.
After 21 years of the RTI Act's implementation, the Commission's role, CHRI argues, must evolve from mere accountant of statistics to auditor of transparency - one that asks not just how many RTIs were filed, but why so many remain unanswered, unresolved, or quietly buried under a category called "others."

RTI saves widow’s Rs 3.76 crore properties from auction

New Indian Express: Bengaluru: Saturday, 20 June 2026.
The properties are estimated to be worth around Rs 3.76 crore, based on a guidance value of Rs 7,600 per sqft.

As the Right to Information (RTI) Act marks 21 years, a case from Bengaluru highlights the law’s continued role in correcting administrative errors and protecting citizens from wrongful official action.
An 83-year-old widow, Theresa Xavier, used the Act to challenge an order issued by a local tahsildar that sought to auction four flats belonging to her family to recover dues arising from a dispute involving a builder. The properties are estimated to be worth around Rs 3.76 crore, based on a guidance value of Rs 7,600 per sqft.
Auction notices had been pasted on the doors of the flats for recovery of Rs 56.81 lakh, along with interest. The recovery proceedings stemmed from a RERA complaint filed by flat buyers against the builder for allegedly failing to obtain an occupancy certificate and complete promised amenities.
On June 10, Theresa Xavier, the land owner, filed an RTI application seeking details of the order, the basis for the proposed auction, the official guidance value and particulars of the properties identified for recovery. She alleged that her family’s flats had been attached instead of those belonging to the builder.
In a reply issued on June 19, authorities informed her that the original order dated May 20 had been amended. The revised order identified three flats belonging to the builder for auction, instead of the four flats owned by Xavier’s family.
Xavier said she had been engaged in a long-running dispute with the builder and alleged that she had been left with incomplete flats. Sheclaimed that she had spent substantial amounts to complete most of the units, while one flat remains unfinished.
She said RTI helped her obtain documents and secure corrective action without approaching the high court, which would have involvedadditional costs and time. The case comes amid continuing debate over the implementation of the RTI Act nationwide.
According to an analysis of the CentralInformation Commission’s annual report for 2024-25 by Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative Director Venkatesh Nayak, RTI applications received by Union government authorities increased 2.52% during the year. Excluding Union Territories, the increase stood at 1.26%.
The volume of RTI applications has grown 34% since Covid outbreak during 2020-21. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs received the highest number of applications (2.54 lakh), overtaking the Ministry of Finance (2.20 lakh). The top five ministries accounted for more than 51% of all RTI applications.
The analysis flagged concerns over compliance and transparency. While the CIC reported 100% reporting by 2,303 public authorities, the RTI Online Portal lists 2,914 registered entities. The number of RTI applications disposed of declined by 3.46% to 13.81 lakh.
The rejection rate remained around 3%, while first appeals increased, indicating dissatisfaction among applicants. Disposal rates of first appeals remained low in several institutions, including the Supreme Court, Election Commission of India and the Comptroller and Auditor General. Nearly 40% of first appeals remained pending.
Nayak urged CIC to move beyond statistical reporting and undertake performance audits, document best practices and recommend reforms to strengthen transparency and accountability more than two decades after RTI Act came into force.