रिपोर्टर्स कलेक्टिव और RTI फोरम ने डिजिटल पर्सनल डेटा प्रोटेक्शन एक्ट को दी सुप्रीम कोर्ट में चुनौती

Live Law: New Delhi: Sunday, 15^th February 2026.
डिजिटल न्यूज़ प्लेटफॉर्म द रिपोर्टर्स कलेक्टिव और पत्रकार नितिन सेठी ने डिजिटल पर्सनल डेटा प्रोटेक्शन एक्ट, 2023 के मुख्य नियमों को चुनौती देते हुए सुप्रीम कोर्ट का दरवाजा खटखटाया।

याचिकाकर्ता पिछले साल नवंबर में नोटिफाई किए गए डिजिटल पर्सनल डेटा प्रोटेक्शन रूल्स 2025 के नियमों को भी चुनौती देते हैं।
याचिकाकर्ता का कहना है कि DPDP Act, पर्सनल जानकारी के खुलासे के लिए एक पूरी छूट देकर सूचना का अधिकार एक्ट, 2005 (RTI Act) के तहत ट्रांसपेरेंसी फ्रेमवर्क को काफी कमजोर करता है।
याचिकाकर्ताओं के अनुसार, DPDP Act की धारा 44(3) द्वारा RTI Act की धारा 8(1)(j) में किया गया बदलाव पहले के बैलेंसिंग टेस्ट को हटा देता है, जो पब्लिक एक्टिविटी या पब्लिक इंटरेस्ट से जुड़ी पर्सनल जानकारी के खुलासे की इजाज़त देता था।
उनका तर्क है कि नया सिस्टम पर्सनल जानकारी के खुलासे पर पूरी तरह से रोक लगाता है, भले ही बड़े पब्लिक इंटरेस्ट के लिए ऐसा खुलासा सही हो या नहीं। याचिका में दावा किया गया कि इससे नागरिकों के सूचना के अधिकार और पब्लिक एडमिनिस्ट्रेशन में ट्रांसपेरेंसी का अधिकार कमज़ोर होता है।
याचिका में कथित तौर पर कहा गया कि पत्रकार और ट्रांसपेरेंसी एक्टिविस्ट अक्सर गलत कामों, भ्रष्टाचार या हितों के टकराव को उजागर करने के लिए सीमित, पब्लिक-हित के मामलों में पर्सनल जानकारी तक पहुंच पर निर्भर रहते हैं। पब्लिक इंटरेस्ट ओवरराइड को खत्म करके, बदला हुआ प्रावधान कथित तौर पर जवाबदेही की कीमत पर प्राइवेसी के पक्ष में संतुलन को पूरी तरह से झुका देता है।
केंद्र सरकार को ज़्यादा अधिकार
याचिका में DPDP Act की धारा 36 को DPDP रूल्स के रूल 23 के साथ पढ़ने पर भी हमला किया गया, जो केंद्र सरकार को डेटा फिड्यूशरी और इंटरमीडियरी से जानकारी मांगने का अधिकार देता है।
यह तर्क दिया गया कि ये प्रावधान गलत डिजिटल सर्च को मंज़ूरी देते हैं और बिना किसी ज़रूरी सुरक्षा उपाय के पर्सनल डेटा को इकट्ठा करने और स्टोर करने में मदद करते हैं, जिससे आर्टिकल 21 का उल्लंघन होता है। याचिका में धारा 36 को अस्पष्ट, बहुत ज़्यादा और मनमाना बताया गया, जो आर्टिकल 14 और 19 का भी उल्लंघन करता है।
याचिकाकर्ता का तर्क है कि जिस हद तक लोगों को उनके पर्सनल डेटा के सरकारी एजेंसी को दिए जाने के बारे में जानकारी नहीं दी जा सकती, ये नियम उनकी बोलने और बोलने की आज़ादी में भी रुकावट डालते हैं। याचिका के अनुसार, एक आज़ाद और डेमोक्रेटिक समाज में ये दखलंदाज़ी साफ़ तौर पर सही नहीं है।
डेटा प्रोटेक्शन बोर्ड की आज़ादी पर सवाल
संवैधानिक चुनौती एक्ट के तहत इंस्टीट्यूशनल फ्रेमवर्क तक भी फैली हुई है। याचिका में डेटा प्रोटेक्शन बोर्ड की आज़ादी, खासकर इसके चेयरपर्सन और सदस्यों की नियुक्ति की प्रक्रिया के बारे में चिंता जताई गई, जिसके बारे में कहा जाता है कि वह एग्जीक्यूटिव कंट्रोल के अधीन है।
याचिकाकर्ता ने पूरे DPDP Act, 2023 को, खासकर धारा 5, 6, 8, 10, 17, 18, 19, 36 और 44(3) को संविधान के आर्टिकल 14, 19 और 21 का उल्लंघन करने वाला बताते हुए गैर-संवैधानिक घोषित करने की मांग की। उन्होंने डिजिटल पर्सनल डेटा प्रोटेक्शन रूल्स, 2025 के रूल्स 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17, और 23 को भी अमान्य, इनऑपरेटिव और असंवैधानिक बताते हुए चुनौती दी।
नेशनल कैंपेन फॉर पीपल्स राइट टू इन्फॉर्मेशन (NCPRI) ने भी ऐसी ही एक याचिका फाइल की, जिसमें डिजिटल पर्सनल डेटा प्रोटेक्शन (DPDP) एक्ट के ज़रिए RTI Act के सेक्शन 8(1)(j) में किए गए बदलावों को चुनौती दी गई।
द रिपोर्टर्स कलेक्टिव की याचिका एडवोकेट अपार गुप्ता, मुहम्मद अली खान, इंदुमुगी सी और नमन कुमार ने तैयार की थी और AoR अभिषेक जेबराज के ज़रिए फाइल की गई। NCPRI की पिटीशन एडवोकेट प्रशांत भूषण और राहुल गुप्ता ने फाइल की।
(Case : The Reporters Collective and another v. Union of India and others | W.P.(C) No. 177 / 2026)

RTI ordinance passed without key reforms, alleges rights forum

The Business Standard: Bangladesh: Sunday, 15^th February 2026.
The Right to Information (RTI) Forum has strongly criticised the amendment to the Right to Information Act, 2009, calling it a "farce" carried out by the outgoing interim government.

In a statement issued today (10 February), the forum said Ordinance No-30 of 2026, approved by the President on 9 February to amend the RTI Act, fails to reflect the core spirit of the law and undermines transparency.
The forum also expressed serious concern over the prolonged failure to appoint the Chief Information Commissioner and other commissioners, despite repeated demands. This, it said, has effectively rendered the Information Commission funded by public money non-functional, creating major obstacles to the implementation of the RTI Act during the interim government's tenure.
According to the statement, the RTI Forum had earlier prepared 37 amendment proposals to strengthen the law and formally presented them at a press conference on 6 March 2025, submitting the same to the chief adviser.
The forum later provided further opinions to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in line with recommendations from the Public Administration Reform Commission. On 25 January 2026, after learning that an ordinance was being prepared, the forum urgently requested the inclusion of key amendments and contacted advisers multiple times to stress their importance.
However, the forum said the final ordinance ignored several critical issues, including expanding the definition of "information" to include note sheets, broadening the scope of authorities under the law to cover private entities working on behalf of the government and registered political parties, and ensuring the status, remuneration and benefits of the Chief Information Commissioner and commissioners are equivalent to judges of the Appellate and High Court divisions.
It also demanded stronger accountability mechanisms in cases involving fines.

RTI reveals no law making smart meter mandatory amid state-wide protests

Gujarat Samachar: Ahmedabad: Sunday, 15^th February 2026.

Amid ongoing protests against the installation of smart electricity meters across Gujarat electricity meters across the state, the right to information (RTI) reply has revealed that there is no law that makes the installation of smart meters mandatory.
​An RTI application filed by Madhavaji Laxaman Dodisa, a resident of the Amardad area near Jadeshwar railway crossing in Ranavav, has brought new details to light.
Dodisa had sought information from the West Gujarat Electricity Company Limited regarding whether electricity consumers are legally required to install smart meters.
​In its reply, the electricity company stated that there is no order from the high court directing consumers to install smart meters.
The RTI responses further clarified that there is no information available with the office about any law passed by the central or state government that makes it compulsory to replace old meters, especially if the existing meters are working properly and there are no disputes.
The reply also stated that details of any specific act, section, or writ petition related to making smart meters mandatory are not available in their records.

Reviving RTI: A test for the new government - By Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz

The Daily Star: Bangladesh: Sunday, 15^th February 2026.

The long-anticipated and widely speculated national election has concluded. Contrary to many predictions, voters delivered a decisive mandate to the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). People’s participation signals their endorsement of a platform framed around institutional stability, rational governance, and inclusivity. The party leadership has reiterated its commitment to strengthening the rule of law and combating corruption—priorities that, if pursued consistently and with integrity, will shape both the credibility and durability of the incoming administration.
The result also holds significant implications for the future of the Right to Information (RTI) regime in Bangladesh. The year and a half of the interim government (IG) elicited both praise and criticism for reasons widely known. For many who viewed the July 2024 uprising—driven largely by a politically awakened younger generation—as a turning point aimed at restoring popular sovereignty and revitalising democratic institutions, the IG’s record on transparency and accountability proved deeply disappointing.
For the entirety of its tenure, the IG allowed the Information Commission—the statutory guardian of the RTI framework under the RTI Act, 2009—to lapse into paralysis. During the previous 15 years, however imperfectly, the commission had been among the very few institutions willing to assert a measure of democratic oversight in the face of executive overreach. That modest but important role came to a halt when the IG failed to appoint the three commissioners required by law, including the chief information commissioner, after the previous incumbents resigned. As a result, the commission was unable to perform its quasi-judicial functions: hearing appeals, enforcing compliance, and holding public authorities accountable for unlawful refusals to disclose information. For RTI activists and civil society organisations who regard the act as a central tool of democratic oversight, this institutional vacuum generated deep frustration.
The failure to reconstitute the commission cannot easily be dismissed as administrative oversight. At minimum, it reflected institutional neglect; at worst, it suggested ambivalence towards the very transparency mechanisms the uprising had sought to strengthen. At a moment when public expectations of reform were at their peak, revitalising the Information Commission would have been one of the clearest demonstrations of a commitment to open, citizen-centred governance. Unfortunately, that opportunity was not seized.
The reform of the law also did not progress. Civil society groups and RTI advocates participated in the process in good faith, submitting detailed proposals to make the act more accessible, citizen-oriented, and enforceable. However, their recommendations received little substantive engagement. When draft amendments were made public towards the end of the IG’s tenure, they inspired neither confidence nor serious public debate, appearing disconnected from the reformist energy that had animated the July uprising. The transitional period thus ended without either a strengthened statute or a functioning oversight body.
Transitional authorities carry a heightened moral and political burden. Lacking an electoral mandate, they derive legitimacy from public trust and from their adherence to reformist principles. To sideline the principal legal instrument that enables citizens to scrutinise the state is therefore not a neutral act; it is a consequential choice. There are two plausible explanations for it. Either the RTI regime was treated as a secondary concern amid competing priorities, or it was viewed as inconvenient—capable of revealing truths that a transitional administration might have preferred to avoid. If the latter is true, it should prompt concern. A government confident in its integrity has little reason to fear transparency. The ultimate test of commitment to reform lies not in rhetoric but in a demonstrable willingness to submit to scrutiny. In this respect, the IG’s record warrants critical reflection.
The advent of a new government thus opens a renewed window of opportunity. BNP campaigned on a 31-point reform programme, which was later incorporated into its election manifesto, and had reaffirmed its commitment to the July Declaration. It will therefore fall to the citizenry and to civil society institutions to hold the new administration to these pledges during its formative months. The BNP must be reminded of its electoral commitments, and citizens should carefully assess the extent to which those promises are translated into concrete action.
One immediate, concrete step for the new government would be the prompt, transparent reconstitution of the Information Commission. The RTI Act itself provides guidance on the qualifications and selection of commissioners. An objective, merit-based appointment process would send a powerful signal that the government intends to restore institutional integrity rather than merely fill vacancies. Independence, competence, and credibility must be the guiding criteria.
Parallelly, the government can strengthen the law substantively. Particular attention should be paid to the provisions governing exemptions from disclosure, especially those framed broadly in terms of national security and public interest. Narrowing and clarifying these exemptions, and introducing a robust “public interest override” clause, would better align the act with international best practice. The law would mandate the release of information whenever the public’s need to know is more important than the government’s preference for confidentiality.
Restoring the Information Commission and refining the RTI Act would not merely rehabilitate a neglected statute but also reaffirm a constitutional principle—that sovereignty ultimately resides with the people, and that transparency is the lifeblood of democratic governance. The new administration now has both the mandate and the opportunity to demonstrate that commitment in practice.
(Dr Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz are chairman and deputy director (RTI), respectively, at Research Initiatives, Bangladesh (RIB). They can be reached at rib@citech-bd.com)

RTI Queries Seeking Confirmation of Right Person for CIRP Payments Not Covered u/s 2(f): IBBI

Taxscan: New Delhi: Sunday, 15^th February 2026.
The IBBI clarifies that RTI cannot be used to seek confirmations or clarifications on payment handling during ongoing CIRP proceedings.

The First Appellate Authority of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has held that queries seeking confirmation of the “right person” to receive payments during a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), along with reasons for non-response, do not constitute “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, the RTI appeal was dismissed.
The Appellant Virendra Kumar, filed an RTI application dated 04 December 2025 before the IBBI seeking confirmation as to whether Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma or Mr. Hemanshu Lalitbhai Kapadia was the correct person to whom money ought to have been paid in the CIRP of Redkenko Health Tech Private Limited. Thereafter, the Appellant sought the reasons for their alleged non-response despite submission of claim documents and sought information on the details of the correct person and documents required for submission.
By an order dated 30 December 2025 the CPIO, IBBI, rejected the request on the ground that the questions had been framed in a manner that required the response to be opinion based and explanatory, which was not included in the definition of “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The appellant thereupon preferred a first appeal before the Appellate Authority.
The appellant had contended that the CPIO had erred in denying the information. He had contended that the confirmation of the appropriate official to receive CIRP amounts would be important to safeguard his interest. The information is of the type that would be available with the IBBI as they are the statutory authority for the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The Respondent contended that the RTI Act only allows access to the existing information and records that are under the control of a public authority and that the RTI Act does not mandate the public authority to deliver any opinion, clarification or to offer any guidance to the applicant on the procedures in CIRP.
The Appellate Authority considered the applicability of Sections 2(f), 2(j), and 3 of the RTI Act and found that “the questions raised by the appellant in his applications were seeking only clarification, confirmation, and reasons, which cannot be regarded as seeking ‘information’.” It again emphasized that it was not possible to compel a public authority to create or infer information which did not exist in its records.
The Authority further observed that the information related to CIRP such as the commencement of CIRP, IRP/RP information, announcements made to the public, etc., are already available with the IBBI website and the NCLT portal i.e., the e-filing platform. Since the information is available with the public domain, the CPIO is not required to furnish the information in the specified manner as requested by the appellant.
As no infirmity was found in the CPIO’s reply, the appeal was disposed of.

RTI Cannot be used to Seek Creation of Non Existent Records: IBBI dismisses Appeal against CPIO Order

Taxscan: New Delhi: Sunday, 15^th February 2026.
IBBI reiterates limits of RTI Act, holding that public authorities cannot be compelled to create or generate information not on record

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has held that the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot be invoked to compel a public authority to create information or records that do not exist.
While dismissing the appeal, the Board upheld the decision of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) reiterating that the RTI mechanism is limited to disclosure of existing records.
The appellant had filed an RTI request before the IBBI seeking information on certain aspects related to insolvency professionals and regulatory actions. The queries of the appellant were those which amounted to asking the CPIO to collect, analyse, or generate fresh information which did not exist in the manner the appellant sought to be provided.
CPIO responded that the information sought is not available from the records of the IBBI in the manner desired; moreover, as per the RTI Act, the authority is not required to create information. Not satisfied with the response the appellant had filed the first appeal.
The first appeal had been rejected. Further, the appeal was carried before the Appellate Authority of the IBBI.
The appellant contended that not furnishing the information had denied the very purpose of transparency under the RTI Act. It was contended that since it was a statutory regulator, it should be capable of furnishing the requisite information sought by the petitioner despite some sort of compilation being involved.
The CPIO, on the other hand, submitted that the RTI Act only requires disclosure of only such information which exists and is available and held by the public authority. It was submitted that it does not impose any obligation upon public authorities to create data, conduct any research or draw any inference to clear any queries posed by an applicant.
Upholding the decision taken by the CPIO, the IBBI Appellate Authority states as follows: “The definition of ‘information’ given under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which refers to information existing in any form, does not include the creation of information.”
The Board noted that the questions posed by the appellant were for explanation and compilation which did not exist with the IBBI as part of the routine of its functions. Additionally, it was noted that the CPIO had provided the response as required under the law and there was no deficiency in the dealing of the application under the RTI Act.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the order of the CPIO was upheld.

Pernem survey office told to share RTI info at no charge

Times of India: Panaji: Sunday, 15^th February 2026.
After observing no compliance with the Right to Information Act, the Bombay high court directed the PIO, i.e., the inspector of survey and land records, Pernem, to furnish all the information sought by an RTI applicant free of charge within one week.

The HC stated that there was a failure on the part of the ISLR, Pernem, to maintain all information in digitised form and accessible to the public over the internet.
The man went to the high court after the State Information Commission dismissed his appeal under the RTI Act. The HC quashed the commission’s order and observed that his application dated Sept 1, 2023, seeking information under RTI was very clear, and the information ought to have been maintained in digital form by the ISLR, Pernem.
The court stated that Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to maintain all its records under a catalogue and index in a manner and form facilitating citizens to obtain information easily.
This mandate of subsection 2 requires the public authority to constantly endeavour to provide as much information suo moto to the public through various modes of communication, including the internet, the court stated.
“This provision specifies the object of the legislation, i.e., to ensure that the public has minimum resort to the RTI Act, and the public can access information without having to pay for the same through the medium of the internet. Obviously, there is a failure on the part of the ISLR, Pernem, which is the public authority that is required to maintain all its information in digitised form and accessible to the public over the internet,” stated Justice Valmiki Menezes.

SC to hear plea accusing new data protection law of ‘weaponising’ right to privacy and ‘disarming’ RTI : Krishnadas Rajagopal,Aroon Deep

The Hindu: New Delhi: Sunday, 15^th February 2026.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday a petition which accuses India’s new digital personal data protection law of weaponising the right to privacy to disarm the citizens’ right to seek information from the state under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant would hear a petition filed by human rights and transparency activist Venkatesh Nayak, represented by advocate Vrinda Grover, who has challenged Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act of 2023.
The petition submitted that Section 44(3) has amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to facilitate public authorities to blankly refuse information on the ground that the details sought are of a “personal” nature.
It said that the provision has turned the fundamental right to privacy on its head. The right, meant to protect ordinary citizens against state incursion, has been extended to protect the state and public functionaries from RTI disclosures.
Originally, the RTI provision had exempted authorities from disclosing personal information to an applicant if the details sought had no relationship to any public activity or if disclosure would amount to unwarranted invasion of privacy. Even then, the government had to disclose if public interest outweighed privacy. The decision whether or not to reveal ‘personal information’ was taken by a Public Information Officer or the First Appellate Authority under the RTI Act after thoroughly weighing privacy and transparency concerns.
‘Structural alteration’
“The Constitutional consequence is immediate and serious. Every RTI application involving identifiable public officials, procurement records, audit reports, appointment files, utilisation of public funds, or exercise of statutory discretion can now be denied automatically on the ground that it ‘relates to personal information’. The balancing mechanism that ensured proportionality has been dismantled,” the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI), represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, argued in a separate petition filed in the apex court.
“The exemption operates as an irrebuttable bar at the first gate. This is not a minor statutory adjustment; it is a structural alteration of the decision-making architecture of the RTI Act,” the NCPRI added.
The petition represented by Ms. Grover said that the amendment introduced by the DPDP Act accorded “unguided discretion to the Executive to deny personal information, which is unconstitutional.”
“It is an unreasonable restriction on the right under Article 19 (right to free speech). Privacy is not a fundamental right available to the state. It violates Article 14 (right to equal treatment) by equating the privacy of public functionaries to that of ordinary citizens. It inverts the jurisprudence of privacy vis-à-vis the right to information and prioritises privacy over the larger public interest of transparency and open governance,” Mr. Nayak’s petition argued.

Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Rehabilitation Plan For Children With Disabilities Leaving Institutional Care After Majority.

Live Law: Deby Jain: New Delhi: February 14, 2026.

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a PIL seeking formulation of a comprehensive transition plan for rehabilitation and social re-integration of children with disabilities who leave institutional care on attaining majority.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, stating that it was not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 32.

Briefly put, the petition highlighted that as per an RTI response, approximately 3957 children with disability are living in Child Care institutions across the country. Under Rule 25 of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2016 they would be aging out of institutional care, however, under the Juvenile Justice Act, there is no specific transition plan for their rehabilitation and social re-integration.

"Disabled children have not been given the required and specialized training to enable them to lead an independent life outside the Child Care Institution. Such children are vulnerable and at the risk of facing significant challenges when they turn 18 and will age out from institutional care in terms of the aforesaid Rule 25", the plea stated.

The petitioner claimed that the respondent-authorities have a statutory obligation to prepare children with disability for such transition and equip them with requisite skills, necessary support and resources. Reliance was placed on Chapter 7 of the Juvenile Justice Act, Section 39 thereof and the abovementioned Rule 25, which deal with rehabilitation and social re-integration of children with disability leaving institutional care.

The petitioner further stated that upon receipt of the RTI information, he sent representations to various departments of different states, but no response was received. The specific directions sought by the petitioner included:

- For respondents to formulate and implement a comprehensive transition planning framework for children with disabilities living in children's homes;

- For respondents to ensure that children's homes are staffed with well-qualified and trained professionals, including special educators, therapists, and caregivers, who can provide high support care to the children with complex needs, and are furnished with all necessary equipment and resources;

- For respondents to ensure that early intervention services are provided to the children as soon as they are placed in children's homes, to facilitate timely assessment, support and development;

- For respondents to develop and implement training programmes for special educators, caregivers, and other stakeholders to enhance their capacity to support children with disability effectively;

- For respondents to ensure that the rights of children with disability to education, dignity, and autonomy are respected and protected, in accordance with principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the RPWD Act.

Case Title: BAL MITRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., Diary No. 53922-2025

AMC Officer Alleges Harassment, Blackmail by RTI Activists in Letter to ACB.

Desh Gujarat:Satuarday, February 14, 2026.

A letter written by the Deputy Estate Officer of the Amdavad Municipal Corporation’s (AMC) South Zone has surfaced, alleging mental harassment and blackmail by a group of ‘RTI activists’. 

As per a report by Zee 24 Kalak, the communication, addressed to the Director of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), alleges systematic harassment, mental pressure, and blackmail by a group of RTI activists over action taken against illegal constructions in the Maninagar area.

According to the complaint, officials of the Estate and Town Development Department are being repeatedly targeted while carrying out legal proceedings against unauthorised commercial and industrial structures under the provisions of the GPMC Act. The letter claims that certain activists file multiple RTI and objection applications to obstruct official duties, gain access to government offices, and create undue pressure on staff members.

The letter also states that officials are being threatened through WhatsApp messages, phone calls, and emails, with warnings of complaints to vigilance authorities or the ACB if their demands are not met. Furthermore, the so-called activists are also accused of demanding money from property owners to allow illegal constructions to continue while simultaneously intimidating civic officials with legal consequences.

Citing severe mental stress among employees and disruption of routine administrative work, the AMC has sought a judicial inquiry and legal action against those involved.

As per the report, a list of 19 RTI activists, along with their contact details and the number of applications filed over the past two years, has been submitted to authorities. Names mentioned include Nilesh Solanki, Millan Sonvane, Dayaram Yadav, Lalji Bharvad, Nalin Rathod, Akash Sarkar, Rajesh Thanaji Soni, Jain Chandmal, and Shahnajbanu Sheikh, among others.

The letter also reportedly references individuals linked to the Congress Party, including Rajesh Soni, currently serving as a Gujarat Congress Committee General Secretary.

Copies of the complaint have been forwarded to several high offices, including the Prime Minister, the Chief Minister, the Home Department, the City Police Commissioner, senior police officials, and the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court, underscoring the seriousness of the allegations.

AMC officials maintain that all action against illegal constructions is being carried out strictly as per rules and due process and have urged authorities to intervene to prevent further obstruction of civic enforcement work. 

Delhi High Court Asks Centre To Consider Plea Seeking Mandatory Disclosure Of Cryptocurrencies By Election Candidates

Live Law: New Delhi: Saturday, February 14, 2026.

The Delhi High Court has asked the Union Government to decide a plea seeking mandatory disclosure of cryptocurrencies and other virtual digital assets by election candidates in their nomination affidavits.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia asked the Centre to take an informed decision as expeditiously as possible, within six months.

The Court closed a plea moved by advocate Deepanshu Sahu seeking inclusion of “Virtual Digital Assets” within the definition of assets under Section 75A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and a dedicated disclosure column for such assets in Form 26 prescribed under the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.

The Court observed that the prayers can be considered by the Ministry concerned of the Union of India more appropriately.

“Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition with direction to the concerned Ministry of the Union of India to consider the grievances raised in this writ petition and take a informed decision thereto as expeditiously as possible say within a period of six months,” the Court said.

The petition contended that while election candidates are presently required to disclose movable and immovable assets, the statutory framework does not explicitly recognise or provide a separate disclosure mechanism for cryptocurrencies.

According to the plea, this creates a “serious lacuna” that allows candidates to conceal substantial digital wealth or disclose it vaguely under residual asset categories.

“The absence of a specific column or definition for Virtual Digital Assets in Form 26 permits candidates to conceal substantial digital wealth under the vague residual category of “any other assets” or avoid disclosure altogether. Given the pseudonymous, decentralised, and cross-border nature of cryptocurrencies, this omission creates a structural loophole capable of being exploited for undisclosed political funding, circumvention of expenditure ceilings, concealment of wealth, quid-pro-quo arrangements, and electoral malpractices, thereby defeating the very object of Section 75A of the RPA,” the plea stated.

It added that non-disclosure of cryptocurrency holdings violates the voters' fundamental right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

As per the petitioner, disclosure of cryptocurrency holdings is both feasible and practicable, as evidenced by voluntary disclosures made by sitting Members of Parliament in election affidavits and parliamentary declarations, thereby dispelling any apprehension regarding implementation.

“In these circumstances, the present PIL seeks limited, targeted, and constitutionally grounded reliefs—namely, a declaration that Virtual Digital Assets fall within the scope of “movable assets” under Section 75A, and a direction to amend Form 26 to include a dedicated disclosure mechanism for cryptocurrency holdings. The reliefs sought neither intrude upon legislative policy nor create new offences, but merely advance transparency, accountability, and informed democratic choice, which lie at the heart of the Constitution,” the petition said.

• Counsel for Petitioner: Ms.Suroor Mander with Mr.Siddharth Mishra, Mr.Kartik Rajpurohit, Mr.Gaurav Kumar, Mr.Sehrish Jafri, Advs
• Counsel for Respondents: Ms.Pratima N Lakra, CGSC with Mr.Adhiraj Singh, GP for R- 1 & 2; Ms.Anjana Gosain, Adv for R-2 ;  
• Title: DEEPANSHU SAHU v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Punjab RTI Commission issues warrant against PIO-cum-Secretary Gram Panchayat, Bagga Khurd.

Living India News: Chandigadh: Friday, February 13, 2026.

The Punjab State Information Commission has issued a warrant against PIO-cum-Secretary Gram Panchayat, Bagga Khurd of office of Block Development and Panchayat.

The Punjab State Information Commission has issued a warrant against PIO-cum-Secretary Gram Panchayat, Bagga Khurd of office of Block Development and Panchayat officer, Block-1, Ludhiana during the hearing of a case.

Commission Has Issued a Warrant-

Giving information in this regard, Commissioner of Punjab State Information Commission Harpreet Singh Sandhu informed that in the appeal case No. 0999 of 2024 filed by Balkar Singh, resident of Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana, the Commission has issued a warrant against PIO-cum- Secretary Gram Panchayat, Bagga Khurd Amit Kumar of Block Development and Panchayat officer, Block-1, Ludhiana to appear before the Commission on March 16, 2026.

Harpreet Singh Sandhu said that Amit Kumar remained absent despite the instructions of the Commission in the 3 hearings held so far in this case. He said that now in this case, the Commission has issued an order under Section 18 (3) (a) of the RTA Act 2005 to the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana to serve a copy of these warrants on against Amit Kumar PIO-cum- Secretary Gram Panchayat, Bagga Khurd and issue instructions to appear before the Commission on the next date of the case on March 16, 2026.

No prof for 3 depts, medical college still admits students.

Times of India: Anuja Jaiswal: New Delhi: Friday, Febraury 13, 2026.

A medical college at ESIC Model Hospital and PGIMSR, Basaidarapur, has admitted its first batch of MBBS students but is operating without a single professor in any of its three core preclinical departments —anatomy, physiology and biochemistry. 

The college opened in 2025. It is part of a national push by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation to expand medical education and healthcare delivery across the country. Information obtained under the Right to Information Act shows that for the three pre-clinical departments combined, Parliamentmandated norms require 20 faculty and resident posts —three professors, three associate professors, four assistant professors, seven tutors or demonstrators, and three senior residents. 

However, the institute currently has no professors, only one associate professor and three assistant professors, most of them on a contractual basis. In the RTI data provided by ESIC Hospital in Feb, the total available strength across anatomy, physiology and biochemistry is 15 — one associate professor, three assistant professors, nine tutors or demonstrators, and two Department-wise details highlight the gaps. 

The anatomy department has two assistant professors and four tutors, but no professor, associate professor or senior resident. Physiology has one associate professor and one assistant professor, both contractual, along with three tutors, but no professor or senior resident. Biochemistry has two tutors and two senior residents, but no professor, associate professor, or assistant professor. Infrastructure constraints add to the concerns. 

The undergraduate boys' hostel has just seven rooms, while the girls' hostel has only two. Despite this, 27 first-year MBBS students of the 2025–26 batch were allotted hostel accommodation. Teaching resources are limited. The anatomy department currently has only three cadavers for undergraduate training. While the institute stated that physiology and biochemistry laboratories are functional, medical education experts say the absence of professors and senior faculty in pre-clinical subjects affects academic supervision during the foundation phase of medical education. Despite repeated attempts, Dr Gunjan Gupta, medical commissioner (medical administration), ESIC, Delhi, could not be reached for comment. Calls and WhatsApp messages remained unanswered. 

Medical education experts say pre-clinical departments form the academic base of an MBBS course. "Running them without professors weakens training at the very first stage," a senior academician said.

RTI ordinance passed without key reforms, alleges rights forum.

TBS News: Dhaka: Friday, February 13, 2026.

The Right to Information (RTI) Forum has strongly criticised the amendment to the Right to Information Act, 2009, calling it a "farce" carried out by the outgoing interim government.

In a statement issued today (10 February), the forum said Ordinance No-30 of 2026, approved by the President on 9 February to amend the RTI Act, fails to reflect the core spirit of the law and undermines transparency.

The forum also expressed serious concern over the prolonged failure to appoint the Chief Information Commissioner and other commissioners, despite repeated demands. This, it said, has effectively rendered the Information Commission – funded by public money – non-functional, creating major obstacles to the implementation of the RTI Act during the interim government's tenure.

According to the statement, the RTI Forum had earlier prepared 37 amendment proposals to strengthen the law and formally presented them at a press conference on 6 March 2025, submitting the same to the chief adviser.

The forum later provided further opinions to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in line with recommendations from the Public Administration Reform Commission. On 25 January 2026, after learning that an ordinance was being prepared, the forum urgently requested the inclusion of key amendments and contacted advisers multiple times to stress their importance.

However, the forum said the final ordinance ignored several critical issues, including expanding the definition of "information" to include note sheets, broadening the scope of authorities under the law to cover private entities working on behalf of the government and registered political parties, and ensuring the status, remuneration and benefits of the Chief Information Commissioner and commissioners are equivalent to judges of the Appellate and High Court divisions.

It also demanded stronger accountability mechanisms in cases involving fines.

Parliament Question on RTI Disposal: Rejection Rate Drops to 3.26% in 2024–25, Over 29,000 Appeals Pending.

Indian Master Minds : New Delhi: Friday, February 13, 2026.

13.8 Lakh RTI Replies in 2024–25; Rejection Rate Declines, Says Government.

The government on Thursday informed the Rajya Sabha that the percentage of rejected RTI applications has declined significantly over the years, falling to 3.26% in 2024–25, compared to 7.21% in 2013–14.

The data was shared by Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Science & Technology and Earth Sciences, and MoS in the Prime Minister’s Office, Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Atomic Energy and Space, Dr. Jitendra Singh, in a written reply in the Upper House.

The figures are based on the Annual Reports of the Central Information Commission (CIC).

RTI Disposal Trends Since 2021

According to the CIC’s Annual Reports, the overall trend in disposal of RTI applications since 2021 is as follows:

Disposal of RTI Requests

The data shows a steady increase in the number of RTI replies between 2021–22 and 2023–24, followed by a slight dip in 2024–25. Transfers of RTI applications have also risen consistently over the period.

Rejection Rate Declines Over the Years

The government highlighted that the percentage of rejection of RTI applications across various Public Authorities — including Ministries, Departments, Attached Offices, Subordinate Offices and Autonomous Bodies — has decreased significantly.2013–14: 7.21% rejection rate

2024–25: 3.26% rejection rate

This indicates a downward trend in refusals over the past decade.

Public-authority-wise data on rejected RTI requests is available in Annexure-1 of the CIC Annual Reports, accessible on the official website of the Central Information Commission.

Grounds for Denial Under RTI Act

The CIC clarified that information may be denied or refused under specific provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

One of the key grounds includes:

• Section 8(1)(j): Denial on the basis of “personal information”
• Other exemptions are also provided under various sections of the Act.
• Data Not Maintained on Partial Responses
• The Central Information Commission has informed that:Data regarding partially answered RTI applications is not collected or compiled.
• Data on remaining unresolved cases is also not maintained.

The average time taken for disposal of second appeals and complaints is not maintained.

Pending Appeals and Complaints Before CIC. As per the latest update:29,034 second appeals were pending before the CIC as of February 1, 2026. 3,577 complaints were also pending as of the same date. These figures reflect the current workload before the Commission.

Government’s Response in Rajya Sabha

The information was provided by Dr. Jitendra Singh in a written reply in the Rajya Sabha on Thursday, addressing questions related to the disposal, rejection rates, and pendency of RTI applications and appeals.

The data highlights both improvements in rejection rates and ongoing challenges related to pendency and data compilation.

Delhi HC, SC, MHA among top authorities with highest RTI rejection rates: CIC report.

Economic Times: New Delhi: Friday, February 13, 2026.

The CIC report revealed that Section 8(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act -- which provides exemption from disclosure of information when it comes to matters such as national security and other protected interests -- was invoked 28,924 times. This accou for nearly half, or 49.88 per cent, of all the grounds for rejection cited.

The Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court and the Ministry of Home Affairs were among the major public authorities who rejected RTI applications the most in 2024-25, while the Ministry of Finance also recorded a significant number of denials, according to the latest annual report of the Central Information Commission. The CIC report revealed that Section 8(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act -- which provides exemption from disclosure of information when it comes to matters such as national security and other protected interests -- was invoked 28,924 times. This accounted for nearly half, or 49.88 per cent, of all the grounds for rejection cited.

The Delhi High Court rejected 22.88 per cent of the 2,089 RTI applications it received during the year -- the highest rejection rate among the top 20 ministries, departments and independent public authorities. The Supreme Court followed with a rejection rate of 13.73 per cent, having turned down 689 out of 5,017 applications. The home ministry rejected 7,750 out of 58,130 applications, translating to a 13.33 per cent rejection rate -- the highest among major ministries. The Ministry of Finance, which was one the authorities that received the highest number of applications at 2,20,283, rejected 18,734 of them, amounting to 8.50 per cent.

The Ministry of Law and Justice reported a rejection rate of 7.14 per cent (1,330 out of 18,638 applications), while the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology rejected 7.98 per cent of 10,134 applications. In contrast, some high-volume departments reported very low rejection percentages. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs received the highest number of RTI applications at 2,54,657 but rejected only 351, or just 0.14 per cent. The Ministry of Education rejected 0.74 per cent of 1,34,025 applications, and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways rejected 0.70 per cent of 35,481 applications.

The report also provided details of the legal grounds invoked while denying information. Section 8(1) of the RTI Act -- which provides exemptions on grounds such as national security, sovereignty and integrity of India, strategic and economic interests, trade secrets, fiduciary relationships and personal information - was cited 28,924 times, accounting for 49.88 per cent of all rejection grounds. Section 24 -- which exempts certain intelligence and security organisations from the purview of the Act except in cases involving allegations of corruption and human rights violations -- was invoked 8,251 times, amounting to 14.23 per cent. Section 11, relating to third-party information and the mandatory consultation process before disclosure, was cited 519 times (0.90 per cent), while Section 9, which bars disclosure if it would infringe copyright subsisting in a person other than the State, was invoked 232 times (0.40 per cent). Other provisions together accounted for 20,059 instances, or 34.59 per cent. The report noted that multiple sections may have been invoked in a single case of rejection

Appeal figures also reflect continued challenges to denials.

The Ministry of Finance saw 26,219 first appeals and 3,966 second appeals or complaints.

The MHA recorded 9,389 first appeals and 960 second appeals or complaints, while the Ministry of Defence received 16,876 first appeals and 1,203 second appeals or complaints. The data highlights wide variations in rejection rates across institutions, even as the large volume of applications running into lakhs underscores the sustained use of the RTI Act by citizens to seek information from public authorities.

HC seeks CIC response over pendency of RTI appeals.

Greater Kashmir: Srinagar: Friday, Feb 13, 2026.

The PIL alleges that several RTI applications and first appeals were pending before different public authorities and the CIC in Jammu and Kashmir beyond the statutory time limit of 45 days. 

The High Court of J&K and Ladakh Thursday sought Centreís response to the Public Interest litigation alleging non-disposal of appeals filed over years under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal sought reply in response to the PIL filed by Junaid Javid, a resident of Uri who is seeking courtís intervention for implementing the RTI Act in letter and spirit in Jammu and Kashmir.

Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) T M Shamshi, appearing for Central Information Commission (CIS) sought a short accommodation to ascertain as to why appeals filed under the RTI Act years ago were not heard or decided.

Taking note of the submission, the court adjourned the matter to February 23. The PIL alleges that several RTI applications and first appeals were pending before different public authorities and the CIC in Jammu and Kashmir beyond the statutory time limit of 45 days.

The petitioner stated that after being dissatisfied with the responses of the first appellate authorities, he filed second appeals before the CIC in respect of three RTI applications dated November 13, 2024, January 9, 2025, and November 27, 2025.

His further contention is that for months, the CIC neither listed the appeals for hearing nor passed any order.

The petitioner seeks directions to ensure timely disposal of RTI applications and appeals in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The petitioner was represented by Naveed Bukhtiyar.

Delhi HC pulls up MCD for not publishing civic records after 20 years of RTI, says it is ‘no exception’ : Akshat Jain

The Print: New Delhi: Tuesday, 10^th February 2026.
Court directs civic body to file affidavit on compliance steps; civic body had claimed Section 86 of DMC Act governs circulation, not RTI law.

The Delhi High Court last week pulled up the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for failing to publish key civic records on its website even 20 years after the Right to Information (RTI) Act came into force.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that the civic body has not fulfilled its statutory disclosure obligations despite the law being enforced in October 2005.
The observations were made while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) by the Centre for Youth Culture, Law and Environment, a Delhi-based NGO, which had sought directions to upload legislative records, house proceedings, and resolutions passed by standing committees dating to 1957.
“Accordingly, prima facie, it is apparent that the statutory mandate and the duty casts on the MCD by Section 4 of the RTI Act has yet not been fully followed even after lapse of twenty years since the RTI Act was enforced.” the court noted.
The bench directed the MCD to file a detailed affidavit within four weeks, explaining what steps it has taken to meet its disclosure obligations under the RTI Act by publication. It also directed the civic body to file a para-wise reply to the claims made in the petition.
The order is based on Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005, which mandates “suo-moto” or proactive disclosure of information by all public authorities. Section 4(1)(b) obligates every public authority to publish specified categories of information, and Section 4(2) provides that every authority must make constant endeavour to provide information at regular intervals.
As the bench noted, the intent of Parliament was that information be placed in the public domain so that citizens have “minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act for the purpose of obtaining information.”
The MCD relied on Section 86 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, arguing that it governs circulation and inspection of resolutions and minutes.
But the Bench said that disclosure of minutes was squarely covered within the RTI Act, while the DMC Act merely prescribed internal circulation among specified office-holders such as MLAs and chairpersons of committees.
“Section 86 of the DMC Act in our opinion has nothing to do with dissemination of information and particulars to (the) public, as is the mandated under… RTI Act,” the court observed.
Addressing the argument that resolutions and minutes need not be published, the court extracted Section 4(1)(b)(viii), which specifically requires the publication of statements regarding boards, councils, and committees, and whether their meetings or minutes are accessible to the public.
“Thus, public bodies, including the MCD, is (are) under statutory mandate to publish the information in terms of requirement of Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act,” it said, adding: “No exception in this regard can be granted to any public authority, including the MCD.”
The petition arose from RTI replies issued by the MCD in September 2025, where the civic body claimed there are no rules or guidelines for publication of such material on its website. “There is (are) no rules and guidelines that govern the publication of resolutions passed by MCD on its official websites. The same is govern(ed) by as per the provision of Section 86 of DMC Act, 1957,” the MCD had said.
Even on appeal, the first appellate authority reiterated this position.
The matter has been scheduled for further hearing in April.
(Edited by Prerna Madan)