‘Convenient refuge’ for avoiding disclosure: CIC cautions SAIL, seeks recruitment transparency

The Print: New Delhi: Friday, 26 June 2026.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) in two separate orders involving the Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL) has called for greater transparency in recruitment processes and cautioned public authorities against denying access to record-based information under the RTI Act.
The Commission, however, accepted SAIL’s submission in one of the cases that the requested recruitment records were no longer available as they had been weeded out in accordance with the applicable record retention schedule, and found no mala fide denial of information.
The observations were made by Information Commissioner P R Ramesh in two separate cases concerning recruitment and selection processes in SAIL.
In the first case, a complainant sought details related to the Junior Officer-2018 examination, including the date of the examination, category-wise number of candidates who appeared, cut-off marks and his own marks.
The CIC said information regarding examination dates and category-wise candidate data, if available on record, would constitute information under the RTI Act and could not be denied merely by invoking Section 2(f).
“The routine and mechanical invocation of Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, has increasingly become a convenient refuge for avoiding disclosure rather than a legitimate statutory ground for denial,” the Commission said.
It further observed that there was “no justification” for invoking Section 2(f) to deny access to existing statistical or administrative data and deprecated the “casual resort” to the provision in cases where information sought was manifestly record-based.
The Commission also said failure to distinguish between requests seeking opinions and those seeking existing records “undermines transparency and imposes unnecessary barriers” on citizens seeking access to public records.
However, noting SAIL’s submission that the recruitment records had been weeded out as per the applicable retention schedule, the Commission found no material to establish deliberate withholding of information and declined to initiate action against the CPIO.
In the second matter, an appellant sought information relating to marks, cut-off scores and merit position in a recruitment process for the post of Operator-cum-Technician (Trainee) at SAIL’s IISCO Steel Plant in West Bengal.
While observing that the information available on record had already been provided to the appellant, the Commission stressed the need for greater openness in recruitment matters.
“The Commission notes that the need for transparency is more in the case of the appointment/recruitment process,” the order said.
Accordingly, the CIC advised SAIL to place details of all stages of recruitment in the public domain, including names of selected candidates, category-wise merit lists and marks secured by candidates, in accordance with Section 4 of the RTI Act. PTI MHS APL
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.

Statutory Obligations Travel With Office, Not Individual Incumbent: Karnataka High Court Rules On RTI Liability Of Successor Officers : By Agatha Shukla

Verdictum: Karnataka: Friday, 26 June 2026.
Holding that a public servant cannot ignore pending RTI proceedings inherited from a predecessor, the Court affirmed a ₹25,000 penalty imposed on a BDA Secretary for continuing institutional apathy and non-representation.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj, Karnataka High Court 

The Karnataka High Court has held that the office of the First Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act is a statutory position rather than a personal office, meaning all associated legal obligations travel with the office regardless of changes in personnel.
The Court ruled that an incoming officer cannot escape liability for non-compliance by merely projecting historical defaults onto their predecessors, especially when a pattern of institutional neglect and non-representation continues during their own active tenure.
The facts revealed and absence of diligence, as no representative appeared on behalf of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) during successive hearings before the Commission. Taking serious note of this protracted inaction, the Commission passed an order on January 1, 2026, imposing a personal penalty of ₹25,000 on the authority and directing immediate disclosure.
Court Justice Suraj Govindaraj while dismissing a writ petition challenging the punitive actions of the State Information Commission, observed, “The office of the First Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act is not a personal office but a statutory office. The obligations attached thereto travel with the office and not with the individual incumbent. Once the petitioner assumed charge as Secretary, BDA and consequently as the First Appellate Authority on 08.05.2025, he became responsible for all pending matters requiring attention within the jurisdiction of that office, including the appeal preferred by Respondent No. 2”.
“A public servant assuming charge of a statutory office cannot ignore pending proceedings merely because they originated during the tenure of his predecessor. Acceptance of such a contention would result in administrative paralysis and would enable statutory obligations to be indefinitely postponed by the simple expedient of transfer of officers, a consequence wholly contrary to the object and purpose of the Right to Information Act”, the Bench further noted.
Advocate Murugesh V. Charati appeared for the petitioner and Advocate G.B. Sharath Gowda appeared for the respondent.
The matter originated from an RTI application filed by Respondent No. 2 on February 6, 2023, seeking certain information from the Bangalore Development Authority. Due to initial non-disclosure, the applicant filed a first appeal on March 9, 2023.
The petitioner, Shivakumar C.L., subsequently assumed charge as the Secretary of the BDA and the designated First Appellate Authority on May 8, 2025. Despite the transfer of office, the information remained un-furnished and the first appeal lay dormant. Consequently, the applicant approached the Karnataka Information Commission, which listed the second appeal for multiple hearings throughout 2025.
Upon further non-compliance, the Commission issued a show-cause notice on February 10, 2026, for initiating disciplinary proceedings, which prompted the petitioner to approach the High Court.
Rejecting the petitioner's primary defense that the defaults occurred prior to his appointment, the Bench observed that the petitioner failed to show any bona fide efforts or entry of appearance during his tenure, and noted that his subsequent directive to subordinate staff was an ex-post facto attempt to evade consequences. The Court clarified that post-penalty compliance cannot retrospectively erase months of active statutory neglect.
“The timing of the communication assumes particular significance. If the petitioner was genuinely diligent in discharging his statutory obligations, there is no explanation as to why similar directions were not issued immediately upon his assumption of office, or at the very least after receipt of notices from the Commission. The absence of any such contemporaneous action renders the subsequent communication of little evidentiary value”, the Bench noted.
“The conduct displayed in the present matter deserves serious disapproval. Public authorities functioning under the Right to Information Act occupy a position of trust and are expected to facilitate access to information rather than obstruct it through indifference or inaction. Failure to participate in proceedings before the Commission and failure to discharge statutory obligations undermine the legislative intent of promoting transparency and accountability in governance. Such conduct cannot be lightly condoned, lest it dilute the effectiveness of the statutory regime established under the Act”, the Bench further observed.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no illegality or procedural infirmity in the Commission's orders. However, the Court clarified that the dismissal would not preclude competent authorities from investigating the specific role of the petitioner’s predecessors and initiating separate lawful action for the delays committed prior to May 8, 2025.
Cause Title: Shivakumar C.L. v. The State Information Commissioner, Karnataka Information Commission and Another
(Click here to download Judgment)

RTI reveals low conviction rate in cases involving serious offences heard by Udham Singh Nagar courts : Narendra Sethi

New Indian Express: Kashipur: Friday, 26 June 2026.
The sessions courts decided 150 serious cases filed under the IPC, including offences such as murder, robbery, dacoity and rape, of which convictions were recorded only in 40 cases.

The special POCSO court decided 141 cases in 2025. Convictions were recorded in only 27 cases, while 99 ended in acquittal.  Photo| IANS

Courts in Uttarakhand's Udham Singh Nagar decided a total of 9,165 criminal cases in 2025, but the conviction rate in the matters, including those involving serious offences such as POCSO, rape and murder remained at just 31 per cent, according to information obtained under the RTI Act.
The data was procured by Kashipur-based (Right to Information) RTI activist and advocate Nadeem Uddin.
"I had sought details from the Directorate of Prosecution regarding convictions and acquittals in criminal cases during 2025," Nadeem Uddin told TNIE.
"The information shows that in several serious categories, the number of acquittals was much higher than convictions," he said.
As per the RTI reply, sessions courts decided 150 serious cases filed under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including offences such as murder, robbery, dacoity and rape. Of these, convictions were recorded in 40 cases, while 91 cases ended in acquittal. Another 19 cases were quashed or consigned to record.
"The figures indicate that in many cases, the prosecution and police could not prove the charges before the court," Nadeem said.
The special POCSO court decided 141 cases in 2025. Convictions were recorded in only 27 cases, while 99 ended in acquittal and 15 were quashed or consigned. The conviction rate stood at 21 per cent. POCSO pendency rose from 645 cases to 692, with 188 new cases filed.
In cases under other Acts triable by sessions courts, the conviction rate was much higher at 75 per cent. A total of 542 such cases were decided in 2025, with convictions in 351 cases and acquittals in 114. Another 45 cases were quashed or consigned.
At the subordinate court level, including magistrate courts, 341 IPC cases ended in conviction, while 126 resulted in acquittal. During the same period, 537 cases were settled through compromise, and 304 were quashed or consigned. The conviction rate in these IPC matters stood at 73 per cent.
In cases under other Acts before subordinate courts, convictions were recorded in 2,064 cases, while 83 ended in acquittal. As many as 1,168 cases were quashed or consigned. The conviction rate in this category was shown as 96 per cent.
Officials noted that this category also includes challans and fine-related cases under laws such as the Motor Vehicles Act.
The RTI information also highlights pendency trends. At the beginning of 2025, 3,465 cases were pending before sessions courts in Udham Singh Nagar. By year-end, this number rose to 3,794, despite 1,021 new cases being filed during the year.
In subordinate courts, however, pendency reduced from 30,716 cases at the beginning of the year to 27,246 by year-end. During this period, 1,311 new cases were filed.
In the special SC/ST court, 14 cases were decided, with two convictions and two acquittals, while 10 were quashed or consigned. Pendency reduced from 90 to 87 cases.
The special Gangster court decided five cases, recording one conviction and three acquittals. One case was quashed or consigned.
The special NDPS court decided 117 drug-related cases, with convictions in 73 and acquittals in 14. Thirty cases were quashed or consigned. NDPS pendency increased from 1,117 cases to 1,213 by the end of 2025.

Activists serve legal notice to Maharashtra government over new RTI rules

The Times of India: Mumbai: Friday, 26 June 2026.
The controversy surrounding Maharashtra’s recently notified Right to Information (RTI) Rules, 2026 has escalated with a group of prominent transparency activists and former information officials issuing a legal notice to the state government demanding that the rules be withdrawn in their entirety within 15 days.

The notice issued by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi, on behalf of others, alleges that the new rules make the process of obtaining information “more expensive, more technical and more cumbersome” than envisaged under the central legislation. The activists said they would move the Bombay high court challenging the validity of the rules.
The move comes days after the Maharashtra government withdrew a controversial provision that would have required applicants to state the purpose for seeking information. However, activists contend that several other provisions introduced through the Maharashtra RTI Rules, 2026 continue to impose barriers that are inconsistent with the spirit and provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
Among the key objections is the requirement that applicants submit a self-attested photo identity proof along with RTI applications. The notice contends that Section 6(2) of the RTI Act expressly states that applicants cannot be asked to provide reasons for seeking information or furnish personal details beyond those necessary for communication. The activists argue that compulsory submission of identity documents could discourage whistle-blowers, journalists, and citizens seeking information on corruption and maladministration.
The notice also challenges restrictions limiting RTI applications to a single subject and 150 words. According to the activists, such provisions could force citizens to file multiple applications and pay multiple fees to obtain information relating to a single project, contract, policy decision or government transaction. The rules have also increased the RTI application fee to Rs 30, and introduced appeal fees of Rs 50 before the first appellate authority and Rs 100 before the State Information Commission.

MP Anti-Corruption Probe Body Not an ‘Intelligence Agency’, Cannot Claim RTI Exemption: Supreme Court Strikes Down 2011 State Notification : By Saket Sourav

Law Street Journal: New Delhi: Friday, 26 June 2026.

The Supreme Court has upheld a Madhya Pradesh High Court direction requiring the Special Police Establishment (SPE) of the Lokayukta Organisation to disclose information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005, while simultaneously striking down a 2011 State Government notification that had purported to exempt the SPE wholesale from the RTI regime. The Court held that the SPE is not an “intelligence and security organisation” within the meaning of Section 24(4) of the RTI Act and, therefore, cannot constitutionally claim such exemption.
A Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar delivered the judgment.
The first respondent, Kamta Prasad Mishra, was serving as a Town Inspector at Police Station Madhav Nagar, Katni, when he was implicated by the SPE, Bhopal, in a trap case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. An FIR was registered on 11 April 2017, and the Home Department granted sanction for his prosecution on 20 May 2020. Seeking to understand the decision-making process behind the grant of sanction, Mishra filed an RTI application on 1 July 2020 under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act.
The request was refused. The State Information Commission upheld the refusal on 16 December 2020, accepting the SPE’s contention that disclosure was barred by Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and by a notification dated 25 August 2011 issued by the General Administration Department of Madhya Pradesh under Section 24(4), which had declared the provisions of the Act inapplicable to the SPE. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, however, found that the investigation had been completed and a chargesheet had already been filed. Consequently, it held that the exemption under Section 8(1)(h) was unavailable and directed the authorities to furnish the information within thirty days.
Before the Supreme Court, the SPE placed heavy reliance on the 2011 notification, contending that it operated as a blanket exclusion of the SPE from the RTI Act’s reach. This reliance prompted the Court to examine a question that the first respondent had not formally challenged: whether the notification itself was valid.
The Court held that Section 24(4) of the RTI Act permits a State Government to exempt only such organisations as qualify as “intelligence and security organisations.” The Second Schedule to the Act, which catalogues analogous Central Government-exempted bodies, includes organisations whose core functions relate to intelligence and security such as the Directorate of Enforcement, the Central Reserve Police Force, the Border Security Force, the Central Industrial Security Force, the National Investigation Agency, and others.
By contrast, the SPE was constituted under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947, solely to investigate offences notified under Section 3 of that Act, presently confined to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 409 and 420, and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code.
The Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt, of which the SPE is the investigative arm, are likewise restricted to inquiring into “allegations” of corruption or misconduct against public servants, as defined under Section 2(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981. Neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE exercises any intelligence or security-related functions.
Accordingly, the Court held that the SPE could not, by any stretch of interpretation, be characterised as an “intelligence and security organisation” within the meaning of Section 24(4). It therefore declared that the notification dated 25 August 2011, insofar as it sought to exclude the SPE from the RTI Act’s purview, was bad in law.
The Court also noted that the Allahabad High Court had reached a similar conclusion in Dr. Nutan Thakur v. State of U.P. (decided on 2 November 2017), where it invalidated an analogous notification exempting the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukt from the RTI regime.
Addressing the propriety of examining the issue suo motu, the Court considered the argument that the first respondent had never specifically challenged the 2011 notification in his writ petition before the High Court. Relying on earlier decisions, including Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat (Magadh Division) v. State of Bihar and Bharathidasan University v. All India Council for Technical Education, the Court held that constitutional courts possess the power to strike down subordinate legislation that is clearly inconsistent with the parent statute, even in the absence of a specific challenge. However, the State must first be afforded a fair opportunity to justify and defend the impugned law.
The Court found that this requirement had been satisfied. On 14 May 2026, it had expressed prima facie doubts regarding the notification and invited the State to clarify its position. Thereafter, on 20 May 2026, Senior Advocate Ms. Manisha Karia and Advocate General Mr. Prashant Singh addressed detailed submissions and filed written arguments on behalf of the State. The Court therefore concluded that all procedural requirements for the exercise of its suo motu powers had been duly observed.
On the issue of Section 8(1)(h), the Court affirmed the High Court’s reasoning that information relating to the process of granting sanction for prosecution namely, correspondence and deliberations that had already crystallised into a final decision could not be withheld on the ground that disclosure would impede an investigation that had already concluded with the filing of a chargesheet.
The Court clarified that its ruling on the 2011 notification was confined to the SPE component of the notification. The notification’s second limb, which sought to exclude the State Bureau of Investigation of Economic Offences from the RTI Act’s operation, was not under challenge and was therefore left undisturbed.
Case: Special Police Establishment v. Kamta Prasad Mishra and Others (Citation: 2026 INSC 644).
[Read Judgment]

Eternal vigilance, RTI, and the role of citizens in democracy : Vidya Venkat

Supreme Court Observer: New Delhi: Friday, 26 June 2026.
Recalling the importance of RTI activism in light of recent comments from the top judiciary

“The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance…”– John Philpot Curran
Over two decades ago, when India adopted the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, it heralded a culture of citizen-led vigilance in democracy, putting an end to the colonial-era legacy of state secrecy. However, recent developments point to a shift in the Supreme Court’s attitude towards public scrutiny of governmental affairs.
Justice Sandeep Mehta’s recent headline-grabbing comment that “RTI activism has become a new business” is one such instance. On 1 June 2026, a Bench of Justices Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi refused anticipatory bail to activist Ramesh Kumar Behl and his aide who were monitoring a road construction project in Punjab. Referring to the appellant as a “nobody” and “so-called RTI activist”, they questioned his authority to oversee the execution of the public work programme. The Bench observed that the Central government had issued the funds for the project and will take care of its construction. Behl and his aide were accused of blocking the road and intimidating workers and the project supervisor. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had earlier recorded a statement by the appellant’s counsel alleging that they were falsely implicated in order to protect the contractors involved in the corruption they exposed.
It is not my intention to condone acts of intimidation of public authorities and the allegations against Behl may well be true. However, for the apex court to suggest that citizen vigilance via the use of RTI or other means is per se disruptive amounts to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Corruption in public infrastructure projects
Going by the details reported thus far, it is difficult to ascertain the exact details of the corruption alleged by Behl and whether any steps have been taken to establish their veracity. But it is no secret that public infrastructure projects in India are susceptible to financial misappropriation and contracts are often issued to those favoured by politicians. A peer-reviewed paper published in 2018 in the Journal of Development Economics uses data on 88,000 roads built under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) to document the role of political influence in allocation of construction contracts and the likelihood of such projects never being completed. Meanwhile, village-level census data revealed that PMGSY monitoring data on completed roads includes a number of entirely fictitious ones. Not only roads, but all major infrastructure projects, including private building constructions are ripe with illegalities and corrupt practices which compromise their quality. Collapse of bridges, national highways, and commercial buildings due to poor construction cost lives and pose a serious public hazard. The World Economic Forum has noted that corruption is one of the major barriers to economic development and growth in India and recommends closer monitoring of public infrastructure projects by citizens (social auditing) as an important step to ensure transparency and accountability.
Citizen vigilance: the very lifeblood of democracy
Rajasthan was among the first states to implement the state RTI legislation in 2001 prior to the law’s country-wide adoption in 2005. In 1996, the state had already opened up access to panchayat records to ordinary citizens to allow them to monitor expenses incurred on public works. During my doctoral fieldwork, I came across several instances in the State where grassroots activists and ordinary citizens successfully monitored the implementation of public works and infrastructure projects be it roads, schools, or hospitals and proactively took steps to report and curb corruption. For instance, it was using RTI data that a woman from Jawaja exposed discrepancy in the distribution of free medication at the government hospital, leading to a public audit and action against the hospital staff found guilty of misusing public funds.
Social audits have emerged as an effective tool against siphoning of state funds. Initially led by organisations like Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), they were eventually institutionalised via the MNREGA programme and have been adopted by states such as Telangana and Andhra Pradesh as well.
In Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal’s NGO Parivartan used data obtained through the state RTI Act to conduct social audits of the Public Distribution System, road-laying works, and the Delhi electricity board. The importance of social audits was also emphasised by the Supreme Court in 2018 while deciding a PIL matter on whether welfare measures meant for construction workers actually reached them.
RTI activism has led to several meaningful judicial interventions, bringing to light facts that are crucial for dispensing justice. The Court has repeatedly upheld its application, extending its ambit to both financial regulators as well as its own office, balancing the need for transparency and accountability with institutional independence. In 2015, it ruled that the Reserve Bank of India cannot hide all information held under it as a fiduciary as it is accountable to citizens for the management of public money. In 2019, following prolonged activism by Subhash Chandra Agrawal, the Court brought the CJI’s office under the RTI Act, permitting access to information on judicial appointments and declaration of assets on a case by case basis.
RTI action is no easy task
Both the RTI Act, 2005 and the Whistleblower’s Protection Act, 2011 were notably adopted after the tragic death of civil engineer Satyendra Dubey in 2003.
In 2002, Dubey had exposed corruption in implementation of the ‘Golden Quadrilateral Highway Construction Project’, initiated in 2001 by then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Gunned down in 2003, the 31-year-old’s story raised a country-wide furore, drawing attention to the stakes involved in whistleblowing big money projects. Despite subsequent legal measures to encourage and protect whistleblowers, Dubey’s story rings just as relevant today as anti-corruption activism remains fraught with the risk of retaliation. The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative documents nearly 500 reported attacks on RTI users since 2005. In such a scenario, the apex Court remains the last bastion of justice available for ordinary citizens to expose corruption.
Numbers counter the rhetoric
On 15 May, when Chief Justice Surya Kant likened unemployed youngsters to cockroaches, he stated that “they go on to become media, social media and RTI activists and start attacking the system.” Accusing RTI activists of being troublemakers and adopting a dismissive attitude towards their efforts to seek accountability is a common defence adopted by public authorities against increased scrutiny.
Instead, as noted in a 2014 report, RTI activism is often a cry for attention to highlight genuine public grievances. Less than 1 per cent of RTI applications filed by citizens were of a vexatious or frivolous nature intended to harass a public authority. What’s more, the high rates of filing may be more indicative of the crumbling RTI infrastructure, defunct State-level Commissions, long pendency of requests and arguably frivolous rejections on technical grounds. At the Supreme Court, a majority of rejected requests fall under the “other” category, providing no reasoning for refusal.
Undermining the spirit of democracy
When the country’s top court discourages RTI activism, it violates the very purpose for which the Court was established: to uphold Constitutional values and the right to information under Article 19(1)(a). In 1973, the Court had observed that “Fundamental Rights themselves have no fixed contents, most of them are empty vessels into which each generation must pour its contents in the light of its experience.” As Dr. Sudarsana Natchiappan notes, the attempt of the Court, therefore, should be to “expand the reach and ambit of fundamental rights by way of judicial interpretation.” To accept unquestioningly the functioning of government and to not ask questions of it or monitor its activities undermines the very spirit of citizen engagement vital for a democracy.
Vidya Venkat is a Research Fellow on the Global Research Network on Parliaments and People, a European Research Council-funded project based at SOAS University of London. Her doctoral thesis on India’s right-to-information movement won the Radcliffe Brown-Sutasoma Award from the Royal Anthropological Institute, UK for outstanding merit. She has previously worked as a journalist and communications consultant in India since 2004.

Commission seeks explanation after RTI on stray dog rescue facilities answered post death

Times of India: Mumbai: Thursday, 25 June 2026.

A street dog’s death in Aligarh has drawn scrutiny from the UP-State Information Commission (UPSIC) after an RTI application seeking details of treatment and rescue facilities was answered nearly three months late, according to the complainant.
Mohd Imran Khan of Iglas, Aligarh, said the dog in his locality was ailing and he repeatedly approached the district veterinary hospital for treatment, but without result. Khan then filed a Right to Information (RTI) application with the animal husbandry department on Jan 25, asking what arrangements existed for roadside animals needing urgent care.
In his RTI, Khan sought to know whether any ambulance service was available for transporting such animals, whether there was a rescue centre or a helpline, and whether any NGO or private agency was engaged on contract in Aligarh for treating injured or sick animals found on roads.
Khan said he received the requested information only on April 16, by which time the dog had died. Under the RTI Act, information is to be provided within 30 days of an application.
Aggrieved by the delay and the outcome, Khan filed a complaint before the UPSIC. During a recent hearing, information commissioner Mohammad Nadeem observed that cases involving animal distress required heightened sensitivity and issued a notice to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the concerned department, seeking an explanation in the matter.
The commission has fixed the next hearing for July 27.
At the hearing, thedeputy CMO of Aligarh told the commission that Khan’s RTI application was transferred to their office on April 7 and that information was then sent to the applicant on April 16. The official said the delay occurred at the level of the department that initially received the RTI.
The RTI Act requires that if an application is to be transferred to another public authority, it should be done within five days. The commission has sought an explanation on why the transfer took substantially longer than the prescribed period.

Anna Hazare warns of mass agitation unless Maharashtra withdraws ‘RTI amendments’

The Hindu: Mumbai: Thursday, 25 June 2026.
Hazare said that if the government does not scrap the amendments before July 5, he would start a nation-wide agitation

Civil rights activist Anna Hazare issued an ultimatum to the Maharashtra Government on Wednesday (June 24, 2026) calling for the withdrawal of the Maharashtra Right to Information (Amendment) Rules, 2026. He said a meeting with the Maharashtra Chief Information Commissioner in Ralegan Siddhi was “unsatisfactory”. “If they don’t withdraw the amendments and if people’s interest is jeopardised, I will hit the streets once again,” he told reporters.
Calling for a struggle against the amendments, he expressed dissatisfaction with the Maharashtra Government’s policies. “I did not get any satisfactory answers from the Government during this meeting. If the soul of the RTI Act has to be kept alive, a new committee needs to be formed immediately. This committee should consist of experts and officials who have in-depth knowledge of the Right to Information Act and who are pro-people,” he said after the meeting.
Amendments blunt RTI provisions
He had earlier written to the Maharashtra Government seeking complete withdrawal of all the amendments, adding that they weaken the spirit of the Right to Information Act and blunt its provisions. He has opposed the provisions of the amendment rules which have tripled the application fees, introduced appeals fees, and capped free information for those living Below Poverty Line. The rules mandate that one RTI query should pertain to a single subject, and the word count is limited to 150 words. It seeks mandatory revelation of identity of the applicant, removing the shield of anonymity for whistleblowers, and ban lawyers from representing the applicant at hearings. If the applicant fails to show up for the hearing, the case can be dismissed. If the applicant dies, the case will be closed.
Anna Hazare said that if the government does not act to unequivocally scrap the amendments before July 5, he will go on a hunger strike. He also threatened to start a nation-wide agitation. Mr. Hazare’s office stated that the Chief Information Commissioner informed them that he would convey the import of the talks to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who would take a final call.
Meet was ‘satisfactory’
Chief Information Commissioner Rahul Pande called the meeting “satisfactory”, claiming that Anna Hazare was pleased with the information given to him. “Today we met Anna Hazare and held extensive discussions on the effective implementation of the Right to Information Act (RTI) in the State. The focus of our discussion was making the RTI regime more people-friendly with more vigorous steps on maximum suo-motu voluntary disclosure under section 4(1) of the RTI Act. My senior colleagues and SIC Pune Bench Makrand Ranade and SIC Nashik Bench Prakash Indalkar also participated and supplied disposal and filing statistics. The recently notified RTI rules were also discussed and Anna underlined the importance of suo-motu disclosure and demanded that implementation of RTI rules be put on hold. We are satisfied with our discussions with Anna,” he said.
Meanwhile, civil rights activists have raised questions about the CIC’s role. They sought to know how the information commissioner could act as a mediator between the government and civil rights activists, and how the official could hold discussions when he had no power to amend or revoke the rules.

Prominent civil rights activists to challenge Maharashtra RTI (Amendment) Rules, 2026 in court, send legal notice to govt

The Hindu: Mumbai: Thursday, 25 June 2026.
How could RTI Rules be amended without prior disclosure and public consultation, ask activists

Prominent civil rights activists on Wednesday (June 24, 2026) sent a legal notice to Maharashtra government seeking a complete rollback of the Maharashtra Right to Information (Amendment) Rules, 2026, asking how these rules could be amended without prior disclosure or public consultation. They have sought the restoration of the legal position before the rules were issued, asking for a transparent and meaningful public consultation process involving RTI users, former Information Commissioners, journalists, transparency activists, civil society organisations and legal experts before framing any fresh rules.
The legal notice has been issued by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi, advocate Prahlad Kachare, RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar, journalist Vinita Deshmukh, civil rights activists Vivek Velankar, Jugal Rathi and Mohammed Afzal.
It claims that the provisions of the amended rules are not isolated defects. “They collectively reveal a pattern of restrictions that make access to information more expensive, more technical, more burdensome and more difficult than contemplated by Parliament. The cumulative effect of mandatory identity requirements, restrictions on applications, enhanced fees, shifting burden of proof, expanded exemptions and procedural hurdles is to move the RTI regime away from the citizen-centric framework envisaged by Parliament and towards a system that discourages rather than facilitates access to information,” the legal notice accessed by The Hindu stated.
It said that the new rules dilute, restrict, and burden the exercise of rights conferred by the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), moving away from its citizen-centric framework.
The legal notice has challenged the provisions of the amended rules. They include the tripling of the application fees, introduction of new fees for appeals, and capping of free information for those living Below Poverty Line. It has mandated that one RTI query should pertain to a single subject and should limit its word count to 150 words. It seeks mandatory revelation of identity of the applicant, removing the shield of anonymity for whistleblowers, and bans having lawyers to represent the applicant during hearing. If the applicant fails to show up for the hearing, the case can be dismissed. If the applicant dies, the case will be closed.
The activists have objected to these amendments on several grounds. They include the contention that the delegated legislation exceeded authority, that there was a lack of transparency in the rule-making process, imposition of financial burden, restriction on fee exemption for Below Poverty Line persons.
Raising point-wise objections, the legal notice stated that the power given to the Commission to dismiss appeals or complaints if the complainant failed to appear during hearing, was “inconsistent with the beneficial and citizen-centric character of the RTI Act.”
“Many citizens may be unable to attend hearings for bona fide reasons. Proceedings before the Commission are intended to determine whether access to information has been lawfully denied and not to penalise citizens for procedural lapses. Appeals and complaints under the RTI Act ought ordinarily to be decided on merits. The power to dismiss proceedings for non-prosecution risks denial of substantive rights on technical grounds without adjudication of the applicant’s entitlement to information,” the notice stated.
Raising concerns about the abatement of a case on the death of an appellant, the activists have said it is equally problematic. “The mere death of an applicant does not necessarily render the issues arising in the appeal academic or infructuous. Automatic abatement, irrespective of the nature of the information sought, may result in denial of substantive rights on procedural grounds,” it said.
RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar said, “The RTI movement in India has witnessed several instances where information seekers and transparency activists have allegedly faced threats, intimidation, harassment and, in some cases, loss of life. In such circumstances, a provision providing for automatic abatement upon the death of an appellant may have the unintended consequence of permanently extinguishing proceedings relating to potentially sensitive information.”

CIC seeks written explanation from MHA CPIO over 'misplaced' RTI denial in 'Keralam' proposal case

Metro Vaartha: New Delhi: Wednesday, 24 June 2026.
Seeking written explanation from the Home Ministry CPIO over its denial to provide a copy of its response to the Kerala government's renaming proposal to an applicant, the CIC said the ministry's reliance on an RTI exemption was "erroneous or misplaced".

Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal

Earlier this year, the Union Cabinet approved the Kerala government's proposal to rename the state as "Keralam". The proposal now requires parliamentary approval before the change can take effect.
The RTI applicant had sought copies of the Kerala Assembly's resolutions passed in August 2023 and June 2024 regarding the proposed renaming of the state, besides a copy of any reply given by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) with respect to the August 2023 resolution.
According to the order, the appellant approached the Central Information Commission (CIC) after not receiving any response to the RTI application.
During the hearing, the MHA central public information officer (CPIO) submitted that a reply to the RTI application had been provided on December 16, 2024 by invoking Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
Upon being asked to justify the exemption, the ministry submitted that the records pertained to correspondence between the MHA and the concerned state government and that the subject matter had not attained finality.
It was also submitted that the record was treated as a "confidential/secret record".
Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal observed that the requests for copies of the August 2023 and June 2024 resolutions appeared to pertain to the state government concerned.
It noted that the appellant had referred to documents partially available on the website of the state assembly concerned and appeared not to have filed the request with the "concerned public authority".
However, with regard to the applicant's request for a copy of any reply given by the MHA on the August 2023 resolution, the Commission held that the denial under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act was "erroneous or misplaced".
Referring to the exemption claimed by the ministry, the CIC said that "clearly, the facts of the instant matter do not indicate a fiduciary relationship" between the respondent and the state government in respect of the information sought.
It further observed that "the CPIO was unable to justify the invocation of the same as required in terms of Section 19(5) of the RTI Act during the hearing".
In view of these observations, Goyal directed the CPIO to provide a revised reply to the appellant in respect of Point 2 of the RTI application, relating to the MHA's response to the Kerala government, within two weeks.
The CIC also took exception to the delay in responding to the RTI application, observing that the CPIO had caused a deemed refusal by failing to provide a reply within the stipulated time and that the belated reply had "seemingly evaded furnishing a cogent reply" under the provisions of the RTI Act.
It directed the CPIO to submit a written explanation, along with supporting documents, on why action should not be initiated in the matter under Section 20 of the RTI Act.

Will launch fast from July 5 if amendments to RTI Rules not revoked: Anna Hazare

The Hindu: Pune: Wednesday, 24 June 2026.
Mr. Hazare objected to the hike in fees, saying no rational explanation or financial analysis was provided

Social activist Anna Hazare. File | Photo Credit: PTI

Social activist Anna Hazare on Tuesday (June 23, 2026) warned the BJP-led Maharashtra government to withdraw the ‘illegal’ amendments made to the Right to Information (RTI) Rules, or he will stage an indefinite hunger strike from July 5.
Questioning the need for the amendments, Mr. Hazare said, “Why are such absurd amendments made to the law if the intention is not to weaken the RTI Act? If a satisfactory solution is received in the meeting held on the matter a day after, at 4 p.m., then the fast will be cancelled, or agitation will continue.”
Mr. Hazare led the agitations in 1998, 2001, 2004 and 2006 in efforts to implement the RTI Act. “We fought for so many years, travelled across the country to create awareness, and after 20 years, we are here again,” he added.
The Maharashtra government made amendments on June 12, which, Mr. Hazare has alleged, violate the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005. Mr. Hazare has written a letter to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, pointing out that the Maharashtra Right to Information Rules, 2026, will prevent people from accessing information and hamper transparency.
The RTI amendments include tripling the application fee from ₹10 to ₹30 without any clear financial analysis, providing mandatory identification, restriction up to a 150-word limit, and avoiding multiple queries in a single filing.
On the mandatory ID, he said, “The clause threatens the whistleblowers and activists”, and objected to the fee hike, saying, “It is not to generate funds”.
The other rules mandate applicants to state the purpose of filing RTI; no legal representation during Information Commission hearings; the case will be dismissed in the event of absence during the hearing; and a ban on repeat applications.

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.