Bhiwandi Schools Oppose Directive To Publish Teachers’ Personal Data On Shalarth Portal : Danish Azmi

Free Press Journal: Bhiwandi: Saturday, 21 March 2026.
A directive by the Director of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education to upload detailed personal data of aided school staff on the Shalarth portal has triggered opposition in Bhiwandi. Padmashree Annasaheb Jadhav Bharatiya Samaj Unnati Mandal, through General Secretary R.N. Pinjari, cited RTI Act provisions and a Supreme Court ruling, calling it a privacy violation.

A directive issued by the Director of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, mandating the publication of detailed personal information of teachers and staff from all aided schools under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, has sparked strong opposition from educational institution managements.
The order requires that such information be uploaded on the Education Department’s “Shalarth” system website, drawing objections over concerns of privacy and legality.
The move has particularly been contested by the Padmashree Annasaheb Jadhav Bharatiya Samaj Unnati Mandal, an educational institution that runs several schools, junior colleges, and colleges.
The institution’s General Secretary, R.N. Pinjari, has formally written to the Education Director, raising serious objections to the directive and demanding its immediate withdrawal.
In his representation, Pinjari cited provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, emphasizing that personal information unrelated to larger public interest cannot be disclosed under existing rules.
He also referred to a Supreme Court ruling in a petition filed by Girish Deshpande against the Central Information Commission, which clearly outlines that service-related and financial details of employees fall under the category of “personal information.”

National security not a blanket to deny information: Appeal Court

Daily Mirror: Sri Lanka: Saturday, 21 March 2026.

Colombo, March 21 (Daily Mirror) - The Court of Appeal has ruled that invoking national security cannot serve as a “blanket or unreviewable justification” to deny access to information, in a significant judgement reinforcing the principles of transparency under the Right to Information Act No. 12 of 2016.
The ruling was delivered in an appeal filed by the Sri Lanka Navy challenging a decision of the Right to Information (RTI) Commission, which had directed the Navy to disclose details relating to media reports that former President Gotabaya Rajapaksa boarded the naval vessel SLNS Gajabahu in July 2022 specifically, the cost of the voyage and the source of payment.
Delivering the judgement, Justice Dr. Sumudu Premachandra, with Justice R. Gurusinghe agreeing, held that the Navy had failed to demonstrate a clear nexus between the disclosure of the requested financial information and any genuine threat to national security under Section 5(1) (a) of the RTI Act.
“In the absence of specific evidence, reliance on national security amounts to a generalised assertion or mere claim. It cannot be treated as a panacea and is insufficient to meet the statutory threshold,” Justice Premachandra observed.
The Court accordingly affirmed the RTI Commission’s directive and dismissed the Navy’s appeal without costs.
The case originated from a Right to Information request submitted in September 2022 by A.A.M.R. Ali, seeking information on reports that former President Rajapaksa had boarded SLNS Gajabahu during a critical period in July 2022. The request sought eight categories of information, including confirmation of the boarding, details of the vessel, duration and route, identities of accompanying persons, total cost incurred, and the source of funding.
The Navy initially rejected the request in November 2022, citing Section 5(1) (b)(i) of the RTI Act, which permits refusal where disclosure may harm national security or defence. The applicant subsequently appealed to the Right to Information Commission.
Following hearings in 2023, the Commission issued a split decision on August 29, 2023. While upholding the Navy’s refusal to disclose several operational details, it directed the release of information relating to the cost of the voyage and who bore the expense. Challenging this directive, the former Navy Commander sought relief before the Court of Appeal.
Senior State Counsel Sehan Soyza appeared for the Appellant. Counsel Rushdhie Habeeb instructed by A.N. Manathunga Arachchi appeared for the Appellant-Respondent. Counsel Aruni Senarathna appeared for the RTI Commission.

How single RTI query toppled Rs 10.63 crore CBI case: Delhi court discharges accused in 15-year CBI case - Written by: Vineet Upadhyay

The Indian Express: New Delhi: Saturday, 21 March 2026.
The court was hearing the matter at the stage of consideration of charge, where it had to decide whether a prima facie case existed to proceed to trial against a businessman and his firm.

The court held that once this RTI document was produced, the burden
shifted to the prosecution to prove otherwise.
(Image generated using AI)

RTI news: A Delhi court has discharged a businessman and his firm in a CBI case alleging illegal petroleum diversion, after finding that over Rs 10.63 crore shown as sales existed only on paper and that a key RTI reply excluding “thinner” and “reducer” from the Essential Commodities Act (EC Act)  went unchallenged by the prosecution.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jyoti Maheshwari of the Rouse Avenue Courts was hearing the matter at the stage of consideration of charge, where it had to decide whether a prima facie case existed to proceed to trial against one Manish Kumar Aggarwal and his firm M/s Reliable Industries.

The counsel for the accused said that an RTI was filed, seeking
 information as to “Whether Thinner and Reducer come under
the Essential Commodities Act”. (Image enhanced using AI)

“An RTI reply dated February 1 from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Government of India, as per which it is categorically stated that ‘Thinner and Reducer are industrial chemical products, which do not come under Essential Commodities’,” said the court on March 11.
The court held that the prosecution’s case collapsed at the threshold, as it failed to establish that the very commodities in question were regulated under the EC Act.
RTI reply becomes turning point

• A decisive factor in the case was an RTI reply dated February 1, 2016, from the union ministry of consumer affairs, which clearly stated that thinner and reducer are industrial chemical products and do not fall under the EC Act.
• The court held that once this RTI document was produced, the burden shifted to the prosecution to prove otherwise.
• The prosecution “did not carry out” this exercise, the court observed, despite having the opportunity to rebut the clarification.
• While ordinarily defence documents are not considered at the stage of charge, the court invoked the exception for “documents of sterling quality,” especially where such material appears to have been ignored or withheld during investigation.

Foundational failure: EC Act not attracted

• The court identified a fundamental legal defect: the absence of any notification or statutory material showing that thinner and reducer are “essential commodities.”
• Without this, the entire prosecution under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the EC Act could not stand.
• “The very basis of alleging the commission of offences under EC Act… falls to the ground,” the court held.
• Even a clarification from the union ministry of petroleum and natural gas relied upon by the CBI only suggested that thinner and reducer may be derived from naptha.
• The court held that criminal liability cannot rest on such speculative possibilities.

Rs 10.63 crore trail: ‘Sales’ without supply

• At the centre of the case were statutory returns filed by the firm before the district supply officer, showing receipt of Rs 10,63,39,253.7 from M/s Rainbow Petrochemicals between April 2009 and March 2010.
• The prosecution alleged that these entries reflected purported sales of reducer and related materials.
• However, it simultaneously claimed that no actual supply was ever made, and that the transactions were fictitious and designed to mask diversion of petroleum products.
• The court noted the contradiction: the prosecution relied on these transactions to allege wrongdoing, but failed to substantiate either the supply of goods or the regulatory nature of the products.

Investigation ‘rife with gaps’

• The order delivers a strong indictment of the investigation, terming it “woefully inadequate” and “conspicuously silent” on key aspects.
• No recovery or seizure of naptha or related substances from the accused’s premises.
• No chemical or laboratory analysis to show that the products contained regulated petroleum derivatives.
• No evidence of conversion process linking naptha to thinner/reducer.
• No clarity on whether the goods fell under ‘Slop Order’ or ‘Naptha Order’.
• Contradictions in the status of the accused firm (partnership vs proprietorship).
• The court stressed that even at the stage of charge, the prosecution must present material that inspires confidence, something entirely lacking here.

Financial transactions don’t establish offence

• The CBI also relied on a network of bank accounts allegedly used to route funds as part of a conspiracy.
• However, the court held that even if these transactions were accepted at face value, they did not constitute an offence under the EC Act.
• This was because the prosecution failed to link the money trail to any illegal dealing in regulated commodities.

No ‘grave suspicion’, trial deemed futile

• Reiterating Supreme Court principles on framing of charges, the court underscored that cases must proceed only where there is “grave suspicion” based on material evidence not mere conjecture.
• In a key finding, the court held, “Even if the prosecution’s evidence is accepted in entirety, “the only possible conclusion is that the accused persons are not guilty.”
• Proceeding to trial in such circumstances, it added, would be “nothing but an exercise in futility.”

Defence submissions

• Advocate KK Sharma, appearing for the accused submitted that they deserve to be discharged on account of the defective and selective investigation conducted by CBI.
• The counsel said that both of them have been falsely implicated in the present case.
• Advocate Sharma said that an RTI was filed, seeking information as to “Whether Thinner and Reducer come under the Essential Commodities Act” and in reply to the same, the union ministry of consumer affairs, food and public distribution has categorically replied one February 1 with the list of essential commodities and also clarified that “Thinner and Reducer are industrial chemical products, which do not come under Essential Commodities”.

15-year delay, liberty concerns highlighted

• The court took note of the prolonged pendency of the case, instituted in 2011 and still at the stage of charge in 2026.
• Citing recent Supreme Court observations, it emphasised that trial courts must act as “filters” to prevent weak cases from clogging the system and infringing personal liberty.
• The accused, the court noted, had already suffered the burden of criminal proceedings for nearly 15 years without trial.

Final outcome

• The court discharged Manish Kumar Aggarwal and his firm- M/s Reliable Industries from all charges under section 120B (criminal conspiracy) IPC, section 3 read with Section 7 of the EC Act, Rule 3 of the Slop Order, 2000 and Rule 3 of the Naptha Order, 2000

Supreme Court Issues Notice in Petition Challenging DPDP Act, 2023

BW Legal World: New Delhi: Friday, 20 March 2026.
The petition argues that the DPDP framework does not provide adequate exemptions for journalistic activity, potentially undermining investigative reporting and press freedom. Because journalists collect and process personal data as part of their work, the law may classify them as “data fiduciaries,” requiring them to obtain consent from individuals before processing information.

The  Supreme Court of India issued notice in a Public Interest Litigation challenging key provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, raising significant constitutional concerns relating to privacy, surveillance, press freedom, and the independence of India’s data protection regulator. The petition has been filed by senior journalist Geeta Seshu and the Software Freedom Law Center, India (SFLC.in) under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking judicial review of provisions of the DPDP framework that allegedly violate fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The matter came up for hearing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on March 12th, 2026, where the Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India issued notice to the Respondents, calling for their response to the constitutional challenge.
During the hearing, the Court acknowledged that the petition raises issues concerning the implications of the data protection regime on constitutional rights and agreed to examine the matter further.
Background of the Petition
The petition challenges specific provisions of the DPDP Act and the DPDP Rules on the ground that, rather than strengthening privacy protections following the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the current framework weakens several safeguards and creates structural risks to civil liberties.
The petition seeks the striking down or reading down of provisions including Sections 7, 17(2)(a), 24, 36, 44(2)(a), and 44(3) of the DPDP Act, along with certain rules and schedules under the DPDP Rules, 2025.
According to the petition, these provisions:

1. Permit excessive executive control over data governance;
2. Create surveillance risks without adequate safeguards;
3. Eliminate civil remedies available to individuals affected by data breaches; and
4. Undermine journalistic freedom and the right to information.
5. Provide extensive Government control over the Data Protection Board’s appointments.

Courtroom Submissions During the hearing, the petitioners, represented by Ms. Indira Jaising, Senior Advocate submitted that several provisions of the DPDP Act depart from the constitutional framework established by the Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy privacy judgment. Ms Jaising submitted that the legislation, instead of protecting citizens from misuse of personal data, creates provisions that enable broad state access to personal information without adequate safeguards.
The Bench observed that the issues raised required consideration and accordingly issued notice to the Union Government.
Key Constitutional Concerns Raised in the Petition
The petition organizes its challenge around five core constitutional concerns.
1. Lack of Journalistic Exemptions
The petition argues that the DPDP framework does not provide adequate exemptions for journalistic activity, potentially undermining investigative reporting and press freedom. Because journalists collect and process personal data as part of their work, the law may classify them as “data fiduciaries,” requiring them to obtain consent from individuals before processing information. The petition also challenges the amendment to RTI Act which will allow the govt to deny information requests relating to personal information, even if sought in public interest and was previously permissible under the RTI act
According to the petition, such requirements would make it impossible to produce and publish investigative reports involving individuals who may refuse consent. The petition highlights that earlier legislative drafts and international data protection frameworks include specific exemptions for journalistic work.
2. Overbroad Powers for the State
The petition challenges provisions that allow the State to process personal data for certain governmental functions and empower the Central Government to exempt its own agencies from compliance with the law.
The petition argues that these provisions effectively allow the State to process personal data “in a legal vacuum”, without being bound by fundamental data protection principles such as consent, purpose limitation, or storage limitation.
3. Absence of Compensation for Data Breach Victims
The petition also challenges the repeal of Section 43A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which previously provided individuals the right to seek compensation for wrongful loss caused by negligent handling of personal data.
The DPDP Act replaces this framework with a penalty regime where fines are paid to the government rather than to affected individuals. The petition argues that this creates a“compensation vacuum”, leaving individuals without a meaningful remedy even when their personal data is misused or leaked.
4. Lack of Independence of the Data Protection Board
The petition further raises concerns regarding the structure of the Data Protection Board of India, the adjudicatory body established under the DPDP Act. According to the petition, the Central Government retains extensive control over the Board’s appointments, staffing, and service conditions, despite the fact that government entities themselves may appear before the Board in proceedings.
The petition argues that this arrangement raises serious concerns regarding the independence and impartiality of the regulator.
5. Surveillance Powers Without Safeguards
The petition also challenges provisions that allow the government to require intermediaries and data fiduciaries to furnish information. According to the petition, these provisions create a parallel surveillance mechanism without procedural safeguards comparable to those required under existing interception laws.
The petition argues that these provisions violate the constitutional standards laid down by the Supreme Court in PUCL v. Union of India and fail the proportionality test articulated in Puttaswamy.
About the Petitioners

1. Geeta Seshu is a senior journalist and co-founder of the Free Speech Collective.
2. Software Freedom Law Center, India (SFLC.in) is a digital rights organisation engaged in strategic litigation, policy advocacy, and research on technology law and civil liberties

CIC flags Aadhaar update delays, asks UIDAI to fix timelines

The Economic Times: New Delhi: Friday, 20 March 2026.
The Central Information Commission has highlighted delays in updating Aadhaar details. It has asked the Unique Identification Authority of India to set clear timelines for processing requests. The commission also wants UIDAI to improve its system for addressing public grievances. This comes after a woman faced long delays in correcting her date of birth on her Aadhaar card.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has flagged delays in updating Aadhaar details and asked the Unique Identification Authority of India to fix timelines and strengthen its grievance redressal system.
The observations came while disposing of an appeal filed by a woman who had sought correction of date of birth in her Aadhaar card, alleging that her request was not processed in time.
During the hearing, the appellant said that despite submitting the required documents, her request remained pending for a long time, forcing her to approach the Delhi High Court by filing a writ petition in the matter.
The CIC noted that applicants frequently approach it with grievances related to correction of date of birth, gender, spelling errors in names and other demographic details, often due to delays and lack of clarity in procedures.
Observing the trend, the Commission said such matters "primarily relate to service delivery and grievance redressal and ideally should be resolved within the administrative framework of the concerned authority without requiring citizens to resort to filing RTI applications".
Stressing the need for systemic improvements, the CIC advised the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) to strengthen its mechanism for updating demographic details and ensure a transparent and user-friendly process.
It also asked the authority to lay down "clear timelines for disposal of such requests" and ensure that applications are processed in a "time-bound manner in accordance with applicable rules and regulations".
The Commission further stressed the need to improve grievance handling so that citizens receive timely responses "without the need to invoke the provisions of the Right to Information Act".
It also called for enhancing public awareness regarding the procedures and documentation required for updating Aadhaar details.
During the hearing, UIDAI informed the Commission that the appellant's request had since been processed and her date of birth corrected, adding that the RTI application was more in the nature of a grievance rather than a request for information.
Taking note of the submissions, the CIC said the reply furnished by the public authority was appropriate and disposed of the appeal, while underlining that "continued improvement in its operational mechanisms will help strengthen public confidence and trust" in the Aadhaar system.

APIC imposes penalty on Namsai PIO for RTI violation

Echo Of Arunachal: Itanagar: Friday, 20 March 2026.

The Arunachal Pradesh State Information Commission (APIC) has imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 on Kago Doni, DLRSO, Government of Arunachal Pradesh-cum-Public Information Officer (PIO), Namsai district, for violation of provisions under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
According to an order (No. APIC-600/2025) dated March 18, 2026, the penalty was imposed under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for gross violation of the provisions of the Act.
The Commission directed the PIO to deposit the penalty amount in favour of the Registrar, APIC, Itanagar, through Treasury Challan under the Head of Account “0070-Other Administrative Charge” within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
It further warned that failure to comply with the directive would lead to recommendations for disciplinary action under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act by the competent authority.

HC directs former Mysore Maharaja’s granddaughter to use RTI to get palace board’s financial details : Written by- Mustafa Plumber

Indian Express: Mysore: Thursday, 19 March 2026.
Deepa Malini Devi has alleged that there is a lack of financial transparency in the functioning of the Mysore Palace Board.

The Karnataka High Court directed Deepa Malini Devi to seek
Mysore Palace Board financial records through an RTI application.
(File Photo)

The Karnataka High Court has directed Deepa Malini Devi, the granddaughter of the late Maharaja Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar the last ruling Maharaja of Mysore to file an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to get financial and other information about the Mysore Palace Board, which manages the heritage monument.
In her petition, Devi claimed that after the enactment of the Mysore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1998, the Mysore Palace is being managed as a public trust and heritage monument. However, the management was opaque, and there was no financial transparency in the functioning of the Mysore Palace Board, she alleged.
Devi had filed a petition in the high court, seeking various documents, including the service record of respondent No.2, T S Subramanya, who is working as a deputy director for the Mysore Palace Board. She also sought certified copies of all major contracts, procurements or agreements entered into by the Board during the term of the present deputy director and complete financial records and accounts regarding the revenue and expenditure of the trust.
In a February 20 order, a single-judge bench of the high court disposed of Devi’s petition, granting her the liberty to file an RTI application. Challenging the order of the single judge, she filed an appeal.
In the appeal, the counsel for the appellant, Aravind Reddy H, failed to point to any statute other than the RTI Act under which the appellant could be provided the copies of the documents sought.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha, in its order dated March 4, said, “The learned single judge has rightly disposed of the petition by reserving the petitioner, the right to apply under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Needless to state that if such an application is made, the same would be considered in accordance with law.”

(WA 702/2026  SMT DEEPA MALINI DEVI V/S STATE OF KARNATAKA)

Karnataka Information Commission brings Apex Bank under RTI Act

The Hindu: Bengaluru: Thursday, 19 March 2026.
As the State Co-op Apex Bank has now now declared as public authority, the information relating to its functioning including financial decisions, will now be subject to public scrutiny under RTI

In a significant order that goes a long way in ensuring transparency in the cooperative banking sector, the Karnataka Information Commission has ruled that the Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank qualifies as a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, directing it to comply with provisions of this transparency law.
The ruling came while hearing a second appeal filed by Hanumantha Vasanth Shinde, who had sought copies of documents submitted by Nirani Sugars Ltd. while availing loans from the Apex Bank between March 2022 and June 2024. The bank had declined the request, stating that it was a cooperative society and hence did not come under the purview of the RTI Act.
The bank argued that it was neither owned nor substantially financed by the State government and therefore did not fall within the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
However, State Information Commissioner Rajashekara S., who heard the case, rejected the argument, observing that the institution functions under deep and pervasive state control.
In his order, the commissioner examined the historical evolution of the bank, statutory provisions governing cooperative institutions, and the extent of administrative and financial oversight exercised by the State.
The order pointed out that the bank traces its origins to the cooperative movement in the erstwhile Mysore State and was founded by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies in his official capacity. Over the decades, the State government has continued to influence its functioning through policy directions and institutional oversight, it noted.
The commission observed that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies serves as an ex officio director on the bank’s board and retains statutory powers to inspect records, conduct inquiries, and order audits under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
Further, audit reports of apex cooperative institutions are required to be submitted to the state government and placed before the legislature. The bank is also regulated by the Reserve Bank of India and supervised by the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development for rural credit operations, the order pointed out.
The commission relied on several judicial precedents to determine whether the bank could be treated as an instrumentality of the state. It cited the Supreme Court judgment in Ajay Hasia v/s International Airport Authority case, which laid down tests for identifying State-controlled bodies.
It referred to the Karnataka High Court ruling in B.T. Krishnegowda v/s Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank, which held that the Apex Bank is an instrumentality of the state and therefore subject to writ jurisdiction.
Directions
The commission directed the Apex Bank to appoint Public Information Officers (PIOs) and First Appellate Authorities (FAAs) across its offices and comply with the proactive disclosure requirements under Sections 4(1)(A) and 4(1)(B) of the RTI Act.
It instructed the Principal Secretary of the Cooperation Department and the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to ensure that the bank implements the RTI framework without delay.
Wider implications
The order could have broader implications for cooperative financial institutions in Karnataka as many of which have resisted RTI requests citing their cooperative status.
With the Apex Bank now being declared a public authority, information relating to its functioning including governance practices and financial decisions may be subject to public scrutiny under the RTI Act. This is expected to have wider implications as this institution that wields significant political influence, especially at grass-roots, is now being opened to public scrutiny.

पत्नी भरण-पोषण की कार्यवाही के लिए RTI Act के तहत पति का IT रिटर्न नहीं मांग सकती, यह 'निजी जानकारी' के तहत छूट प्राप्त है: कर्नाटक हाईकोर्ट

Live Law: Karnataka: Wednesday, 18 March 2026.

कर्नाटक हाईकोर्ट ने फैसला सुनाया कि कोई भी जीवनसाथी, दूसरे जीवनसाथी का इनकम टैक्स रिटर्न और वित्तीय रिकॉर्ड, सूचना का अधिकार (RTI) एक्ट, 2005 के तहत आवेदन करके प्राप्त नहीं कर सकता; क्योंकि ऐसी जानकारी RTI Act की धारा 8(1)(j) के तहत 'निजी जानकारी' मानी जाती है, जिसे सार्वजनिक करने से छूट प्राप्त है।
बेंगलुरु में बैठी पीठ ने अदालत के आदेश में यह टिप्पणी करते हुए गिरीश रामचंद्र देशपांडे बनाम CIC, 2012 AIR SCW 5865 मामले का हवाला दिया,
"...किसी व्यक्ति द्वारा अपने इनकम टैक्स रिटर्न में दी गई जानकारी निजी जानकारी होती है, जिसे RTI Act की धारा 8(1) के खंड (j) के तहत सार्वजनिक करने से छूट प्राप्त है, जब तक कि कोई बड़ा जनहित साबित न हो जाए... 'बड़ा जनहित' शब्द का अर्थ ऐसा हित है, जो विवाद में शामिल पक्षों से परे हो और जिसका संबंध आम जनता या उसके किसी बड़े हिस्से से हो। भरण-पोषण से जुड़ा कोई व्यक्तिगत विवाद... मुख्य रूप से जीवनसाथियों के बीच का एक निजी मामला ही रहता है।"
हालांकि, जस्टिस सूरज गोविंदराज ने आगे स्पष्ट किया कि जिन अदालतों में भरण-पोषण की कार्यवाही चल रही है, वे संबंधित पक्षों की वित्तीय क्षमता का निष्पक्ष आकलन करने के लिए इनकम टैक्स विभाग से संबंधित दस्तावेज तलब कर सकती हैं।
हालांकि अदालत ने यह माना कि RTI आवेदन के माध्यम से केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (CPIO) से आय का विवरण प्राप्त नहीं किया जा सकता, क्योंकि यह 'बड़े जनहित' की कसौटी पर खरा नहीं उतरता। फिर भी भरण-पोषण के दावों के संबंध में जीवनसाथी उन दस्तावेजों को अदालत में पेश करवाने के लिए अदालतों का दरवाजा खटखटा सकता है।
जज ने आदेश के साथ संलग्न परिशिष्ट में यह बात कही,
"...अदालत [भरण-पोषण मामलों की अदालतें] केवल मौखिक बयानों या आय के संबंध में बिना पुष्टि वाले दावों के आधार पर भरण-पोषण की राशि तय नहीं करेंगी। यदि किसी भी पक्ष की आय को लेकर विवाद है, तो अदालत स्वतः संज्ञान लेते हुए अपनी शक्तियों का प्रयोग करके दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य तलब कर सकती है, जिसमें इनकम टैक्स रिटर्न और संबंधित वित्तीय रिकॉर्ड शामिल हैं..."
उपरोक्त बातों को ध्यान में रखते हुए अदालत ने याचिका आंशिक रूप से स्वीकार किया और पत्नी को यह स्वतंत्रता दी कि वह भरण-पोषण के मामले की सुनवाई कर रही अदालत में जाकर अपने पति के वित्तीय रिकॉर्ड का आकलन करने का अनुरोध कर सकती है। आयकर विभाग को IT Act, 1961 की धारा 138 के तहत भरण-पोषण न्यायालय के समक्ष वित्तीय दस्तावेज़ प्रस्तुत करने की आवश्यकता होने की संभावना है।
हाईकोर्ट ने पति या पत्नी में से किसी के भी वित्तीय अभिलेखों के संबंध में 'प्रस्तुतीकरण आदेश' (Production Orders) के लिए आवेदन करने हेतु विस्तृत दिशानिर्देश भी जारी किए।
Case Title: Income Tax Officer and CPIO v. Smt. Gulsanober Bano Zafar Ali Ansari and another

No govt job through employment offices in five years in Rajasthan; 22 lakh candidates registered, says RTI

The Hindu: Jaipur: Wednesday, 18 March 2026.
The data, provided by the Directorate of Employment, shows that as of January 14, a total of 22,21,317 candidates were registered as job seekers in district employment offices across the State; of these, over 13.08 lakh were male, 9.12 lakh female, and 989 fell under the 'other' category.

More than 22 lakh unemployed youth are currently registered with employment offices across Rajasthan, according to information obtained under the RTI Act.
It was further revealed that no candidate was recruited in the government sector through the employment offices in the past five years.
The data, provided by the Directorate of Employment, shows that as of January 14, a total of 22,21,317 candidates were registered as job seekers in district employment offices across the State. Of these, over 13.08 lakh were male, 9.12 lakh female, and 989 fell under the 'other' category.
Among districts, Jaipur recorded the highest number of registered unemployed people at 2.51 lakh, followed by Alwar (1.53 lakh), Nagaur (1.34 lakh), Jhunjhunu (1.22 lakh) and Jodhpur (86,320). In contrast, Jaisalmer (12,031) and Pratapgarh (14,047) reported the lowest number of registered candidates.
The category-wise data indicates that candidates from the Other Backward Classes (OBC) form the largest share among registered job seekers, followed by general, Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and other categories.
Placements in the private and public sector
The data further revealed the limited placements in the private sector during the past five years. According to the information provided, 86 candidates were placed in 2021, 825 in 2022, three in 2023, 23 in 2024 and 71 in 2025 through employment office initiatives, including job fairs and coordination with private companies.
"The private sector has seen high growth in the last two decades. Investment in crores, but the jobs provided by the directorate are miniscule. Permanent and temporary jobs in the government sector through the directorate seem to have completely stopped. There is a need to activate employment offices and refer candidates," Right to Information (RTI) applicant Chandra Shekhar Gaur said.
The RTI application had also sought details of employment generated through investor summits held in the State over the past two years. However, the department clarified that such information is not related to it.
It also replied to a query saying that the employment offices did not provide jobs in government sector in the past five years.
A senior officer of the Directorate of Employment said the department publishes 'Rojgar Sandesh' fortnightly to keep job seekers aware of various government vacancies.
He said various activities like fairs are also organised from time to time.
The official website of the Department of Skills, Employment and Entrepreneurship in Rajasthan notes that the Department of Employment has been catering to the needs of the job seekers through various activities and schemes. For better coordination and speedily execution of programmes, 'Department of Skills, Development and Entrepreneurship' was established in May 2015.
Providing vocational guidance about various courses and training facilities to job seekers, submission of job seekers' list to employers, registration of unemployed youth, organising Rozgar Melas, and assisting job seekers of weaker sections of the society under special schemes are listed as some of the department's functions.

RTI Act: Right to information, wrong in practice

Business Standard: Bangladesh: Wednesday, 18 March 2026.
Bangladesh’s RTI framework ranks highly in global legal ratings, but the prolonged vacancy in the Information Commission has left the law without its central enforcement mechanism

Bangladesh enacted the Right to Information Act in 2009, granting citizens the legal right to request information from public authorities. The law also created the Information Commission, an independent body responsible for hearing appeals when government agencies fail to respond to those requests.
Today, that enforcement mechanism is largely inactive. The posts of Chief Information Commissioner and two commissioners have remained vacant for more than 18 months, leaving the institution without leadership.
In the absence of a functioning commission, citizens who are denied information have limited avenues to challenge those decisions. A recent amendment to the law introduced several procedural changes, but the institutional gap remains.
The tenure of the last commissioners expired, and the interim government did not appoint replacements. The newly elected government has inherited the same vacancy. As of March 2026, no commissioner has yet been named.
The RTI Act itself requires the existence of a Chief Information Commissioner and two additional commissioners. Without them, the enforcement mechanism of the law collapses. Citizens who are denied information have nowhere to appeal.
At a press conference earlier this month, Transparency International Bangladesh Executive Director Iftekharuzzaman described the situation as "embarrassing".
He also said, "During the tenure of the interim government, a number of important decisions affecting key sectors of the state were taken without due regard for transparency. In that context, it is perhaps not surprising that the government allowed the Information Commission to remain unconstituted for a year and a half. However, the continued failure to form the Information Commission, despite the legal obligation to do so, is deeply embarrassing."
He added, "During the Awami League's 16 years in power, the country was governed through what many described as a system of entrenched corruption, and the Right to Information Commission was rendered ineffective, much like several other oversight bodies. At the same time, the governance process under the interim administration also suffered from a lack of transparency. Until the very last moment of its tenure, the formation of the Information Commission was deliberately delayed."
Badiul Alam Majumdar, secretary of Citizens for Good Governance (Shujan), expressed frustration, saying, "Transitioning from our country's long-standing culture of secrecy to a culture of openness is a long and difficult process. In this regard, the interim government failed to set a positive example. Despite having a legal obligation to do so, it delayed the formation of the Information Commission for an extended period, setting an unprecedented record."
Reality on the ground
On paper, Bangladesh's Right to Information framework is not weak.
The Global RTI Rating, maintained by the Centre for Law and Democracy in Canada, gives Bangladesh a score of 107–109 out of 150, placing it 27th among 141 countries as of 2024. In terms of legal design, the law even scores higher than countries such as Finland, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada.
But a law is only as effective as the institution that enforces it.
Moreover, data from the Right to Information portal shows how the system is currently functioning.
According to the dashboard, a total of 27,673 RTI applications have been submitted across Bangladesh. Yet only 121 applications have received responses so far.
Another 139 applications remain under process, while the overwhelming majority 24,487 requests have already exceeded the legal response deadline without resolution. In addition, 18 applications have been cancelled.
The numbers highlight a striking imbalance between requests filed and responses delivered. In effect, thousands of citizens have exercised their legal right to seek information, but only a tiny fraction have received replies within the system.
The portal also indicates that the platform has been viewed by 127,629 visitors, suggesting growing public interest in using the law despite the system's limited responsiveness.
What the 2026 RTI amendment introduced
The RTI Amendment Ordinance 2026, issued earlier this year by the interim government, marked the first significant revision of the law since its adoption in 2009.
The ordinance introduced several changes.
It broadened the definition of "information", strengthened provisions on proactive disclosure, and increased penalties for non-compliance. The daily fine for refusing to provide information was raised from Tk50 to Tk100, while the maximum penalty increased from Tk5,000 to Tk10,000.
Taken individually, these revisions appear reasonable. Yet they largely bypass the deeper institutional problems that have long limited the effectiveness of the law.
One of the most debated changes concerns the definition of information itself. The amendment expanded the scope to include digital materials, maps, microfilms and electronically generated records.
At the same time, it explicitly excluded official note sheets the internal documents where bureaucrats record discussions, recommendations and the reasoning behind administrative decisions. For transparency advocates, this exclusion removes precisely the records that allow citizens to understand how decisions are actually made inside the state.
Civil society groups had proposed much broader reforms.
In 2025, the Tottho Odhikar Forum submitted 37 recommendations to the government. Among them were proposals to include note sheets within the scope of the law, extend coverage to political parties and private organisations receiving public funds, introduce a mandatory deadline for filling vacancies in the Information Commission, and harmonise the RTI Act with conflicting legislation such as the Official Secrets Act.
None of these recommendations was incorporated into the amendment.
Even the revised penalty provisions may have limited practical impact. A maximum fine of Tk10,000 for denying a citizen's legal right to information is unlikely to act as a strong deterrent for public officials.
How South Asia compares
Bangladesh is not the only South Asian country struggling with the enforcement of transparency laws. But its current institutional vacuum is particularly severe.
India, which ranks ninth globally in the RTI Rating, operates a multi-tiered oversight structure consisting of a Central Information Commission and information commissions in each state. While the institutional framework remains active, the system faces significant delays.
As of mid-2024, more than 405,000 appeals and complaints were pending across 29 information commissions nationwide, reflecting mounting pressure on the transparency regime despite its continued operation.
Sri Lanka, ranked 4th globally with a score of 131/150, offers a more encouraging model. Its five-member RTI Commission, established under the Right to Information Act of 2016, has the power to conduct inquiries, summon witnesses under oath, and file cases in Magistrates' Courts against officials who provide false or incomplete information, with penalties of up to Rs50,000 or imprisonment. The commissioners are appointed on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council, insulating the process from executive discretion.
Nepal, ranked 23rd globally, was the first country in South Asia to recognise the right to information as a fundamental constitutional right. The National Information Commission continues to process appeals and oversee compliance with the law.
"The tenure of the last commissioners expired and the interim government did not appoint replacements. The newly elected government has inherited the same vacancy. As of March 2026, no commissioner has yet been named. The RTI Act itself requires the existence of a Chief Information Commissioner and two additional commissioners. Without them, the enforcement mechanism of the law collapses. Citizens who are denied information have nowhere to appeal."
According to the commission's latest annual report from November 2024, the body received 5,182 appeals during the five-year tenure of its commissioners and resolved about 95% of them. The figures show that the commission remains institutionally active in handling information disputes. Yet challenges persist. Reports from civil society indicate that citizens sometimes face harassment after filing information requests, while proactive disclosure by provincial and local governments remains uneven.
Afghanistan presents another notable case. According to the global RTI Rating, its Access to Information Law ranks first in the world with a score of 139 out of 150. Adopted in 2014 and later strengthened through amendments, the law grants broad rights to request information and establishes detailed provisions on scope, appeals and disclosure obligations.
In principle, any individual can request information from public institutions under this framework.
The RTI Rating, however, evaluates the strength of legislation rather than its implementation.
A new government, an unresolved vacancy and a test for Bangladesh
Bangladesh's challenge is not writing a good transparency law. That part was largely achieved in 2009. The real challenge is ensuring that the institution responsible for enforcing the law actually functions.
As long as the Information Commission remains vacant, the Right to Information Act will continue to operate without its central pillar. Citizens may still submit requests, but when those requests are ignored or denied, there is no authority to intervene.
In that sense, Bangladesh today faces a simple but crucial question: whether transparency will remain a principle written into law or become a practice backed by functioning institutions.
Until that gap is addressed, the country's right to information risks remaining exactly what critics have long warned a right that exists on paper but not in practice.
The vacancy at the Information Commission has now extended across two successive administrations.
The commissioners' terms expired in August 2024 during the final months of the Awami League government. The interim administration that followed the July 2024 political upheaval did not appoint replacements, leaving the statutory body inactive.
Following the parliamentary election held in February 2026, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party formed the new government after securing a large parliamentary majority. The election marked the party's return to power after nearly two decades in opposition, ending the interim administration that had overseen the transition following the protests that forced the previous government from office.
The new government has inherited a number of institutional gaps created during the period of political turbulence, including vacancies in several statutory bodies. The Information Commission is among the most significant because its operation is directly linked to the enforcement of the Right to Information Act.
Under the RTI Act, the commission is responsible for hearing appeals when citizens do not receive responses to information requests within the legally mandated timeframe. With the commission inactive, those appeals cannot be processed, effectively removing the final enforcement layer of the law.
The continuation of the vacancy in the commissioners' posts means that the Right to Information framework is currently operating without the institution designed to adjudicate disputes and enforce compliance.
In practical terms, the responsibility for restoring the commission now rests with the current administration, which holds the authority to appoint new commissioners.