NFRA Limited to Issue Directions, Not to Monitor Companies on its Compliance: Delhi HC Directs Petitioner to Seek Info via RTI

Taxscan: New Delhi: Friday, 8^Th August 2025.

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court observed that the National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA ) has the power to issue directions under Section 132 of the Companies Act, 2013, but it does not have the authority to monitor whether those directions are followed by companies.
Vivek Chhatre, the petitioner, filed a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the order of a Single Judge, who had earlier disposed of his writ petition concerning alleged noncompliance by Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Ltd. (MHRIL) with NFRA’s directions issued on 29 March 2023.
The petitioner had earlier approached the High Court in 2022, raising concerns about accounting and audit irregularities involving MHRIL. That petition was disposed of by directing NFRA to consider the petitioner’s complaints. In response, NFRA issued an order in March 2023 giving directions to MHRIL and its auditors.
In the subsequent writ petition filed in 2024, the petitioner argued that MHRIL had not complied with NFRA’s directions and that NFRA had not taken any steps to ensure compliance. The petitioner also argued that he was not aware of what action, if any, had been taken by NFRA after the March 2023 order.
The petitioner’s counsel argued before the Division Bench that he was unaware of any follow-up action taken by NFRA, so the court should direct NFRA to disclose the steps taken and ensure that its directions are implemented.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that NFRA had already passed an order in March 2023 and there is a mechanism available under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The court directed the petitioner to seek information about follow-up action under the RTI route.
The court further observed that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the response or denial under the RTI Act, he has the remedy of appealing under the provisions of that law. Since a mechanism already exists for obtaining such information, the court was not inclined to entertain the appeal.
The court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal, stating that the matter does not warrant judicial interference. The writ petition was disposed of.

Bombay HC Orders MPSC To Share Evaluated Answer Sheet With Civil Judge Exam Candidate Under RTI Act

Free Press Journal: Bombay: Friday, 8^Th August 2025.
In a recent ruling reinforcing transparency and candidate rights in competitive examinations, the Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) to provide the assessed copy of the answer sheet to a candidate who was denied the same under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

In a recent ruling reinforcing transparency and candidate rights in competitive examinations, the Bombay High Court has directed the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) to provide the assessed copy of the answer sheet to a candidate who was denied the same under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The division bench comprising Justice M.S. Karnik and Justice N.R. Borkar passed the order while hearing a petition filed by advocate Adnan Z. Mookhtiar, who had appeared for the Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class Preliminary Examination - 2022, conducted by the MPSC.
While the petitioner had cleared both the preliminary and main written examinations, and had even appeared for the interview round, he was denied access to his own answer sheets under the RTI Act on the grounds that the final selection list had not been declared.
Court Upholds Candidate’s Right to Transparency in Exams
The Court observed that MPSC’s own guidelines allow for disclosure of answer sheets under the RTI Act, and nowhere restrict such disclosure until the final results are declared. “The limited relief which the Petitioner seeks is that the answer sheet should be made available to him,” the bench noted in its order, adding: “The standard instructions issued by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission provide that the answer sheet can be made available to the concerned candidate under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and do not specify that the copy of the answer sheet will be made available only upon completion of the examination process.” The court has thus directed MPSC to hand over the assessed copy of Advocate Adnan’s answer sheets within one week.
Candidate Scored Above Cut-off, Yet Omitted from Select List
According to the petition, Advocate Mookhtiar appeared for the preliminary exam held on September 9, 2023, scoring 73.75 marks well above the cut-off of 55 marks. He successfully cleared the main examination conducted on August 24, 2024, and was placed at Serial No. 25 in the list of qualified candidates.
He also appeared for the interview on March 18, 2025, and the General Merit List released on May 9, 2025, showed his total score as 139 marks (112 in written + 27 in interview), placing him at Serial No. 205.
However, the Provisional Select List, also released on the same day, did not include his name, prompting suspicion over evaluation errors.
Advocate Mookhtiar had filed an RTI application on April 1, 2025, requesting copies of his evaluated answer booklets. However, he received a reply on April 23, 2025, from the Commission’s Information Officer stating that the information could not be provided at that stage.
His First Appeal was also rejected, citing that the final recruitment result had not yet been declared despite the fact that the Provisional Select List was already published on the MPSC website.
The petitioner argued that denying access to one’s own evaluated answer sheet after the provisional list is out defeats the purpose of transparency in public recruitment and violates natural justice.
He further contended that had he received the copies in time, he could have verified the accuracy of the evaluation and taken necessary steps to correct any discrepancies.
Petitioner Calls HC Ruling a ‘Landmark Order’
Speaking to the FPJ , Advocate A.Z. Mookhtiar, counsel for the petitioner, termed the High Court’s ruling as a “landmark order”, stating: “This decision will set a precedent for candidates appearing in MPSC and other public examinations. It affirms that answer sheets cannot be denied under the pretext of incomplete final results, especially when provisional lists are already out. This promotes fairness and restores confidence in the selection process.”

Explained: How BCCI is set to be kept out of RTI Act's ambit after latest amendment by Sports Ministry

Firstpost: New Delhi: Friday, 8^Th August 2025.
A crucial clause in the National Sports Governance Bill would have brought a financially independent BCCI under the ambit of the RTI Act, but it is set to change.

BCCI will not fall under the ambit of the RTI Act after an amendment
to the National Sports Governance Bill. Image: AFP

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has received a major relief from the Sports Ministry, as a crucial amendment has reportedly ensured that the richest cricketing board in the world will not come under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The BCCI has been independent of the Sports Ministry all this while, but the National Sports Governance Bill, which was tabled in Lok Sabha on 23 July by Union Minister Mansukh Mandaviya, brought the Indian cricket board under the ambit of the proposed National Sports Board (NSB).
The National Sports Governance Bill seeks to provide recognition to National Sports Federations (NSFs) and regulate their functioning, promoting better governance and bringing in more transparency. The BCCI will remain an autonomous body under the National Sports Governance Bill, just like the other NSFs, but their disputes will be handled under the National Sports Tribunal.
Despite being tabled on 23 July in the Lok Sabha, the National Sports Governance Bill has not come up for discussion in the House due to a prolonged stand-off between the government and the opposition over other matters.
How will BCCI be kept out of RTI Act ambit?
Amid the logjam in the Parliament, the BCCI has received some good news as sources say that the Sports Ministry has amended the RTI-related provision of the National Sports Governance Bill. As per the latest amendment, only the sports federations that rely on government grants and assistance will now fall under the ambit of the RTI Act.
Earlier, clause 15 (2) stated that “a recognised sports organisation shall be considered as a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 with respect to the exercise of its functions, duties and powers under this Act.”
But BCCI wasn’t comfortable with the situation and reportedly protested coming under the RTI Act as it does not depend on government grants. The amendment has now brought an end to their worries.
“The amended clause defines public authority as an entity that is relying on government funds or assistance. With this amendment, there is a clear definition of what is a public authority,” a well-placed source told PTI.
“If this had not been done, it would have been a grey area that could have led to the bill getting held up or being challenged in court. So anything that involves public money will come under RTI. It defines the specifics,” the source added.

“And even if a national sports body is not taking government funds, it can still be questioned if government assistance of any kind is involved in the conduct or operation of its events. Because government assistance is not merely funds, it is also about infrastructure,” he explained.
The RTI Act defines a “public authority” as any institution or body established by a law passed by Parliament or a State Legislature, including those owned, controlled, or significantly funded by the government.
The amended sports bill aims to align with this definition. Once enacted, the BCCI will be required to register as a National Sports Federation (NSF), as cricket is now an Olympic sport and is set to debut in the T20 format at the 2028 Games.

Bombay High Court refuses to monitor CM Relief Fund, says public can use RTI for accountability : Purnima Sah

The Hindu: Mumbai: Thursday, 7^Th August 2025.

The PIL filed before the Bombay High Court, sought direction that the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund (CMRF) be utilised solely and exclusively for assisting victims of natural calamities, disasters, and upheavals
The court said it cannot intervene in policy decisions but expects transparency and adherence to the fund’s stated objectives.
The Bombay High Court has declined to intervene in the management and disbursement of the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund (CMRF), stating that it is a matter of policy decision. However, the Court expressed hope and trust that the contributions to the fund are being used strictly for their intended purposes and with full transparency.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Mumbai-based NGO, Public Concern for Governance Trust. The PIL sought direction that the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund (CMRF) be utilised solely and exclusively for assisting victims of natural calamities, disasters, and upheavals as was originally intended at the time of its formation in 1966.
The petitioners, represented by advocate Soma Singh, challenged a Government Resolution dated November 15, 2001, which expanded the fund’s objectives and laid down the rules governing the CMRF’s Managing Committee. They contended that the expanded scope deviated from the fund’s original purpose and urged the court to restore its exclusive use for disaster relief.
Additionally, the petitioners sought the constitution of an independent oversight committee comprising public-spirited individuals, along with mandatory audits and regular publication of the CMRF’s financial statements and transaction details for public scrutiny.
Advocate Singh argued that public donations are being collected under the belief that the funds are meant solely for disaster relief but are instead being diverted to unrelated purposes like construction of cultural halls and sponsoring tournaments. The petitioners also demanded the formation of an independent committee to oversee disbursements and greater public access to fund accounts.
In a July 31, 2025, order, made available on Tuesday (August 5, 2025), the Bench observed, “We are unable to grant any relief to the Petitioners in the instant Petition. This Court otherwise cannot monitor the operation of CMRF. However, since the transactions in the Fund can always be accessed by members of public through seeking information under the RTI Act, if any discrepancy is noticed in utilisation of amounts in the CMRF, the issue can be raised by filing a separate Petition.”
The Bench further said, “As of now, we are unable to grant any relief in favour of the Petitioners in the present Petition. We, however, hope and trust that the contributions made to the CMRF are utilised strictly for the objectives and purpose for which the Fund is operated and that there is no deviation in any case. With the above observations, the PIL Petition is disposed of.”
‘No legal bar on expanding fund’s objectives’
The court held that there is no legal bar on the State expanding the fund’s objectives. “We are satisfied that the allegation of non-maintenance of transparency in operation of CMRF appeared to be misplaced. It appears that the accounts of the Trusts are audited by the Chartered Accountant and income tax returns are also filed. Also, entire information relating to the Fund is available in the public domain and any citizens can seek information relating to any transactions under the RTI Act.”
The court further said that it is also clarified in the affidavit-in-reply that whenever donations are made for providing assistance to the victims of natural calamities, the contributions are maintained under a separate head and it is ensured that all such contributions are used only for providing assistance to the victims of that natural calamity.
“The affidavit-in-reply also deals with various allegations raised in the Petition for grant of assistance for promotion of cultural and sporting activities. It is pointed out that providing assistance for promotion of cultural and sporting activities is one of the objectives of the Trust and of CMRF,” the judgement said.
The court also declined to entertain the delayed challenge to the 2001 GR, noting the PIL was filed in 2009 eight years after the expansion of the CMRF’s scope. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the judges observed that even PILs are subject to the principles of delay and laches.
On the matter of transparency, the court said the fund is subject to annual audits, income tax filings, and its records are accessible to the public through the Right to Information (RTI) Act. “We are satisfied that the allegation of non-maintenance of transparency in the operation of CMRF appears to be misplaced,” the bench noted.
Government pleaders Neha Bhide and O.A. Chandurkar defended the fund’s functioning, asserting that specific donations earmarked for disaster relief are kept under a separate head and used only for that purpose. They also clarified that cultural and sporting initiatives are legitimate objectives under the revised mandate of the fund.

BCCI exempted from RTI Act in amended Sports Bill due to lack of govt funding

Business Today: New Delhi: Thursday, 7^Th August 2025.
In a key reform, the amended Sports Bill limits RTI coverage to bodies receiving government funding. This offers relief to the BCCI, which runs independently of state support. The move ends ambiguity over its RTI applicability.

Priyanka Chaturvedi demanded that the BCCI be stripped of
its tax-exempt status.

The recent amendment to the sports bill has provided relief to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) by specifying that only sports bodies receiving government funds will fall under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. This change addresses what could have been a contentious issue for the BCCI, which operates independently of government funding.
The bill, presented in the Lok Sabha by Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya on July 23, stipulates that "a recognised sports organisation shall be considered as a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 with respect to the exercise of its functions, duties and powers under this Act." This clause confines RTI's reach to entities with government financial support. "The amended clause defines public authority as an entity that is relying on government funds or assistance," explained a well-placed source.
The exclusion of BCCI from mandatory RTI compliance is due to its financial independence from government support, unlike many other National Sports Federations (NSFs). "If this had not been done, it would have been a grey area that could have led to the bill getting held up or being challenged in court," stated the source. This distinction is crucial as cricket is set to debut in the 2028 Olympic Games in the T20 format, necessitating BCCI's registration as a National Sports Federation.
Another aspect of the bill is its provision for a National Sports Tribunal, which will function with the authority of a civil court, addressing disputes related to selection and election matters involving federations and athletes. Decisions made by the Tribunal can only be contested in the Supreme Court, presenting a streamlined approach to resolving sports-related conflicts.
The bill outlines the establishment of a National Sports Board (NSB) tasked with ensuring accountability within sports federations. The NSB can de-recognise bodies failing to conduct timely elections or exhibiting significant electoral irregularities. The Board's composition will include a chairperson and members appointed by the central government, based on recommendations from a search-cum-selection committee.
Moreover, the bill addresses age limits for sports administration, permitting individuals aged 70 to 75 to run for office if allowed by international sports bodies' rules. This amendment marks a departure from the national sports code's age cap of 70, potentially influencing leadership dynamics within sports organisations.
n line with preparations for the 2036 Summer Olympic Games bid, the bill's statement of objectives emphasises the need for a transformative sports governance landscape to enhance performance in major international competitions. It states, "...as a part of the preparatory activities for the bidding of Summer Olympic Games 2036, it is imperative that the sports governance landscape undergoes a positive transformation to bring better outcomes."
The amendment ensures accountability, with the NSB required to consult relevant global bodies before taking action on issues like non-publication of audited accounts or misuse of public funds. Additionally, government assistance is not limited to financial support but extends to infrastructure, broadening the scope of what constitutes government aid.
This amendment reflects a shift towards improving transparency and governance within Indian sports, aligning with international practices and preparing for future challenges and opportunities. The focus remains on refining the structure of sports administration while providing clarity on the application of the RTI Act.

Amendment in Sports Bill to keep BCCI out of RTI Act : Written by Pritish Raj

The Indian Express: Article: Thursday, 7^Th August 2025.
Ministry cites provision that only bodies 'substantially financed' by the government can be defined as 'public authority' to exempt BCCI.

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) will not be subject to provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, after the government introduced amendments to the National Sports Governance Bill that has been tabled in Parliament.
The union sports ministry has cited a provision of the RTI Act, according to which only bodies ‘substantially financed’ by the government can be defined as a ‘public authority’.
When the Bill was tabled in Parliament on July 23, it had a provision in Clause 15(2) that ensured that all sports bodies recognised by the National Sports Bill would be considered a public authority under the Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005. However, The Indian Express has learnt that the clause stating, “a recognised sports organisation shall be considered a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with respect to the exercise of its functions, duties and powers under this Act,” has been omitted from the Bill via an amendment.
The omitted clause would have brought every national Sports Federation (NSF) under the RTI Act. The BCCI has always resisted coming under the purview of the Act arguing that it’s not dependent on government funds, unlike other sports governing bodies. The RTI Act defines a “public authority” as any institution or body created by any law made by Parliament or a State Legislature, including bodies owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government, with ‘substantially financed’ being the key word in this case.
The amendment has introduced a new clause that states, “A recognised sports organisation, receiving grants or any other financial assistance from the Central Government under sub-section (1) or from a State Government, shall be considered as a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, with respect to utilisation of such grants or any other financial assistance.”
The change would mean that all NSFs will be under the RTI Act, but the only queries they are required to answer will be related only to government aid and other financial assistance, unlike the previous clause that allowed questions on duties and powers of the NSF, including selection.
“The amended clause will ensure that we don’t violate the RTI Act. With the amendment, we have defined a public authority as an entity relying on government funds and assistance. We have removed the grey area from the Bill that could have resulted in it getting held up or being challenged in court,” a sports ministry source told this paper.
However, the BCCI will come under the purview of the Bill and can be questioned if there is any kind of government assistance involved.
“The BCCI will still come under the Bill and they will have to form an Ethics Commission, an Athletes Committee and implement the Safe Sports policy. They can also be questioned if government assistance of any kind is involved, like the usage of infrastructure,” the source said.
Another significant amendment in the Bill is that it has included the Societies Registration Act of a state as one of the criteria for recognition of an NSF.
Earlier Clause 8(2) stated, “No sports organisation shall be recognised under sub-section (1) unless such organisation is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or is a not-for-profit company incorporated under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 or is a trust created under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882.”
Now the clause will also add the Societies Registration Act of a state bringing the BCCI under the purview of the Bill as it’s registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975.
Sports minister Mansukh Mandaviya tabled two Bills in the monsoon session of Parliament  the National Sports Governance Bill and the National Anti-Doping (Amendment Bill). Both Bills are expected to be passed by the Lower House in the next couple of days.
In 2016, the Supreme Court-appointed RM Lodha Committee, looking into cricket reforms, had recommended bringing the BCCI under the RTI Act. While considering the recommendation, the apex court had referred the specific issue to the Law Commission in July 2016.

In its 275th report in 2018, the Law Commission too had recommended bringing the BCCI under the RTI Act. The Commission had underlined BCCI’s monopolistic character, the public nature of its functions, and the ‘substantial financing’ it has received from appropriate governments over the years (through tax exemptions, land grants, etc.) to hold that the cricket body can be termed a ‘public authority’ under the existing legal framework and brought within the purview of the RTI Act.

Amendments proposed to Sports Bill to keep BCCI out of RTI ambit : Shemin Joy

Deccan Herald: Varanasi: Wednesday, 6^Th August 2025.
Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya had on July 23 introduced the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025 in Lok Sabha.

Days after introducing a Bill on sports governance in Lok Sabha, the government has circulated amendments that practically take sports bodies like BCCI out of the ambit of Right to Information (RTI) and restricts its applications to federations that receive grants or other financial assistance from union or state governments.
Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya had on July 23 introduced the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025 in Lok Sabha, which provides for establishing National Sports Governing Bodies, a National Sports Board, National Sports Election Panel and National Sports Tribunal for the development and promotion of sports.
However, within days, the government has introduced amendments to the Bill to bring only the sports bodies that receive government funds under the purview of the transparency regime.
It has omitted a provision that provided for bringing all sports bodies, including the BCCI, under the RTI regime. The amendments, which were circulated among MPs a couple of days ago, will come up in the House only during the discussion of the Bill but the government still has an option not to move it. As per one of the amendments, Clause 15(2) -- a recognised sports organisation shall be considered a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with respect to the exercise of its functions, duties and powers under this Act -- has been proposed to be omitted.
This clause meant that all sports bodies would have to respond to queries submitted under RTI Act, 2005.
While this is omitted, another amendment said a new clause 14(2) has been introduced which proposes, “a recognised sports organisation, receiving grants or any other financial assistance from the central government under sub-section (1) or from a state government, shall be considered as a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, with respect to utilisation of such grants or any other financial assistance.”
Under the omitted provision, an RTI query could be about any aspect of the functioning of the sports body but in the proposed amendment, it has been restricted to the financial aid received from the government.

CIAL comes within the ambit RTI Act, says Kerala HC

The Hindu: Kochi: Wednesday, 6^Th August 2025.
The Kerala High Court held on Tuesday that Cochin International Airport Limited (CIAL) would come within the limits of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

Replying to a petition filed by M.R. Ajayan, editor of Green Kerala News, CIAL had contended that it would not come under the RTI Act since it was not a public property.
Apart from maintaining that the body would come under the RTI Act, a Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. also ordered that a public information officer (PIO) be appointed at the airport. The court fixed a 15-day timeline for CIAL to take steps to become completely RTI compliant and said that no request for extension of the timeline would be entertained.
After perusing a history of cases in this regard, the court said it appeared that the managing director of CIAL had filed writ petitions and appeals without the approval of the agency’s board of directors and the Chief Minister, who chairs the board, for hiding many important actions/decisions from the public and shareholders of CIAL. “We deprecate such practices and direct the Chief Secretary [CS], who too is a board member, to take measures to prevent such instances,” the court said and directed the CS to file an action taken report within 15 days.
Fine imposed:
Maintaining that the writ appeals were filed without proper authority, the court also imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh on CIAL.
The HC order came on appeals filed by CIAL against a single judge order in 2022 wherein the court had held that CIAL was a public authority within the confines of the RTI Act and was, therefore, amenable to obligations of disclosure of information to members of the public.
The State Information Commission had in 2019 held that CIAL was bound to divulge necessary information and meet the statutory obligations under the RTI Act, including the appointment of a PIO.

Kochi airport: Cial comes under RTI Act purview, rules Kerala HC

Times of India: Kochi: Wednesday, 6^Th August 2025.

A high court bench of Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and V M Syam Kumar has upheld a single bench order that declared that Cochin International Airport Ltd (Cial) is a public authority and is therefore amenable to Right to Information (RTI) Act.
HC delivered the verdict while dismissing a set of appeals filed by Cial against the single bench order of 2022. The court also imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on Cial, to be paid to the Kerala high court advocates' association within 10 days.
The cost was imposed in view of the court's findings that the writ petitions and appeals were filed by Cial managing director without the approval of the board of directors, apparently with the intent of concealing important decisions and actions from public shareholders. HC observed that even the CM, Cial's chairman, was not consulted before initiating the litigation. It held that the MD had no authority to file the cases without the board's approval. Strongly deprecating this practice, HC directed the chief secretary, who is a Cial director, to take appropriate action and ensure that such incidents are not repeated.
The case arose after a series of RTI applications seeking various details, including the minutes of board meetings, were rejected by Cial. This prompted appeals to the state chief information commissioner, who ruled that Cial is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and is bound to provide the requested information. The Cial MD then moved HC against the commissioner's order. However, a single bench dismissed the petitions in 2022 and directed the public information officer of Cial to provide the requested information in accordance with law.
Cial's appeals contended that it does not fall under the definition of public authority under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of RTI Act, arguing that it is neither owned, controlled, nor substantially financed by the govt. However, HC held that both Kochi International Airport Society, Cial's predecessor, and Cial itself had been substantially financed by the Kerala and central govts from their inception, and that all conditions for being a public authority were duly satisfied.
Upholding the state CIC's 2019 order, HC reaffirmed that Cial is obligated to provide information under the RTI Act. HC directed Cial to take all necessary steps within 15 days to become fully compliant with the provisions of the RTI Act and file a compliance report. The chief secretary has also been directed to file an action taken report before HC registry within 15 days.

(Click here to Download Judgment)

Preserve CCTV footage or face action: Gujarat Information Commission to police

PTI: Ahmedabad: Tuesday, 5^Th August 2025.
Expressing displeasure over police not providing CCTV footage of police stations sought by citizens under the RTI Act, the Gujarat Information Commission has directed officials concerned to preserve such images or face action under the legislation.
In an order issued on July 19, the commission clarified that if an RTI (Right to Information) application is received by a police station within 30 days of an incident, the CCTV footage of that matter must be preserved.
"Failure to preserve the recording will lead the commission to initiate proceedings for disciplinary action and penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act and appropriate action under the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971," the panel warned in its order.

RTI reveals how much public sector banks spend on recovery agents : Ashok Upadhyay

India Today: New Delhi: Tuesday, 5^Th August 2025.
India Today filed a Right to Information (RTI) query with the Department of Financial Services (DFS) to uncover how much taxpayer-funded public sector banks are spending on recovery agents.

The use of recovery agents by banks in India has long been mired in controversy due to aggressive and unethical practices, such as harassment, intimidation, and violation of borrower privacy, drawing sharp scrutiny from the Supreme Court.
The top court has repeatedly criticised banks for outsourcing debt recovery to third-party agents who often employ coercive tactics, flouting Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines that mandate fair practices.
India Today filed a Right to Information (RTI) query with the Department of Financial Services (DFS) to uncover how much taxpayer-funded public sector banks are spending on recovery agents.
The questions transferred to all banks were word-for-word, similar and direct: annual totals on recovery agent spending for the last five years, number of agents engaged, and the payment rules or policies that govern this chunk of public finance.
The responses of India’s public sector banks reflected a stark divide between isolated facts and entrenched stonewalling.
Here’s what we found:
First, the banks that disclosed significant data.
BANK OF MAHARASHTRA
Bank of Maharashtra is the only major bank to provide clear year-wise spending on recovery agents, rising from Rs 14.26 crore in 2019–20 to Rs 31.08 crore in 2023–24.
Spending stood at Rs 16.94 crore in 2020–21, Rs 21.23 crore in 2021–22, and Rs 21.38 crore in 2022–23. The agent count rose from 476 in 2022–23 to 547 in 2023–24.
However, it refused to share payment details, performance incentives, or internal policies, citing “commercial confidence” and “internal circulation.”
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
The Central Bank of India provided a detailed five-year breakdown of spending on recovery agents, rising from Rs 2.42 crore in 2019–20 to Rs 5.87 crore in 2023–24.
Spending in the interim years stood at Rs 2.38 crore in 2020–21, Rs 3.0 crore in 2021–22, and Rs 4.05 crore in 2022–23.
The agent count rose steadily from 184 in 2019–20 to 159 in 2020–21, 170 in 2021–22, 201 in 2022–23, and 279 in 2023–24.
However, the bank declined to share details on payment structure, performance incentives, or internal policies, citing “commercial confidence” and possible harm to institutional interest.
INDIAN BANK
Indian Bank shared partial data on commissions paid to recovery agents — Rs 33.20 crore in 2021–22, Rs 59.40 crore in 2022–23, and Rs 68.74 crore in 2023–24.
The number of agents was 867 in 2021–22, 988 in 2022–23, and 934 in 2023–24.
However, it withheld data for earlier years and did not disclose information on incentive structure, performance pay, or policy guidelines, citing exemptions under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
Punjab National Bank (PNB) provided the most comprehensive and transparent disclosure. While the majority of public sector banks either withheld information, cited legal exemptions, or claimed practical difficulties in compiling such data, PNB provided detailed, year-wise financials and operational statistics:
Year-wise agent engagement and commission payouts:
2019–20: Rs 37.03 crore across 514 agencies
2020–21: Rs 36.71 crore to 602 agencies
2021–22: Rs 57.95 crore to 626 agencies
2022–23: Rs 81.57 crore to 787 agencies
2023–24: Rs 49.62 crore to 590 agencies
PNB also clarified that no performance-based incentive is given to recovery agents; instead, commissions are paid strictly as per the bank’s approved internal guidelines.
However, PNB withheld the actual internal guidelines and related audit or policy documents, citing Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act stating that these contain information held in commercial confidence, the disclosure of which would harm the bank’s competitive position.
What sets PNB apart is the release of hard numbers for both commission payouts and the number of engaged agencies each year, offering rare insight into the scale and cost of recovery agent operations at a leading PSU bank.
On the other hand, some prominent public sector banks denied sharing the same information.
BANK OF BARODA
Bank of Baroda refused to disclose any consolidated information on recovery agent spending, stating that data is not centrally maintained. The bank invoked Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, saying that collecting such information would “disproportionately divert resources.” Additionally, it cited Section 8(1)(d), classifying the details as “commercial confidence,” and thus, out of bounds for public disclosure.
BANK OF INDIA
Bank of India declined to release any figures or policies, asserting that the information requested pertains to internal matters without wider public interest. The bank also referenced a Supreme Court judgement arguing that such disclosures should not place undue burden on administration. Thus, it withheld the data under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act.
CANARA BANK
Canara Bank found the RTI queries “vague and unclear,” rerouting the applicant to generic information on its website. It further refused to share policy documents or specifics, again relying upon the argument of “commercial confidence” under Section 8(1)(d).
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK
Indian Overseas Bank claimed the information requested was not readily available and stated that collecting and collating it would “disproportionately divert resources,” thus refusing the request under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
PUNJAB & SIND BANK
Punjab & Sind Bank outright rejected the RTI application, stating that the information sought was “not specific” enough, and denied all requested details.
STATE BANK OF INDIA (DENIED EVEN AFTER APPEAL)
State Bank of India (SBI) firmly denied disclosure of any information about recovery agent expenditure, even after the applicant filed an official appeal.
Initially, SBI contended that “The information sought by you is related to the commercial confidence/ trade secrets of the Bank, the disclosure of which exempted under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005.” This makes SBI one of the most opaque major public sector banks on this matter.
Upon appeal, SBI reiterated its refusal, citing the exemption on commercial confidence grounds. This steadfast refusal positions SBI as one of the most opaque among the PSBs regarding spending transparency on recovery agents.
UNION BANK OF INDIA
Union Bank of India stated it does not maintain consolidated data on recovery agent expenditure, and that collecting such information itself would “disproportionately divert resources.” The bank also invoked the “commercial confidence” clause to withhold access.
UCO BANK
UCO Bank similarly refused to share any information about recovery agent spending, stating that all such data are protected as trade secrets and “commercial confidence,” denying the request under Section 8(1)(d).
WHY DOES THIS MATTER?
The practice of employing recovery agents often criticised for aggressive and sometimes unethical methods directly affects millions of borrowers across India.
Yet not only is consolidated spending data opaque, but also the incentive structures and internal guidelines governing these agents remain tightly guarded under claims of “commercial confidence.”
Most banks decentralise engagement and payment processes across their branches, resulting in an absence of consolidated nationwide data or a deliberate choice not to maintain it.
While Punjab National Bank, Bank of Maharashtra, Central Bank of India, and Indian Bank show that disclosure is possible, the majority rely on RTI exemptions or Supreme Court rulings to block transparency.
When it comes to transparency, responses by some of the lenders show that even government-owned banks often fall short. Time and again, they hide behind the excuse of “commercial confidence” to withhold basic financial information that rightly belongs in the public domain.
Some go a step further, claiming that gathering the data is too much of a burden despite proof that others manage just fine.
However, this information matters, as taxpayer money is being spent on hiring private agents to recover loans. Without greater public disclosure, there’s little accountability on how this money is used, what rules govern these agents, or how borrowers are treated.

Gujarat Information Commission orders strict compliance on CCTV footage preservation

Counterview: Gujarat: Tuesday, 5^Th August 2025.

In a significant ruling aimed at strengthening transparency and accountability, the Gujarat State Information Commission has issued strict directions to the Police Department regarding the preservation and sharing of CCTV footage under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Commission has made it clear that destruction of requested CCTV footage will lead to disciplinary action and penalties against responsible officials.
The Commission emphasized that if an RTI application is filed within 30 days of an incident, the concerned CCTV footage must be preserved until the disposal of the second appeal. The order refers to a circular issued by the General Administration Department (GAD) dated 6 May 2022 (No. GAD/102022/136/RTI Cell), which mandates this requirement. It also noted that the Director General of Police (DGP) has already issued relevant instructions for its implementation.
The issue was brought into focus by a citizen from Ahmedabad who filed an RTI application seeking CCTV footage from ShaherKotda Police Station to obtain evidence of alleged police misconduct. When he failed to receive the footage, he approached the Commission directly. During the hearing, the police claimed the footage had been deleted due to a technical fault, a justification the Commission rejected as improper.
Highlighting the frequent denial of CCTV footage by police stations, the Commission observed that many citizens rely on such evidence to support claims of mistreatment or to present in legal cases. Denying access to such footage undermines the purpose of installing surveillance cameras in police stations, it stated.
In its order dated 19 July 2025, the Commission warned that Public Information Officers (PIOs) and First Appellate Authorities (FAAs) who fail to provide requested CCTV footage would face penalties and disciplinary action under Section 20 of the RTI Act. It also invoked the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971, for further action in cases of non-compliance.
The Commission directed the DGP and all Commissionerates and Superintendents of Police across Gujarat to re-circulate the earlier GAD instructions and ensure that all police personnel are made aware of the mandatory preservation and disclosure of CCTV footage in response to RTI applications.

10k RTI cases resolved in a year, none pending: CIC

Times of India: Gandhinagar: Tuesday, 5^Th August 2025.

Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Subhash Soni on Monday stated that nearly 10,000 cases filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act last year have been resolved, and currently, no case was pending with the commission. He also mentioned that around 250 significant decisions by the commission were made available online for public access.
At an event held in Gandhinagar on Monday, revised editions of three booklets prepared under the RTI Act were released, and a podcast created using artificial intelligence (AI) was unveiled by Soni and former CIC Amrut Patel. Soni added that the commission's activities are also being actively shared through social media platforms.
Quoting former CIC Amrut Patel, the statement said that the absence of any pending cases in the Gujarat Information Commission was commendable. Patel added that due to various efforts such as addressing RTI complaints and appeals promptly and leveraging social media citizens have benefitted significantly.
Commenting on the measures recommended by the commission, Soni said that the state govt has accepted proposals to provide up to five pages of information free of cost, allow photography of documents, and permit the sharing of information via digital storage devices.

RTI activist questions latest order on re-employment of retirees issued by Department of Higher Education

The Hindu: Coimbatore: Monday, 4^th August 2025.

The latest order by the Department of Higher Education permitting re-employment of Joint Director, Regional Joint Director, Principals in Grade I and II, College Librarians, and Directors of Physical Education who are engaged in administrative nature of job, after attainment of superannuation, has been questioned by an RTI activist in Coimbatore.
In the Government Order 192 dated November 12, 2024, the re-employment for these posts were dispensed with, on the last day of the month of attaining the age of superannuation.
The latest order issued on July 31 was based on the request of the Commissioner of Collegiate Education for permitting their re-employment.
In a petition submitted to the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, RTI activist and former Associate Professor and Head, Department of Mathematics, CBM College, Coimbatore, N.R. Ravisankar, said the re-employment order of the Higher Education Department ran counter to the amendment made to the Government Order 92.
It states that every government servant in the superior as well as basic service shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month of attainment of 60 years. They shall not be retained in service after that age.
“The Amendment is clear that those attaining the age of 60 years on superannuation cannot continue further. How then is it possible for the Higher Education Department to issue the G.O. on reemployment which is applicable to the posts in the government-aided colleges as well.
Citing an instance of the directive given to a government-aided college in Coimbatore to appoint a new Principal by cancelling the re-employment of the existing principal based on the retirement age of 60 years, Prof. Ravichandran said the latest G.O. of the Higher Education Department on re-employment has to be withdrawn.

Punjab info panel raps appellant for suicide threat, RTI ‘misuse’

Times of India: Chandigarh: Monday, 4^th August 2025.
The Punjab State Information Commission (PSIC) has come down heavily on an appellant who threatened to commit suicide during a hearing. The commission has issued a stern warning against the misuse of the Right to Information Act and against behaviour that was "disruptive" and harassed officials.

The observations were made by state information commissioner Sandeep Singh Dhaliwal while dismissing six appeals filed by a resident of Talwandi Sabo. The appellant had sought information from the public information officer (PIO) of the district office of food, civil supplies, and consumer affairs, Bathinda.
The PIO responded to the RTI queries on May 27, 2024. On the same day, the appellant filed a first appeal. But, with no response from the first appellate authority, the appellant filed second appeals before the commission on July 15, 2024. As the parties and subject matter across all six cases were common and interrelated, the commission passed a single consolidated final order.
During the hearing, the PIO submitted that the requested information was already provided in all six cases. In some instances, the appellant even signed acknowledgment receipts, confirming receipt of the information. Despite this, he proceeded with second appeals. The PIO also filed separate replies and affirmations for each case, reiterating that the information was furnished.
Asked directly by the commission whether he received information, the appellant failed to provide a clear answer, instead veering into irrelevant arguments and making unsubstantiated allegations against the PIO. The matter took a serious turn when the appellant stated he would commit suicide due to the ongoing issues, raising concerns about his well-being and conduct.
In a written submission, the PIO stated that the appellant filed 71 RTI applications since 2018, all of which were replied to within prescribed timeframes. The department also reported that the appellant frequently visited the Bathinda office and allegedly harassed staff, particularly female employees, causing disruption to work. Formal complaints were filed by the female staff with the deputy commissioner, Bathinda, citing "fear and distress" due to his behaviour.
Additionally, a complaint dated March 13, jointly submitted by the deputy director, food and civil supplies, Faridkot division, and the district controller, Bathinda, said the appellant also threatened to end his life at the district office.
After examining the case record, the commission found no merit in the appeals, noting that the appellant did not present any evidence to support his claim that the information was denied. The existence of acknowledgment receipts and the detailed replies submitted by the PIO were taken as confirmation that the responses were duly provided. Issuing a stern warning, the commission held that the appellant's actions constituted misuse of the RTI Act and warned that filing "frivolous" appeals and "harassing" public officials will not be tolerated. It directed the appellant to maintain proper conduct in future dealings with govt offices and to refrain from disruptive behaviour.

IBBI Rejects RTI Appeal Seeking Internal Investigation Records: Cites Prior Disclosure and RTI Limitations

Taxscan: National: Sunday, 3^rd August 2025.
IBBI dismisses RTI appeal seeking internal investigation files, holds that prior disclosure suffices under RTI Ac

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has dismissed an RTI appeal filed by Kairav Anil Trivedi, who sought extensive internal documentation related to a show cause notice (SCN) and subsequent disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.
The Board observed that much of the information had already been furnished in earlier RTI responses and emphasized that the Right to Information Act, 2005 does not entitle an applicant to demand continuous reiteration or explanations from the public authority.
Trivedi’s RTI application was rooted in the disciplinary action initiated based on a SCN and a Disciplinary Committee Order. He sought copies of internal orders, reports, opinions, emails, assessments, and notings under various regulations such as 7, 10, 11, and 12 of the IBBI (Inspection and Investigation) Regulations, 2017.
Trivedi wanted documentation that could prove whether the IBBI had internally followed due procedure before and during the investigation. His application listed more than 18 distinct categories of internal material, covering regulatory compliance, assessments, internal decisions, and investigation-related communications.
The CPIO had already provided file notings and relevant investigation reports in a prior response dated 20 May 2025. Dissatisfied by this, Trivedi filed the present appeal, alleging that the documentation provided was incomplete or missing key internal documents mandated by regulation.
The FAA in his order held that the information being sought had already been addressed in two earlier RTI Appeals. The FAA noted that Trivedi’s present application did not raise any new or previously unaddressed queries and thus did not merit interference.
It was also held that the order emphasized the limits of the RTI Act under Section 2(f), which allows for access to records, documents, and data “held” by a public authority, but does not obligate creation or curation of new information or answers.
The order stated that Appellant’s ‘right to information’ flows from Section 3 of the RTI Act but is subject to the other provisions of the Act. Section 2(j) defines the right only in terms of information that is accessible and held by the public authority.
As a result, the appeal was disposed of, and the Board stood firm that it had complied with the regulatory and procedural standards under the IBBI framework.
[Read Order]

RTI Act Doesn’t Cover Opinions: IBBI Rejects RTI Appeals Seeking Legal Clarification on CIRP Provisions

Times of India: National: Sunday, 3^rd August 2025.
The IBBI held that RTI Act cannot be used to seek legal interpretations

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has dismissed two RTI appeals filed by appellant, who had sought detailed clarifications on provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) relating to ongoing insolvency proceedings.
Jitendar Sood had approached the IBBI with two separate appeals, both arising from responses received from the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the IBBI.
The IBBI held that RTI Act cannot be used to seek legal interpretations
In the first appeal, Sood raised a series of queries related to a real estate project undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). His questions delved into nuanced issues like the legal classification and financial treatment of delivered versus undelivered towers in the CIRP framework, the allocation of funds by the Resolution Professional (RP), and the legality of collecting transfer charges for such flats.
In the second appeal, he raised the question of homebuyers whose possession had been given without registration. He argued that despite filing full-value claims, these buyers were given zero voting rights in the Committee of Creditors (CoC). Here again, he sought references to the specific clauses under the IBC that allowed such treatment and any provisions for rectification or action against the RP.
In both cases, the CPIO had earlier responded that the queries did not pertain to information held by the public authority and were instead requests for legal interpretation or opinion, something outside the mandate of the RTI Act.
Upholding this, the FAA cited Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which defines “information” as existing material like records, documents, memos, e-mails, contracts, reports, etc., that are held by a public authority. It was held that this definition excludes the requirement to generate information or offer explanations or interpretations that are not already documented.
The order relied heavily on a landmark 2011 Supreme Court judgment in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, which clarified that public authorities are not required to provide “advice” or “opinion” unless such material is already held in the records.
The First Appellate Authority (FAA) and Executive Director of IBBI, Mr. Kulwant Singh, disposed of the two appeals in this matter noting that the CPIO must provide only such information as ‘held’ by the public authority and that he is under no obligation to dispose information or furnish his opinion in response to the queries as sought by the Appellant.
(Cleck for Order)