RTI activist questions GHMC officials’ omission from accident FIR

Siasat Daily: Hyderabad: Sunday, September 13, 2026.
He and his friend met with an accident near a railway overbridge in Secunderabad

City-based RTI activist Robin Zaccheus has accused the Gopalapuram Station House Officer (SHO) of choosing not to name GHMC officers in his first information report (FIR) after he met with an accident in Secunderabad on Thursday night (September 10).
According to the FIR copy accessed by Siasat.com, the case records the vehicle number and invokes provisions for rash and negligent driving of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). It does not name the GHMC officials against whom Zaccheus had sought action.
It also says that Zaccheus and his friend went to Apollo Hospital, which the activist maintains is false.
RTI activist calls the road ‘deathtrap’
Zaccheus shared the ordeal, detailing the incident that occurred at 10 pm near a railway overbridge. He and his friend were on a two-wheeler when a speeding car hit them from behind. “My friend and I were thrown onto the road and injured after landing hard on our backs. Our vehicle was damaged. It left us traumatised and deeply shocked.”
He described the pothole-infested road as a “death trap”, highlighting the need for urgent repair work.
“Barricades have been dumped over massive potholes instead of the road being repaired. Had a family with children been on a bike, this could easily have turned fatal,” he pointed out.
“GHMC is equally responsible. Leaving roads in this condition is not poor maintenance; it is criminal negligence that endangers every commuter.”
The post had mentioned Chief Minister Revanth Reddy, Deputy CM Bhatti Mallu Vikramarka, Telangana Chief Secretary Sanjay Jaju, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Chief Secretary Jayesh Ranjan, GHMC Commissioner RV Karnan, Malkajgiri Police Commissioner B Sumathi and Malkajgiri Municipal Commissioner Vinay Krishna Reddy.
“How long will this government ignore crumbling roads and gamble with people’s lives? The condition of our city roads is a disgrace. How long will the government keep playing with citizens’ lives?”
Siasat.com accessed both the complaint and the FIR copy. The former clearly mentioned the GHMC Assistant Engineer, Divisional Engineer and contractors, but the latter does not, creating ambiguity.
Tagging Director General of Police (DGP) CV Anand in his X post, Zaccheus questioned the discrepancies in the FIR and sought action against the SHO.
“Why are citizens told that the complaint must be handwritten and compressed into a single ‘simple’ page? How is a member of the public then expected to place a full record of accountability for lives put at risk? Despite giving a detailed 6-page typed complaint?” Zaccheus asked.

Kerala government spent Rs 245.62 crore on lawyers during 10 years of LDF rule

Mathrubhumi: Kerala: Sunday, September 13, 2026.

Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala: The Kerala government spent Rs 245.62 crore from the public exchequer on legal fees during the 10-year tenure of the Left Democratic Front (LDF) government, according to information provided under the Right to Information Act.
The Advocate General's office disclosed the figures in response to an RTI query filed by AS Mohammed Ashraf, hailing from Kasaragod.
The expenditure covers fees paid to senior lawyers who represented the government in cases before the Supreme Court, Kerala High Court, National Green Tribunal and Administrative Tribunal between 2016 and 2026.
The amount also includes payments made for legal advice, cases involving disputes between the governor and the state government, and assistance from lawyers in drafting amendments to laws.
Rs 38.91 crore spent on 789 Supreme Court cases
The government paid Rs 38.91 crore in legal fees for 789 cases before the Supreme Court.
Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta received the highest amount among the lawyers listed, with Rs 8.91 crore for appearing in 273 cases.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal was paid Rs 5.62 crore for appearing in five cases.
The government also paid Rs 92.65 lakh for legal advice from prominent lawyers, including former Attorney General KK Venugopal and senior advocate Fali S Nariman.
Fees paid in key cases
The legal expenses for several high-profile cases included:

• Solar case: Rs 1.20 crore

• Periya double murder case: Rs 85 lakh

• Gold smuggling case: Rs 70 lakh

• Wadakkanchery Life Mission scam: Rs 55 lakh

• Thiruvananthapuram airport privatisation case: Rs 56 lakh

• Harrison Malayalam case: Rs 45 lakh

• KIIFB case: Rs 45 lakh

• Santiago Martin lottery case: Rs 17.50 lakh

• Cheruvally estate case: Rs 16.5 lakh

• Sprinklr case: Rs 2 lakh

Police station footage: Seen and unseen- By Venkatesh Nayak

Deccan Herald: Opinion: Sunday, September 13, 2026.
The installation of CCTV cameras in various parts of a police station, except washrooms, and the preservation of the recordings for up to 18 months has become mandatory as a preventive measure against custodial torture.

Last week, a reputable journalist commented with cautious optimism on the recent crop of bold judgments and the emanation of brave noises from the judges’ corner, which are not accommodating of the ruling establishment’s partisan interests. He cites examples: the Allahabad High Court’s rebuke of a District Magistrate for illegally detaining a young woman activist under the draconian National Security Act (NSA) and its order to recover the Rs 5 lakh compensation awarded to her from the former’s salary; the Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice’s remarks about the importance of the rule of law; the Chief Justice of India’s verbal support for the expression of popular dissent in a peaceful manner.
However, has the ‘judicial worm turned’ perceptibly to protect people’s right to know? Earlier this month, another bench of the Allahabad High Court upheld the State Information Commission’s decision to deny a citizen access to CCTV footage recorded at a local police station. The court approved the government’s claim that the footage has sensitive contents barred from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. This exemption clause was crafted only to prevent endangerment of a person’s life or physical safety or disclosure of the identity of intelligence informants. Nothing in the court’s order indicates that the judges examined the footage themselves to ascertain the truth. The court ruled that CCTV footage may be provided only to a competent court or a human rights commission (HRC), and only if a requester files a complaint about police behaviour with either of them.
The installation of CCTV cameras in various parts of a police station, except washrooms, and the preservation of the recordings for up to 18 months has become mandatory as a preventive measure against custodial torture. In December 2020, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court issued detailed directions for this purpose in the Paramvir Singh Saini case. Last September, a prominent Hindi-language daily reported several custodial deaths in Rajasthan within less than a year, and the police’s alleged denial of CCTV footage to the victims’ families under RTI. Within a few days, an alert apex court initiated suo motu proceedings to ascertain compliance with its 2020 directions. Discussions are on between the court-appointed amicus curiae and the central and state governments on the manner of funding available to implement these directions and for creating a public dashboard that will disclose, in real time, which CCTV camera has died in which police station.
Interestingly, three days ago, the Karnataka Information Commission reportedly imposed penalties in the Rs 15,000-25,000 range on three police officers for failing to act on its earlier direction to supply CCTV footage to an RTI applicant. The Kalaburagi-based Information Commissioner also recommended the initiation of disciplinary action against them.
In 2024, I collaborated with City Core Group – a community-level collective of human rights activists in Mumbai, mostly comprising women – to ascertain the status of compliance with the apex court’s directions. They walked into 33 of the 91 police stations without seeking any official permission, telling the police that those are public offices and that they have every right to ascertain compliance with court directions issued for their benefit. They also successfully obtained CCTV footage covering the duration of their presence in the stations from five of them, through RTI.
These contrasting realities beg the question: should CCTV camera footage become a sarkari secret, accessible only to courts and HRCs? Section 33(2) of Kerala’s 2011 Police Act states: “No Police Officer shall prevent any member of the public from lawfully making any audio or video or electronic record of any Police action or activity carried out in a public or private place.” Since 2022, the Bombay High Court has ruled more than once that a citizen cannot be prosecuted under the 1923 Official Secrets Act for recording his/her interactions with the police using a mobile phone, because a police station is not a notified ‘prohibited area’. If this is increasingly becoming the standard for police-public interactions, there is no reason why CCTV footage recorded by the police themselves should be denied to those who ask, unless the disclosure causes harm to any of the public interests protected by the RTI Act.
Readers might ask: how will CCTV cameras help when torture or extra-judicial killings occur in the field? Is it time to make body cameras an essential part of the outfits of our law enforcement personnel?
The writer wakes up every morning thinking someone somewhere is hiding something.
(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.)

Petroleum Ministry CPIO Delayed Transfer Of RTI On Ethanol Blending To Oil Companies; CIC Seeks Explanation

Law Beat: New Delhi: Sunday, September 13, 2026.
Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi directs concerned CPIO to explain why RTI application was not transferred to concerned public authorities within prescribed time

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the concerned Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG) to submit a detailed explanation for the delay in transferring an RTI application concerning ethanol blending in petrol to the concerned oil marketing companies.
Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi passed the direction on September 7, 2026, while disposing of a complaint filed by Manoj K. Sharma against the CPIO, MoPNG.
The RTI application, filed on August 11, 2025, sought information on the government's ethanol-blending programme, including when oil companies started mixing ethanol with petrol, the percentage and volume of ethanol being blended, and whether the quantity varied across petrol pumps and cities.
The applicant also sought details of the criteria and policies governing any variation in ethanol blending, steps taken to educate petrol-pump delivery staff about ethanol content, and the policy regarding disclosure of ethanol quantity at petrol pumps.
Among other queries, Sharma sought documents or relevant links showing whether consumers were informed about how much ethanol they were purchasing along with petrol.
He also sought "scientific, independent credible evidence" on which the blending policy was based, including material concerning the compatibility of ethanol-blended petrol with cars manufactured between 2010 and 2025.
According to the order, the RTI application was subsequently transferred to the concerned oil marketing companies, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) , under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act for Points 1 to 6.
For Point 7, the applicant was provided a web link containing the Roadmap for Ethanol Blending in India 2020-25.
The First Appellate Authority had noted that the CPIO's response was furnished on August 27, 2025, and held that it was within the prescribed 30-day period. The FAA consequently disposed of the appeal and advised the applicant to refer to the response available on the RTI portal.
However, the issue before the CIC was not merely whether a response had ultimately been furnished, but whether the application had been transferred to the concerned public authorities within the time prescribed under the RTI Act.
During the CIC hearing, Sharma submitted that the Ministry had failed to transfer the application to the oil marketing companies within the stipulated five-day period and contended that the delayed transfer was illegal.
The Ministry, on the other hand, submitted that it was not the custodian of the information sought under Points 1 to 6 and had therefore transferred those portions of the application to IOCL, BPCL and HPCL under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
When the Commission questioned the respondent about the delay in transferring the application, the Ministry attributed it to the relocation of its office from Shastri Bhavan to Kartavya Bhavan, which caused technical difficulties in moving the computers. It also cited the ongoing Parliament session as a reason for the delay.
The CIC noted that another appeal concerning the same RTI application had already been heard and adjudicated by the Commission on August 31, 2026, in Case No. CIC/BPCLD/A/2025/653165.
Nevertheless, the Commission separately found fault with the handling of the RTI application at the Ministry.
It held that the then incumbent CPIO had not transferred the RTI application to the concerned public authority within the stipulated time limit under the RTI Act, 2005.
Consequently, the CIC directed the concerned CPIO to submit a detailed written explanation for the failure to transfer the application within the prescribed period. The explanation is to be submitted to the Commission both by post and by uploading it on the Commission's online compliance portal within 15 days of receipt of the order.
The Commission accordingly disposed of the complaint.
Case Title: MANOJ K SHARMA v CPIO: MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

Four RTI activists arrested for allegedly demanding ₹5 crore from company: By Shrinivas Deshpande

Hindustan Times: Pune: Saturday, 12^th September 2026.
The company claimed the activists threatened to disrupt its operations and kill its representatives if the demand was not met.

The Pimpri-Chinchwad police on Thursday arrested four Right To Information (RTI) activists for allegedly demanding ₹5 crore from representatives of a private company in MIDC Bhosari. The company claimed the activists threatened to disrupt its operations and kill its representatives if the demand was not met.
The threats were issued between May 8 and September 10. An FIR was registered at Bhosari MIDC police station on September 10, and the accused were arrested the same day after they walked into a police-laid trap.
The arrested individuals have been identified as Rahul Premnarayan Mishra (38), Altaf Usman Janvekar (53), Ramesh Bhima Manjrekar (39) and Sunil Rajendra Kanu (35), all residents of Thane. They were arrested after allegedly taking a bag containing ₹25 lakh in cash as the first installment toward the ₹5 crore demand.
The complainant, Suvarna Fibrotech Pvt Ltd, manufactures fiberglass composite moulded products and has a tie-up with the Thane Municipal Corporation.
Rohidas Pawar, deputy commissioner of police (crime), said, “The accused are activists who allegedly contacted company representatives by phone, claiming that they had obtained the firm’s documents through the RTI Act. They allegedly told the representatives that they found several irregularities in the documents and demanded ₹5 crore if the company wanted to continue its business in Maharashtra.”
The complaint also mentions that the accused allegedly threatened to “ruin” the company and threatened to kill the representatives if the money was not paid.
Based on the complaint, the Pimpri-Chinchwad police’s anti-extortion team laid a trap. The four accused arrived in a car to meet the company representatives. Accused Rahul Mishra allegedly accepted the cash kept in a black bag, after which the police arrested all four.
A case was registered under Sections 308(3), 308(4), 308(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Pimpri-Chinchwad police commissioner Vinay Kumar Choubey said, “Those attempting to extort money by creating fear in industrial areas will receive no leniency or tolerance. Strict legal action will be taken to effectively curb such criminal activities. Citizens and industrialists who receive any kind of extortion demand or threat are urged to immediately contact the Anti-Extortion Squad or the Crime Branch at 7517-7517-593.”

RTI: Can citizens enter govt offices wearing footwear? Bureaucracy in Keralam seeks answers

Times of India: T'puram: Saturday, 12^th September 2026.
Be it the colour of the ink in a citizen’s pen or whether the public can wear footwear in govt offices, Keralam’s personnel and administrative reforms department (P&RD) appears to be exploring some rather unconventional corners of govt rulebooks.

Barely days after information was sought on whether citizens are required to use a particular colour of ink while submitting applications and complaints, an RTI application has now galvanised the P&ARD to ask departments to dig out any govt orders or circulars governing whether members of the public can enter govt offices and institutions wearing footwear.
An ‘unofficial note’ issued by the department, dated Sept 9, seeks information from all secretariat departments, including law and finance secretariats, on whether there are any provisions prohibiting the public from entering govt offices, institutions and even hospitals while wearing sandals or footwear.
But the department’s curiosity does not stop at the footwear itself. It has also asked whether any orders or circulars exist on what action should be taken if a govt office or institution puts up a notice saying: “entry wearing footwear is not permitted.”
The information is being sought to prepare a response under RTI Act. Departments have been asked to furnish any relevant orders or circulars urgently.
The latest query comes in the wake of another exercise by the department seeking answers over the colour of ink used by citizens in applications and representations. That inquiry sought to establish whether there was any prescribed ink colour and, more importantly, whether a citizen’s application could be rejected simply because the ‘wrong’ colour was used.
For a bureaucracy that is increasingly looking to make the digital switch, the questions have an unmistakably old-school ring to them. “Officials are already preoccupied with several productive tasks that need to be completed on top priority. When such a query comes in from a govt dept, we have to provide a proper and accurate response. That means digging through files to find out whether such an order or rule exists. If it does not, that too has to be established. Several productive hours of officials are consequently spent chasing issues that have little bearing on the actual functioning of govt,” a finance department official said.

Doctors may have to pay fee for mandatory National Medical Register number under draft NMC rules.

New Indian Express: Kavita Bajeli Dutt: New Delhi: Friday, September 11, 2026.

The draft proposes that State Medical Councils process registration and licence applications for a fee, while an RTI activist said the move conflicts with the NMC Act, 2019.

Doctors will now have to pay a fee to obtain a National Medical Register (NMR) number under a draft regulation released by the National Medical Commission (NMC). The draft Registration of Medical Practitioners and License to Practice Medicine (Amendment) Regulations, 2026, issued by the Ethics and Medical Registration Board (EMRB), proposes that State Medical Councils (SMCs) review applications for registration and licences after collecting a fee, within 30 days.

The proposal, however, goes against the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, which says the NMC and SMCs must prepare the NMR based on a doctor’s registration with the state medical council. The draft makes NMR mandatory and places responsibility on doctors. The NMC had earlier made the NMR, a central database for modern medicine practitioners, voluntary after its launch by Union Health Minister JP Nadda on August 23, 2024.

RTI activist Dr KV Babu said the draft regulation was not aligned with Section 31 of the NMC Act, 2019. “The statute is clear that the NMC and state medical councils must prepare the NMR based on doctors’ state registration,” said Babu.

He said the law did not allow the EMRB to transfer this responsibility to doctors registered with SMCs and paying a fee. He also questioned allowing SMCs to charge a fee to verify data they already possess.

Babu has written to the NMC seeking withdrawal of the draft and consultation with stakeholders, including the IMA. Under the draft, a person or foreign medical graduate must apply to the SMC through the EMRB’s Unified Registration Portal. The SMC will examine the application and decide on registration and licensing within 30 days.

• Once approved, registration will be reflected in the State Medical Register and NMR.
• Once registered, medic can practise across India
• Once approved, registration will be reflected in the State Medical Register and NMR. 

A doctor receiving registration, a licence and an NMR UID will be able to practise anywhere in India without registering again in another state or Union Territory. The NMC published the draft on August 11 and also invited stakeholders to submit objections and suggestions within 30 days.

Karnataka Information Commission recommends action against three police sub-inspectors over CCTV footage issue

The Hindu: Karnataka: Friday, September 11, 2026.

The Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka Information Commission on Wednesday recommended disciplinary action against three police sub-inspectors of the Sirwar Police Station in Raichur district for failing to provide CCTV footage sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and for not preserving the footage as required under a Supreme Court order.

The commission has directed the State police authorities to ensure that CCTV cameras in all police stations remain functional and that recording systems have adequate storage capacity to preserve footage for 18 months.

The case arose from an RTI application filed by Pavan Kumar at the Sirwar Police Station on June 4, 2022, seeking CCTV footage recorded on June 1, 2022 between 7.45 p.m. and 11.50 p.m.

According to the commission’s order, the information sought was related to life and personal liberty and should have been provided within 48 hours under the relevant provisions of the RTI Act. However, then sub-inspector Geethanjali Shinde issued a reply nearly two months later, on August 13, 2022, stating that the information sought fell under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.

The applicant subsequently approached the Kalaburagi Bench in a second appeal. The commission ordered the police to provide the requested CCTV footage. However, the order was not complied with, following which the commission imposed penalties of ₹25,000 on Ms. Shinde, ₹15,000 on Avinash Kambale and ₹25,000 on Guruchandra Yadav, who had served as sub-inspectors at the station during the relevant period.

Although the three officials paid the penalties, the CCTV footage was still not provided, prompting State Information Commissioner (Kalaburagi Bench) B. Venkata Singh to recommend appropriate disciplinary action against them.

Subsequently, sub-inspector Basanagouda, who was posted to the Sirwar Police Station, wrote to the Superintendent of Police seeking technical assistance to retrieve the footage. A technical team inspected the hard disk at the station on January 2, 2025, and reported that it contained CCTV recordings for only 15 months and that recordings prior to that period were unavailable.

The commission held that the failure to provide the information within the stipulated period, coupled with the failure to preserve the CCTV footage in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions, warranted disciplinary action. Notices under Rule 7 of the relevant police service rules have since been issued, and the Superintendents of Police of Raichur, Ballari and Vijayanagara districts have initiated action, according to the commission.

The commission has directed the three district police chiefs to submit compliance reports on the action taken.

In view of the continuing requirement to preserve CCTV footage in police stations, the commission has also directed Director-General and Inspector-General of Police M.S. Saleem to take steps to ensure that all police stations in the State have CCTV systems in working condition and hard disks with sufficient storage capacity to retain recordings for 18 months, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions.

Sacked employee entitled to inquiry documents under RTI: Chhattisgarh HC

Times of India: New Delhi: Friday, September 11, 2026.

The Chhattisgarh high court has directed the family court, Janjgir-Champa, to provide a former employee documents related to the departmental inquiry that led to his termination. The court held that the information could not be denied under the Right to Information Act exemptions cited by authorities. The order was passed on August 31, 2026.

Why did the former employee seek the documents?

According to the court order, Akram Khan was working as a driver at the family court, Janjgir, when two departmental inquiries were initiated against him over allegations of misconduct and seven charges. His services were terminated on January 5, 2021, by the Principal Judge, family court, Janjgir-Champa. Khan challenged the termination through a departmental appeal before the Registrar General of the Chhattisgarh high court.

He argued that he had not been given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the inquiry. Khan then sought information and documents relating to the inquiry from the department. He specifically asked for the complete note sheets of office memo No.443/two-12-21/2020, on the basis of which his termination order had been passed.

The Public Information Officer rejected his request on January 15, 2021. His first appeal was rejected on March 10, 2021. Khan then filed a second appeal before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, which was dismissed on January 28, 2022. The authorities relied on Sections 8(1)(c) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to deny the information. The first provision deals with information whose disclosure could breach parliamentary or state legislative privilege, while the second provides an exemption for certain personal information where disclosure could cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

What did the high court observed?

The high court, however, found that the documents Khan sought were connected to his own termination and the high court, however, found that the documents Khan sought were connected to his own termination and were required by him to defend his case before the higher authorities. The court added that the information was not confidential or related to a third party. “The information sought by the petitioner clearly reflects that the said information was neither confidential, related to a third party nor intended for use against any third party,” the high court noted. The court went on to explain why Khan's request was directly connected with his challenge to the termination.

It said the documents were being sought for an “effective defence” before the higher authority in his attempt to challenge the January 5, 2021 termination order. The court also examined whether either of the RTI exemptions cited by the authorities could apply to the documents. It found that the information did not involve parliamentary or legislative privilege and did not amount to disclosure of personal information concerning a third party. “On due consideration of the information sought by the petitioner, in no way would it be an information disclosure of information which could cause breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature as is contemplated under the provision of Section 8(1) (c) nor would the information so sought for be an information which relates to a disclosure of personal information to which the petitioner has no relationship or has no interest or which could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of a third party as is otherwise exempted under Clause 8(1) (j) of the Act of 2005,” the court noted.

The high court also raised a concern about the manner in which the matter had been handled. It noted that the authority which passed Khan's termination order had also decided his first appeal. The court said this would not amount to a fair proceeding. “Ironically the order of dismissal has been passed by the same authority who had decided the first appeal which again would not be otherwise a fair proceeding drawn on the part of the Presiding Judge, family court, Janjgir Champa at that point of time,” it added

The high court held that the findings of the Public Information Officer, First Appellate Authority and Second Appellate Authority were contrary to Section 8 of the RTI Act. It set aside all three orders. The court directed the Public Information Officer to provide Khan the information he had sought under the RTI Act after he paid the requisite fees. It said the information should be provided at the earliest, preferably within 30 days of receiving a copy of the high court's order.

Labour report delay flagged as migrant and domestic worker data remain unreleased

Telegraph India: New Delhi: Thursday, 10^th September 2026.
RTI reply shows two nationwide studies launched in 2021 remain under ministry consideration, prompting concern over policymaking and emerging work categories
Labour economists have criticised the delay in the release of survey reports on the working conditions of migrant and domestic workers and their estimated numbers, an exercise launched by the Centre five years ago.
In 2021, the Union labour ministry announced that it would conduct pan-India surveys on migrant workers, domestic workers, employment generated by professionals and the transport sector, and the All-India quarterly establishment-based employment survey (AQEES).
Data accessed by The Telegraph through the RTI Act suggests that the labour bureau, a wing under the labour ministry, only carried out surveys on migrant workers, domestic workers and eight rounds of AQEES.
“Reports of All-India survey on migrant workers and All-India survey on domestic workers are still under consideration in the ministry,” the RTI reply said.
The twin surveys kicked off in November 2021, with the labour bureau collecting data from 1.5 lakh households for each. Both the surveys were supposed to be completed within a year.
Labour economist K.R. Shyam Sundar, adjunct professor at MDI Gurgaon, lamented the delay in the release of reports.
“The country is waiting for data on migrant and domestic workers, such as their socio-economic condition, safety at workplaces and nature of engagement. In a democracy, data should flow freely. Otherwise, it will adversely affect scientific data collection and policymaking,” Sundar said.
He said the government took credit for the data on registered unorganised sector workers on its e-shram portal. However, mere registration of workers does not provide information on household characteristics and emerging categories of workers.
“So far, workers are classified as regular workers, casual workers and self-employed. But we see several new types of workers who do not fit into the traditional categories. For example, the gig and platform workers cannot be placed in any of the three categories. So surveys are important to understand the nature of emerging work and broaden the existing categories,” Sundar said.

Data on de-reservation proposals not readily available, says DoPT amidst tussle with Scheduled Castes panel: Abhinay Lakshman

The Hindu: New Delhi: Thursday, 10^th September 2026.
DoPT says information on such proposals scattered across departments, Ministries; NCSC had earlier criticised Centre’s ‘incomplete’ proposals to fill reserved posts with general category candidates
The DoPT clarification comes amid a recent complaint from the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) that the Centre’s de-reservation proposals were often incomplete and didn’t reveal alternative efforts made to fill reserved vacancies.
The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) has said that it does not have “readily available” data on the number of de-reservation proposals it had received from various Ministries and departments of the Union government over the last six years. De-reservation is the practice of filling a reserved position with a general category candidate.
De-reservation is the practice of filling a reserved position with a general category candidate.
The DoPT clarification comes amid a recent complaint from the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) that the Centre’s de-reservation proposals were often incomplete and did not reveal alternative efforts made to fill reserved vacancies. The NCSC had, therefore, decided to launch a probe into such proposals, to ensure effective implementation of the reservation policy.
According to regulations for government recruitment issued by the DoPT, there is a general ban on de-reserving posts, with very specific exceptions.
In response to queries from The Hindu under the Right to Information Act of 2005, the DoPT cited Section 7(9) of the law to say that gathering the information on de-reservation proposals would “disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority”.

‘Confidential’ label alone not enough to deny mine maps, CIC orders disclosure of permissible info

Daily Pioneer: New Delhi: Thursday, 10^th September 2026.
The Central Information Commission has directed the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) to revisit the denial of Digital Elevation Model (DEM) maps of three limestone mines in Telangana, observing that merely classifying the information as confidential was not sufficient to deny its disclosure under the Right to Information Act.
Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi directed the IBM’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to provide relevant permissible information after severing portions exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.
If the information cannot be disclosed, the CPIO has been asked to incorporate relevant justification in a revised reply.
The RTI application sought certified DEM maps of three limestone mines in Suryapet district of Telangana from 2017 to 2025.
The mines identified in the application were Sulthanpur Reserved Forest Mine, Gundlapally Limestone Mine and Pedaveedu Limestone Mine. The CPIO, in its reply, said DEM maps from 2017 to 2022 were not available with the office.
It said data after 2022 was available but could not be disclosed under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, which exempts information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property where disclosure could harm the competitive position of a third party.
The First Appellate Authority upheld the denial, stating that the information could not be disclosed under Section 8(1)(d) as it contained “commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property”, disclosure of which could harm the competitive position of the third party.
During the hearing, the appellant said the DEM maps were sought from the IBM to corroborate evidence in a court case in support of a claim of illegal mining carried out by a third-party company.
The CPIO maintained that DEM maps generally contain sensitive information relating to mining operations and that their disclosure or misuse could harm the competitive position of the concerned party.
The third-party company also objected to disclosure of its mining DEM maps.
The commission, however, observed that the “complete denial” of DEM maps merely by “classifying it to be confidential” would not discharge the CPIO’s onus under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.
“Had it been the case, it is expected from the CPIO to substantiate their denial of information with substantive justification to this effect,” the commission said.
The CIC directed the CPIO to revisit the contents of the RTI application and provide “relevant permissible information” after severing the portion exempt from disclosure by invoking Section 10 of the RTI Act.
It further said that if the CPIO finds that the information cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act, the revised reply must contain the relevant justification for such denial.

CBSE Answer Sheet Photocopy: CIC Directs Board to Charge Fees Strictly as Per RTI Rules: Sanjana Surbhi

Shiksha.com: New Delhi: Thursday, 10^th September 2026.
CIC has directed CBSE to provide answer sheet photocopies under RTI Act by charging fees as prescribed under RTI Rules, 2012. CIC has also recommended changes to its rules on CBSE answer sheet verification and re-evaluation.
CBSE Answer Sheet Photocopy: Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to provide photocopies of answer scripts requested under Right to Information (RTI) Act by charging fees strictly in accordance with RTI Rules, 2012.
The commission has also recommended that CBSE amend its May 19, 2025 circular, which restricts students who obtain their answer sheets under RTI Act from applying for verification or re-evaluation. CIC observed that such a restriction is not in line with spirit of RTI Act.
CIC Directs CBSE to Follow RTI Fee Rules
This matter was considered by CIC after a Class 10 CBSE board exam student filed an RTI application for getting photocopies of his answer sheets. The student cited high cost of CBSE's regular process for obtaining answer sheets and getting re-verification or re-evaluation. He also raised concerns related to difficulty level of CBSE Class 10 Mathematics Standard Set 3 question paper, moderation policy and deductions in marks.
As per application, the student was required to pay INR 2,500 for photocopies of CBSE answer sheets for five subjects and another INR 2,500 for re-verification. This re-evaluation process involved a fee of INR 100 per question. So, the student sought copies of his CBSE board exam answer sheets under RTI Act, citing comparatively high cost of regular process.
CBSE Provided Answer Sheets Through Email
In its response dated July 2, 2025, CBSE Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) informed students that requested answer books had been provided to him through email after payment of prescribed fee. He later filed a first appeal and raised concerns about blank pages in CBSE answer books, Mathematics moderation policy and evaluation of his answer sheet. 
First Appellate Authority observed that these concerns were different from original RTI queries and sought explanations and analytical responses. During CIC hearing, CBSE CPIO stated that answer sheet had been provided after student paid photocopying charges prescribed under RTI Rules, 2012.
CIC Questions CBSE Restriction on Revaluation
CPIO also referred to CBSE's May 19, 2025 circular, which permits candidates to obtain copies of answer books under RTI Act but states that requests for verification or revaluation cannot be made under the RTI framework. CIC took exception to this provision. It observed that preventing a student from seeking CBSE answer sheet verification or re-evaluation simply because student obtained a copy of CBSE answer sheet through RTI Act goes against the spirit of the transparency law.
CIC Refers to Section 22 of RTI Act
The commission referred to Section 22 of the RTI Act, which gives the RTI law overriding effect over provisions contained in other laws, rules or instruments to the extent that they are inconsistent with the RTI Act. CIC also referred to Supreme Court's April 11, 2019 judgment in ICSI vs Paras Jain. The judgment held that remedies available under an institution's own rules and those available under the RTI framework are not mutually exclusive.
Based on these observations, CIC directed CBSE to provide answer script photocopies under RTI Act by charging photocopying fees strictly according to RTI Rules, 2012. CIC has also recommended that CBSE amend its May 19, 2025 circular under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act to ensure that its provisions are consistent with the transparency law.

CIC fines two railway officials Rs 20,000, says RTI records cannot be mechanically denied

ENN: New Delhi: Thursday, 10^th September 2026.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has fined two railway officials a total of Rs 20,000 for failing to handle an RTI application properly and not discharging their statutory responsibilities.
It also ordered that a caution issued to the then first appellate authority over his handling of the RTI plea be noted in his service record, observing that existing records cannot be mechanically denied.
The officers had denied an RTI plea, saying it was outside the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The commission imposed a penalty of Rs 15,000 on the present Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of Southern Railway and Rs 5,000 on the then CPIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
The RTI applicant had sought complete file relating to his charge sheet, including correspondence, notes and remarks, apart from details of his revision petition and action taken on his request for its early disposal.
The CIC said the information sought "pertains to his own disciplinary proceedings and revision petition" and substantially related to information held by or under the control of the public authority.
Such requests, it said, "cannot be summarily rejected by invoking Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005".
During the hearing, the present CPIO failed to provide a "cogent or plausible explanation" as to why the information sought was considered outside the scope of Section 2(f), the commission said.
It also observed that the official appeared to be mixing up two RTI applications of the complainant. The CIC further noted that although the CPIO claimed that documents relating to the charge sheet had already been supplied, no documentary evidence, proof of dispatch or acknowledgement was placed on record.
"Mere oral assertions made during the hearing, without supporting documentary evidence, cannot be accepted as proof of compliance with the RTI Act," the CIC said.
Reiterating the scope of Section 2(f), the commission said copies of existing records, correspondence, file notings, dates and action-taken records are covered by the definition of information, subject to exemptions under the RTI Act.
The public authority "cannot avoid disclosure merely by describing a query as a question or by mechanically invoking Section 2(f)," it said.
The CIC found "serious procedural and substantive lapses" in the handling of the RTI application and said the conduct of the present CPIO reflected a "casual approach" towards statutory obligations under the RTI Act and proceedings before the commission.
The commission also strictly cautioned the then first appellate authority for incorrectly invoking Section 2(f) while dealing with requests for identifiable records and directed that the caution be noted in his service record.
The penalties are to be recovered from the salaries of the two officials, with the commission directing the Divisional Railway Manager, Salem division, to ensure compliance with the order.

When State Knows Everything: By - Priyanshi Raj & Bhoomi Shree

Live Law: Article: Thursday, 10^th September 2026.
There is a particular irony in a data protection statute becoming the instrument that narrows a citizen's access to information about the state. Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 does exactly this. It rewrites Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and in doing so, it does not merely tweak an exemption clause it removes the balancing exercise that has anchored India's transparency regime for two decades. Three writ petitions currently pending before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ask whether this rewriting is constitutionally permissible. The answer will determine whether India's citizens retain a meaningful right to know, or whether “personal information” becomes the all-purpose curtain behind which governance retreats from scrutiny.
What Section 44(3) Actually Does
Before the amendment, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act exempted personal information from disclosure only where it had no relationship to any public activity or public interest, or where disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Crucially, even where that threshold was met, the Public Information Officer or the appellate authority still had to ask whether the larger public interest justified disclosure. This was not an abstract nicety. It was the mechanism by which asset declarations of public servants, disciplinary records, subsidy disbursal data, and tender documents were prised out of a reluctant bureaucracy over the RTI Act's twenty-year history.
Section 44(3) deletes the public interest override. Personal information is now exempt, full stop, unless it falls into narrow carve-outs. The effect is not incremental. It converts a proportionality test administered case by case into a categorical bar administered at the point of the request. A Public Information Officer no longer needs to weigh accountability against privacy; she needs only to characterise the information sought as “personal,” a term the DPDP Act itself leaves largely undefined for this purpose. That gap between an undefined trigger and an absolute consequence is precisely where the constitutional trouble begins.
The Litigation and Where It Stands
Three petitions filed by RTI researcher Venkatesh Nayak, by The Reporters Collective Trust, and by the National Campaign for People's Right to Information have challenged the amendment on the ground that it defeats the right to information guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), and that it does so without the safeguards Article 14 and Article 21 would otherwise demand. On 16 February 2026, a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant issued notice and referred the matter to a five-judge Constitution Bench, acknowledging that the case raises complex and constitutionally sensitive questions about how privacy and transparency are to coexist. Significantly, the Bench declined to stay the amendment pending adjudication, which means the blanket exemption has been operative for months while the constitutional question remains open. The Chief Justice's own framing that the Court would need to “iron out creases” and arrive at a workable definition of personal information is telling. It suggests the Court itself does not see the current formulation as a stable resting point, even as it allows that formulation to govern real RTI applications in the interim.
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners have pointed the Court toward its own five-judge precedent in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019), where the Court held that the correct approach to Section 8(1)(j) was a structured balancing exercise, not a categorical exclusion. That precedent did not treat privacy and transparency as mutually exclusive; it treated them as competing constitutional values requiring case-specific reconciliation. Section 44(3), on this reading, does not harmonise RTI with post-Puttaswamy privacy jurisprudence so much as it discards the balancing methodology that jurisprudence itself endorsed.
The Government's Defence, and Its Limits
The Union's position is that Section 3 of the DPDP Act preserves RTI disclosures because it exempts information that any law requires to be made public. This argument has a circularity problem: the RTI Act is precisely the law whose disclosure mandate has just been narrowed by Section 44(3). Pointing to Section 3 to reassure petitioners that RTI disclosures survive is of limited comfort when the amendment under challenge is the provision that shrank what the RTI Act requires to be disclosed in the first place. The government's second line of defence that the amendment merely aligns RTI with the constitutional status of privacy assumes that pre-2023 Section 8(1)(j) was somehow indifferent to privacy. It was not. It built privacy protection into the same clause as the public interest override, which is exactly the “harmonious construction” model that expert bodies, from the A.P. Shah Committee in 2012 to the Srikrishna Committee in 2018, had recommended retaining. Neither committee, nor the Joint Parliamentary Committee that examined the 2019 draft data protection bill, proposed severing the public interest test altogether.
Why “Crisis” Is Not Hyperbole
The word crisis is often used loosely in legal commentary, but here it captures something specific: a structural mismatch between where the burden of proof now sits and where the constitutional right actually lives. Article 19(1)(a) has long been read, since State of U.P. v. Raj Narain and reaffirmed in subsequent RTI jurisprudence, to include a citizen's right to know how the state functions. That right does not evaporate merely because Parliament has amended a subordinate exemption clause; it constrains how far that clause can travel. The present amendment tests that constraint by shifting the default from disclosure-unless-private to non-disclosure-unless-otherwise-provided, inverting two decades of statutory architecture through a data protection statute that was never advertised, during its passage, as an RTI amendment.
The institutional fallout is already visible and is not speculative. Public Information Officers, now personally exposed to data protection liability for wrongful disclosure but facing no comparable exposure for wrongful denial, have an obvious incentive to over-withhold. Independent reporting on Central Information Commission appeal data for 2026 suggests a marked rise in rejections citing personal information grounds, consistent with what one would predict from the incentive structure Section 44(3) creates. Journalists investigating the use of public funds now face the additional risk of being characterised as data fiduciaries for the purposes of their own reporting, with the DPDP Act's penalty ceiling running into hundreds of crores a figure calibrated for corporate data breaches, not for a reporter seeking a beneficiary list under a welfare scheme. None of this required a single adverse court ruling. It follows from the ordinary risk calculus of officials and institutions operating under the amended provision as it stands today, unstayed.
A Comparative Aside
India is something of an outlier in refusing to write an explicit transparency carve-out into its data protection statute. Jurisdictions that legislated privacy and freedom-of-information regimes in tandem generally built the interface between the two into the privacy statute itself, rather than leaving it to be inferred later through litigation. The absence of any such carve-out in the DPDP Act is not an oversight; it is the product of a legislative process in which the RTI amendment was folded into a data protection bill and passed with a matter of an hour's debate, without the sustained parliamentary scrutiny that a direct amendment to a transparency statute would ordinarily attract. A crisis produced by that kind of procedural shortcut is not easily cured by judicial interpretation alone, however carefully calibrated; it also calls for Parliament to revisit the amendment through a process that treats the RTI Act's architecture as worthy of amendment on its own terms.
What the Constitution Bench Should Not Avoid
The temptation before a Constitution Bench in a case framed as pitting two fundamental values against each other is to look for language that appears to honour both without disturbing the amendment's structure. That would be a mistake. Subhash Chandra Agarwal already supplies the doctrinal tool the Bench needs: a two-step proportionality inquiry that asks first whether the information genuinely engages a privacy interest, and second, only where it does, whether disclosure is nonetheless justified by the public interest. Restoring that structure into Section 8(1)(j), whether by reading down Section 44(3) or by directing Parliament to reinstate the override, would not require the Court to subordinate privacy to transparency. It would simply require the Court to insist that the government's own precedent, and its own committees' recommendations, be followed rather than legislated around.
Until that happens, the amendment remains in force, and every RTI applicant who is told that information about the exercise of public power is “personal” and therefore off-limits experiences the crisis in real time, one rejected application at a time. That is not a hypothetical constitutional question awaiting a Constitution Bench's leisure. It is an ongoing redistribution of power between citizen and state, occurring under cover of a statute that was sold as protecting the citizen from the state.
Authors are 4th year Law students at CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Delhi NCR Campus. Views are personal.

RTI files can’t be buried, strict action will follow: Keralam Information Commissioner

The Print: Kozhikode: Wednesday, 9^th September 2026.

Keralam Information Commissioner T K Ramakrishnan has warned of strict action against officials who fail to provide information under the RTI Act by claiming that the concerned files are missing or unavailable.
Officials sometimes respond to Right to Information (RTI) applications saying that the file could not be traced or was unavailable, Ramakrishnan said, adding that the responsibility for maintaining files rests with the public authorities concerned.
He was speaking after a sitting held at the district Collectorate conference hall, according to an official statement on Monday.
If a file is missing, legal action should be initiated and each file should have a designated custodian, he said. Officials should ascertain from whom a file went missing and take appropriate action.
Ramakrishnan said officials should view the RTI Act positively and provide information within the stipulated time.
The Information Commissioner also said a training programme would be organised next month for district-level officials to create awareness about the RTI Act.
On a complaint filed by Karanthur resident Abdul Kalam, Ramakrishnan directed the RTI officer of Kunnamangalam panchayat here to trace the file and provide the information sought.
The information officer of the Kozhikode Government Engineering College was reprimanded for failing to provide information and copies of documents despite the prescribed fee being paid.
The officer was directed to send the information to the complainant by speed post immediately, it said.
The information officer of Nadapuram police station was directed to provide CCTV footage sought by an applicant, while the concerned official of the Malabar Devaswom Board was instructed to provide information after it had been denied on the ground that the information had not been compiled.
Fifteen complaints were disposed of during the hearing, the statement added. PTI LGK ROH
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.

'Confidential' label not enough to deny mine maps: CIC orders disclosure of permissible info

New Indian Express: Telangana: Wednesday, 9^th September 2026.
The RTI application sought certified DEM maps of three limestone mines in Telangana -- Sulthanpur Reserved Forest Mine, Gundlapally Limestone Mine and Pedaveedu Limestone Mine from 2017 to 2025.

The Central Information Commission has directed the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) to revisit the denial of Digital Elevation Model (DEM) maps of three limestone mines in Telangana, observing that merely classifying the information as confidential was not sufficient to deny its disclosure under the Right to Information Act.
Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi directed the IBM's Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to provide relevant permissible information after severing portions exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.
If the information cannot be disclosed, the CPIO has been asked to incorporate relevant justification in a revised reply.
The RTI application sought certified DEM maps of three limestone mines in Suryapet district of Telangana from 2017 to 2025.
The mines identified in the application were Sulthanpur Reserved Forest Mine, Gundlapally Limestone Mine and Pedaveedu Limestone Mine.
The CPIO, in its reply, said DEM maps from 2017 to 2022 were not available with the office.
It said data after 2022 was available but could not be disclosed under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, which exempts information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property where disclosure could harm the competitive position of a third party.
The First Appellate Authority upheld the denial, stating that the information could not be disclosed under Section 8(1)(d) as it contained "commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property", disclosure of which could harm the competitive position of the third party.
During the hearing, the appellant said the DEM maps were sought from the IBM to corroborate evidence in a court case in support of a claim of illegal mining carried out by a third-party company.
The CPIO maintained that DEM maps generally contain sensitive information relating to mining operations and that their disclosure or misuse could harm the competitive position of the concerned party.
The third-party company also objected to disclosure of its mining DEM maps.
The commission, however, observed that the "complete denial" of DEM maps merely by "classifying it to be confidential" would not discharge the CPIO's onus under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.
"Had it been the case, it is expected from the CPIO to substantiate their denial of information with substantive justification to this effect," the commission said.
The CIC directed the CPIO to revisit the contents of the RTI application and provide "relevant permissible information" after severing the portion exempt from disclosure by invoking Section 10 of the RTI Act.
It further said that if the CPIO finds that the information cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act, the revised reply must contain the relevant justification for such denial.
(With inputs from PTI)