Over 1k unclaimed bodies found in Bathinda in 16 years: RTI query

Times of India: Bathinda: Monday, 29 June 2026.
Only 357 of 1,023 unclaimed bodies recovered from 2010-11 to 2025-26 under the jurisdiction of 19 police stations in Bathinda district have been identified, according to police data procured by RTI activist Sanjeev Goyal.

The RTI reply from the Bathinda SSP office, which Goyal received recently after filing his query on Feb 13, shows that recoveries peaked over the last few years. A maximum of 99 unclaimed bodies were recovered in 2021-22, followed by 93 in 2022-23, and 92 in 2024-25. Police said most of the bodies were retrieved from water bodies, including the reservoirs of the now-closed Guru Nanak Dev thermal plant.
Kotwali police station recorded the highest number of recoveries at 388, followed closely by Talwandi Sabo police station with 301. Other major recoveries were recorded at Nathana (48), Canal Colony (34), Rama (33), Bathinda Sadar (32), Rampura Sadar (28), Civil Lines (23), and Balianwali (20).
As many as 19 bodies each were recovered from Cantt and Nehiawala, 15 from Phool, 13 each from Sangat and Kotfatta, and 12 from Rampura City. Nandgarh police station saw just one recovery. The remaining police stations recorded between four and 11 recoveries.

17,435 pipe bursts in 10 years in Perumbavoor: RTI

Times of India: Kochi: Monday, 29 June 2026.
Even as various parts of Ernakulam face acute shortage of drinking water, a total of 17,435 pipe bursts in Perumbavoor area alone were reported KWA’s supply network in the past decade, causing a loss of Rs 7 crore for repairs, reveals an RTI reply.

In an RTI reply given to Govindan Namboothiri of Kochi, KWA said a total of 3,444 pipe bursts occurred under its Perumbavoor section in last 10 years. KWA suffered a loss of Rs 4 crore on repair works. Around 519 water theft cases in Perumbavoor section limits were reported during the same period.
Under Kuruppampady PH section, 13,991 pipe bursts occurred from 2016-17 to May 5, 2026, for which Rs 3 crore had to be spent on repair works, said the RTI reply.
“People in several parts of the district are suffering from acute shortage of drinking water. At the same time, crores of litres of water is being lost due to pipe bursts. KWA has been unable to take steps to prevent such pipe breaks and save precious drinking water,” said Namboothiri.
Meanwhile, KWA officials said that old pipes in the supply network are causing frequent pipe bursts. “More than 100 pipe bursts in the limits of a section is huge. One of the major reasons for the pipe bursts is that the network mainly constitutes old pipes. We will have to replace such old pipes with new ones,” said a senior KWA official.
The RTI reply also stated that two water reservoirs and one pump house under Kuruppampady section are in poor condition. Namboothiri has urged govt to take urgent steps to prevent water leaks and theft.

Centre got no proposal on Cachar airport for which tea plants were uprooted: RTI

The News Mill: Guwahati: Monday, 29 June 2026.

Centre got no proposal on Cachar airport for which tea plants were uprooted | Photo: Video grab

After around 30 lakh tea plants were uprooted as part of land acquisition for a greenfield airport in southern Assam’s Silchar, the civil aviation ministry has now said that it received no proposal for construction of such an airport.
An RTI reply from the Centre revealed that no proposal was sent to the ministry to set up the greenfield airport.
The Assam cabinet on May 29 decided that a payment of Rs 1 lakh as compensation would be provided to each of the 1,263 families of Doloo tea garden (a total of Rs 12.63 crore) as a goodwill gesture for their cooperation in the development work of greenfield airport at Silchar.
Doloo Tea Garden Save Coordination Committee (DTGSCC) on June 3 called a protest rally on June 15 against the “conspiracy to affect the livelihood of hundreds of tea garden workers”.

Security forces deployed at Doloo Tea Garden

Chief public information officer (under secretary) of the civil aviation ministry Amit Kumar Jha following a query under the Right to Information Act categorically said that the ministry has not received any proposal for construction of a greenfield airport at Cachar district of Assam.
He said that the government has formulated a Greenfield Airports (GFA) Policy, 2008 which provides guidelines, procedure and conditions for establishment of new greenfield airports in the country.
“As per the policy, an airport developer, including the state government, willing to establish an airport is required to send a proposal to the ministry of civil aviation, in the prescribed format for a two-stage process – site clearance followed by in-principle approval,” the official said in his reply to the RTI queries.
The government has accorded in-principle approval for setting up of 21 greenfield airports across the country, the May 31 reply said.
The contentious greenfield airport in Cachar district’s Doloo tea garden found no mention in the list of 21 Greenfield airports that have received “in-principle” approval from the ministry, news agency IANS reported.
Cachar district administrations deployed hundreds of security forces and over 100 earthmovers on May 12 to uproot 30 lakh tea plants and acquire 2,600 bighas (1,550 acres) of land for the greenfield airport on 5,733 acres. Before the district administration’s response, 144 CrPc was enforced to prevent demonstrations.
Doloo tea garden has roughly 1,900 regular and non-regular workers.
DTGSCC leaders Arindam Deb, Shanti Kumar Sinha, and Hillol Bhattacharjee stated it’s a plot that the Cachar district administration initiated land acquisition for a fictional airport without making a proposal to the central government.
They said the tea garden employees were being targeted to build a real estate business.

Passport-holding NRIs qualify as 'citizens' under RTI, 2010 govt records show

Economic Times: New Delhi: Monday, 29 June 2026.
Documents from 2010 reveal the Centre's interpretation of 'citizen' under the RTI Act, including Indian passport holders abroad but excluding OCIs and PIOs. This resurfaces as the legal status of Indian passports, whether proof of citizenship or a travel document, is debated. The MEA clarified passports are travel documents, not conclusive proof of citizenship, sparking political controversy and and calls for legislative changes.

Passport-holding NRIs qualify as 'citizens' under RTI, 2010 govt records show

Records of inter-ministerial deliberations from 2010 show that the Centre had interpreted the term "citizen" under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to include Indian passport holders living abroad, while excluding Overseas Citizens of India (OCIs) and Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs).
The documents, detailing consultations between the Ministries of External Affairs (MEA) and Home Affairs (MHA), have resurfaced at a time when the legal status of an Indian passport, whether it is conclusive proof of citizenship or primarily a travel document, has come under renewed public scrutiny.
The issue came up after US-based NRIs wrote to then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, urging the government to "recognise the legitimate desire of Indians living abroad to exercise their franchise and to have a voice in the governance of India."
Subsequent discussions among the MEA, MHA, Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs (MOIA) and the Central Information Commission (CIC) focused solely on interpreting the term "citizen" under the RTI Act, particularly after some RTI applicants sought to bring OCIs within its ambit.
During hearings before the CIC, the MEA maintained that the term "citizens" includes only persons holding Indian passports and living or working abroad i.e., NRIs and excludes OCIs and PIOs. Since the MHA is the nodal ministry on citizenship matters, its views were sought.
The records show that the MEA separately informed the MHA that the RTI Act's definition of "citizen" should cover NRIs but not OCIs or PIOs. The MHA endorsed this interpretation, while the DoPT and MOIA also supported referring the matter to the Home Ministry for a final view.
The deliberations were also prompted by difficulties faced by Indian RTI activists based overseas in filing applications, leading the CIC to hold meetings with government departments to streamline the process.
Why the issue resurfaced
The issue has returned to the spotlight after the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) clarified that an Indian passport is a travel document and not conclusive proof of citizenship. Speaking during Passport Seva Divas on June 24, a senior MEA official reiterated that while passports are issued after due verification, citizenship is determined under the Citizenship Act, not the Passports Act.
Legal experts say the government's position reflects the existing legal framework. While citizenship is governed by the Citizenship Act, 1955, passports are issued under the Passports Act, 1967, to facilitate international travel. Courts, including the Bombay High Court, have also held that possession of an Indian passport, by itself, does not conclusively establish citizenship.
The clarification, however, triggered a political row. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor described it as an "absurd legal paradox" and called for legislative changes to recognise passports as conclusive proof of citizenship. Leaders from the Trinamool Congress and Shiv Sena (UBT), including West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, also questioned what document citizens could rely on if a passport itself was not treated as definitive proof of citizenship.

RTI at 21: Study flags data gaps, rising backlogs, appeal pendency across Union government - By Jag Jivan

Counterview: National: Monday, 29 June 2026.
As the Right to Information (RTI) Act completed 21 years since its enactment on June 21, 2005, a detailed analysis of the Central Information Commission's (CIC) Annual Report for 2024-25 has raised questions about reporting accuracy, transparency practices and the overall implementation of the law across Union government institutions.

The study, conducted by Venkatesh Nayak, Director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), examines RTI statistics submitted by 53 Union ministries, the Departments of Atomic Energy and Space, and 12 key public authorities including the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), Supreme Court, Election Commission of India, Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), Delhi Police and the CIC itself.
The analysis compares RTI performance indicators for 2024-25 with those of 2023-24 and identifies a range of improvements as well as areas of concern in the implementation of the transparency law.
"The CIC does not appear to have deeply examined the data submitted by public authorities, ministries and departments," Nayak said in the report. "After 21 years of enforcement of the RTI Act, the CIC must make the effort to redefine its role from being a mere accountant of RTI statistics to that of an auditor of the performance of ministries, departments and public authorities vis-à-vis their obligations under the regime of transparency established by the RTI Act."
One of the key findings relates to reporting compliance. According to the study, the RTI Online Portal currently lists 2,914 public authorities. However, the CIC's annual report states that RTI statistics were received from 2,303 public authorities and describes this as 100 per cent compliance. The study argues that the discrepancy raises questions about the basis of the CIC's compliance claim.
The report also notes that the Union Territory administration of Ladakh has not reported RTI statistics since the reorganisation of the former state of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019.
The volume of RTI applications continued to grow during 2024-25, albeit modestly. The study records a 2.52 per cent increase in RTI applications compared with the previous year. Excluding Union Territories, the growth rate falls to 1.26 per cent. However, compared with 2020-21, the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the increase stands at 34 per cent.
For the first time, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs emerged as the largest recipient of RTI applications, receiving approximately 2.54 lakh requests through its 65 reporting public authorities. This surpassed the Ministry of Finance, which received about 2.20 lakh applications through more than 200 reporting authorities.
The study found that five ministries—Corporate Affairs, Finance, Railways, Education and Defence—accounted for more than half of all RTI applications filed during 2024-25, despite representing only about one-fourth of the reporting public authorities.
While application volumes increased, the backlog of pending RTI requests also grew by 3.03 per cent across reporting public authorities. However, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs reported a dramatic reduction in pending applications, from 12,413 in 2023-24 to 1,619 in 2024-25.
Several prominent institutions reported substantial increases in pending RTI applications. These included the Indian Air Force, PMO, Election Commission of India, Central Information Commission and NITI Aayog.
The study also highlighted a significant rise in transfers of RTI applications between public authorities. Such transfers increased by nearly 18 per cent, from 2.37 lakh in 2023-24 to 2.80 lakh in 2024-25. The Cabinet Secretariat transferred more than half of the RTI applications it received, while the Ministry of Corporate Affairs recorded the lowest transfer ratio among major ministries.
 
A notable trend identified by the report is the decline in RTI fee collections despite an increase in applications. Application fees collected fell by 6.15 per cent and additional fees declined by 4.21 per cent. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs, despite receiving 13.07 per cent more applications, reported a 31.36 per cent drop in fee collections.
The analysis also points to inconsistencies in penalty-related data. While the CIC's narrative report states that penalties amounting to Rs 1.56 lakh were imposed on errant Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs), the aggregated statistical table records only Rs 453 as penalties collected by public authorities. The study notes several reported penalty collections as low as Re 1, Rs 2, Rs 4, Rs 17 and Rs 79, figures that appear inconsistent with the RTI Act's minimum penalty provision of Rs 250.
The number of RTI applications replied to by public authorities declined from 14.30 lakh in 2023-24 to 13.81 lakh in 2024-25, representing a decrease of 3.46 per cent.
Contrary to frequent claims that RTI requests impose excessive burdens on officials, the study found that the average workload per CPIO actually decreased. The annual average expected workload fell from 63.88 RTI applications per CPIO in 2023-24 to 63.02 in 2024-25. Based on actual replies, the annual average declined from 53.15 to 49.85 applications per CPIO.
The report also examined rejection trends. According to the CIC, approximately 58,500 RTI applications were rejected during 2024-25. However, the exemption-wise totals in the annual report indicate 57,985 rejections. The study relies on the latter figure for its analysis.
A significant finding is that nearly 35 per cent of all RTI rejections were classified under unspecified reasons grouped under "others" rather than under the exemption provisions of Sections 8, 9, 11 or 24 of the RTI Act.
The Ministry of Finance accounted for more than one-third of all RTI rejections across the Union government and Union Territories. The Ministries of Home Affairs and Defence followed, with the three ministries together accounting for nearly 58 per cent of all rejections.
The report also notes that the Election Commission of India officially reported zero RTI rejections during both 2023-24 and 2024-25. However, Nayak stated that he had personally received denials of information under Section 7(9) from Election Commission officials during the same period.
Another notable trend was a sharp decline in the use of Section 8(1)(a), the national security exemption. Its invocation dropped from 2,206 instances in 2023-24 to 1,008 in 2024-25. By contrast, the use of Section 8(1)(j), relating to personal privacy, increased and accounted for nearly 39 per cent of all exemption-based rejections.
The study specifically addressed concerns often raised about RTI requests affecting national security. According to the analysis, the Indian Army invoked the national security exemption only once during 2024-25, compared with 60 times in the previous year. Most Army rejections were based on personal privacy grounds.
The appeals process emerged as another area of concern. The number of first appeals filed across the Union government was approximately two-and-a-half times higher than the number of rejections, suggesting widespread dissatisfaction with responses received from public authorities.
Nearly 40 per cent of first appeals remained pending at the end of 2024-25. The Ministries of Finance, Education, Railways, Defence and Home Affairs together accounted for more than half of all first appeals filed.
The study also reported a sharp reduction in the number of First Appellate Authorities (FAAs), from the previous year, resulting in a near doubling of average workload per FAA. Nevertheless, the annual average disposal burden remained below 10 appeals per FAA.
Among major public institutions, the poorest first-appeal disposal rates were reported by the Supreme Court of India, Election Commission of India, Comptroller and Auditor General and the Prime Minister's Office. In contrast, the President's Secretariat and the Central Information Commission recorded disposal rates exceeding 90 per cent.
Calling for a broader review of RTI implementation, Nayak argued that two decades after the law came into force, insufficient effort has been made to assess how RTI has improved governance and administrative accountability.
"There is much that needs to be done to improve the performance of CPIOs and FAAs," he said. "Perhaps it is time to appoint a body to examine the impact of RTI on the public administration at the Union and state levels."
The study marks the first in a planned series of analyses examining implementation trends in individual ministries, departments and public authorities based on the CIC's latest annual report.

Hiked fee, photo ID & word limit—How Maharashtra’s new RTI rules amend filing process

The Print: New Delhi: Monday, 29 June 2026.
Introduced under Section 27 of RTI Act which empowers states to decide on procedures, fees & administrative requirements, Rules are being seen as ‘roadblock to info’.

Central Information Commission in New Delhi | Representational image | Commons

The Maharashtra Right to Information Rules 2026 have amended how citizens can exercise their right to information under the Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005.
The Rules, which have already drawn criticism, came into effect through a gazette notification issued by the state’s general administration department on 12 June. They were introduced under the authority of Section 27 of the RTI Act which empowers states to frame rules on procedures, fees, and administrative requirements.
The Rules introduce a word limit and subject restriction for applications, a notable departure from earlier norms. RTI applications must now be confined to a single subject and limited to 150 words. If an applicant seeks information on multiple subjects, separate applications are required.
Speaking with ThePrint on how the new requirements, such as the 150‑word limit, affect the ability of ordinary citizens to exercise their right to information, RTI activist Anjali Bharadwaj said: “A majority of RTI applications in the country are filed by the poor and marginalised who do not have the ability to distil their queries into short questions. The 150-word limit will affect them adversely.”
“In a democracy, people have the right to seek information from their government. In keeping with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act, the government must not place such restrictions on applicants; instead, it should make an effort to provide access to information sought by people.”
She also noted that the RTI Act specifically requires public authorities to assist information seekers and even reduce oral applications in writing.
“The Rules should facilitate people’s right to access information by enabling pro-people provisions rather than creating administrative and bureaucratic bottlenecks in filing applications. Using length of RTI applications as a ground for rejecting the request is unreasonable,” Bharadwaj asserted.
The Maharashtra RTI Rules also make it compulsory for applicants to attach a self‑attested photo identity document to establish citizenship.
Bharadwaj said the photo ID requirement is against the spirit of the RTI Act, which allowed applicants to remain anonymous beyond basic contact details.
“Although the Indian RTI Act can be used only by citizens, mandatorily requiring furnishing of photo ID is unnecessary. This will most adversely impact people from vulnerable and marginalised backgrounds—the homeless, poor, migrants, workers and women,” she told ThePrint.
The new rules further provide for an increase in the application fee, as well as higher charges for obtaining copies of documents and digital extracts. They also specify that appeals now carry a fee.
The revised fee structure has drawn the sharpest criticism from activists. The application fee has been hiked from Rs 10 to Rs 30, photocopy charges from Rs 2 to Rs 5 per A4 page, and digital copies will now be charged at Rs 5 per page. The fee for first and second appeals is Rs 50 and Rs 100, respectively. 
Applicants below the poverty line are exempted from paying application and photocopy charges, but this exemption is not absolute. The rules specify that only the first 50 pages of such photocopies of the requested material are free of cost, and once that limit is crossed, the standard rates apply for photocopies and further information.
The RTI Act itself does not prescribe fixed amounts for applications or copies; it simply states that applicants may be charged “reasonable fees” as determined by the rules made under the Act. Under the legislation, below poverty line applicants are exempt from all fees, including application charges and photocopy charges,
The Rules also address repetitive requests. If information has already been provided earlier, the Public Information Officer (PIO) can dispose of repeated applications by referring to the previous correspondence. Such limits are not covered under the Act.
‘Need is to strengthen RTI regime’
On the issue of proactive disclosure, the Maharashtra RTI Rules place responsibility squarely on the heads of public authorities to ensure compliance with Section 4 of the RTI Act.
Section 4 is part of the central Act that requires public authorities to publish key information about their organisation, functions, decision‑making processes, budgets, and subsidies on a routine basis, without waiting for individual RTI applications.
The 2005 Act framed this as a broad obligation, but it lacked detailed mechanisms. The Rules tighten this by making the heads of departments personally accountable for ensuring that proactive disclosure to publish information is carried out in practice.
The Rules also introduce a procedural change regarding appeals. If a second appeal is pending before the State Information Commission and in case of death of appellant during the course of proceedings, such appeal shall abate.
According the Bharadwaj, the amendments may become a pretext to reject RTI applications.
“Even through processes like SIR (special intensive revision of electoral rolls in which people had to furnish proof of identity), we have seen the disproportionate impact on vulnerable communities. This will become a new pretext for the government to reject RTI applications,” she said.
“Thousands of people have been threatened and attacked, and over 100 have been killed, for seeking information under the RTI Act and exposing corruption and wrongdoing. The whistleblower protection law, which was passed in 2014, has not been operationalised till date. In this scenario, the urgency is to strengthen and improve the RTI regime not place roadblocks in access to information,” she added.

2 RTI activists held for bid to extort ₹15 lakh from Thane school

Hindustan Times: Thane: Sunday, June 28, 2026.
Two RTI activists were arrested for allegedly extorting ₹15 lakh from a school official by threatening to report building violations.

Two Right to Information (RTI) activists were arrested for allegedly attempting to extort ₹15 lakh from the administrative officer of a school by threatening the management with demolition action.
The Thane crime branch’s Anti-Extortion Cell arrested the accused on Thursday. Police said the duo allegedly filed false complaints with the Thane Municipal Corporation claiming the school building of St Xavier’s High School and Junior College on Ghodbunder Road was unauthorised and demanded money to withdraw them.
The arrested men were identified as Pramod Chandrakant Pardeshi alias Rajveer Rajput, 46, an advertising hoarding fabricator from Naupada, and Narayan Omprakash Sharma, 38, a private firm employee from Srinagar in Thane.
Police said the complainant, Birbal Govinda Bandgar, 50, the school’s administrative officer, approached the AEC alleging that the duo initially demanded ₹25 lakh to withdraw the complaints before agreeing to accept ₹15 lakh.
Senior inspector Shailesh Salvi of the AEC said the allegations were verified before a trap was laid at Ravi Compound in Pachpakhadi on Thursday afternoon.
“As soon as Rajput and Sharma accepted ₹15 lakh from Bandgar, the AEC team caught them,” Salvi said, adding that the operation was led by assistant police inspector Bhushan Kapdnis.
The accused were produced before a local court, which remanded them to police custody till June 29.
Based on Bandgar’s complaint, Naupada police have registered an FIR against the duo under Sections 308(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Indian passport holders abroad treated as citizens for using RTI

Times of India: Ahmedabad: Sunday, June 28, 2026.
Amid the ongoing debate on whether passport is a conclusive proof of citizenship or just a travel document, records of interministerial deliberations in 2010 over who can avail of Right to Information Act, show that MEA and MHA agreed that holders of Indian passports residing abroad can be treated as “citizens” for the purpose of availing of the benefits of information law.

It differentiated the passport holders living abroad from Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs) and Overseas Citizens of India (OCIs) saying that the latter two categories cannot take recourse to RTI.
The issue of citizenship on RTI applicant was considered by govt as representation was filed in the govt by US-based NRIs who wrote a letter to then PM Manmohan Singh to “recognise the legitimate desire of Indian living abroad to exercise their franchise and to have a voice in the governance of India”.
The discussion among various govt departments was confined to the issue of definition of citizen under the RTI Act. The documents revealed that MEA had recognised that attempts had been made by some RTI applicants to bring OCIs under the definition “Indian citizen” for purposes of filing applications under the RTI Act.
But MEA and MHA had agreed that only Indian passport holders living/ working abroad (i.e. NRIs) can seek information under the RTI Act and OCIs are not covered under this definition. As some of the Indian RTI activists based in foreign countries faced problems in filing applications, they approached the Central Information Commission which held meetings with officials to streamline the process.
“At the hearing, MEA said that in MEA’s view, the term ‘citizens’ includes persons holding Indian passports working/ living abroad which means NRIs only. The term does not include OCIs and PIOs. As MHA is the nodal ministry in respect of the subject matters relating to citizenship, OCIs and PIOs, it is imperative to seek the views of MHA. DoPT and MOIA expressed similar views and suggested that the matter may be referred to MHA. On May 12 hearing, MEA had separately conveyed to MHA that the definition of ‘citizen’ under RTI Act would also include NRIs, not OCIs and PIOs. MEA’s views were endorsed by MHA.

RTI : Small-town eye doctor’s big-impact medical activism lands recognition

New Indian Express: Thiruvananthapuram: Saturday, 27 June 2026.
Armed with the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the 62-year-old spends his early mornings peer-reviewing the Indian healthcare system itself.

Dr BabuPhoto | Express

Dr Babu K V lives a dual life. He spends most of his day examining patients at his small eye clinic in Payyannur, Kannur. This scrutiny, however, is markedly different from the activity that he wakes up to.
Armed with the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the 62-year-old spends his early mornings peer-reviewing the Indian healthcare system itself. It is this life of healing and whistleblowing that has earned this lifelong rebel, who as a medical student in the 1980s kept those in power in the state on their toes, the Indian Medical Association’s ‘National Leadership Award’ for his crusade to bring transparency in medicine.
His primary weapon has been the systematic yet relentless deployment of the RTI Act. Waking up at 2am every day, Babu dedicates two to three hours to rigorous legal research and drafting before heading to the gym and opening his clinic.
Since launching a massive second spell of online RTIs in January 2022 initially targeting medical students’ stipends he has filed over 2,000 applications and subsequent appeals, a milestone likely unmatched by an Indian doctor. He has filed more than 100 RTIs tracking misleading advertisements by Patanjali alone, systematically using the legal mechanism to push for regulatory transparency and asset disclosures within the Medical Council.
Babu’s most profound battle came in 2018 when he challenged the central government’s restriction on the manufacture and sale of Oxytocin. Armed with data gathered through RTI filings, he equipped a national network of activists with evidence needed to fight the case, and together they secured a favourable judgment in the Supreme Court.
His RTI data also proved decisive in a separate SC victory, helping doctors obtain the Covid-19 compensation the government had promised. Now, his long-running fight for patients’ right to appeal against state medical council decisions is in its final stages of fulfilment.
The relentless activist has a long history of fighting powers that be. Babu’s history of defiance began during his formative years, as part of the first medical entrance batch at Kozhikode Government Medical College, followed by postgraduation at the Maulana Azad Medical College, Delhi.
As a university union councillor, that he contested as a leftist independent, he was never one to stay silent. During the historic agitation by medicos, he staged fierce protests against the K Karunakaran government’s privatisation of medical colleges. By 1989, he went on a gruelling two-week hunger strike in Thiruvananthapuram to oppose the E K Nayanar government’s introduction of mixopathy.
Even within the IMA, Babu has maintained a fiercely independent voice, carving out a place that the organisation could neither ignore nor silence. To preserve the absolute freedom required for such fierce activism in an increasingly commercialised era, Babu has run an independent, single-doctor ophthalmic practice for the past 30 years. At home, he finds an understanding ally in his wife, Dr M V Bindu, assistant professor in the community medicine department at Kannur medical college hospital.
The IMA will host a ceremony on July 18 National Doctors’ Day to bestow on him the award.
Challenging Centre’s move
Babu’s most profound battle came in 2018 when he challenged the central government’s restriction on the manufacture and sale of Oxytocin. He equipped a national network of activists with evidence needed to fight the case, and together they secured a favourable judgment in the Supreme Court.

Maharashtra RTI rules amendments trigger widespread criticism, Anna Hazare threatens hunger strike : Purva Chitnis

The Print: Mumbai: Saturday, 27 June 2026.
Maharashtra govt has raised RTI application fee & charges for appeals. New rules also require applicants to upload their IDs, which critics say would make whistleblowers vulnerable.

The amendments effected by the Maharashtra government in RTI rules has triggered a wave of objections across the state, with anti-corruption activist Anna Hazare threatening to go on a hunger strike if they are not withdrawn, and some civil society members serving a legal notice on the chief secretary. 
The amendments in the RTI rules the Central Right to Information Act allows states to frame rules on certain aspects while keeping the Act’s substantive provisions intact are related to application and appeals fee hike. Also, applicants are now required to upload their photo IDs.
Anna Hazare has termed the new rules “illegal” and threatened to launch an indefinite hunger strike from 5 July if the Maharashtra government does not immediately withdraw. 
Hazare has written to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, saying the Maharashtra Right to Information Rules, 2026, would “blunt the edge” of the RTI Act and block people’s access to information.
Hazare said the rules shift the burden onto citizens instead of fixing systemic failures. He noted that Section 4 of the RTI Act, which mandates proactive disclosure by public authorities, remains poorly implemented, forcing people to file applications.
Meanwhile, a legal notice has been sent by activists and former information officials such as ex-Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi, advocate Prahlad Kachare, RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar, journalist Vinita Deshmukh, civil rights activists Vivek Velankar, Jugal Rathi and Mohammed Afzal and other citizens who claimed the new rules could discourage whistleblowers, journalists, information-seekers from using RTI. 
These activists say they would also move the Bombay High Court if the rules are not withdrawn within 15 days.
“These amendments are directly opposing the main law. Certain provisions don’t come under their (state government’s) purview. These provisions contradict the main Act. Hence, we have sent a notice to the government,” RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar told ThePrint.
ThePrint reached out to the state’s chief secretary (to whom the legal notice is addressed) via email for a comment, but there was no response. The report will be updated if and when there is a response.
The amendments 
Earlier this month, the Maharashtra government issued a notification amending certain provisions under the RTI Rules, 2005, with new rules under the Maharashtra Right to Information Rules, 2026. The changes would be implemented from 5 July.
Among the changes, the revised fee structure has drawn the sharpest criticism from activists. The application fee has been hiked from Rs 10 to Rs 30, photocopy charges from Rs 2 to Rs 5 per A4 page, and digital copies, earlier provided free of cost, will now be charged at Rs 5 per page.
Also, the fees for first and second appeals have gone to Rs 50 and Rs 100, respectively.  
Hazare said that there was no rationale or financial analysis done to increase the fee structures “RTI is not a revenue-generating law. If fees are raised after 20 years, penalties on officers who deny information should also be increased.”.
Besides, the mandatory upload of the self attested photo id along with the RTI application, which was not required earlier has also been objected to.
Activists say that this will put the life of activists and whistleblowers in danger.
Another provision includes “one subject per application’ and it imposes a 150 word limit what Hazare describes as unnecessary and burdensome and that the provision to summarily close repeat applications would block access to complete or updated information.
What other activists object to 
The legal notice sent by the activists and public intellectuals, accessed by ThePrint, says, “The cumulative effect of these provisions is to make access to information significantly more expensive and less accessible.”
The notice further states that, “Several provisions of the Maharashtra Right to Information Rules, 2026 appear to have been framed not for carrying out the provisions of the RTI Act but for restricting, discouraging and burdening the exercise of rights conferred by the Act. The cumulative effect of the Rules is to make access to information more expensive, more technical and more cumbersome than contemplated by Parliament.”
“It is a settled principle of law that delegated legislation must remain within the confines of the parent enactment and cannot override, dilute, restrict, defeat or impose substantive conditions upon rights conferred by Parliament. Rules are intended to carry out the Act and not to stifle the Act,” the notice says.
The activists have demanded these new rules be withdrawn immediately and a transparent and meaningful public consultation process involving RTI users, former information commissioners, journalists, activists, civil society members , legal experts conducted before framing new provisions or any rules.
“The government has not yet responded but just like any other government, we don’t expect them to respond to us and our next step is to go to the Bombay High Court,” said Kumbhar.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Suraj Govindaraj, Karnataka High Court 

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

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

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

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

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

Activists serve legal notice to Maharashtra government over new RTI rules

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

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

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

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

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