Madras High Court Orders Railway Mail Service To Share CCTV Footage, Says RTI Overrides Postal Manual : By Sharleen Arora

Law Chakra: Madurai: Friday, 30 October 2026.

The Madras High Court has ordered the Railway Mail Service to hand over CCTV footage to a man trying to trace the sender of fabricated complaints, holding that Postal Manual restrictions cannot be applied mechanically in the age of the RTI Act.
Holding that a State cannot sit on material that a citizen needs to prosecute a wrongdoer, the Madras High Court has directed the Railway Mail Service (RMS) to give CCTV footage to a petitioner who wants to identify the person sending fabricated complaints in his missing father’s name, observing that old restrictive clauses in the Postal Manual “cannot be literally or mechanically applied any longer” [Abishek v. Senior Superintendent of Railway Mail Service].
Justice G.R. Swaminathan directed the RMS to furnish the details sought in a pen drive within two weeks. The petitioner, Advocate Abishek, was represented by M. Nandhini Priyadharshini, and the respondents by Central Government Standing Counsel V. Malaiyendran.
The petitioner’s case
According to the petition, Abishek’s father is missing. Around the same time, the petitioner began receiving complaints against himself and his family in his father’s name. The complaints, which he describes as being in poor taste, were dispatched through the Madurai RMS post office on October 6, 2026. He moved the Court seeking directions to the Senior Superintendent of the RMS to preserve and furnish the CCTV footage recorded on that date, contending that it would help him unravel the truth and identify the person behind them. These are the petitioner’s assertions, and the Court has not examined who sent the complaints.
What the government advocate argued
The government advocate submitted that information of this kind could be furnished only in terms of Clause 152 of the Postal Manual and not otherwise. That clause provides for post office or mail office records to be produced, and the information in them given, on the written order of a police officer investigating a cognizable case under the Code of Criminal Procedure, or of an Excise officer empowered to investigate offences under an Excise Act. It also says that only those entries relating to the person or persons charged with the offence should be disclosed.
The legal position
The Court turned to Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which gives the Act overriding effect over the Official Secrets Act and any other law for the time being in force. Section 8 of the Act lists the limited grounds on which information may be refused. Reading the two together, the Court held that the restrictive clauses of the Postal Manual will have to give way, and that a department cannot refuse to part with material unless the case falls within the exceptions in Section 8.
What the Court said
“We are living in the RTI age. Clauses restricting the furnishing of information that were incorporated in the Postal Manual aeons ago cannot be literally or mechanically applied any longer. If one’s rights have been breached, he is entitled to seek legal remedy. If one can criminally prosecute the person responsible for such breach and the identity of such person can be established only with the material available with the State, it is the duty of the officials to furnish such material to the affected person.”
The Court added that withholding such material would frustrate the affected person’s right to prosecute:
“If such a material is withheld, the right to prosecute would be frustrated. The authority would be justified in refusing to part with the information only under certain circumstances. Those circumstances have to be exceptional and fall within Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005.”
Noting that the petitioner’s name was being tarnished by the complaints and that he could not identify the sender unless the footage was made available, the Court directed the RMS to supply the details in a pen drive within two weeks.
Case Title: Abishek v. Senior Superintendent of Railway Mail Service (case number not available)

Open to investigation: On the challenge to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

The Hindu: Editorial: Friday, 30 October 2026.

Public functionaries must not use privacy to seek exemption from scrutiny
The Digital News Publishers Association’s (DNPA) challenge to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and its Rules, has drawn attention to concerns that a law to safeguard informational privacy risks creating a serious chilling effect on the media. The absence of a specific exemption for journalistic activity could subject reporters investigating official misconduct or corruption to the obligations of a “data fiduciary”, requiring them to notify and seek consent from the very individuals they are investigating. Such onerous requirements could affect investigations undertaken in the public interest. The implications extend to routine newsgathering too, where personal information is integral to reporting. The omission is particularly consequential because the drafts in 2018, 2019 and 2021 carried a journalistic exemption. The Act already provides exemptions for certain forms of data processing, including for research and statistical purposes, making the denial of similar protection to journalists difficult to justify. Non-compliance can attract penalties of up to ₹250 crore, posing an existential threat to smaller and independent newsrooms. The DNPA petition also challenges Section 44(3), which amended the RTI Act, 2005, removing the earlier public-interest qualification concerning disclosure of personal information. The protection of personal information must not be absolute; an overriding public interest must remain a legitimate ground for disclosure, particularly when the information is held by public authorities. Investigations into corruption often rely on asset disclosures and tender documents containing personal data. Restricting access to these records risks reducing journalism to merely reproducing government releases.
The Supreme Court, while issuing notice on the petition, rightly emphasised the need to balance press freedom with the right to privacy. Although journalists in India enjoy no specific statutory protection for their work, freedom of the press is constitutionally protected under Article 19(1)(a). The Court has also shielded newspapers from arbitrary state restrictions. However, growing mistrust of legacy media and the rise of independent content creators have made it difficult to determine who receives such protection. The Centre has also flagged this concern. Yet, carving out distinct categories is no easy task a 2026 Reuters Institute report shows that the proportion of 18- to 24-year-olds identifying social media as their primary source of news rose from 21% in 2015 to 39% in 2025. A purely legalistic determination of these competing concerns may perhaps prove too onerous. Stakeholders must build consensus on a mutually acceptable framework where public functionaries and those handling public funds are not insulated from scrutiny under the guise of privacy. Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw’s indication that he would meet editors is a welcome step towards consensus.

'We're Living In RTI Age': Madras High Court Says State Can't Withhold Material Needed To Prosecute Offenders : By - Upasana Sajeev

Live Law: Madras: Friday, 30 October 2026.
The Madras High Court recently directed the Railway Mail Service to furnish CCTV footage to a man, who was trying to find the identity of a mischief-monger who was sending him fabricated complaints in his missing father's name.

Justice GR Swaminathan observed that in this RTI age, clauses restricting the furnishing of materials could not be applied mechanically. The court added that in case of breach of right, a person is entitled to seek legal remedy. The court also added that if the identity of the person who is responsible for the breach could be established through materials available with the State, it is the State's duty to furnish those materials.
“We are living in the RTI age. Clauses restricting the furnishing of information that were incorporated in the Postal Manual aeons ago cannot be literally or mechanically applied any longer. If one's rights have been breached, he is entitled to seek legal remedy. If one can criminally prosecute the person responsible for such breach and the identity of such person can be established only with the material available with the State, it is the duty of the officials to furnish such material to the affected person,” the court said.
The court also added that when such materials are not supplied to the affected person, it would frustrate the affected person's right to prosecute. The court also pointed out that the state could withhold furnishing of information only in certain circumstances, as mentioned under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
“If such a material is withheld, the right to prosecute would be frustrated. The authority would be justified in refusing to part with the information only under certain circumstances. Those circumstances have to be exceptional and fall within Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005,” the court said.
The court was hearing a petition filed by an Advocate, Abishek, seeking directions to the Senir Superintendent of Railway Mail Service (RMS) to preserve and furnish the CCTV footages recorded on October 6, 2026.
According to Abishek, his father was missing. While so, he started receiving complaints in his father's name against him and his family. The complaints were in poor taste and were dispatched through the Madurai RMS Post Office on October 6, 2026.
Abishek had submitted that if the CCTV footage maintained by the RMS is made available, it would help him unravel the truth and identify the mischief-monger.
The government advocate, however, submitted that the information could be furnished only in terms of Clause 152 of the Postal Manual and not otherwise. As per this clause, records of the post office or mail office should be produced, and information available in them should be given on the written order of any Police Officer who is making an investigation in a cognizable case under the Criminal Procedure Code, or of any Excise officer empowered by a local Government or Administration to investigate offences punishable under any Excise Act. The clause also adds that only those entries in the records should be disclosed which relate to the person or persons charged with the offence.
The court however noted that as per Section 22 of the RTI Act, the provisions of the Act would have an overriding effect on the Official Secrets Act and any other law. The court thus held that the restrictive clauses of the Postal Manual will have to give way.
The court noted that the petitioner's name was being tarnished because of the complaints and unless the CCTV footages were made available, he could not identify the person sending such complaints.
The court thus directed the RMS to furnish the details sought by the petitioner in a pen drive within 2 weeks.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. M. Nandhini Priyadharshini
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. V. Malaiyendran Central Government Standing Counsel

RTI Commission rules private telecom operators fall under RTI Act

Newswire: Sri Lanka: Thursday, 29 October 2026.
The Right to Information (RTI) Commission of Sri Lanka has ruled that private telecommunications operators can fall within the scope of the Right to Information Act when providing services under government-issued licences.

The ruling, issued on October 21, came following an appeal seeking information about restrictions imposed on social media platforms and communication applications during March and April 2022.
The Commission examined whether telecommunications services provided by private companies constitute statutory or public functions under Section 43(g) of the RTI Act.
It determined that telecommunications services have a public character because they operate under government-issued licences, use state-controlled radio-frequency spectrum and provide essential communication infrastructure to the public.
The Commission observed that the private ownership of a telecommunications company does not automatically exempt it from the RTI Act.
It further noted that telecommunications operators function within a regulatory framework designed to protect public interests, consumer rights and the reliability of communication services.
The decision also referred to previous Court of Appeal rulings recognising that certain private entities performing public functions can be subject to the RTI Act.
However, the Commission clarified that the application of the RTI Act is limited to activities connected to an operator’s statutory or public functions under its telecommunications licence.
The ruling does not automatically require the disclosure of all requested information, as exemptions under the RTI Act may still apply.
A further hearing will determine whether documents relating to the 2022 Government imposed social media restrictions can be released. (Newswire)

Privacy vs Right To Information: India’s Data Protection Law Can Reshape Digital And Investigative Journalism : By Ritesh

Outlook Business: Article: Thursday, 29 October 2026.
The Act does exclude certain personal data made publicly available by the data principal or someone legally obliged to make it public but this is not a blanket exemption for all information

Digital News Publishers Association Challenges Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act Photo: AI generated representative image

The Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), representing the digital arms of 21 major news organisations, moved the Supreme Court challenging provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, arguing that the law could constrain investigative journalism, expose confidential sources and complicate the preservation of published reports.
On Tuesday, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued notice to the Centre on the petition and its application for an interim stay, but declined to grant an immediate stay without hearing the government. The matter is scheduled to be heard next on November 17.
“This is perhaps the first comprehensive petition by what we call legacy media. There has been some debate over citizen journalists. We are the traditional, conventional legacy media,” said Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan during the hearing, as per a report by Bar and Bench.
“We have raised the argument concerning exemptions as well. Otherwise, newsrooms will shut down if we have to ask for permission. It is a complete regime of pre-censorship. We have to ask your permission if we report on you. How can that ever be? What is news otherwise? If we report something wrong, incorrect or inaccurate, we must face the consequences,” she added.
The DNPA includes digital news operations of organisations such as The Indian Express, The Hindu, India Today, the Times Group, Zee, NDTV and Network18. The latter two are part of the Adani and Reliance groups, respectively. Independent investigative journalist Yukta Mudgal is also a petitioner.
Can Consent Rules Constrain Reporting?
The petition challenges Sections 7, 17(2), 18, 19, 27, 29, 36, 37 and 44(3) of the Act, alongside Rules 16, 17 and 23 of the DPDP Rules, 2025, as per a report by LiveLaw. At the heart of the dispute is the absence of a specific exemption for journalism.
The Act generally requires personal data to be processed for a lawful purpose on the basis of consent or certain legitimate uses. Its notice and consent provisions require individuals to be informed about how their data will be processed. Section 8(7) also requires erasure when consent is withdrawn or the specified purpose is no longer served, unless retention is required by law.
For investigative reporters, obtaining consent before examining an individual’s records or informing a subject about data use could undermine inquiries into alleged wrongdoing. A subsequent erasure request could also raise questions about how long a news organisation can retain material supporting a published investigation.
According to Probir Roy Chowdhury, Partner at JSA Advocates & Solicitors, the absence of a journalism-specific exemption creates uncertainty because reporting often involves processing personal data without the subject’s consent. He noted that the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, had proposed an exemption for journalistic purposes subject to a code of ethics, but this was not retained in the 2022 draft or the final Act.
Any exemption should be narrowly framed around public-interest reporting, with safeguards such as a recognised code of ethics and independent oversight. Obligations that could defeat journalism, including advance notice, consent or pre-publication access, could be treated differently without removing data-security responsibilities, Chowdhury argued.
He also cautioned that data-access or erasure requests and regulatory complaints could be used to identify newsroom information or delay publication.
The Act does exclude certain personal data made publicly available by the data principal or someone legally obliged to make it public. But this is not a blanket exemption for all information available in the public domain.
DPDP Act’s Section 17(2)(b) separately provides a conditional exemption for research, archiving and statistical purposes, subject to prescribed standards and restrictions on using the data to make decisions specific to an individual.
The absence of a blanket exemption for journalism is not unusual globally, as countries have adopted different approaches to balancing data privacy with press freedom, said Arya Tripathy, Partner at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas (CAM). The UK, for instance, provides a conditional exemption for journalistic, artistic and literary purposes where there is an intention to publish information in the public interest, she said.
India’s DPDP Act has no comparable journalism-specific exemption. Any such exemption in India, according to Tripathy, would need clearly defined safeguards to ensure it protects genuine public-interest reporting without being misused for commercial promotion or marketing.
These could include checks on the accuracy of information and an assessment of the potential harm arising from its publication, she added.
Can Govt Powers Expose Confidential Sources?
The petition also questions Section 36, which empowers the Centre to require information from the Data Protection Board, data fiduciaries or intermediaries, read with Rule 23 and the Seventh Schedule. The publishers argue that insufficient safeguards could put confidential sources and newsroom material at risk.
Section 37 allows the Centre, subject to specified conditions and procedures, to direct the blocking of access to information. The petition also raises concerns about the Board’s composition and the executive’s role in appointing its chairperson and members.
But protecting sources and preventing data-protection processes from being used to frustrate legitimate investigations are central to the case for a tailored exemption, Chowdhury said. The challenge, however, is to design safeguards that protect reporting without creating a free pass for misuse of personal data.
Does RTI Amendment Weaken The Right to Know?
The dispute extends beyond newsrooms as Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amended Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The earlier provision permitted withholding personal information where disclosure had no relationship to public activity or interest, or would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless a public information officer or appellate authority considered the larger public interest sufficient to justify disclosure.
It also protected information that could not be denied to Parliament or a state legislature from being denied to an individual. The amended clause instead exempts “information which relates to personal information”. The change removes the earlier wording that expressly required a public-interest and privacy-harm assessment.
The deletion, said Kaushik Moitra, Partner at Bharucha & Partners, could widen the grounds for refusing access to personal information relevant to public accountability. Section 8(2) of the RTI Act remains in place, allowing disclosure where the public interest in disclosure outweighs harm to protected interests.
However, Moitra noted that the provision says public authorities “may” allow access, leaving room for uncertainty in its application.
An appropriate assessment should consider the connection between the information and the exercise of public power, the contribution disclosure would make to accountability, and the specific privacy harm likely to result, said Moitra. An allegation of misconduct should not automatically justify disclosure of every personal record, but neither should the absence of a proven offence prevent access to information necessary to scrutinise an official decision, he added.
The amendment also removed important qualifiers that previously required authorities to consider public activity, unwarranted privacy intrusion and the larger public interest, according to Advocate Samarth Luthra, a practising lawyer at the Delhi High Court. He said that the continued presence of Section 8(2) does not fully replace an explicit test within the personal-information exemption.
The two laws address different questions as the DPDP Act specifies when its data-protection obligations apply, while the RTI Act governs access to information held by public authorities. The exclusion for certain publicly available personal data under the DPDP Act does not, on its own, determine whether information must be disclosed under the RTI Act.
Moitra called for a clearer public-interest test when authorities assess RTI requests involving personal information, while Luthra argued for reasoned decisions and effective appellate remedies to prevent the exemption from being applied too broadly.
Even though Union Minister of Information and Technology Ashwini Vaishnaw on Wednesday said that the DPDP Act does not infringe the press freedom, the Supreme Court’s decision could have implications beyond digital newsrooms, particularly for how personal data is used in reporting, how long published material can be retained and how authorities assess requests for information in the public interest.
As the matter is scheduled to be heard next on November 17, the case will test how far data-protection safeguards can extend without impeding investigative journalism or narrowing access to information relevant to public accountability.

Kerala High Court Seeks Clarification On Whether Vigilance Inquiries Against Officials Are Exempt From Disclosure Under RTI Act: By - Anamika MJ

Live Law: Kerala: Thursday, 29 October 2026.
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (28 October) sought clarification from the State on whether vigilance inquiries against officials are exempt from disclosure under RTI Act. 

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V. M sought the clarification in a public interest litigation challenging the State Government's decision to bring the T1 and T2 sections of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) within the ambit of an exemption from the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act).
The Section 24(4) of the RTI Act permits State Governments to exempt specified intelligence and security organisations through a notification in the Official Gazette. 
By a notification dated 22 October, 2026, the State government added the T1 and T2 sections of the VACB to the list of exempted organisation under Section 24 (4) of the RTI Act. 
The petitioner, in his plea submitted that the VACB is primarily a criminal investigation agency responsible for detecting, enquiring into and investigating offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and allied penal laws. Its principal function, according to the petition, is to investigate allegations of corruption involving public servants rather than undertake intelligence or security functions.
It is further submitted that the State Government cannot bring sections of an anti-corruption investigative agency within the exemption merely by administrative classification or nomenclature.
The petitioner also pointed out that the VACB was not included among the eight organisations originally notified as exempt under the government order dated February 7, 2006.
The petitioner has also alleged in the plea that Public Information Officers and First Appellate Authorities within the VACB have begun relying on the impugned notification to reject applications seeking information about vigilance enquiries, preliminary verifications, closure reports and sanctions for prosecution.
The petition contends that such refusals could create an excessive barrier to public scrutiny of the State's anti-corruption administration.
It argues that the RTI Act already contains specific exemptions under Section 8, including provisions protecting information whose disclosure could endanger individuals, impede an investigation or unjustifiably invade privacy.
The petitioner has thus prayed the High Court to quash the October 22 notification and declare that the T1 and T2 sections of the VACB do not qualify as intelligence and security organisations under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
Alternatively, the petition also seeks a declaration that the notification cannot be used to refuse information relating to the receipt, registration, verification, enquiry, investigation, closure, sanction for prosecution or outcome of complaints alleging corruption against public servants.
The petitioner has also sought directions requiring the State Government and the concerned authorities to continue treating the VACB, including its T1 and T2 sections, as subject to the RTI Act in relation to information that is not otherwise lawfully exempt from disclosure.
Further reliefs sought include directions to the Kerala State Information Commission to consider pending and future appeals and complaints concerning the VACB without relying on the impugned government order, as well as production of the administrative records and reasons underlying the government's decision.
Today, when the matter was taken up, the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Special Police Establishment v Kamta Prasad Mishra and Ors [2026 LiveLaw (SC) 629] which held that the SPE which investigates corruption-related offences involving public servants, cannot be classified as an "intelligence and security organisation" under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, 2005, and therefore cannot be granted blanket exemption from the Act.
The petitioners argued that the RTI exemption is applicable only for intelligence and security and not top secret branches. 
It was also brought to the notice of the Court that a similar notification was rescinded by the State government in 2016 when the same was challenged before the High Court. 
“As far as the vigilance enquiries against officials are concerned the public have a right to know that under the Right to Information Act. That is not something that needs to be kept in secret.” the petitioner argued. 
The Court recorded the submissions and noted that the submissions show that the T1 and T2 sections are related to vigilance inquiries, intelligence inputs, and other information regarding the vigilance proceedings.
"However, at the same time, in WP(PIL) 216/ 2026 the paragraph stated that T1 and T2 sections related to vigilance inquiries, intelligence inputs, search reports and other information regarding vigilance proceedings and officials. The said averments show that a large part of it are sensitive and …. However, we need clarification from the government as to whether the information regarding Vigilance enquiry against officials comes under T1 and T2." the Court ordered. 
The Court thus directed the State to file an affidavit disclosing the details of the categories coming under the section T1 and T2. 
The matter is now posted after three weeks for further consideration. 
Counsel for Petitioner: Amith Krishnan H, Anna Mary Mathew, Manavi Muraleedharan, Kavya K.P
Counsel for Petitioner in WP(PIL) 216/ 2026: JOse Abraham, Muraleedharan R, Sebastian JOseph A, Basil Jaison, Deepa Joseph
Counsel for Respondent: P. Sreekumar (ASGI), M. Ajay (SC - State Information Commn.)

Parliamentary panel to review RTI Act implementation, CIC functioning amid case pendency

ET Government: New Delhi: Thursday, 29 October 2026.
The department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice will also review government vacancies, vigilance administration, judicial infrastructure and public grievance redressal mechanisms.

The committee will also examine digitisation and the use of artificial intelligence in the justice delivery system, along with the performance of legal aid institutions in India.
A parliamentary panel will examine the implementation of the Right to Information Act and the functioning of the Central Information Commission amid questions being raised over mounting pendency before the information body.
More than 10,000 cases are pending before the Central Information Commission (CIC), which is now functioning at its full sanctioned strength with 11 information commissioners, leading to activists questioning its functioning.
The department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice will also review government vacancies, vigilance administration, judicial infrastructure and public grievance redressal mechanisms.
According to a Lok Sabha bulletin issued on Wednesday, under the Department of Personnel and Training, the committee will examine vacancies in the Central government, the functioning of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the effectiveness of vigilance administration, implementation of citizens' charters and reservation policies for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Persons with Disabilities in Central government services.
For the Department of Justice, the selected subjects include an assessment of fast-track special courts, a review of Centrally-sponsored schemes for judicial infrastructure and an appraisal of the e-Courts Mission Mode Project.
The committee will also examine digitisation and the use of artificial intelligence in the justice delivery system, along with the performance of legal aid institutions in India.
It will also review public grievance redressal mechanisms, including strengthening the system and creating awareness about the CPGRAMS and CPENGRAMS portals.
Under the Department of Legal Affairs, it will examine the formulation and implementation of the National Litigation Policy and review the legal education system in the context of the 'Viksit Bharat' vision.
The Legislative Department would examine the availability of Supreme Court and high court judgments in languages listed in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution.
The department-related standing committees were recently reconstituted for a period of one year and have been selecting subjects to be studied over the next year.

RTI vs privacy: Why India's news publishers have moved the Supreme Court: Mini Raghav

Business Standard: New Delhi: Wednesday, 28 October 2026.
India's data protection law has changed access to personal information under RTI, prompting concerns over investigative journalism, transparency and the scope of the public-interest test

The government’s position is that personal privacy deserves meaningful protection and that the amendment balances privacy with the right to information | Image: Canva

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Centre on a petition filed by the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), challenging provisions of India's digital data protection framework.
Senior advocate Madhavi Diwan, representing the association, argued that the law could restrict investigative journalism and make it harder to report matters of public interest. She further said the provisions could have serious implications for live television coverage and time-sensitive reporting.
The challenge brings into focus a pertinent question: when does protecting an individual's privacy risk shielding information that the public needs to hold those in power accountable?
The court has sought the government's response, with the matter scheduled for further hearing on November 17.
What has changed in the RTI Act?
Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, allows public authorities to withhold certain personal information.
Earlier, such information could be withheld if it had no connection with public activity or interest, or if disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. However, it could be disclosed when the larger public interest justified it.
Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, changed this provision. Effective November 13, 2025, it introduced a broader exemption for information relating to personal information.
The key change is that the clause no longer expressly provides for a public-interest test. However, Section 8(2) of the RTI Act still permits disclosure when the public interest outweighs the harm to protected interests.
Why are journalists challenging the change?
Consider a reporter investigating whether a government official’s relatives have undisclosed interests in a company receiving public contracts. Records containing personal information could help establish a conflict of interest. Similarly, details concerning the qualifications or eligibility of a public appointee may be relevant to scrutiny of a government decision. Publishers fear that data protection obligations could complicate the handling of confidential sources and evidence gathered during investigations for journalistic purposes.
The DNPA argues that the data protection framework does not adequately address the concerns of journalists engaged in covering and reporting on matters of public interest.
The petition further highlights the gap between the government's assurances and journalists’ demand for a statutory exemption for journalistic activities. The concern extends beyond RTI requests to the obligations that the DPDP Act and its accompanying Rules may impose on journalists.
How could this affect ordinary citizens?
RTI is not a tool reserved for newsrooms. Citizens use it to question public expenditure, check welfare benefits, examine recruitment processes and investigate delays in government services.
For instance, a person seeking to understand irregularities in a public recruitment exercise may need records explaining how appointments were made. A community investigating the distribution of welfare benefits may need information to establish whether public money reached eligible beneficiaries.
If authorities interpret the personal-information exemption broadly, obtaining relevant records could become more difficult. This could weaken the citizen’s access to the crucial data which interests welfare.
However, the amendment does not mean that every document containing personal information must automatically be withheld. Other RTI provisions and the surviving public-interest override remain relevant. The practical question is how authorities apply these safeguards when privacy and transparency are in conflict.
What is the government's argument?
The government’s position is that personal privacy deserves meaningful protection and that the amendment balances privacy with the right to information. Personal records may expose individuals to harassment, misuse of sensitive details or unnecessary intrusion into their private lives.
The government has also maintained that Section 8(2) of the RTI Act continues to allow disclosure where the public interest outweighs the harm to protected interests. From this perspective, stronger privacy protection does not eliminate transparency but establishes safeguards against illegitimate disclosure.
The dispute, therefore, is not whether privacy matters. It is whether the amended provision strikes the right balance between protecting individuals and enabling legitimate scrutiny of public affairs.
What will the Supreme Court have to decide?
The Supreme Court will have to examine whether the challenged provisions strike a constitutionally permissible balance between privacy, access to information and freedom of expression. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017), the court recognised privacy as a fundamental right. That situation does not, by itself, settle how privacy must be balanced against transparency and other constitutional rights.
The DNPA's challenge also raises questions about the DPDP Act and Rules, including their implications for journalistic work and the handling of personal data for public-interest reporting.
The petitioners seek the apex court to examine the constitutionality of the challenged provisions and provide appropriate relief against their alleged impact on journalism and the public's right to information. The central issue is whether privacy protection can be designed without unduly restricting scrutiny of public institutions.

Material Relating To Private Body Which Can Be Accessed By Public Authority Can Also Fall Under Definition Of Information Under RTI Act: Supreme Court

Verdictum: New Delhi: Wednesday, 28 October 2026.
The Supreme Court was considering a matter where a member had put up an application under the Right to Information Act for a copy of the construction agreement between a Co-operative Bank and a Labour Co-operative Society.

While directing the Joint Registrar (General) to supply a copy of the construction agreement between the appellant/Co-operative Bank and a Labour Co-operative Society as well as a copy of the minutes of the last General Body Meeting, the Supreme Court has held that such material relating to a private body, which can be accessed by a public authority, on the strength of statutory powers conferred, would fall under the definition of information under Section 2(f) of the Right To Information (RTI Act).
The Apex Court was considering a matter where a member of the Bank had put up an application under the Right To Information Act for a copy of the construction agreement between the appellant/Co-operative Bank and a Labour Co-operative Society, which was entrusted with the construction of a building, and a copy of the minutes of the last General Body Meeting of the appellant-Bank.
The Division Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran stated, "Hence, it is not only the material, physically available with a public authority but also such material relating to a private body, which can be accessed by a public authority, on the strength of statutory powers conferred, would fall under the definition of information. As has been rightly noticed in the impugned judgment, the words ‘can be accessed by a public authority’ refers to access being statutorily provided. The power cannot be fettered at all."
“Every citizen would not have the right to ask for the documents since the concept of personal information cannot be restricted to a ‘person’ in flesh and blood and even applies to a private entity, with whose affairs every citizen cannot be found to have an interest, unless it has a relationship to a public activity (Section 8(1)(j). Neither the building contract nor the General Body Meeting concerns a party, totally unconnected with the Society. However, a Member of the Society cannot be denied such information on the ground that it is personal to the Society or that it does not involve any public activity or interest", it added.
Senior Advocate S.P. Chaly represented the Appellant while Advocate Abhilash M.R. represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The respondent member’s first application was rejected consistently up to the first respondent, the State Information Commissioner, the challenge to which before the Single Judge failed, but the Division Bench directed reconsideration. In the second round, the first respondent, the Single Judge, as well as the Division Bench of the High Court, affirmed the right of the fourth respondent to the documents. The judgment of the Division Bench was challenged before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Bench explained that Clause (d) of Section 8(1) refers to injury caused to the competitive position of a third party, when the information involves a commercial confidence, trade secret or intellectual property. On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the documents in question neither encompassed any aspect of trade secret or intellectual property nor of a commercial confidence affecting a competitive position; since the bid was already over and one Labour Contract Society had obtained the contract, the terms of which any Member of the Society would be concerned with.
“As far as clause (j) is concerned the information sought cannot be termed to be a personal information, since the details of the contract sought for, entered into by the appellant-Bank and the Minutes of the General Body Meeting, are sought for by a Member of the Society. That it does not have any relation to any public activity Etc. or interest, in that context, is not significant enough to decline the request, if the documents are otherwise accessible”, it added.
The Bench refused to accept the contention that only on the satisfaction entered by the Registrar that an inquiry can be initiated and only then, the Registrar is enabled to have access of the documents of a Society. “The inquiry by the Registrar under Section 65 of the Co-operative Societies Act can be suo motu; on his own motion, or on various contingencies as coming forth from clause (b) to (f) i.e. of a report; by the Vigilance Officer or by the Director of Co-operative Audit or an application; made before the Registrar, either by a majority of the Members or one third of the quorum for a general body meeting or an Apex or Affiliated Society”, it added.
The Bench also upheld the contention of the respondent member that Section 66 of the Co-operative Societies Act confers supervisory powers and powers of inspection on the Registrar or a person authorised by him.
Decision
Thus, finding the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court to be perfectly in order, the Bench dismissed the appeals and ordered, “The 2nd respondent shall call for the two documents immediately and in any event within two weeks and supply the same to the 4th respondent.”
Cause Title: The Muppathadam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. The State Chief Information Commissioner & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1153)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate S.P Chaly, AOR K. Sasi, AOR P. S. Sudheer, Advocates Rishi Maheshwari, Anne Mathew, Bharat Sood, Jai Govind M J, Jashan Vir Singh, Shivam Sharma, AOR Zulfiker Ali, Advocate Anna Oommen
Respondent: Advocates Abhilash M.R., Sayooj Mohandas, Manjari Singh, Ann Melvin, AOR M/s M R Law Associates
(Click here to download Judgment)

RTI exemption for vigilance units won’t shield corruption cases: Minister

Times of India: Thiruvananthapuram: Wednesday, 28 October 2026.
The exemption granted to two confidential units of the vigilance and anti-corruption bureau (VACB) from the purview of Right to Information (RTI) Act will not be used to conceal information relating to corruption cases or human rights violations, home minister Ramesh Chennithala told the assembly.

Such information would be disclosed only after the completion of investigations, he said. Replying to a question by CPI MLA K K Valsaraj, the minister said govt had no intention of weakening the RTI Act. The objective was to ensure transparency while enabling investigations to be conducted effectively, he added.
Chennithala pointed out that the disclosure of confidential information during an ongoing investigation could benefit the accused and adversely affect evidence collection. Information provided by informants and other crucial details relating to investigations needed to be kept confidential. Disclosure would be permitted only to the extent that it did not prejudice an investigation, he said.
The minister said the exemption had been granted based on a recommendation made by the vigilance director during the previous govt’s tenure. It would apply only to a limited category of cases involving highly confidential matters, he added.
Govt issued a notification exempting the T1 and T2 units of the VACB from the purview of the RTI Act. The order, published on Oct 22, was issued under Section 24(4) of the Act, which empowers state govts to exempt specified intelligence and security organisations from its provisions.
The two units primarily handle confidential reports relating to senior vigilance officials, annual confidential reports of officers, high-level vigilance inspections, intelligence inputs and information concerning informants.
The minister also pointed out that several central agencies, including Intelligence Bureau and CBI, were exempted from the RTI Act.
Govt’s decision to exempt the confidential vigilance units had earlier drawn criticism, with allegations that the move was intended to prevent information about political leaders and senior officials facing corruption charges from becoming public.

Supreme Court Refuses To Stay DPDP Act Provisions; Notice Issued On Plea Alleging Violation Of Press Freedom: By : Aishwarya Iyer

Law Beat: New Delhi: Wednesday, 28 October 2026.
SC has issued notice in the plea challenging provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and DPDP Rules, 2025, for allegedly violating press freedom.

The Supreme Court today issued notice in a plea filed by the Digital News Publishers Association challenging provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and DPDP Rules, 2025, for allegedly violating press freedom.
However, a CJI Surya Kant led bench refused to stay the impugned provisions. "We will never pass an ex parte order without hearing the other side," CJI told the petitioners before it.
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the Association submitted before court today, "Please stay the impugned provisions. Newsrooms will shut down, how can we ask for your permission before reporting on you."
The bench however refused to pass any such orders.
Divan at the outset told court, "This is perhaps the first comprehensive petition by what we call legacy media. We are the traditional, conventional legacy media. Section 8(1)(j), the deletion, is changing the whole concept of news. The concept of news has to be considered. If I am left to the mercy of the data principal as to whether he or she will give consent, how will news be reported? On television, it is live. Otherwise, it has to be new. This will close down newsrooms."
CJI told Divan, "You are the domain experts. You are in this field. You are the best persons to suggest to the Union, as well as to us, how you will ensure that there is no misuse."
Divan further submitted that journalists are covered under the Cable Television framework, uplinking and downlinking regulations, IT Rules and the Press Council.
Court is already seized of a batch of petitions challenging provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, particularly its amendment to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, with petitioners contending that the legislation substantially weakens citizens' right to access information by creating an expansive exemption for "personal information."
The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana in August had considered submissions that the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act upsets the constitutional balance between the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to privacy.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi had observed that while the RTI Act and the DPDP Act operate in different spheres, they also overlap in certain respects, requiring the Court to examine whether both legislations coexist harmoniously. He further remarked that the Court would consider whether there exists an intelligible differentia for treating digital personal data differently and whether the DPDP Act indirectly overrides the RTI Act by creating a wider embargo on disclosure.
Justice Bagchi had also noted that the Court would examine whether the State's more cautionary approach towards disclosure satisfies the constitutional test of reasonable classification and whether a blanket restriction on disclosure of digital personal information can be justified. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union of India, sought two weeks' time to file the Centre's response and assured the Bench that the government would justify the legislative amendments. Accepting the request, the Supreme Court directed the Union to file its reply and ordered that the matter be listed before an appropriate non-miscellaneous Bench for further hearing.
Case Title: DIGITAL NEWS PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION Vs UNION OF INDIA
Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana
Hearing Date: October 27, 2026

Excluding Vigilance sections from RTI Act ambit will defeat legislative intent, say former Keralam CICs, activists: K.S. Sudhi

The Hindu: Kochi: Wednesday, 28 October 2026.
They fear the decision will undermine transparency and accountability in the functioning of the government, the legislative intent of the Act

The Keralam government’s decision to exclude the T1 and T2 sections of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) from the purview of the Right To Information (RTI) Act goes against the purpose of the legislation, say RTI activists and a few former Chief Information Commissioners (CIC).
They fear that the decision will undermine transparency and accountability in the functioning of the government, the legislative intent of the Act.
“Section 24 (4) of the Act empowers State governments to exclude intelligence and security organisations from the ambit of the Act. The Central government shall list such organisations in Schedule 2 of the Act for exempting them. The Act specifically notes that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights shall not be excludedfrom this section,” says Siby Mathews, a former CIC.
Successive governments, which found the provisions of the Act inconvenient to them, had been watering it down. The latest move of the State government will be the last nail in the coffin, he says.
Vinson M. Paul, another former CIC, feels the decision will enable the VACB Director to move any file to the two sections through an order and thus prevent the general public from accessing the information. The decision will be a deadly blow to the right of the general public to seek information and thus ensure probity and accountability in the government business. The government decision goes against the very spirit of the Act, he says.
Incidentally, defending the decision on the floor of the House, Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala said the Vigilance Director during the previous Left Democratic Front government had recommended exclusion of the sections on the ground that the possible disclosure of records relating to ongoing Vigilance investigations could jeopardise the probes.
However, Mr. Mathews points out that the provisions of the Act even otherwise bar the sharing of information on cases that are under investigation.
Officials point out that the two sections of the VACB were first excluded from the purview of the Act in 2016 and the exclusion continued for five years. It was later rescinded by the LDF government on January 9, 2022. Eight such State Intelligence and security organisations were thus excluded in the State, and the latest one was the original records of the Mullaperiyar dam lease deed agreements, including sketches, blueprints, and photos accompanying the original contract. The details were barred on the argument that the sharing of such information would be prejudicial to the security interests of the State.
RTI activists argue that the Act does not confer unfettered power on the State government to exclude information relating to allegations of corruption and human rights violations from the purview of the Act.
A blanket exemption granted, without ensuring statutory safeguards, will defeat the legislative objective of ensuring transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities. Courts had earlier recognised that information relating to allegations of corruption cannot be withheld merely by virtue of an exemption granted to the organisation concerned under Section 24. The notification is arbitrary and ultra vires and liable to be quashed before a court of law, they say.

Maharashtra RTI Commission Orders Child Welfare Data After Four-Month Delay

Urban Acres: Mumbai: Tuesday, 27 October 2026.
The Maharashtra State Information Commission’s Pune bench has directed the Women and Child Development Commissionerate to provide district-wise data on beneficiaries and grants under two child welfare schemes within 15 days, after finding violations of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The Commission reprimanded Public Information Officer Yogesh Jawade and warned that disciplinary proceedings could be proposed if statutory provisions were not followed in future. The order was issued by Information Commissioner Makarand Ranade in a case involving RTI applicant Milindkumar Salve.
Salve had filed his RTI application with the Commissionerate on December 31, 2024, seeking district-wise details of beneficiaries under the Krantijyoti Savitribai Phule Child Care Scheme and the Centre’s Mission Vatsalya scheme. He also sought information on grants distributed under the schemes.
According to the report, the information was available with the Commissionerate. However, Jawade transferred the application to Women and Child Development officers in all 36 districts instead of providing the information directly. The application was transferred after 27 days, while Salve was informed about the transfer after 56 days.
Salve then filed a first appeal before Rahul More, the then Deputy Commissioner and First Appellate Authority. More upheld the Public Information Officer’s decision, sent the application back to the district offices and directed that the information be provided free of cost.
The applicant subsequently filed a second appeal before the Pune bench of the State Information Commission. Salve told the Commission that he suspected the information was being withheld because the department had previously supplied child care scheme details and notes to the legislature secretariat while responding to a starred question during a legislative session.
The second appeal was heard on May 26, 2026. During the hearing, Ranade also asked Salve to submit a written complaint. The order, however, remained pending for four months even as decisions in cases heard around the same period were issued.
Salve filed two complaints with the Commission but received no response. He later sent a third complaint by email and contacted the Pune divisional Information Commissioner through a personal contact number. The complaints were then acted upon, and Salve received the written decision relating to the May 26 hearing within 50 minutes. A copy of the order was subsequently provided to him.
In its decision, the Commission said Jawade had failed to implement the order passed by the First Appellate Authority, amounting to a violation of the RTI Act. It described the conduct as serious negligence and warned that disciplinary action could follow if future RTI applications were not handled in accordance with the law.
The Commission also directed the Deputy Commissioner of Women and Child Development at the Commissionerate to be designated as the Information Officer in the matter. The department has been instructed to provide the requested information to Salve free of cost within 15 days.