Information Commission imposes penalty on two Social Welfare officials

The Hindu: Kalaburagi: Monday, 15 June 2026.
Action taken for failing to furnish information sought under the Right to Information Act and for not complying with the commission’s orders

Kalaburagi Bench Karnataka State Information Commission B. Venkata Singh

Commissioner of the Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka State Information Commission B. Venkata Singh has imposed penalties on two Deputy Directors of the Social Welfare Department for failing to furnish information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and for not complying with the commission’s orders.
According to media note released by his office, the action followed an appeal filed by Rangalinga Gouda of Raichur who said that information sought under the RTI Act has not been provided even after two years.
After hearing the matter, the commission imposed a penalty of ₹10,000 on Vijayalakshmi, who is a former Deputy Director of the Social Welfare Department in Raichur and now serving in Shahapur taluk, and ₹5,000 on Shivappa, who is the Deputy Director of the Social Welfare Department in Raichur.
The commission noted that Vijayalakshmi was earlier fined ₹5,000 and directed to furnish the information sought by the appellant and appear before it during the subsequent hearing.
However, she neither complied with the order nor appeared before the commission. Taking serious note of the continued non-compliance, the commission enhanced the penalty to ₹10,000.
Similarly, Shivappa was directed to provide the requested information and appear before the commission during the next hearing. As he too failed to comply with the commission’s directions, a penalty of ₹5,000 was imposed on him.
The commission has directed Deputy Director of the Social Welfare Department in Raichur district Praveen Kumar and Deputy Director of the department in Yadgir district Chidanandappa to initiate steps to recover the penalties from the officials concerned and submit a compliance report during the next hearing.
The directions were issued under Section 18(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. The commission warned that further action under Section 20(2) of the Act will be initiated in the event of non-compliance.

RTI कानून की मंजूरी के 21 वर्ष पूरे:दुनिया का पहला RTI लिविंग म्यूजियम ब्यावर में बनाया जाएगा

Dainik Bhaskar: Ajmer: Monday, 15 June 2026.

देश में लोकतंत्र को मजबूत करने वाले सूचना के अधिकार कानून को लागू करने के लिए जहां सबसे बड़ा 44 दिन तक धरना किया गया, उसी ब्यावर में दुनिया का पहला आरटीआई लिविंग म्यूजियम बनेगा। इसके लिए नरबद खेड़ा (केसरपुरा क्षेत्र) में 1 एकड़ जमीन चिह्नित कर ली गई है। इसके निर्माण की लागत ढाई करोड़ है। पहले फेज में 85 लाख रुपए मिल भी चुके हैं। 21 साल पहले 15 जून को यहीं से आरटीआई के लिए आंदोलन की शुरुआत हुई थी, इसके बाद जयपुर और अन्य जगह पर आंदोलन किया गया।
मजदूर किसान शक्ति संगठन व आरटीआई आंदोलन की प्रणेता सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता अरुणा रॉय बताती हैं कि इस म्यूजियम का निर्माण और संचालन स्कूल फॉर डेमोक्रेसी (लोकतंत्र की पाठशाला) संस्था की ओर से किया जा रहा है। इस संग्रहालय को पारंपरिक म्यूजियम से अलग एक लिविंग म्यूजियम (जीवंत संग्रहालय) के रूप में विकसित किया जा रहा है। इसमें वर्ष 1996 के ब्यावर धरने और जनआंदोलन से जुड़े दुर्लभ दस्तावेज, तस्वीरें, पोस्टर, पर्चे और अभिलेख, ऑडियो-वीडियो रिकॉर्डिंग और फिल्म फुटेज, मजदूर किसान शक्ति संगठन और राष्ट्रीय सूचना अधिकार अभियान के संघर्षों की गाथा दिखाई जाएगी। इसके अलावा यह एक रिसर्च एंड ट्रेनिंग सेंटर बनेगा।

RTI meant to bring govt actions ‘behind closed doors’ into public view: Punjab info panel

The Times of India: Chandigarh: Monday, 15 June 2026.
Stressing that the Right to Information (RTI) Act is intended to bring government actions carried out behind "closed doors" into the public domain, the Punjab State Information Commission has underscored the law's role in promoting transparency and accountability while pulling up officials for what it termed a "casual and callous" approach towards an RTI application.

The observations were made by state information commissioner Dr Bhupinder Batth while hearing an appeal filed by a Faridkot resident who had sought information from the office of the tehsildar, Jaito.
"The Act is meant for promoting transparency in government functioning by bringing to light actions done behind closed doors so that citizens are kept well informed of the functioning of public authorities, thereby strengthening democracy," the commission observed.
At the same time, it noted that the RTI Act should not be used as a substitute for availing services available under other statutes in matters that do not involve examining the functioning of a public authority.
During the hearing, the appellant submitted that no information had been provided despite the RTI application. The respondent public information officer (PIO) neither appeared before the commission nor deputed any representative.
The commission noted that the PIO had remained absent on the previous hearing as well. While the official had earlier cited election duty, an email sent before the latest hearing said the officer was occupied with ward-related work at the Municipal Council, Jaito, and sought another date.
Taking a serious view of the matter, the commission observed that the public authority had displayed "complete negligence and laxity" in dealing with the RTI application.
"It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind, reflecting disrespect towards the RTI Act itself," the order said.
While expressing displeasure over the respondent's conduct, the commission decided to grant one final opportunity before initiating penal proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act. The PIO has been directed to ensure that complete and accurate information is furnished to applicants in a timely manner.
The commission also brought the matter to the notice of the Faridkot deputy commissioner, noting that despite repeated notices, neither the PIO nor any junior official had appeared before it.
Warning of strict action in case of continued non-compliance, the commission said the PIO's presence could be secured through bailable warrants and disciplinary action could be recommended under the provisions of the Act. The next hearing is scheduled for Sept 3.

Disclose tender process for Board exam answer sheet procurement under RTI Act: CIC to CBSE

The Hindu: New Delhi: Monday, 15 June 2026.

The case arose from an RTI application seeking details of answer books used in Class 10 and 12 board examinations during the 2023-24 and 2024-25 sessions. Representational file image. | Photo Credit: PTI

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to disclose “point-wise categorical” information, permissible under the Right to Information Act, related to expenditure on exams and details of answer books, including the tendering and procurement process, for Class 10 and 12 board examinations.
After setting aside the CBSE’s earlier denial of information under the RTI, the transparency panel asked it to furnish revised replies.
The case arose from an RTI application seeking details of answer books used in Class 10 and 12 Board examinations during the 2023-24 and 2024-25 sessions, including paper quality, number of pages, size, purchase cost, total expenditure, GST payments and details of the tender process for procurement of answer sheets.
In its response, the CBSE disclosed certain specifications of the answer books.
However, information relating to the purchase cost of answer books, the number purchased and total expenditure incurred on procurement was denied under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
The Commission found that the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) had denied information under multiple exemption clauses “without giving any proper justification”.
“...the Commission, deems it fit, to direct, CPIO to revisit the contents of the RTI application in question and provide a revised point-wise categorical replies along with relevant permissible information that can be provided,” the CIC said.

‘Notified but dormant’: What a new RTI-based report reveals about the state of India’s Anti-Human Trafficking Units - Report By Ananya Gunjan

The Leaflet: Report: Sunday, 14 June 2026.
Fifteen years after Anti-Human Trafficking Units were envisioned as India’s frontline institutional response to trafficking, a new report by Sanjog finds them overburdened, underfunded, and structurally fragile with 47,000 children still untraced and conviction rates that are, in several states, zero.

ON MAY 20, 2026, Sanjog, a social impact organisation that works on anti-human trafficking, published an ‘Anti-Human Trafficking Unit Watch Report’ tracing the functionality of Anti-Human Trafficking Units (‘AHTUs’) across all Indian states and Union Territories (‘UTs’) between 2010 and 2025 across three phases. The report draws primarily on information received from states and UTs through RTI applications, along with inputs from lawyers, civil society organisations, and survivor testimonies.
Anti-Human Trafficking Units were envisioned by the Ministry of Home Affairs as specialised units charged with preventing trafficking, conducting rescues, investigating cases, prosecuting traffickers, and aiding the rehabilitation of survivors. Their composition envisages trained law enforcement personnel working in structured coordination with Child Welfare Committees (‘CWCs’), District Child Protection Units (‘DCPUs’), legal aid authorities, and shelters.
The report which opens with National Crime Records Bureau’s (‘NCRB’) ‘Crime in India’ report reflects a rising trend in human trafficking up to 2016, when reported cases peaked at 8,132, followed by a subsequent decline. This decline, however, must be read against a troubling backdrop. The Supreme Court, while hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by a father whose eighteen-month-old daughter went missing in 2011 and remains untraced, noted that 47,000 children continue to remain untraced to date. The report cautions that the post-2016 decline in reported trafficking cases may reflect a failure of institutional documentation rather than any real reduction in the incidence of trafficking.
The AHTU Watch Report assesses the functioning of Anti-Human Trafficking Units through six interdependent indicators.
The report’s findings across six indicators
The AHTU Watch Report assesses the functioning of Anti-Human Trafficking Units through six interdependent indicators. These include: notification status, staffing and stability, budget and infrastructure, FIR autonomy, case progression, and outcomes. The research covers RTI filings and data analysis across all thirty-six states and UTs, interviews with Superintendents of Police and constables associated with AHTUs, inputs from civil society organisations, and structured consultations with survivor leaders and their collectives.
At the outset, the report raises a pointed question about the apparent decline in trafficking cases after 2016 on whether it reflects an actual reduction in trafficking or merely a decline in reporting, documentation, and institutional disclosure, particularly in high-incidence states like Assam, Maharashtra, and Andhra Pradesh. Since the formation of AHTUs, the Ministry of Home Affairs has issued twenty-two advisories and operational guidelines, including advisories on treating human trafficking as organised crime and on trafficking of foreign nationals, the implementation of which, the report finds, remains fragmented across the country.
On notification, relatively less densely populated UTs like Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Ladakh have a hundred percent rate of notified and functional AHTUs, while Uttar Pradesh has only thirty-five functional units out of seventy-five notified. The report underscores that notification as a separate entity, and distinct from a local police station, makes AHTUs more accessible to survivors and reduces their hesitancy in approaching the unit.
On staffing and stability, AHTU personnel across states carry the additional burden of general policing duties, significantly undermining their functioning as specialised investigative units. A survivor quoted in the report noted that AHTU officials were overburdened with general policing responsibilities and often unavailable for trafficking cases. Uttar Pradesh, notably, saw a complete reversal between phases from nearly all AHTU members carrying additional charges to none doing so by Phase 3.
On budget and infrastructure, the data is fractured. Some states and UTs have no dedicated funds and rely entirely on general police budgets, while others like Arunachal Pradesh received sanctioned funds but showed inconsistent utilisation across phases. The report notes that the absence of a dedicated budget is a reflection of governmental callousness toward the seriousness of trafficking offences, and it pushes the financial burden of legal follow-ups and travel onto survivors themselves.
On training and capacity building, the pattern is one of persistent inconsistency. Training remains exclusively police-centric, overlooking social workers, legal aid authorities, and rehabilitation stakeholders. Content is largely confined to general legal awareness, missing crucial areas like labour trafficking identification and trauma-informed investigation. The lack of specialised training in handling trafficking, according to the survivor testimonies in the report, also leads to misdirected insensitive questions, poor documentation, lack of clarity on survivor rights and an erroneous classification of trafficking cases as ordinary labour disputes or kidnapping cases. In order to strengthen the training and capacity building of the AHTU personnels, the report recommends the development of a continuous training framework with a standardized and uniform training syllabus involving various stakeholders.
On FIR autonomy and case progression, the data reveals heavy reliance on local police with minimal transfer of cases to AHTUs and even fewer investigations conducted by them. Delhi transferred thirty-one cases to its AHTU in Phase 3 but recorded zero investigations. The conviction rate across states is abysmal as states and UTs like Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and the Andamans reported zero convictions. Telangana stands out, with 980 chargesheets filed as a result of AHTU investigations.
The conviction rate across states is abysmal as states and UTs like Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and the Andamans reported zero convictions.
On coordination, the report finds the multi-stakeholder architecture structurally fragile across all phases. Coordination with the Crime Multi Agency Centre, launched in 2020 to facilitate interstate information sharing on trafficking, remains weak. Victim compensation, the report notes therefore, is contingent on the quality of documentation and offence classification by law enforcement, which is itself premised on inter-agency coordination that largely does not exist.
The consolidated national findings reflect a system afflicted by overburdened personnel, fluctuating FIR autonomy, inconsistent training, and an almost inconsequential rate of trafficker conviction. Telangana and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are identified as having relatively strong institutional practices. Uttar Pradesh and Delhi fall into the category of moderate but uneven functionality. Meghalaya and Rajasthan’s Bikaner district are identified as structurally fragile but evidence-documented contexts.
The report’s findings echo the Supreme Court’s directions in G. Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2026), in which while dealing with missing children and child trafficking, the Court directed the Union and state governments to eliminate the dormancy functioning of the AHTUs and ensure the immediate restoration of trafficked children.
The malignancy of human trafficking networks, the report concludes, can only be combated by an Anti-Human Trafficking Unit whose functioning is equally systematic, and equally committed to dismantling those networks.

बिना निर्माण 20 सोकपिटों का भुगतान होने का आरोप:लखीमपुर में RTI से खुली ग्राम पंचायत के विकास कार्यों की पोल

Dainik Bhaskar: Uttar Pradesh: Sunday, 14 June 2026.

लखीमपुर खीरी के निघासन क्षेत्र की एक ग्राम पंचायत में विकास कार्यों में कथित अनियमितताओं का मामला सामने आया है। ग्रामीणों ने सूचना का अधिकार (आरटीआई) के तहत प्राप्त अभिलेखों के आधार पर आरोप लगाया है कि करीब 20 सोकपिटों का निर्माण कराए बिना ही उनका भुगतान कर दिया गया।
ग्रामीणों का कहना है कि अभिलेखों में जिन स्थानों पर सोकपिट निर्माण दर्शाया गया है, वहां मौके पर कोई निर्माण कार्य नहीं मिला। आरोप है कि सरकारी धन खर्च दिखाकर कार्य पूर्ण दर्शा दिए गए, जबकि जमीनी स्तर पर निर्माण नहीं हुआ।
ग्रामीणों ने विशेष रूप से सोकपिट संख्या-122 का मामला उठाया है। उनका दावा है कि दौलतापुर निवासी दौलतराम पुत्र हेमराज के घर की छत पर केवल योजना संबंधी विवरण लिखकर कार्य पूर्ण दिखा दिया गया और भुगतान भी कर दिया गया। ग्रामीणों ने इसके समर्थन में तस्वीरें भी उपलब्ध कराई हैं।
आरटीआई में सामने आए कई सवाल
ग्रामीणों ने आरटीआई के माध्यम से ह्यूम पाइप खरीद, सोकपिट निर्माण, स्वच्छता कार्य, ग्राम पंचायत एवं ग्राम सभा की बैठकों की कार्यवाही, हैंडपंप रीबोर और मरम्मत समेत विभिन्न विकास कार्यों से संबंधित अभिलेख प्राप्त किए थे। दस्तावेजों की जांच के बाद उन्होंने कई मदों में वित्तीय अनियमितताओं की आशंका जताई है।
ग्रामीणों का आरोप है कि विकास कार्यों के नाम पर सरकारी धन का दुरुपयोग किया गया है। उन्होंने सभी कार्यों का भौतिक सत्यापन कराए जाने और दोषियों के खिलाफ कार्रवाई की मांग की है।
ग्रामीणों ने प्रशासन से मांग की है कि अभिलेखों में दर्ज कार्यों की स्थलीय जांच कराई जाए और यदि अनियमितताएं साबित होती हैं तो जिम्मेदार लोगों के खिलाफ कठोर कार्रवाई की जाए। साथ ही सरकारी धन की रिकवरी भी सुनिश्चित की जाए।
खंड विकास अधिकारी जयेश कुमार सिंह ने कहा कि यदि उन्हें शिकायत के साथ पर्याप्त साक्ष्य उपलब्ध कराए जाते हैं, तो पूरे प्रकरण की विस्तृत जांच कराई जाएगी। उन्होंने कहा कि जांच में अनियमितता पाए जाने पर नियमानुसार कार्रवाई की जाएगी।
फिलहाल यह मामला क्षेत्र में चर्चा का विषय बना हुआ है। ग्रामीण निष्पक्ष जांच की मांग कर रहे हैं। अब सभी की निगाहें प्रशासनिक जांच और उसकी रिपोर्ट पर टिकी हैं, जिससे आरोपों की वास्तविकता सामने आ सकेगी।

RTI reveals 30,746 fraud cases involving Rs 6,313 crore in SBI over three years

Dailyhunt: Nagpur: Sunday, 14 June 2026.
More than 30,000 fraud cases involving thousands of crores of rupees were reported by the State Bank of India (SBI) between April 2023 and March 2026, according to information disclosed by the bank under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The figures were provided by SBI’s Fraud Prevention and Monitoring Department in response to an RTI application filed by Nagpur-based activist Abhay Kolarkar.
According to the RTI reply, SBI reported a total of 30,746 fraud cases during the three-year period, involving an aggregate amount of Rs 6,313.35 crore.
The year-wise data shows that 14,717 fraud cases involving Rs 2,445.76 crore were reported during 2023-24. In 2024-25, the number stood at 13,782 cases involving Rs 2,122.36 crore. During 2025-26, the bank reported 2,247 fraud cases involving Rs 1,745.23 crore.
The RTI response indicates that cyber fraud constituted a significant portion of the overall fraud incidents reported by the bank.
According to the data, SBI recorded 13,237 cyber fraud cases involving Rs 90.97 crore during 2023-24. In 2024-25, the bank reported 10,260 cyber fraud cases involving Rs 66.70 crore. For 2025-26, the bank reported 83 cyber fraud cases involving Rs 9.06 crore.
The reply notes that the figures exclude reclassification cases.
The RTI response further provides a break-up of digital frauds reported between April 2023 and March 2026.
UPI-related frauds accounted for the highest number of cases at 12,868, involving Rs 71.51 crore. Internet banking frauds followed with 8,657 cases involving Rs 79.58 crore.
The bank also reported 1,102 ATM fraud cases involving Rs 9.58 crore and 296 mobile banking fraud cases involving Rs 3.66 crore during the period.
Employee-linked fraud cases reported
The RTI data also sheds light on internal fraud cases involving bank employees.
According to the reply, SBI reported 114 employee-linked fraud cases involving Rs 137.04 crore in 2023-24. During 2024-25, 100 such cases involving Rs 70.98 crore were reported, while 89 cases involving Rs 103.06 crore were reported in 2025-26.
The figures have been reported in accordance with the Reserve Bank of India’s Master Direction on Fraud Risk Management for Commercial Banks issued on July 15, 2024, the bank stated.
No data available on ‘digital arrest’ frauds
In response to a query seeking details of SBI account holders allegedly trapped in “digital arrest” frauds, the bank stated that the information was “not available.”
Digital arrest scams, in which fraudsters impersonate law enforcement or government officials and coerce victims into transferring money, have emerged as a growing cybercrime concern across the country in recent years.
West Bengal records highest number of frauds
According to the RTI reply, West Bengal recorded the highest number of fraud cases among all states during the three-year period.
The state reported 3,426 fraud cases involving Rs 143.67 crore, making it the state with the largest number of reported fraud incidents in SBI’s network between April 2023 and March 2026.
The information was furnished by Rakesh Aima, Deputy General Manager and Central Public Information Officer, Fraud Prevention and Monitoring Department, SBI Corporate Centre, Mumbai, under the provisions of the RTI Act.
The RTI disclosure provides a rare insight into the scale and nature of frauds reported within India’s largest public sector bank and highlights the continuing challenges posed by cybercrime, digital payment frauds and internal irregularities in the banking sector.

State of unequal privilege; Despite widespread media reporting on the twin notices of the impeachment motion submitted by the Opposition MPs nobody outside Parliament seems to have actually seen their contents.

Deccan Herald: Opinion: Sunday, 14 June 2026.

Last week, Hungary’s MPs unanimously approved legislation to drastically reduce their salaries and allowances. Barely a month after being sworn in, Prime Minister Peter Magyar delivered on this electoral promise. While the MPs will be paid 40 per cent lesser than before, the PM’s pay will be cut by more than half. European media have calculated that his predecessor was earning almost 13 times more than the average national wage.
This side of the Danube, a day after PM Magyar assumed office, we were advised to adopt austerity measures to conserve forex reserves that are depleting rapidly due to the economic hardships arising from the United States-Israel-Iran conflict. We must resume working from home, avoid unnecessary foreign travel, use public transport, buy gold sparingly, limit the use of fertilisers, and even reduce our consumption of cooking oil. Soon came the indispensable tour of five countries. Will our ministers and MPs, 90% of whom are self-declared crorepatis, “tighten de belten” (like Chaplin’s Great Dictator demanded sacrifices from his people in the fictional country of Tomania) to lead by example? This is a question hardly anyone has asked publicly.
Forget emulating such good practices from the European Union, with whom we have the ‘mother of all trade deals’, the distance between our Parliament and us is increasingly widening. First, not too long ago, the majority of MPs voted to erase the parity between them and us for accessing official information through the RTI when they passed the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act. Now, the Parliament’s secretariats are telling us we do not have the right to know the details of the recently rejected attempts to impeach the current Chief Election Commissioner.
Despite widespread media reporting on the twin notices of the impeachment motion submitted by the Opposition MPs, in March this year, nobody outside Parliament seems to have actually seen their contents. After it was publicly announced in April that the Lok Sabha Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Chairman had rejected these notices, I submitted two identical RTI applications to the respective secretariats.
I sought copies of the notices of motion submitted, the rejection orders issued by the respective heads of the Houses, the name and designation of all persons they consulted as required under Section 3(1) of The Judges Inquiry Act (which applies in this case), the opinions they received, the text of the materials consulted by the Speaker and the Chairman as required by the procedure laid down, and all correspondence and file notings generated during the decision-making process. The respective public information officers merely replied that none of this information can be disclosed under Section 8(1)(c) of the RTI Act. Neither of them signed their replies.
The exemption clause they invoked is crafted to prevent information disclosure from causing “a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature.” It is the least frequently used ground for rejecting RTI applications. The Union ministries used it only 39 times in 2024-25. Neither House Secretariat used it even once, according to their annual implementation reports.
Articles 105(2) and 194(2) of our Constitution immunise our MPs, MLAs, and MLCs from criminal liability for words spoken or votes given in the legislature or in its committees. According to Kaul and Shakder’s compendium of parliamentary practice and procedure, successive committees on privileges and committees of speakers have held that these and other privileges are granted to them for performing their appointed duties without hindrance. These privileges do not place them on a footing different from that of ordinary citizens vis-à-vis the application of any law. The fundamental principle is that all citizens, including MPs, must be treated equally in the eyes of the law unless there are sufficient reasons in the interest of Parliament itself to do otherwise. MPs cannot claim any privilege higher than those enjoyed by the people who elect them.
Given this foundational philosophy of parliamentary privileges, how does the disclosure of information sought through RTI hurt Parliament’s interests or prevent MPs from doing their job? The matter relating to this batch of impeachment motion notices is complete because they stand rejected. Whose vested interests are being protected now?
We elect our MPs and annually finance the expenditure incurred by Parliament and the Election Commission. Yet, babus are claiming that records on the allegations levelled against the head of the entity conducting those very elections are sarkari secrets! This is the latest irony in the world’s largest democracy.
(The writer wakes up every morning thinking someone somewhere is hiding something.)

More J&K Revenue Officers come under CIC criticism for inaction on RTI's? Show Cause to SDM & penalty proceedings against Tehsildar

Cross Town News: J&K: Saturday, 13 June 2026.

J&K Officials have come under the scanner of the Central Information Commission again and again over lack of knowledge and neglect of statutory responsibilities under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
CIC has also initiated penalty proceedings against more officers, including a Sub-Divisional Magistrate and a Tehsildar, for alleged lapses in discharging their statutory obligations.
An applicant sought copies of two official communications exchanged between the office of the SDM and the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu. The Commission found that the information was supplied on February 2, 2026, despite the RTI application having been filed on August 29, 2024?
 First Appellate Authority also failed to adjudicate the appeal filed by the applicant as seems unaware of his powers but as showoff only fix date & hear & communicate a letter & chapter closed.
Commission has ordered issuance of a show-cause notice to the then SDM-cum-PIO, holding that the officer had failed to provide information within the prescribed timeframe and had failed to furnish any cogent explanation for the lapse.
However, there are countless questions also  JKAS Officer working as Tehsildar in Jammu dev Authority for adopting "Pick & Choose" in various issues especially after issuing Notices under various sections for violations, which are to be acted for demolition, sealing or other actions after lapse of time period of Notices issued.
However, in case of one RTI application, wherein applicant sought documents & noting of her own case file butTehsildar, Megha Gupta as APIO  refused to provide the documents required by quoting under Sec. 8(i)(b) said information cannot be provided, but said observation of Megha Gupta was totally illegal as per said section but was not acted upon by FAA, Garbi Rashid, DLM of JDA, PIO & one  LA, who were hearing Appeal.

Info panel issues warrants against Fazilka DDPO

Times of India: Chandigarh: Saturday, 13 June 2026.

Taking note of the repeated non-appearance of the district development and panchayat officer (DDPO), Fazilka, despite being granted several opportunities, the Punjab State Information Commission has issued bailable warrants against the officer.
The action was ordered by the bench of Harpreet Sandhu, State Information Commissioner, Punjab.
The bench observed that the continuous absence of the DDPO from the proceedings, coupled with the failure to provide the information sought in connection with the appeal case, caused undue delay in the adjudication and final disposal of the matter pending before the commission. Despite being duly notified, the officer failed to appear and assist the commission in the case.
The bench remarked that such conduct not only hampered the timely delivery of justice under the Right to Information Act but also reflected a lack of regard for the authority and proceedings of the commission. The repeated non-compliance has obstructed the effective conclusion of the case and caused inconvenience to the parties involved, it observed.
In view of the persistent absence and to secure the presence of the officer concerned, the bench deems it necessary to issue bailable warrants and direct the DDPO, Fazilka, to appear before it on the next date of hearing, the bench added.
The commission reiterated that all public authorities and officers were duty-bound to cooperate with proceedings under the RTI Act and ensure timely compliance with directions issued by the commission in the interest of transparency, accountability and good governance.

CIC pulls up PNGRB over RTI reply on safety, inspections of IGL pipeline work

The Economic Times: New Delhi: Saturday, 13 June 2026.
The Central Information Commission has criticized the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board. This is for not properly answering a Right to Information request. The request sought details on safety measures for gas pipeline work by Indraprastha Gas Limited. The Commission ordered the regulator to provide a better response.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has pulled up the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB) for failing to adequately respond to an RTI application seeking details of safety measures, inspections and regulatory oversight of gas pipeline work carried out by Indraprastha Gas Limited in a west Delhi locality.
The RTI application sought information related to permissions for road digging, safety protocols mandated by PNGRB, inspection reports, restoration timelines, action against contractors for safety lapses and officials responsible for supervising PNG pipeline installation work in Ramesh Enclave, Kirari Suleman Nagar.
During the hearing, PNGRB said it had sought inputs from IGL and forwarded the information received to the applicant.
IGL submitted that it had provided available factual information to the regulator and that the applicability of the RTI Act to the company was sub judice before the Delhi High Court when the reply was furnished.
After examining the records, Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi found the regulator's response inadequate.
"The Commission finds that most of the points sought by the appellant specifically pertain to PNGRB, and the PNGRB is the custodian of the sought information in most of the points," the order said.
"The PNGRB seeking inputs from IGL is not acceptable, even for the points where information is held by their own public authority," it added.
The Commission noted that several queries related directly to PNGRB's regulatory role, including safety guidelines, inspections and action that could be taken against IGL or its contractors for failure to follow prescribed safety measures.
During the hearing, PNGRB informed the Commission that regulations existed for taking action in cases involving safety lapses. It also stated that no complaints had been received regarding the pipeline work in the locality. The regulator further said its technical division was responsible for overseeing the quality and timely completion of the project.
Directing corrective action, the Commission ordered PNGRB to provide a revised point-wise consolidated reply, incorporating available factual information, relevant guidelines, regulations and website links.
It also directed the regulator to clearly state the factual position where information was unavailable or cite the relevant exemption under the RTI Act if disclosure was denied.
The Commission disposed of the appeal while noting that the issue of whether IGL is a public authority under the RTI Act would be reconsidered separately in light of a recent Delhi High Court judgement.

Karnataka high court: RTI can’t be used for obtaining personal info

The Times of India: Karnataka: Saturday, 13 June 2026.

The Right to Information (RTI) Act cannot be employed as a mechanism for obtaining personal information merely for advancing a private claim, the Karnataka high court has ruled.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj made the observation in a recent judgment while dismissing a petition filed by Bengaluru resident S Savithramma.
She moved the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) for details of the assets and liabilities of SP Jayapal, who worked as the deputy controller at the central KSRTC office during 1990-2002, saying he fraudulently obtained a sale deed from her, and she required the documents for pending civil suits.
On May 6, 2025, KIC rejected her application, citing that the information sought by her fell under personal information and could not be disclosed as it was exempted under the RTI Act.
Challenging the order, Savithramma approached the high court, arguing that Jayapal is a public servant and, therefore, any immovable property acquired by him, together with the corresponding disclosure of assets and liabilities, should be revealed.
Justice Govindaraj, however, rejected the argument.
“The right to privacy is now recognised as a constitutionally protected right. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act represents a statutory manifestation of that protection in the context of access to information. Therefore, before directing disclosure of personal information, the authority concerned must be satisfied that the public interest sought to be served is of such magnitude as to outweigh the privacy interests of the individual concerned. No such circumstances have been demonstrated in the present case,” the judge noted.
“Mere allegations, however serious, cannot by themselves convert personal information into public information,” the judge added.

Public Servants Retain Privacy Rights; Asset Declarations Furnished To Authorities Not Automatically Disclosable Under RTI: Karnataka High Court

Verdictum: Karnataka: Friday, 12 June 2026.
The Karnataka High Court has held that asset and liability statements filed by public servants do not automatically become public information merely because they are submitted to government authorities under service rules.

Dismissing a writ petition, the Bench refused to interfere with orders of the Karnataka Information Commission and the Public Information Officer of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), which had rejected an RTI application seeking the asset and liability statements of a former Deputy Controller of KSRTC.
The Court held that such records are protected as "personal information" under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, unless an applicant establishes a demonstrable larger public interest warranting disclosure.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed, “The mere fact that a person is a public servant does not ipso facto render every piece of information concerning him amenable to disclosure under the RTI Act…Such an interpretation would be contrary to the legislative intent underlying Clause (j) of Sub Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act, which recognises that public servants do not cease to possess privacy rights merely by reason of their employment in public service”.
“Equally, the mere fact that such information is required to be furnished by a public servant to his employer or to a statutory authority under the applicable service rules does not, by itself, render the information publicly disclosable under the RTI Act. A distinction has to be maintained between information furnished to a competent authority for administrative, vigilance, regulatory, or service related purposes and information which is liable to be disclosed to the public at large”, the Bench observed.
Advocate G. B. Nandish Gowda appeared for the petitioner while none appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner had sought the records claiming that the officer had allegedly procured a sale deed relating to her property through fraudulent means and that details of the transaction would be reflected in his asset declarations. She contended that since the officer was a public servant required to disclose assets under service rules, the information assumed the character of public information.
Rejecting the contention, the Court observed that the mere fact that an individual holds public office does not render every piece of information concerning him amenable to disclosure under the RTI Act. It noted that public servants do not lose their privacy rights by virtue of their employment.
“…Every litigant may have a genuine interest in obtaining information which may support his case. However, a private interest, however bona fide, is not synonymous with public interest. The statute contemplates something more, namely an interest which transcends the concerns of the individual applicant and bears a nexus to the welfare of the public at large or a substantial section thereof”, the Bench observed.
The Court distinguished between information relating to the discharge of official duties and information concerning the private affairs of a public servant. While official decisions, exercise of statutory powers, and use of public resources may stand on a different footing, personal assets, liabilities, financial affairs, tax records, family matters, and similar details ordinarily fall within the ambit of protected personal information, the Court held.
“A distinction must necessarily be drawn between information relating to the discharge of public duties and information relating to the private affairs of a public servant. Information concerning official acts, decisions taken in an official capacity, exercise of statutory powers, utilisation of public resources, or matters directly connected with public administration may stand on a different footing. However, information relating to personal assets, liabilities, financial affairs, income particulars, tax records, family matters, medical records, and similar personal details would ordinarily fall within the ambit of personal information protected under Clause (j) of Sub Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act, unless disclosure is justified by an overriding public interest”, the Bench noted.
Importantly, the Court clarified that allegations against an individual cannot, by themselves, transform personal information into public information. It further held that a private litigant's interest in obtaining documents to support a civil or criminal dispute is not equivalent to the "larger public interest" contemplated under Section 8(1)(j).
The Bench noted that no material had been placed to show corruption, abuse of public office, misuse of public funds, disproportionate assets, or any issue affecting the public at large, and accordingly, applied the statutory exemption.
Cause Title: S. Savithramma v. The Karnataka Information Commission & Ors.
(Click here to Download the Judgment)

Holding public office doesn’t mean losing right to privacy: Karnataka High Court

The Indian Express: Karnataka: Friday, 12 June 2026.
If every piece of information about public servants were amenable to disclosure, an entire class of people would lose protection afforded under the RTI Act merely because they hold public office, the Karnataka High Court ruled.

The Karnataka High Court said the RTI Act cannot be employed to obtain information protected under law to advance a private claim.
The Karnataka High Court has held that personal information relating to personal assets, liabilities, financial affairs, income particulars, tax records, family matters, and medical records, that a public servant furnishes to the employer cannot be disclosed to a third party under the Right to Information Act.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said in an order on June 1, “Mere fact that such information is required to be furnished by a public servant to his employer or to a statutory authority under the applicable service rules does not, by itself, render the information publicly disclosable under the RTI Act.”
The order added, “Asset and liability statements are ordinarily collected by the employer or the competent authority to ensure compliance with service rules, promote probity in public service, identify possible conflicts of interest, and facilitate vigilance or disciplinary oversight, wherever required. The purpose for which such information is collected cannot automatically determine the scope of its disclosure to third parties.”
S Savithramma had approached the court challenging the Karnataka Information Commission’s order that upheld Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation’s rejection of her request for details of the assets and liabilities of S P Jayapal, a deputy controller at the KSRTC’s central office. She argued that he had fraudulently obtained a sale deed from her and that she required the information because of pending civil suits.
Advocate G B Nandish Gowda, appearing for Savithramma, argued that since Jaypal was a public servant, any immovable property he acquires, together with the corresponding disclosures required to be made under service rules and statutory provisions, partook the character of public information.
The court rejected this contention. “The mere fact that a person is a public servant does not ipso facto render every piece of information concerning him amenable to disclosure under the RTI Act,” its order read.
The order added, “If such an interpretation were to be accepted, the protection expressly afforded under Clause (j) of Sub Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act would stand substantially diluted in respect of an entire class of individuals merely because they happen to hold public office.”
The court referred to 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts from disclosure information related to personal information, the disclosure of which is unrelated to any public activity or public interest, or that would result in an unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy.
The court stated that while an individual’s right to privacy is protected under clause (j), but it may be overridden in an appropriate case where the larger public interest demonstrably outweighs the privacy interests. The burden would necessarily lie on the applicant seeking disclosure to establish the existence of such an overriding public interest, it added.
The court noted that the information sought was to aid in a challenge to a property transaction allegedly entered into between Savithramma and Jayapal
The court dismissed the petition, saying the RTI Act’s provisions cannot be employed for obtaining personal information protected under law “merely for the purpose of advancing a private claim”.

Mere charges can't convert personal data to public information: Karnataka High Court

Deccan Herald: Karnataka: Friday, 12 June 2026.
The petitioner S Savithramma, a resident of Bengaluru, challenged the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) order on her application.

The provisions of the RTI Act cannot be employed as a mechanism for obtaining personal information otherwise protected under law, merely for the purpose of advancing a private claim, the high court said in a recent judgement.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said mere allegations, however serious, cannot by themselves convert personal information into public information. The petitioner S Savithramma, a resident of Bengaluru, challenged the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) order on her application seeking asset and liability statement of one S P Jayapal, deputy controller at KSRTC central office in Shantinagar here.
The KIC had upheld the order passed by the public information officer, KSRTC, with a finding that the infor sought had no relationship to any public activity or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy as per Sec 8 (1)(j) of RTI Act.
The petitioner said Jayapal procured a sale deed in respect of her property by fraudulent means.
This transaction has been reflected in the Income Tax returns filed by Jayapal, and hence, information sought under RTI cannot be treated as personal, she said.
It was argued that since Jayapal is a public servant, details on his assets cannot be regarded as purely personal information, particularly when such information is sought in connection with allegations of fraud and illegal acquisition of property.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said that there was a distinction between information furnished to a competent authority for administrative, vigilance, regulatory, or service-related purposes and information liable to be disclosed to public at large.
“While petitioner may have remedies available under civil law, criminal law, or any other applicable statutory framework for establishing the alleged fraud and seeking appropriate reliefs, provisions of RTI Act cannot be employed as a mechanism for obtaining personal information,” the judge said.

Guv approves names of information commissioners, but with rider

The Times of India: Ranchi: Thursday, 11 June 2026.
Jharkhand governor Santosh Gangwar on Wednesday approved the panel of four names for the post of information commissioners, ending a stand-off that had lasted months, but with a rider that the JMM govt would be responsible for any procedural errors arising in their appointments.

In an official statement, Lok Bhavan said, “The Governor has granted approval for these appointments subject to certain conditions. He has directed the state govt to ensure the early appointment of a Chief Information Commissioner for the Jharkhand State Information Commission so that the Commission’s work can be conducted smoothly and effectively.”
It went on to add, “The Governor also clarified that if any procedural error is found in the appointment process, or if any question arises regarding compliance with Supreme Court orders in this matter, the state govt will bear full responsibility.”
The development comes after Lok Bhavan had earlier returned the file containing the same names in the wake of objections to a few of the candidates.
The names cleared by Lok Bhavan include that of retired journalist and editor Anuj Kumar Sinha, Tanuj Khatri, Amulya Neeraj Khalkho and Shivpujan Pathak. Tanuj had once served as spokesperson of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), while Shivpujan had served as BJP media cell in-charge and Amulya is said to be from Congress.
Of the four appointees, Anuj Kumar Sinha is a retired journalist, a profession specifically mentioned in the RTI Act as one from which Information Commissioners may be drawn.
The posts of Information Commissioners had been vacant for nearly 5 years, leading to the piling up of thousands of cases related to Right to Information. The high court had on previous occasions pulled up the state govt for delay in reviving the state information commission by filling up pending posts.
Sources in Lok Bhavan said that after the governor’s nod, the department of personnel, administrative reforms and rajbhasha will now notify the appointments. “Formal orders regarding the appointment will be issued once the departmental formalities are completed,” said an official in the state personnel department.

Privacy cannot be overridden by mere allegations under RTI: Karnataka High Court

Deccan Herald: Sikkim: Thursday, 11 June 2026.
The petitioner alleged that Jayapal had procured a sale deed in respect of the petitioner's property by fraudulent means.

The provisions of the RTI Act cannot be employed as a mechanism for obtaining personal information otherwise protected under law, merely for the purpose of advancing a private claim, the high court of Karnataka said in a recent judgement.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj added that mere allegations, however serious, cannot by themselves convert personal information into public information.
The petitioner S Savithramma, a resident of Bengaluru, challenged the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) order on her application seeking asset and liability statement of one S P Jayapal, Deputy Controller at the KSRTC Central Office in Shantinagar at the relevant time.
The KIC had upheld the order passed by the Public Information Officer, KSRTC, with a finding that the information sought has no relationship to any public activity or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy as per Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The petitioner alleged that Jayapal had procured a sale deed in respect of the petitioner's property by fraudulent means. This transaction has been reflected in the Income Tax Returns filed by Jayapal, and hence information sought under RTI cannot be treated as personal information.
It is further argued that since Jayapal is a public servant, details relating to his assets cannot be regarded as purely personal information, particularly when such information is sought in connection with allegations of fraud and illegal acquisition of property.
Larger public cause should outweigh privacy interest:
Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that there is a distinction between information furnished to a competent authority for administrative, vigilance, regulatory, or service-related purposes and information which is liable to be disclosed to the public at large.
“While the petitioner may have remedies available under civil law, criminal law, or any other applicable statutory framework for establishing the alleged fraud and seeking appropriate reliefs, the provisions of the RTI Act cannot be employed as a mechanism for obtaining personal information otherwise protected under law merely for the purpose of advancing a private claim,” Justice Suraj Govindaraj said.
The court further said, “The right to privacy is now recognised as a constitutionally protected right. Clause (j) of Sub Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act represents a statutory manifestation of that protection in the context of access to information.
Therefore, before directing disclosure of personal information, the authority concerned must be satisfied that the public interest sought to be served is of such magnitude as to outweigh the privacy interests of the individual concerned. No such circumstances have been demonstrated in the present case.”