Issue warrant against G’gram DTP: Info panel

The Tribune: Gurugram: Tuesday, 29^th September 2026.
Haryana State Information Commissioner Arun Sangwan has ordered issuance of a bailable warrant against Gurugram District Town Planner (Enforcement) Ved Prakash Sehrawat for failing to furnish information under the RTI Act.

RTI activist Ramesh Yadav had filed a query on October 10, 2018, seeking information about plots in unauthorised colonies here and whether or not the DTP had taken action against developers.
The DTP, Yadav said, failed to respond to his query, followed which he appealed to the State Information Commission in March this year.
“The commission directed the SPIO-cum-DTP to facilitate inspection of documents (related to unauthorised colonies) on August 13, 2018, and to be present during the inspection. In exceptional circumstances that may force him to be absent on August 13, he may authorise some responsible officer to be present on his behalf. On the given day, neither the DTP turned up nor did he appoint someone on his behalf. Even on the next date of hearing on November 15, 2019, the DTP didn’t appear in the court of commission in Chandigarh,” reads the order.
On November 15, the State Information Commissioner directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Headquarters), Gurugram, to serve a bailable warrant under Section 18 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005, on DTP Sehrawat and send a report to the commission immediately.
Sehrawat has been issued a notice under Section 18 (3) of RTI Act.
The commission also directed the Director General, Town and Country Planning Department, to ask SPIO in his department to be present in its Chandigarh office with a reply to a show-cause notice and relevant documents on March 11, 2020.

What is meant by universal access to information?

Manorama Yearbook: Current-Affairs: Tuesday, 29^th September 2026.

• The United Nations observes the International Day for Universal Access to Information (IDUAI) on September 28.
• This year’s theme is: “Upholding Information Integrity in the Digital Age: The role of access to Information in addressing Information Disorder”.
  
• What is the significance of this theme?
• In a digital world overflowing with information, misinformation and disinformation, access alone is not enough. People also need timely, reliable information. 
• Timely and credible public information can strengthen trust, support informed decisions and help people participate meaningfully in society.
• The day explores how access to reliable official information, proactive disclosure, media and information literacy, credible data and digital technologies can contribute to a healthier information environment.

Universal access to information

• Informed citizens can make informed decisions, for instance, when going to the polls. 
• Only when citizens know how they are governed, can they hold their governments accountable for their decisions and actions. 
• Information is power. Therefore, universal access to information is a cornerstone of healthy and inclusive knowledge societies.
• Universal access to information means that everyone has the right to seek, receive and impart information. 
• This right is an integral part of the right to freedom of expression. 
• The media plays a crucial role in informing the public about issues of interest, but it relies on the ability to seek and receive information, too. 
• Hence, the right to universal access to information is also bound up with the right to freedom of the press.

The right to information

• The right to public information is a component of the fundamental right of freedom of expression as set forth by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and the subsequent International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). 
• The right to information is an umbrella term that refers to the legal right to access information held by public institutions. 
• It is often used in the same way as terms such as freedom of information. 
• The implementation of the right to information, refers to efforts to give practical effect to the provisions of the law, policy or regulation. 
• Implementation is important to ensure that the benefits of the law, policy or regulation are realised.

What is the RTI Act in India?

• The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is widely seen as one of India’s most powerful democratic reforms.
• The Constitution of India has enshrined the principles of democracy, by guaranteeing to its citizens certain Fundamental Rights. 
• Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, by implication, guarantee to the citizens of India the right to know everything done by public functionaries. 
• To set out a practical regime for securing information by citizens from the public authorities and to promote transparency and accountability in the working of all public authorities, the Parliament enacted the Right to Information Act in 2005.
• The Act is comprehensive and covers disclosure of information by public authorities on matters of governance. 
• It is applicable to government at all levels — Union, state and local and also to the bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by the government. 
• It covers legislative bodies, the judiciary, the executive and Constitutional bodies.
• The Act casts an obligation on public authorities for suo-motu disclosure/publication of information held by them. 
• It also requires the public authorities to supply information called for by any citizen and to permit him to inspect the documents and collect samples of various works. 
• It can be made in Hindi or English or in the official language of the area in which the application is made.
• The Act creates the machinery to ensure supply of information, which consists of Public Information Officers, Assistant Public Information Officers, Departmental Appellate Authorities, independent Central and State Information Commissions, etc.
• The Act requires information to be provided in a time bound manner. 
• A Public Information Officer is required to send information called for at the specified address within 30 days. 
• In case the information concerns the life or liberty of a person, it has to be provided within 48 hours. 
• The Act provides for imposition of a stringent penalty on the Public Information Officer, if the information is not provided within the prescribed period.
• Certain types of information pertaining to security of the country, scientific or economic interest of the country and information on trade secrets, etc are exempted from disclosure. 
• Certain security or intelligence organisations have been exempted from disclosing any information except that pertaining to allegation of corruption or violation of human rights. 
• Such organisations are required to designate Public Information Officers and First Appellate Authorities to deal with applications and appeals relating to information pertaining to corruption or violation of human rights.

RTI a powerful tool for citizens to monitor development works: M M Shuja

Greater Kashmir: Srinagar: Tuesday, 29^th September 2026.
Shuja asked people who were seeking information to utilise the information received under the RTI Act in public interest and welfare of people.

M.M. Shuja

On the RTI day M.M. Shuja, Prominent RTI Activist and Chairman of J&K Peoples Forum, said that RTI is not only the Act which provides citizens information, but it is a powerful instrument in the hands of people that can help them to play the role of watch dogs for developmental activities in their respective areas.
As per a statement issued, on the occasion of RTI Day, Shuja requested the administration to arrange workshops and seminars about the RTI Act for the new government officials as some officials in the administration may be ignorant of the Act and some may misinterpret the provisions of the Act in their replies to RTI Applications.
Shuja asked people who were seeking information to utilise the information received under the RTI Act in public interest and welfare of people.
He highlighted that citizens have the right to know about developmental activities, budgetary allocation, corruption, quality of public works and shortcomings in the infrastructure because transparency and accountability are necessary for the development of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

Light on truth: on the Tamil Nadu G.O. and RTI

The Hindu: Editorial: Tuesday, 29^th September 2026.
No government intent on working for the people should fear transparency

Protests by political parties and transparency activists have derailed the surreptitious rollout, in Tamil Nadu, of a regressive decision to exempt the Public (Law and Order) Department from the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005. On September 21, the State government issued a Government Order (G.O.) exercising powers under Section 24 (4) of the RTI Act to notify the department as an “intelligence and security organisation” to which the provisions of the Act shall not apply. While the G.O. surfaced in the public domain only on September 27, strikingly, the Public Department’s designated authorities under the RTI Act had instantly begun citing it to deny information to applicants as early as September 22. This betrayed a system that is shy of investing in transparency. Unsurprisingly, State Law Minister C.T.R. Nirmalkumar was initially defensive about the government’s unilateral decision, which, in any case, required the State to have it placed before the legislature (Section 24 (5), RTI Act). He claimed that the ambit of the exemption was not sweeping enough to shield the entire department, but was intended to prevent the sharing of sensitive information relating to district-level inquiries into incidents of communal clashes and the like. However, shortly thereafter, he announced the G.O.’s withdrawal, without explaining why.
While the State’s afterthought is welcome, the episode has again exposed the political class’s penchant for maintaining secrecy in administrative affairs. Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, whose promise of change came as a breath of fresh air, should have known better. It is concerning that the establishment desired to insulate itself from transparency by amending an Act which, in any case, emphatically enables non-disclosure of information through a long list of exemptions under Section 8. Even otherwise, designated information officers of central/State institutions have displayed an uncanny skill in being economical with the truth, delaying responses or bouncing off queries from RTI Act applicants, citing vague reasons. Besides, concerns about the Digital Personal Data Protection Act diluting the RTI Act further have been widely articulated. It is worrying that the Satrak Nagrik Sangathan’s 2024-25 report card on Information Commissions found a backlog of over 41,000 appeals and complaints before the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission (TNSIC), as of June last year. Yet, the TNSIC is functioning with only half of its sanctioned eight Information Commissioners and has no Chief Information Commissioner. Instead of seeking to defeat the intent of a piece of legislation enacted to empower citizens with access to information, the Tamil Nadu government would do well to strengthen the TNSIC. After all, only an administration that does not fear transparency can be the true harbinger of change.

RTI exists in law. Now it must work for citizens: Mahendra Man Gurung

Online Khabar: Nepal: Monday, 28 September 2026.

Photo by Andrea De Santis on Unsplash

Today should be an important day for ordinary citizens. The United Nations has recognised September 28 as the International Day for Universal Access to Information since 2019. In July 2011, the UN Human Rights Committee also confirmed that the right of access to information is an inherent part of freedom, placing an obligation on states both to respond to requests, with limited exceptions, and to proactively publish information of public interest.
The right to information (RTI) is therefore a foundation of democratic governance. It empowers citizens to hold governments accountable and participate meaningfully in decision-making. In Nepal, the right to information was recognised as a fundamental right in the 1990 Constitution and is guaranteed under Article 27 of the 2015 Constitution. The Right to Information Act, 2007 (2064 BS), and the Right to Information Regulations, 2008 (2065 BS), were enacted to operationalize this constitutional guarantee, while the National Information Commission (NIC) was established in 2008 as the primary regulatory and adjudicatory body.
Despite these progressive legal foundations, however, the gap between legal entitlement and practical exercise remains wide. Nepal has the laws and institutions needed to protect RTI, but the right has yet to become a routine part of citizens’ daily lives.
Nepal’s RTI architecture is robust on paper. Article 27 of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to seek and obtain information on matters of personal or public importance. The RTI Act, 2007, requires public bodies across all three tiers of government, as well as public institutions, political parties and certain non-governmental organizations, to respect this right and proactively disclose information. Section 4(1) requires public bodies to respect citizens’ right to information, while Section 3(2) requires every public body to appoint an Information Officer.
The NIC serves as the primary body responsible for protecting, promoting and implementing RTI. It hears appeals from citizens whose information requests have been denied and can issue binding orders requiring information to be disclosed. The RTI Implementation Monitoring Directive, 2015, further established monitoring mechanisms at the federal, provincial and district levels to support implementation nationwide.
Yet laws and institutions alone do not guarantee effective implementation. The NIC’s own Handbook for Information Seekers acknowledges that, despite more than a decade of constitutional and legal provisions, public awareness of the right to information remains inadequate.
The number of citizens actively exercising their RTI remains low. Awareness is not uniform across society, and many citizens, particularly those at the grassroots level, remain unaware of how RTI can be used to access information and hold public bodies accountable.
The NIC itself operates under significant constraints. Its limited budget restricts its ability to conduct promotional activities and fulfil its responsibilities across federal, provincial and local governments and other public bodies. Although the Commission has instructed public bodies to appoint Information Officers, compliance remains uneven.
Information classification is another concern. Government agencies have historically been reluctant to disclose information, sometimes citing its “classified” status without adequate justification. A culture of secrecy continues to persist in many public offices.
Perhaps the most deeply rooted challenge is a bureaucratic culture that treats information as a source of power to be guarded rather than a public good to be shared. The NIC itself has recognised that when officials responsible for upholding the Constitution and the law do not follow those same laws, citizens are less likely to do so either. Ensuring good governance, transparency and accountability therefore requires officials to understand the law and be willing to follow it.
This resistance can take many forms, including delays in responding to requests, unnecessary procedural requirements and, in some cases, intimidation of RTI activists and information seekers. Such intimidation can discourage civic participation and undermine the very purpose of the RTI law.
There are, however, encouraging signs. The NIC’s growing caseload suggests increasing public awareness and willingness to use the appeals mechanism. In fiscal year 2080/81, 1,265 appeals were filed, the highest number in the Commission’s history, before falling to 1,049 appeals in 2081/82, according to the NIC’s annual report. This represents a significant increase from just 12 appeals in the Commission’s first year. The Commission has disposed of more than 95 percent of appeals each year, demonstrating its commitment to timely adjudication. Notably, 72 percent of appeals originated at the local level, suggesting that citizens are increasingly using RTI to monitor local governance and development activities.
The NIC has also launched an RTI Management System to digitize and streamline the information request and appeal process. Such initiatives can make the system more accessible, but technology alone cannot bridge the gap between legal rights and their practical use.
The first priority must be greater citizen awareness. RTI needs to be brought into civic education at schools and universities, including practical guidance on filing information requests and appealing denials. Community radio and local media can also play a greater role, particularly in communities where access to official information remains limited. Civil society organizations such as Freedom Forum, Open Knowledge Nepal and Accountability Lab Nepal have demonstrated how RTI can support open budgets and local development monitoring. Their grassroots outreach should be expanded, particularly among women, Dalits and other marginalized communities where awareness remains low.
At the institutional level, the NIC needs adequate resources to fulfil its mandate. Public bodies should also be required to submit regular RTI compliance reports, with meaningful consequences for non-compliance. The appointment of Information Officers must be systematically monitored and enforced.
Protection for information seekers is equally important. Section 29 of the RTI Act provides protection for whistleblowers, but information seekers themselves can face intimidation. Such cases should be promptly investigated and those responsible held accountable. Citizens cannot meaningfully exercise a legal right if doing so exposes them to fear or retaliation.
Proactive disclosure should also become a much stronger part of government practice. The RTI Act already requires public bodies to publish certain categories of information without waiting for individual requests. This is one of the most effective ways to empower citizens because it reduces the need for formal applications and eases the burden on both information seekers and public bodies. Study and investigation reports of public interest should be routinely disclosed. It is particularly concerning when governments that come to power promising better governance withhold important investigation reports.
Ultimately, however, legal and institutional reforms will not be enough without a change in bureaucratic culture. The prevailing attitude that information is a privilege to be guarded must give way to a service-oriented understanding of information as a public right. Public officials, particularly office chiefs and Information Officers, should receive mandatory training on RTI and their constitutional obligations. The NIC’s handbooks for public bodies and information seekers provide useful resources that should be systematically incorporated into such training.
Political parties and their leaders at all levels must also demonstrate a visible commitment to RTI, including through parliamentary oversight of implementation. At the same time, public bodies that demonstrate exemplary transparency should be recognised and rewarded, creating positive incentives for others to follow.
The transformative potential of RTI is best demonstrated through concrete examples. Investigative journalists have used RTI to uncover irregularities in public bodies, while citizens at the local level have used it to monitor development and governance. These successes should be documented and shared more widely so that similar practices can be replicated elsewhere.
Nepal’s RTI legal framework provides a strong foundation for transparent and accountable governance. The constitutional guarantee, the comprehensive RTI Act and the establishment of the National Information Commission have created the necessary legal and institutional framework. The challenge now is implementation.
Bridging the gap will require sustained citizen awareness campaigns, stronger institutions, greater protection for information seekers and RTI activists, proactive disclosure and a fundamental shift from a culture of secrecy to one of transparency.
Empowering Nepali citizens through RTI is not merely a matter of legal compliance. It is a foundation for participatory democracy, good governance and inclusive development. The time to act is now, before the promise of the right to information remains confined to the pages of legislation instead of becoming a reality in the daily lives of Nepali citizens.

RTI violation lands TP official with Rs 25k penalty, inquiry

Times of India: Karnataka: Monday, 28 September 2026.

The Karnataka Information Commission has imposed a Rs 25,000 penalty on Gangavathi taluk panchayat assistant director Mahantagouda Patil for failing to furnish records sought under the RTI Act during his tenure as PDO. The records related to alleged irregularities in material expenditure, stock registers and MIS payments worth lakhs of rupees under MGNREGA works carried out in Bevinahal village during 2015-16 and 2017-18.
Applicants alleged that the records were not provided despite repeated requests. Patil, who was later promoted as assistant director, told the commission that he was not holding the post when the RTI applications were filed. State information commissioner B Venkat Singh rejected the contention and directed him to deposit the penalty amount in the govt account and submit proof.
The issue drew attention after a fire at the Bevinahal gram panchayat office on May 1, 2023. The current PDO submitted an affidavit to the commission stating that key records had been destroyed in the incident.
Applicant Chandanagouda alleged that the records were deliberately destroyed to conceal the alleged misuse of funds under the MGNREGA scheme and sought a high-level probe. He also alleged the involvement of several officials, including Patil.
Following the commission’s order, Koppal ZP CEO Varnit Negi said a departmental inquiry and disciplinary proceedings would be initiated against Patil to examine his role in the alleged withholding of public records.

Tamil Nadu govt rolls back law and order department’s RTI exemption amid backlash

Times of India: Tamilnadu: Monday, 28 September 2026.
The Tamil Nadu government on Sunday withdrew its notification exempting the Public (Law and Order) Department from the Right to Information Act, hours after issuing the Gazette notification that classified the department as an "Intelligence and Security Organisation".

The rollback came after the move drew criticism from political leaders, including Congress's Karti P Chidambaram and BJP's Tamilisai Soundararajan. The government, however, did not publicly cite a specific reason for issuing the exemption or explain why it was withdrawn. An official communication later confirmed that the order issued under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act had been rescinded, reported ANI.
What was the notification?
The original notification, issued by the Human Resources Management Department and published in the state Gazette, used the power available to state governments under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act. The provision allowed a state government to notify an organisation established by it as an intelligence or security organisation, thereby taking it outside the normal scope of the RTI Act.
Tamil Nadu's notification designated its Public (Law and Order) Department as such an organisation. Had it remained in force, routine RTI access to a broad range of records held by the department would have been restricted.
The records covered included information relating to communal and caste clashes, political agitations, police action and custody, deaths of prisoners, police firing, inquiries into law-and-order incidents and requests for withdrawal of cases arising from political or communal tensions.
The exemption was not absolute. Section 24 specifically preserves access to information relating to allegations of corruption and human-rights violations, subject to the procedure prescribed under the Act.
The notification itself invoked Section 24(4) and classified the department as an intelligence and security organisation. The government has not, in the material available publicly gave a detailed explanation for why the Public (Law and Order) Department was brought under this provision.
The department handles sensitive law-and-order and policing-related matters, which appears to be the basis on which the exemption was framed. But that is distinct from saying that the government officially justified the move on a particular security ground. The notification, as reported, simply exercised the statutory power under Section 24(4).
The backlash
The proposed exemption would have affected access to records concerning issues such as police firing, custodial deaths, torture, communal and caste clashes and politically sensitive cases, prompting criticism that the move could reduce transparency.
Karti Chidambaram initially criticised the decision, saying it "does not set a good precedent" and recalling that the RTI Act was enacted by the UPA government to strengthen democratic accountability.
"The Law-and-Order Department handles crucial matters such as examining inquiry reports on police firing, custodial deaths, torture, and deaths of remand prisoners, security-related detention cases, communal and caste clash reports, requests for withdrawal of politically sensitive cases and matters relating to sanction of prosecution for defamatory articles, news items, and speeches. This crucial information is now being shielded from the public. Such rollbacks are not in line with transparent governance. RTI must be expanded, not restricted," Chidambaram posted on X.
After the government withdrew the notification, he welcomed the decision, saying: "My unsolicited & friendly advice to the TVK Government & CMO Tamil Nadu — don't let bureaucrats set the tone, tenor & direction of the administration."
BJP's Tamilisai Soundararajan also criticised the original notification, saying: "So they are afraid of meeting the press, they are afraid of meeting the people, and they are afraid of the legal procedures. If you are free and fair, why are you afraid of RTI?" She called the move "undemocratic" and said it should be "highly condemned."
With the withdrawal of the notification, the Public (Law and Order) Department is no longer covered by the newly created exemption.
The RTI Act, 2005, establishes a legal framework for citizens to access information held by public authorities, subject to exemptions specified in the law.

AIIMS BSc Nursing draws 1.91 lakh applications, records over 1000% jump in 5 years.

Indianexpress: Niti Nigam: New Delhi: Sunday, September 27, 2026.

Allied healthcare includes a range of specialised undergraduate programmes, including medical laboratory technology, ophthalmic sciences, radiotherapy and perfusion technology.

Nearly 1.91 lakh candidates applied for the BSc (Hons) Nursing entrance examination conducted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) for the August 2026 session, while more than 1.17 lakh applications were received for BSc Allied & Healthcare Courses, according to information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The data was sought by 30-year-old Vipul Sharma, an allied healthcare professional working in laboratory healthcare at Lady Hardinge Medical College. According to the AIIMS RTI response, 1,90,740 applications were received for BSc (Hons) Nursing for the August 2026 session, compared with 1,17,033 applications for BSc Allied & Healthcare Courses.

Sharma said the figures point to the need for greater awareness about undergraduate healthcare careers beyond medicine and nursing.

“Not everyone knows about the multiple professions that cost less to study and can offer good career opportunities. These professions were earlier broadly referred to as paramedical professions, but are now recognised as allied healthcare,” Sharma said.

Allied healthcare includes a range of specialised undergraduate programmes, including medical laboratory technology, ophthalmic sciences, radiotherapy and perfusion technology. These professionals work across diagnostic, therapeutic and other specialised healthcare services.

Such programmes can also offer an alternative career pathway to students who aspire to become doctors but do not secure an MBBS seat. Around 22 lakh candidates appear for NEET-UG each year, while the number of MBBS seats is slightly above one lakh, leaving many students to explore other healthcare professions.

AIIMS offers nursing and allied healthcare programmes across its network, while institutions such as PGIMER Chandigarh also offer specialised allied healthcare courses.

Cost is another factor differentiating these programmes from conventional medical education. Government medical colleges and Institutes of National Importance such as AIIMS, PGIMER and JIPMER offer some allied healthcare programmes at relatively low fees. The fees at central institutions can range from around Rs 1,500 to Rs 15,000 for the programme, while courses in state-run medical colleges may cost around Rs 20,000 to Rs 60,000 a year.

Private universities and deemed institutions, however, can charge substantially more. Bachelor’s programmes such as physiotherapy, medical imaging technology and cardiac technology can cost between Rs 80,000 and Rs 3 lakh a year, depending on the institution and programme. Shorter, skill-focused vocational and state paramedical board diploma courses typically cost around Rs 20,000 to Rs 70,000 a year.

Sharma said nursing continues to have greater visibility among students, partly because of the clearer government recruitment pathway. The Nursing Officer Recruitment Common Eligibility Test (NORCET) and the government pay structure are among the factors that make nursing a more familiar option for students.

He also pointed to differences in work patterns. Allied healthcare professionals may work in specialised departments such as biochemistry and other laboratory services, where hospitals may operate services in shifts.

For students considering these programmes, Sharma said allied healthcare should not be viewed merely as a “Plan B” after NEET, but as a group of specialised healthcare professions in their own right.

Bombay High Court at Goa Allows Petition of Public Information Officer in RTI Case — Station Diary Entries Exempt Under Section 8(1)(h) of Right to Information Act. Disclosure of investigation-related information that would impede investigation or prosecution is exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.

Lawtext: Goa: Saturday, 26 September 2026.

Case Note & Summary: The case involves a challenge by the Petitioner, Shekhar Prabhudessai, Superintendent of Police (South) and Public Information Officer, against an order of the Goa State Information Commission (Respondent No.1) dated 16.08.2007. The Respondent No.2, Adv. S. S. Saudagar, had sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding further entries in the station diary in connection with Criminal Case No. 9/2005. The Petitioner refused the information citing exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which exempts disclosure of information that would impede the process of investigation or prosecution. The Respondent No.2 appealed to the First Appellate Authority, which rejected the appeal on 03.05.2007. A further appeal to the State Information Commission was partly allowed by the impugned order, directing the Petitioner to furnish the information. The Petitioner then filed the present writ petition. The High Court, after hearing the Additional Government Advocate for the Petitioner (Respondent No.2 was served but unrepresented), held that the information sought clearly falls within the exception under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, as disclosure would impede the investigation or prosecution. The court also noted that the information could be exempt under Section 8(1)(g) (information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship) but primarily relied on Section 8(1)(h). The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.

Maharashtra State Information Dept Mired In Delays As 80% Posts Remain Vacant Delaying Over 63,000 RTI Appeals Filed By Citizens

ETV Bharat: Mumbai: Saturday, 26 September 2026.
Second appeals have been kept on hold by the Maharashtra State Information Commission.

Citizens seeking detailed information on policies and government decisions under the Right To Information (RTI) Act have been waiting endlessly for replies, not realizing the department has currently been functioning on bare minimal staff. The RTI Act is crucial for ensuring transparency in government operations and administrative accountability.
However, it is currently mired in delays as 63,017 complaints are pending, and even second appeals have been kept on hold by the Maharashtra State Information Commission.
Anil Galgali, an RTI activist, said citizens are facing consequences since they are not able to access authentic information, which they require. "Citizens are empowered to seek information through the RTI, and various departments are expected to give them replies, which is currently in a limbo."
Galgali, 48,583 second appeals and 14,434 complaints are pending. Consequently, citizens seeking government information are forced to endure long waits first for the initial application and appeal, and subsequently for the Commission's verdict.
RTI and appeal procedures
The RTI Act empowers citizens to file applications to obtain various types of information. After replies to the requested information is not received on time or the replies are incomplete, they can file a first appeal. The applicant can also file a second appeal if the outcome remains unsatisfactory. They can appeal by filing a complaint with the State Information Commission (SIC).
However, this entire process is now prolonged because a vast number of cases remain pending after reaching the Commission. Second appeals constitute the largest share of the pending caseload, with 48,583 awaiting a decision. These cases have reached the Commission due to many reasons like non-receipt of requested information or dissatisfaction with the information provided.
A significant number of cases are pending across the state's various benches, including Nashik, Amravati, Pune, and Konkan, highlighting the mounting workload on the Commission.
In addition to second appeals, nearly 14,434 complaints are yet to be resolved, all of which adds to the struggle of citizens to seek adequate information even after their cases reach the Commission.
Heavy influx of applications
The SIC has been getting a heavy influx of appeals since the time RTI was introduced. Efforts are made to prioritise and separately scrutinise appeals of importance to the general public.
However, the sheer volume of appeals combined with a shortage of manpower makes it impossible to resolve all cases immediately. Raviraj Phalle, Secretary of the State Information Commission, stated, "Approximately half of the positions within the Commission are vacant, notably, nearly 80 percent of the posts in the Information Commissioner's office in Mumbai remain unfilled."
The Right to Information Act is a crucial legal right that empowers citizens to hold the administration accountable, but its effective implementation is a huge challenge. RTI activist Galgali feels authorities need to give priority to fill the vacant posts.
Galgali said, "I appeal to the State Information Commission and Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis to give this issue priority and give relief to citizens by filling the vacant posts."

CIC advises Centre to restart publishing paper-wise marks of candidates who clear UPSC exam: Prashant Jha

Bar and Bench: New Delhi: Friday, 25^th September 2026.
Publishing these details was in the interest of transparency and building faith in the UPSC, the CIC said.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has advised the Central government to reinstate the practice of publishing paper-wise marks of candidates who clear the Civil Services Examination (CSE). 
Information Commissioner Jaya Varma Sinha noted that the subject-wise marks of successful candidates were made public till 2018 but were discontinued without any policy decision on record. 
The Commission said that publishing these details was in the interest of transparency and building faith in the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), a constitutional body. 
“An advisory under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act is issued to the Respondent Public Authority DoPT to reinstate the practice of publication of detailed break-up marks obtained by recommended candidates in Civil Services (Mains) Examination. This advisory by the Commission to reinstate this practice is based on the reliance (and the fact) that the same was done prior 2018 and was discontinued without any policy decision on record,” the Commission said in its September 24 decision. 
The advisory was issued under Section 25(5) of the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). The provision empowers the CIC or State Information Commission to issue recommendations to public authorities if it is found that their practices do not conform to the “provisions or the spirit” of the RTI Act.  
The CIC’s decision came on an RTI appeal filed by Aniket Kumar Gupta, who had sought data for the previous 10 years, including marks secured by all recommended candidates in individual general studies papers, optional papers and the personality test. Gupta had pointed out that while paper-wise marks of recommended candidates were published until CSE 2017, such disclosure was discontinued from CSE 2018 onwards, with only aggregate marks being made available.
UPSC told the Commission that subject-wise marks were treated as personal information and were not disclosed publicly, although written examination totals, personality test marks and final totals of recommended candidates were published.
Meanwhile, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) claimed that disclosure of detailed marks could result in coaching institutes selectively projecting certain optional subjects as “high scoring” and commercially exploiting aspirants.
However, during the proceedings, DoPT admitted that it could not trace any file noting, office memorandum, policy decision or other record documenting the decision to discontinue publication of the detailed marks.
In its order, the CIC also noted contradictory positions taken by UPSC and DoPT regarding custody of the marks. While DoPT said detailed marks were prepared and maintained solely by UPSC, UPSC stated that such information was passed on to DoPT and the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration (LBSNAA) after declaration of results.
After considering the case, the CIC directed DoPT to provide the detailed marks for CSE 2018 to 2023 to Gupta within three weeks of receiving the order.
It also issued the advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act. 
[Read order]

Status of petitions given to CM’s cell, collectors should be revealed: Info commission

Times of India: Chennai: Friday, 25^th September 2026.
The Tamil Nadu information commissioner has reiterated that it is the right of the citizens to know the status of their petitions submitted to the chief minister’s cell, district collectorate at the weekly grievance meetings as well as the Jamabandhi under the RTI Act.

The commission has also said that Section 2(h) of RTI Act has clearly defined what public authority is and added that all govt offices coming under the purview of public authority are bound to provide what has been clearly described as information under Section 2(f) of the Act.
The observation was made by information commissioner VPR Ilamparithi while disposing of a complaint petition filed by R Gopinath, who said he was not satisfied with the reply provided by the public information officer of Tiruvannamalai district collectorate.
The original petition pertained to the action taken report and the current status of his pleas submitted before the district collector in the weekly grievance meeting in 2024. However, he received replies from PIO stating the status of petitions submitted before the CM’s cell, district collectors and jamabandhi cannot be sought under RTI. The PIO also cited information commission’s earlier orders in 2015 to deny information in the reply.
Against the reply, the petitioner filed a complaint before the commission and the same was taken up for hearing. In its order passed on Thursday, commissioner Ilamparithi condemned the PIO’s act of denying information and said that the information commission’s 2015 order was a non-speaking order and was specific to the petition.
The commission has also directed the chief educational officer of Tiruvannamalai district to conduct an awareness programme on RTI Act to all public information officer in the district and has sought explanation from the public information officer V Jayapaul why he should not be slapped with a fine of ₹25,000 and submit the same in person on Oct 14. The school education director has been directed to circulate the order to all chief educational officers of all districts.

What the National Sports Governance Act Means for the Board of Control for Cricket in India

Lexology: India: Friday, 25^th September 2026.

The Board of Control for Cricket in India (“BCCI”), a private society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, is among the most powerful sports governing bodies in the world. It controls India’s representation in international cricket, operates the commercially dominant Indian Premier League, domestic cricket in India and commands annual revenues exceeding those of many national sports federations combined.
The BCCI is neither created by statute nor sustained by government grants. While the BCCI does not receive any direct funding or financing by the Government of India or state governments, it does receive indirect public support, including by way of tax exemptions, concessional leases from the relevant state cricket associations and security deployments by government personnel.
This structural anomaly has generated two decades of litigation over whether the BCCI should be subject to public accountability norms, particularly the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”). This note examines whether the enactment of the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 (“NSG Act”) has advanced the debate, as was widely expected.
The BCCI’s Current Legal Position
The Supreme Court’s decision in Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India^[1] remains the foundational ruling on the BCCI’s constitutional status. In the context of a writ petition challenging the cancellation of television rights as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1949, as amended (the “Constitution”), the Supreme Court held that the BCCI is not “State” or “other authorities” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution as: (i) it was not created by statute, (ii) it was not financially dependent on the government, (iii) it was not subject to deep and pervasive State control and (iv) its monopoly over cricket was “de facto” rather than State-conferred or State-protected. The majority by 3:2 therefore held that the BCCI would not be subject to Article 12 of the Constitution and held that while writ jurisdiction under Article 32 would not be available, an aggrieved party could approach a High Court pursuant to Article 226 of the Constitution.
A decade later, in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar,^[2] the Supreme Court went further and observed that the BCCI performs “important public functions,” exercises monopolistic control over cricket in India, selects national teams and regulates player livelihoods. The Justice R.M. Lodha Committee, appointed pursuant to such decision, recommended sweeping governance reforms, treating the BCCI as a body exercising quasi-public authority.
Accordingly, the BCCI maintains a hybrid status that is private in registration, public in function and judicially accountable under Article 226 but not under Article 32.
RTI Act Applicability: The Pre-NSG Act Position
Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines “public authority” to include bodies and non-governmental organizations “owned, controlled or substantially financed” by funds provided by the appropriate government. The central question with respect to the BCCI has been whether the indirect public support (including tax exemptions, concessional leases from the relevant state cricket associations and security deployment of government personnel) constitutes “substantial financing.”
The Supreme Court’s decision in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala (“Thalappalam”)^[3] narrowed the “substantial financing” test, and held that regulatory benefits, tax exemptions and privileges do not amount to “substantial financing” unless the body depends on such support for its very existence or basic functioning.
The Law Commission of India, in its Report No. 275 (issued in 2018), analyzed the legal status of the BCCI, reviewed the findings in the Thalappalam case and documented tax exemptions amounting to INR 21.68 billion between 1997 and 2007, concessional stadium leases (including a Himachal Pradesh lease at INR 1 per month for 99 years), and regular state deployments of police and infrastructure for matches. The Law Commission noted that: (i) the BCCI is the entity permitted “de facto” by the State to represent the country at the international stage, with the BCCI selecting the Indian team and the players wearing the national colors; (ii) the International Cricket Council recognizes the BCCI as the ‘official’ body representing India; (iii) neither the Government nor the BCCI have challenged such status; (iv) the BCCI practically enjoys a monopolistic status in controlling and regulating the game of cricket in India and policy formulation related to cricket and its implementation, which is effectively a state function; (v) the BCCI and its actions directly and indirectly affect the fundamental rights of citizens, players and other functionaries. Noting that this bears a striking resemblance to a ‘State-like’ entity wielding ‘State-like’ powers, it recommended that the BCCI and similarly situated state cricket associations be brought within the ambit of the RTI Act.
Subsequently, the Central Information Commission (“CIC”), in its May 2026 order in Geeta Rani v. Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports and BCCI,^[4] applied Thalappalam to hold that the BCCI is not a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The CIC reasoned that the BCCI is financially self-sustaining through media rights, sponsorship, broadcasting and ticketing revenues, and that indirect benefits such as tax concessions do not cross the Thalappalam threshold. Accordingly, the 2026 CIC order effectively closed the administrative route to RTI Act coverage, subject to legislative intervention or a subsequent contrary decision.
The NSG Act Framework
The NSG Act, of which certain provisions came into effect on January 1, 2026, introduces a broader governance architecture for national sports bodies. Its preamble recognizes that such bodies “discharge important public functions” and should manage affairs “in an open, fair and transparent manner in the public interest.” It establishes a National Sports Board empowered to grant “Board recognition” to sports organizations. Bodies previously recognized by the Central Government are deemed recognized under the new regime.
Governance obligations
Recognized sports bodies must comply with several accountability requirements under the NSG Act including mandatory publication of annual audited accounts, a Code of Ethics, a Safe Sports Policy and internal grievance redressal mechanisms. The National Sports Board established under the NSG Act may inquire into complaints concerning welfare of sportspersons or misuse of public funds and may suspend or cancel recognition for non-compliance. A National Sports Tribunal, with civil court powers, provides an adjudicatory backstop.
The limited RTI Act trigger under Section 14(2) of the NSG Act
Section 14(1) of the NSG Act provides that only a recognized sports organization is eligible to receive grants or other financial assistance from the Central Government. Section 14(2) of the NSG Act provides that a recognized sports organization “receiving grants or any other financial assistance” from the Central or State Government “shall be considered as a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, with respect to utilization of such grants or any other financial assistance.”
Two features of this provision are significant. First, the RTI Act obligation is triggered only by actual receipt of government grants or financial assistance, rather than recognition alone or the performance of public functions. Second, even where triggered, the scope of disclosure is confined to “utilization of such grants or any other financial assistance”, and not the body’s operations generally.
For a body like the BCCI, assuming it is considered as “previously recognized by the Central Government”, if it does not receive direct government grants, Section 14(2) of the NSG Act may be inapplicable.
Interlocking legislations
The harmonious interpretation of the RTI Act and the NSG Act together would be that Section 14(2) of the NSG Act is a deeming provision. Where a recognized sports organization receives government grants or financial assistance, the NSG Act dispenses with the RTI Act’s Section 2(h) inquiry and deems the body to be a public authority, but only for utilization of that assistance. Where such assistance is absent, Section 14(2) does not answer the broader RTI Act question of whether the body may independently satisfy the “owned, controlled or substantially financed” test.
This distinction matters because the NSG Act gives recognized sports bodies a public-law character independent of funding. Recognition is the gateway to participation in the statutory sports-governance structure; the National Sports Board can grant, suspend or cancel recognition, maintain registers of national sports bodies and affiliates, issue ethics and safe-sport frameworks and route disputes to a tribunal with civil court powers. The Act also regulates the use of the words “India”, “Indian” and “National”, and the national insignia or symbols in sporting affairs. These provisions connect recognition with public representation, not merely with government funding.
The object of the NSG Act is transparency and accountability in the management of sports; the object of the RTI Act is disclosure by public authorities.
Evidently, Section 14(2) of the NSG Act uses financial dependence as a proxy for public accountability even though the Act elsewhere treats public function, recognition and national representation as the central regulatory concerns. It is noteworthy that earlier drafts of the NSG Act treated all recognized sports organizations as public authorities; the enacted text limits the RTI Act to recognized organizations that receive government or State financial assistance, and only for the use of that assistance.
Indirect Support and the Limits of the Funding Trigger
The BCCI’s relationship with the State has not been one of direct fiscal dependency but of extensive indirect facilitation. The principal forms of indirect public support are well documented:
Tax exemptions
The BCCI historically has benefited from income tax exemptions under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the basis of its registration as a charitable trust promoting sports. The Law Commission calculated that the cumulative revenue foregone by the exchequer between 1997 and 2007 exceeded INR 21.68 billion. While the BCCI’s current tax status has been subject to reassessment, the magnitude of historical tax exemptions illustrates the scale of indirect state support.
Concessional leases and public infrastructure
The BCCI’s state associations operate from stadiums built on government land or leased to such associations at nominal rates. State police forces are routinely deployed for crowd management and security at matches, typically without full cost recovery. These are quantifiable public resource transfers that benefit the BCCI’s commercial operations.
Broadcasting and regulatory facilitation
The Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007 and the framework established in Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal^[5] treat cricket broadcasting as implicating the public’s right to access information via airwaves, which are public property. The BCCI’s media-rights ecosystem is sustained, in part, by a regulatory environment that validates the public-interest character of cricket viewing.
Competition considerations
The Competition Commission of India has found the BCCI dominant in the relevant market for organization of professional domestic cricket leagues in India, citing market share, economic power, consumer dependence and entry barriers.^[6] The BCCI’s exclusive authority to select teams representing India in international competitions is a function that, for virtually every other sport, is performed by a body receiving government grants and subject to full RTI Act coverage.
None of these forms of support constitutes a “grant” within the ordinary meaning of Section 14(2) of the NSG Act. Accordingly, while linking RTI to direct financial assistance the NSG Act has created a framework that recognizes public function in its preamble but does not draw the consequence in its operative provisions, at least for self-funded bodies.
Practical Implications and Conclusion
The NSG Act represents a meaningful advance in the sports governance architecture. It could operate independently of the RTI Act and address some of the governance deficits identified by the Lodha Committee. However, it does not resolve the RTI question for self-funded bodies or indirectly funded bodies such as the BCCI. Section 14(2) of the NSG Act creates only a conditional and narrow disclosure pathway. The Central Government’s power under Section 34 of the NSG Act to exempt specific sports bodies from the Act’s provisions introduces a further variable. The result is that the “accountability gap” identified by the Law Commission.
The practical question is whether a body that selects India’s teams, controls participation in the country’s most commercially significant sport, and benefits from public infrastructure should be outside the framework of RTI scrutiny solely because that support is not recorded as a government grant (particularly where there are indirect benefits accorded to such body). The authors submit that a workable framework should preserve the BCCI’s operational autonomy while attaching targeted disclosure obligations to public-resource use, national representation and recognized sports-governance status. Until that distinction is made express, the NSG Act regulates the ecosystem around the BCCI, but does not fully answer the public-accountability question with respect to it.

RTI right statutory, but doesn’t permit repetitive proceedings: Haryana Panel

Times of India: Haryana: Thursday, 24^th September 2026.
The Haryana State Information Commission has ruled that the Right to Information Act cannot be used to file multiple applications or complaints on the same issue.

“The right to seek information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 is a statutory right but the same cannot be construed as conferring an unrestricted right to institute repetitive proceedings on an identical cause of action,” state information commissioner Ajay Sura observed in detailed orders released this week.
“The RTI Act has to be implemented in a manner that advances transparency and accountability while ensuring that the limited administrative resources of public authorities and adjudicatory bodies are utilised efficiently,” he said.
The observation came in a complaint filed by Palwal resident Sharwan Kumar against the SPIO-cum-district education officer (DEO), Palwal. His RTI application was filed on Aug 24. During the hearing, the SPIO pointed out that the same application had already resulted in complaints in two other matters before the commission and that the application was identical, word for word, to the earlier one.
The commission was also informed that 36 cases filed by Kumar against the education authorities concerned were pending before it and that he had filed 130-150 RTI applications before the offices of the district elementary education officer (DEEO), DEO, block education officer and district project coordinator (DPC) in Palwal.
The commission has now directed Kumar to furnish an affidavit in respect of each RTI case already filed before it and any future complaint or appeal, affirming that he had not filed another complaint or appeal concerning the same RTI application and subject matter.
He was also directed to furnish similar affidavits before the DEO, DEEO, BEO and DPC, Palwal, in respect of his pending RTI applications, affirming that he had not filed multiple applications concerning the same or substantially identical subject matter.
Henceforth, every RTI application submitted by Kumar before these authorities must also be accompanied by an affidavit affirming that he had not already filed an RTI application concerning the same or substantially identical subject matter.
The commission noted that complaints concerning the same RTI application had been instituted more than once. When questioned about the multiple complaints, Kumar did not furnish a satisfactory explanation, except stating that if one complaint had already been decided, the others could also be decided accordingly.
The commission referred to earlier judicial pronouncements concerning repetitive and vexatious use of the RTI mechanism, reiterating that the legal right to information should not be abused. It also observed that a public authority cannot be disproportionately overloaded with complaints and RTI applications to the extent that providing information consumes the majority of its time and resources.