Delhi HC pulls up MCD for not publishing civic records after 20 years of RTI, says it is ‘no exception’ : Akshat Jain

The Print: New Delhi: Tuesday, 10^th February 2026.
Court directs civic body to file affidavit on compliance steps; civic body had claimed Section 86 of DMC Act governs circulation, not RTI law.

The Delhi High Court last week pulled up the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for failing to publish key civic records on its website even 20 years after the Right to Information (RTI) Act came into force.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that the civic body has not fulfilled its statutory disclosure obligations despite the law being enforced in October 2005.
The observations were made while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) by the Centre for Youth Culture, Law and Environment, a Delhi-based NGO, which had sought directions to upload legislative records, house proceedings, and resolutions passed by standing committees dating to 1957.
“Accordingly, prima facie, it is apparent that the statutory mandate and the duty casts on the MCD by Section 4 of the RTI Act has yet not been fully followed even after lapse of twenty years since the RTI Act was enforced.” the court noted.
The bench directed the MCD to file a detailed affidavit within four weeks, explaining what steps it has taken to meet its disclosure obligations under the RTI Act by publication. It also directed the civic body to file a para-wise reply to the claims made in the petition.
The order is based on Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005, which mandates “suo-moto” or proactive disclosure of information by all public authorities. Section 4(1)(b) obligates every public authority to publish specified categories of information, and Section 4(2) provides that every authority must make constant endeavour to provide information at regular intervals.
As the bench noted, the intent of Parliament was that information be placed in the public domain so that citizens have “minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act for the purpose of obtaining information.”
The MCD relied on Section 86 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, arguing that it governs circulation and inspection of resolutions and minutes.
But the Bench said that disclosure of minutes was squarely covered within the RTI Act, while the DMC Act merely prescribed internal circulation among specified office-holders such as MLAs and chairpersons of committees.
“Section 86 of the DMC Act in our opinion has nothing to do with dissemination of information and particulars to (the) public, as is the mandated under… RTI Act,” the court observed.
Addressing the argument that resolutions and minutes need not be published, the court extracted Section 4(1)(b)(viii), which specifically requires the publication of statements regarding boards, councils, and committees, and whether their meetings or minutes are accessible to the public.
“Thus, public bodies, including the MCD, is (are) under statutory mandate to publish the information in terms of requirement of Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act,” it said, adding: “No exception in this regard can be granted to any public authority, including the MCD.”
The petition arose from RTI replies issued by the MCD in September 2025, where the civic body claimed there are no rules or guidelines for publication of such material on its website. “There is (are) no rules and guidelines that govern the publication of resolutions passed by MCD on its official websites. The same is govern(ed) by as per the provision of Section 86 of DMC Act, 1957,” the MCD had said.
Even on appeal, the first appellate authority reiterated this position.
The matter has been scheduled for further hearing in April.
(Edited by Prerna Madan)

The Right to Information Law in Ghana: A Triumph of Legislative Intent; Tragedy of Implementation - By Hardi Shahadu

Modern Ghana: Ghana: Tuesday, 10^th February 2026.
The passage of Ghana's Right to Information (RTI) Act in 2019 was hailed as a watershed moment in the nation's democratic evolution. After nearly two decades of advocacy, Act 989 finally inscribed into law the citizen's right to access information held by public institutions. Yet seven years after its passage and nearly five years since the establishment of the Right to Information Commission in 2020, Ghana's RTI regime has devolved from legislative triumph to operational tragedy.
The Long March to Legislative Victory

The campaign for RTI legislation began in earnest in the early 2000s, driven by media practitioners, civil society organizations, and academics who recognized that Ghana's democratic architecture remained incomplete without robust information access. The argument was both philosophical and practical: democracy thrives not merely on periodic elections but on an informed citizenry capable of holding power to account between electoral cycles.The global context reinforced this imperative.By the time Ghana's RTI Act passed, over 120 countries had enacted similar legislation, aligning with international instruments from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
The Act's provisions were comprehensive and forward-thinking. It established the presumption that all information held by public institutions is accessible unless specifically exempted. It created mechanisms for appeals and review. Most importantly, it established an independent commission with the mandate to oversee implementation, receive complaints, and ensure compliance. On paper, Ghana had crafted one of the most progressive information access frameworks in Africa.
The Phantom Commission: Inaccessibility As Institutional Culture
The Right to Information Commission, despite being fully resourced with an Executive Secretary (Mrs. Genevieve Shirley Larty), seven Board Members, and seven Senior Management Staff, has achieved the remarkable feat of becoming itself a fortress of inaccessibility in the domain of information access.
Of the three contact telephone numbers on the Commission's website (+233 302 788 353; +233 302 788 410; +233 302 788 412), only one functions. The other two are declared "invalid" by the telecommunications network. The functional number, when dialed repeatedly over seven days in January 2026, morning and afternoon, elicited nothing but silence no automated response, no voicemail, no human voice.
8th of January 2026. Weeks later, my inquiry remains unanswered. Worse still, there is not a single direct official contact for any of the seven senior management staff no direct email addresses, no official phone contacts. The Commission's website displays their names and titles with bureaucratic pride, but conspicuously omits the means by which they can be reached directly. This paradox visibility without accessibility epitomizes the Commission's approach to transparency: performative rather than substantive.
More troubling is the Commission's failure to fulfill its core statutory function. When I copied the Commission (rticommission@rti.gov.gh) on an email requesting an internal review of an RTI request to a public institution, the response was deafening silence. No acknowledgment of receipt. No follow-up after the statutory review period elapsed. No intervention when the institution failed to provide the requested information.
It was only on the 9th of February 2026, after more than a month of persistent attempts, that I finally connected with a staff member who promised to "get back to me with feedback on my email." The officer did indeed follow up—only to reveal that the boss was unable to trace the email I had sent on the 7th of January and  requested that I resend the information. That an institution mandated to ensure information accessibility cannot maintain basic email records speaks volumes about operational dysfunction.
The Paradox of Institutional Irresponsiveness
How does an institution created to enhance governmental transparency become itself opaque? The answers lie at the intersection of political economy, organizational culture, and Ghanaian public sector pathologies.
First, there is institutional design without accountability. The RTI Commission enjoys significant autonomy but operates with minimal oversight. While independence from  political interference is essential, it creates conditions for institutional inertia when not balanced with robust accountability mechanisms. Who monitors the monitor?
Who ensures that the guardians of transparency are themselves transparent?
Second, the Commission's failure reflects a broader crisis in Ghana's public service ethos. Recruitment and retention systems often prioritize credentials over commitment, connection over competence. The result is a cadre of officials who view public service positions as sinecures rather than responsibilities, as sources of "fat salaries" rather than platforms for meaningful service. President John Dramani Mahama's "reset agenda" must, if it is to have any substance, fundamentally reset this mindset.
Third, there is the familiar African paradox of "laws without enforcement." As the Kenyan scholar Peter Anyang' Nyong'o has argued, Africa is not suffering from a deficit of laws but from a surfeit of unenforced legislation. Ghana's statute books are replete with progressive laws that exist more in theory than in practice. The RTI Act has joined this melancholy catalogue of good intentions poorly executed.
The Cost of Institutional Failure & Path to Redemption
When the institution created to democratize access to information becomes inaccessible, it delegitimizes the entire RTI framework. Citizens lose faith not merely in the Commission but in the law itself. Public institutions, observing the Commission's ineffectiveness, feel emboldened to ignore RTI requests with impunity.
Access to information is instrumental to virtually every democratic function investigative journalism, civil society advocacy, electoral accountability, academic research. When the RTI regime collapses, it creates a ripple effect across Ghana's civic ecosystem.
The current state of affairs is untenable, but it is not irredeemable. Several interventions, if pursued with political will and bureaucratic seriousness, could salvage the RTI regime from its current trajectory toward irrelevance.
First, there must be immediate and comprehensive restructuring of the Commission. This should begin with a candid performance audit examining why basic functions answering phones, responding to emails, processing complaints are not being executed. Are there capacity constraints? Is there a shortage of personnel? Or is there, more troublingly, a culture of indifference that no amount of additional resources will remedy?
Second, the Commission's governance structure requires strengthening. The Board must be empowered and incentivized to exercise active oversight rather than serve as a decorative appendage. Regular performance reporting to Parliament with consequences for persistent underperformance should be instituted. The Executive Secretary should be subject to periodic performance reviews that assess not merely administrative outputs but actual impact on information accessibility.
Third, there must be investment in technological infrastructure that reduces reliance on human responsiveness for basic functions. Automated acknowledgment systems for requests, online tracking mechanisms, and digital complaint management systems are not expensive innovations; they are basic features of modern public administration. Their absence in the RTI Commission in 2026 is inexcusable.
Fourth, there should be meaningful civil society engagement in monitoring the Commission's performance. Organizations like the Media Foundation for West Africa, the Centre for Democratic Development, and the Ghana Integrity Initiative should be formally incorporated into oversight mechanisms, providing both external accountability and technical support.
Finally, there must be a cultural transformation within the Commission itself. This cannot be achieved through circulars or directives alone but requires leadership that understands public service as vocation rather than employment, as accountability rather than privilege. President Mahama's government must demonstrate that the "reset" is not merely rhetorical but substantive, beginning with institutions like the RTI Commission that embody the state's relationship with its citizens.
Conclusion: The Imperative of Implementation
Ghana's RTI Act represents one of the country's most significant legislative achievements of the 21st century. It embodies the aspirations of a society committed to transparency, accountability, and participatory governance. But laws, as the American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. reminded us, are not mathematical theorems; they are social instruments whose value lies entirely in their implementation.
The current state of the RTI Commission is not merely an administrative failure; it is a betrayal of the citizens who campaigned for this law, the legislators who crafted it, and the democratic ideals it was meant to advance. If an institution created to facilitate access to information is itself inaccessible, if a body tasked with promoting transparency operates opaquely, then the very foundation of the RTI regime is compromised.
As Ghana navigates the complexities of democratic consolidation in an era of global uncertainty, the effectiveness of its transparency mechanisms will prove crucial. The choice before the government is stark: either invest genuine political capital in making the RTI Commission functional and responsive, or accept that Ghana's celebrated democratic credentials are more performative than substantive.
If the Commission established to ensure access to information by Ghanaians from public institutions becomes itself inaccessible, what is the value or significance of the passing of the RTI law, establishment of the Commission, and payment of substantial salaries to an executive secretary, senior management, and allowances to board members?
The reset that President Mahama promises must begin here, with the unglamorous but essential work of making public institutions actually serve the public. President Mahama's reset agenda should actually reset the mindsets of public workers who think the public service is just a conduit to draw fat salaries but not to act responsively in the service of the public. The Right to Information Act can still fulfill its transformative promise but only if the Commission charged with its implementation is itself transformed from an institutional nightmare into a functional
guardian of Ghana's democratic aspirations.
The question is not whether Ghana needs new laws but whether it possesses the political will to make existing laws work. The answer will be written not in legislative chambers but in the responsiveness of institutions like the RTI Commission to the citizens they were created to serve.
By Hardi Shahadu
The Author is a Lecturer in the Faculty of Communication and Media Studies at the University for Development Studies. His research interest include Communication & Governance, Institutional & Civic Accountability, Monitoring, Evaluation & Institutional Learning, Institutional Vulnerability & Resiliency.

Compassionate appointments are exceptions, not a right: CIC warning

Mathrubhumi: New Delhi: Tuesday, 10^th February 2026.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has flagged serious transparency gaps in the way compassionate appointments are managed in government departments.

In a recent order involving the Central GST and Central Excise Department in Lucknow, the Commission directed officials to share the records of the departmental screening committee (DSC), warning that keeping these decisions secret undermines public trust.
Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari pointed out that when a department admits a case was reviewed by a DSC, all related documents including meeting minutes and merit lists fall under the RTI Act. Simply telling an applicant that their case was considered but not approved is not enough to meet transparency standards.
Compassionate appointments, meant to provide immediate support to families of deceased employees, are supposed to be an exception to normal recruitment rules. However, unclear criteria, inconsistent evaluations, and limited disclosure have made them a source of disputes and repeated RTI requests.
The CIC stressed that even appointments offered as exceptions must be transparent. Departments cannot hide behind the compassionate nature of the job to avoid scrutiny, especially when courts have upheld disclosure of merit lists in competitive exams.
The Commission has ordered the Lucknow department to provide certified copies of DSC meeting minutes and the merit list related to the applicant’s case within three weeks. Tiwari also urged all departments to review and standardise their policies, citing Himachal Pradesh’s point-based system as a model that balances fairness, compassion, and administrative discipline.
Clear rules and proactive disclosure, the CIC said, would reduce grievances, minimise discretionary decision-making, and make compassionate appointments more transparent and trustworthy for those who depend on them.

Uttar Pradesh schoolboy gets answer sheets through RTI Act after 9 months' struggle

Udayavani: Lucknow: Tuesday, 10^th February 2026.
Dubey first submitted an application to the Public Information Officer, Secondary Education Council, Uttar Pradesh, on May 24, 2025, requesting certified photocopies of the evaluated answer sheets for Hindi, English, Mathematics, Science, Social Science, and Drawing.

A 15-year-old class 11 student was handed photocopies of his class 10 answer sheets by the education department after nine months struggle waged through the Right to Information Act.
State Information Commissioner Mohammad Nadeem, in his order, warned the public information commissioner (PIO) of punitive action under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.
In his February 4 order, Nadeem suggested a censure to the PIO's conduct "as a constant reminder and prevent the repetition of such irresponsible behaviour towards any other student in the future." Jhansi resident Shashi Shekhar Dubey passed his class 10 exam from the UP Board in 2025. He scored 100 out of 100 in Mathematics, 92 in Hindi, 90 in Science, 87 in Social Science, 84 in Drawing, and 73 in English.
He felt that he should have got higher marks in subjects other than Mathematics and filed an RTI application seeking copies of his answer sheets.
Dubey first submitted an application to the Public Information Officer, Secondary Education Council, Uttar Pradesh, on May 24, 2025, requesting certified photocopies of the evaluated answer sheets for Hindi, English, Mathematics, Science, Social Science, and Drawing.
When he did not get the copies within the stipulated time, he filed a first appeal on June 24, 2025, and subsequently, a second appeal before the state information commission.
The latest appeal was heard by a bench headed by Information Commissioner Mohammad Nadeem on three different dates.
The PIO informed the commission through written submissions dated September 18 and November 13 that the appellant was sent a letter on July 26 and summoned to the Board office on August 22 to review the answer sheets, but he did not appear.
Dubey told the commission that the UP Board was misrepresenting facts and that he was being called to review the answer sheets only to avoid providing him with the evaluated answer sheets.
He also stated that the Board was falsely claiming that there was no rule to provide copies of the answer sheets, and that only review was permitted.
On the December 4 hearing, the officer representing the UP Board, Principal Assistant ('pradhan sahayak') Manoj Kumar, stated that the provision for providing evaluated answer sheets existed earlier, but not anymore.
Nadeem directed the PIO to submit a copy of any such new rule at the next hearing, failing which punitive action would be considered.
On February 2, 2026, the PIO regretted the delay and submitted a written statement informing that certified copies of the evaluated answer sheets for all six subjects had been provided to the appellant.
Dubey assessed his copies and demanded a revaluation.
But the bench wrote that directing the revaluation of answer sheets or increasing marks does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Information Commission and suggested pursuing other legal remedies.
"The Commission deems it necessary to record that the conduct of the Secondary Education Council, Uttar Pradesh, in this case, was not only evasive but also demonstrated gross insensitivity towards a minor and meritorious student," Nadeem wrote.
He said that contradictory and confusing answers, such as "there is no rule to provide them," and "scrutiny is underway," were completely contrary to the spirit of the Right to Information Act.

Exclusive | No questions on PM CARES, relief and defence funds: PMO tells LS Secretariat, cites rules - Written by: Asad Rehman

The Indian Express: Article: Monday, 9^th February 2026.
The reasoning given by the PMO was that the corpus of these funds is constituted entirely with voluntary public contribution and not from any allocation out of the Consolidated Fund of India.

THE PRIME Minister’s Office (PMO) has told the Lok Sabha Secretariat that Parliament questions and matters related to PM CARES Fund, the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF) and the National Defence Fund (NDF) are not admissible under rules related to the conduct of business in Lok Sabha, The Indian Express has learnt.
It is learnt that on January 30, the PMO told the Lok Sabha Secretariat that questions and matters related to the three funds are not permissible under Rule 41(2) (viii) and 41(2)(xvii) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha.
Under the stipulated conditions that govern the right to ask questions in the Lok Sabha, Rule 41(2) (viii) states that “it shall not relate to a matter which is not primarily the concern of the Government of India”. Rule 41(2) (xvii) states “it shall not raise matters that are under the control of bodies or persons not primarily responsible to the Government of India”.
The reasoning for questions and matters not being admissible in Lok Sabha given by the PMO, it is learnt, was that the corpus of these funds is constituted entirely with voluntary public contribution and not from any allocation out of the Consolidated Fund of India.
The PMO told the Lok Sabha Secretariat that in case a situation arises to determine the admissibility of a question or notice of zero hour or special mention seeking information on the three funds arises, the conditions in the provisions may be exercised, it is learnt.
The PMO did not respond to an emailed query from The Indian Express on its communication with the Lok Sabha Secretariat in this regard. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Joint Secretary, Lok Sabha Secretariat (Media & Public Relations Branch), did not respond to requests for comment from The Indian Express.
When PM CARES was set up
The PM CARES fund was set up on March 27, 2020, following the Covid outbreak. “Keeping in mind the need for having a dedicated fund with the primary objective of dealing with any kind of emergency or distress situation, like posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and to provide relief to the affected, a public charitable trust under the name of ‘Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund (PM CARES Fund)’ has been set up,” the official website of PM CARES fund states.
The fund was registered as a Public Charitable Trust and its trust deed has been registered under the Registration Act, 1908, at New Delhi on March 27, 2020.
As per the PM CARES Fund receipts and payment account report for 2022-23, which is the last published on its official website, the total balance at the end of March 2023 stood at Rs 6,283.7 crore.
In January 2023, the Centre had informed the Delhi High Court that PM CARES Fund has been set up as a public charitable trust and is not created under the Constitution or any law made by the Parliament or the state. The Centre had made the submission during the hearing of a plea seeking to declare the fund a “state” under Article 12 of the Constitution to ensure transparency in its functioning.
The Centre in its affidavit had said that the trust is “neither intended to be or in fact owned or controlled” by any government or any instrumentality of the government and the composition of the board of trustees consisting of holders of public office is merely for administrative convenience.
The affidavit also stated that since it is not constituted under law or the Constitution, PMCARES does not constitute a public authority under the provisions of the RTI Act.
On August 18, 2020, the Supreme Court had “refused” to order transfer of funds from the PM CARES Fund to the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF), saying they “are two entirely different funds with different object and purpose” and “there is no occasion” for such a direction.
The apex court had also said guidelines specifically provide for audit of the NDRF by the Comptroller & Auditor General of India, but PM CARES Fund is a public charitable trust due to which “there is no occasion” for such an audit.
Dismissing a writ petition filed by the NGO, Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), the court had said: “The funds collected in the PM CARES Fund are entirely different funds which are funds of a public charitable trust and there is no occasion for issuing any direction to transfer the said funds to the NDRF”.
In December 2020, The Indian Express had reported, based on RTI records, that apart from over Rs 2,400 crore in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funds, over 100 PSUs from across sectors together contributed nearly Rs 155 crore from staff salaries to the PM CARES fund.
The PMNRF was established in January 1948 with public contributions to assist displaced persons from Pakistan. Its resources are now utilised primarily to render immediate relief to families of those killed in natural calamities like floods, cyclones and earthquakes, etc., and to the victims of major accidents and riots.
The NDF is used for the welfare of members of the Armed Forces, including paramilitary forces, and their dependents. The fund is administered by an Executive Committee, with the PM as Chairperson, and Defence, Finance and Home Ministers as Members, according to its official website.

98% of online RTI pleas pending in T, reveals data

Times of India: Hyderabad: Monday, 9^th February 2026.
A backlog in the processing of Right to Information (RTI) requests has surfaced as a major transparency concern in Telangana, with official data revealing that nearly 98% of RTI applications filed through the state's online portal over the past three years remain unresolved, raising serious questions about access to information and administrative accountability.

Information obtained under the RTI Act by B Vinod Reddy, an RTI activist, from the information technology, electronics and communications (ITE&C) department shows that 17,865 RTI applications were filed online between Dec 2022 and Dec 2025, of which only 377 were disposed of. The backlog is even more stark at the appellate stage: 2,502 first appeals were filed during this period, with not a single case disposed of, indicating a systemic logjam rather than routine delay.
The Telangana RTI online portal was launched on Dec 15, 2022, in compliance with binding directions of the Supreme Court in Pravasi legal cell versus Union of India, which mandated all states and Union Territories to operationalise online RTI mechanisms. While the portal is technically in place, the data shows that pendency has steadily accumulated with negligible clearance.
Poor participation
One of the principal reasons appears to be poor participation by public authorities. Of the 3,323 public authorities onboarded onto the portal, only 17 are actively using it to dispose of RTI applications, translating into a non-usage rate of nearly 99.5%. As a result, both applications and first appeals have effectively stalled within the digital system.
The issue has also drawn attention to the functioning of the Telangana Information Commission (TGIC), the statutory body tasked with enforcing the RTI Act. Citizens have flagged delays in hearings, insistence on physical submissions in several cases, and slow delivery of orders, all of which contribute to overall pendency.
Responding to concerns over the backlog, state chief information commissioner G Chandrashekar Reddy told TOI that the commission had made substantial progress over the last seven months and significantly reduced legacy pendency. "This is our progress in the last seven months. We are far ahead of many states with the least pendency," he said.
According to Reddy, the commission is now up to date in 15 of the state's 30 departments and 15 of its 33 districts. He said statutory audits, pending since the formation of Telangana, have been completed up to March 2025, and annual RTI reports have been submitted to the legislature up to 2024. He also said that Telangana is the first state to institute RTI awards to motivate public authorities.
‘Info flow for all'
"When we joined, cases were pending from 2013 onwards. We ensured information in all those cases. Now, cases are pending from 2021 onwards, which we are confident of bringing to 2025 by March," he said, adding that this progress was achieved despite prolonged vacancies in the commission in previous years. "RTI is in safe hands in the state, and we are sure to ensure information flow for all," he said.
While the commission highlights gains in clearing long-pending cases and strengthening institutional processes, the official figures from the online RTI portal continue to show overwhelming pendency. The contrast between improvements claimed at the commission level and the portal data underlines the continuing challenge of converting statutory intent and judicial mandates into timely access to information for citizens.

Omission in RTI plea: Panel orders dept action against deputy tahsildar

The Times of India: Chennai: Sunday, 8^th February 2026.
The state information commission has ordered departmental action against the headquarters deputy tahsildar in Pallavaram for trying to cover up an omission on her part, in a reply to a plea filed under the RTI Act. The matter relates to the non-implementation of a Chengalpet district revenue officer's order in 2023.

Chief information commissioner Md Shakeel Akhter directed the Chengalpet RDO to initiate departmental action against the then deputy tahsildar, Kanchana, who was also the public information officer, and submit a report by March 5.
The petitioner, T V Madhanagopal of Chromepet, was also given a remedy, as the panel directed the present PIO and headquarters deputy tahsildar, N Pushparani, to implement the RDO's order and give information to the petitioner.
The RDO's order in 2023 directed removal of a name from the ‘A register' with respect to a survey number in Pammal and inclusion of another name. Madhanagopal sought details on implementation of the order through an RTI plea in 2024.
Since Madhanagopal did not get a proper response, he approached the information commission through a second appeal. When the matter first came up for hearing in June last year, the commission ordered the then deputy tahsildar to provide the necessary information within 15 days. A month later, the reply was reviewed, and the commission concluded the information provided was not satisfactory and gave another month to provide the required information.
However, since there was no response, Madhanagopal moved a non-compliance petition before the panel and the same was taken up for hearing in Jan.

Advocate exclusion from RTI: Why the Supreme Court must settle the conflict - By Dr Ajay Kumar Pandey

 Bar and Bench: Columns: Sunday, 8^th February 2026.
Can judicial interpretation introduce categorical exclusions when parliament deliberately used inclusive language?

India’s Right to Information (RTI) regime stands at an unusual constitutional crossroads. Over the past two decades, the RTI Act, 2005 has evolved into one of the most effective accountability mechanisms within the country’s democratic framework.
Yet, recent judicial developments reveal a troubling paradox - while courts continue to strengthen transparency obligations of public authorities, interpretive restrictions simultaneously narrow the procedural rights available to citizens seeking information.
Two recent developments illustrate this growing doctrinal tension. First, the Central Information Commission's (CIC) interpretation, drawing on a Madras High Court ruling, bars advocates from filing RTI applications in matters they handle. Second, the Delhi High Court’s sharp reprimand of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for failing to comply with proactive disclosure obligations under Section 4 of the RTI Act.
Together, these developments raise fundamental constitutional questions that arguably require the Supreme Court's authoritative resolution.
The advocate exclusion: Restriction without statutory foundation
The RTI Act uses unusually expansive language. Section 6(1) provides that “any person” seeking information may file an RTI application. The Act explicitly incorporates subject matter exemptions under Section 8 and institutional exemptions under Section 24. Notably, parliament refrained from imposing professional or status-based exclusions.
Despite this legislative clarity, recent administrative practice, supported by judicial interpretation, has begun treating advocates as ineligible to invoke RTI in matters connected to the cases they represent. The underlying reasoning suggests that allowing lawyers to file RTI applications may convert the statute into a professional litigation tool.
This interpretation effectively introduces a professional disqualification that is absent from the statutory text. It raises a core question in constitutional jurisprudence: can judicial interpretation introduce categorical exclusions when parliament deliberately used inclusive language?
The anomaly becomes even more evident in practice. An advocate who files an RTI request in a representative capacity may be rejected. The same advocate, filing the same request as an individual citizen, may succeed. Such an interpretation undermines statutory transparency while incentivising procedural concealment.
Access to justice and structural inequalities
The implications of advocate exclusion extend beyond professional inconvenience. They directly affect the operational effectiveness of access to justice.
The Supreme Court has consistently recognised that access to justice forms part of Article 21. In Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan, the Court emphasised that access to justice must be practical and effective rather than merely theoretical.
In the ground realities of Indian litigation, most litigants lack the capacity to independently navigate administrative disclosure systems. Legal aid lawyers and district practitioners routinely rely on RTI to obtain government records, particularly where traditional discovery mechanisms fail.
Applications under Order XI of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) frequently encounter procedural delays. Requests under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) are often ignored or indefinitely postponed. RTI introduced statutory timelines, appellate oversight and penalty provisions that significantly enhanced record accessibility.
Restricting advocates' use of RTI, therefore, risks creating structural inequality within the justice delivery system. Litigants with resources may be able to pursue alternative compliance mechanisms, whereas marginalised litigants may effectively lose access to critical evidence.
Article 14 and the doctrine of reasonable classification
The advocate exclusion also invites scrutiny under Article 14. Constitutional jurisprudence requires that any classification satisfies the twin tests of intelligible differentia and a rational nexus to the legislative objective.
Here, the objective of the RTI Act is to promote transparency and accountability. Denying access solely on the basis of professional status appears difficult to justify within this framework. Identical information remains accessible when sought by an individual citizen, but becomes restricted when sought by a legally trained representative acting on behalf of another citizen.
Such classification risks being characterised as arbitrary, particularly when the statute itself does not contemplate professional restrictions.
Misuse concerns and the principle of proportionality
The primary justification advanced for advocate exclusion is the potential misuse of RTI by legal practitioners. However, constitutional proportionality requires that restrictions on statutory rights must be narrowly tailored and least restrictive.
The RTI Act already contains safeguards addressing misuse. Section 7(9) permits rejection of disproportionate requests. Section 8 protects sensitive information from disclosure. The appellate framework provides supervisory oversight.
A blanket professional prohibition, therefore, appears disproportionate. It restricts legitimate use while failing to eliminate misuse, which may simply shift into informal channels.
MCD case: Reaffirming the spirit of RTI
In contrast to the restrictive interpretation emerging in advocate exclusion cases, the Delhi High Court’s recent judgment concerning the MCD reinforces the foundational philosophy of the RTI Act.
In a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the Centre for Youth, Culture, Law and Environment, the Court examined MCD’s failure to proactively disclose legislative proceedings, resolutions, and committee records. The Bench, led by Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, expressed concern that even two decades after the enactment of the RTI Act, statutory obligations under Section 4 remained unfulfilled.
The Court rejected MCD’s reliance on provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act to justify non-disclosure, emphasising that municipal statutes cannot dilute the transparency obligations imposed under the RTI Act. It directed the civic body to file compliance affidavits, signalling judicial recognition of systemic administrative opacity.
Section 4: The constitutional backbone of RTI
The MCD judgment highlights Section 4 as the philosophical cornerstone of RTI. The provision envisages a governance framework in which public authorities proactively make information available to the public, thereby reducing dependence on individual RTI applications.
However, compliance with Section 4 has historically been weak across public institutions. The Delhi High Court’s intervention reflects its recognition that transparency cannot remain merely reactive. It must be institutionalised through voluntary disclosure.
This interpretation aligns with the constitutional values of participatory governance and administrative accountability.
The emerging jurisprudential conflict
The co-existence of advocate exclusion and proactive disclosure enforcement reveals an emerging doctrinal conflict. While courts are strengthening institutional transparency obligations, procedural avenues enabling citizens to access information through professional assistance are being restricted.
This duality risks creating a transparency framework that is theoretically robust but practically inaccessible.
The need for authoritative Supreme Court clarification
The conflict between inclusive statutory language and restrictive judicial interpretation necessitates authoritative clarification by the Supreme Court. The issues involved raise fundamental constitutional questions:

• Can courts introduce professional exclusions into a rights-based statute framed in universal language?
• Does advocate exclusion violate Articles 14 and 21?
• Can concerns regarding misuse justify categorical professional disqualification?
• How should courts reconcile proactive disclosure obligations with procedural access rights?

The resolution of these questions will determine whether RTI continues to function as a citizen-centric accountability mechanism or evolves into a technically accessible but functionally restricted statute.
Transparency as a constitutional value
The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised the right to information as an essential component of Article 19(1)(a). RTI represents legislative recognition of this constitutional value.
Transparency statutes operate as instruments of democratic accountability. Their effectiveness depends not merely on statutory existence, but on functional accessibility. Restricting professional facilitation of information access risks diluting the enforcement of transparency.
Simultaneously, judicial insistence on proactive disclosure reinforces that transparency is not an optional administrative practice but a constitutional governance norm.
India’s RTI regime is undergoing a significant interpretive transition. Judicial decisions are simultaneously strengthening institutional transparency obligations while narrowing procedural access.
The phrase “any person” in Section 6 represents a conscious legislative commitment to universal accessibility. Introducing professional disqualifications risks undermining both statutory fidelity and constitutional equality.
The Supreme Court now stands uniquely positioned to reconcile this emerging conflict. Its intervention can restore doctrinal coherence, protect access to justice and reaffirm RTI as a cornerstone of democratic accountability.
The future credibility of India’s transparency framework may well depend on how this constitutional tension is resolved.
(Dr Ajay Kummar Pandey is an advocate practicing before the Supreme Court of India.)

RTI Battle Reaches Supreme Court After 15-Year Legal Tug-of-War

Lagatar: Ranchi: Saturday, 7^Th February 2026.

After a prolonged legal battle spanning 15 years, Saint Joseph College (Khunti) has approached the Supreme Court, challenging the Jharkhand State Information Commission’s 2016 directive to disclose financial documents under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The case centers on the refusal to provide audit reports and utility certificates to Professor Akshya Kumar Rai.
Background of the Dispute
In 2016, Prof. Rai filed an RTI request seeking four key pieces of information:

• Audit reports from FY 2011–2015
• Utility certificates for grants used
• Minutes of Governing Body meetings during that period
• Documents detailing government grant usage and the rationale for not spending on government-appointed faculty

The college denied the request, citing its status as a minority institution and claiming the information was confidential and exempt under RTI provisions.
Information Commission’s Ruling and High Court Battles
The State Information Commission ruled in Prof. Rai’s favor in September 2016, ordering the college to furnish all requested information. The college then challenged this decision in the Jharkhand High Court, initiating a legal contest that continued for nearly a decade.
In May 2024, Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary upheld the commission’s decision. Unrelenting, the college filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), which was also dismissed in 2025 by a bench comprising Justices Sujit Narayan and Rajesh Kumar, who stated that due to the substantial government funding, the college falls within the ambit of the RTI Act.
Supreme Court Appeal Filed
Now in 2026, the college has escalated the matter to the Supreme Court. While the appeal has been admitted, the apex court has yet to schedule a hearing.

Prompt response to applicants will reflect govt.’s transparent administration: State Information Commissioners

The Hindu: Madurai: Saturday, 7^Th February 2026.
Prompt and proper response to the applicants seeking information through the Right To Information Act of 2005 would reflect the transparent administration of the government, said State Information Commissioners here on Friday.

The Sivaganga district administration had organised an interaction with the SICs and the Principal Information Officers from various departments at the District Collectorate.
The SICs R. Priya Kumar, V.P.R. Elamparithi and M Natesan stressed the need for swiftness in the response as it would give a fillip to the applicants. There were certain procedures in obtaining the information.
It would be ideal for the authorities to be aware of the amends in the RTI at regular intervals.
While some of the departments have exemption and information need not be disseminated to the applicants, the Information Officers, however, should respond to other applications without delay.
In case of any slackness, the applicants move the appellate authorities, which should be avoided in the normal course. This, the SICs said, would give a positive outlook of the departments and the officers as well.
The SIC also clarified on the rights of the petitioners and responsibilities of the officers in each department. In the event of any document missing, the officer concerned shall track for the copies and furnish the details sought by the applicant instead of simply responding that the documents are not available or missing, they suggested.
Explaining the objectives of the RTI and the role of the State Information Commission and among others, the top officers also explained the features of sharing information to those seeking them as a mark of highest integrity and a reflection of fairness in the administration.
District Revenue Officer S. Selvasurabi presided over the meeting in which officials from various departments participated.

No night parking for scheduled flights at airport, RTI reveals

Times of India: Surat: Saturday, 7^Th February 2026.
Even as demand rises for early morning departures and late-night arrivals at Surat Airport, an RTI reply has revealed that all 10 night-parking bays meant for Code-C aircraft (A321, B739) have been allotted to non-scheduled operators.

According to airport sources, at least one scheduled airline has sought two night-parking bays at present. However, no slots are currently available, as all 10 bays have reportedly been assigned to owners of non-scheduled aircraft from Surat, Ahmedabad and Mumbai.
The revelation has raised serious questions over planning and utilisation of public funds, especially after Surat International Airport underwent a major modernisation project worth Rs 353 crore, including Rs 150 crore spent on expanding aircraft infrastructure.
Documents obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act show that the airport has 17 parking bays in total 13 compatible for Code-C aircraft and four meant for smaller aircraft. However, internal Airports Authority of India (AAI) records indicate that all 10 night-parking bays earmarked for overnight use were allotted to non-scheduled operators, leaving no space for scheduled airlines such as IndiGo, Air India Express and Star Air.
The issue persists despite the construction of 18 new parking bays and a parallel taxi track as part of a major airside infrastructure upgrade aimed at boosting flight operations and aircraft movement. Of these 18 bays, five are yet to be operationalised.
Airport sources said that among the 10 allotted night-parking bays, three were given to Ventura Airconnect, while one each was allotted to Shreeji Aviation, Rajhans Infracon, Ishwer Dholakia, Steamhouse, KPAI Afrotech, Global Vectra Helicorp and Dharma Nandan Diamond.
Rajesh Modi, a long-time tracker of airport development, said, "This reflects serious mismanagement. There is no space for scheduled airlines that drive passenger traffic and regional connectivity. The airport now has permanent 24×7 operations, yet scheduled airlines are being asked to wait. This defeats the purpose of night and early morning operations and raises concerns about how capacity planning is being done."
However, airport authorities maintained that night-parking facilities would be made available once early morning and late-night flights begin operations.
"According to rules, night parking is available to any operator scheduled or non-scheduled between 10 pm and 6 am. However, we always prioritise scheduled flights. We will shift Ventura aircraft to their hangars, which will free three bays. Soon, five more parking bays for bigger aircraft will also be operationalised as they are in the final phase," an airport official said.

Meghalaya RTI activist flags lack of transparency in appointment of seven OSDs in CM’s Office

Northeast News: Shillong: Friday, 6^Th February 2026.
A Meghalaya RTI activist has raised serious questions over the appointment of seven Officers on Special Duty (OSDs) in the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO), alleging a lack of transparency and favouritism in their selection, as well as the use of public funds for their salaries and allowances.

Manbhalang Phankon, an RTI activist from Madanrting, claimed that information obtained through the Right to Information (RTI) Act shows that seven contractual OSDs were personally appointed and attached directly to Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma without any open recruitment process, competitive examination or public advertisement.
According to the RTI replies, each of the seven OSDs receives a monthly salary of Rs 1 lakh. The state exchequer has spent Rs 1,68,12,785 on their salaries since 2019.
The RTI documents also revealed that three of the OSDs alone claimed travel allowances (TA) amounting to Rs 1,49,93,374 during the same period, a figure that is nearly equal to the total salary expenditure on all seven appointees.
Phankon said, “The CMO is already staffed with senior IAS, MCS, IPS and MPS officers, as well as consultants, and questioned the need for additional OSDs on high pay when many educated youths in the state remain unemployed.
“This money could have been used to create genuine employment opportunities instead of benefiting a select few,” he said.
He alleged that the appointments lacked transparency and merit, and said this was in contrast to the Centre, where OSDs are usually senior civil servants on deputation and selected through proper procedures.
“These salaries and allowances are paid from public funds. If these positions require special expertise, they should be filled through proper recruitment channels and boards like other government posts,” Phankon said.
He said he had made the information public to allow citizens to judge the matter for themselves. “As an RTI activist, I am placing the facts before the people and leaving it to them to judge,” Phankon said.

RTI એક્ટ મુજબ શિક્ષાત્મક કાર્યવાહી કરાઈ‎:માહિતી અધિકારની અરજી તબદીલ કરવામાં 28 દિવસનો વિલંબ કરાતા અધિકારીને 7000નો દંડ

Divya Bhaskar: Ahmedabad Friday, 6^Th February 2026.

RTIનાં હેઠળ નાગરિકોના અધિકારોનું રક્ષણ કરતા ચુકાદામાં ગુજરાત માહિતી આયોગ દ્વારા ગાંધીનગર સ્થિત પ્રાથમિક શિક્ષણ નિયામક કચેરીના જાહેર માહિતી અધિકારીને કાયદાકીય જોગવાઈઓના ઉલ્લંઘન બદલ રૂ. 7000નો રોકડ દંડ ફટકારવામાં આવ્યો હતો.
આ અંગે સાવરકુંડલાના વકીલ દીપેશભાઈ જોશી દ્વારા માહિતી મેળવવા માટે અરજી કરવામાં આવી હતી. આ અરજી જે-તે કચેરીને સંબંધિત ન હોવા છતાં, RTI એક્ટની કલમ મુજબ તેને 5 દિવસની અંદર સંબંધિત વિભાગમાં તબદીલ કરવાની જવાબદારી જાહેર માહિતી અધિકારીની હતી.
જોકે, જાહેર માહિતી અધિકારી આર. એન. અસારી દ્વારા આ અરજી તબદીલ કરવામાં 28 દિવસનો ગુનાહિત વિલંબ કરવામાં આવ્યો હતો. આ મામલે થયેલી ફરિયાદની સુનાવણી દરમિયાન રાજ્ય માહિતી કમિશનર વિપુલ રાવલે નોંધ્યું હતું કે, અરજી તબદીલ કરવાની સંપૂર્ણ જવાબદારી જે-તે અધિકારીની હોય છે અને રજીસ્ટ્રી શાખાના વિલંબનું કારણ સંતોષકારક ગણી શકાય નહીં.
આયોગે સ્પષ્ટ કર્યું કે માહિતી આપવામાં કે અરજી ટ્રાન્સફર કરવામાં વિલંબ એ કાયદાનો ભંગ છે. માહિતી અધિકાર અધિનિયમની કલમ હેઠળ મળેલી સત્તાનો ઉપયોગ કરીને, આયોગે 28 દિવસના વિલંબ બદલ પ્રતિ દિન 250 લેખે કુલ રૂ. 7000નો દંડ ફટકારવામાં આવ્યો છે.
હુકમ મુજબ દંડની રકમ અધિકારીએ પોતાના અંગત ભંડોળ અથવા પગારમાંથી ભરવાની રહેશે. આ રકમ 1 માસની અંદર સરકારી તિજોરીમાં જમા કરાવી તેની પહોંચ આયોગને મોકલવા હુકમ કરાયો હતો.