'Eureka!' moment at CIC as MCD's missing file goes from 'non-traceable' to 'available'

The Week: New Delhi: Wednesday, 4^th February 2026.

A file that was stated to be "not traceable" by the MCD in response to an RTI request "mysteriously" became available when the matter came before the Central Information Commission, prompting an amused CIC to question what had triggered the 'Eureka!' moment for the civic body.
The case relates to the information sought on records linked to a hospital layout approval in the Model Town area. Initially, the Town Planning Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) told the applicant that the file was "not available" and "not traceable". The same position was reiterated during the first appeal.
However, when the matter reached the Central Information Commission (CIC), parts of the information unexpectedly surfaced.   
Taking note of this backpedalling, Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari questioned how the file in question became "mysteriously" available after the CIC hearing notice, when two replies furnished by the record-keeper of the safe office earlier had said it could not be produced.
"Commission cannot lose sight of this diametrically opposite stand, particularly when the 'Eureka!' moment happened and what triggered it," he said.
The CIC was critical of the manner in which the request was handled, observing that "merely stating that a file is not traceable does not absolve the public information officer (PIO) of his statutory responsibilities" under the RTI framework.
It also expressed concern that official replies did not even carry basic details such as the name and contact information of the PIO, noting that such omissions were "contrary to the spirit of the RTI Act" and basic administrative transparency.
The Commission further observed that issuing internal search memos, instead of formally pursuing the information and keeping the applicant informed, appeared to have the effect of "keeping the appellant in the dark as to what all is transpiring inside the office".
In unusually strong remarks, the CIC said there was "clearly an attempt to evade disclosure of information" and cautioned that it would be a miscarriage of the RTI law if authorities could conveniently claim that records were missing, only to produce them later when scrutiny increased.
The CIC, in an order issued on Monday, directed the MCD to provide a fresh, point-wise and complete reply to the applicant within four weeks and issued a show-cause notice to the PIO, asking him to explain why penalty action should not be initiated.
(This story has not been edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)

Decode Politics: RTI journey, From ‘dawn of a new era’ to fears of ‘tool for idle curiosity’ - Written by: Shyamlal Yadav

The Indian Express: Article: Wednesday, 4^th February 2026.
Introduced in 2005, the Act has seen several amendments in the past 20 yrs, which are alleged to have weakened it. Economic Survey’s latest proposed changes will be “murder” of the landmark law, says Congress

Twenty years after the Right to Information Act was introduced, the Economic Survey 2025-26 has called for its re-examination. Tabled in Parliament last week, the survey suggested “adjustments” to exempt disclosures on deliberative process of policy-making and possibly a ministerial veto with parliamentary oversight to guard against disclosures that could “unduly constrain governance”.
The legislation, the survey said, carries risks of becoming an “end in itself”, with disclosures celebrated regardless of contribution to better governance, and said the Act was never intended “as a tool for idle curiosity,” nor as a mechanism to micromanage government from the outside.
Congress president Mallikarjuna Kharge called it a plan to “murder” the UPA-era law after its “systematic weakening” since 2014.
A look at the evolution of the Act, which was hailed as a transformative tool for democratic accountability when introduced in 2005:
The making of the RTI Act
The RTI Act in India emerged from grassroots struggles dating back to the 1970s. In 1997, in response to a demand for such legislation, the H D Deve Gowda-led United Front government set up a working group to prepare a Freedom of Information Bill. After extensive changes, this led to the passage of the Freedom of Information Act of 2002.
In 2004, the Manmohan Singh-led UPA government came to power. One of the crucial components of this government was the National Advisory Council (NAC), led by Sonia Gandhi, which made right to information one of its primary goals. Alongside civil society organisations, the NAC deliberated several revisions of the 2002 law, resulting in a more robust framework.
In 2005, the UPA government brought in the RTI Bill. During the debate in Parliament, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described its passage as “the dawn of a new era in our processes of governance… an era which will bring the common man’s concern to the heart of all processes of governance”.
The final RTI Act was passed with 150 amendments to the Freedom of Information Act, and officially came into force on October 12, 2005, applying across all levels of government, including local bodies. “The information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person”, the Act held.
Around 20 years later, roughly 40 to 60 lakh RTI applications are filed on an average annually, from Central offices to grassroots levels.
The changes since
In 2006, still under the UPA government, there were attempts to amend the RTI Act by removing “file notings (internal notes by government officials on files)”. While these changes could not materialise due to public protests, the UPA government continued to have internal reservations.
In 2011, on the sixth anniversary of the Act, PM Manmohan Singh expressed his concern that RTI queries with “no bearing on public interest” were being filed. A year later, he spoke of the Act’s “frivolous and vexatious” use.
The Second Administrative Reforms Commission, in its report submitted around this time, recommended exempting the armed forces from the RTI Act. By then, the UPA had already exempted the CBI from its purview. Then Law Minister M Veerappa Moily approved the exemption to the CBI despite the fact that as chairman of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, he had written a special chapter on RTI, terming it ‘Master Key to Good Governance’.
Early attempts to amend the Act, however, were thwarted not just by activists but also then Opposition parties, including the BJP.
In October 2015, PM Narendra Modi, who had taken over a year earlier as head of the NDA government, hailed the RTI Act at an annual conference of the Central Information Commission, urging citizens to not only access documents but also “ask questions and demand accountability from public authorities”. This right forms “the very foundation of democracy”, he said.
However, in 2019, the Modi government brought in amendments altering the terms, tenure, and emoluments of the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (ICs), which was seen as weakening the structure of the RTI.
The original Act placed the CICs and ICs on parity with equivalent ranks in the Election Commission of India meaning a fixed tenure of five years, with removal possible only under specific conditions. The 2019 amendment, however, removed equivalence with the EC, and gave the government control over the tenure, emoluments and terms of appointment of CIC and ICs.
In 2023, the NDA government brought in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act), dealing with personal information. The RTI Act had held that personal information could be disclosed if larger public interest justified it, despite potential privacy invasion. However, the new Act exempted disclosure of information relating to “personal information” more broadly.
Civil rights organisations protested against this “dilution” of the RTI Act.
Why the worry
The Economic Survey’s remarks come at a time when the RTI Act is increasingly seen as under siege. The Act defines “information” expansively to include any material in any form – records, documents, emails, opinions, reports, data in electronic form, and even information held by private bodies accessible under other laws. Despite this broad scope, obtaining disclosures has grown difficult, as noted by various activists.
One example of how the Act remains unenforced is the CIC’s June 2013 order declaring six national political parties (Congress, BJP, CPI (M), CPI, NCP, BSP) as “public authorities” under the Act. Neither the BJP nor the Congress has complied with this, failing to appoint Public Information Officers or respond to requests.
As per an October 2025 appraisal report of information commissions by Satark Nagrik Sangathan, till June 30 last year, 4.13 lakh appeals and complaints were pending before 29 information commissions.
What Economic Survey has said
The Economic Survey suggests exempting brainstorming notes, working papers, and draft comments until they form part of the final record of decision-making, protection of service records, transfers, and confidential staff reports. It also suggests exploring a “narrowly defined” ministerial veto to guard against disclosures that could “unduly constrain governance”.
The survey also draws parallels between the RTI Act and similar laws in the US, UK and Sweden, and argues that unlike the Indian Act, internal personnel rules, inter-agency memos, and financial regulations are exempt from disclosures internationally. If every draft or remark is disclosed, officials may “hold back”, leading to fewer “bold ideas”, the survey says. “Democracy best functions when officials can deliberate freely and are then held accountable… not for every half-formed thought expressed along the way.”
Transparency campaigner Anjali Bharadwaj, co-convenor of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, has questioned this, saying issues flagged over impact on officials are not borne out by evidence, and that the Act already has a robust mechanism on exempting certain disclosures.
(Shyamlal Yadav is one of the pioneers of the effective use of RTI for investigative reporting. He is a member of the Investigative Team. His reporting on polluted rivers, foreign travel of public servants, MPs appointing relatives as assistants, fake journals, LIC’s lapsed policies, Honorary doctorates conferred to politicians and officials, Bank officials putting their own money into Jan Dhan accounts and more has made a huge impact. He is member of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). He has been part of global investigations like Paradise Papers, Fincen Files, Pandora Papers, Uber Files and Hidden Treasures. After his investigation in March 2023 the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York returned 16 antiquities to India. Besides investigative work, he keeps writing on social and political issues.)

Son-in-Law Cannot Access Father-in-Law’s Salary, Loans or Property Under RTI: UP Information Commission

Law Chakra: Uttar Pradesh: Wednesday, 4^th February 2026.
The Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission ruled that a son-in-law cannot seek personal details of his father-in-law under the RTI Act. The Commission held RTI cannot be misused to invade privacy or collect material for private disputes.

The Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission has determined that a son-in-law is not entitled to access personal information about his father-in-law such as salary, loans, and assets under the RTI Act.
State Information Commissioner Mohammed Nadeem, in an order dated January 7, stated,
“The objective of the RTI Act is not to gather evidence for private lawsuits, nor does this law permit unwarranted interference in a person’s privacy.”
The case involves Kulwant Singh, who requested details regarding his father-in-law, Rishipal Singh, a retired revenue inspector, to use the information in a dowry case initiated by his wife. Kulwant filed his RTI application on July 27, 2025, with the Tehsildar of Najibabad in Bijnor district, seeking financial information about his father-in-law up until his retirement on January 1, 2015.
After not receiving the requested information, Kulwant appealed to the State Information Commission, asking for the Public Information Officer to be directed to provide the details. Reports indicate that Kulwant was accused by his wife of demanding a dowry of Rs 26 lakh, prompting him to seek information on his father-in-law’s financial status, including salary, GPF (General Provident Fund), loans, advances, and details of his movable and immovable properties.
Kulwant argued that since the individual in question is not an outsider but his father-in-law, the requested information was essential for the dowry-related case to ascertain whether the alleged dowry of Rs 26 lakh could have been realistically offered given his father-in-law’s finances.
In addressing the case, Commissioner Mohammad Nadeem noted that the Supreme Court has clarified in various rulings that salary details, income tax records, provident fund information, loans, family details, and property-related information are categorized as personal data that are generally not disclosed under the RTI Act.
The bench stated,
“Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that the argument of being a son-in-law or seeking information for use in a lawsuit cannot be considered a larger public interest under the RTI Act,”
It further emphasized that,
“the objective of the RTI Act is not to gather evidence for private lawsuits, nor does this law permit unwarranted interference in a person’s privacy.”
The bench advised that if Kulwant feels it is necessary to obtain such information for his defense, the proper course would be to pursue it in the court where his case is ongoing. He can procure this information through legal avenues, and if deemed necessary, the court may instruct the relevant department to provide it.
Ultimately, the bench found that ordering this information at their level did not align with the principles of the Right to Information Act, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Man files RTI appeal for dad-in-law’s financial worth in dowry case

Times of India: Lucknow: Wednesday, 4^th February 2026.
After a woman accused her husband of taking Rs26 lakh as dowry, the latter sought information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act about his father-in-law's financial worth to know if his wife's father had the financial capacity, or "haisiyat", to give that much dowry. The state information commission (SIC), however, denied the information on the grounds that it was "personal".

The appellant in this case needed information for his divorce case, which was ongoing in another court. Information commissioner (IC) Mohammad Nadeem said that being a son-in-law does not entitle him to obtain his father-in-law's personal information.
"The purpose of the RTI Act is not to gather evidence for private litigation, nor does this law permit unwarranted interference with a person's privacy," said Nadeem.
After the wife's accusation of taking Rs26 lakh as dowry, the man sought details of his father-in-law's salary, GPF, loans, advances and movable and immovable assets under the RTI to determine his financial status.
He argued that he was seeking information about his father-in-law and was not an outsider, and that the information was crucial for him in a dowry-related lawsuit to determine whether the person allegedly offering Rs26 lakh in dowry was capable of paying such a large sum.
The appellant, Kulwant Singh submitted an application under the RTI Act to the tehsildar of Najibabad in Bijnor district in July 2025 because his father-in-law was the revenue inspector in the tehsil.
After he did not get the information, he filed an appeal in the SIC.
Hearing the case, the bench headed by IC Mohammad Nadeem said that the Supreme Court clarified in several important judgments that salary details, income tax records, provident fund details, loans, family details and property information clearly fall under the category of personal information, which cannot generally be provided under the RTI Act.
Consequently, the commission was of the opinion that the plea of being a son-in-law, or seeking information for use in a lawsuit, cannot be considered a "large public interest" under the RTI Act. The bench clarified that the purpose of the RTI Act is not to gather evidence for private litigation, nor does the law permit unwarranted interference with an individual's privacy.
The bench said that if the applicant finds it necessary to gather such information for his or her defence, the appropriate forum is the court where his or her case is pending. He or she may legally disclose all this information before the court. An application can be made to the relevant department to obtain it, and if the court deems it necessary, it can order the relevant department to provide all this information on its own.

Plastic waste disposal a matter of 'significant public importance' CIC as it pulls up CPCB

The Week: New Delhi: Tuesday, 3^rd February 2026.
New Delhi, Feb 2 (PTI) The Central Information Commission has said matters concerning the implementation of guidelines for disposal of thermoset plastic waste are of "significant public importance" as it has serious environmental implications.

In an order, Information Commissioner P R Ramesh reprimanded the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) for repeated failures to provide details under the Right to Information (RTI) Act on action taken regarding the enforcement of guidelines for disposal of thermoset plastic waste, including fibre reinforced plastic (FRP).
Thermoset plastics can not be remelted or reshaped once set, and their disposal is considered highly difficult.   
"The issues raised by the appellant are of significant public importance, and appropriate action is required to ensure effective and transparent implementation of the guidelines issued by the CPCB," the Central Information Commission (CIC) observed.
The CIC noted that despite clear directions from the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the CPCB failed to furnish point-wise replies to multiple RTI applications and did not allow inspection of records in several cases.
Admonishing the conduct of the then Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), the Commission said it amounted to a "gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act", adding that such conduct reflected a "casual behaviour of officers towards RTI applications".
The CIC also stated in its order dated January 30 that the waste disposal guidelines were framed pursuant to directions of the National Green Tribunal, making their implementation critical for environmental protection and public interest.
Directing corrective action, the Commission ordered the CPCB to "re-examine the matter and furnish a revised point-wise reply strictly as per the provisions of the RTI Act" within four weeks.
It also directed the authority to "afford an opportunity of inspection of relevant records" to the appellant on a mutually decided date and time.
Emphasising transparency in environmental governance, the CIC said accountability in the enforcement of plastic waste management norms is essential in the interest of the public at large.
(This story has not been edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)

RTI Commission: Release of three foreign loan deals ordered - BY Buddhika Samaraweera

The Morning: Sri Lanka: Tuesday, 3^rd February 2026.
The Right to Information (RTI) Commission has ordered the External Resources Department (ERD) to release three external loan agreements that were previously withheld from public access.

The rulings were issued as final orders on two appeals filed separately by journalist Tharindu Iranga Jayawardhana and economist Dr. M. Sarvanathan against the ERD. The Commission’s decisions mark the first instance in which it has explicitly directed the full disclosure of external loan agreements, rejecting the position that such agreements are exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act, No. 12 of 2016.
The appeals related to requests for copies of loan agreements entered into by the Government of Sri Lanka for major development projects, including water supply schemes, university development, road construction, and port-related infrastructure. The ERD had declined to release the documents, citing confidentiality clauses and stating that disclosure could affect Sri Lanka’s international relations (IR) and the debt restructuring process.
After extensive hearings, the Commission rejected those arguments, ruling that the ERD had failed to follow the procedure set out in the RTI Act and had not demonstrated that disclosure would cause serious harm. The Commission stated that access to information relating to public debt and financial commitments is a constitutional right, particularly in the context of the country’s economic crisis.
Under the first appeal, the Commission ordered the release of two loan agreements linked to the Gampaha–Attanagalla–Minuwangoda Water Supply Project and the South Eastern University Development Project (Phase 1B). Under the second appeal, it directed the ERD to release the loan agreement for the Katana Water Supply Project, signed in 2017 with the China Development Bank, on or before 27 February of this year (2026).
Jayawardhana told the Commission there were allegations of fraud and the misuse of funds linked to several projects financed through external borrowing. He said that loans were taken for development projects, but that doubts persist over how the money was used and whether the intended outcomes were delivered. He also said the public has a right to know how these loans were negotiated, the terms attached to them, and how the funds were spent, particularly since the burden of repayment ultimately falls on the people. He referred to issues that emerged during Sri Lanka’s 2023 debt restructuring process and matters discussed in the related Supreme Court (SC) proceedings.
The Commission accepted these submissions and noted that the release of loan agreements serves a clear public interest. It pointed out that public funds are used to service these loans and that findings by the Auditor General have highlighted irregularities in projects financed through such borrowing. The Commission further referred to the International Monetary Fund’s 2023 report on debt restructuring and observations made by the SC on the economic downturn.
The Commission warned that the failure to comply with its orders could result in relevant legal proceedings against the Information Officer and the relevant public authority of the ERD under the RTI Act.

Information Commission orders ELCITA to name PIOs within a month

Deccan Herald: Bengaluru: Tuesday, 3^rd February 2026.
The commission has also directed the Urban Development Department (UDD) to ensure that ELCITA complies with the order within a month.

Ruling that the Electronics City Industrial Township Area (ELCITA) is both a state authority and a public authority, the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) has directed its management to immediately appoint Public Information Officers (PIOs) and First Appellate Authorities (FAAs) in accordance with Section 5 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The commission has also directed the Urban Development Department (UDD) to ensure that ELCITA complies with the order within a month.
In his order, State Information Commissioner Rajashekara S directed officials, including the Chief Secretary of Karnataka, not to issue letters exempting any authority from the purview of the RTI Act. “Any violation should be dealt with through disciplinary action under the Karnataka Civil Services Rules,” the commissioner's order said.
The direction was issued while hearing an appeal filed by Naveen Kumar, who had sought information on property taxes fixed by ELCITA for companies, commercial buildings, housingmcomplexes and plots within its jurisdiction.

BPL student seeks info by RTI, discom tells him to pay 4L fee

Times of India: Jabalpur: Tuesday, 3^rd February 2026.
A BPL card holder seeking information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act was asked to deposit over Rs 4 lakh as a fee by a power distribution company office here, prompting intervention by the Madhya Pradesh State Human Rights Commission.

Law student Aman Vanshkar sought certified details of regular and outsourced employees, as well as registered consumers, under the Manegaon Pipariya DC of Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company's north circle in Jabalpur.
Along with his RTI application, Vanshkar submitted documents clearly stating that he belonged to a below poverty line (BPL) family, which entitled applicants to seek information free of cost under the RTI Act.
However, the public information officer and assistant engineer concerned issued a written notice asking him to deposit Rs 4.08 lakh to obtain the information. Aggrieved, Vanshkar approached the State Human Rights Commission, alleging violation of provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. As per Section 7(5) of the Act, no fee is chargeable from BPL applicants for seeking information.
Taking serious note of the complaint, the State Human Rights Commission directed the Jabalpur district collector to conduct a fair inquiry into the matter and ensure appropriate action. The commission also sought a report on the entire issue, officials said. The case raised questions over adherence to RTI norms by govt departments and the treatment of economically weaker applicants seeking information under the transparency law.

Ideal, not idle: Editorial on the Economic Survey’s stance on RTI

Telegraph India: Editorial: Tuesday, 3^rd February 2026.
The RTI is not an indulgence granted by the State but a mechanism through which sovereignty is exercised by citizens. Any attempt to dilute it weakens the democratic compact itself

The Economic Survey’s suggestion that the Right to Information Act should be reviewed, coupled with its characterisation of information-seeking as idle curiosity, places unmistakable institutional pressure on a law that lies at the heart of India’s democratic architecture. The Survey, it must be pointed out, is not a detached policy note; its arguments signal the government’s priorities and legitimise future interventions. This adds an ominous element to the Economic Survey’s take on the RTI. Notably, any evidence showing that the RTI Act has impaired decision-making is absent from the Survey.
But then scepticism towards transparency is not new. Governments in India have rarely embraced the spirit of the RTI with enthusiasm. Even the United Progressive Alliance, which had enacted the law, expressed misgivings about its use. The former prime minister, Manmohan Singh, warned that “frivolous” and “vexatious” requests could drain administrative resources and served little public purpose. The National Democratic Alliance, the UPA’s successor, has been only too happy to continue with this culture of assault. In 2019, the Narendra Modi government brought out an amendment that permitted the Centre to set the terms, salary and tenure of the chief information commissioner and his/her lieutenants, thereby striking a blow at the autonomy of these office holders. There is thus a deep unease within the political executive about the redistributing of informational power from the State to citizens.
What explains the persistent attempts to weaken the RTI is perhaps its centrality to democratic practice. The law operationalises the constitutional promise that citizens are not passive recipients of governance but active participants in its oversight. Democracy depends on informed consent. Elections lose much of their meaning if citizens are denied the information necessary to assess how decisions are made, how resources are allocated, and whether power is exercised fairly. The RTI Act addresses this by enabling citizens to trace policy evolution, detect arbitrariness, expose corruption, and demand explanations for administrative action or inaction. In doing so, it strengthens accountability mechanisms beyond courts and legislatures, which are often distant or slow-moving. Equally important, transparency under the RTI Act fosters institutional discipline. Officials, aware that records may be scrutinised, are incentivised to adhere to procedure and reasoned decision-making. This is the opposite of weakening governance. The Economic Survey risks normalising the idea that democratic scrutiny is expendable when weighed against administrative convenience. Such an approach misunderstands misconstrues the role of transparency in a constitutional democracy. The RTI is not an indulgence granted by the State but a mechanism through which sovereignty is exercised by citizens. Any attempt to dilute it weakens the democratic compact itself.

जनसत्ता संपादकीय: क्या आर्थिक समीक्षा के सुझावों से कमजोर होगा ‘सूचना का अधिकार’ कानून?

Jansatta: Editorial: Monday, 02 February 2026.
इस कानून के तहत देश का हर नागरिक सरकारी विभाग और संस्थाओं से उनके कामकाज, योजनाओं एवं उनके प्रभाव, वित्तीय स्थिति तथा नियमों आदि की जानकारी मांग सकता है।

सूचना का अधिकार (आरटीआइ) कानून ने देश में लोकतंत्र की नींव को और मजबूत किया है। इसका मुख्य उद्देश्य शासन के कामकाज में पारदर्शिता लाना और जवाबदेही तय करना है। यह देश के नागरिकों को अधिकार देता है कि वे सरकारी तंत्र और उसके कार्यों की जानकारी हासिल कर सकते हैं। यानी यह कानून सरकार और जनता के बीच सूचना के सेतु के रूप में काम करता है और परस्पर भरोसे का निर्माण करता है।
भ्रष्टाचार पर अंकुश लगाने और दोषियों को कानून के कठहरे में लाने की प्रक्रिया में भी इसकी महती भूमिका है। स्वस्थ लोकतांत्रिक व्यवस्था के लिए जरूरी इन विशेषताओं में अगर कमी या कटौती की जाती है, तो निश्चित तौर पर यह कानून कमजोर होगा। यह मसला इसलिए चर्चा का विषय बन गया है, क्योंकि संसद में हाल में पेश की गई आर्थिक समीक्षा रपट में आरटीआइ कानून का फिर से अध्ययन करने की वकालत की गई है।
तर्क दिए गए हैं कि इस कानून में कुछ ऐसे प्रावधान किए जाने की जरूरत महसूस की जा रही है, ताकि गोपनीय रपट और मसविदों को सार्वजनिक किए जाने से छूट प्राप्त की जा सके। गौरतलब है कि लंबे समय से सूचना के अधिकार की मांग के मद्देनजर वर्ष 2005 इससे संबंधित कानून को लागू किया गया था। इसके तहत देश का हर नागरिक सरकारी विभाग और संस्थाओं से उनके कामकाज, योजनाओं एवं उनके प्रभाव, वित्तीय स्थिति तथा नियमों आदि की जानकारी मांग सकता है।
संबंधित अधिकारी तय समय के भीतर यह सूचना उपलब्ध कराने के लिए बाध्य होते हैं। मगर समय के साथ सरकारी तंत्र की उदासीनता, लापरवाही और निहित स्वार्थों के कारण जानकारी छिपाने के प्रयासों से इस कानून की प्रभावशीलता में कमी देखी गई है, जो चिंता का विषय है। ऐसे में आर्थिक समीक्षा रपट में सूचना के अधिकारों का फिर से अध्ययन करने और कुछ मामलों मे छूट हासिल करने की वकालत ने चिंता के स्तर को और बढ़ा दिया है।
एक तरफ सरकार जब अपने कामकाज में ‘पारदर्शिता लाने’ और भ्रष्टाचार को लेकर ‘कतई बर्दाश्त नहीं करने’ की नीति अपनाने पर जोर देती हो और दूसरी तरफ सूचना के अधिकारों को सीमित करने का प्रयास किया जाए, तो यह नीति और नीयत के बीच विरोधा भास पैदा करता है।
आर्थिक समीक्षा में यह भी उल्लेख किया गया है कि आरटीआइ अधिनियम का मकसद कभी भी इसे व्यर्थ की जिज्ञासा का जरिया बनाने का नहीं था, न ही इसका उद्देश्य बाहर बैठकर सरकार के हर छोटे-छोटे काम में दखल देना या उसे नियंत्रित करना था।
यह बात सही है कि बिना कारण या सरकार के कामकाज में किसी सुनियोजित तरीके से बाधा उत्पन्न करने के लिए इस कानून का सहारा लेना उचित नहीं है। मगर सवाल यह है कि इस तरह आरटीआइ कानून का दुरुपयोग करने वालों की तादाद कितनी होगी? जाहिर है, इसमें कुछ खास वर्ग के चंद लोग ही शामिल होंगे, पर क्या उन पर अंकुश लगाने के लिए सभी नागरिकों के सूचना के अधिकार को सीमित किया जाना चाहिए?
इस कानून में पहले से ऐसे कई प्रावधान मौजूद हैं, जिनके तहत राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा, संप्रभुता, जांच प्रक्रिया और व्यक्तिगत गोपनीयता समेत अन्य संवेदनशील मसलों की जानकारी सार्वजनिक नहीं की जा सकती। अब अगर सूचना को रोकने के और प्रावधान किए जाते हैं, तो इससे यह कानून वास्तव में कमजोर होगा और इसका मकसद भी अधूरा ही रह जाएगा।

Mumbai News: Lawyers Slam CIC Order Barring Advocates From Using RTI For Client Matters

Free Press Journal: Mumbai: Monday, 02 February 2026.
Members of the legal fraternity have strongly criticised a Central Information Commission order barring advocates from using the RTI Act in matters handled for clients. Senior lawyers said the ruling misreads the law & undermines transparency.

Legal fraternity criticises CIC ruling restricting advocates from
seeking information under the RTI Act for cases handled on behalf of
clients | File Pic (Representative Image)

A recent order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) barring advocates from using the Right to Information (RTI) Act in matters they are handling for clients has drawn strong criticism from members of the legal fraternity, who say the ruling misconstrues the purpose and scope of the transparency law.
CIC order and rationale
The CIC dismissed a second appeal filed by an advocate in a contractual dispute involving a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya in Haryana, holding that a “practising advocate cannot seek information relating to the cases instituted by him on behalf of his client.”
Citing a Madras High Court ruling, the commission said permitting lawyers to seek such information would not further the objectives of the RTI Act and could turn it into a tool for advancing legal practice.
Senior advocate Jamshed Mistry said the approach overlooks the historical context of the RTI Act. Before its enactment, litigants often had to approach high courts simply to obtain basic information from public authorities.
“Very often, the first prayer in writ petitions, particularly in public interest litigation, was to seek directions to furnish information that was being denied,” he said, noting that this led to delays and unnecessary use of judicial time.
He added that the RTI Act was meant to provide a statutory, citizen-friendly mechanism to avoid such situations and stressed that the Madras High Court ruling relied upon by the CIC is not final and can be challenged before the Supreme Court.
Locus standi debate
Advocate Aditya Pratap said the CIC’s reasoning runs contrary to the plain language of the Act. He pointed to Section 6(2), which states that an applicant is not required to give any reason for seeking information. “By denying information because the applicant is an advocate acting for a client, the commission has introduced the concept of locus standi, which the RTI Act does not recognise,” he said.
Pratap also cited Supreme Court rulings that recognise the right to information as part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). “If information does not fall under the exemptions in Section 8, it cannot be denied based on who seeks it,” he said, warning that additional restrictions would be unconstitutional.
Impact on accountability
Advocate Siddh Vidya said the order risks weakening the RTI framework by ignoring practical realities. While the law is available to all citizens, she said the process often requires legal expertise. “Advocates act as facilitators of a citizen’s right to know, not as proxy litigants,” she said.
Vidya noted that several public interest litigations exposing administrative lapses have stemmed from RTI applications filed by lawyers. “Barring advocates from using the RTI Act reduces it from a tool of accountability to a hollow formality and shields public authorities from scrutiny,” she said.

आरटीआई एक्ट के तहत जानकारी प्राप्त करने बीपीएल कार्ड धारक से मांगे चार लाख, कार्रवाई के निर्देश

Amar Ujala: Jabalpur: Monday, 02 February 2026.
आरटीआई के तहत बीपीएल कार्डधारी से चार लाख रुपये मांगने का मामला सामने आया है। राज्य मानव अधिकार आयोग ने इसे गंभीर मानते हुए जबलपुर कलेक्टर को कार्रवाई के निर्देश दिए। कानून के अनुसार बीपीएल हितग्राहियों को सूचना निशुल्क देना अनिवार्य है।

सूचना के अधिकार के तहत जानकारी प्रदान करने बीपीएल कार्ड धारक से चार लाख रुपये की मांग की गई। जिसे गंभीरता से लेते हुए राज्य मानव अधिकार आयोग ने जिला कलेक्टर को कार्रवाई के निर्देश दिए थे। सूचना के अधिकार के तहत बीपीएल कार्डधारियों को निशुल्क जानकारी प्रदान करने का प्रावधान है।
लॉ छात्र अमन वंशकार ने मध्य प्रदेश पूर्व क्षेत्र विद्युत वितरण कंपनी के नगर वृत उत्तर संभाग जबलपुर के अंतर्गत आने वाले मानेगांव पिपरिया डीसी में पदस्थ नियमित तथा आउट सोर्स कर्मचारी तथा पंजीकृत उपभोक्ता की प्रमाणित प्रति सूचना के अधिकार के तहत मांगी थी। आवेदक ने बीपीएल परिवार का सदस्य होने का स्पष्ट लेख एवं प्रमाण-पत्र आवेदन के साथ प्रस्तुत किए थे।
विभागीय सूचना अधिकारी व सहायक अभियंता ने सूचना के अधिकार के तहत जानकारी प्रदान करने के लिए चार लाख आठ सौ पचास रुपये जमा करने के लिए लिखित रूप से कहा गया। इस संबंध में आवेदन ने राज्य मानव अधिकार आयोग से शिकायत की गई थी। शिकायत में कहा गया था कि सूचना के अधिकार 2005 की धारा 7 5 में प्रावधान है कि बीपीएल परिवार के सदस्य से बीपीएल परिवार के सदस्य को सूचना व आवेदन शुल्क देय नहीं होगा। आवेदन में स्पष्ट लेख तथा प्रमाण-पत्र प्रस्तुत करने के बावजूद भी उससे जानकारी प्रदान करने चार लाख रुपये की लिखित में मांग की गई है। राज्य मानव अधिकार आयोग ने शिकायत को गंभीरता से लेते हुए कलेक्टर जबलपुर को कार्रवाई कर निराकरण करने निर्देश जारी किए हैं।

CIC, Public Enterprises Selection Board get Rs 39.14 crore allocation in Union Budget

Devdiscourse: New Delhi: Monday, 02 February 2026.
The Central Information Commission CIC and the Public Enterprises Selection Board PESB have been allocated Rs 39.14 crore in the Union Budget 2026-27, a nominal increase of around Rs 3 crore from the revised estimate of Rs 36.94 crore for 2025-26.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) and the Public Enterprises Selection Board (PESB) have been allocated Rs 39.14 crore in the Union Budget 2026-27, a nominal increase of around Rs 3 crore from the revised estimate of Rs 36.94 crore for 2025-26.
However, the Budget Estimate for the CIC and PESB in 2025-26 was higher at Rs 42.49 crore. According to the Budget documents presented by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, the provision is meant for establishment-related expenditure of the Central Information Commission and the Public Enterprises Selection Board. In Budget parlance, the allocations made at the time of presentation of the annual Budget are known as Budget Estimates (BE), while the updated figures, reflecting changes in revenue and expenditure during the course of the financial year, are referred to as Revised Estimates (RE).
The government has also earmarked Rs 3.5 crore for the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) for the propagation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, which is Rs 50 lakh higher than the Rs 3 crore provided in the revised estimates for the current fiscal. The CIC was constituted with effect from October 12, 2005, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and its jurisdiction extends over all central public authorities.
The commission exercises powers and performs functions under the RTI Act, including adjudication of second appeals, inquiries into complaints, directions for record management and suo motu disclosures, imposition of penalties, and preparation of annual reports. Its decisions are final and binding. The Public Enterprises Selection Board is a high-powered body constituted through a government resolution dated March 3, 1987, for a sound managerial policy for Central Public Sector Enterprises and to advise the government on appointments to top management posts in these entities.

'No evidence to suggest RTI hampers governance': Economic Survey's proposal for Act's 're-examination' draws flak

Times of India: Pune: Monday, 02 February 2026.

The Economic Survey 2025–26's call for a "re-examination" of the Right to Information (RTI) Act including the possibility of a ministerial veto and exemptions for internal deliberations, drafts, and confidential reports has drawn sharp criticism from transparency activists and opposition leaders. Critics argue there is no evidence to suggest that the existing law hampers governance.
"The RTI Act, 2005, is not just another law; it is a democratic safeguard that enables citizens to scrutinise power," Pune-based RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar told TOI. He called the proposal a "direct assault on the core of the RTI Act".
Kumbhar said file notings and internal debates form a crucial chain of accountability, and shielding them would only promote opacity and corruption.
The Economic Survey argued that the RTI was "never intended as a tool for idle curiosity, nor as a mechanism to micro-manage the govt from the outside".
It warned that excessive transparency discourages candour among officials, pushing them towards cautious language and fewer bold ideas, thereby weakening effective governance. To support its case, the Survey cited transparency practices in Sweden, the US, and the UK, while maintaining that the proposal was "not an argument for secrecy by default".
Kumbhar recalled that a similar attempt was made in 2006, less than a year after the RTI Act came into force, when the Centre sought to exclude file notings, citing pressure on decision-making. "That proposal was rejected after widespread opposition from citizens, journalists, RTI activists, and civil society. Following Anna Hazare's hunger strike, the govt was forced to withdraw it. What was rejected then is now being brought back in a more subtle but more dangerous form," he said. He also dismissed international comparisons.
Jayaram Venkatesan, convenor of Aappor Iyakkam, an anti-corruption movement based in Tamil Nadu, said transparency must be seen as a facilitator rather than an obstacle. "Transparency should be viewed as a catalyst for informed decision-making. In a functioning democracy, citizens must have the right to know about the govt's deliberative processes, as this allows them to assess whether policies truly serve the public interest," he told TOI.
"To label such transparency a ‘hindrance' to economic growth is misguided and akin to claiming that the Constitution itself is a barrier to economic progress. On the contrary, transparency fosters sustainable, pro-people growth by eliminating corruption and neutralising vested interests," he added.
New Delhi–based RTI activist and transparency campaigner Anjali Bharadwaj said there was no justification for amending the law. "It is ironic that the Economic Survey acknowledges the RTI as one of the most empowering laws, yet lists alleged problems without providing any evidence to justify its re-examination. Govts have tried this before, but in the absence of evidence, such amendments were rejected," she said.
Bharadwaj stated that the law contains robust exemptions under Sections 8 and 9, which are frequently invoked by public authorities to deny information. "Multiple studies show that the Act functions effectively. The RTI Act is considered one of the most progressive information-access laws globally, and what is needed is a stronger proactive disclosure regime," she said.
Former Chief Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said there was no evidence that RTI constrained governance. "The Act, coupled with the amendment to Section 8(1)(j), which was inserted through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, will become very weak. Citizens are the best vigilance monitors through RTI. This signals that citizens are no longer seen as the rulers of the nation," he said.
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge criticised the proposal in a post on X, alleging that the Modi govt has systematically weakened the RTI through amendments affecting information commissioners, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, and prolonged vacancies in the Central Information Commission. "After killing MGNREGA, is it RTI's turn?" he asked.
Venkatesh Nayak, director of Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, a forum based in New Delhi said, "The latest Economic Survey (ES) revives a 20-year old idea of amending the RTI Act to keep file notings, records of internal deliberations and draft papers out of the citizenry's reach. The UPA Govt had crafted an amendment proposal along similar lines in 2006 but could not muster enough support to table it in Parliament.
The NDA, particularly, the BJP was most vocal in opposing the move along with civil society. It is strange that they have revived the idea now without producing a shred of evidence as to how many times draft papers and internal deliberations have been disclosed and what detriment such openness has caused to the government's interests.
The idea of ministerial veto over disclosure is also not a new one. Several Commonwealth countries like the UK, Australia, New Zealand and even Scotland have such provisions in their freedom of information laws. But have been used rarely and even when used, they are subject to strict judicial review. The most famous case of judicial correction of the abuse of veto power is the eventual disclosure of the correspondence between the then Prince of Wales, now King Charles III, and government departments.
The Supreme Court of England and Wales overruled the veto holding that ministers cannot overrule an FoI appellate Tribunal's decision simply because they do not agree with it. The ES is silent about when the ministerial veto will be applied- before the Information Commission decides an appeal or after a decision of disclosure is issued by the Commission. This idea of ministerial veto runs counter to the very grain of the people's right to know as explained by Justice P N Bhagwati in the S P Gupta vs President of India Constitution Bench case in 1983 (also known as the first judges case).
Justice Bhagwati said that protecting cabinet records and other official papers which contain internal deliberations within government, on the ground that it will promote candour and frankness among bureaucrats as they will not fear public disclosure of their views, is no longer sustainable in the 20th century. Disclosure cannot be withheld on the ground that it may embarass the government or the head of the department as that is not a public interest argument.
Crown privilege which protected such interests until the 20th century has been replaced by the much stronger test of public interest immunity. Will the disclosure of records harm a legitimate public interest or not is the current test. This is exactly how the RTI Act especially Section 8(1) and the public interest override in Section 8(2) have been crafted. Will disclosure harm any of the protected interests in the ten exemption clauses or not is the test. And even if they do, the Information Commission can direct disclosure of even exempt information in the larger public interest. The ES does not account for these recent developments, instead it seeks public debate on ideas and practices that have long been discarded or are rarely used now.
The government almost always being an interested party in a matter of information access dispute cannot decide what is or not in the public interest independently like the judiciary or an autonomous Information Commission. To float such ideas and to end that Chapter and the entire ES with a reference to the Late Mark Tully's 9th Palkhivala Memorial Lecture whose title says "India...must move from a Ruler's Raj to a very Citizen's Raj" is a stark irony.
This is just the last on the list of examples of contradictory ideas that pepper the ES which calls for the transformation of our welfare state into an entrepreneurial state where citizens are reduced to the status consumers of public services from being equal stakeholders in the world's largest democracy. The DPDP Act amended the RTI Act in a retrograde manner by removing the parity between the citizenry and their elected representatives like MPs and MLAs/MLCs, in terms of information access.
Now the ES seeks to initiate debate on more regressive measures that will curtail the contours of the transparency regime further. Strangely, the Chief Economist who authored the ES seeks to look upon the citizenry as the adversary of the State rather than the very reason and purpose for the latter's continued existence.

RTI ‘re-examination’ proposed in Economic Survey draws flak from opposition, activists

Times of India: Pune: Sunday, February 1, 2026.
The Economic Survey 2025–26's call for a "re-examination" of the Right to Information (RTI) Act—including the possibility of a ministerial veto and exemptions for internal deliberations, drafts, and confidential reports—has drawn sharp criticism from transparency activists and opposition leaders. Critics argue there is no evidence to suggest that the existing law hampers governance.

"The RTI Act, 2005, is not just another law; it is a democratic safeguard that enables citizens to scrutinise power," Pune-based RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar told TOI. He called the proposal a "direct assault on the core of the RTI Act".
Kumbhar said file notings and internal debates form a crucial chain of accountability, and shielding them would only promote opacity and corruption.
The Economic Survey argued that the RTI was "never intended as a tool for idle curiosity, nor as a mechanism to micro-manage the govt from the outside".
It warned that excessive transparency discourages candour among officials, pushing them towards cautious language and fewer bold ideas, thereby weakening effective governance. To support its case, the Survey cited transparency practices in Sweden, the US, and the UK, while maintaining that the proposal was "not an argument for secrecy by default".
Kumbhar recalled that a similar attempt was made in 2006, less than a year after the RTI Act came into force, when the Centre sought to exclude file notings, citing pressure on decision-making. "That proposal was rejected after widespread opposition from citizens, journalists, RTI activists, and civil society. Following Anna Hazare's hunger strike, the govt was forced to withdraw it. What was rejected then is now being brought back in a more subtle but more dangerous form," he said. He also dismissed international comparisons.
Jayaram Venkatesan, convenor of Aappor Iyakkam, an anti-corruption movement based in Tamil Nadu, said transparency must be seen as a facilitator rather than an obstacle. "Transparency should be viewed as a catalyst for informed decision-making. In a functioning democracy, citizens must have the right to know about the govt's deliberative processes, as this allows them to assess whether policies truly serve the public interest," he told TOI.
"To label such transparency a ‘hindrance' to economic growth is misguided and akin to claiming that the Constitution itself is a barrier to economic progress. On the contrary, transparency fosters sustainable, pro-people growth by eliminating corruption and neutralising vested interests," he added.
New Delhi–based RTI activist and transparency campaigner Anjali Bharadwaj said there was no justification for amending the law. "It is ironic that the Economic Survey acknowledges the RTI as one of the most empowering laws, yet lists alleged problems without providing any evidence to justify its re-examination. Govts have tried this before, but in the absence of evidence, such amendments were rejected," she said.
Bharadwaj stated that the law contains robust exemptions under Sections 8 and 9, which are frequently invoked by public authorities to deny information. "Multiple studies show that the Act functions effectively. The RTI Act is considered one of the most progressive information-access laws globally, and what is needed is a stronger proactive disclosure regime," she said.
Former Chief Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said there was no evidence that RTI constrained governance. "The Act, coupled with the amendment to Section 8(1)(j), which was inserted through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, will become very weak. Citizens are the best vigilance monitors through RTI. This signals that citizens are no longer seen as the rulers of the nation," he said.
Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge criticised the proposal in a post on X, alleging that the Modi govt has systematically weakened the RTI through amendments affecting information commissioners, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, and prolonged vacancies in the Central Information Commission. "After killing MGNREGA, is it RTI's turn?" he asked.

RTI: The Economic Survey Must Know that Citizens Are Not Adversaries of the State - By Venkatesh Nayak

The Wire: New Delhi: Sunday, February 1, 2026.
The Economic Survey seeks to initiate debate on even more regressive measures that would further curtail the contours of the transparency regime.

The latest Economic Survey revives a 20-year-old idea of amending the RTI Act to keep file notings, records of internal deliberations, and draft papers out of the citizenry’s reach. The United Progressive Alliance government had crafted an amendment proposal along similar lines in 2006 but could not muster enough support to table it in Parliament. The National Democratic Alliance, particularly the Bharatiya Janata Party, was most vocal in opposing the move, along with civil society.
It is strange that the idea has been revived now without producing a shred of evidence as to how many times draft papers and internal deliberations have been disclosed, and what detriment such openness has caused to the government’s interests.
The idea of a ministerial veto over disclosure is also not a new one. Several Commonwealth countries like the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and even Scotland have such provisions in their freedom of information laws, but these have been used rarely and, even when used, are subject to strict judicial review.
The most famous case of judicial correction of the abuse of veto power is the eventual disclosure of the correspondence between the then Prince of Wales, now King Charles III, and government departments. The Supreme Court of England and Wales overruled the veto, holding that ministers cannot overrule an appellate tribunal’s decision simply because they do not agree with it.
The Economic Survey is silent on when the ministerial veto will be applied before the Information Commission decides an appeal or after a disclosure order is issued by the Commission.
This idea of a ministerial veto runs counter to the very grain of the people’s right to know, as explained by Justice P. N. Bhagwati in the S. P. Gupta vs President of India Constitution Bench case in 1983 (also known as the ‘First Judges’ Case).
Justice Bhagwati said that protecting Cabinet records and other official papers containing internal deliberations within government, on the ground that it would promote candour and frankness among bureaucrats who fear public disclosure of their views, is no longer sustainable in the twentieth century.
Disclosure cannot be withheld on the ground that it may embarrass the government or the head of the department, as that is not a public interest argument.
Crown privilege, which protected such interests until the 20th century, has been replaced by the much stronger test of public interest immunity.
Whether the disclosure of records will harm a legitimate public interest or not is the current test.
This is exactly how the RTI Act especially Section 8(1) and the public interest override in Section 8(2) has been crafted.
Whether disclosure will harm any of the protected interests listed in the 10 exemption clauses is the test.
Even if they do, the Information Commission can direct disclosure of exempt information in the larger public interest.
The Survey does not account for these developments; instead, it seeks public debate on ideas and practices that have long been discarded or are rarely used today.
The government, almost always being an interested party in information access disputes, cannot independently decide what is or is not in the public interest in the way the judiciary or an autonomous Information Commission can.
To float such ideas and then end that chapter – and the entire Economic Survey – with a reference to the late Mark Tully’s Ninth Palkhivala Memorial Lecture, titled ‘India…must move from a Ruler’s Raj to a Citizen’s Raj,’ is a stark irony.
This is merely the latest in a list of contradictory ideas that pepper the Economic Survey, which calls for transforming the welfare state into an entrepreneurial state where citizens are reduced to consumers of public services rather than equal stakeholders in the world’s largest democracy.
The DPDP Act amended the RTI Act in a retrograde manner by removing parity between the citizenry and their elected representatives MPs and MLAs/MLCs in terms of access to information.
Now, the Economic Survey seeks to initiate debate on even more regressive measures that would further curtail the contours of the transparency regime.
Strangely, the chief economist who authored the Survey appears to view the citizenry as an adversary of the state rather than as the very reason and purpose for the state’s continued existence.
(Venkatesh Nayak is Director, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi. Views expressed are personal.)