Underfunding the Freedom of Information budget undermines Nigerians’ access to information : Ayomide Eweje

Business News Nigeria: Nigeria: Friday, 29 May 2026.

The Nigerian Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to information, and the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2011 reinforces this right. Yet it remains theoretical. Despite the legal guarantees of the FOI Act, a report by Media Rights Agenda reveals almost noncompliance across public institutions. This noncompliance reflects a deeper freedom crisis.
In 2026, the federal government of Nigeria allocated $49 billion to the national budget, but only $139,000 went to FOI implementation. Such underfunding underscores the government’s low priority for citizens’ right to information and undermines their rights. Addressing this crisis requires mandating dedicated budget allocations for FOI implementation across all public institutions, strengthening oversight by the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation, and promoting citizen-led accountability and civic pressure.
The consequences of underfunding FOI implementation are immediate and structural. Limited resources often result in poor record-keeping, delayed responses, and weak transparency. Many public institutions lack the capacity and the incentive to comply with FOI obligations. Accountability becomes impossible without citizens’ access to information and the inability to scrutinise undisclosed public records, budgetary allocations, and administrative decisions. The risks are severe, as the lack of transparency fuels corruption, weakens journalism, and steadily erodes public trust. At a broader level, the denial of access to information weakens democracy, reducing it to a system where citizens can vote but cannot hold leaders accountable.
Mandatory FOI budgeting will allocate the resources to translate the right to information from legal intent into real implementation. The National Assembly should require every public institution to include dedicated budget lines for FOI activities, because laws without funding remain ineffective. Embedding FOI into budget planning shifts transparency from a policy obligation to an operational priority.
The National Assembly can refuse to approve budgets that exclude FOI funding, while the Budget Office can issue clear compliance guidelines for all ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs). Also, MDAs can allocate a minimum percentage of overhead costs specifically for FOI implementation, including record management and response systems.
Mandatory FOI budgeting will strengthen record-keeping systems, enable faster responses to information requests, and gradually institutionalise transparency across government institutions. India’s mandatory funding of the Right to Information (RTI) implementation in the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) under its Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions significantly improved access to information and government transparency. The ministry allocated $364,000 for the 2026-2027 budget year for DoPT’s implementation of the RTI Act. The government also ensured RTI’s effective implementation through capacity-building and public awareness campaigns. Implementing a similar budgeting approach for FOI in Nigeria will improve access to information.
Strengthening oversight and enforcement is essential for the effective implementation of the FOI Act. The Office of the Attorney General of the Federation (OAGF), as the oversight body for FOI implementation, plays a central role in setting the tone for compliance across public institutions. However, weak funding has significantly limited its enforcement capacity.
To address the underfunding gap, the OAGF should establish a dedicated FOI Oversight Fund to support monitoring and enforcement activities. Also, the OAGF should conduct mandatory annual compliance audits for all MDAs to assess their adherence to the FOI Act, with sanctions for MDAs that do not comply.
Strengthening oversight through monitoring and enforcement activities will improve accountability across MDAs, create consequences for non-compliance, and help restore public confidence in governance systems.
Transparency cannot rely solely on government action; sustained citizen and civil society pressure must also drive it. Governments often respond more effectively to pressure than to policy declarations, making public demand a critical enforcement tool for the implementation of the FOI Act.
Civil society organisations can lead campaigns to educate citizens on their FOI rights and push for compliance across public institutions. The media also plays a key role through investigative reporting that exposes noncompliance and highlights implementation gaps. In addition, public scorecards or rankings of MDAs can create healthy competition and shame non-performing institutions into action.
Civic engagement has consistently driven governance reforms in contexts where institutional enforcement is weak, such as Nigeria’s #EndSARS movement, which forced public scrutiny of police practices and triggered reform commitments. Strengthening citizen and civil society pressure will increase public awareness of FOI rights, deepen accountability through sustained scrutiny, and empower citizens to take a more active role in democratic governance.
A functional transparency system would help to improve access to information. Citizens will access public records without unnecessary barriers, while institutions will operate with greater openness and discipline. Transparency will reduce opportunities for abuse of power and improve the quality of governance.
(Ayomide Eweje is a writing fellow at African Liberty.)

NLU Jodhpur student denied gold medals minutes before convocation; moves Rajasthan High Court

Bar and Bench: Jodhpur: Friday, 29 May 2026.
The plea contends that the medals had the student's name inscribed on them and were listed against his name even in the official convocation brochure.

Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur) and NLU Jodhpur

A student of National Law University, Jodhpur has moved the Rajasthan High Court after he was denied two gold medals just minutes before the University's 17th convocation ceremony in February 2025.
The plea contends that the medals had the student's name inscribed on them and were listed against his name even in the official convocation brochure. The Rajasthan High Court is now examining the matter.
Justice Sunil Beniwal had issued notice in the matter on November 6, 2025.
The petitioner, Anuj Shukla, an LL.M. (IPR Laws) student of the 2023-24 batch, had been recommended for the Smt. Vandana Devendra Mehta Gold Medal for highest CGPA among LL.M. (IPR Laws) students and the Nani A Palkhivala Memorial Gold Medal for highest CGPA across all LL.M. streams.
The University's Gold Medal Committee recommended him on February 8, 2025, and the Academic Council approved the recommendations on February 15, 2025, over a week before the ceremony.
Allegedly, a few minutes before the convocation began, Shukla was told by the Controller of Examination (COE) that since he had applied for re-evaluation of a first semester answer sheet, he would not be receiving the gold medals.
The student had no prior intimation of this. When he requested a proper hearing, the COE refused. When he asked that the medals at least be held back until a hearing could be conducted, he was told to return to his seat as the Vice Chancellor (VC) was occupied with guests. Both medals were then awarded to another student from his batch, K Ankita Rao.
The re-evaluation concerned Shukla's answer sheet in Research Methodology, where his original marks of 82 out of 100 were reduced to 65 upon re-evaluation. The University had, however, issued him grade sheets retaining the original marks of 82, consistent with what the petitioner describes as an established practice of retaining original marks where the re-evaluated decrease is marginal.
On that basis, his cumulative score across both semesters stood at 875 out of 1000, with a CGPA of 9.19. The Gold Medal Committee's own minutes record that he had outscored K Ankita Rao.
A response obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information (RTI) Act revealed that a fresh Gold Medal Committee meeting had been convened at 9:30 AM on the morning of the convocation itself, after Ankita Rao approached the COE claiming the medals were being awarded erroneously. The Committee took an interim decision to redirect the medals to her. This decision was, however, approved by the Vice Chancellor only on February 25, 2025, two days after the medals had already been handed over at the ceremony.
The petitioner has argued that under Clause 15(k) of the Schedule to the National Law University Act, 1999, the power to award gold medals vests exclusively in the Academic Council. The reversal was never placed before the Academic Council and was without legal authority, he contends.
The alleged irregularities did not end there. A new Statement of Marks was issued to Shukla on March 17, 2025, bearing the date February 23, 2025. When he returned it and sought a correctly dated document, the request went unheeded. He has also alleged that he was informally warned that non-cooperation could result in adverse character certificates being issued against him.
Hence, Shukla filed a writ petition before the High Court, leading to the notice by Justice Beniwal. He has sought quashing of the decision of February 23, 2025, and the award of the medals as originally approved by the Academic Council.
The case has three respondents - the University, the academic council, and the student who received the medals instead of the petitioner. Notice is yet to be served on the third respondent, and the matter is expected to proceed fully once service is complete.
The matter now stands before Justice Sanjeet Purohit, who, on May 22, directed the University to complete instructions on the issuance of the petitioner's mark-sheet and listed the case the case for the second week of July.
The University is being represented by Advocate Shreyansh Mardia.
The petitioner is appearing in person at the current stage, having previously been represented by Advocate Nikhil Ajmera.

RTI Penalty on PIO Quashed: Chhattisgarh High Court Protects Fair Hearing Rights Under RTI Act 2005 : By ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Legal Service India: Chhattisgarh: Friday, 29 May 2026.
High Court rules that RTI penalties under Section 20 cannot be imposed without proof of application receipt, proper inquiry, and fair hearing to the Public Information Officer.

The Right to Information Act, 2005, aims to promote transparency while balancing the duties of public servants. In a significant ruling, the High Court of Chhattisgarh has clarified important safeguards available to Public Information Officers (PIOs) when facing penalties for alleged delays or non-supply of information. The court emphasised the need to follow proper procedures, including giving a fair opportunity of hearing and exhausting statutory remedies before imposing penalties.
Factual And Procedural Background
Shri Shatruhan Lal Dadsena, the petitioner, was serving as secretary of Gram Panchayat Dongarigardh in District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, and was also the public information officer for that office.
Respondent No. 3, Shri Nitin Singhvi, filed four separate RTI applications on 21 August 2018 seeking details related to:

• Forest rights leases
• Constitution of Forest Rights Committee
• Objections sent to higher committees
• Related official letters under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006

Petitioner Contention
The petitioner claimed that he never received these four RTI applications, and there was no record of them in the panchayat office.
After about six months, on 22 February 2019, Respondent No. 3 filed four separate complaints directly before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission under Section 18(1)(c) of the RTI Act without approaching the First Appellate Authority.
The Commission entertained the complaints and, after issuing notice, passed an order on 29 May 2021 imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000 on the petitioner in each of the four complaints (total Rs.100,000) and recommended disciplinary action against him for delay in furnishing information.
Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh.
Timeline Of Events

Dispute Before The Court
The main dispute was whether the State Information Commission was justified in imposing the maximum penalty on the PIO without proper proof that the RTI applications were received by him, without following the first appeal route, and without granting a meaningful opportunity of hearing.Human rights advocacy
Grounds Raised By The Petitioner
There was no proof that the RTI applications were received by him.
The complainant directly approached the State Information Commission without exhausting the statutory remedy of first appeal.
He appeared for the video conferencing hearing but could not connect due to internet failure at the NIC centre.
The Commission still proceeded to pass an ex-parte order.
Filing four separate RTI applications on the same subject amounted to harassment.
Key Legal Issues

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
The Court referred to the Bombay High Court judgement in Goa Cricket Association vs State of Goa (Writ Petition No. 739 of 2010, decided on 22 March 2013, 2013 (4) MhLJ 453). In that case, the Bombay High Court held that Section 18 of the RTI Act is meant for specific complaints and does not normally allow bypassing the first appeal under Section 19 when the grievance relates to non-supply or delay in information.
The judge also relied on Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai vs Rui Ferreira and Ors (W.P. Nos. 132 and 307 of 2011, decided on 28 July 2011, 2011 (5) MhLJ 765), where it was observed that parties cannot bypass the statutory appeal mechanism under Section 19 and directly approach the Commission under Section 18 for grievances arising from non-furnishing of information.
On the question of penalty under Section 20(1), the court discussed the Delhi High Court ruling in Shamik Nag vs. The Public Information Officer, Oriental Bank of Commerce (WPC No. 8913 of 2016, decided on 4 August 2017). This judgement clarified that a penalty can be imposed only after a proper inquiry and after giving the PIO a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as mandated by the proviso to Section 20(1). The burden to prove reasonable and diligent action lies on the PIO, but this burden can only be discharged if a genuine hearing is provided.
Findings of the Court
In the present case, the judge found that the petitioner had raised a credible defence that the RTI applications were never received. There was no conclusive evidence of delivery or acknowledgement.
The Commission did not conduct a proper inquiry into this aspect. Additionally, the technical failure during the video conferencing hearing was not adequately considered, and no further opportunity was given, violating principles of natural justice.
The Court also noted that the information was eventually supplied after the notice from the Commission.
Important Legal Principles

Final Decision of the Court
On 13 May 2026, the High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 29 May 2021 passed by the State Information Commission in all four complaint cases.
The court directed a refund of any amount deposited by the petitioner within eight weeks.
Point of Law Settled in the Case
The judgement settles that complaints under Section 18(1)(c) of the RTI Act should not ordinarily be entertained when the grievance is of delay or non-supply of information without first exhausting the appeal remedy under Section 19.
It further reinforces that imposition of a penalty under Section 20(1) requires the following:
Clear evidence of receipt of application;
Deliberate default or mala fide action;
A meaningful opportunity of hearing to the PIO; and
Fair consideration of technical difficulties during virtual hearings.
Case Details

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice, as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Group housing societies must share records under RTI if Registrar can access them: Haryana SIC - Bhartesh Singh Thakur

The Tribune: Haryana: Friday, 29 May 2026.
As of now, the group housing societies have been taking the plea that they are not covered under the RTI Act as they are not getting any aide or support from the state, thus do not come under the RTI ambit

In an order having implications on group housing societies across the state of Haryana, State Information Commission (SIC) has made it clear that if the record of any group housing society is accessible to the office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the same should be provided under the RTI Act. As of now, the group housing societies have been taking the plea that they are not covered under the RTI Act as they are not getting any aide or support from the state, thus do not come under the RTI ambit.
“Once the respondent public authority (Registrar, Co-operative Societies) has the legal authority to access the information from the society, the same cannot be denied to the appellant merely on the ground that the society is not a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act,” the commission has held.
The bench of Dr Ajay Kumar Sura, State Information Commission, has passed these orders while directing the office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies Haryana to provide the complete “unedited videography” of the entire proceedings of General Body Meeting of New Haryana Officers Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., which has retired IAS/IPS and HCS officers as its members. The commission said that the Registrar is empowered to obtain information from a cooperative society over which it exercises supervisory or administrative control.
In this case, retired District and Sessions Judge, Kuldip Jain, vide his RTI application dated September 5, 2023, had sought a certified copy of the unedited video of the entire proceedings of the meeting of New Haryana Officers Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd., Panchkula, held on July 8, 2023, and also the minutes of the meeting from the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana.
The minutes of meeting were furnished to Jain but not the video.
The society declined to furnish the copy of videography on the ground that it was the property of the society and further contended that it “does not fall within the ambit of ‘public authority’ as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.”
During the hearing on January 9, 2025, Satwanti Ahlawat, retired IAS and then president of the society, submitted that their society “is fully owned, controlled and financed by its members, not by the Haryana Government; therefore, it does not come within the purview of the RTI Act.” In another hearing on October 8, 2025, the subsequent president of the society, Renu Phulia, retired IAS, in her comments, stated that the information sought concerned “personal discussion of members related to the affairs” of the society, which had no public-interest connection; therefore, they couldn’t be directed to provide such information.
After hearing the arguments, the commission observed, “…the issue in the present case is not whether the society itself is a public authority, but whether the information sought by the appellant (Jain) is accessible to the office of Registrar Cooperative Societies.”
SIC added that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, “exercises statutory, supervisory and regulatory control over the affairs of Cooperative Societies and had admittedly directed the society, vide latter dated August 7, 2023, to furnish the copy of complete videography of General Body Meeting”.
“This itself establishes that the information can be called for by the Registrar from the society in exercise of statutory powers. The commission further observes that under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, the term ‘information’ includes information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force,” said the order.
The order further stated that if the society failed to comply, the Registrar should initiate appropriate action under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act and related rules.

Aadhaar Info Can Be Disclosed In Serious Forgery Cases With Safeguards; Accused Cannot Use Privacy As Shield: Andhra Pradesh High Court : By - Ritika Verma

Live Law: Hyderabad: Friday, 29 May 2026.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that Aadhaar-related information may be disclosed for criminal investigation of cases involving serious allegations of forgery with necessary safeguards, observing that a person accused of forgery cannot get away, if he has committed the offence, on ground of protection of his right to privacy.
A Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao observed that while Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 places safeguards on disclosure of Aadhaar information, there is no absolute prohibition against release of such information when required for investigation.
The Court observed:
“As can be seen from the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, there is no absolute bar for release of such information. However, such information, as is permissible under the provisions of the Aadhar Act 2016, can be released only after necessary safeguards are in place. It is for that purpose that the release of such information is restricted and is permissible only when an order of a court which is not inferior to a High Court is obtained.In the present case, a person who is alleged to have committed an offence of forgery for personal gain, cannot be permitted to get away with such an offence, if he has committed such an offence, on the ground of protection of his privacy. In any event, the Aadhaar Card is officially said to have been issued in the name of appellant himself. In such circumstances, the question of privacy also may not arise.”
The case arose from a Writ Appeal filed by the appellant claiming ownership over a piece of land. According to the appellant, another individual had impersonated him by creating a fake Aadhaar Card and fraudulently executing two sale deeds in favour of a third party.
Upon discovering the alleged fraud, the appellant lodged an FIR and while also instituting a civil suit seeking declaration that the sale deeds were null and void. An interim injunction was granted restraining interference with the appellant's possession over the land. Subsequently, the District Registrar is also stated to have cancelled the impugned sale deeds.
During investigation, the appellant sought Aadhaar details and biometric information connected to the allegedly forged Aadhaar Card through an application under the Right to Information Act. However, the request was rejected on the ground that disclosure was barred under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The appellant thereafter approached the High Court seeking directions for furnishing of Aadhaar-related information to aid investigation. A Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that such information could only be disclosed in accordance with the Aadhaar Act, 2016, and that no request had been made by the investigating authorities.
Challenging the order, the appellant contended before the Division Bench that the investigation into the alleged forgery could not effectively proceed without the Aadhaar information and biometric details.
Accepting the contention, the High Court noted that Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act permits disclosure subject to safeguards and appropriate judicial orders. The Court further observed that since the Aadhaar Card had allegedly been issued in the appellant's own name, the question of privacy protection may not strictly arise in the facts of the case.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the order of the Single Judge and directed the concerned authorities to release such Aadhaar-related information as permissible under the Aadhaar Act, 2016, to the investigating officer for purposes of investigation.
(Click Here ToRead/Download Order)

Arappor flags three missing water ATMs in RTI audit

DT Next: Chennai: Friday, 29 May 2026.

An RTI-based field audit by Arappor Iyakkam has revealed that three water ATMs installed under the Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) free drinking water scheme were missing from their designated locations, raising serious questions over the implementation and monitoring of the project.
The NGO said the project, launched in June 2025, aimed to provide free, round-the-clock automated drinking water facilities at 53 locations across Chennai. However, contract documents and work orders related to the initiative were not available on the CMWSSB website, prompting it to seek details through the Right to Information Act.
Using RTI responses, the NGO collected information on installation costs, maintenance contractors, geo-tags, and water quality reports. Volunteers later conducted field inspections at 28 of the 53 locations and found widespread operational lapses.
According to the audit, only eight water ATMs were functioning properly, while 17 locations suffered from issues such as dry taps, unclear water, leakage, or the absence of drinking tumblers. Most notably, three ATMs were found to be completely missing from the locations listed in official records.
M Radha Krishnan of Arappor Iyakkam said that the RTI replies from the local zonal office claimed that the ATM at Kamarajar Salai in Ramapuram was functioning efficiently and even included daily water quality certificates from June 19, 2025, to February 25, 2026. However, volunteers found that no machine existed at the site.
The unit, maintained by M/s Kalaichandran, was claimed to have supplied 30,500 litres of water, he said. Shopkeepers and residents in the locality told volunteers that no water ATM had ever been installed there.
Similarly, water ATMs were missing from Ambattur Industrial Estate Road and Madhavaram Red Hills Road. At the Madhavaram Red Hills Road location, volunteers found only a concrete pedestal. Residents reportedly told the NGO that the ATM had functioned only briefly after installation before breaking down and later being removed entirely.
The audit also found that water ATMs installed at Mathur MMDA, Thiruveedi Amman Temple, Murasoli Maran Park, Stephanson Road-Cooks Road Junction, Perambur Bus Stand, and MGR Nagar Bus Stand were defunct. In contrast, units at the Vadapalani bus terminus and Shivan Park in KK Nagar were functioning properly, Radha Krishnan said.
Arappor Iyakkam has urged authorities to investigate the missing units, restore the facilities, and ensure regular maintenance, particularly in areas near schools and other public gathering points.
Responding to the allegations, a CMWSSB official said all water ATMs were geo-tagged and maintained by two private contractors. Denying that any units had gone missing, the official said three defunct machines had been relocated from sites with low public usage.

Maharashtra SIC orders Thane Municipal Corporation to pay ₹10 lakh for delay in providing RTI info

Times of India: Ahmedabad: Friday, 29 May 2026.

The Maharashtra State Information Commission (SIC) has imposed a compensation of Rs10 lakh on the Thane Municipal Corporation for an “inexcusable delay” in providing information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The commission noted that the civic body’s failure to produce documents had severely diluted the appellant’s property rights.
The order, passed by state information commissioner Shekhar Channe (Konkan Bench) at the end of April, directed the municipal corporation to pay the compensation via cheque within 30 days. The commissioner invoked special provisions under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, which allows the commission to compensate complainants for any loss or detriment suffered.
The matter originated from an RTI application filed by Parashuram Patil, who sought official records concerning a property within the municipal corporation limits. He requested details of the property’s transfer process and historical documents dating back to the period between 1986 and 1996.
Patil, who is currently embroiled in a civil court dispute regarding the property, required these documents to establish his legal rights. However, he faced persistent administrative hurdles. The TMC administration reportedly cited the age of the records and dissolution of the concerned ward committee as reasons for the delay.
Frustrated over the delay, Patil filed a second appeal with the SIC. During the hearing, commissioner Channe observed that citizens cannot be deprived of their rights simply because records are old or difficult to trace. The commission adopted a “sensitive and comprehensive approach,” ruling that the loss of documents by a public authority is an unacceptable excuse that unfairly prejudices the applicant.
In response to the commission’s scrutiny, the Thane administration officials stated that a special search team of clerks and staff had been formed to locate the missing records. They further informed the commission that show-cause notices have been issued to negligent employees, and disciplinary action is underway.
RTI activists have hailed the decision as a landmark assertion of transparency. Activist Vihar Durve noted that many applicants face similar stonewalling, and such a heavy penalty will serve as a deterrent.
“This order gives hope to applicants,” said another activist. “It is very rare to come across such orders. This gives hope to applicants,” he added.

In 6 years, Maha lost 501 lives to man-animal conflict : RTI

The Times of India: New Delhi: Thursday, 28 May 2026.
Man-wildlife conflict across the state has claimed 501 human lives, injured nearly 4,000 people, killed more than 30,000 livestock and devastated over five lakh crop holdings. The data shared by forest department under the Right to Information Act also throws light on the compensation system which is struggling to keep pace with the escalating conflict.

The figures obtained by Nagpur-based activist Abhay Kolarkar doesn't focus on isolated incidents, but brings to light a widening crisis stretching across tiger corridors and forest-fringe villages.
As per the RTI reply human fatalities rose sharply from 82 in 2020-21 to a peak of 111 in 2022-23. The figures dipped before picking up again in the current year, with 91 deaths recorded in 2025-26.
From 401 injured in 2020-21, the figure surged more than threefold to 1,312 in 2023-24, suggesting either a rise in encounters or greater reporting, or both. The year 2023-24 also recorded the single worst livestock toll: over 7,152 cattle killed and 17,740 injured.
Crop damage figures compound the rural distress. From roughly 35,100 crop-damage incidents in 2020-21, the number exploded to over 2.11 lakh in 2023-24 nearly a sixfold rise in three years before partially easing to 1.63 lakh in 2024-25 and 61,458 cases in 2025-26.
The Maharashtra govt compensates victims through a structured policy notified via Gazette in February 2024. Compensation for human fatalities is Rs25 lakh; permanent disability Rs7.5 lakh; serious injuries Rs5 lakh. Cattle deaths are compensated at 75% of market value, capped at Rs70,000 per large animal. Yet the aggregate payout totalling Rs763.10 crore over six years has consistently lagged the scale of documented losses.
Despite rising incidents, compensation disbursed annually under Mahakosh moved from Rs80.22 crore in 2020-21 to Rs184.78 crore in 2024-25, a doubling over five years, but critics argue processing delays and documentation burdens leave many victims, particularly tribal farmers, without timely relief.
Kolarkar says the data underscores the urgency of a dedicated man-animal conflict mitigation policy. "These are not statistics. Each number is a family that lost its breadwinner or a farmer who lost an entire harvest," he told TOI.

CIC flags ‘persistent crisis’ of suicides across IIT campuses, recommends high-level panels

The Indian Express: New Delhi: Thursday, 28 May 2026.
Observing a “persistent crisis” of suicides across IIT campuses, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has recommended the constitution of high-level committees at the institutes to address factors contributing to such deaths, underlining the “dire need” for corrective measures.

The Commission also asked IITs to proactively disclose details related to the constitution and functioning of such committees on their official websites under the RTI Act (Express photo/ representative)

The recommendation of the apex transparency watchdog came while hearing a batch of appeals after the IITs refused to disclose details of suicide case victims at IIT Madras, IIT Jodhpur, IIT Goa and IIT Kanpur. The Commission upheld that the information amounted to personal data of third parties and could not be disclosed, but said that institutions must strengthen transparency regarding preventive mechanisms and mental health initiatives.
Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi said there is a “persistent crisis” of multiple suicides annually across IIT campuses, with a “high concentration” at institutions such as IIT Kanpur and IIT Kharagpur, and there was a “dire need” for universities to set up panels to address factors leading to such incidents, if not already constituted.
The Commission also asked IITs to proactively disclose details related to the constitution and functioning of such committees on their official websites under the RTI Act.
The order assumes significance against the backdrop of the recently published National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) report, which showed that while overall suicides in India marginally declined in 2024, student suicides continued to rise.
According to the NCRB’s “Accidental Deaths and Suicides in India 2024” report, student suicides increased from 13,892 in 2023 to 14,488 in 2024 –a rise of nearly 4.3 per cent. Students accounted for 8.5 per cent of all suicide victims in 2024, up from 8.1 per cent the previous year. The data translates to nearly 40 student suicides every day, or almost one every 36 minutes.
The CIC order came on appeals filed by IIT alumnus Dheeraj Kumar Singh, who sought details such as age, gender, caste or category, academic programme, native state and location of death of students, scholars and research staff who died by suicide in IITs since 2005.
During the hearing, Singh told the Commission that he was running an NGO for the rehabilitation and mental counselling of students and wanted the information to analyse the root causes behind suicides and strengthen counselling efforts.
The IITs, however, denied disclosure of personal details such as names, age and caste, citing privacy exemptions under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Commission upheld their stand, saying the information amounted to personal data of third parties and could not be disclosed. “It is relevant to mention here that with the introduction of Section 44 (3) of the Digital Protection and Data Privacy Act, 2023 which came into force w.e.f November 14, 2025, which establishes that Public Authority no longer requires to justify withholding personal data by weighing public interest against privacy,” the order said.
Activist Anjali Bhardwaj told PTI that the case demonstrated how the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act “severely curtails people’s right to information, even when that data is vital to public interest”.
“Demographic details, particularly caste data, are essential to identifying whether suicides are disproportionately prevalent among specific marginalised communities. Withholding this information directly stifles crucial public debate on appropriate measures necessary to mitigate this crisis,” she claimed.
At the same time, the CIC said institutions must strengthen transparency regarding preventive mechanisms and mental health initiatives to reduce the need for repeated RTI applications. Transparency activist Amrita Johri termed the CIC’s recommendation for constituting high-level committees and proactively disclosing related information under Section 4 of the RTI Act a “positive step”.
“Details about the existence of such committees will be most useful as it will enable students, teachers and parents to reach out for help or with suggestions on steps that can be taken to address the crisis. Transparency will facilitate an open and honest engagement to prevent student suicides,” she said.
“Each suicide is a personal tragedy that prematurely takes the life of an individual and has a continuing ripple effect, affecting the lives of families, friends and communities,” the NCRB report noted.

Haryana yet to recover ₹2.9 crore RTI penalties from 1,700 errant officers : By Neeraj Mohan , Rohtak

Hindustan Times: Chandigarh: Thursday, 28 May 2026.
As per the information, the panchayat department emerged as the biggest defaulter with pending penalties of over ₹1,34,86,833, followed by the urban local bodies department with over 80.96 lakh

Even as the Haryana government takes strict measures to recover penalties from 1,726 state public information officers (SPIOs) across 16 departments for not providing information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a report from the Haryana Lokayukta has revealed that nearly ₹2.95 crore in imposed penalties remains unrecovered.
The report, in the response of a complaint filed by RTI activist PP Kapoor, who alleged that despite penalties being imposed by the Haryana State Information Commission, many officers neither deposited the amount nor faced effective recovery proceedings, even as the state government has issued directions in February this year for the recovery of the penalties from the salaries of the errant SPIOs.
As per the information, the panchayat department emerged as the biggest defaulter with pending penalties of over ₹1,34,86,833, followed by the urban local bodies department with over 80.96 lakh, followed by the education department with over ₹22.77 lakh, registrar cooperative societies with ₹19.99 lakh, revenue department with ₹14.76 lakh, urban estate department with ₹13.08 lakh, and Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) with ₹10.94 lakh.
As per the RTI reply, the Lokayukta proceedings noted that despite earlier communications issued by the Haryana chief secretary in 2019 and 2020 directing recovery of penalties, the amount remained largely unpaid for years.
On the directions of the lokayukta, the state government formulated a proper mechanism for recovery of penalties from defaulting officers. Following this, the state government issued fresh directions on February 16 this year, mandating recovery directly from salaries or pensions of defaulting SPIOs through drawing and disbursing officers (DDOs).
Under the new recovery structure, Class-A officers will face deductions of ₹10,000 per month from salary or ₹5,000 from pension, while Class-B officers will pay ₹7,000, and Class-C officers ₹4,000 per month until full recovery of penalties. In cases where an officer has died, the penalty amount will be waived.
The report also revealed that penalties imposed on serving sarpanches would be recovered at the rate of ₹3,000 per month from their honorarium, while recovery proceedings against former sarpanches could be initiated through deputy commissioners under revenue laws.
According to Kapoor, the lokayukta report reveals that the fresh mechanism has started showing results, and the state government has so far recovered ₹12,48,876 from defaulting officers after issuance of the February 2026 directions.
Closing the complaint, lokayukta justice Hari Pal Verma recommended that the names of officers against whom RTI penalties remain pending should be uploaded on government websites. The report also directed the State Information Commission to submit quarterly progress reports regarding defaulting officers to their respective department heads.

RTI Special | In 2012, the Government Released CBI Director Selection Records. In 2026, It Refused : Tarushi Aswani

The Wire: New Delhi: Thursday, 28 May 2026.

Commodore Lokesh Batra (retired), the RTI applicant who was refused the information, pointed out that the CBI 'itself occupies a central role in politically sensitive investigations, making questions of transparency … particularly significant'.

In 2012, the Union government disclosed detailed records relating to the appointment of the CBI director under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, including selection committee minutes, internal file notings, the names of officers under consideration and correspondence between top government departments.

Fourteen years later, the same process has effectively been declared confidential.

In response to an RTI application filed by transparency campaigner Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.), the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) has refused to disclose records related to the appointment of the new CBI director, citing exemptions under sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. That process had culminated on May 13 this year with Praveen Sood receiving a second one-year extension in office.

The refusal marks a sharp departure from the government’s own past practice.

“You can check the 55-page document of the 2012 RTI on the CBI director's appointment,” Commodore Batra told The Wire. “In 2012, the DoPT provided my RTI [response] with complete information and answers as requested concerning selection of the CBI director, why denial of information now? I have asked exactly the same question 14 years later, they responded in a jiffy that they cannot share the information,” he said.

Commodore Batra had first sought information in November 2012, when then-CBI director A.P. Singh was nearing retirement. His RTI application sought details of the selection process for the next CBI director, including the names of shortlisted IPS officers, file notings, selection committee records and copies of relevant files.

The DoPT in January 2013 then disclosed extensive records spanning dozens of pages to the queries Commodore Batra had raised.

Exclusively accessed by The Wire, these documents from 2012 provide a rare insight into the internal workings of one of the country’s most sensitive appointments.

The records include minutes of meetings of the selection committee held on October 18 and October 30, 2012, under the chairmanship of the Central Vigilance Commissioner. The meetings were attended by the Union home secretary, secretary (personnel) and vigilance commissioners.

The documents show that the government considered 61 IPS officers from the 1974 to 1977 batches for the post of CBI director. The records disclosed names, cadre details, empanelment status and vigilance-related information of the officers under consideration.

Internal file notings reveal, among other things, deliberations over whether IPS officers from the 1978 batch could be considered for appointment, with references made to a Supreme Court direction that only officers from the four senior-most batches as of the incumbent CBI director's retirement be considered, and opinions received from the law ministry.

The records also include discussions concerning complaints and allegations against some officers under consideration, including Gujarat cadre IPS officer Kuldeep Sharma. One communication sent by then-Gujarat chief secretary A.K. Joti raised objections to Sharma’s possible appointment and referred to pending proceedings and allegations against him.

The government eventually appointed Ranjit Sinha as CBI director on November 22, 2012.

On May 20, 2026, Commodore Batra filed a fresh RTI application seeking similar information regarding the appointment process that ended with Sood receiving another extension as director. The application sought details of the shortlisting process, names of officers considered, records of discussions and minutes of the selection committee meeting reportedly held around May 12, 2026.

A mere five days later, the DoPT rejected the request.

According to the RTI response dated May 26, 2026, the information sought pertained to “confidential records, internal deliberations, assessment reports, file notings, correspondence and evaluation materials connected with the process of selection/appointment of Director, CBI”.

The response further stated that the requested records included those that are held in a “fiduciary capacity and contain personal information relating to third-party officers/candidates,” and that disclosure “would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy and compromise the confidentiality and integrity of the selection process.”

The DoPT therefore denied the information under sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Section 8(1)(e) exempts information available to a person in a fiduciary relationship from disclosure, while section 8(1)(j) broadly protects personal information from disclosure. The latter was controversially amended by the Digital Personal Data Protection Act to widen the scope of information it exempts.

However, the department’s refusal raises questions because many of the categories of records now being treated as exempt were previously disclosed by the same public authority in 2012.

The 2026 response does not invoke section 10 of the RTI Act, which deals with severability and allows public authorities to redact exempt portions while disclosing the remaining material.

Commodore Batra believes that this omission is significant because even if portions of the records contained personal or sensitive information, non-exempt portions could still have been disclosed after redaction.

The appointment of the CBI director is governed by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act and involves a high-powered committee comprising the prime minister, the leader of opposition and the chief justice of India or a nominee judge.

For Commodore Batra, the issue is ultimately about inconsistency. “The CBI itself occupies a central role in politically sensitive investigations, making questions of transparency and institutional independence particularly significant. When the same information was disclosed earlier, why should the entire process now be treated as secret?” he asked.

The DoPT’s refusal to disclose records related to the process behind the appointment of the next CBI director also comes amid wider concerns over opacity in appointments to key institutions and the conduct of the selection process itself.

Earlier this month, Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi issued a dissent note following the meeting of the high-powered committee tasked with selecting the next CBI director. Gandhi alleged that crucial records concerning candidates, including self-appraisal and “360-degree” assessment reports, were not shared with him in advance.

In the note, he said members were expected to assess records relating to 69 officers during the meeting itself, calling the exercise a “mockery” aimed at formalising the selection of a “pre-decided candidate”.

This adds another layer to questions surrounding transparency in the CBI director's appointment process, particularly as the government refuses to disclose related records under the RTI Act.

The controversy also comes on the back of broader concerns raised by transparency campaigners over appointments to institutions meant to safeguard accountability.

This past December, a panel headed by the prime minister recommended the appointment of a new chief information commissioner and eight information commissioners to the Central Information Commission (CIC), the statutory final appellate body for RTI queries concerning the Union government. Prior to that, eight of the CIC's ten information commissioner posts remained vacant for a year after the government solicited applications to fill in the vacancies.

Against this backdrop, the DoPT’s refusal to disclose records that it had previously released during the 2012 CBI director appointment process has renewed questions about whether transparency standards around key institutional appointments are steadily narrowing.

Tamil Nadu Information Commission pulls up PIO for delaying information under RTI Act

The Hindu: Chennai: Thursday, 28 May 2026.

The Tamil Nadu Information Commission came down heavily on the officials responsible for sharing information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, in the office of the Chief Educational Officer, Chennai district.
Imposing penalty on the officials for the “harassment” and “unreasonable delay” in providing the information called for by E.L. Sagayaraj, Information Commissioner V.P.R. Elamparithi awarded a compensation of ₹10,000 to the petitioner.
The petitioner had requested details of the interviews held on February 26, 2025, in the Don Bosco School, Perambur, under the Act. Since there was no response from the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority, Mr. Sagayaraj moved an appeal before the TNIC. 
After hearing both sides, Mr. Elamparithi said it had been established that information was not provided to the petitioner within 30 days and no valid reasons were given by the PIO to explain the same. He invoked provisions under Section 19(8)(a)(ii) of the Act and appointed the Chief Education Officer, Chennai district, as the PIO in the case.
Awarding a compensation of ₹10,000 to the petitioner for the mental agony he had to suffer owing to the delay in getting information, the Commission also sought an explanation from the PIO as to why a maximum penalty of ₹25,000 should not be levied and disciplinary action not be initiated against her.
Mr. Elamparithi directed the authorities to furnish the information sought by the petitioner within two weeks and report compliance to the order.

'Dire need for corrective measures': CIC flags 'persistent crisis' of suicides in IIT campuses, suggests high-level panels

Deccan Herald: New Delhi: Wednesday, 27 May 2026.
The recommendation of the apex transparency watchdog came while hearing a batch of appeals after the IITs refused to disclose details of suicide case victims at IIT Madras, IIT Jodhpur, IIT Goa and IIT Kanpur.

File image of the Central Information Commission building(L), a view of the IIT MadrasCredit: PTI Photos

Observing a "persistent crisis" of suicides across IIT campuses, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has recommended the constitution of high-level committees at the institutes to address factors contributing to such deaths, underlining the "dire need" for corrective measures.
The recommendation of the apex transparency watchdog came while hearing a batch of appeals after the IITs refused to disclose details of suicide case victims at IIT Madras, IIT Jodhpur, IIT Goa and IIT Kanpur.
The Commission upheld that the information amounted to personal data of third parties and could not be disclosed, but said that institutions must strengthen transparency regarding preventive mechanisms and mental health initiatives.
Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi said there is a "persistent crisis" of multiple suicides annually across IIT campuses, with a "high concentration" at institutions such as IIT Kanpur and IIT Kharagpur, and there was a "dire need" for universities to set up panels to address factors leading to such incidents, if not already constituted.
The Commission also asked IITs to proactively disclose details related to the constitution and functioning of such committees on their official websites under the RTI Act.
The order assumes significance against the backdrop of the recently published National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) report, which showed that while overall suicides in India marginally declined in 2024, student suicides continued to rise.
According to the NCRB's "Accidental Deaths and Suicides in India 2024" report, student suicides increased from 13,892 in 2023 to 14,488 in 2024 – a rise of nearly 4.3 per cent. Students accounted for 8.5 per cent of all suicide victims in 2024, up from 8.1 per cent the previous year. The data translates to nearly 40 student suicides every day, or almost one every 36 minutes.
The CIC order came on appeals filed by IIT alumnus Dheeraj Kumar Singh, who sought details such as age, gender, caste or category, academic programme, native state and location of death of students, scholars and research staff who died by suicide in IITs since 2005.
During the hearing, Singh told the Commission that he was running an NGO for the rehabilitation and mental counselling of students and wanted the information to analyse the root causes behind suicides and strengthen counselling efforts.
The IITs, however, denied disclosure of personal details such as names, age and caste, citing privacy exemptions under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Commission upheld their stand, saying the information amounted to personal data of third parties and could not be disclosed.
"It is relevant to mention here that with the introduction of Section 44 (3) of the Digital Protection and Data Privacy Act, 2023 which came into force w.e.f November 14, 2025, which establishes that Public Authority no longer requires to justify withholding personal data by weighing public interest against privacy," the order said.
Activist Anjali Bhardwaj told PTI that the case demonstrated how the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act "severely curtails people's right to information, even when that data is vital to public interest".
"Demographic details, particularly caste data, are essential to identifying whether suicides are disproportionately prevalent among specific marginalised communities. Withholding this information directly stifles crucial public debate on appropriate measures necessary to mitigate this crisis," she claimed.
At the same time, the CIC said institutions must strengthen transparency regarding preventive mechanisms and mental health initiatives to reduce the need for repeated RTI applications.
Transparency activist Amrita Johri termed the CIC's recommendation for constituting high-level committees and proactively disclosing related information under Section 4 of the RTI Act a "positive step".
"Details about the existence of such committees will be most useful as it will enable students, teachers and parents to reach out for help or with suggestions on steps that can be taken to address the crisis. Transparency will facilitate an open and honest engagement to prevent student suicides," she said.
"Each suicide is a personal tragedy that prematurely takes the life of an individual and has a continuing ripple effect, affecting the lives of families, friends and communities," the NCRB report noted.