Why CIC upheld Indian Oil's refusal to disclose fuel quality inspection records under RTI

Moneycontrol: New Delhi: Friday, 10^th July 2026.
During the hearing, the appellant argued that consumers are "overburdened with the fuel prices" and contended that, "in today's digital era," such information ought to be maintained centrally by the company's head office.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has upheld Indian Oil Corporation Ltd's (IOCL) decision to withhold decade-long records related to fuel quality inspections, fraud detection and consumer complaints sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, accepting the public sector oil company's argument that compiling the information would place a disproportionate burden on its resources.
The order was passed by Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi while disposing of an appeal filed by Robin Zaccheus, who had challenged IOCL's refusal to provide extensive records covering the period from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2023.
According to the order, Zaccheus had sought year-wise details on inspections conducted to identify poor fuel quality, short delivery of fuel at retail outlets, cases involving chip-based manipulation of fuel dispensing machines, action taken against outlets found violating norms, vigilance reports, and consumer complaints.
During the hearing, the appellant argued that consumers are "overburdened with the fuel prices" and contended that, "in today's digital era," such information ought to be maintained centrally by the company's head office.
In response, IOCL told the Commission that the requested information was "not readily available" in the format sought by the applicant. The company said the records were not maintained in a consolidated manner and explained that collecting them would require a massive exercise across its nationwide network.
The Maharatna oil company informed the Commission that it operates through around 42,000 retail outlets and, under its standard operating procedure, carries out a minimum of two inspections every year at each outlet. This translates into nearly eight lakh inspections annually, making it "not possible to collate the sought information," it submitted.
IOCL further stated that "compiling the sought information for a period of 10 years i.e., from 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2023 would disproportionately divert the resources of their public authority, and hence the sought information was denied U/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005."
The company also informed the Commission that "all active retail outlets are being automated to capture the data for better monitoring of RO operations." It added that dispensing units are being procured with upgraded specifications validated by the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC). IOCL also said regular training is provided to retail outlet personnel and customer awareness programmes are conducted on an ongoing basis.
In his order, Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi noted that IOCL had already supplied the applicant with the applicable rules, marketing discipline guidelines, relevant website links and other information that was available, while denying the remaining records under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
"The Commission finds that the respondent gave an appropriate reply to the appellant… Therefore, no further intervention of the Commission is required," the order said, dismissing the appeal.
(With inputs from PTI)

CIC upholds Indian Oil’s refusal to disclose records of fuel quality inspection, fraud records

The Print: New Delhi: Friday, 10^th July 2026.
The CIC has upheld IOCL’s refusal to disclose decade-long nationwide fuel quality inspection and fraud records under the RTI Act despite an applicant’s plea that the information was in public interest.

The applicant said consumers are “overburdened with the fuel prices” and the information should be centrally maintained in today’s digital era.
The Central Information Commission accepted the oil major’s contention that compiling the data, scattered across its 16 state offices and 73 divisional offices, would disproportionately divert its resources under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
The order came on an appeal filed by Robin Zaccheus against Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL), seeking year-wise data from 2014 to 2023 on inspections conducted to detect poor quality and incorrect quantity of fuel dispensed at retail outlets, chip-based manipulation in fuel dispensing machines, action taken against erring outlets, consumer complaints and vigilance reports.
During the hearing, Zaccheus argued that consumers are “overburdened with the fuel prices” and in today’s digital era, the respondent ought to maintain such information centrally at its head office.
The IOCL submitted that the information was “not readily available” in the format sought.
It also told the Commission that it has around 42,000 retail outlets and, under its standard operating procedure, conducts a minimum of two inspections every year at each outlet, amounting to around eight lakh inspections annually.
It said it was “not possible to collate the sought information”.
The Maharatna oil company said that “compiling the sought information for a period of 10 years i.e., from 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2023 would disproportionately divert the resources of their public authority, and hence the sought information was denied U/s 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005”.
The Corporation also said “all active retail outlets are being automated to capture the data for better monitoring of RO operations”, while dispensing units are being procured with upgraded specifications validated by the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC).
It added that regular training is imparted to retail outlet staff and customer awareness programmes are carried out regularly.
Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi observed that the respondent had already provided the available rules, marketing discipline guidelines, website links and factual information to the appellant while denying the remaining information under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
“The Commission finds that the respondent gave an appropriate reply to the appellant… Therefore, no further intervention of the Commission is required,” the order said while dismissing the appeal. PTI MHS MHS KSS KSS
(This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.)

CIC directs Southern Railway to disclose details of 83,000 trees planted in Madurai Division

The Hindu: Chennai: Friday, 10^th July 2026.
Blanket denial of information is not in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act: Information Commissioner

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the Madurai Division of Southern Railway to disclose details of trees planted over a six-year period, including the species, locations and expenditure incurred.
The direction came on a petition filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, by Arun Pandi, who sought details of about 83,000 trees planted across the Madurai Division between April 2019 and July 2024. He requested information on the exact locations where the saplings were planted, the species of trees, the expenditure incurred, and the source of procurement, along with copies of purchase bills.
‘Information not available’ 
In response, the Chief Public Information Officer (CPIO) stated that the information sought was not available at the divisional office. While some details were available with field offices, compiling them would not only be time-consuming but disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority, he said.
Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO and the order of the First Appellate Authority, Mr. Pandi approached the Central Information Commission. During the hearing, the CPIO reiterated that the information sought was voluminous and not maintained in a compiled form.
‘Reply vague and generic’
After hearing both sides, Information Commissioner Swagat Das observed that the CPIO’s reply was vague and generic. The officer had merely stated that the information was unavailable at the divisional office and that compiling records from various field units would disproportionately divert the authority’s resources, without providing any specific justification regarding the availability or non-availability of each item of information sought by the appellant.
The Commissioner noted that the information sought ought to exist in one form or another, with the concerned offices maintaining plantation and expenditure records. “A blanket denial stating that the information is not available with the office, without examining the records held by the concerned field units, is not in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act,” he observed.
The Commission directed the CPIO to revisit the RTI application, conduct a diligent search of records available with the concerned offices and field units, and furnish all available information to the petitioner.

What constitutes public authority under the RTI Act : Dileep P. Chandran

The Indian Express: Delhi: Friday, 10^th July 2026.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is not a “public authority” under the RTI Act, and therefore cannot be compelled to disclose information under the Act.

The RTI Act came into force in 2005 with the aim of promoting transparency and accountability in public administration, containing corruption, and strengthening participatory democracy. (File)

In its May 2026 ruling, the CIC underlined that the BCCI is a private society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. As “a private association of individuals which has obtained legal recognition through registration”, the BCCI is not subject to control of the government in any meaningful way, it added.
The ruling revives broader questions about public authority, particularly in the context of the right to know as an essential part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. How did the right to know evolve in India into the Right to Information Act, 2005 , and what constitutes a public authority under the Act?
The constitutional foundation of the right to know:
Democracies across the world recognise access to information as the lifeblood of a vibrant civil society. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and Article 19(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) affirm the right to seek, receive, and impart information as an integral component of freedom of expression.
In India, the judiciary played a vital role in facilitating the right to know as an essential part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. For instance, the Supreme Court made a landmark pronouncement in the State of Uttar Pradesh vs Raj Narain (1975) case by noting, “…people of this country have a right to know about every public act, everything that is done in a public way by their public functionaries…”
In L K Koolwal vs State of Rajasthan (1986), the court reiterated, “Under Article 19(a) of the Constitution there exists the right of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is based on the foundation of the freedom of right to know.”
The evolution of the RTI Act:
Later on, the campaign for the right to information gained momentum with the historic struggle of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in Rajasthan during the 1990s.
Villagers in Devdungri who publicly scrutinised the fake muster rolls and other bills during public hearings emerged as the architects of the demand for transparency and accountability in governance. The grassroots movement eventually paved the way for the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The Act came into force in October 2005 with the objectives of promoting transparency and accountability in public administration, containing corruption, and strengthening participatory democracy through informed citizenry. But the most pertinent question is: what constitutes public authority under the RTI Act.
Public authority under the RTI Act:
Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines public authority as any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted –
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate government.
The definition further extends to any authority, body, or institution owned, controlled or substantially financed by appropriate governments. Even non-Government organisations substantially financed, either directly or indirectly, by the funds of the appropriate government come under the ambit of the Act.
In sum, the Act provides a broader definition of public authority to bring within its ambit not only governmental authorities but also institutions and bodies that function with substantial government funding and control.
Major obligations of public authorities:
Section 4 of the RTI Act lays down the major obligations of public authorities. Public authorities are mandated to maintain all their records systematically, duly catalogued and indexed to facilitate easy access to information. The Act also mandates every public authority to publish and annually update the particulars of their organisations, functions, duties, decisionmaking process and other relevant information.
Thus, the Act encourages public authorities to disseminate as much information as possible to the public at regular intervals through various means of communication, including the internet and in local language as far as practicable, to minimise the need for formal requests.
Furthermore, it is mandatory for public authorities to designate Public Information Officers (PIO) in all their administrative units and offices to receive RTI applications and provide requested information to applicants in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
However, a crucial question is whether or not the performance of public functions or “public actions” by an institution brings it within the ambit of the RTI Act.
Can “public actions” determine a public authority:
In its May 2026 ruling about the BCCI, the CIC relied on the three judgements of the Supreme Court – Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank v State of Kerala, Zee Telefilms v Union of India, and Dalco Engineering v Satish Prabhakar Padhye – holding that the BCCI did not satisfy the statutory requirements under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
In Zee Telefilms v Union of India (2005), the Supreme Court held that BCCI is not qualified as “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. Nonetheless, several judicial observations and expert committee reports have acknowledged that the body performs significant public functions.
In 2018, then-Central Information Commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu also held that the BCCI is a public authority and directed the body to set up mechanisms to disseminate information under the RTI Act.
But the BCCI challenged that order in the Madras High Court, which sent the matter back to the CIC for a fresh look in September 2025. And by holding that the BCCI is not a “public authority” under the RTI Act, the Commission reversed the 2018 ruling.
Why public functions alone are not enough:
But critics of the CIC ruling argue that the BCCI enjoys privileges like a public authority, such as the use of the nomenclature ‘India’ in international sports, tax exemptions, regulatory control over cricket, and the selection of the national team for the country, with the tacit consent of the State.
Nonetheless, the CIC said that certain tax exemptions enjoyed by the BCCI do not amount to the government substantially financing it. It further maintained that merely performing significant public functions does not automatically make the BCCI fall within the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
Moreover, the term “public function” does not appear anywhere in the Act for the purpose of defining “public authority”. Instead, the Act focuses on the nature of governmental control and the extent of public financing. It is these statutory tests that have become the focal point of judicial interpretation.
Governmental control and substantial financing:
Although the RTI Act does not clearly define terms such as “substantial financing” and “controlled by appropriate government”, CIC decisions and judicial interventions from time to time seek to clarify the use of these expressions.
In the Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd & others v State of Kerala & others (2013) case, the Supreme Court held that cooperative societies are not public authorities under the RTI Act. The court observed that “control” by the appropriate government must be substantial in nature and that mere supervision and regulation by the government is insufficient to bring any institution within the ambit of the Act.
The court also narrowly defined the term “substantial financing” as “essential”, without which a body cannot practically run. These interpretations keep non-governmental bodies, including those performing significant public functions and extensively regulated by the governments, outside the purview of the RTI Act.
Beyond legal formalism:
Beyond the legal and statutory debates, it may be suggested that institutions performing public functions, regardless of their form and nature of organisation, could strive to uphold and maximise accountability and transparency in their administration. Greater transparency and accountability strengthen public trust and contribute to the creation of social capital.
Moreover, market considerations and claims for competitive advantages need not override the broader democratic value of transparency in administration. Lastly, efforts to clarify the statutory meaning and scope of contested expressions could help broaden the ambit of transparency laws.
Post read questions:

1. The right to information is an essential facet of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. Discuss with reference to judicial pronouncements.
2. Discuss the significance of proactive disclosure under Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. What are the key obligations of public authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005?
3. Transparency and accountability are indispensable to democratic governance. Discuss the role of the Right to Information Act in strengthening these values.
4. Should institutions performing public functions be treated as public authorities under the Right to Information Act? Why or why not?

(Dileep P Chandran is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science in P M Government College, Chalakudy, Kerala.)

RTI : Madras High Court Makes Display Of Fee Structure Mandatory In Tamil Nadu Private Schools

The Tribune: New Delhi: Thursday, 9^th July 2026.
The Madras High Court has ordered all private schools in Tamil Nadu to display their approved fee structures on school notice boards, addressing long-standing concerns of parents over alleged overcharging by educational institutions.

The Madras HC directive has been welcomed by parents and educationists (ETV Bharat)

The directive comes against the backdrop of repeated allegations that several private schools in the state collect fees far above the levels prescribed by the government, prompting demands for stricter regulation and greater accountability.
In response to these concerns, the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission (SIC) on May 25 directed all private schools in the state to display government-approved tuition fee details prominently on their notice boards.
Subsequently, on June 1, the Director of Private Schools issued a circular making it mandatory for all private educational institutions - including nursery, primary, matriculation, CBSE and other board-affiliated schools - to comply with the order.
While the move was widely welcomed by parents and education activists, private school managements opposed the directive, arguing that they were not subject to such disclosure requirements.
Challenging the order, K Palaniyappan, general secretary of the All India Private Educational Institutions Association (AIPEIA), approached the Madras High Court seeking to quash the directive. The petition came up for hearing before Justice M Dhandapani.
After hearing submissions from both sides, the court observed that although private schools may not fall within the scope of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, they are nevertheless required to maintain transparency under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act.
The court therefore upheld the government's decision and directed all private schools in Tamil Nadu to display their tuition fee details on notice boards accessible to parents and the public. With the dismissal of the petition, compliance with the directive has now become mandatory for private schools across the state.
The judgment has been welcomed by parents and educationists, who believe that public display of fee structures will improve transparency, reduce disputes over fee collection and help parents make informed decisions regarding their children's education.

Set up by deed, not Act, Ram Temple Trust falls outside RTI purview : Manikant Mishra

The Tribune: New Delhi: Thursday, 9^th July 2026.
The answer to why the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust is exempt from the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act lies not in the political prominence of the temple but in the legal framework governing its administration.

In a detailed 13-page order, the Central Information Commission (CIC) last year held that the Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust was not a "public authority" under Section 2(H) of the RTI Act and was therefore not obliged to appoint public information officers or disclose information under the transparency law.
The CIC concluded that the Trust was an independent body created pursuant to the Supreme Court's 2019 Ayodhya judgment and was neither owned, controlled nor substantially financed by the Centre or Uttar Pradesh Government.
Calls for greater transparency in the functioning of the Trust have resurfaced following the recent controversy surrounding its affairs and alleged theft.
The CIC's reasoning relies on a crucial legal distinction. It held that when the Centre framed the scheme for constituting the Trust following the Supreme Court's verdict, it merely implemented the apex court's directions. The Trust itself was created through a trust deed and was not established by the Constitution, an Act of Parliament, a state law or a government notification creating a statutory authority, which are among the routes through which an institution can qualify as a "public authority" under Section 2(H) of the RTI Act.
According to the CIC, the Centre has no administrative or financial control over the Trust, government nominees do not enjoy voting rights in its meetings and vacancies among non-government trustees are filled internally. It also held that the Trust receives no government funding and therefore does not meet the statutory tests of government control or substantial financing required under the RTI Act.
Tirupati, Vaishno Devi and others come under RTI
The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams function under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, with its administration regulated under a statutory framework and subject to government oversight.
Similarly, the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board was established under the J&K Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988. The board is a statutory authority headed by the Lieutenant Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, making it subject to the RTI Act.
Most major temple administrations, including the Guruvayur Devaswom in Kerala, the Shri Jagannath Temple Administration in Odisha and Siddhivinayak Temple in Maharashtra, were constituted under specific state laws. Their powers, composition, administration and accountability mechanisms are laid down by legislation, bringing them within the definition of "public authority" under the RTI Act.
In each of these cases, the institutions derive their authority from statutes enacted by legislatures rather than from independent trust deeds.
Kashi Vishwanath is UP's notable exception
Within Uttar Pradesh, the Kashi Vishwanath Temple stands out as a notable exception.
Its affairs are governed under the Uttar Pradesh Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983, through which the state legislature created the Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust. Since the temple administration functions under a statutory framework and remains subject to government oversight prescribed under the Act, it falls within the ambit of the RTI Act.
The Ram Temple Trust, however, has no comparable governing legislation. Instead, it was constituted pursuant to the Supreme Court's directions in the Ayodhya judgment through a trust deed, with the government playing only the role assigned to it by the court in framing the scheme and facilitating the Trust's creation. The absence of a statute creating or governing the Trust ultimately became the defining factor behind the CIC's conclusion that it is not a "public authority" under the RTI Act.
With the CIC’s explanation in the order, it becomes clear that it is legal structure, not religious importance, which determines the RTI coverage of a temple institution.

RTI flags Congress occupied former 24 Akbar Road headquarters without authorisation since 2013

Millennium Post: New Delhi: Thursday, 9^th July 2026.
An official Right to Information (RTI) reply has stated that the Congress has remained in ‘unauthorised occupation’ of its former headquarters at 24, Akbar Road in New Delhi since June 26, 2013.

The RTI response also says that the Union government has not received any rent for the property during this period and that the party’s outstanding dues are still being assessed.
The RTI reply, furnished by the Directorate of Estates, which falls under the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, states that Bungalow No. 24, Akbar Road, located in Lutyens’ Delhi, was allotted to the Congress party on August 7, 1992.
However, its allotment was cancelled with effect from June 26, 2013, and the bungalow has remained under the party’s unauthorised occupation ever since, according to the government.
The RTI applicant also sought copies of notices, if any, issued by the government asking the Congress to vacate the bungalow.
The Directorate declined to provide the information, stating that such records are not maintained in a compiled form and that compiling them would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act.
Meanwhile, the recent RTI also sought information regarding 11, Ashoka Road, another address in Lutyens’ Delhi and the former headquarters of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which leads the Central government.
The Directorate of Estates confirmed that the bungalow was allotted to the saffron party on March 21, 1985.
However, it said the property now forms part of the Lok Sabha Members’ Pool, and the application regarding information on rent collection and the entity paying rent has been subsequently transferred to the Lok Sabha Secretariat.
The reply further states that the outstanding dues of the BJP towards the government, if any, are under review and yet to be determined.

No Blanket RTI Immunity for MP Lokayukt Police Wing, Supreme Court Rules

Moneylife: New Delhi: Thursday, 9^th July 2026.

In a significant judgment strengthening the Right to Information (RTI) regime, the Supreme Court has struck down a Madhya Pradesh (MP) government notification that exempted the special police establishment (SPE) of the Lokayukt organisation from the purview of the RTI Act. The Court held that the SPE, which investigates corruption and certain economic offences involving public servants, cannot be classified as an 'intelligence and security organisation' entitled to exemption under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
In an order last month, a bench of justice JK Maheshwari and justice Atul S Chandurkar said, "we are of the considered opinion that the notification dated 25 August 2011 issued by the general administration department (GAD) of Madhya Pradesh to the extent it seeks to exclude the SPE from the purview of the Act of 2005 in view of Section 24(4) thereof, is liable to be set aside as being bad in law as it provides for matters not enumerated under Section 7 of the Act of 1947. The SPE, having been conferred jurisdiction only to investigate offences punishable under the Act of 1988, Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII of the Penal Code, cannot be termed an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation for the purposes of Section 24(4) of the Act of 2005."
"The notification dated 25 August 2011 does not conform to Section 24(4) of the Act of 2005 and is, thus, excessive in nature...the notification dated 25 August 2011 issued by the GAD seeking to exclude the SPE from the applicability of the provisions of the Act of 2005 is struck down," the apex court said.
The bench dismissed an appeal filed by the SPE against a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment and struck down a 2011 state government notification that had excluded the SPE from the ambit of the RTI Act.
The Court, however, clarified that it had not examined the validity of the same notification insofar as it applied to the state bureau of investigation of economic offences, meaning that part of the notification would continue to operate.
The appeal arose after an RTI applicant sought information from the special police establishment. The investigating agency relied on a notification dated 25 August 2011 issued by the MP government under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, claiming exemption from the Act as an 'intelligence and security organisation'.
The principal question before the Supreme Court was whether the SPE, constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act, 1947, to investigate corruption and specified offences involving public servants, could legally be treated as an intelligence and security organisation under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
One notable aspect of the judgment is the Court's decision to examine the validity of the notification even though the RTI applicant had not specifically challenged it before the High Court.
The apex court observed that, while specific pleadings are ordinarily required before subordinate legislation is struck down, courts are not precluded from examining its legality if the issue arises directly during proceedings and the affected government is given a full opportunity to justify the provision.
The judges noted that the state government had been granted an adequate opportunity to defend the notification through detailed submissions and arguments before the Supreme Court.
The Court analysed Section 24 of the RTI Act, which exempts only intelligence and security organisations established by the central or state governments from the Act's provisions.
It observed that the organisations listed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act such as intelligence agencies, armed forces and national security organisations are fundamentally engaged in intelligence gathering or national security functions.
By contrast, the SPE's statutory mandate is confined to investigating offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, criminal breach of trust, cheating and specified offences relating to forged documents committed by public servants or employees of government bodies.
The Court said this limited jurisdiction clearly distinguished the SPE from organisations engaged in intelligence or security work.
The Bench examined the legislative framework governing the MP Lokayukt organisation and the special police establishment.
It noted that the Lokayukt was established to investigate allegations of corruption against public servants and functions as an independent anti-corruption institution.
The judgment referred to the statement of objects and reasons of the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt Act, 1981, as well as the organisation's own description on its official website, both of which emphasise its role in preventing and investigating corruption rather than performing intelligence or security functions.
The Court further observed that successive notifications issued under the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Act consistently restricted the SPE's jurisdiction to corruption offences and a limited class of Indian Penal Code (IPC) offences involving public servants.
Therefore, it held, neither the Lokayukt nor the SPE has any statutory responsibility relating to intelligence gathering or national security.
The Supreme Court held that the 2011 notification exceeded the powers conferred by Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
It observed that subordinate legislation can always be tested against the parent statute and struck down if it travels beyond the authority granted by Parliament.
Quoting earlier precedents, the Bench reiterated that delegated legislation enjoys no greater immunity than ordinary executive action and must conform to the limits prescribed by the enabling statute.
The Court concluded that the notification failed this test because the SPE could not legally be categorised as an intelligence and security organisation.
Rejecting the state government's argument that the notification was intended to protect informers and ongoing investigations, the Court pointed out that the RTI Act already contains safeguards under Section 8.
Information whose disclosure could impede an investigation or endanger the life or safety of informers is already exempt from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(h).
Consequently, extending a blanket exemption under Section 24(4) was not legally justified.
Holding that the special police establishment's statutory functions are confined to investigating corruption and specified criminal offences and do not relate to intelligence or security, the Supreme Court declared that the 2011 notification excluding the SPE from the RTI Act was ultra vires Section 24(4).
The Bench upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment, struck down the notification to the extent it exempted the SPE from the RTI Act, and dismissed the criminal appeal.
However, it clarified that the judgment does not affect the notification's applicability to the state bureau of investigation of economic offences, as that question was not before the Court.
On 6 September 2024, the Maharashtra government decided to put the anti-corruption bureau (ACB) out of the RTI ambit, sparking a wave of protests from activists across the state. The notification was surreptitiously posted only on the ACB’s website, not on the Maharashtra government’s website, as is the norm. (Read: Congress-NCP govt removed Anti-Corruption Bureau from RTI just before polls)
This had drawn ire from RTI activists, especially those who had lodged formal complaints against powerful politicians in Maharashtra for corruption.
In October 2024, the then governor of Maharashtra, Vidyasagar Rao, used his power to scrap the notification. The press statement issued by the Raj Bhavan stated, “The Governor took the decision to withdraw the notification issued by the State Government on 6 September 2014 after considering representations from various RTI activists and taking cognisance of newspaper reports which reflected the view that the notification was in violation of the RTI Act. The Governor also got the issue legally examined before taking the decision to withdraw the notification.” (Read: Maharashtra Governor puts ACB back in RTI Act)

CIC Directs Power Grid to Disclose Tenders Under RTI Act

Rediff Money Wiz: New Delhi: Thursday, 9^th July 2026.
CIC advises Power Grid to ensure upfront disclosure of tender & bidder documents under RTI Act. Emphasizes transparency & Section 4(1)(b) compliance.

Photograph: Courtesy, Power Grid Corporation

The CIC has observed that state-run Maharatna power transmission company Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd (POWERGRID) "does not disclose" tender-related information in the public domain which otherwise should ideally be available upfront to maintain transparency in the system.
It advised the public sector undertaking to proactively disclose tender, bidder and award-related documents under the RTI Act
The Central Information Commission (CIC) issued the advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act while disposing of an appeal seeking information related to POWERGRID's 765 KV Phagi-Bhiwani Circuit-I transmission line passing through Bagholi village in Rajasthan's Jhunjhunu district.
Information Commissioner Jaya Varma Sinha directed the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to furnish a revised reply on one of the RTI queries relating to the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) after finding that the relevant information had not been provided.
The Commission said the utility should place key tender-related records in the public domain, including the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), terms and conditions, information to bidders (ITB), minutes of pre-bid consultations and award letters.
Also, the estimated amount at which the tender was awarded, dates of commencement and completion of work, and the names and designations of the engineer-in-charge and supervisor.
It further observed that documents such as completion certificates, Measurement Books (MB), Quality Check Reports (QCR), Bills of Quantity (BoQ) and contractor registration certificates are generally disclosable on demand as they do not attract exemption under the RTI Act.
"A pertinent issue emanating from the instant case is that the Respondent Public Authority, in compliance with Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act, does not disclose tender-related information in the public domain which otherwise, should ideally be available in the public domain upfront to maintain transparency in the system.
"In view of the above, an advisory under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act is issued to the Respondent Public Authority for upfront disclosure of documents/ information related to tenders, award letters, etc. under Section 4 of the RTI Act to make it easy for a layperson to get relevant information through website," the CIC said.
It said every public authority shall make constant endeavour to take steps in accordance with the requirements of Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act to provide as much information suo moto to the public so that the public does not have to resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain basic information," the order said.
Under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, every public authority is required to proactively publish details across 17 specific categories.
Referring to the Supreme Court's 2023 judgment in Kishan Chand Jain vs Union of India & Ors., the Commission said information commissions have a duty to continuously monitor compliance with the proactive disclosure requirements under Section 4 of the RTI Act to promote transparency and accountability.

Delay in migrating to online mode impacting timely RTI replies

The Hindu: Chennai: Thursday, 9^th July 2026.

Tamil Nadu Information Commission writes to State government calling for “urgent” intervention.
Expressing concern over the considerable delay in providing replies to petitions filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Tamil Nadu Information Commission has urged the State government to facilitate online management of RTI applications/responses in all the Departments of Secretariat, offices of the Heads of Departments and District Collectorates.
In a letter to the Chief Secretary, the then Chief Information Commissioner said that the process of filing RTI petitions through online mode had commenced, though not effectively, in the Departments of Secretariat and some District Collectorates. However, there was a lot of confusion in that process which in turn caused considerable delay in furnishing replies by the Public Information Officers to the petitioners. 
During the enquiry before the Commission, the PIOs had expressed difficulty in handling the RTI petitions online. “This requires urgent attention so that the prescribed time limit of 30 days in the RTI Act for furnishing of reply by the PIOs can be strictly adhered to,” the then CIC Md. Shakeel Akhter said in his letter sent days before his retirement from service last month.
Complaints of delay
He said filing of petitions under Section 6(1) and first appeals under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, in all the Departments of Secretariat, HODs/District Collectorates had not been achieved so far and because of that a lot of petitioners complained on this issue when they attended the enquiry in the Commission. Mr. Akhter was appointed as CIC in June 2023 and he held the post for three years.
“It is high time steps are taken to make filing of petitions under Section 6(1) and first appeals under Section 19(1) through online for all the Departments of Secretariat, HODs/District Collectorates,” he said.
Mr. Akhter said the Act was enacted with the preamble to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority in order to strengthen the core constitutional values. It meant harmonising the conflicting interests of governance to preserve the confidentiality of sensitive information and the rights of citizens to know the functioning of government processes in such a way as to preserve the paramountcy of the democratic ideal.
He said the link to the official website of the Commission could be provided to the website management for information of all stakeholders so that anybody could file petitions under the Act through the link apart from the existing working process.
Proactive disclosure 
In his earlier communication, Mr. Akhter drew the attention of the State government to Section 4(2) of the Act which emphasised on providing much information suo motu to the people at regular intervals through various means of communication, including internet, so that applicants made minimum use of this Act to obtain information.

Ahmedabad: 9 AMC libraries shut, 52 lack AC facilities: RTI

Times of India: Ahmedabad: Wednesday, 8^th July 2026.

Nine of the 57 libraries run by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) are currently closed, while 52 do not have air-conditioning facilities, according to information obtained through an RTI application. The reply also revealed that three libraries lack drinking water facilities, raising concerns about the availability of basic amenities for readers.
Advocate Atik Saiyed, who filed the RTI application, alleged that AMC-run libraries are failing to provide adequate facilities to citizens.
“The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation claims to be developing Ahmedabad as a ‘Mega City’ and a ‘Smart City’, but it has failed to provide proper reading and learning facilities to residents. Students and readers visiting libraries during summer face considerable hardship,” Saiyed said.
“The administration collects crores of rupees in taxes but has failed to provide basic amenities to readers. While air conditioners operate round the clock in the offices of politicians and officials, students striving to build their future are left to study under ceiling fans in difficult conditions,” Saiyed alleged.
Saiyed demanded that the AMC upgrade its libraries and ensure they are equipped with all essential facilities for students and readers.

NSE's 16-Year War against Transparency Must Finally End : Sucheta Dalal

Moneylife: Pune: Wednesday, 8^th July 2026.

Sixteen years. That is how long the National Stock Exchange (NSE) has fought to avoid being held directly accountable under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Last week, the Delhi High Court finally dealt a decisive blow to that resistance, dismissing the Exchange's appeal and affirming that the NSE is, indeed, a ‘public authority’ under the RTI Act. The judgement is about far more than one exchange or one law. It raises fundamental questions about transparency, regulatory accountability and the governance of India's most important market institution.
On 1st July, a division bench of the Delhi High Court upheld an April 2010 judgement by a single judge declaring that the NSE is a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of the RTI Act. That judge was justice Sanjiv Khanna, who went on to become the chief justice of India in 2025, but NSE’s appeal dragged on until last week. The legal battle may still not be over. The NSE can still appeal the Delhi High Court judgement before the Supreme Court. (RTI Act applies To National Stock Exchange: Delhi High Court)
Meanwhile, the RTI Act itself has been defanged and eviscerated so much over the past decade that the Exchange may find it easier to accept the judgement and stonewall queries as many government departments have begun to do. Whether NSE chooses to do so may, ultimately, depend as much on the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) as on the Exchange itself.
The battle to bring exchanges under RTI began with a citizen approaching the central information commission (CIC), asking it to declare the Exchange a ‘public authority’. A full bench of the CIC agreed; NSE promptly challenged the decision before the Delhi High Court. Justice Khanna delivered a comprehensive ruling in 2010 backing the CIC stand. He noted that the NSE performs essential public functions and can only operate through recognition granted under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (SCRA). Further, the SCRA and the SEBI Act have extensive regulatory powers, including approval of rules/bye-laws, board nominations, oversight of operations, power to supersede governing bodies, etc. This amounts to ‘deep and pervasive control’ by the government, not mere regulation. NSE contested the ruling and ensured that it benefited enormously from legal delays.
Ironically, the 16-year delay has only strengthened the case for greater public scrutiny of the Exchange. The NSE is far more than a profit-making company. It is a near-monopoly market infrastructure institution (MII) that functions as a de facto public utility, handling trillions of rupees of daily transactions while, simultaneously, regulating thousands of systemically important market participants.
For over two decades, the NSE cultivated an image of exemplary governance. That illusion collapsed after Moneylife published a whistle-blower's letter in 2015 exposing the co-location (Colo) scandal (Blowing the Whistle on Manipulation in NSE). The letter described how select brokers obtained an unfair trading advantage by accessing backup servers with lower latency. This arrangement discriminated against other Colo traders as well as ordinary investors and appeared to enjoy official protection within the Exchange, which refused to act on specific complaints.
The investigation that followed exposed serious governance failures, capricious appointments and the fact that its then managing director (MD) was making decisions on the guidance of a ‘Himalayan Guru’ with an email ID, with whom she shared confidential financial projections, board agendas and human resource allocations. These leaks as well as the highly irregular appointment and salary of the group operating officer went unquestioned by the board and the regulator right until the colocation investigation.
Had the NSE been subject to the RTI Act, it might have found it far harder to use its market dominance, immense profitability and advertising clout to discourage scrutiny, capture its regulator and silence critical questions from the media. Even today, NSE has 90% share of the cash equity market and around 80% of the derivatives market. Its market dominance gives it enormous pricing power and fee income, allowing it to run a highly profitable operation. Earlier this month, a division bench of justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla upheld the 2010 ruling and reiterated that the NSE qualifies as a public authority under the RTI Act.
The IPO Paradox
It may be argued that NSE’s long-awaited initial public offering (IPO) will compel mandatory disclosures under the listing agreement leading to greater transparency. Paradoxically, it will also alter management incentives and subject an already very profitable exchange to the relentless pressure of having to deliver revenue and profit growth every quarter.
When a public utility faces intense pressure to optimise revenues and margins to maximise short-term shareholder value, the temptation to cut corners, encourage frothy trading volumes and skirt its compliance and supervisory obligations as a first-level regulator is even greater. Remember, NSE’s reluctance and failure to regulate broker-members who whipped up large trading volumes by misusing client funds has already led to as many as 32 broker defaults and expulsions between May 2019 and early-2022. Investors losses due to these defaults were in thousands of crore rupees.The tension between profit maximisation and public obligations of exchanges is a globally recognised concern. This makes it even more important that the RTI Act applies to the Exchange's regulatory functions.
Earlier this month, the NSE filed a formal Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP) for listing of its shares on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE). This happened after it negotiated with SEBI to settle or abandon investigations triggered by the Colo scam. The NSE agreed to a ₹1,491.21–crore settlement for the Colo and dark fibre cases, in addition to previous payments of ₹643.05 crore (TAP architecture case) and ₹72.65 crore for a massive technical glitch leading to trading stoppage in 2021. (Read: NSE Discloses ₹1,491 Crore Settlement Bid, Sweeping Legal Overhang Ahead of IPO)
Given NSE’s market dominance, SEBI can easily settle the RTI issue with a binding administrative directive to all exchanges to comply with the Act, appoint public information officers (PIOs) and put in place systems for receiving and answering public queries. The long legal standoff has comprehensively dismantled arguments against the RTI Act, based on commercial confidentiality or the sufficiency of SEBI's oversight. Not only does SEBI have the legal authority to do so, but its official stance before the CIC had strongly supported RTI compliance in 2010. That it stood by silently and allowed NSE to challenge the CIC order in court is an example of regulator capture.
What remains on trial is SEBI’s ability to exert itself in favour of transparency and accountability. Writing in Moneylife in 2010, the late Prakash Kardaley, an RTI activist, asked:  “What is wrong in being transparent, unless one desperately wants to cover up one’s own misdeeds? Transparency in public life, either as the spirit or as a piece of legislation, when codified into a law, knows its legitimate Laxman Rekha. It does not cause any unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy. It does not expect disclosure of any information that would be detrimental to society at large. On the other hand, it attacks excessive and unnecessary secrecy that, in fact, is injurious to the well-being of society. Any opposition to the spirit of transparency, therefore, must be seen as profound disrespect to society.” Subsequent events at the NSE only revealed how prescient this was.
The Delhi High Court has removed another legal challenge to bringing the NSE within the RTI framework. SEBI no longer has any credible reason to remain passive. By issuing clear directions requiring every recognised exchange to appoint PIOs and comply with the Act, it can end years of needless litigation and, finally, align India's largest market institution with the transparency standards it expects of everyone else.

CIC Advises NHAI To Publish Contract And Safety Documents

Construction World: National: Wednesday, 8^th July 2026.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has advised the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to publish contract agreements, safety plans and key project documents in the public domain to promote transparency and accountability. Information Commissioner Jaya Varma Sinha issued an advisory under the Right to Information Act after finding that the authority was not placing contract agreement related information on its website. The commission said contractual and safety documents directly affect public safety and accountability in infrastructure projects.
According to the order, proactive disclosure would enhance transparency in public procurement and execution of highway projects, ensure accountability of contractors and the authority in adhering to safety norms, and empower citizens to monitor compliance with safety standards and contractual obligations. The advisory arose from a second appeal by an applicant who sought certified copies of documents relating to construction of flyovers at Shivpuri Bypass Crossing and Medical College Crossing in Jhansi. The commission noted that while the central public information officer had provided the Letter of Award, copies of the contract agreement and approved safety plans had been denied.
The body held that the exemption relied on to withhold the documents had been wrongly applied and was contrary to the RTI Act, and it directed the central public information officer to furnish the requested material. The commission reminded the authority of its obligation to proactively disclose information and referred to the Supreme Court's 2023 judgment in Kishan Chand Jain versus Union of India to stress that transparency laws work when accountability governs the relationship between right holders and duty bearers. It advised the authority to publish the specified documents and to keep them regularly updated.
The commission said that publishing these records would reduce routine RTI applications and strengthen public oversight of highway project delivery and safety compliance. The advisory aims to foster greater openness in infrastructure governance and to build public confidence.

Panchayat secretary faces bailable warrants over non-compliance

Times of India: Mumbai: Wednesday, 8^th July 2026.
Chandigarh: The Punjab State Information Commission has issued bailable warrants against a panchayat secretary for failing to appear before it despite repeated notices.

State information commissioner Harpreet Sandhu passed the order against public information officer (PIO) and panchayat secretary posted at Wazir Bhullar gram panchayat in Rayya block of Amritsar district.
A show-cause notice was earlier issued to the PIO in connection with an appeal arising from a RTI application of Feb 26, 2024, but he failed to appear.
The commission said the continued absence of the officer delayed adjudication of the appeal and adversely affected the proceedings, terming his conduct as gross negligence. "This reflected a lack of diligence and disregard for the proceedings. All PIOs are duty-bound to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act and attend proceedings whenever required," the commission said, warning that deliberate non-compliance could invite action under the Act.
Exercising powers under Section 18(3)(a) of the RTI Act, the commission ordered the issuance of bailable warrants against the erring official. It also directed Amritsar (Rural) SSP to ensure service of the warrants and secure the officer's presence before it on Oct 9 at 11 am, along with the information sought in the RTI application.