Passport clearance despite criminal case: Punjab information panel seeks update on action against cops : By Hillary Victor

Hindustan Times: Chandigarh: Tuesday, 26 May 2026.
The matter had surfaced in 2023 during the hearing of an RTI appeal filed by Ferozepur resident Geetika against the office of the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana.

The Ludhiana commissioner of police constituted a three-member SIT on December 16, 2025, comprising the DCP Headquarters, ADCP Headquarters and an ACP-rank officer.

Nearly seven months after directing an inquiry into the issuance of Police Clearance Certificate to two passport applicants in 2021 despite a domestic violence case against them, the Punjab State Information Commission has sought a fresh status report from Punjab Police on departmental proceedings initiated against the three cops found guilty of lapses in the verification process.
A Police Clearance Certificate (PCC), provided after police verification, serves as an official confirmation of an applicant’s clear criminal record.
The matter had surfaced in 2023 during the hearing of an RTI appeal filed by Ferozepur resident Geetika against the office of the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana.
The appellant had sought information regarding the issuance of a PCC to Sahil Malhotra and Mamta Rani, who allegedly travelled to Canada on a study visa in 2021 despite facing a criminal case under Sections 498-A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and 406 (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code at the time.
Taking serious note of the allegations, the commission, through orders issued on August 13 and October 29, 2025, had directed Punjab Police to conduct a detailed inquiry into the matter.
Following the commission’s directions, the office of the Punjab director general of police (DGP) recommended the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT).
Subsequently, the Ludhiana commissioner of police constituted a three-member SIT on December 16, 2025, comprising the DCP Headquarters, ADCP Headquarters and an ACP-rank officer.
According to records placed before the commission thereon, the SIT found three police personnel ASI Davinder Singh, ASI Harpreet Singh and ASI Tarsem Singh guilty of lapses in the passport verification process.
Based on the SIT findings, the commissioner of police on April 8, 2026, ordered a departmental inquiry against the three officials under Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules. The inquiry was assigned to Dev Singh, ADCP Zone-3, Ludhiana.
But with no status update for the past seven months, the commission has now directed Punjab Police to submit the latest report on the departmental proceedings initiated against the cops.
Observing that transparency and accountability are among the core objectives of the RTI Act, the commission stressed that public authorities must ensure strict adherence to legal procedures and initiate appropriate action wherever negligence or misconduct is detected.
Case triggered tightened passport verification process
This very case had prompted Punjab Police to tighten passport verification procedures across the state by issuing a fresh Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) aimed at ensuring greater transparency and scrutiny in the issuance of PCCs.
Under the SOP issued on May 16, 2025, passport verification officers were instructed to conduct physical verification of applicants at their residences in the presence of at least two permanent local witnesses. Officials have also been directed to click photographs of both applicants and witnesses during verification and obtain their digital signatures.
The SOP further mandates verification of identity, address and date-of-birth documents and makes scrutiny of criminal antecedents compulsory through the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems and the Interoperable Criminal Justice System.
Additionally, station house officers have been directed to submit reports on passport verification forms within 24 hours of receiving verification inputs from the officials concerned.

CIABOC denies RTI request for general info

The Morning: Sri Lanka: Tuesday, 26 May 2026.

The Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) has refused to release information sought by The Daily Morning under a Right to Information (RTI) request on complaints, investigations, court cases, and convictions linked to corruption-related matters handled by the Commission between 2015 and 2026.
In a response dated 21 April, the CIABOC’s Additional Director and Designated Officer under the RTI Act, M R Y K Udawela said that the requested information “cannot be disclosed”. “The refusal is made in terms of Section 62(1) of the Anti Corruption Act, No. 09 of 2023, which restricts the release of certain categories of information. Accordingly, this public authority is not legally bound to provide the requested information,” the response stated.
Section 62(1) of the relevant Act states: “The Commission, the Director-General or any other officer or employee of the Commission or any person whose services are retained under Section 27 shall not be compelled to reveal the source of any information received under the provisions of this Act.”
The letter also advised The Daily Morning to refer to the official CIABOC website for annual progress reports and other publicly available information.
The RTI request had sought information on: the number of complaints received by the CIABOC from 1 January 2015 to 20 March 2026, the number of complaints investigated during that period, the number of investigations that resulted in court cases being filed, the number of cases concluded in court, the number of cases withdrawn by the Commission, and the number of cases that resulted in convictions.
The Daily Morning’s Deputy News Editor Buddhika Samaraweera who filed the information request, is in the process of appealing the denial to the RTI Commission.

TGSRTC hired 1,675 outsourced drivers since 2014, No direct recruitment: RTI

Hyderabad Mail: Hyderabad: Tuesday, 26 May 2026.

The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TGSRTC) revealed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act that it has engaged 1,675 drivers exclusively through outsourcing since the state’s formation on June 2, 2014. TGSRTC did not recruit a single driver directly during this twelve-year period. However, the corporation denied access to contracts with manpower agencies, citing a transparency law provision.
Providing more details, TGSRTC shared this information with Hyderabad-based RTI activist Kareem Ansari. In response to a query on year-wise recruitment, the corporation stated it made no direct recruitments during this period. Instead, it hired all 1,675 drivers through external contractors.
Turning to the current workforce, as of April 2026, the Corporation employs 12,623 regular drivers, 6 casual drivers, 24 contract drivers, and 1,675 outsourced drivers. Outsourced drivers form about 11.7% of the total driver pool. They represent all new driving personnel recruited since 2014.
Expanding on this, the RTI response listed 53 private entities that have supplied or managed drivers for the state-owned bus corporation. The list includes large facility management firms and individual contractors.
Regionally, the data shows Medak has the highest number of outsourced drivers (260), followed by Khammam (241), Nizamabad (190), and Nalgonda (18). Hyderabad and Sangareddy each have 168 outsourced drivers.
However, while providing most of the numerical data, TGSRTC refused to share copies of contracts with these 53 agencies. The corporation rejected the query under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, which protects commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property that could harm a third party’s competitive position.
Regarding financial details, the Corporation said the data on total payments to these agencies is not readily available and would require compilation. Citing a Supreme Court judgment in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011), the PIO argued that the RTI Act does not require a public authority to collect or collate information it doesn’t already have.
When asked if the Telangana government approved the outsourcing of drivers, TGSRTC replied, “No.” RTI activists have expressed concern about relying on outsourced labour for core operations like driving, especially given the denial of access to contracts.

Temples, churches & mosques fall within RTI ambit: AP info panel chief

The Times of India: Vijayawada: Tuesday, 26 May 2026.
The Andhra Pradesh Information Commission (APIC) has ruled that all religious institutions functioning under govt supervision, statutory regulation, or receiving state funding and public donations fall within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The commission clarified that temples, mosques, churches, waqf institutions, and other religious bodies administered or supervised by the govt cannot deny information sought under the law.

State chief information commissioner Vajja Srinivasa Rao made the observations while hearing a petition concerning disclosure of information by the authorities of Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi temple in Visakhapatnam.
In a detailed 25-page order, the commission held that institutions operating under statutory control or receiving administrative oversight from the state qualify as "public authorities" under the RTI Act. Rejecting the temple authorities' contention that they were exempt from disclosure obligations, Srinivasa Rao observed that the RTI Act was enacted to promote transparency and accountability in institutions substantially controlled, regulated, or financed by the govt.
The ruling came while disposing of a second appeal filed by K S N Patnaik after temple authorities refused to provide information relating to temple festivals, citing an earlier high court judgment.
The commission noted that temples governed under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 function under extensive govt supervision through executive officers, trust boards, and statutory authorities appointed under the law. Their administration, finances, audits, and properties are also subject to state regulation.
The order further observed that offerings and donations made by devotees assume the character of public funds once they are administered within a statutory framework. "Transparency becomes essential when institutions receive public donations, govt grants, or financial assistance," Srinivasa Rao stated.
Extending the same reasoning to waqf institutions, mosques, and churches, the commission observed that such bodies often receive public contributions, foreign donations, and various forms of state support while functioning under regulatory mechanisms established by law.
However, the APIC clarified that matters relating to personal faith, religious rituals, ceremonies, and individual beliefs remain private and do not come under the RTI Act.
The commission directed the public information officer (PIO) of Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi temple to furnish the requested information within 15 days.
The order also noted that the Supreme Court and several high courts have repeatedly interpreted the scope of "public authority" broadly in cases involving institutions subject to direct or indirect govt control. Merely being a religious institution, the commission said, does not place an organisation outside the RTI framework.

Kerala PSC not bound to disclose confidential disciplinary note files under RTI Act: Kerala High Court : Praisy Thomas

Bar and Bench: Kerala: Tuesday, 26 May 2026.
The Court held that internal note files and deliberative records in disciplinary proceedings cannot be disclosed mechanically under the RTI Act unless there is a larger public interest which justifies disclosure.

Kerala High Court 

The Kerala High Court recently held that internal note files, deliberative materials and disciplinary records of an employee are exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [The State Public Information Officer and Under Secretary Kerala Public Service Commission & ors v The Kerala State Information Commission & ors].
Justice Mohammed Nias CP passed the ruling on a petition filed by the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC), challenging an order of the Kerala State Information Commission (Kerala SIC), which had directed disclosure of the documents sought by a former KPSC employee under the RTI Act.
The Court emphasised on the need to balance transparency with privacy and institutional confidentiality and observed that the exemption of 'personal information' under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act cannot be interpreted narrowly or mechanically.
The Court held that internal deliberative processes and confidential note files are entitled to protection unless a larger public interest is clearly established.
"The first component of the provision is personal information and the law relating to it has evolved through judicial pronouncements and is now well settled that the expression “personal information” occurring in Section 8(1)(j), as it stood at the relevant time, takes within its fold not merely personal records, but also professional records, including service records, disciplinary proceedings, confidential assessments and employment related materials" the Court stated.
The case arose from an RTI application filed by Rani Wilfred, former joint secretary of the KPSC, seeking copies of file notes, enquiry materials and connected records relating to disciplinary proceedings initiated against her over alleged irregularities in handling cash during her tenure as cashier.
The disciplinary proceedings against Wilfred had resulted in punishment including barring of increments and recovery of the alleged financial loss.
Several years later, Wilfred sought reconsideration of the disciplinary proceedings and later filed an RTI application seeking access to the connected files and internal deliberations.
The KPSC denied her request citing Sections 8(1)(e) (information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship) and 8(1)(j) (personal information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest) of the RTI Act,
However, the Kerala SIC directed disclosure of all documents sought by Wilfred and also initiated proceedings under Section 20(1) of the Act, against the Public Information Officer concerned.
The SIC's order stated that the information sought was related to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant herself and therefore, could not be withheld under the RTI Act.
It also relied on the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, which stated that information which cannot be denied to parliament or the legislature cannot be denied to any person.
When the matter came before the Court, the KPSC argued that the material requested by the former employee was not merely the final order but confidential files containing opinions, recommendations and comments of officers and members of the Commission.
Disclosure of such internal materials, it contended, would affect the institutional functioning and the relationship between the commission and its officers.
The Court accepted this contention and observed that internal note files are different from the final decisions that are communicated to employees after the conclusion of proceedings .
The Court said that it is a settled law that service records, disciplinary proceedings, confidential assessments and employment related materials fall within the expression 'personal information', which according to several Supreme Court decisions are exempt from disclosure unless a larger public interest was involved.
Emphasising on the 'doctrine of candour', the Court stated that certain documents are protected from being disclosed so as to ensure free and frank expression of opinions from government officials during decision making process.
It also rejected the Kerala SIC's interpretation of the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) of the Act and clarified that the proviso cannot be interpreted in such a narrow manner that it creates an unrestricted right to access personal or service related information.
Further, it took note of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act), which amended Section 8(1)(j) of the Act with effect from November 30, 2025 and expanded the exemption relating to personal information.
The Court clarified that even though the amendment was to operate prospectively, it reflected a legislative shift towards stronger protection of personal and service related data.
Thus, observing that no larger public interest had been established in the present case, the Court quashed the Kerala SIC's order directing disclosure of disciplinary records relating to the former employee.
Standing Counsel PC Sasidharan and advocate Millu Dandapani appeared for KPSC.
Standing Counsel M Ajay appeared for Kerala SIC.
Advocate Surya Binoy assisted the Court as amicus curiae.  
(The State Public Information Officer and Under Secretary Kerala Public Service Commission & ors v The Kerala State Information Commission & ors.pdf)

NHRC steps in after RTI activist killed during Virar quarry inspection : By Megha Sood

Hindustan Times: Mumbai: Monday, 25 May 2026.
The NHRC is seeking reports from Maharashtra officials on the murder of RTI activist Atmaram Patil during a quarry inspection in Virar East.

NHRC steps in after RTI activist killed during Virar quarry inspection

Taking serious note of the killing of an RTI activist during a stone quarry inspection in Virar East, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on Friday sought reports from the Maharashtra DGP and Palghar district magistrate over the May 12 attack allegedly carried out by persons linked to the quarry operators. The incident also left a Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) injured.
The commission has asked the authorities to submit a detailed report within two weeks, including the status of the investigation and the condition of the injured officer.
The NHRC said it took suo motu cognisance based on media reports about the attack in Shirgaon locality of Palghar district. RTI activist Atmaram Patil had accompanied MRO Prabhakar Patil and colleague Pandurang Thakare for an inspection after receiving complaints regarding alleged illegal quarry operations.
The trio was allegedly dragged out of their vehicle and assaulted with sticks and stones by a group associated with quarry operators. Their vehicle was also vandalised in the attack.
Atmaram Patil succumbed to his injuries, while the MRO was hurt. Calling the incident a possible case of serious human rights violations, the NHRC issued notices to state authorities seeking accountability and updates on the probe.
Virar police have arrested quarry owner Bhalchandra Patil and one of his associates in connection with the murder case.

Delay in RTI reply costs woman her land, panel ensures Rs 25K compensation

The Times of India: Chennai: Monday, 25 May 2026.
A two-year delay by revenue officials to furnish information under the RTI Act enabled the sale of a woman’s property to another person without her knowledge. The information commission ordered ₹25,000 as compensation, which was collected from the public information officer concerned as a penalty for not performing his duties.

The victim, M Yashodha of Villupuram district, filed two RTI pleas in 2023 seeking documents from the Town Survey Land Register (TSLR) regarding the settlement details of particular survey numbers in Tiruvallur district. She later approached the state information commission in the same year with her second appeal seeking action against the public information officer concerned.
In Feb this year, when the appeal came up for hearing before information commissioner R Priyakumar, the appellant said she received the required information only in Dec last year, but by then the land in question, which belongs to her mother, was sold to somebody else without her knowledge.
The PIO submitted that her original petition addressed to the survey inspector was transferred to taluk deputy survey inspector in Sept 2023, and added that the post remained vacant. The PIO said he joined five months ago and furnished the copy of the reply.
Recording the submission, the commission directed director of survey and land records to inquire with assistant director for not appointing a PIO for nearly a year and collect ₹25,000 from the officer as a penalty to pay it to the aggrieved petitioner.
In its compliance report, the director of survey and land records said that there was a PIO during the said period and added that memo has been issued against him to initiate departmental action. The director also collected ₹25,000 from the PIO and handed it over to the petitioner.

RTI : Environmentalist questions ‘diversion of EC funds’ to departments ‘unrelated to environmental restoration’ - Written by: Saurabh Parashar

The Indian Express: Chandigarh: Monday, 25 May 2026.
HPSPCB replies to an RTI: Rs 4.50 crore of Rs 11.79 crore environment compensation collected given to police, rural development in two years, but recipient departments yet to submit Utilisation Certificates

Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu

The Himachal Pradesh government has distributed nearly Rs 4.50 crore of the Rs 11.79 core Environment Compensation (EC) collected from violators of pollution norms to the State Police Department and the Department of Rural Development, and invested Rs 3 crore in Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) in the last two financial years, the Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board (HPSPCB) replied to a Right to Information (RTI) Act application.
However, Environmental activist Kamal Anand from Jalandhar in Punjab, who filed the RTI application before HPSPCB, the nodal agency responsible for recovering EC from projects violating pollution norms, said that the RTI remained silent on the expenditure incurred specifically for environmental restoration, plantation drives, pollution mitigation, or other ecological rehabilitation measures for which such compensation is generally intended.
“The diversion of EC funds to departments unrelated to environmental restoration directly violates the regulatory framework laid down by the National Green Tribunal (NGT),” Kamal claimed.
According to the RTI reply, a total of Rs 11.79 crore was recovered as EC from various project proponents over the last two years. During the same period, the state government also earned approximately Rs 36.58 lakh interest on the EC amount deposited in the HPSPCB account.
“Rs 3.50 crore and Rs 1 crore were paid as Grants to the police department and Rural Development, respectively, for which Utilisation Certificates (UC) are still awaited, and Rs 3 crore has been invested in the shape of FDR,” according to the RTI reply.
As per the RTI reply, HPSPCB collected Rs 3.97 crore Environment Compensation from April 1, 2024, to March 31, 2025. Of this amount, Rs 3 crore was invested in FDRs, while only about Rs 2.44 lakh was shown as expenditure.
HPSPCB also earned an interest amounting to Rs 20.05 lakh on the deposited compensation amount during the same period.
In the subsequent financial year, from April 1, 2025, to March 31, 2026, the Board received Rs 7.82 crore as Environment Compensation and earned approximately Rs 36.58 lakh interest on the deposited funds. Out of the total amount collected during this period, expenditure worth Rs 4.72 crore was reported.
Account statements and records provided by HPSPCB show the EC was recovered from a wide range of violators, including stone crushers, civic bodies such as municipal councils, nagar panchayats and municipal corporations, agencies responsible for installation and operation of sewage treatment plants (STPs), Special Area Development Authorities (SADA), and other project proponents accused of violating pollution norms.
Anand alleged, “This diversion of funds directly defies the strict regulatory framework established under the NGT’s landmark verdicts, which codified clear guidelines restricting the utilisation of EC funds to a specific and non-negotiable template.” “Above all, why do the departments which received the EC as grants not submit UCs?” Anand questioned.
There was no immediate response from HPSPCB on the matter. However, Member Secretary of the Board, Sushil Kumar Singla, said, “An official response will be provided after examining documents.”
Director of Environment, Science, Technology and Climate Change (ESTCC) Pushpinder Rana did not respond to repeated phone calls seeking his comment.
Government sources said a high-level committee comprising the chief secretary, the member secretary of the Pollution Control Board and other senior officers takes decisions about the EC funds utilisation.

A paralysed Information Commission is undermining citizens’ right to know : Ruhi Naz Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz

The Daily Star: Bangladesh: Monday, 25 May 2026.
Recently, Dr. Zahed Ur Rahman, adviser to the prime minister on information and broadcasting, has welcomed constructive criticism from citizens regarding the government’s performance. We take that invitation in the spirit in which it was offered not to criticise the government per se, but to reiterate the deep concern of many citizens over the troubling state of Bangladesh’s Right to Information (RTI) regime and to urge swift corrective action.

This decline began soon after the interim government assumed office in August 2024, when the three information commissioners vacated their positions amid political uncertainty. Their posts have remained unfilled ever since, severely impairing the effectiveness of one of the country’s most important instruments of democratic accountability, the Information Commission. Repeated calls for timely appointments went unheeded, perhaps reflecting an unwillingness on the part of the interim authorities to submit themselves to the scrutiny the law was designed to ensure.
We had hoped this would be rectified with the arrival of an elected government committed to strengthening democracy and amplifying citizens’ voices. Unfortunately, that expectation remains unfulfilled. One is left to wonder whether the government has yet fully appreciated the central importance of the RTI Act to its stated goals of good governance, transparency, and public participation.
This column, therefore, urges the government to revisit this issue urgently.
To begin with, we would like to underline that there is no necessary connection between appointing information commissioners to restore the RTI regime’s full functioning and the separate question of amending the RTI Act, which has recently arisen.
The RTI Amendment Ordinance, introduced by the interim government, lapsed when it was not placed before parliament by the incumbent government. Subsequently, through sustained engagement by concerned citizens, the government initiated consultations with civil society groups on possible amendments to the act. This is welcome. Encouragingly, there are also indications that the appointment of information commissioners is receiving serious attention, although no public announcement has been made yet.
Both of these processes may proceed in parallel. But if the government has any thoughts of linking the appointments to the amendments, as suggested in some quarters, we urge that this approach be abandoned. The two issues are entirely distinct.
Moreover, the matter carries legal urgency. In response to a writ petition filed by concerned citizens, the High Court, on August 31, 2025, directed the ministry of information and broadcasting to inform the court of the steps taken regarding these appointments. Despite the time that has since passed, the government is still under a clear legal obligation to act. Moreover, RTI requests on the matter remain pending with the relevant government office.
Even with the absence of information commissioners, the RTI Act has continued to be used by many of its most committed adherents across the country. What has been lost is not the law itself, but an effective avenue of redress when public officials refuse to comply, while complaints continue to accumulate at the commission.
Despite this institutional paralysis, committed citizens across the country continue to use the law with remarkable courage. In the northern districts alone, some 2,650 RTI applications were filed in 2025 by fishermen, farmers, women, minorities, and youth seeking answers to issues affecting their communities. A few examples will illustrate this spirit.
In Nilphamari, citizens used RTI to investigate the sale of government-owned trees, secure livestock vaccination services, and challenge irregularities in local schools. In one case, when residents seeking information about questionable school activities were threatened by an angry headmaster, they appealed to higher authorities rather than baulking. It resulted in the withholding of the headmaster’s salary.
In Jaldhaka, when activists faced intimidation for seeking information about an abandoned bridge project, fellow campaigners responded by filing multiple RTI applications in solidarity, effectively neutralising the pressure. In Cox’s Bazar, residents used RTI to question the official response to rising dengue cases, prompting stronger public health measures.
Back in Nilphamari, citizens responding to chemical contamination of a local river caused by industrial effluents filed multiple RTI applications, ultimately compelling the authorities to act and bringing the pollution to a halt.
These may appear to be isolated incidents, but together they reflect something deeper: the emergence of what may be called “organic activists” ordinary citizens using the law not merely to resolve personal grievances but to protect public resources, demand accountability, and strengthen democratic culture.
Most significantly, during the nearly two years of institutional paralysis, such citizen-led initiatives have kept the spirit of the RTI Act alive at the grassroots. This momentum culminated in the formation of a national citizens’ platform in January 2026 to support and protect RTI users nationwide.
It has taken years to nurture public trust in, and commitment to, the RTI Act. Any further delay in appointing the information commissioner's risks undermining that trust, dampening citizens’ confidence, and weakening one of the country’s most promising instruments of democratic accountability. That would be immensely harmful for the country, and a setback to the government’s pledge to strengthen people’s power, but more importantly for the growth of a new civic culture in which citizens actively promote good governance, use the law to voice their concerns, and seek redress, rather than resort to protest on the streets.
(Dr Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz are chairman and deputy director (RTI), respectively, at Research Initiatives, Bangladesh (RIB). They can be reached at rib@citech-bd.com.)
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

Why SHANTI Act’s nuclear liability limits are under Supreme Court scrutiny.

Indian Express: Ameel Sheikh: New Delhi: Sunday, May 24, 2026.

The protections written into SHANTI were the product of a decade of pressure from foreign reactor manufacturers and governments backing them.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (May 19) described a constitutional challenge to India’s new nuclear energy law it is hearing, as a “very sensitive legislative policy issue.”

The bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi assured the petitioners that it would clarify whether a statutory cap can restrict a court’s power to fix compensation in the event of a nuclear accident.

The petition challenges the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, as it allows the “private sector and foreign companies to operate nuclear power plants in India, [and] has also capped the liability of these operators at an absurdly low level and exempted the supplier from any liability,” in violation of the Constitution.

“Government can do whatever it wants by way of policy, but it cannot sacrifice Article 21 rights of citizens on the altar of policy,” Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, told the bench.

How nuclear liability works and how it changed

Before SHANTI, India’s nuclear liability framework rested on the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, which established a no-fault regime. Victims of a nuclear incident did not have to prove negligence, only damage.

The operator of the plant was liable under the law, and the cap per operator for large reactors was Rs 1,500 crores, with “the rupee equivalent of three hundred million Special Drawing Rights or such higher amount as the Central Government may specify by notification.”

The 2010 Act also included Section 17(b), which gave the operators a right of recourse against suppliers, i.e., if an accident occurred because a manufacturer had supplied defective equipment, the operator who had paid out compensation could recover that amount from the supplier. The provision also covered “supply of equipment or material with patent or latent defects or substandard services.”

This was the mechanism that kept manufacturers legally accountable for what they built. SHANTI repealed the 2010 Act. Under Section 11, the operator is liable for nuclear damage, but Section 13, read with the Second Schedule, fragments that liability by reactor size.

A reactor with thermal power of up to 150 MW, which covers fuel cycle facilities and nuclear material transport, carries a maximum operator liability of Rs. 100 crores. Reactors between 150 MW and 750 MW attract Rs. 300 crores. Only the largest reactors, above 3,600 MW, reach the maximum of Rs. 3,000 crores. When the operator’s share is exhausted, Section 14 requires the Central Government to cover the remainder up to the total SDR ceiling. Beyond that, no claim lies against anyone.

Section 16, which governs recourse against suppliers, narrows that right to two situations: one where it is written into a contract, or where the incident was caused by someone acting with “an intention to cause nuclear damage.”

Design defects, manufacturing failures, and substandard components do not independently trigger supplier accountability under the new framework. Whether a supplier faces any liability depends entirely on what the procurement contract says. The old Section 17(b) is gone.

Why private operators and suppliers were granted protection

The protections written into SHANTI were the product of a decade of pressure from foreign reactor manufacturers and governments backing them.

When the 2010 Act was being negotiated during the Indo-US civil nuclear deal, American and French reactor companies argued that Section 17(b)’s right of recourse made India an unattractive market. They wanted supplier liability capped or removed as a condition of entry. The provision survived that pressure in 2010. SHANTI resolved the dispute in the supplier’s favour.

In SHANTI’s Statement of Objects and Reasons, this is framed as a matter of economic necessity. India has set a target of 100 GW of nuclear capacity by 2047. To reach it, the government determined that private and foreign participation were unavoidable and that a “pragmatic civil liability” framework was required to bring that capital in. The liability structure, caps on operators, no statutory exposure for suppliers, and residual liability absorbed by the state are the price of that participation.

The petition challenges SHANTI under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, arguing that the Act’s liability structure is a violation of rights the Supreme Court has already declared non-negotiable.

The Article 21 argument runs on two tracks. The first is the doctrine of absolute liability, as laid down in the 1987 Shriram Oleum Gas case. That judgment held that an enterprise engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity is “absolutely liable to make good all damage arising therefrom, wholly independent of fault, negligence, or the exercise of due care.”

The petition argues that SHANTI “imposes illusory ceilings on liability, exempts operator liability in certain circumstances and completely exempts supplier liability” and that Parliament cannot by statute reduce what the court declared a constitutional obligation.

The second concerns the Polluter Pays Principle under Article 21, which the court read into the right to life through Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action (1996). The principle requires that the cost of harm rest with whoever caused it. Under SHANTI, when an operator’s liability is exhausted, the Central Government absorbs the remainder, the cost shifts to the taxpayer. The petition describes this as “shifting the financial burden of a private or commercial profit-driven nuclear activity onto the general public” and argues Parliament cannot legislate that transfer either.

The Article 14 challenge targets the structure of the Second Schedule, which fragments operator liability by reactor size and sets caps, as low as Rs. 100 crores for smaller reactors, that the petition argues bear no rational relationship to the scale of harm a nuclear incident can cause. Arbitrary ceilings on compensation for victims of a hazardous activity, the petition contends, fail the test of reasonableness under Article 14.

The Article 19(1)(a) challenge goes to Section 39, which empowers the central government to classify nuclear information as restricted and prohibit its publication in any form, overriding the RTI Act.

The right to information has been held to be a fundamental right flowing from Article 19(1)(a) by the Supreme Court. The petition argues that a blanket power to suppress information about facilities whose accidents could affect entire populations cannot survive constitutional scrutiny, particularly because access to that information is the precondition for any meaningful claim by victims.

At the hearing, Justice Bagchi said that “When the State, in its own policy, decides to cap liability of a private entity, we are not here to second guess decision making of the State in its subjective.”

The CJI framed the court’s concern more narrowly, not whether the caps exist, but whether a court’s power to award compensation can be restricted by them.

Bhushan pointed out that the total cap, operator and government combined is under Rs 4,000 crores. If the court awards more, the Act provides no mechanism for payment.

What victims can actually claim

Under SHANTI, victims of a nuclear incident can claim compensation for loss of life or personal injury, damage to property, economic loss where notified by the government, costs of environmental restoration, and costs of preventive measures taken after an incident. Claims are filed before a government-appointed Claims Commissioner, or before a Nuclear Damage Claims Commission in cases of wider damage. Civil courts have no jurisdiction.

The financial limits determine what that right is worth in practice. The operator’s liability runs from Rs. 100 crores for small reactors to Rs. 3,000 crores for the largest. The government covers anything above that, up to the total of approximately Rs 3,900 crores. The petition sets that figure against the historical record—Three Mile Island cost between USD 970 million and USD 1 billion in 1980 dollars; Chernobyl between USD 235 billion and USD 700 billion; Fukushima an estimated USD 440 to 445 billion. The petition states the SHANTI cap is “roughly a thousand times” lower.

The time limits are a separate problem. Section 67 extinguishes the right to claim within “ten years, in the case of damage to property” and “twenty years, in the case of personal injury to any individual” from the date of the incident.

Radiation-induced cancers, genetic damage, and congenital conditions can emerge decades after exposure and may not be diagnosable within that window.

The 2010 Act’s Section 35 explicitly preserved the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts as an avenue of last resort. SHANTI’s Section 81 bars civil courts. Section 39 empowers the government to classify nuclear information as restricted and prohibit its publication in any form, overriding the RTI Act, thus leaving victims without access to the records needed to establish what went wrong.

The CJI’s assurance that statutory caps “may not limit the power of the Court to fix compensation” is where the matter rests for now. How that power would be exercised, against whom, and through what mechanism, is what the court will have to work out in July.

Madras HC seeks GCC's reply on fund misuse in bridge work

New Indian Express: Chennai: Sunday, May 24, 2026.

Though Rs 20 lakh each was allocated for land acquisition and lighting arrangements, no actual land acquisition was carried out, as only six houses were relocated, the petition said.

The Madras High Court has sought reply from the Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) on a petition seeking inquiry into “misappropriation of funds” in the construction of a minor bridge connecting Aspiran Garden Second Street and Kilpauk Garden Road across the Otteri Nullah in Chennai.

A vacation bench of justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan issued notice to the GCC when the petition filed by Prabhakaran of Choolaimedu came up for hearing. The bench directed the GCC to file the reply in a week.

The petitioner alleged public funds were utilised in an improper way by the civic body. Though Rs 20 lakh each was allocated for land acquisition and lighting arrangements, no actual land acquisition was carried out, as only six houses were relocated. He further said Rs 20.25 lakh was allocated under the head of shifting charges and Rs 31.96 lakh under “unforeseen items”.

Stating that he has obtained the information through RTI Act queries, the petitioner said the materials prima facie disclose cognisable acts of corruption, abuse of official position and diversion of public funds attracting provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and others. A representation was sent to the DVAC on April 8, 2026, seeking a probe, he said.

Noting that one of the officials concerned had already retired and another one is due for retirement, he said unless immediate inquiry is not taken, there is likelihood of the officials evading accountability.

Gold medals bearing student's name awarded to someone else:NLU changes awardee minutes before convocation, student moves HC

Bhaskar English: Jodhpur Sunday, May 24, 2026.

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has issued a notice to National Law University (NLU) Jodhpur, seeking its response in a case involving two gold medals that were prepared in a student’s name but were awarded to another student during the convocation ceremony.

The decision to change the recipient was reportedly taken just five minutes before the convocation procession began. A single bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit directed the university administration to clearly explain its position regarding the issuance of the petitioner’s marksheet before the next hearing. The matter will now be heard in the second week of July 2026.

Judicial aspirant Anuj Shukla, the petitioner, is arguing the case himself with assistance from his senior, Nikhil Ajmera. Anuj Shukla is arguing his own case in court with the help of his senior Nikhil Ajmera. 

Shocking decision 5 minutes before convocation procession

Anuj Shukla, a resident of Bhilwara, completed his LLB from NLU Odisha between 2018 and 2023. At the university’s convocation ceremony held on July 26, 2023, he received eight gold medals from President Droupadi Murmu. After completing his LLB, Shukla enrolled in the LLM (IPR Law) programme at NLU Jodhpur for the 2023–24 batch.

At the university’s 17th convocation ceremony on February 23, 2025, he was scheduled to receive two gold medals. A university committee had recommended his name for the awards during its meeting on February 8, 2025. The recommendation was approved by the Academic Council on February 15. Shukla’s name had already been printed in the convocation brochure, and the medals themselves carried his name.

However, just five minutes before the ceremony began on February 23, the Controller of Examinations stopped him from receiving the awards. Shukla was informed that, due to a “re-evaluation”, he was no longer eligible for the gold medals. Without giving him an opportunity to be heard, both medals were awarded to another student from the same batch.

The complicated game of 're-evaluation' and the university's policy

The controversy centres on the ‘Research Methodology’ paper in the first semester of the LLM programme. Shukla had originally scored 82 marks in the examination, but after re-evaluation the marks were reduced to 65.

On January 4, 2024, he sent an email seeking clarification regarding the reduction in marks, but received no response. The examination department had issued his grade sheet based on the original score of 82 marks, resulting in a total score of 441 out of 480 and a CGPA of 9.19 out of 10.

Based on these figures, the committee on February 8 had declared Shukla eligible for the medals, ranking him ahead of his classmate with 875 marks compared to 872. However, on the day of the convocation, the Controller of Examinations allegedly relied on the revised marks and reversed the decision. President Droupadi Murmu had awarded the gold medal to Anuj Shukla upon completion of his LLB.

Only the 'Academic Council' has the authority to award/cancel gold medals

Representing himself before the High Court, Shukla raised several legal objections in his petition. He argued that under university regulations, only the Academic Council has the authority to award or cancel gold medals, and that the Controller of Examinations has no such power.

According to the petition, the last-minute decision taken on February 23 received approval from Vice-Chancellor Professor Harpreet Kaur only on February 25, after the medals had already been distributed. The petition further states that on March 17, 2025, the examination department handed Shukla a new marksheet that had been authenticated retrospectively with a date of February 23.

Shukla refused to accept the document and claims that he has still not received a proper marksheet.

Shocking revelation when response sought through RTI

Seeking clarity, Shukla filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act requesting details of the meeting allegedly held on February 23, 2025. In a response dated September 23, 2025, the university’s Public Information Officer provided documents that revealed a meeting had been conducted to transfer the gold medals from the petitioner to another student at the last moment.

The records stated that four senior university professors attended the meeting. However, none of the signatures on the documents carried a date. The documents also suggested that the decision to change the medal recipient was implemented on February 23 itself, while the Vice-Chancellor’s approval was obtained only on February 25.

High Court Hearing and Instructions to NLU

The case first came up before Justice Sunil Beniwal on November 6, 2025, when notices were issued to the university. During the latest hearing on May 22, Advocate Shreyansh Mardia appeared on behalf of NLU Jodhpur and sought time to file a reply to the petitioner’s amendment application.

Granting the request, Justice Sanjeet Purohit also issued strict directions regarding the withholding of the petitioner’s marksheet and asked the university to clarify its position before the next hearing.

Online RTI facility extended to Gujarat civic bodies, local offices

Times of India: Gandhinagar: Saturday, 23 May 2026.
Filing Right to Information (RTI) applications in Gujarat has become significantly easier as the state’s online RTI portal has finally been extended to local civic bodies, collectorates, and police Commissionerate. Moving beyond the offices of various departments located in the Gandhinagar secretariat, citizens can now file applications and first appeals digitally up to the taluka and village levels.

RTI activist Alpesh Bhavsar, who had been following up the issue with the general administration department and various other departments which receive a majority of RTI applications, said, “RTI applicants up to the village level can now file applications, make payments, and even file first appeals online. We were demanding this from the govt since last Oct, Now, almost all govt offices up to the taluka level will be covered by the online portal. Citizens will no longer have to visit these offices to file an application or spend money on Speed Post,” Bhavsar said.
Bhavsar said that a PIL was filed in the high court on the issue in 2018. In Dec 2021, the portal onlinerti.gujarat.gov.in was formally launched. “Until 2025, only 27 departments were mapped on the portal. It covered only those offices located in the sachivalaya,” Bhavsar said.
Since Oct 2025, Bhavsar made 10 representations to the GAD and other departments, after which most district-level offices of departments have now got mapped. “It is in the interest of the Digital India movement to make RTI application services online, as paperless services will also reduce environmental damage.”
Pankti Jog, executive secretary of Mahiti Adhikar Gujarat Pahel said that the development has brough a big relief to RTI applicants and citizens. She said that applicants had to visit post offices to avail speed post activity. “People up to the block-level can now file RTI applications online. We expect that since the process has now been made less cumbersome, more and more people will be able to file RTI applications,” she said.

'Paperless governance': Gujarat govt begins to link district, taluka-level offices to State’s online RTI portal : Dilip Singh Kshatriya

New Indian Express: Gujarat: Saturday, 23 May 2026.
RTI activist Shailendra Sinh Jadeja had launched a sustained campaign in 2016 demanding a fully functional online RTI system in Gujarat.

After years of pressure from RTI activists, legal intervention and repeated citizen complaints, the Gujarat government has finally begun linking district and taluka-level offices to the state’s online RTI portal.
This move marks a major shift toward digital access to information and paperless governance.
In a significant administrative development, the Urban Development Department, Home Department, Panchayat Department and Revenue Department have now initiated the exercise of mapping their field-level offices on the state RTI platform.
It comes after years of legal pressure, citizen activism and repeated representations highlighting how ordinary people were being forced into an exhausting and expensive offline RTI process.
According to official details, the mapping of seven municipal corporations, more than 160 municipalities, police commissioner offices, district panchayats and collector offices has already been completed.
The process is now gradually expanding deeper into district and taluka administration. The roots of this digital transparency battle go back nearly a decade.
RTI activist Shailendra Sinh Jadeja had launched a sustained campaign in 2016 demanding a fully functional online RTI system in Gujarat.
The campaign soon entered the legal arena when a Public Interest Litigation was filed before the Gujarat High Court in 2018, pushing the state government to act.
The legal and public pressure eventually led to the launch of the online RTI portal www.onlinerti.gujarat.gov.in by the Chief Minister in December 2021.
However, despite the launch being projected as a major transparency reform, the portal largely remained restricted to secretariat-level departments for years.
By 2025, only 27 secretariat departments had been mapped on the portal, leaving citizens helpless whenever they needed information from district collectors, municipalities, Mamlatdar offices, Taluka Development Offices or local panchayat administrations.
As a result, thousands of RTI applicants continued struggling with the outdated offline filing system. The difficulties were not merely procedural; they were financial and logistical as well.
Gujarat’s RTI application fee remained fixed at Rs 20, but the traditional mechanisms to pay that fee had virtually collapsed.
Stamp papers of Rs 20 became unavailable, court fee stamps and revenue stamps were difficult to obtain, postal orders disappeared from smaller post offices and even Registered AD services were discontinued in many locations.
This forced citizens to depend on costly speed post services merely to exercise their legal right to information.
RTI activists repeatedly argued that the system itself had become a barrier to transparency. Citizens and activists submitted several representations before the General Administration Department and the RTI Cell, demanding a practical and fully digital mechanism.
The issue gained fresh momentum in October 2025 when Ahmedabad-based RTI activist and RTI Ekta Manch member Alpesh Bhavsar filed an RTI application seeking details about the implementation status of district-level mapping on the online portal.
What emerged through the RTI replies exposed a striking administrative slowdown.
Despite repeated reminders issued earlier by the General Administration Department, several departments had still failed to connect their district and taluka offices to the online RTI system.
Bhavsar then escalated the matter further by sending detailed representations to four crucial departments: Panchayat, Revenue, Housing and Urban Development.
When no substantial response arrived, he intensified the legal-information route by filing RTI applications directly before the departments concerned. The replies that followed painted a mixed but revealing picture of the government’s internal progress.
The Revenue Department admitted in its response that the “mapping work is in progress,” indirectly acknowledging that large sections of its field administration remain outside the digital RTI framework.
Notably, the Home Department instructed the office of the Inspector General of Police to ensure that all police commissioner offices are linked to the online RTI portal, bringing law enforcement administration closer to digital accountability.
The Panchayat Department, on the other hand, reportedly mapped several District Panchayats and Taluka Panchayats but has still not provided complete information in response to the RTI applications, raising further questions over departmental coordination and transparency.
What makes the development even more significant is the fact that the Revenue Department and the Housing and Urban Development Department consistently record the highest numbers of RTI applications and appeals in Gujarat, as highlighted in the latest Annual Report of the Gujarat State Information Commission.
The issue has also revived a larger debate around the government’s commitment to the Digital India Mission launched in 2015.
While governments across the country continue promoting “paperless administration” and environmental sustainability, activists argue that many departments have failed to translate those promises into practical systems accessible to common citizens.
For ordinary people, the stakes are enormous.
Offices such as Mamlatdar offices, municipalities, TDO offices and collectorates handle everyday issues related to land, taxation, construction permissions, local governance and welfare benefits, making them among the most RTI-sensitive institutions in the state.
Now, after remaining confined to secretariat corridors since 2021, Gujarat’s online RTI portal has finally begun reaching district and taluka administrations.
For RTI activists and citizens who spent years fighting procedural barriers, the move is being seen not merely as a technical upgrade, but as a delayed victory for transparency, accessibility and the legal right to information.

Citizen-led campaign forces Gujarat government to expand online RTI access to local bodies

 Counterview: Ahmedabad: Saturday, 23 May 2026.
After years of persistent efforts by RTI activists and a citizen-led campaign, the Gujarat government has finally started connecting district and taluka-level offices of key departments to its online RTI portal. The development brings relief to thousands of citizens who previously faced significant hurdles in filing RTI applications for local bodies.

The movement for a comprehensive online RTI portal in Gujarat began around 2016, when Rajkot-based activist Shailendra Singh Jadeja took up the cause. He filed a Public Interest Litigation (Writ Petition PIL No. 203/2018) before the Gujarat High Court. In December 2021, the state government launched the portal. However, for nearly four years, only 27 secretariat departments were mapped on it. Citizens seeking information from district or taluka-level offices had to file physical applications, a process filled with practical problems.
The RTI application fee in Gujarat is ₹20, but stamp paper of that denomination is now hard to find. Court fee stamps and revenue tickets are also not easily available. Small post offices rarely stock postal orders, and with the discontinuation of Registered AD services, citizens have been forced to use costlier Speed Post. These difficulties were repeatedly raised by citizens and RTI activists with the General Administration Department and the RTI Cell.
The turning point came in October 2025 when Alpeshkumar Dineshkumar Bhavsar, an Ahmedabad resident and member of the RTI Ekta Manch, filed an RTI application with the General Administration Department. The response revealed that despite repeated reminders from the RTI Cell since 2021, various departments had failed to map their district-level offices. Following this, Bhavsar submitted detailed representations on October 17, November 21, and December 10, 2025. When no satisfactory action was taken, he filed additional RTI applications on January 2, 2026, seeking information on the processing of his representations.
Subsequent RTI applications filed on March 6 and April 13, 2026, targeting the Panchayat, Urban Development, Revenue, and Home departments, finally yielded concrete results. The Urban Development Department reported that mapping of approximately 177 public authorities had been completed. This includes 7 municipal corporations and over 160 nagarpalikas (municipalities) across the state. A comprehensive list obtained through RTI responses covers major municipal corporations like Ahmedabad, Surat, Vadodara, Rajkot, and Gandhinagar, as well as smaller town municipalities such as Amreli, Ankleshwar, Bharuch, Bhuj, Godhra, Himmatnagar, Morbi, Navsari, Porbandar, and many others.
The Home Department issued instructions to the Inspector General of Police to connect all Commissioner offices, ACP offices, and Superintendent of Police offices to the online portal. The Revenue Department confirmed that mapping is “in progress,” with collector offices having been mapped. The Panchayat Department has mapped some district and taluka panchayats, though complete information is still pending.
Internal government correspondence obtained through RTI shows that the General Administration Department had issued directives as early as September 2021. A later letter dated September 6, 2023, cited a Supreme Court order of March 20, 2023, which mandated full implementation of the online RTI web portal across the entire state within three months. On February 23, 2026, the Additional Secretary of the General Administration Department issued another reminder, directing all departments to expedite mapping and provide a certificate of completion within 15 days. The Urban Development Department responded on March 16, 2026, instructing all its sections to complete the mapping urgently.
Despite this progress, activists have flagged several technical issues with the portal that remain unresolved. The date on which a Public Information Officer uploads information or a response is not clearly mentioned, making it impossible for applicants to calculate the 30-day appeal deadline. When filing a first appeal within the statutory timeframe, the portal still insists on a mandatory “reason for delay” field. The names, designations, and contact numbers of PIOs and First Appellate Authorities are not visible on the portal. Printouts from the portal have extremely small, often unreadable fonts. These issues have led to first appeals being wrongly rejected, as happened with an Agriculture Department matter where the PIO’s response lacked a clear date.
According to the Gujarat State Information Commission’s annual report, the Revenue, Home, and Urban Development departments receive the highest number of RTI applications and appeals. Connecting their district and taluka-level offices will therefore benefit the largest number of citizens. The activists’ press note states that citizens will no longer need to visit offices in person or spend money on Speed Post, saving time, effort, and money while also reducing paper usage.
The successful campaign has been driven primarily by two individuals: Shailendra Singh Jadeja of Rajkot, who initiated the High Court petition, and Alpeshkumar Bhavsar of Ahmedabad, who methodically filed RTI applications and representations from October 2025 through April 2026. While the expansion of the portal represents a major victory for transparency, activists caution that without addressing the technical shortcomings, the digital initiative will not fully achieve its potential.