skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Hindustan Times: New Delhi: Tuesday, 17 February 2026.
The Central Information
Commission has pulled up the Central GST authorities in Rajkot for denying
information under the RTI Act on arrests, bails, cases and recoveries by citing
pending investigations, observing that such blanket denial could "certainly
lead to a suspicion of collusion with the offenders."
Information Commissioner
Vinod Kumar Tiwari held that while Section 8 of the RTI Act permits withholding
of information that may impede investigation or prosecution, the exemption
cannot be applied in a "blanket and mechanical manner" to all queries
without examining their nature.
The appeal arose from an
RTI application seeking information related to GST enforcement in Rajkot
between July 2017 and September 2023.
The applicant had asked
for details such as the number of cases where arrests were made, the number of
cases in which prosecution complaints were filed, case-wise recoveries made
after arrest, instances where bail was granted by courts, and the number of
cases where appeals or revisions were filed against bail orders.
In the application, the
appellant alleged that despite the "tall claims of 'unwavering commitment
in combating tax evasion with stringent actions being taken against
defaulters'," there was inaction after arrests, no post-arrest recoveries
in many cases, and prosecution complaints were allegedly not being filed even
in cases involving "huge revenue implications."
The appellant also claimed
that enforcement actions remained "cosmetic in nature" and questioned
the absence of follow-up measures to protect government revenue.
The GST department had
denied most of the information, stating that investigations were ongoing and
disclosure would impede the process, while invoking Section 8 of the RTI Act.
However, the commission
noted that the appellant had largely sought statistical and numerical
information.
"Such aggregated and
non-identifiable numerical data, if provided without disclosing case-wise or
sensitive particulars, would not ordinarily impede the process of investigation
or prosecution," the order said, adding that even overall figures of
recoveries for a specific period would not hamper investigations.
"The respondent has
not demonstrated as to how disclosure of broad, non-identifiable statistical
information in numbers alone would hamper ongoing investigations. A mere
assertion that investigation is pending is not sufficient," the commission
observed.
The CIC further said that
a "blanket denial will certainly lead to a suspicion of collusion with the
offenders/tax evaders, whereas its disclosure will expose any collusion that
may have happened."
Directing the authorities
to revisit the RTI application, the commission ordered the Central GST office
in Rajkot to provide aggregated information in numerical form on arrests,
prosecutions, bails, appeals and recoveries within three weeks, withholding only
such information that squarely attracts exemption under the RTI Act with cogent
justification.
The Indian Express: New Delhi: Tuesday, 17 February 2026.
Issuing notice to the
Centre on petitions challenging these amendments, a three-judge bench presided
by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant directed that the matter be placed
before a larger bench.
The Supreme Court on
Monday refused to grant any interim stay on the amendments made to the RTI Act
by the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, and the Digital
Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, but said it will examine them “to
balance” competing “rights”.
Issuing notice to the
Centre on petitions challenging these amendments, a three-judge bench presided
by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant directed that the matter be placed
before a larger bench.
The bench, also comprising
Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, was dealing with petitions filed
by RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak; digital news platform The Reporters’
Collective and its journalist Nitin Sethi; and one by the National Campaign for
People’s Right to Information (NCPRI).
Taking up the petitions,
the CJI said, “There is some sensitivity involved”, adding the question is how
to balance the competing rights.
Appearing for one of the
petitioners, Advocate Vrinda Grover said, “What it (the amendments) has done is
instead of using a chisel, it uses a hammer and that hammer has dealt a body
blow to multiple rights.”
The petitions have
challenged the amendment made to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by Section
44(3) of the DPDP Act, stating that it “operates as a blanket ban on the
obligation to disclose personal information”. They pointed out that prior to
the amendment, personal information could be disclosed if there was an
overriding public interest.
Nayak’s plea stated that
“a blanket ban on the obligation to disclose all personal information, without
the statutory scheme to balance it against larger public interest, renders
section 44(3) of the DPDP Act liable to be struck down on multiple counts…”
Advocate Prashant Bhushan,
appearing for NCPRI, said the issue of competing rights was already settled by
the 2019 Constitution bench judgment in CPIO vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal case.
“They went into this question of balance and proportionality and they held
expressly that the Right to Information Act section 8(1)(j)… strikes absolutely
the right balance between the right to privacy and the right to information
because both are competing fundamental rights,” said Bhushan.
The CJI, however, said the
judgment did not directly consider Section 8(1)(j).
“I think both sides will
have some arguments. A balance between both rights is needed. We will have to
iron out some creases might as to what is meaning of personal information etc,”
he added.
The CJI said, “ It’s
complex, slightly sensitive, and, at the same time, a very interesting issue,
which touches fundamental rights on both sides; some balancing exercise may be
needed.”
Bhushan said NCPRI had
also filed an application for stay and urged the bench to issue notice on it.
But the CJI said, “No question of stay. We will decide the matter at the
earliest.”
Bhushan said he was asking
for the notice because “they (government) are now denying information” citing
the amendment.
The CJI said the court
“will not through interim orders” disrupt something which Parliament has
thought of “unless we are convinced…” that it is necessary.
Live Law: New Delhi: Tuesday, 17 February 2026.
The Supreme Court today
issued notice to the Union Government on the pleas challenging certain
provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Digital
Personal Data Protection Rules 2025 over their amendment of the provisions of
the Right to Information Act.
Agreeing that the issue
required consideration, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant,
Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi referred the matter to a
larger bench.
The bench was dealing with
three writ petitions - one filed by Venkatesh Nayak, another by digital news
platform The Reporters Collective and journalist Nitin Sethi, and the third one
filed by the National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI). The
petitioners have essentially challenged to the Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act
amending Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act giving a blanket exemption to the
disclosure of personal information. Before the amendment, personal information
could have been disclosed if there was an overriding public interest.
CJI Surya Kant said,
"There's an element of sensitivity...both sides will have arguable
points...sometimes the bench is so conscious of such things..."
Advocate Vrinda Grover for
petitioner Venkatesh Nayak raised the issue of proportionality, by submitting
that "instead of using a chisel, they have used a sledgehammer".
Advocate Prashant Bhushan,
for the NCPRI, submitted that the provision had a balance, as held by in the
Subhash Chandra Agarwal case. The bench however said that Subhash Chandra
Agarwal did not directly consider Section 8(1)(j).
Senior Advocate Dr
Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for The Reporters Collective.
CJI said that the issue
was "complex but interesting" and touching upon the "fundamental
rights of both sides." CJI said that "some ironing out of the creases
might be needed to strike a balance."
Bhushan submitted that an
application for stay has also been filed. However, the bench was categorical in
saying that there won't be any stay of the legislation. "No question of
stay," CJI Kant stated. "Through interim order, we will not introduce
a regime which Parliament has thought of..." CJI Kant said.
According to the
petitioners, the amendment introduced by Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act to
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act removes the earlier balancing test that allowed
disclosure of personal information if it was related to public activity or
public interest. They argue that the new regime effectively bars disclosure of
personal information altogether, regardless of whether larger public interest
justifies such disclosure. This, the plea claims, undermines citizens' right to
information and transparency in public administration.
The petition reportedly
submits that journalists and transparency activists frequently rely on access
to personal information in limited, public-interest contexts to expose
wrongdoing, corruption, or conflicts of interest. By eliminating the public
interest override, the amended provision allegedly tilts the balance decisively
in favour of privacy at the cost of accountability.
Similarly, the NCPRI
challenges the amendments made to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act through the
DPDT Act.
Expansive Powers to
Central Government
The Reporters Collective
and Nitin Sethi assail Section 36 of the DPDP Act read with Rule 23 of the DPDP
Rules, which empower the Central Government to call for information from data
fiduciaries and intermediaries.
It is contended that these
provisions authorize unreasonable digital searches and enable the gathering and
storage of personal data without adequate safeguards, thereby violating Article
21. The petitioners describe Section 36 as vague, overbroad and arbitrary,
infringing Articles 14 and 19 as well.
They argue that to the
extent individuals may not be informed about disclosure of their personal data
to a government agency, the provisions also impede their freedom of speech and
expression. According to them, these intrusions are not demonstrably justified
in a free and democratic society.
Independence Of Data
Protection Board Questioned
The constitutional
challenge also extends to the institutional framework under the Act. The
petitioners raise concerns about the independence of the Data Protection Board,
particularly the process for appointment of its Chairperson and members, which
is alleged to be susceptible to executive control.
The petitioners have
sought to declare the whole of the DPDP Act, 2023 as unconstitutional,
specifically Sections 5, 6, 8, 10, 17, 18, 19, 36 and 44(3), for being
violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. They have also
challenged Rules 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17, and 23 of the Digital Personal Data
Protection Rules, 2025, to be void, inoperative and unconstitutional.
The petition of "The
Reporters Collective" was drawn by Advocates Apar Gupta, Muhammad Ali
Khan, Indumugi C and Naman Kumar, and filed through AoR Abhishek Jebaraj. The
petition of NCPRI was filed by Advocate Prashant Bhushan & Rahul Gupta.
Times of India: New Delhi: Tuesday, 17 February 2026.
Supreme Court on Monday
agreed to adjudicate three petitions which allege that amendment to Right to
Information (RTI) Act through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act
has rendered the former legislation toothless by providing a handle to authorities
to deny information on the ground that it is "personal", but turned
down the plea for staying the provision in DPDP Act that puts the right to
privacy above the right to information.
Senior advocates A M
Singhvi, Vrinda Grover and counsel Prashant Bhushan, appearing for three PIL
petitioners, told a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and
Vipul M Pancholi that while the RTI Act had originally exempted personal information
which did not have any correlation with the person's public activity, the
present amendment to RTI Act through DPDP Act bars all "information which
relates to personal matters".
The bench said it would
examine the concern of petitioners while keeping in mind the need to balance
the right to privacy with the right to information.
"To some extent, it
is a complex, sensitive yet interesting issue which needs balancing," the
bench said while firmly rejecting Bhushan's plea for a stay on the amended
Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act.
"The unamended
Section 8(1)(j) was not a mere statutory exception; it embodied a legislatively
mandated proportionality mechanism. It exempted personal information only where
disclosure bore no relationship to any public activity or interest or would
cause unwarranted invasion of privacy, and even then required disclosure where
the larger public interest justified it," said an NGO petitioner.
Daily Pioneer: New Delhi: Monday, 16 February 2026.
In a recent judgment, the
Calcutta High Court directed the Income Tax Department to give him a copy of
the Police Verification Report (PVR) that was relied upon while dismissing him
from service.
Parijat Pattanayak, the
petitioner was given a provisional appointment in the Income Tax Department in
April 2014 on compassionate grounds after his father died while in service. He
was appointed as a Tax Assistant. His appointment was regularised in February
2016, and he continued working.
In December 2024, his
service was terminated after his elder brother made a complaint alleging that
he had obtained the job using fake and forged documents. A charge-sheet was
issued to him, and after the departmental proceedings, he was dismissed from service.
The petitioner said that
although he received the charge-sheet and the memorandum of charges, one
important document relied upon by the department was not given to him. Because
of this, he could not properly defend himself. He argued that the only document
not supplied to him was the Police Verification Report mentioned in a letter
dated 14.03.2023.
To get the document, he
filed an application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. His
request was rejected. His first appeal and second appeal were also rejected. He
then challenged the order of the Information Commissioner dated 30.10.2024
before the High Court.
The respondents’ counsel
argued that two of the respondents were quasi-judicial authorities and were not
necessary parties to the case. They also argued that the petitioner had not
challenged the order dismissing him from service.
After hearing both sides
and examining the records, Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra observed that the
Police Verification Report was not given to the petitioner on the ground
mentioned under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, the tribunal observed
that in the affidavit filed by the department, it was admitted that the Police
Verification Report and the Minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee
were not confidential.
The department only said
that the process of preparing such documents was confidential. The tribunal
explained that when a person is charged with misconduct, he must be given a
fair opportunity to defend himself. This includes giving him copies of all documents
that are relied upon to dismiss him.
The court directed the
Income Tax Department to give a copy of the Police Verification Report to the
petitioner. The court made it clear that it was not deciding whether the
dismissal was right or wrong. The order was limited only to giving the
petitioner a copy of the Police Verification Report.
The court modified the
Information Commissioner’s order to this extent. It also removed the names of
the quasi-judicial authorities from the case, saying that they did not need to
be made parties. The writ petition was disposed of, and no costs were awarded.
Daily Pioneer: New Delhi: Monday, 16 February 2026.
Epstein Files is a case of
absolute systemic failure of administration of law and justice in the USA, but
it is equally a case of unprecedented legal jurisprudence on transparency,
which we Indian lawyers enviously look at, given our track record on transparency
in the judicial system in our backyard.
Many Indians don’t know
that the Epstein Files is judicial record and not some media scoop. It is
released by the Department of Justice of the USA in compliance of a law Epstein
Files Transparency Act, passed by the US Congress and duly signed by Donald Trump
on 19th November 2025, when he himself is one of the thousands of powerfuls
finding appearance and reference in the crime files of convicted Sex offender
Jeffery Epstein.
The law was passed under
pressure from public-spirited people and political opposition owing to
extraordinary public interest involved in the case, as it was important to
release the information pertaining to the case as to who all were involved or
complicit, since the case involved worlds who.
The object was to showcase
transparency, whether the law and justice of the country functioned with
fairness, considering the rich and powerful involved in the case. The
Transparency Act is a landmark case of balancing out the right to Privacy &
Right to Reputation vis a vis public interest.
It’s more of a marvel
given the fact that the release involves names of eminent persons across the
globe and therefore it periled diplomatic relations and transgressed the
boundaries of domestic law.
In contrast, in India,
“the transparency law” of India- The Right to Information Act has been
interpreted in a manner insulating the Supreme Court for a very long and
there’s lots of opaqueness which is yet to be light holed.
The Supreme Court didn’t
make the indictment report of Justice Yashwant Varma regarding burnt cash found
at his Delhi bunglow in March last year.
It eroded the Public Trust
in the judiciary gravely and the secrecy in which it was dealt by the Supreme
Court injured the faith in the judiciary more than the alleged scam itself.
He is yet to be impeached.
It is only after this alleged cash scam that the Full Court of the Supreme
Court passed a resolution mandating Supreme Court judges to disclose their
assets to the public, following which only 24 judgesout of 33 judgesthen declared
their assets.
However, in High Courts,
the declaration of assets is still voluntary and hence very little compliance.
The SIT report in Reliance
Foundation’s Vantara case was sealed and only a summary of it was made public.
The case involved
allegations of illegal procure mentof wild life in contravention of various
laws and financial impropriety by the Foundation.
In 2009, Madras High Court
judge R Raghupathi had alleged in open court thata Union Minister, through a
lawyer, approached him to influence him in a case being probed by CBI.
When an RTI activist
sought the pertaining correspondence between Justice Raghupathi and the then
CJI, the Central Public Information Officer of the Supreme Court denied this
information, saying that it’s not available with the Supreme Court Registery.
It’s noteworthy that the
office of CJI was held to be under RTI only in 2019 in a judgment after a long
legal battle, raising hopes that it will cut through the opaqueness which
pervades the judiciary. Even there, the Court held that RTI is not absolute and
it has to be balanced with the right of privacy of judges.
These incidences reflect
poorly on the transparency law in India, especially when it comes to the
judiciary and the administration of the judiciary. And had we had a case like
Epstein here, we could only look gaping towards the heavens.
(Writer is a lawyer
practicing at the Supreme Court; views are personal)
The Wire: New Delhi: Monday, 16 February 2026.
RTI activist Venkatesh
Nayak said he filed the petition to “ensure that two decades of transparency in
the life of public authorities is not reversed into an era of dark opacity”.
A petition has been filed
in the Supreme Court seeking that some sections of the Digital Personal Data
Protection (DPDP) Act as well as its associated rules be struck down as
illegal, including on the grounds that they gravely undermine the right to information
(RTI).
Filed by RTI activist
Venkatesh Nayak with assistance from human rights lawyer Vrinda Grover, the
civil petition is scheduled to be heard by a bench comprising Chief Justice
Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi on Monday (February
16).
In his petition Nayak
pointed out that section 44(3) of the DPDP Act which unlike some other sections
of the law is already in force amends the RTI Act of 2005 to more broadly
exempt the disclosure of information deemed to be “personal”.
While section 8(1)(j) of
the RTI Act had specified that such information may be exempted if it bears no
relation to public activity or could cause “unwarranted invasion” of an
individual’s privacy unless a public information officer feels that disclosure
would be in the “larger public interest” now, after its amendment by section
44(3) of the DPDP Act, it simply provides for the exemption of “information
which relates to personal information”.
Such a “blanket bar on the
obligation to disclose all personal information”, Nayak said per a synopsis of
his petition, makes the amended section liable to being struck down on at least
eight grounds, including that it contravenes the right to information implicit
in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and that it violates the right to
equality by “equating privacy of public functionaries to that of ordinary
citizens”.
When combined with the
definition of ‘personal information’ in section 2(t) of the DPDP Act, which
Nayak said “brings within its fold all information which even remotely relates
to the identity of an individual”, read with section 3(a)(ii) the right to information
is rendered “illusory”, he added.
“It is a death knell for
participatory democracy and ruinous to ideas of open governance,” wrote Nayak,
who added that he filed his petition to “ensure that two decades of
transparency in the life of public authorities is not reversed into an era of
dark opacity”.
Notably, the economic
survey released by the Union finance ministry last fortnight said that the RTI
Act’s functioning needs to be ‘refined’ in “narrowly defined areas of internal
deliberation”. “The concern,” it said, “is predictable: if every draft or remark
might be disclosed, officials may hold back, resorting instead to cautious
language and fewer bold ideas”.
Other provisions of DPDP
Act, rules ‘fail tests of arbitrariness, proportionality’
Turning to some other
provisions of the DPDP Act and rules whose implementation the Union government
had deferred to mid-2027, Nayak argued in his petition that some of them are
unconstitutional because they are arbitrary and violate the separation of powers.
Rules 17(1) and 17(2)
provide for a search-and-selection committee for the setting up of a data
protection board but this panel would be dominated by the executive, and so the
said provisions are “violative of the doctrine of separation of powers given that
the Board performs quasi judicial functions”, Nayak argued.
Sections 17(1)(c) and
17(2) “facilitate the operation of a surveillance regime with no necessary
safeguards or review mechanism” as they create exemptions in the DPDP Act’s
application, he continued, adding that Section 36 is arbitrary because it
allows the Union government to call for any information from Board without
statutory guidance or limitations on scope.
The DPDP Act was given
presidential assent in August 2023 soon after it was passed by parliament but
its rules were published and effected in November last year. However, the
implementation of a number of provisions in the legislation was deferred by 18
months.
Live Law: New Delhi: Sunday, 15th February 2026.
डिजिटल न्यूज़
प्लेटफॉर्म द रिपोर्टर्स कलेक्टिव और पत्रकार नितिन सेठी ने डिजिटल पर्सनल डेटा
प्रोटेक्शन एक्ट, 2023 के मुख्य नियमों को चुनौती देते हुए सुप्रीम कोर्ट
का दरवाजा खटखटाया।
याचिकाकर्ता पिछले साल
नवंबर में नोटिफाई किए गए डिजिटल पर्सनल डेटा प्रोटेक्शन रूल्स 2025
के नियमों को भी चुनौती देते हैं।
याचिकाकर्ता का कहना है
कि DPDP Act, पर्सनल जानकारी के खुलासे के लिए एक पूरी छूट देकर
सूचना का अधिकार एक्ट, 2005 (RTI Act) के तहत ट्रांसपेरेंसी
फ्रेमवर्क को काफी कमजोर करता है।
याचिकाकर्ताओं के अनुसार, DPDP Act की
धारा 44(3) द्वारा RTI Act की धारा 8(1)(j) में
किया गया बदलाव पहले के बैलेंसिंग टेस्ट को हटा देता है, जो
पब्लिक एक्टिविटी या पब्लिक इंटरेस्ट से जुड़ी पर्सनल जानकारी के खुलासे की इजाज़त
देता था।
उनका तर्क है कि नया
सिस्टम पर्सनल जानकारी के खुलासे पर पूरी तरह से रोक लगाता है, भले
ही बड़े पब्लिक इंटरेस्ट के लिए ऐसा खुलासा सही हो या नहीं। याचिका में दावा किया
गया कि इससे नागरिकों के सूचना के अधिकार और पब्लिक एडमिनिस्ट्रेशन में
ट्रांसपेरेंसी का अधिकार कमज़ोर होता है।
याचिका में कथित तौर पर
कहा गया कि पत्रकार और ट्रांसपेरेंसी एक्टिविस्ट अक्सर गलत कामों, भ्रष्टाचार
या हितों के टकराव को उजागर करने के लिए सीमित,
पब्लिक-हित के मामलों
में पर्सनल जानकारी तक पहुंच पर निर्भर रहते हैं। पब्लिक इंटरेस्ट ओवरराइड को खत्म
करके, बदला हुआ प्रावधान कथित तौर पर जवाबदेही की कीमत पर
प्राइवेसी के पक्ष में संतुलन को पूरी तरह से झुका देता है।
केंद्र सरकार को ज़्यादा
अधिकार
याचिका में DPDP Act की
धारा 36 को DPDP रूल्स के रूल 23
के साथ पढ़ने पर भी हमला किया गया, जो केंद्र सरकार को डेटा
फिड्यूशरी और इंटरमीडियरी से जानकारी मांगने का अधिकार देता है।
यह तर्क दिया गया कि ये
प्रावधान गलत डिजिटल सर्च को मंज़ूरी देते हैं और बिना किसी ज़रूरी सुरक्षा उपाय
के पर्सनल डेटा को इकट्ठा करने और स्टोर करने में मदद करते हैं, जिससे
आर्टिकल 21 का उल्लंघन होता है। याचिका में धारा 36
को अस्पष्ट, बहुत ज़्यादा और मनमाना बताया गया, जो
आर्टिकल 14 और 19 का भी उल्लंघन करता है।
याचिकाकर्ता का तर्क है
कि जिस हद तक लोगों को उनके पर्सनल डेटा के सरकारी एजेंसी को दिए जाने के बारे में
जानकारी नहीं दी जा सकती, ये नियम उनकी बोलने और बोलने
की आज़ादी में भी रुकावट डालते हैं। याचिका के अनुसार, एक
आज़ाद और डेमोक्रेटिक समाज में ये दखलंदाज़ी साफ़ तौर पर सही नहीं है।
डेटा प्रोटेक्शन बोर्ड
की आज़ादी पर सवाल
संवैधानिक चुनौती एक्ट
के तहत इंस्टीट्यूशनल फ्रेमवर्क तक भी फैली हुई है। याचिका में डेटा प्रोटेक्शन
बोर्ड की आज़ादी, खासकर इसके चेयरपर्सन और सदस्यों की नियुक्ति की प्रक्रिया
के बारे में चिंता जताई गई, जिसके बारे में कहा जाता है कि
वह एग्जीक्यूटिव कंट्रोल के अधीन है।
याचिकाकर्ता ने पूरे DPDP Act, 2023
को, खासकर
धारा 5, 6, 8, 10, 17, 18, 19, 36 और 44(3) को
संविधान के आर्टिकल 14, 19 और 21
का उल्लंघन करने वाला बताते हुए गैर-संवैधानिक घोषित करने की मांग की। उन्होंने
डिजिटल पर्सनल डेटा प्रोटेक्शन रूल्स, 2025 के रूल्स 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17, और 23 को भी अमान्य, इनऑपरेटिव
और असंवैधानिक बताते हुए चुनौती दी।
नेशनल कैंपेन फॉर पीपल्स
राइट टू इन्फॉर्मेशन (NCPRI) ने भी ऐसी ही एक याचिका फाइल
की, जिसमें
डिजिटल पर्सनल डेटा प्रोटेक्शन (DPDP) एक्ट के ज़रिए RTI Act के
सेक्शन 8(1)(j) में किए गए बदलावों को चुनौती दी गई।
द रिपोर्टर्स कलेक्टिव
की याचिका एडवोकेट अपार गुप्ता, मुहम्मद अली खान, इंदुमुगी
सी और नमन कुमार ने तैयार की थी और AoR अभिषेक जेबराज के ज़रिए फाइल
की गई। NCPRI की पिटीशन एडवोकेट प्रशांत भूषण और राहुल गुप्ता ने
फाइल की।
(Case : The Reporters Collective and another v.
Union of India and others | W.P.(C) No. 177 / 2026)
The Business Standard: Bangladesh: Sunday, 15th
February 2026.
The Right to Information
(RTI) Forum has strongly criticised the amendment to the Right to Information
Act, 2009, calling it a "farce" carried out by the outgoing interim
government.
In a statement issued
today (10 February), the forum said Ordinance No-30 of 2026, approved by the
President on 9 February to amend the RTI Act, fails to reflect the core spirit
of the law and undermines transparency.
The forum also expressed
serious concern over the prolonged failure to appoint the Chief Information
Commissioner and other commissioners, despite repeated demands. This, it said,
has effectively rendered the Information Commission funded by public money non-functional,
creating major obstacles to the implementation of the RTI Act during the
interim government's tenure.
According to the
statement, the RTI Forum had earlier prepared 37 amendment proposals to
strengthen the law and formally presented them at a press conference on 6 March
2025, submitting the same to the chief adviser.
The forum later provided
further opinions to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in line with
recommendations from the Public Administration Reform Commission. On 25 January
2026, after learning that an ordinance was being prepared, the forum urgently
requested the inclusion of key amendments and contacted advisers multiple times
to stress their importance.
However, the forum said
the final ordinance ignored several critical issues, including expanding the
definition of "information" to include note sheets, broadening the
scope of authorities under the law to cover private entities working on behalf
of the government and registered political parties, and ensuring the status,
remuneration and benefits of the Chief Information Commissioner and
commissioners are equivalent to judges of the Appellate and High Court
divisions.
It also demanded stronger
accountability mechanisms in cases involving fines.
Gujarat Samachar: Ahmedabad: Sunday, 15th
February 2026.
Amid ongoing protests
against the installation of smart electricity meters across Gujarat electricity
meters across the state, the right to information (RTI) reply has revealed that
there is no law that makes the installation of smart meters mandatory.
An RTI application filed
by Madhavaji Laxaman Dodisa, a resident of the Amardad area near Jadeshwar
railway crossing in Ranavav, has brought new details to light.
Dodisa had sought
information from the West Gujarat Electricity Company Limited regarding whether
electricity consumers are legally required to install smart meters.
In its reply, the
electricity company stated that there is no order from the high court directing
consumers to install smart meters.
The RTI responses further
clarified that there is no information available with the office about any law
passed by the central or state government that makes it compulsory to replace
old meters, especially if the existing meters are working properly and there
are no disputes.
The reply also stated that
details of any specific act, section, or writ petition related to making smart
meters mandatory are not available in their records.
The Daily Star: Bangladesh: Sunday, 15th
February 2026.
The long-anticipated and
widely speculated national election has concluded. Contrary to many
predictions, voters delivered a decisive mandate to the Bangladesh Nationalist
Party (BNP). People’s participation signals their endorsement of a platform
framed around institutional stability, rational governance, and inclusivity.
The party leadership has reiterated its commitment to strengthening the rule of
law and combating corruption—priorities that, if pursued consistently and with
integrity, will shape both the credibility and durability of the incoming
administration.
The result also holds
significant implications for the future of the Right to Information (RTI)
regime in Bangladesh. The year and a half of the interim government (IG)
elicited both praise and criticism for reasons widely known. For many who
viewed the July 2024 uprising—driven largely by a politically awakened younger
generation—as a turning point aimed at restoring popular sovereignty and
revitalising democratic institutions, the IG’s record on transparency and
accountability proved deeply disappointing.
For the entirety of its
tenure, the IG allowed the Information Commission—the statutory guardian of the
RTI framework under the RTI Act, 2009—to lapse into paralysis. During the
previous 15 years, however imperfectly, the commission had been among the very
few institutions willing to assert a measure of democratic oversight in the
face of executive overreach. That modest but important role came to a halt when
the IG failed to appoint the three commissioners required by law, including the
chief information commissioner, after the previous incumbents resigned. As a
result, the commission was unable to perform its quasi-judicial functions:
hearing appeals, enforcing compliance, and holding public authorities
accountable for unlawful refusals to disclose information. For RTI activists
and civil society organisations who regard the act as a central tool of
democratic oversight, this institutional vacuum generated deep frustration.
The failure to
reconstitute the commission cannot easily be dismissed as administrative
oversight. At minimum, it reflected institutional neglect; at worst, it
suggested ambivalence towards the very transparency mechanisms the uprising had
sought to strengthen. At a moment when public expectations of reform were at
their peak, revitalising the Information Commission would have been one of the
clearest demonstrations of a commitment to open, citizen-centred governance.
Unfortunately, that opportunity was not seized.
The reform of the law also
did not progress. Civil society groups and RTI advocates participated in the
process in good faith, submitting detailed proposals to make the act more
accessible, citizen-oriented, and enforceable. However, their recommendations
received little substantive engagement. When draft amendments were made public
towards the end of the IG’s tenure, they inspired neither confidence nor
serious public debate, appearing disconnected from the reformist energy that
had animated the July uprising. The transitional period thus ended without
either a strengthened statute or a functioning oversight body.
Transitional authorities
carry a heightened moral and political burden. Lacking an electoral mandate,
they derive legitimacy from public trust and from their adherence to reformist
principles. To sideline the principal legal instrument that enables citizens to
scrutinise the state is therefore not a neutral act; it is a consequential
choice. There are two plausible explanations for it. Either the RTI regime was
treated as a secondary concern amid competing priorities, or it was viewed as
inconvenient—capable of revealing truths that a transitional administration
might have preferred to avoid. If the latter is true, it should prompt concern.
A government confident in its integrity has little reason to fear transparency.
The ultimate test of commitment to reform lies not in rhetoric but in a
demonstrable willingness to submit to scrutiny. In this respect, the IG’s
record warrants critical reflection.
The advent of a new
government thus opens a renewed window of opportunity. BNP campaigned on a
31-point reform programme, which was later incorporated into its election
manifesto, and had reaffirmed its commitment to the July Declaration. It will
therefore fall to the citizenry and to civil society institutions to hold the
new administration to these pledges during its formative months. The BNP must
be reminded of its electoral commitments, and citizens should carefully assess
the extent to which those promises are translated into concrete action.
One immediate, concrete
step for the new government would be the prompt, transparent reconstitution of
the Information Commission. The RTI Act itself provides guidance on the
qualifications and selection of commissioners. An objective, merit-based appointment
process would send a powerful signal that the government intends to restore
institutional integrity rather than merely fill vacancies. Independence,
competence, and credibility must be the guiding criteria.
Parallelly, the government
can strengthen the law substantively. Particular attention should be paid to
the provisions governing exemptions from disclosure, especially those framed
broadly in terms of national security and public interest. Narrowing and clarifying
these exemptions, and introducing a robust “public interest override” clause,
would better align the act with international best practice. The law would
mandate the release of information whenever the public’s need to know is more
important than the government’s preference for confidentiality.
Restoring the Information
Commission and refining the RTI Act would not merely rehabilitate a neglected
statute but also reaffirm a constitutional principle—that sovereignty
ultimately resides with the people, and that transparency is the lifeblood of
democratic governance. The new administration now has both the mandate and the
opportunity to demonstrate that commitment in practice.
(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)
Taxscan: New Delhi: Sunday, 15th February 2026.
The IBBI clarifies that
RTI cannot be used to seek confirmations or clarifications on payment handling
during ongoing CIRP proceedings.
The First Appellate
Authority of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has held that
queries seeking confirmation of the “right person” to receive payments during a
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), along with reasons for non-response,
do not constitute “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Accordingly, the RTI appeal was dismissed.
The Appellant Virendra
Kumar, filed an RTI application dated 04 December 2025 before the IBBI seeking
confirmation as to whether Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma or Mr. Hemanshu Lalitbhai
Kapadia was the correct person to whom money ought to have been paid in the CIRP
of Redkenko Health Tech Private Limited. Thereafter, the Appellant sought the
reasons for their alleged non-response despite submission of claim documents
and sought information on the details of the correct person and documents
required for submission.
By an order dated 30
December 2025 the CPIO, IBBI, rejected the request on the ground that the
questions had been framed in a manner that required the response to be opinion
based and explanatory, which was not included in the definition of
“information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The appellant thereupon
preferred a first appeal before the Appellate Authority.
The appellant had
contended that the CPIO had erred in denying the information. He had contended
that the confirmation of the appropriate official to receive CIRP amounts would
be important to safeguard his interest. The information is of the type that would
be available with the IBBI as they are the statutory authority for the
Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
The Respondent contended
that the RTI Act only allows access to the existing information and records
that are under the control of a public authority and that the RTI Act does not
mandate the public authority to deliver any opinion, clarification or to offer
any guidance to the applicant on the procedures in CIRP.
The Appellate Authority
considered the applicability of Sections 2(f), 2(j), and 3 of the RTI Act and
found that “the questions raised by the appellant in his applications were
seeking only clarification, confirmation, and reasons, which cannot be regarded
as seeking ‘information’.” It again emphasized that it was not possible to
compel a public authority to create or infer information which did not exist in
its records.
The Authority further
observed that the information related to CIRP such as the commencement of CIRP,
IRP/RP information, announcements made to the public, etc., are already
available with the IBBI website and the NCLT portal i.e., the e-filing
platform. Since the information is available with the public domain, the CPIO
is not required to furnish the information in the specified manner as requested
by the appellant.
As no infirmity was found in the CPIO’s reply, the
appeal was disposed of.
Taxscan: New Delhi: Sunday, 15th February 2026.
IBBI reiterates limits of
RTI Act, holding that public authorities cannot be compelled to create or
generate information not on record
The Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has held that the Right to Information Act,
2005 cannot be invoked to compel a public authority to create information or
records that do not exist.
While dismissing the
appeal, the Board upheld the decision of the Central Public Information Officer
(CPIO) reiterating that the RTI mechanism is limited to disclosure of existing
records.
The appellant had filed an
RTI request before the IBBI seeking information on certain aspects related to
insolvency professionals and regulatory actions. The queries of the appellant
were those which amounted to asking the CPIO to collect, analyse, or generate
fresh information which did not exist in the manner the appellant sought to be
provided.
CPIO responded that the
information sought is not available from the records of the IBBI in the manner
desired; moreover, as per the RTI Act, the authority is not required to create
information. Not satisfied with the response the appellant had filed the first
appeal.
The first appeal had been
rejected. Further, the appeal was carried before the Appellate Authority of the
IBBI.
The appellant contended
that not furnishing the information had denied the very purpose of transparency
under the RTI Act. It was contended that since it was a statutory regulator, it
should be capable of furnishing the requisite information sought by the
petitioner despite some sort of compilation being involved.
The CPIO, on the other
hand, submitted that the RTI Act only requires disclosure of only such
information which exists and is available and held by the public authority. It
was submitted that it does not impose any obligation upon public authorities to
create data, conduct any research or draw any inference to clear any queries
posed by an applicant.
Upholding the decision
taken by the CPIO, the IBBI Appellate Authority states as follows: “The
definition of ‘information’ given under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which
refers to information existing in any form, does not include the creation of
information.”
The Board noted that the
questions posed by the appellant were for explanation and compilation which did
not exist with the IBBI as part of the routine of its functions. Additionally,
it was noted that the CPIO had provided the response as required under the law
and there was no deficiency in the dealing of the application under the RTI
Act.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the
order of the CPIO was upheld.
Times of India: Panaji: Sunday, 15th February
2026.
After observing no
compliance with the Right to Information Act, the Bombay high court directed
the PIO, i.e., the inspector of survey and land records, Pernem, to furnish all
the information sought by an RTI applicant free of charge within one week.
The HC stated that there
was a failure on the part of the ISLR, Pernem, to maintain all information in
digitised form and accessible to the public over the internet.
The man went to the high
court after the State Information Commission dismissed his appeal under the RTI
Act. The HC quashed the commission’s order and observed that his application
dated Sept 1, 2023, seeking information under RTI was very clear, and the
information ought to have been maintained in digital form by the ISLR, Pernem.
The court stated that
Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to maintain all its
records under a catalogue and index in a manner and form facilitating citizens
to obtain information easily.
This mandate of subsection
2 requires the public authority to constantly endeavour to provide as much
information suo moto to the public through various modes of communication,
including the internet, the court stated.
“This provision specifies
the object of the legislation, i.e., to ensure that the public has minimum
resort to the RTI Act, and the public can access information without having to
pay for the same through the medium of the internet. Obviously, there is a
failure on the part of the ISLR, Pernem, which is the public authority that is
required to maintain all its information in digitised form and accessible to
the public over the internet,” stated Justice Valmiki Menezes.
The Hindu: New Delhi: Sunday, 15th February
2026.
The Supreme Court is
scheduled to hear on Monday a petition which accuses India’s new digital
personal data protection law of weaponising the right to privacy to disarm the
citizens’ right to seek information from the state under the Right to
Information (RTI) Act.
A three-judge Bench headed
by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant would hear a petition filed by human
rights and transparency activist Venkatesh Nayak, represented by advocate
Vrinda Grover, who has challenged Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection
(DPDP) Act of 2023.
The petition submitted
that Section 44(3) has amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to facilitate
public authorities to blankly refuse information on the ground that the details
sought are of a “personal” nature.
It said that the provision
has turned the fundamental right to privacy on its head. The right, meant to
protect ordinary citizens against state incursion, has been extended to protect
the state and public functionaries from RTI disclosures.
Originally, the RTI
provision had exempted authorities from disclosing personal information to an
applicant if the details sought had no relationship to any public activity or
if disclosure would amount to unwarranted invasion of privacy. Even then, the government
had to disclose if public interest outweighed privacy. The decision whether or
not to reveal ‘personal information’ was taken by a Public Information Officer
or the First Appellate Authority under the RTI Act after thoroughly weighing
privacy and transparency concerns.
‘Structural alteration’
“The Constitutional
consequence is immediate and serious. Every RTI application involving
identifiable public officials, procurement records, audit reports, appointment
files, utilisation of public funds, or exercise of statutory discretion can now
be denied automatically on the ground that it ‘relates to personal
information’. The balancing mechanism that ensured proportionality has been
dismantled,” the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI),
represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, argued in a separate petition filed
in the apex court.
“The exemption operates as
an irrebuttable bar at the first gate. This is not a minor statutory
adjustment; it is a structural alteration of the decision-making architecture
of the RTI Act,” the NCPRI added.
The petition represented
by Ms. Grover said that the amendment introduced by the DPDP Act accorded
“unguided discretion to the Executive to deny personal information, which is
unconstitutional.”
“It is an unreasonable
restriction on the right under Article 19 (right to free speech). Privacy is
not a fundamental right available to the state. It violates Article 14 (right
to equal treatment) by equating the privacy of public functionaries to that of
ordinary citizens. It inverts the jurisprudence of privacy vis-à-vis the right
to information and prioritises privacy over the larger public interest of
transparency and open governance,” Mr. Nayak’s petition argued.
Information Commissioner
Vinod Kumar Tiwari held that while Section 8 of the RTI Act permits withholding
of information that may impede investigation or prosecution, the exemption
cannot be applied in a "blanket and mechanical manner" to all queries
without examining their nature.
.JPG)
.JPG)
