सर्विस रिकॉर्ड निजी जानकारी, RTI Act के तहत इसका खुलासा करने से छूट: बॉम्बे हाईकोर्ट

Times of India: Gandhinagar: Thursday, 23 April 2026.

बॉम्बे हाईकोर्ट ने फैसला दिया कि सर्विस रिकॉर्ड निजी जानकारी होती है, जिसे सूचना का अधिकार (RTI Act) के तहत सार्वजनिक करने से छूट मिली हुई। कोर्ट ने कहा कि ऐसी जानकारी को सार्वजनिक करने का आदेश तब तक नहीं दिया जा सकता, जब तक कि संबंधित अथॉरिटी इस बात से संतुष्ट न हो जाए कि व्यापक जनहित के लिए ऐसा करना ज़रूरी है।
जस्टिस आबासाहेब डी. शिंदे एक रिट याचिका पर सुनवाई कर रहे थे। इस याचिका में राज्य सूचना आयोग के उस आदेश को चुनौती दी गई, जिसमें डिप्टी सुपरिटेंडेंट ऑफ़ पुलिस के सर्विस रिकॉर्ड को सार्वजनिक करने का निर्देश दिया गया। याचिका के जवाब में प्रतिवादी ने RTI Act के तहत याचिकाकर्ता के सर्विस रिकॉर्ड से जुड़ी जानकारी मांगी, जिसमें उसकी नौकरी से संबंधित विवरण भी शामिल थे। सूचना अधिकारी और प्रथम अपीलीय अथॉरिटी दोनों ने ही इस आवेदन को खारिज कर दिया। हालांकि, दूसरी अपील में राज्य सूचना आयोग ने इस अनुरोध को स्वीकार कर लिया और जानकारी को सार्वजनिक करने का निर्देश दिया।
याचिकाकर्ता ने दलील दी कि मांगी गई जानकारी उसके निजी सर्विस रिकॉर्ड से संबंधित थी और प्रतिवादी का ऐसी जानकारी से कोई लेना-देना नहीं था। उसने आगे कहा कि सूचना आयोग RTI Act की धारा 8(1)(j) के प्रावधानों पर विचार करने में विफल रहा। यह धारा निजी जानकारी को सार्वजनिक करने से छूट देती है। साथ ही आयोग ने धारा 11 के तहत याचिकाकर्ता को 'तीसरे पक्ष' के तौर पर सुनवाई का अवसर देने की शर्त का भी पालन नहीं किया। दूसरी ओर, प्रतिवादी ने दलील दी कि यह जानकारी इस बात की पुष्टि करने के लिए ज़रूरी है कि क्या याचिकाकर्ता ने वैध जाति प्रमाण पत्र के आधार पर नौकरी हासिल की है और इसमें जनहित भी शामिल है।
कोर्ट ने RTI Act की वैधानिक व्यवस्था की जांच की और पाया कि धारा 8(1)(j) स्पष्ट रूप से निजी जानकारी को सार्वजनिक करने से छूट देती है, जब तक कि जनहित में ऐसा करना उचित न हो। कोर्ट ने आगे कहा कि किसी तीसरे पक्ष से संबंधित जानकारी को सार्वजनिक करने का निर्देश देने से पहले अथॉरिटी के लिए यह ज़रूरी है कि वह RTI Act की धारा 11 का पालन करे। इसके तहत संबंधित व्यक्ति को नोटिस जारी करना और उसे सुनवाई का अवसर देना अनिवार्य है। कोर्ट ने पाया कि इस मामले में जानकारी को सार्वजनिक करने का निर्देश देने से पहले याचिकाकर्ता को ऐसा कोई अवसर नहीं दिया गया।
कोर्ट ने फैसला दिया कि चुनौती दिया गया आदेश RTI Act की धारा 8(1)(j) और 11 के प्रावधानों के विपरीत है। ऐसा इसलिए है, क्योंकि इस आदेश में जनहित की संतुष्टि दर्ज किए बिना और प्रभावित पक्ष को सुनवाई का अवसर दिए बिना ही निजी जानकारी को सार्वजनिक करने का निर्देश दे दिया गया।
कोर्ट ने टिप्पणी की,
"...दूसरी अपीलीय अथॉरिटी द्वारा पारित विवादित आदेश न केवल धारा 8 (1) (j) के प्रावधानों के विपरीत है—क्योंकि यह जानकारी याचिकाकर्ता के सर्विस रिकॉर्ड, यानी उसकी निजी जानकारी से संबंधित है। इसे स्पष्ट रूप से जानकारी सार्वजनिक करने के दायरे से छूट दी गई—बल्कि यह RTI Actम की धारा 11 के प्रावधानों के भी विपरीत है।"
तदनुसार, हाईकोर्ट ने रिट याचिका स्वीकार की और राज्य सूचना आयोग का आदेश रद्द किया, जिसमें याचिकाकर्ता के सर्विस रिकॉर्ड को सार्वजनिक करने का निर्देश दिया गया।
Case Title: Narsing Ganpatrao Ankushkar vs. Balaji Pandharinath Thorat & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 4075 of 2015]

Gujarat: 11 out of 27 govt depts have not submitted PAD certificates

Times of India: Gandhinagar: Thursday, 23 April 2026.
In spite of a Supreme Court order and several circulars from the state's general administration department (GAD), 11 of the 27 state govt departments have not submitted proactive disclosure (PAD) certificates. Information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act further states that less than 1% of public authorities only 75 of the 11,883 have provided PAD certificates.

All govt departments and all public authorities are required to make proactive disclosures of basic details and data of their respective departments and scope of work, so that elementary information need not be obtained by filing RTI applications.
According to a GAD circular dated July 17, 2019, heads of all districts and civic bodies along with boards and corporations must provide certificates of PAD to their respective department, and each department must provide its certificate to the GAD.
"If an RTI cell has been set up in the GAD, then it should have consolidated data of PAD certificates. We had to file two appeals after making an RTI application for this data, and information was provided only after the second appeal made in the commission," said RTI applicant Alpesh Bhavsar.
Bhavsar said that information received from the GAD after the second appeal said that only 16 departments have updated PAD, and GAD had no information available regarding the remaining 11 departments. "Interestingly, the GAD, which is responsible for monitoring implementation of PAD and has issued 17 circulars for the same, has not updated its own PAD," Bhavsari said.
Bhavsar said that according to the information received through RTI, there are a total of 11,883 public authorities in the state, and it appears that only 75 public authorities have submitted certificates as per the GAD circular. "Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, which deals with proactive disclosures, and circulars of the Union DoPT ministry are being violated in a big way in Gujarat," Bhavsar claimed.
Pankti Jog, convener of Mahiti Adhikar Pahel Gujarat (MAPG), said a Supreme Court order clearly states that the information commission is expected to ensure that PAD certificates are submitted. "In this background, it was expected that the Gujarat information commission (GIC) should have directed the GAD to ensure implementation of the circular. It is disappointing that GIC has not made GAD accountable in its order. PADs are the heart of the RTI Act. It is unfortunate that GIC is not taking adequate steps to ensure its implementation," she said.

58,881 displaced, 10,000 homes destroyed in Manipur since 2023 violence: RTI report

Hindustan Times: Manipur: Thursday, 23 April 2026.
RTI reply reveals 58,881 displaced, over 10,000 houses damaged in Manipur violence; 217 deaths recorded based on ex gratia payments by the state.

58,881 displaced, 10,000 homes destroyed in Manipur since 2023 violence: RTI report

A total of 58,881 individuals were displaced as a result of the ethnic violence in Manipur from May 3, 2023, to March 30 this year, according to the Manipur government in response to a Right to Information (RTI) query.
The government provided the data on Monday, responding to an RTI filed in September last year by Congress leader from Manipur, Hareshwar Goshwami, seeking information on the status of displaced persons affected by the Manipur violence between Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities.
Responding to Goshwami’s query regarding the total number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) since the beginning of the Manipur crisis, the state home department said that as of March 30 this year, Manipur has 58,881 displaced people.
The RTI response further stated that there are currently 7,894 permanently destroyed housing units and 2,646 partially damaged houses, in response to a query on the total number of houses completely and partially destroyed since May 3, 2023.
On a separate query regarding the total number of deaths and injuries in connection with the Manipur crisis since May 3, 2023, the government stated that the number of deaths was 217, as per ex gratia paid to the next of kin.
To be sure, over 260 people have been killed in the ethnic violence so far. The government’s response to the RTI query mentions only those deaths in which ex gratia was paid.
The government added that, till March 10 this year, the state had a total of 174 relief camps, and a total of 3,000 pre-fabricated houses were constructed by Manipur Police Housing Corporation (MPHC) Limited.
The reply mentioned that under special assistance for the operation of relief camps, a total amount of ₹424.36 crore was approved by the Ministry of Home Affairs, of which ₹217.4 crore was released. A total of ₹284.6 crore was released to Deputy Commissioners (DCs).
Under the special package for rehabilitation and resettlement of internally displaced persons (IDPs), a total amount of ₹523 crore has been approved by the ministry, out of which ₹124.50 crore has been released.
Besides, a total amount of ₹65.1635 crore was released to DCs. Additionally, under a state scheme for support for the purchase of mattresses and personal items, ₹14.24 crore was issued.
“Out of all the responses against nine queries, 30–40% responses are not satisfactory, while the remaining 60% responses are partially satisfactory,” the RTI appellant told HT.
Goshwami said the ministry has already approved and sanctioned funds for special assistance for the operation of relief camps and another special package for rehabilitation and resettlement of IDPs.
Meanwhile, the Manipur Information Commission (MIC) on Tuesday directed the Manipur home department to provide complete and consolidated state-level information on IDPs arising out of the crisis in the state within 15 days.
The directive was issued by State information commissioner Nungshitombi Athokpam while disposing of an appeal Case, filed by Hareshwar Goshwami against the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) and officials of the home department, alleging that the authorities failed to provide consolidated information on relief camps, deaths and health conditions of IDPs.

The commission directed that the Manipur home department, as the nodal authority, must provide comprehensive data and ruled that the information is disclosable under the RTI Act.

30% of AMC councillor funds remain unutilised: RTI reply

Times of India: Ahmedabad: Thursday, 23 April 2026.
The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) has said that a significant portion of funds allocated to municipal councillors remains unutilised. This was disclosed in reply to a query made under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

In the financial year 2024–25, councillors were allotted grants worth Rs 76.8 crore, of which Rs 53.7 crore was utilised. This left 30.1% of the funds unspent, the civic body said in its response.
The data was provided following a query by activist Santoshsinh Rathod. The AMC further disclosed that over the past four years, a total of Rs 268.8 crore was allocated to councillors, out of which Rs 201.6 crore was spent, while the remaining amount was returned unused.
Year-wise details indicate varying utilisation levels. In 2021–22, councillors used Rs 37 crore (64.1%) out of Rs 57.6 crore allocated. Utilisation improved in subsequent years, with Rs 48.2 crore (83.6%) spent in 2022–23 and Rs 62.7 crore (81.6%) used in 2023–24 out of allocations of Rs 57.6 crore and Rs 76.8 crore, respectively.
Rathod alleged that a notable portion of the funds estimated between 20% and 25% was spent on items such as society signboards, boards, and benches. He also pointed out that the AMC secretary's office clarified that no official resolution permits displaying councillors' names on such installations.
Raising further concerns, Rathod said that three councillors from Bhaipura ward collectively spent Rs 1.4 lakh from their grants to purchase an air conditioner for a ward office, despite such expenditure not being listed as permissible under AMC resolutions.
Additionally, he alleged lack of transparency in the Ahmedabad Municipal School Board's functioning. According to Rathod, the board failed to provide details of contractor bills and certificates confirming the receipt of books by principals of AMC-run schools for recently procured reading materials.

Karnataka Information Commission imposes penalty of Rs 25,000 on Malavalli civic official for RTI violations

Deccan Herald: Malavalli: Thursday, 23 April 2026.
While hearing the case, the KIC took the official concerned to task for failing to provide the documents even after two years.

The Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) has imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 on an Environmental Engineer of the Malavalli Town Municipal Council (TMC), for negligence and failing to provide documents sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Nitin, a resident of Bannur in T Narsipur taluk, Mysuru district, had submitted an RTI application to the Malavalli TMC in March 2024, seeking documents and details on the vehicles procured on an outsourced basis, including the related tender process and the approved rates.
Veekshitha, who was also the Public Information Officer (PIO) at the TMC, failed to furnish the requested documents within the stipulated time frame. Following the delay and lack of response, the applicant approached the KIC, with an appeal.
While hearing the case, the KIC took the official concerned to task for failing to provide the documents even after two years.
During an earlier appearance before the KIC, Veekshitha had agreed to furnish the details to the applicant and had requested some time. However, she failed to keep her word and did not provide the information. Further, she consistently skipped subsequent hearings of the case.
Taking a serious note of the violation of the Act, the KIC has issued another notice to Veekshitha, asking why it should not recommend disciplinary action against her to the State government. She has been directed to appear before the KIC in person for the next hearing and submit a valid explanation.

HC seeks record retention policy for Goa’s panchayats.

Times of India: Panaji: Wednesday, April 22, 2026.

The Bombay high court on Tuesday asked the director of panchayats to formulate within eight weeks a record retention policy in larger public interest. The policy will specify the duration within which all documentary and electronic records of panchayats across Goa are required to be retained.

The court passed the order in a petition filed by panch of Majorda panchayat, seeking implementation of orders of the State Information Commission.

The commission in Feb imposed penalties to the tune of Rs 50,000 on the public information officer (PIO), who is the secretary of the Majorda-Utorda-Calata panchayat, for denying information under the RTI Act.

State information commissioner Atmaram Barve at the time also directed the chief secretary to take immediate steps for the formation of a record retention policy for documentary as well as electronic records for all authorities under the ambit of the Right to Information Act in the state.

The HC observed that the commission’s order appears to be based on the premise that all CCTV footage recorded in DVRs set up in various panchayats in Goa gets overwritten within a specified time and information contained in digital form gets lost.

The panch’s grievance was that the panch was unable to access CCTV footage of recordings of the panchayat since by the time the information was given by the PIO, the data on the hard disk was overwritten as the information is stored for a period of 15 days only.

CIC asks LIC to share available information as policyholder claims ‘never took’ disputed loans.

The Print : PTI:  New Delhi: Wednesday, April 22, 2026.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the LIC to furnish a revised reply along with the available information to an RTI applicant who had sought information on certain loans allegedly taken against his Rs 50 lakh insurance policy that he claimed he had “neither applied nor requested” for. 

The commission passed the order after observing that the insurer failed to justify the denial of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act after the LIC claimed that the disclosure of information could impede the investigation as the matter was pending before a consumer forum and FIRs had been lodged.

Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act exempts information that would impede the process of investigation, apprehension, or prosecution of offenders.

No response was received from the LIC to queries seeking comment.

The case relates to an RTI application seeking documents concerning two loans allegedly disbursed against the applicant’s policy, which had a maturity value of about Rs 81.7 lakh.

The applicant submitted that he had earlier taken loans from banks against the policy and repaid them. However, at the time of maturity, the LIC informed him of two additional loans — Rs 10.45 lakh allegedly disbursed in December 2007 and Rs 15.89 lakh — which he denied ever availing.

He asserted that he had “never applied or requested for any of the aforesaid loans at any point of time” and alleged that the transactions were carried out without his consent, claiming involvement of an LIC agent and others.

The applicant further alleged that the loan amounts were deposited into a joint bank account opened in his name along with an LIC agent without his knowledge and that the funds were subsequently transferred to another account linked to the agent and withdrawn.

He claimed he had “never signed or appended any signature” for opening such an account.

According to the policyholder, after adjusting these alleged loans along with accrued interest, the payable maturity amount was reduced to Rs 36.67 lakh.

During the hearing, the appellant’s counsel argued that the information sought pertained solely to the policyholder and should have been disclosed.

“The appellant had sought copies of documents related to his two loans taken against his own LIC policy, but the same was not provided,” the counsel submitted.

He added that the appellant came to know about the alleged loans only at the time of maturity, asserting that these were loans “which the appellant had neither applied nor requested for”.

The respondent authority maintained that the information was denied as the matter was pending before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Lucknow, and that two FIRs had been registered in the case, arguing that disclosure could hamper the investigation.

In its written submission, the LIC contended that the appellant had “concealed true and material facts” by not disclosing the pendency of the case before the consumer forum and ongoing police investigations, and termed the appeal an “abuse of the process of law”.

However, when queried by the commission, the respondent admitted that there was no court order restraining disclosure and failed to adequately explain how sharing the information would impede the investigation.

The commission also noted that the respondent stated during the hearing that records sought were not available but agreed to revisit the RTI application and provide the information available.

“The respondent during hearing submitted that the records sought are not available with them,” but they will “revisit RTI application and provide available information on all points, to the appellant, in their revised reply.” “In the light of the above facts, the respondent is directed to provide revised reply on all points to the appellant,” the Commission directed on April 8. 

This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.

Goa CM gave nod for 112m casino vessel despite CoP concerns: RTI

The Times of India: Goa: Tuesday, 21 April 2026.
Chief minister Pramod Sawant ignored concerns raised by the Captain of Ports and the ports secretary while giving the green light for Delta Corp to bring a 112-metre-long offshore casino into the Mandovi river. RTI documents show that the Captain of Ports expressed misgivings about the entry of such a large vessel into the Mandovi by Delta Corp subsidiary, Delta Pleasure Cruises, and stated that it “may create a navigational hazard due to so many vessel clusters” creating a bottleneck at the position requested”.

Then ports secretary and IAS officer P S Reddy also raised a red flag about navigational hazards. In a file noting, Reddy said Goa lacks a policy and clear guidelines for bringing such large vessels into inland water channels.
“As there are technical and safety issues involved, I am of the opinion that…technical feasibility needs to be conducted by technical experts to ascertain what is the maximum size of vessels that can be brought into the Zuari, the Mandovi and other Goan inland waters, bearing in mind the navigational safety of the vessels,” Reddy said.
The ports department also clearly specified that the length of vessels permitted to operate in Goan waters has been restricted to 90m, though permissions are given to shipyards to build vessels up to 120m for operations in other states or countries.
Despite the department’s concerns, Sawant said, “We may convey no objection to the applicants to proceed,” with the replacement of the older MV Royale floatel with the 112-m-long vessel.
This prompted citizens acting under the ‘Ponnjekars Against Casinos’ banner to press govt to withdraw the permissions.
“We feel that the chief minister’s approval has to be withdrawn. It is not a technical opinion and he has no right to decide on this under the Indian Ports Act. He cannot give technical decisions,” said former CCP corporator, Patricia Pinto.
Local residents said that in case of an emergency or disaster, it is the Captain of Ports who will be held responsible.
“This boat is bigger than some of the buildings in Panaji. The chief minister has given permissions against the advice and suggestions given by people with technical know-how, such as the secretary of ports and the Captain of Ports,” said AAP Goa president, Valmiki Naik.

RTI reply reveals SC rejected regional bench proposal; Nagpur demand resurfaces

Nagpur Today: Nagpur: Tuesday, 21 April 2026.
A Right to Information (RTI) query filed by a Nagpur-based lawyer has brought fresh clarity, and renewed debate, over the long-pending demand for regional benches of the Supreme Court of India.

Advocate Sundeep R. Badana had sought details under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding discussions and correspondence related to the establishment of regional or “cassation” benches of the apex court under Article 130 of the Constitution.
In its official response dated April 13, 2026, the Supreme Court Registry informed that a Full Court meeting on the issue was held on February 18, 2010. During that meeting, the judges considered the Law Commission of India’s 229th Report, which had recommended dividing the Supreme Court into a Constitution Bench in Delhi and cassation benches in different regions.
However, as per the RTI reply, the Full Court unanimously rejected the proposal, stating that there was “no justification” to deviate from its earlier stance. The Registry further clarified that no official correspondence has been sent to the Ministry of Law and Justice regarding the establishment of regional benches since 2014.
The disclosure has once again spotlighted the longstanding demand for a Supreme Court bench outside Delhi, particularly in Nagpur. Advocate Badana had earlier submitted a detailed representation to Chief Justice of India Bhushan Gavai, proposing structural judicia suggesting Nagpur as a potential location for a western cassation bench. However, the CJI reportedly stated that no such representation had been formally received.
The demand for a bench in Nagpur is not new. Prominent leaders including former Union Minister Hansraj Ahir, former MP Vilas Muttemwar, and former MP Vijay Darda have, in the past, advocated for such a move, citing the city’s central location and its importance as Maharashtra’s second capital.
Legal experts argue that decentralising the Supreme Court could improve access to justice, especially for litigants from distant regions who face logistical and financial challenges in approaching Delhi. In his representation, Badana highlighted what he described as a “dual crisis,” a mounting backlog of over 85,000 cases and a perceived geographical imbalance in access to the apex court.
While the RTI response provides a definitive position taken by the Supreme Court in 2010 and the absence of recent correspondence, it has also reignited discussions on judicial accessibility and the need for structural reforms in India’s highest court.

J&K: CIC fires "Show Cause Notice" to PIO as to why action not be taken u/s 20?

Cross Town News: Jammu: Tuesday, 21 April 2026.
In reply to one RTI, one officer, who is topper in JKAS Batch but seems be not aware about laws & acts, which stands proved in a RTI reply wherein she had failed to provide information to an applicant on notings of her file & strange to mention here that the said topper of JKAS quoted Section 8(1)(b) of RTI Act while denying the information.

First Appeal was filed & in hearing one Legal Assistant of JDA was also present along with PIO etc etc &  declared that Sec 8(1)(b) cannot be applied to personal information & ordered to provide the information  but not provided,  speaks of  case of harassment by JDA to public.
Whereas, STP of JDA denied information to applicant on his personal case by quoting Section 8(1)(j).
It is also a question on FAA for not acting on PIO for providing false information wrt to quoted sections, otherwise, which should have been read befor replying, otherwise speaks of their proved incompetence & malafide, needs actions.
Now, shockingly, a RTI applicant had sought some information regarding engagement of contractual Computer Operators, Surveyors and Technical Assistants in sister concern of JDA as, Jammu Municipal Corporation, which included copies of engagement orders, extension details and information such as name, parentage, address and date of engagement, along with the number of extensions granted.
The PIO had responded that the record sought is more than seventeen years old and that the whole record is shifted to new place due to renovation work of building, making it presently not traceable.
 In a, case exposing serious lapses in implementation of the RTI Act, the CIC dealt with a Second Appeal filed against the District Social Welfare Office, where the applicant had sought crucial information regarding public funds.
The Commission noted that despite the nature of queries involving public funds and accountability, no reply was furnished by the PIO within the stipulated time, nor was any order passed by the First Appellate Authority on record.
Taking a serious view, the Commission observed that the prima-facie failure of the PIO to comply with the mandate of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, in not furnishing a reply amounts to a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Accordingly, Commission ordered the PIO to provide a point-wise reply to the RTI application. Further, the PIO has been directed to submit a response to a show-cause notice as to why an action should not be taken against him/her under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the lapses, whereas Commission also flagged the failure of the First Appellate Authority, observing that the FAA had abdicated its statutory duty, which renders the channel of First Appeal redundant.

Central Bank of India Deny Details on Annual Membership Fees and Expenditure

The Kanal: New Delhi: Tuesday, 21 April 2026.
Central Bank of India responds to RTI query seeking details on annual membership fees and related expenditures. Clarifies non-disclosure citing commercial confidence under RTI Act 2005.

A Right to Information (RTI) application seeking details on annual membership fees and related expenditures has received a response from the Central Bank of India. The reply addresses queries related to subscription payments, expenditure consolidation, and accounting treatment while also invoking provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for non-disclosure of certain information.
RTI Query on Membership Fees and Expenses
The RTI application was filed by Prabin Kumar Biswas, who sought detailed information regarding annual membership fees and related expenditures from the Central Bank of India. The query included a breakdown of subscription payments such as legal and professional fees, special fund contributions, technology-related charges, and expenses on consultancy or training programs. Additionally, the applicant requested details of total annual expenditure along with the specific accounting heads under which these payments were recorded.
Bank’s Response on Disclosure
The Central Bank of India stated that the information requested falls under the category of commercial confidence. It cited Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, indicating that such information cannot be disclosed as it may affect the competitive position of the institution. Therefore, the bank declined to provide detailed financial breakdowns.
Reference to RTI Act, 2005
The reply specifically mentions provisions under the RTI Act, 2005, which allow public authorities to withhold information considered commercially sensitive. The bank emphasised that disclosure is not warranted in this case due to the nature of the data requested.
Accounting and Expenditure Clarification
While the applicant had also sought clarity on total annual expenditure and accounting classifications, the response did not provide specific figures or account details. The refusal was consistent across all points raised in the RTI application.

RTI reply issued by Central Bank of India citing Section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005

Appeal Provision Mentioned
The response also informs the applicant about the right to file a first appeal within 30 days if dissatisfied with the reply. Contact details of the appellate authority were provided as per RTI norms.

CIC seeks clarity on contract workers' wages, questions industry promotion dep

ETLegal: New Delhi: Tuesday, 21 April 2026.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the earlier response provided by department was incomplete and did not address all aspects raised in the Right to Information (RTI) application.

The CIC has directed the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, to furnish a revised and detailed reply on queries related to the basis for fixing wages of contract workers at a cement unit in Uttar Pradesh.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the earlier response provided by the department was incomplete and did not address all aspects raised in the Right to Information (RTI) application.
In his RTI application, the appellant had raised three specific questions. These included whether the unit is run under the central or state government rules, and which rules applied earlier when it functioned as a government factory.
He also asked, "When the price of cement produced is decided by the central government, then on what basis the rate of wages of the contract labourers working in the factory is determined by the state government?"
During the hearing, the respondent submitted that the cement industry "was deregulated in 1989 and delicensed in 1991 under the policy of economic liberalisation".
"Thus, the Government of India does not control cement prices, and the administration/management of the cement industry," it said, adding that this had already been conveyed to the appellant earlier.
The Commission, however, found gaps in the reply. It observed that the respondent failed to clarify "if there are any rules/guidelines/office memorandum that form the basis on which the rate of wages of the contract labourers working in the aforesaid factory is decided".
It also noted that no satisfactory response was provided on this specific aspect during the hearing.
"The respondent did not give an appropriate para-wise reply to the appellant. The respondent had provided some available factual information. However, the same does not answer all three points in consonance with the RTI Act, 2005," the Commission said.
Directing corrective action, the CIC ordered the respondent to provide a revised point-wise reply to the appellant, "incorporating the documents/rules/guidelines/factual information with respect to the sought information" as to whether the unit is run according to the rules made by the central government or those made by the state government.
The reply should clearly address whether the unit is "run as per the rules made by the Central Government or the rules made by the State Government; the basis on which the rate of wages of the contract labourers working in the aforesaid factory is decided etc. as per the RTI Act, 2005", it said.

Rohtak PGIMS pulls up public information officers for delays in RTI replies

Tribune India: Rohtak: Monday, 20 April 2026.
In several cases, information was either withheld or not supplied properly, leading to repeated reminders and delays in processing applications

Taking serious note of delays and negligence in responding to RTI applications on time, the authorities at Pandit BD Sharma Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGIMS), Rohtak, have directed all its public information officers (PIOs) to provide timely and point-wise replies and ensure their personal presence during RTI appeal hearings.
In an official communication issued by the First Appellate Authority-cum-Director of PGIMS, it has been observed that most PIOs of the institute were not providing specific and point-wise replies to RTI applicants.
In several cases, information was either withheld or not supplied properly, leading to repeated reminders and delays in processing applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The order further stated that delays in providing information to the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) were resulting in an increase in first appeals before the First Appellate Authority and second appeals before the Haryana State Information Commission.
The authorities warned that such negligence could lead to penalties being imposed by the Commission.
The First Appellate Authority directed all PIOs to furnish specific and point-wise replies to RTI applications within the stipulated time frame.
“They either conceal/ withhold the information or do not supply the information properly. Moreover, there has been a consistent delay in providing the information to the office of the SPIO of the PGIMS with regard to various RTI applications,” reads the orders.
The order clearly stated that in case of delay or failure, the concerned PIOs would be held personally responsible and would have to bear any penalty imposed by the State Information Commission. The matter has been marked as “utmost urgent”.
In a separate office order, the institute also expressed concern that some PIOs were not attending RTI appeal hearings personally and were deputing representatives instead. According to the order, this practice was causing embarrassment during appeal proceedings and affecting the proper disposal of cases.
The authorities have now directed all PIOs to remain personally present during RTI appeal hearings and avoid taking leave on dates fixed for appeals. The order emphasized that personal attendance is necessary to ensure effective hearing and timely resolution of RTI matters.
PGIMS Director Dr SK Singhal, while confirming the development, said the move aims to improve transparency, strengthen accountability and ensure timely disposal of RTI applications at the institution.

Is India Burying the Right to Information? The Slow Death of Transparency in India : By Dr Ranjan Solomon

Countercurrents: Article: Monday, 20 April 2026.

When India enacted the Right to Information (RTI) Act in 2005, it marked a watershed moment in democratic governance. Born out of grassroots struggles led by ordinary citizens—particularly rural workers demanding transparency in wage payments—the law shifted the balance of power, however modestly, from the state to the people. It allowed citizens to question authority, expose corruption, and assert their right to know how they were being governed. When the right to know is weakened, democracy itself begins to recede.
Two decades later, that transformative law stands dangerously weakened – not through outright repeal, but through a steady and deliberate process of erosion.
There is no dramatic announcement declaring the end of RTI. Instead, its dismantling is unfolding quietly through legislative dilution, institutional weakening, administrative resistance, and a growing culture of secrecy. What was once a robust instrument of accountability is increasingly being reduced to a procedural formality—where information is denied, delayed, or diluted beyond usefulness.
Privacy as Pretext: The Expanding Shield of Secrecy
One of the most significant threats to the RTI framework today arises from the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023. While the protection of personal data is both necessary and overdue in a digital age, its interface with the RTI Act has raised serious concerns among transparency advocates.
The DPDP Act amends Section 8 of the RTI Act, broadening the exemption for “personal information.” Earlier, the law required a balancing test: even if information was personal, it could be disclosed if a larger public interest justified it. This crucial safeguard ensured that transparency was not sacrificed at the altar of privacy.
That balance has now been fundamentally altered. Public authorities can invoke privacy more broadly and, in practice, more arbitrarily, to deny information. This creates what activists describe as a “blanket exemption”—one that can be used to shield details about public officials, beneficiaries of government schemes, or decisions taken in the exercise of public power. This shift is not merely technical. It represents a deeper philosophical departure – from transparency as a democratic right to secrecy as administrative convenience.
Taming the Watchdog: Institutional Dependence
Equally troubling is the weakening of the institutions meant to uphold the RTI regime. The 2019 amendments to the RTI Act fundamentally altered the status of the Central and State Information Commissions. By granting the central government the power to determine the tenure, salaries, and service conditions of Information Commissioners, these amendments eroded the structural independence that once insulated them from executive pressure.
Previously, these commissions functioned with a degree of autonomy comparable to constitutional bodies like the Election Commission. Today, their dependence on the executive raises serious concerns about impartiality. An oversight body that relies on the government for its terms of service cannot be expected to robustly challenge that same government. The result is predictable: a gradual softening of enforcement, a reluctance to confront non-compliance, and an overall weakening of the law’s deterrent power.
Justice Delayed, Information Denied
Even where the law remains intact, its implementation is faltering under the weight of systemic neglect.
As of 2024, more than 400,000 RTI appeals and complaints are pending across India’s information commissions, according to data compiled by the Satark Nagrik Sangathan. Several commissions are operating with significant vacancies, including at senior levels, severely limiting their ability to function effectively.
For citizens seeking time-sensitive information—on land disputes, welfare entitlements, or administrative decisions—such delays render the law meaningless. An RTI response that arrives after years of waiting is not transparency; it is bureaucratic evasion.
When RTI Worked: A Glimpse of What Is Being Lost
To understand what is at stake, one must recall how powerful the RTI Act has been when allowed to function.
In the early years of its implementation, activists in Rajasthan—many associated with the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS)—used RTI applications to uncover massive irregularities in public works programmes. By accessing muster rolls and payment records, they exposed how funds meant for rural labourers were siphoned off through fake entries and ghost workers.
These disclosures led to public hearings, recovery of misappropriated funds, and greater scrutiny of local governance. More importantly, they demonstrated that transparency was not an abstract ideal—it had tangible consequences for justice and livelihood.
It is precisely this power—to expose, to question, and to hold authority accountable—that is now being systematically weakened.
From Citizen to Suspect: The Culture of “RTI-Phobia”
Alongside legal and institutional challenges, a more subtle but equally corrosive shift is taking place within the bureaucracy.
RTI applicants are increasingly viewed not as participants in democracy but as nuisances—or worse, as threats. Officials often label frequent applicants as “habitual complainants” or “blackmailers,” fostering an atmosphere of suspicion and hostility.
This phenomenon, sometimes described as “RTI-phobia,” has real consequences. Applications are more likely to be rejected, queries are interpreted narrowly, and bureaucrats adopt a defensive posture that prioritizes self-protection over public accountability.
The citizen, in effect, is recast as an adversary. Such a transformation undermines the spirit of the RTI Act, which was designed to empower individuals—not intimidate them.
The Vanishing Deterrent: No Penalty, No Compliance
The RTI Act includes provisions for penalising officials who fail to provide information without reasonable cause. These provisions were intended to ensure compliance and deter arbitrary denial.
In practice, however, they are rarely enforced. The Central Information Commission (CIC), which has the authority to impose fines, has shown increasing reluctance to penalise errant officials. This failure to act has emboldened non-compliance, allowing public authorities to ignore RTI requests with minimal consequences.
At the same time, rejection rates have risen. Studies indicate that a significant number of RTI denials do not cite valid legal exemptions, reflecting a pattern of arbitrary decision-making. Without enforcement, the law loses its teeth. And without consequences, opacity becomes the norm.
A Warning from the Judiciary
The cumulative effect of these developments has prompted serious concern from within the legal community. Former Supreme Court judge Madan B. Lokur has warned that the RTI framework could be effectively dismantled within the next five to six years if current trends continue.
This is not a prediction of formal repeal, but of functional collapse. A law need not be abolished to become irrelevant. It only needs to be ignored, weakened, and rendered ineffective.
What Is at Stake: Democracy Itself
The erosion of the RTI Act is not an isolated policy issue – it is a fundamental challenge to democratic governance. Transparency is the foundation of accountability. Without access to information, citizens cannot question authority, journalists cannot investigate wrongdoing, and civil society cannot hold institutions to account. Corruption thrives in secrecy, and power consolidates in darkness.
In this context, the weakening of RTI signals a broader shift in governance—from openness to opacity, from participation to control. It raises a troubling question: what kind of democracy fears its own citizens knowing too much?
Democracy in the Dark
The gradual erosion of the Right to Information Act is a warning sign – one that extends far beyond the law itself. A democracy that restricts access to information is a democracy that fears accountability. And a democracy that fears accountability is one that risks losing its constitutional soul.
If the RTI is allowed to fade into irrelevance, it will not just be a law that is lost. It will be a fundamental right – hard-won through struggle – quietly erased from public life.And in that silence, democracy itself will grow dim.
Conclusion: A Legacy at Risk
The gradual erosion of the Right to Information Act is a warning sign – one that extends far beyond the law itself. It also stands in stark contrast to the constitutional vision articulated by P. N. Bhagwati, who, through a series of landmark judgments, laid the foundation for the right to information as an intrinsic part of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Long before RTI became statutory law, it was judicially nurtured as a democratic necessity—an essential condition for informed citizenship and accountable governance.
To weaken RTI today is not merely to dilute a piece of legislation; it is to depart from that constitutional promise. If the current trajectory continues, India risks undoing decades of progressive jurisprudence that recognised transparency as the cornerstone of democracy. The right to know, once affirmed as fundamental, may survive in principle – but fade in practice.
And when that happens, it will not just be a law that is lost. It will be a legacy betrayed – and a democracy dimmed by the very shadows it once sought to dispel.
(Ranjan Solomon has worked in social justice movements since he was 19 years of age. After an accumulated period of 58 years working with oppressed and marginalized groups locally, nationally, and internationally, he has now turned author- researcher-freelance writer focussed on questions of global and local/national justice., Ranjan Solomon has stayed in close solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for freedom from Israeli occupation, and the cruel apartheid system since 1987. Ranjan Solomon can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com)

CIC flags reckless disclosure of Third Party information in J&K : Mohinder Verma

Daily Excelsior: Jammu: Monday, 20 April 2026.
In a scathing indictment of the RTI mechanism in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has found that First Appellate Authorities (FAAs) lack understanding of key provisions of the Act, particularly those safeguarding Third- Party information from disclosure.

The sharp observation came while the Commission was adjudicating Second Appeals filed by the RTI applicants of the J&K.
In the first case, the applicant had sought copies of vigilance clearances received from the General Administration Department (GAD) in respect of various Engineers regularised as Chief Engineers, Superintending Engineers and Executive Engineers under multiple orders of the Power Development Department.
At the initial stage, the PIO had rightly informed the applicant that the information sought comes under the purview of Third Party information and could not be provided. However, when the applicant filed the First Appeal, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that once the DPC has been concluded, the vigilance clearance or promotion orders are no more confidential documents and can be provided under RTI Act.
Accordingly, the FAA directed the PIO to provide the requisite information to the applicant. In compliance of the order of the FAA, the PIO furnished the requisite documents to the applicant. Despite this, the applicant knocked the doors of the CIC with the plea that full information was not provided.
Rejecting the FAA’s reasoning, the CIC relied on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in CPIO, Supreme Court of India Versus Subhash Chandra Agarwal and other landmark rulings to underline the scope of “personal information” under Section 8(1)(j).
Quoting the judgment, the Commission noted that professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs and disciplinary proceedings are all personal information and are entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy.
The CIC categorically held that the disclosure made by the department was in contravention to Section 8(1)(j) read with Section 11 of the RTI Act and viewed the lapse adversely. It further ruled that the FAA’s order was “per incuriam”, effectively rendering it legally unsustainable.
Issuing a clear warning, the Commission advised the First Appellate Authority to exercise due caution while ordering disclosure of information related to Third Parties in the future.
In another case, the RTI applicant had sought wide-ranging information regarding engagement of contractual Computer Operators, Surveyors and Technical Assistants in Jammu Municipal Corporation. The queries included copies of engagement orders, extension details and information such as name, parentage, address and date of engagement, along with the number of extensions granted.
The PIO had responded that the record sought is more than seventeen years old and that the whole record is shifted to new place due to renovation work of building, making it presently not traceable. However, the First Appellate Authority, while deciding the First Appeal, directed the PIO to furnish the information to the applicant.
As the PIO reiterated the stand taken in the reply furnished to the original application, the applicant knocked the doors of the Central Information Commission. During the course of Second Appeal proceedings, the PIO submitted before the transparency watchdog of the country that information pertaining to certain points has already been furnished to the applicant.
Examining the response, the CIC found that while supplying information, the respondent has disclosed copies of contracts relating to Third Party contractual employees, violating the privacy of the individuals and provisions of Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.
It further observed that such disclosure was made without even following the procedure laid down under Section 11 of the RTI Act, which governs Third-Party information. The Commission categorically held that the PIO has erred in furnishing information which should have been denied under provisions of the RTI Act.
Taking a stern view of the violation, the Commission has directed the CPIO/Under Secretary, JMC to submit an explanation as to why penal action should not be initiated for breaching the provisions of the RTI Act.
In another case exposing serious lapses in implementation of the RTI Act, the CIC dealt with a Second Appeal filed against the District Social Welfare Office, Kulgam, where the applicant had sought crucial information regarding public funds.
The Commission noted that despite the nature of queries involving public funds and accountability, no reply was furnished by the PIO within the stipulated time, nor was any order passed by the First Appellate Authority on record.
Taking a serious view, the Commission observed that the prima-facie failure of the PIO to comply with the mandate of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, in not furnishing a reply amounts to a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. It also took exception to the absence of the PIO during the hearing without any advance prayer for leave and for disregarding the instructions issued in the notice of hearing.
Accordingly, Commission ordered the PIO to provide a point-wise reply to the RTI application. Further, the PIO has been directed to submit a response to a show-cause notice as to why an action should not be taken against him/her under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the lapses.
Significantly, the Commission also flagged the failure of the First Appellate Authority, observing that the FAA had abdicated its statutory duty, which renders the channel of First Appeal redundant.