RTI reply raises questions on Jagannath Temple’s Mukti Mandap representation

Times of India: Bhubaneswar: Tuesday, 15^th September 2026.
An RTI reply from the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration (SJTA) has sparked a debate over the exact number of ‘Brahmin sasana’ villages entitled to representation on the Jagannath temple’s Mukti Mandap, the apex advisory council of Brahmin scholars on matters relating to the 12th century shrine.

The confusion arose after the SJTA furnished an apparently contradictory response to an RTI query filed by Puri resident Saroj Kumar Mishra regarding the number of Brahmin sasana villages authorised to sit on the Mukti Mandap, a 16-pillared elevated open platform located on the temple premises.
According to the RTI reply on Aug 19 and reviewed by TOI, “As per the temple’s record of rights (ROR), altogether 30 Brahmin sasanas are allowed to sit on Mukti Mandap.” However, the list attached to the reply contains the names of only 22 villages, raising questions about the discrepancy.
Sources in the SJTA said 16 villages originally enjoyed representation on the Mukti Mandap. Subsequently, the state govt amended the Jagannath Temple (administration) Act, 1952, and notified the inclusion of 14 additional Brahmin sasanas. However, only six of those newly added villages were reflected in the temple’s ROR.
Residents of villages whose names are yet to be incorporated into the ROR alleged that the omission has led to repeated embarrassment and disputes over their entitlement to participate in the Mukti Mandap. “Our sasana was granted representation through a govt notification in 2018. However, the temple authorities have not yet incorporated our village’s name into the ROR. As a result, we often face objections and criticism from some other members while exercising our rights,” said Saroj Kumar Mishra of Pratap Ramachandrapur Brahmin sasana.
Deba Rath of Ubhayamukhi Ramachandrapur Brahmin sasana voiced a similar concern. “We urge the SJTA to immediately update the ROR and include our village name so that there is no ambiguity regarding our status,” Rath said. Mukti Mandap president Biswanath Mishra maintained that official recognition must be guided by the ROR. “We should go by what the ROR says,” he told TOI.
SJTA officials said the matter would be examined. “We will review the relevant notifications and records and take appropriate steps to remove any confusion and bring clarity to the issue,” a senior SJTA officer said.

Forest Rights Act Has Legal And Implementation Problem: By - Aditya Shekhar

Punjab Newsline: Chandigarh: Tuesday, 15^th September 2026.
Only one of the two has actually been solved.

Nineteen years have passed since Parliament passed the Forest Rights Act, 2006. Today, almost no one says India lacks a law to protect forest dwellers. The Act exists. The Rules exist. The machinery to process claims exists too. The real question is different. Is this machinery working the way Parliament wanted it to work?
The Act was passed to correct an old wrong. Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers had lived on forest land for generations. They depended on this land for their food and their livelihood. But they never held a paper that proved this. Their life on the land was real. Their right to it was simply never written down anywhere. The 2006 Act was meant to fix this. It turned a lived relationship with the land into a right that could be enforced in law.
Now look at the numbers. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs gave these figures to the Rajya Sabha this July. As of June 30, 2026, the country had received 54.01 lakh claims. This covers 20 states and one Union Territory. Of these claims, 25.42 lakh had led to titles. Another 10.46 lakh were still pending. And 18.13 lakh claims had been rejected. That is more than two out of every five claims that were actually decided. In simple terms, for every two families who got a title, more than one family was turned away.
The government calls this "disposal" of claims. But this word hides more than it tells us. A claim can be disposed of by approval. It can also be disposed of by rejection. And rejection often happens for reasons that have nothing to do with whether the family actually has a right under the law. For the family on the receiving end, this is not just a number in a file. It can mean losing the only land they have ever known.
Look closer, and the picture gets worse. Jammu and Kashmir's own government told its Assembly in February that it had rejected 87 percent of all claims filed under the Act. The Rajya Sabha reply confirmed this with hard numbers. Out of 46,090 claims received in the Union Territory, only 6,020 titles were granted. As many as 39,924 claims were rejected. Community rights are faring even worse than individual rights. The Ministry's own Monthly Progress Report for March 2026 recorded more than 47,900 rejections of Community Forest Rights and Community Forest Resource Rights claims across the country. West Bengal, Jammu and Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Chhattisgarh reported the highest numbers. This matters because Community Forest Resource rights were meant to give real power to Gram Sabhas over their own forests. This is the part of the law meant to do the most good. So far, it has done the least.
The law was never silent on fairness
It would be wrong to think the Act leaves claimants at the mercy of officials with no checks on their power. The law deliberately keeps the final word away from the Forest Department and the usual revenue officials. Instead, the Gram Sabha sits at the centre of the process. It receives claims. It examines evidence. It makes the first decision. This design exists for a simple reason. The kind of proof that matters here, memory, custom, long years of living on the land, rarely shows up in a government file.
The Rules add real teeth to this process. Rule 12A says Forest and Revenue officials must be present when a claim is verified on the ground. They must record what they observe. If a claim is changed or turned down, the claimant must be told. Only then can they file an appeal. If a claim is incomplete, the Rules say it should go back for another look, not get thrown out. Rejection cannot happen for the sake of convenience either. Higher committees must give clear, specific reasons whenever they change or reject a Gram Sabha's recommendation. The Rules say plainly that a claim cannot be rejected on technical grounds alone. Officials at the block, panchayat or forest range level have no power on their own to reject or change a claim.
The Rules also understand something simple. Forest communities were never going to have title deeds. That was the entire point of the Act. It was meant to recognise rights that had never been written down. So officials cannot demand one specific kind of paper as proof. The absence of paperwork, on its own, cannot defeat a claim. Satellite images and mapping technology can help verify a claim. They cannot replace the process the law requires.
None of this is vague. The safeguards in the law are clear and mandatory. What is unclear is whether officials on the ground actually follow them. An independent fact finding committee looked into how the Act was being carried out in several districts, including in Odisha. It found villages where claims had remained unanswered for almost ten years, it also found claimants who were never given a written order, or even any proper reason, explaining why their claims were rejected, this is not a problem with the law, it is a failure to properly follow the law which already exists.
When rejection becomes a habit, not a finding
There is an important difference between a claim being rejected because it does not satisfy the requirements of the Act, and a claim being rejected simply because it is difficult or inconvenient to process, some claims genuinely do not fulfil the requirements of the Act, rejecting such claims is fair, as long as the proper procedure given under the law is followed, but what is not fair is rejecting a claim simply because a family is not able to produce one particular document
. Or because a government record stays silent on their years on the land. Or simply because verifying the claim takes effort.
This is not a small detail. The entire idea behind the Act was that these rights existed long before anyone wrote them down. If the absence of a paper record becomes the reason to deny a right, the process ends up repeating the very injustice the Act was meant to undo.
Courts have said this plainly. In Ashadul Sekh v. State of West Bengal, the Calcutta High Court held that removing forest dwellers without following the Rule 12A process has no legal basis. Protecting the environment cannot come at the cost of skipping the law.
Rights and conservation are not enemies
Many people assume that forest rights and forest protection pull in opposite directions. They think that giving a family the right to live on forest land is somehow a loss for conservation. The law does not support this idea. Section 3 lists specific and limited categories of rights. People who hold these rights also carry duties toward wildlife, forest cover and biodiversity. The law was built to balance the two, not trade one for the other.
The Supreme Court's recent decision in Abdul Khalek v. State of Assam shows how this balance is meant to work. The Court did not say that anyone living on forest land can stay there automatically. It said something narrower, and more important. A person holding rights under the Forest Rights Act is a lawful occupant, not an encroacher. They cannot be evicted without notice, without a chance to show evidence, and without a reasoned decision. Due process is not a favour done to forest dwellers. It is how the State decides who has a right to stay and who does not.
This same idea runs through both cases. Protecting the environment is not an exception to constitutional process. It is a part of it. The State certainly has the power to protect forests. But it cannot use that power as if the Forest Rights Act simply did not exist.
What real implementation would look like
If the next phase of this law is to mean anything, the focus must shift. It should move away from counting how many claims were disposed of. It should move toward asking how those claims were decided.
A good starting point is simple. Every rejected claim should come with a clear, specific reason written down. A rejection that just says "insufficient evidence" tells a family nothing about what went wrong. District level data on rejections, along with the reasons behind them, should be public as a rule, not an exception. Right now, the J&K and community rights figures came out only because someone asked a question in Parliament. That should not be the only way such information becomes public. The appeal process the Rules already provide needs to actually work. An appeal that a poor, forest dependent family cannot reach or afford is not a real remedy. And whatever role satellite images and mapping tools play, they should support a human decision. They should not replace the judgment of the Gram Sabha or the value of oral and customary evidence.
Government reports also need better measures of success. Titles given out and claims disposed of are easy numbers to publish. But they say nothing about quality. Better measures would include how many rejections come with clear reasons, how fast appeals are resolved, and how much community forest land has actually been recognised.
What the Act was really promising
Set aside all the procedure for a moment. The Forest Rights Act was never only about land titles. It was an attempt to give real meaning to the Constitution's promise of social and economic justice. This matters most for communities whose bond with the land was built on custom, not paperwork.
Eighteen lakh rejections do not, by themselves, prove that the Act has failed. Many of those claims may genuinely not meet the legal requirements. But this number does prove one thing. These rejections deserve at least as much attention as the twenty five lakh titles the government likes to talk about.
Getting this right does not mean going soft on forest protection. It does not mean approving every claim regardless of evidence either. It simply means examining every claim the way the law requires. It means giving reasons when a claim is refused. And it means making sure claimants can genuinely challenge decisions that go against them.
The real test of the Forest Rights Act was never about how fast a state clears its backlog. The real test is simpler than that. Can a forest dwelling family, whose only proof is generations of dependence rather than a government file, go to the State and get back a decision that is lawful, reasoned and fair? That is not too much to ask for. It is exactly what constitutional governance is supposed to guarantee.
Author is an Assistant Professor of Law at ICFAI Law School, The ICFAI University Jharkhand. Views are personal.

Punjab SIC Harpreet Sandhu highlights RTI–Data protection balance at national conference in Hyderabad

Punjab Newsline: Chandigarh: Tuesday, 15^th September 2026.
State Information Commissioner addresses national gathering of Information Commissions, emphasizes transparency, privacy and public interest in the digital era.

Punjab State Information Commissioner Harpreet Sandhu represented the Punjab State Information Commission at the National Conference of Information Commissions held in Hyderabad on the theme, “RTI: Operational Uniformity in Implementation – Challenges and Solutions.”
As a keynote speaker, Sandhu spoke on the Digital Personal Data Protection Act and its interface with the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Addressing Chief Information Commissioners and Information Commissioners from across India, he emphasized the importance of balancing citizens’ right to information with personal data protection and public interest.
Sandhu also participated in the 34th Meeting of the Board of Governors of the National Federation of Information Commissions in India (NFICI). During the event, he presented an official souvenir on behalf of the Punjab State Information Commission to Central Chief Information Commissioner R.K. Goyal and Telangana Chief Information Commissioner Dr. G. Chandrashekar Reddy.
He was later felicitated by the Administrative Staff College of India for his contribution to the national conference on RTI held in Hyderabad.

फर्जी IAS तृप्ति सिंह मामले में बड़ा खुलासा, ससुर की RTI ने खोला राज, डेढ़ करोड़ की ठगी का आरोप

ETV Bharat: Bhopal: Monday, 14^th September 2026.
फर्जी आईएएस तृप्ति सिंह की करतूतों की खुलने लगीं परतें. पुलिस जांच में डेढ़ करोड़ की ठगी का खुला राज. आबिद मुमताज की रिपोर्ट.

फर्जी IAS तृप्ति सिंह मामले में बड़ा खुलासा (ETV Bharat)

खुद को आईएएस अफसर बताकर लोगों से ठगी करने वाली तृप्ति सिंह के मामले में बड़ा खुलासा हुआ है. पुलिस जांच में सामने आया है कि तृप्ति सिंह ने सरकारी अफसर का रौब दिखाकर बेरोजगारों और अन्य लोगों से कथित तौर पर करीब डेढ़ करोड़ रुपये की ठगी की है. अब तक 13 लोगों से ठगी की जानकारी सामने आई है.
खास बात यह है कि तृप्ति सिंह के फर्जी आईएएस होने का राज उसके ससुर की आरटीआई से खुला. ससुर को उसकी पहचान और अफसर होने के दावों पर शक हुआ था, जिसके बाद उन्होंने मसूरी स्थित अकादमी से आरटीआई के जरिए जानकारी मांगी. अकादमी से मिले जवाब के बाद तृप्ति के फर्जी आईएएस होने का खुलासा हुआ. तृप्ति सिंह को पुलिस ने अशोकनगर से गिरफ्तार किया था.
तृप्ति के ससुर की आरटीआई से खुलासा
भोपाल में फर्जी आईएएस तृप्ति सिंह मामले में बड़ा खुलासा हुआ है. तृप्ति ने एक बिल्डर के बेटे से खुद को आईएएस बताकर शादी की थी. जब उसके ससुराल वालों को शक हुआ तो उसके ससुर ने मसूरी स्थित अकादमी से आरटीआई के जरिए जानकारी मांगी थी. अकादमी के जवाब से साफ हो गया कि इस नाम की कोई महिला ने वहां ट्रेनिंग पर नहीं की.
13 लोगों से डेढ़ करोड़ की ठगी का आरोप
तृप्ति सिंह पर प्रशासनिक महकमे की फर्जी धाक दिखाकर कई लोगों से करोड़ों रुपये ऐंठने का आरोप लगा है. वह किराये की गाड़ी पर नेम प्लेट लगाकर चलती थी. सरकारी कार्यालयों के निरीक्षण के साथ बेरोजगारों को नौकरी का झांसा, कोचिंग सेंटर में क्लास लेकर मोटी फीस वसूलने समेत कई आरोप हैं.
एसीपी डॉ रजनीश कश्यप ने बताया, "13 लोगों से डेढ़ करोड़ की ठगी का आरोप सामने आया है. जांच के मुताबिक तृप्ति सिंह ने खुद को पर्यटन विभाग की अतिरिक्त संचालक बताकर लोगों पर प्रभाव जमाया. उसने सरकारी अफसर की तरह पूरा सेटअप तैयार कर रखा था. जांच के दौरान उसके पास से नकली लेटरहेड, आईडी, नियुक्ति से जुड़े दस्तावेज और ट्रेनिंग किट जैसे दस्तावेज बरामद किए गए.
उसके सभी दस्तावेजों की गहन जांच की जा रही है. पीड़ितों के बयानों को भी आधार बनाया गया है. सभी आरोपियों के नेटवर्क को भी खंगाला जा रहा है. अभी जांच में और बहुत चीजें सामने आना बाकी हैं. भोपाल और अशोकनगर की चंदेरी पुलिस अलग-अलग जांच कर रही है."
गोविंदपुरा एसडीएम बनने के लिए UPSC लिस्ट में छेड़छाड़
फर्जी आईएएस तृप्ति सिंह के मामले में एक और बड़ा खुलासा सामने आया है. आरोप है कि तृप्ति सिंह ने गोविंदपुरा एसडीएम बनने के लिए 2025 की सिविल सर्विसेज (UPSC) की फाइनल लिस्ट में छेड़छाड़ की थी. उसने 2025 की सिविल ​सर्विसेज फाइनल लिस्ट में छेड़छाड़ करके दूसरे अभ्यर्थी की जगह अपना नाम लिस्ट में डाल लिया था. पुलिस को इससे संबंधित दस्तावेज हाथ लगे हैं. तृत्पी सिंह ने गोविंदपुरा एसडीएम बनने के लिए फर्जी दस्तावेज तैयार किए थे.

• फर्जी IAS तृप्ति और भाई 4 दिन की रिमांड पर, 90 लाख की ठगी का खुलासा करेगी भोपाल पुलिस

• फर्जी IAS तृप्ति सिंह पर चौथी FIR, MPT का होटल लीज पर दिलाने के नाम पर 50 लाख ठगे

• महिला ने खुद को ट्रेनी IAS बताकर ठग लिए 39.17 लाख, भोपाल में FIR दर्ज

सरकारी कार्यालय का निरीक्षण का वीडियो आया सामने
तृप्ति सिंह राजपूत खुद को आईएएस अधिकारी बताकर सरकारी कार्यालयों का निरीक्षण करती थी. वीडियो में तृप्ति एक सरकारी दफ्तर में कर्मचारियों से उनके सरकारी कामकाज के बारे में जानकारी लेती नजर आ रही है. तृप्ति सिंह राजपूत खुद को अफसर बताकर स्थानीय थाने से प्रोटोकॉल लेती थी.

आरटीआई सूचना 6 साल रोकी पीआईओ पर 25 हजार जुर्माना

Dainik Bhaskar: Bihar: Monday, 14^th September 2026.

अनुमंडलीय अस्पताल बगहा में आरटीआई के तहत मांगी गई जानकारी छह साल तक नहीं देने पर लोक सूचना पदाधिकारी सह पूर्व उपाधीक्षक पर 25 हजार रुपए का अर्थदंड लगाया गया है। राज्य सूचना आयोग ने इसे अपने आदेश की अवहेलना माना। आयोग ने अपीलार्थी को सभी लंबित सूचनाएं देने का निर्देश दिया है। रामनगर निवासी नरेंद्र कुमार राय ने 16 सितंबर 2019 को आरटीआई आवेदन देकर अस्पताल के एक्स-रे केंद्र से जुड़ी जानकारी मांगी थी। लेकिन समय पर सूचना नहीं मिली। उन्होंने नवंबर 2019 में प्रथम अपील दायर की, इसके बाद मामला राज्य सूचना आयोग पहुंचा। आयोग ने 6 जुलाई 2026 की सुनवाई में लोक सूचना पदाधिकारी को अंतिम अवसर दिया था। प्रपत्र-क की कंडिका-3 में मांगी गई सूचनाएं देने का निर्देश दिया था। इसमें एक्स-रे की अनुज्ञप्ति, किए गए अनुबंध, टेक्नीशियन व रेडियोलॉजिस्ट के नियुक्ति पत्र समेत अन्य अभिलेख शामिल थे। तय समय बीत गया, सूचना नहीं दी गई। आयोग के सामने अनुपालन प्रतिवेदन भी नहीं रखा गया। 12 अगस्त 2026 की सुनवाई में अपीलार्थी वर्चुअल माध्यम से उपस्थित हुए। लोक सूचना पदाधिकारी अनुपस्थित रहे। आयोग ने इसे आरटीआई अधिनियम के प्रति गंभीर लापरवाही माना। आयोग ने आरटीआई अधिनियम की धारा 20(1) के तहत 25 हजार रुपए का अर्थदंड लगाया। आदेश की प्रति पश्चिमी चंपारण के जिला पदाधिकारी, सिविल सर्जन, कोषागार पदाधिकारी, बिहार महालेखाकार को भेजी गई है।

RTI: Over 3.2L people taking sessions from 1,443 instructors in Pb yogshalas

Times of India: Bathinda: Monday, 14^th September 2026.

Punjab’s ‘CM Di Yogshalas’ have emerged as a large-scale public yoga initiative, with over 3.23 lakh people participating in sessions across the state, according to information obtained under the RTI Act.
The 10,953 yogshalas are being run by 1,443 trained and certified yoga instructors/trainers, with the govt spending Rs 76 crore on the initiative since its inception more than three years ago. The details were revealed in an RTI reply procured by Bathinda-based RTI activist Sanjeev Goyal.
The reply from Hoshiarpur-based Guru Ravidas Ayurved University states that the initiative was launched on April 5, 2023, to promote yoga and encourage people to stay fit and away from drugs. The yogshalas across all 23 districts attract participants during morning and evening sessions.
Patiala has the highest number of yogshalas at 745, followed by Hoshiarpur (732) and Ludhiana (718). Hoshiarpur also has the highest participation, with 23,682 people, followed by Sangrur (23,152) and Patiala (21,475).
The maximum yoga instructors/trainers are 92 each in Sangrur and Ludhiana, followed by 91 each in Hoshiarpur and Patiala, and 89 each in Ferozepur and Gurdaspur.
Though the concept of yogshalas was conceived in 2022, it took shape in April 2023. Since then, Rs 76.02 crore has been spent on the initiative, covering infrastructure and operational costs, said Sanjeev Goyal.

RTI activist questions GHMC officials’ omission from accident FIR

Siasat Daily: Hyderabad: Sunday, September 13, 2026.
He and his friend met with an accident near a railway overbridge in Secunderabad

City-based RTI activist Robin Zaccheus has accused the Gopalapuram Station House Officer (SHO) of choosing not to name GHMC officers in his first information report (FIR) after he met with an accident in Secunderabad on Thursday night (September 10).
According to the FIR copy accessed by Siasat.com, the case records the vehicle number and invokes provisions for rash and negligent driving of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). It does not name the GHMC officials against whom Zaccheus had sought action.
It also says that Zaccheus and his friend went to Apollo Hospital, which the activist maintains is false.
RTI activist calls the road ‘deathtrap’
Zaccheus shared the ordeal, detailing the incident that occurred at 10 pm near a railway overbridge. He and his friend were on a two-wheeler when a speeding car hit them from behind. “My friend and I were thrown onto the road and injured after landing hard on our backs. Our vehicle was damaged. It left us traumatised and deeply shocked.”
He described the pothole-infested road as a “death trap”, highlighting the need for urgent repair work.
“Barricades have been dumped over massive potholes instead of the road being repaired. Had a family with children been on a bike, this could easily have turned fatal,” he pointed out.
“GHMC is equally responsible. Leaving roads in this condition is not poor maintenance; it is criminal negligence that endangers every commuter.”
The post had mentioned Chief Minister Revanth Reddy, Deputy CM Bhatti Mallu Vikramarka, Telangana Chief Secretary Sanjay Jaju, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Chief Secretary Jayesh Ranjan, GHMC Commissioner RV Karnan, Malkajgiri Police Commissioner B Sumathi and Malkajgiri Municipal Commissioner Vinay Krishna Reddy.
“How long will this government ignore crumbling roads and gamble with people’s lives? The condition of our city roads is a disgrace. How long will the government keep playing with citizens’ lives?”
Siasat.com accessed both the complaint and the FIR copy. The former clearly mentioned the GHMC Assistant Engineer, Divisional Engineer and contractors, but the latter does not, creating ambiguity.
Tagging Director General of Police (DGP) CV Anand in his X post, Zaccheus questioned the discrepancies in the FIR and sought action against the SHO.
“Why are citizens told that the complaint must be handwritten and compressed into a single ‘simple’ page? How is a member of the public then expected to place a full record of accountability for lives put at risk? Despite giving a detailed 6-page typed complaint?” Zaccheus asked.

Kerala government spent Rs 245.62 crore on lawyers during 10 years of LDF rule

Mathrubhumi: Kerala: Sunday, September 13, 2026.

Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala: The Kerala government spent Rs 245.62 crore from the public exchequer on legal fees during the 10-year tenure of the Left Democratic Front (LDF) government, according to information provided under the Right to Information Act.
The Advocate General's office disclosed the figures in response to an RTI query filed by AS Mohammed Ashraf, hailing from Kasaragod.
The expenditure covers fees paid to senior lawyers who represented the government in cases before the Supreme Court, Kerala High Court, National Green Tribunal and Administrative Tribunal between 2016 and 2026.
The amount also includes payments made for legal advice, cases involving disputes between the governor and the state government, and assistance from lawyers in drafting amendments to laws.
Rs 38.91 crore spent on 789 Supreme Court cases
The government paid Rs 38.91 crore in legal fees for 789 cases before the Supreme Court.
Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta received the highest amount among the lawyers listed, with Rs 8.91 crore for appearing in 273 cases.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal was paid Rs 5.62 crore for appearing in five cases.
The government also paid Rs 92.65 lakh for legal advice from prominent lawyers, including former Attorney General KK Venugopal and senior advocate Fali S Nariman.
Fees paid in key cases
The legal expenses for several high-profile cases included:

• Solar case: Rs 1.20 crore

• Periya double murder case: Rs 85 lakh

• Gold smuggling case: Rs 70 lakh

• Wadakkanchery Life Mission scam: Rs 55 lakh

• Thiruvananthapuram airport privatisation case: Rs 56 lakh

• Harrison Malayalam case: Rs 45 lakh

• KIIFB case: Rs 45 lakh

• Santiago Martin lottery case: Rs 17.50 lakh

• Cheruvally estate case: Rs 16.5 lakh

• Sprinklr case: Rs 2 lakh

Police station footage: Seen and unseen- By Venkatesh Nayak

Deccan Herald: Opinion: Sunday, September 13, 2026.
The installation of CCTV cameras in various parts of a police station, except washrooms, and the preservation of the recordings for up to 18 months has become mandatory as a preventive measure against custodial torture.

Last week, a reputable journalist commented with cautious optimism on the recent crop of bold judgments and the emanation of brave noises from the judges’ corner, which are not accommodating of the ruling establishment’s partisan interests. He cites examples: the Allahabad High Court’s rebuke of a District Magistrate for illegally detaining a young woman activist under the draconian National Security Act (NSA) and its order to recover the Rs 5 lakh compensation awarded to her from the former’s salary; the Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice’s remarks about the importance of the rule of law; the Chief Justice of India’s verbal support for the expression of popular dissent in a peaceful manner.
However, has the ‘judicial worm turned’ perceptibly to protect people’s right to know? Earlier this month, another bench of the Allahabad High Court upheld the State Information Commission’s decision to deny a citizen access to CCTV footage recorded at a local police station. The court approved the government’s claim that the footage has sensitive contents barred from disclosure under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. This exemption clause was crafted only to prevent endangerment of a person’s life or physical safety or disclosure of the identity of intelligence informants. Nothing in the court’s order indicates that the judges examined the footage themselves to ascertain the truth. The court ruled that CCTV footage may be provided only to a competent court or a human rights commission (HRC), and only if a requester files a complaint about police behaviour with either of them.
The installation of CCTV cameras in various parts of a police station, except washrooms, and the preservation of the recordings for up to 18 months has become mandatory as a preventive measure against custodial torture. In December 2020, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court issued detailed directions for this purpose in the Paramvir Singh Saini case. Last September, a prominent Hindi-language daily reported several custodial deaths in Rajasthan within less than a year, and the police’s alleged denial of CCTV footage to the victims’ families under RTI. Within a few days, an alert apex court initiated suo motu proceedings to ascertain compliance with its 2020 directions. Discussions are on between the court-appointed amicus curiae and the central and state governments on the manner of funding available to implement these directions and for creating a public dashboard that will disclose, in real time, which CCTV camera has died in which police station.
Interestingly, three days ago, the Karnataka Information Commission reportedly imposed penalties in the Rs 15,000-25,000 range on three police officers for failing to act on its earlier direction to supply CCTV footage to an RTI applicant. The Kalaburagi-based Information Commissioner also recommended the initiation of disciplinary action against them.
In 2024, I collaborated with City Core Group – a community-level collective of human rights activists in Mumbai, mostly comprising women – to ascertain the status of compliance with the apex court’s directions. They walked into 33 of the 91 police stations without seeking any official permission, telling the police that those are public offices and that they have every right to ascertain compliance with court directions issued for their benefit. They also successfully obtained CCTV footage covering the duration of their presence in the stations from five of them, through RTI.
These contrasting realities beg the question: should CCTV camera footage become a sarkari secret, accessible only to courts and HRCs? Section 33(2) of Kerala’s 2011 Police Act states: “No Police Officer shall prevent any member of the public from lawfully making any audio or video or electronic record of any Police action or activity carried out in a public or private place.” Since 2022, the Bombay High Court has ruled more than once that a citizen cannot be prosecuted under the 1923 Official Secrets Act for recording his/her interactions with the police using a mobile phone, because a police station is not a notified ‘prohibited area’. If this is increasingly becoming the standard for police-public interactions, there is no reason why CCTV footage recorded by the police themselves should be denied to those who ask, unless the disclosure causes harm to any of the public interests protected by the RTI Act.
Readers might ask: how will CCTV cameras help when torture or extra-judicial killings occur in the field? Is it time to make body cameras an essential part of the outfits of our law enforcement personnel?
The writer wakes up every morning thinking someone somewhere is hiding something.
(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.)

Petroleum Ministry CPIO Delayed Transfer Of RTI On Ethanol Blending To Oil Companies; CIC Seeks Explanation

Law Beat: New Delhi: Sunday, September 13, 2026.
Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi directs concerned CPIO to explain why RTI application was not transferred to concerned public authorities within prescribed time

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the concerned Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG) to submit a detailed explanation for the delay in transferring an RTI application concerning ethanol blending in petrol to the concerned oil marketing companies.
Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi passed the direction on September 7, 2026, while disposing of a complaint filed by Manoj K. Sharma against the CPIO, MoPNG.
The RTI application, filed on August 11, 2025, sought information on the government's ethanol-blending programme, including when oil companies started mixing ethanol with petrol, the percentage and volume of ethanol being blended, and whether the quantity varied across petrol pumps and cities.
The applicant also sought details of the criteria and policies governing any variation in ethanol blending, steps taken to educate petrol-pump delivery staff about ethanol content, and the policy regarding disclosure of ethanol quantity at petrol pumps.
Among other queries, Sharma sought documents or relevant links showing whether consumers were informed about how much ethanol they were purchasing along with petrol.
He also sought "scientific, independent credible evidence" on which the blending policy was based, including material concerning the compatibility of ethanol-blended petrol with cars manufactured between 2010 and 2025.
According to the order, the RTI application was subsequently transferred to the concerned oil marketing companies, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) , under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act for Points 1 to 6.
For Point 7, the applicant was provided a web link containing the Roadmap for Ethanol Blending in India 2020-25.
The First Appellate Authority had noted that the CPIO's response was furnished on August 27, 2025, and held that it was within the prescribed 30-day period. The FAA consequently disposed of the appeal and advised the applicant to refer to the response available on the RTI portal.
However, the issue before the CIC was not merely whether a response had ultimately been furnished, but whether the application had been transferred to the concerned public authorities within the time prescribed under the RTI Act.
During the CIC hearing, Sharma submitted that the Ministry had failed to transfer the application to the oil marketing companies within the stipulated five-day period and contended that the delayed transfer was illegal.
The Ministry, on the other hand, submitted that it was not the custodian of the information sought under Points 1 to 6 and had therefore transferred those portions of the application to IOCL, BPCL and HPCL under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
When the Commission questioned the respondent about the delay in transferring the application, the Ministry attributed it to the relocation of its office from Shastri Bhavan to Kartavya Bhavan, which caused technical difficulties in moving the computers. It also cited the ongoing Parliament session as a reason for the delay.
The CIC noted that another appeal concerning the same RTI application had already been heard and adjudicated by the Commission on August 31, 2026, in Case No. CIC/BPCLD/A/2025/653165.
Nevertheless, the Commission separately found fault with the handling of the RTI application at the Ministry.
It held that the then incumbent CPIO had not transferred the RTI application to the concerned public authority within the stipulated time limit under the RTI Act, 2005.
Consequently, the CIC directed the concerned CPIO to submit a detailed written explanation for the failure to transfer the application within the prescribed period. The explanation is to be submitted to the Commission both by post and by uploading it on the Commission's online compliance portal within 15 days of receipt of the order.
The Commission accordingly disposed of the complaint.
Case Title: MANOJ K SHARMA v CPIO: MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

Four RTI activists arrested for allegedly demanding ₹5 crore from company: By Shrinivas Deshpande

Hindustan Times: Pune: Saturday, 12^th September 2026.
The company claimed the activists threatened to disrupt its operations and kill its representatives if the demand was not met.

The Pimpri-Chinchwad police on Thursday arrested four Right To Information (RTI) activists for allegedly demanding ₹5 crore from representatives of a private company in MIDC Bhosari. The company claimed the activists threatened to disrupt its operations and kill its representatives if the demand was not met.
The threats were issued between May 8 and September 10. An FIR was registered at Bhosari MIDC police station on September 10, and the accused were arrested the same day after they walked into a police-laid trap.
The arrested individuals have been identified as Rahul Premnarayan Mishra (38), Altaf Usman Janvekar (53), Ramesh Bhima Manjrekar (39) and Sunil Rajendra Kanu (35), all residents of Thane. They were arrested after allegedly taking a bag containing ₹25 lakh in cash as the first installment toward the ₹5 crore demand.
The complainant, Suvarna Fibrotech Pvt Ltd, manufactures fiberglass composite moulded products and has a tie-up with the Thane Municipal Corporation.
Rohidas Pawar, deputy commissioner of police (crime), said, “The accused are activists who allegedly contacted company representatives by phone, claiming that they had obtained the firm’s documents through the RTI Act. They allegedly told the representatives that they found several irregularities in the documents and demanded ₹5 crore if the company wanted to continue its business in Maharashtra.”
The complaint also mentions that the accused allegedly threatened to “ruin” the company and threatened to kill the representatives if the money was not paid.
Based on the complaint, the Pimpri-Chinchwad police’s anti-extortion team laid a trap. The four accused arrived in a car to meet the company representatives. Accused Rahul Mishra allegedly accepted the cash kept in a black bag, after which the police arrested all four.
A case was registered under Sections 308(3), 308(4), 308(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Pimpri-Chinchwad police commissioner Vinay Kumar Choubey said, “Those attempting to extort money by creating fear in industrial areas will receive no leniency or tolerance. Strict legal action will be taken to effectively curb such criminal activities. Citizens and industrialists who receive any kind of extortion demand or threat are urged to immediately contact the Anti-Extortion Squad or the Crime Branch at 7517-7517-593.”

RTI: Can citizens enter govt offices wearing footwear? Bureaucracy in Keralam seeks answers

Times of India: T'puram: Saturday, 12^th September 2026.
Be it the colour of the ink in a citizen’s pen or whether the public can wear footwear in govt offices, Keralam’s personnel and administrative reforms department (P&RD) appears to be exploring some rather unconventional corners of govt rulebooks.

Barely days after information was sought on whether citizens are required to use a particular colour of ink while submitting applications and complaints, an RTI application has now galvanised the P&ARD to ask departments to dig out any govt orders or circulars governing whether members of the public can enter govt offices and institutions wearing footwear.
An ‘unofficial note’ issued by the department, dated Sept 9, seeks information from all secretariat departments, including law and finance secretariats, on whether there are any provisions prohibiting the public from entering govt offices, institutions and even hospitals while wearing sandals or footwear.
But the department’s curiosity does not stop at the footwear itself. It has also asked whether any orders or circulars exist on what action should be taken if a govt office or institution puts up a notice saying: “entry wearing footwear is not permitted.”
The information is being sought to prepare a response under RTI Act. Departments have been asked to furnish any relevant orders or circulars urgently.
The latest query comes in the wake of another exercise by the department seeking answers over the colour of ink used by citizens in applications and representations. That inquiry sought to establish whether there was any prescribed ink colour and, more importantly, whether a citizen’s application could be rejected simply because the ‘wrong’ colour was used.
For a bureaucracy that is increasingly looking to make the digital switch, the questions have an unmistakably old-school ring to them. “Officials are already preoccupied with several productive tasks that need to be completed on top priority. When such a query comes in from a govt dept, we have to provide a proper and accurate response. That means digging through files to find out whether such an order or rule exists. If it does not, that too has to be established. Several productive hours of officials are consequently spent chasing issues that have little bearing on the actual functioning of govt,” a finance department official said.

Doctors may have to pay fee for mandatory National Medical Register number under draft NMC rules.

New Indian Express: Kavita Bajeli Dutt: New Delhi: Friday, September 11, 2026.

The draft proposes that State Medical Councils process registration and licence applications for a fee, while an RTI activist said the move conflicts with the NMC Act, 2019.

Doctors will now have to pay a fee to obtain a National Medical Register (NMR) number under a draft regulation released by the National Medical Commission (NMC). The draft Registration of Medical Practitioners and License to Practice Medicine (Amendment) Regulations, 2026, issued by the Ethics and Medical Registration Board (EMRB), proposes that State Medical Councils (SMCs) review applications for registration and licences after collecting a fee, within 30 days.

The proposal, however, goes against the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, which says the NMC and SMCs must prepare the NMR based on a doctor’s registration with the state medical council. The draft makes NMR mandatory and places responsibility on doctors. The NMC had earlier made the NMR, a central database for modern medicine practitioners, voluntary after its launch by Union Health Minister JP Nadda on August 23, 2024.

RTI activist Dr KV Babu said the draft regulation was not aligned with Section 31 of the NMC Act, 2019. “The statute is clear that the NMC and state medical councils must prepare the NMR based on doctors’ state registration,” said Babu.

He said the law did not allow the EMRB to transfer this responsibility to doctors registered with SMCs and paying a fee. He also questioned allowing SMCs to charge a fee to verify data they already possess.

Babu has written to the NMC seeking withdrawal of the draft and consultation with stakeholders, including the IMA. Under the draft, a person or foreign medical graduate must apply to the SMC through the EMRB’s Unified Registration Portal. The SMC will examine the application and decide on registration and licensing within 30 days.

• Once approved, registration will be reflected in the State Medical Register and NMR.
• Once registered, medic can practise across India
• Once approved, registration will be reflected in the State Medical Register and NMR. 

A doctor receiving registration, a licence and an NMR UID will be able to practise anywhere in India without registering again in another state or Union Territory. The NMC published the draft on August 11 and also invited stakeholders to submit objections and suggestions within 30 days.

Karnataka Information Commission recommends action against three police sub-inspectors over CCTV footage issue

The Hindu: Karnataka: Friday, September 11, 2026.

The Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka Information Commission on Wednesday recommended disciplinary action against three police sub-inspectors of the Sirwar Police Station in Raichur district for failing to provide CCTV footage sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and for not preserving the footage as required under a Supreme Court order.

The commission has directed the State police authorities to ensure that CCTV cameras in all police stations remain functional and that recording systems have adequate storage capacity to preserve footage for 18 months.

The case arose from an RTI application filed by Pavan Kumar at the Sirwar Police Station on June 4, 2022, seeking CCTV footage recorded on June 1, 2022 between 7.45 p.m. and 11.50 p.m.

According to the commission’s order, the information sought was related to life and personal liberty and should have been provided within 48 hours under the relevant provisions of the RTI Act. However, then sub-inspector Geethanjali Shinde issued a reply nearly two months later, on August 13, 2022, stating that the information sought fell under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.

The applicant subsequently approached the Kalaburagi Bench in a second appeal. The commission ordered the police to provide the requested CCTV footage. However, the order was not complied with, following which the commission imposed penalties of ₹25,000 on Ms. Shinde, ₹15,000 on Avinash Kambale and ₹25,000 on Guruchandra Yadav, who had served as sub-inspectors at the station during the relevant period.

Although the three officials paid the penalties, the CCTV footage was still not provided, prompting State Information Commissioner (Kalaburagi Bench) B. Venkata Singh to recommend appropriate disciplinary action against them.

Subsequently, sub-inspector Basanagouda, who was posted to the Sirwar Police Station, wrote to the Superintendent of Police seeking technical assistance to retrieve the footage. A technical team inspected the hard disk at the station on January 2, 2025, and reported that it contained CCTV recordings for only 15 months and that recordings prior to that period were unavailable.

The commission held that the failure to provide the information within the stipulated period, coupled with the failure to preserve the CCTV footage in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions, warranted disciplinary action. Notices under Rule 7 of the relevant police service rules have since been issued, and the Superintendents of Police of Raichur, Ballari and Vijayanagara districts have initiated action, according to the commission.

The commission has directed the three district police chiefs to submit compliance reports on the action taken.

In view of the continuing requirement to preserve CCTV footage in police stations, the commission has also directed Director-General and Inspector-General of Police M.S. Saleem to take steps to ensure that all police stations in the State have CCTV systems in working condition and hard disks with sufficient storage capacity to retain recordings for 18 months, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions.

Sacked employee entitled to inquiry documents under RTI: Chhattisgarh HC

Times of India: New Delhi: Friday, September 11, 2026.

The Chhattisgarh high court has directed the family court, Janjgir-Champa, to provide a former employee documents related to the departmental inquiry that led to his termination. The court held that the information could not be denied under the Right to Information Act exemptions cited by authorities. The order was passed on August 31, 2026.

Why did the former employee seek the documents?

According to the court order, Akram Khan was working as a driver at the family court, Janjgir, when two departmental inquiries were initiated against him over allegations of misconduct and seven charges. His services were terminated on January 5, 2021, by the Principal Judge, family court, Janjgir-Champa. Khan challenged the termination through a departmental appeal before the Registrar General of the Chhattisgarh high court.

He argued that he had not been given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the inquiry. Khan then sought information and documents relating to the inquiry from the department. He specifically asked for the complete note sheets of office memo No.443/two-12-21/2020, on the basis of which his termination order had been passed.

The Public Information Officer rejected his request on January 15, 2021. His first appeal was rejected on March 10, 2021. Khan then filed a second appeal before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, which was dismissed on January 28, 2022. The authorities relied on Sections 8(1)(c) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to deny the information. The first provision deals with information whose disclosure could breach parliamentary or state legislative privilege, while the second provides an exemption for certain personal information where disclosure could cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

What did the high court observed?

The high court, however, found that the documents Khan sought were connected to his own termination and the high court, however, found that the documents Khan sought were connected to his own termination and were required by him to defend his case before the higher authorities. The court added that the information was not confidential or related to a third party. “The information sought by the petitioner clearly reflects that the said information was neither confidential, related to a third party nor intended for use against any third party,” the high court noted. The court went on to explain why Khan's request was directly connected with his challenge to the termination.

It said the documents were being sought for an “effective defence” before the higher authority in his attempt to challenge the January 5, 2021 termination order. The court also examined whether either of the RTI exemptions cited by the authorities could apply to the documents. It found that the information did not involve parliamentary or legislative privilege and did not amount to disclosure of personal information concerning a third party. “On due consideration of the information sought by the petitioner, in no way would it be an information disclosure of information which could cause breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature as is contemplated under the provision of Section 8(1) (c) nor would the information so sought for be an information which relates to a disclosure of personal information to which the petitioner has no relationship or has no interest or which could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of a third party as is otherwise exempted under Clause 8(1) (j) of the Act of 2005,” the court noted.

The high court also raised a concern about the manner in which the matter had been handled. It noted that the authority which passed Khan's termination order had also decided his first appeal. The court said this would not amount to a fair proceeding. “Ironically the order of dismissal has been passed by the same authority who had decided the first appeal which again would not be otherwise a fair proceeding drawn on the part of the Presiding Judge, family court, Janjgir Champa at that point of time,” it added

The high court held that the findings of the Public Information Officer, First Appellate Authority and Second Appellate Authority were contrary to Section 8 of the RTI Act. It set aside all three orders. The court directed the Public Information Officer to provide Khan the information he had sought under the RTI Act after he paid the requisite fees. It said the information should be provided at the earliest, preferably within 30 days of receiving a copy of the high court's order.