RTI flags 14,523 dropouts in Tinsukia, 192 tea tribe, Adivasi students miss HSLC

Assam Tribune: Doomdooma: Friday, 20 February 2026.
Data reveals over 14,500 dropouts between 2020 & 2025, while 192 Adivasi & Tea Tribe students missed the 2024–25 HSLC exam, raising concerns over retention.

Serious concerns over school dropouts and examination absenteeism have surfaced in Tinsukia district following startling disclosures obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
Official information furnished by the Inspector of Schools, Tinsukia district, vide letter No. IS/TDC/RTI/2023/674/620, dated Tinsukia 08/07/25, in reference to the letter of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam (No. E. 656322/E, dated 29/05/2025), reveals that as many as 192 Adivasi and Tea Tribe candidates did not appear in the HSLC Examination in the 2024-25 academic session.
The disclosure has triggered fresh debate on the effectiveness of the State government’s welfare initiatives aimed at curbing dropouts and promoting educational continuity among marginalised communities.
The data was obtained by an RTI activist from Lakhimpur, who sought details regarding dropout students belonging to Adivasi and Tea Tribe communities from Classes I to XII in Tinsukia district between the academic sessions 2020-21 and 2024-25, as well as the number of such candidates who did not appear in the HSLC and Higher Secondary final examinations in 2024-25.
The figures present a disturbing trend. Between 2020-21 and 2024-25, a total of 14,523 students from Classes I to XII dropped out in the district. The highest number of dropouts – 4,374 students – was recorded in 2021-22. The annual break-up stands at 1,952 in 2020–21; 4,374 in 2021-22; 3,405 in 2022-23; 3,461 in 2023-24; and 1,331 in 2024-25.
Class-wise data further underlines the gravity of the situation. During the five-year period, 614 students dropped out in Class I; 1,494 in Class II; 1,629 in Class III; and 1,603 in Class IV. The highest dropout was recorded in Class V with 2,905 students. The figures stood at 2,317 in Class VI; 1,427 in Class VII; 1,310 in Class VIII; 941 in Class IX; and 257 in Class X.
These revelations come despite the Assam government rolling out several ambitious schemes in recent years to encourage enrolment and retention.
The initiatives include the Nijut Moina scheme providing financial assistance to girl students for higher education and prevention of child marriage; the Mukhya Mantri Nijut Babu Achoni offering Rs 1,000 to 2,000 per month to students pursuing higher studies; distribution of bicycles to Class IX students; a Rs 1,800 financial incentive scheme for Class X students; and fee waivers for economically disadvantaged candidates appearing in HSLC and Higher Secondary examinations.
Additionally, measures such as mid-day meals, free textbooks and uniforms, the Anundoram Borooah Award and the Banikanta Kakoti Merit Award have been implemented to motivate students.
The persistence of high dropout figures had earlier prompted the State government, under Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, to constitute a study team on June 26 last year to examine the issue.
Observers point out that at a time when over 7,000 government schools across the State have reportedly been closed or amalgamated due to declining enrolment, the dropout of nearly 15,000 students in a single district over five years carries serious implications.
It may be recalled that allegations had surfaced last year that a large number of Tea Tribe and Adivasi candidates could not appear in the HSLC examination owing to their participation in the ‘Jhumoir Binandini’ programme organised in Guwahati on February 24, 2025, reportedly in connection with a world record attempt. The RTI findings appear to lend weight to those claims.
Though the present data pertains only to Tinsukia district, similar patterns in other districts with sizeable Tea Tribe and Adivasi populations cannot be ruled out. Educationists have stressed the need for targeted intervention at the community level to arrest the dropout trend before it assumes more alarming proportions.

Meanwhile, in the ongoing HSLC examination 2026 in Tinsukia district, out of a total of 13,389 registered candidates, 13,119 were present while 270 remained absent. Though it is not yet known how many of the 270 absent candidates belong to the Adivasi and Tea Tribe communities, the figure has once again raised concerns among academic circles.
With enrolment falling and absenteeism continuing despite several welfare schemes, the challenge for the authorities is not only to get students into schools but also to ensure they stay till the examinations.

Constitutionality of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

Supreme Court Observer: New Delhi: Friday, 20 February 2026.
The Court will decide the constitutionality of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, including the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005.

Key Issues

1. Does the DPDP Amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act restrict the scope of information sought against public functionaries?
2. Does the DPDP Act violate the right to information and the right to know promised under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution?
3. Does Section 17(1)(c) and 17(2) facilitate a surveillance regime?
4. Are the provisions of the DPDP Act manifestly arbitrary?

On 7 August 2023, The Digital Data Protection (DPDP) Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha. Subsequently, the Bill was passed in the Rajya Sabha and received the President’s assent. The Bill was enacted on 11 August 2023.The Act brought about several provisions to regulate and penalise unauthorised use of personal data by companies and big firms.
On 2 February 2026, Venkatesh Nayak, an RTI activist filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging Sections 17(1)(c), 17(2), 33(1), 36 and 44(3) of the DPDP Act 2023 and Rules 17 and 23(2) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 (DPDP Rules). The petition argues that the provisions violate Article 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution. Two other petitions—by Nitin Sethi and The Reporters Collective–were filed subsequently.
Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amended Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 which exempts the disclosure of any information “which relates to personal information”. The petitioners claim that this amendment creates a “blanket ban on the obligation to disclose personal information”. This will allow the executive to deny information to citizens by citing the “personal nature of the information”. Petitioners argue that this will violate the right to information and the right to know, which is traced to Article 19(1)(a)—the fundamental right to speech and expression. Previously, the Supreme Court in CPIO, Supreme Court v Subhash Aggarwal (2019) had held that there is no bar under the RTI Act on disclosure of personal information, given that the information does not cause invasion of privacy and has a reasonable nexus with public activity and public interest.
Petitioners have also challenged Section 17(1)(c), which allows the processing of data in the “interest of prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of any offence or contravention of any law for the time being in force in India”. Section 17(2) states that the Act will not be applicable when data is processed by the Union government, or any authority it may notify, in the “interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, maintenance of public order or preventing incitement to any cognizable offence relating to any of these”. The petitioners are apprehensive that the provisions will result in a “surveillance regime”, with no safeguards or review mechanism. This, according to them, is manifestly arbitrary and violates Article 14.
Section 36 of the law also states that any intermediary or data fiduciary should furnish information which is required by the Union government. This, the petitioners claim, allows the Union to call information without any “statutory guidance”. Further, Rule 23(2) compels the fiduciary or intermediary to not disclose to the data principal that such information was furnished to the Union government if it is likely to “affect the sovereignty and integrity of India or security of the State”.
Section 18 of the DPDP Act calls for the establishment of a Data Protection Board of India. Rules 17(1) and 17(2) of the DPDP Rules provide for a search cum selection committee for the appointment of the Chairperson and other members of the Board. Petitioners claim that the “executive dominance” in the formation of the Committee violates the doctrine of the separation of powers.
Lastly, Section 33(1) imposes penalties for “significant” data breaches. The petitioners claim that the wording of the provision is vague as there is no statutory guidance to determine what constitutes a “significant” breach. .
On 16 February 2026, the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V.M. Pancholi heard the matter and issued notice to parties. The Bench refused to grant an interim stay on the DPDP Act. Further, the Court referred the matter to a larger bench to be heard in March 2026.
The matter will be heard next on 23 March 2026.

Why Jammu & Kashmir needs its own RTI Act : Deepak Sharma

Daily Excelsior: Jammu: Friday, 20 February 2026.
The Right to Information is not merely a statutory privilege conferred by Parliament but it is a constitutional facet of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Transparency is the bedrock of democratic governance. When citizens are denied timely access to information, accountability collapses, and bureaucracy begins to function in insulation rather than service.

In Jammu & Kashmir today, this is no longer a theoretical concern but a lived reality.
Following the reorganisation of the erstwhile State into a Union Territory, the Central Right to Information Act, 2005 was extended to Jammu & Kashmir. While this transition was presented as a step towards uniform governance, its practical consequences have been deeply regressive for transparency and citizen oversight.
The most damaging change has been the elimination of local adjudication.
Prior to reorganisation, Jammu & Kashmir had its own State Information Commission. Appeals and complaints were heard within the region. Public Information Officers (PIOs) were answerable to Commissioners who were institutionally and geographically proximate. Delays were limited, and the penalty provisions under the RTI law had real deterrent value.
Today, every second appeal and complaint from Jammu & Kashmir must travel to the Central Information Commission in Delhi.This single structural shift has effectively hollowed out the RTI regime in the Union Territory. Applicants routinely wait two to three years for their matters to be listed. By the time hearings occur, the concerned PIOs have often been transferred, promoted, or retired. Files change custodians. Institutional memory fades. Citizens lose interest. What remains is a right without remedy and a process without consequence.
Public authorities are fully conscious of this vacuum. They know that non-compliance carries no immediate cost. They know that the statutory penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act have become largely unenforceable due to distance and delay. As a result, statutory timelines are ignored with impunity, evasive replies are issued as a matter of routine, and information is denied casually. This has led to systemic non-transparency and dangerous bureaucratic empowerment.
Departments now function with minimal fear of disclosure. Government functioning, and decision making processes remain opaque. Development works escape citizen scrutiny. Welfare schemes operate behind closed doors. Land records, contracts, and expenditure details are withheld without hesitation. The disciplinary force that RTI once exercised over governance has largely disappeared in Jammu & Kashmir. In effect, the Union Territory today operates in an RTI vacuum.
The constitutional implications are grave. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to information flows from Article 19(1)(a). However, a right is meaningful only when accompanied by an effective and accessible remedy. When enforcement mechanisms are rendered so distant and sluggish that information becomes practically unattainable, the right itself stands diluted. What exists today in Jammu & Kashmir is constructive denial of the Right to Information.
This arrangement also offends the principle of equality. Citizens in States have access to nearby State Information Commissions. Citizens in Jammu & Kashmir must depend entirely on a Commission sitting hundreds of kilometres away, burdened with appeals from across the country. This geographic and administrative imbalance creates an unreasonable classification among citizens, undermining both Article 14 and Article 19.
Against this backdrop, two constitutionally sound and urgently required reforms emerge:
(i) enactment of a separate Right to Information Act for Jammu & Kashmir, or
(ii) establishment of a regional bench of the Central Information Commission in Jammu & Kashmir.
Both options are legally tenable.
Competence of the J&K Legislative Assembly to enact a separate RTI Act
Under Section 32 of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, the Legislative Assembly of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir is empowered to legislate on all subjects in the Concurrent List and on all subjects in the State List except “Police” and “Public Order.”
The subject of Right to Information clearly flows from Entry 12 of the Concurrent List, which deals with public records and access to information. Therefore, there is no constitutional bar on the J&K Assembly enacting its own RTI legislation.
Since Parliament has already enacted the Central RTI Act, any UT-specific RTI law would require Presidential assent under Article 254(2). However, the legislative competence itself is unquestionable.
A Jammu & Kashmir RTI Act could restore local accountability by providing a dedicated J&K Information Commission, Benches at Jammu and Srinagar, Time-bound disposal of appeals, Effective enforcement of penalty provisions, Enhanced proactive disclosure obligations and Accessibility for rural and border populations.
Such a law would not dilute national transparency standards; it would strengthen them by restoring proximity and deterrence.
Power of the Central Information Commission to establish regional benches
Even in the absence of a separate UT RTI Act, the present opacity can be remedied through executive action alone. The Supreme Court, in Central Information Commission v. Delhi Development Authority & Another, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 465, has clearly recognised that the Central Information Commission is a statutory adjudicatory body with the power to regulate its own procedure and function through Benches. The Court acknowledged that nothing in the RTI Act restricts the CIC to a single location or mandates that it must sit only at Delhi.
This power flows from Section 12(4) and Section 12(5) of the RTI Act, read with Sections 18 and 19, which confer appellate and complaint jurisdiction without geographical limitation.
The legal position is thus unambiguous. Establishment of a regional or circuit bench of the CIC for Jammu & Kashmir does not require any legislative amendment. It can be achieved through administrative decision and logistical support from the Central Government.
Continued failure to establish such a bench, despite known delays and systemic non-compliance, can itself be characterised as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(a). From a policy perspective, this is the most realistic and immediately achievable reform.
The broader democratic concern cannot be ignored. Jammu & Kashmir is already governed under a centralised administrative framework, where police, public order, and key executive powers vest with the Union through the Lieutenant Governor. In such a system, RTI becomes one of the few remaining instruments through which ordinary citizens can question authority. Weakening this instrument further deepens the democratic deficit.
Transparency cannot be centrally managed from distant offices. It must be locally enforced. Whether through a separate RTI Act for Jammu & Kashmir or through a regional bench of the Central Information Commission, what is urgently required is restoration of institutional proximity between citizens and accountability mechanisms. Without this, bureaucracy will continue to operate unchecked, Article 19 will remain restricted in practice, and public confidence in governance will erode further.
Democracy does not survive on statutes alone. It survives on access, oversight, and the citizen’s ability to ask questions and to receive timely answers. Jammu & Kashmir deserves that right, not as a theoretical promise, but as a living reality.
(The author is a Jammu based advocate, RTI Activist and Convener, Research and Advocacy Group-RAAG)

Privacy and transparency: On the RTI Act amendment, petitions

 The Hindu: Editorial: Friday, 20 February 2026.
There must be no information asymmetry between state and citizens

On Monday, the Supreme Court of India referred a series of petitions challenging the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act by Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, to a Constitution Bench, recognising its “constitutional sensitivity”. The Chief Justice of India even remarked that the Court might “have to lay down what is meant by ‘personal information’”. The RTI Act, 2005 was enacted to create an informed citizenry and ensure state accountability, which is vital for a democracy. Over two decades later, the DPDP Act has delivered a body blow by diluting one of its foundational sections. Section 8(1)(j) originally allowed the withholding of personal information only if it had no relationship to any public activity or interest, or if its disclosure resulted in an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Crucially, the section included a “public interest override” as an integral feature of the 2005 Act, permitting disclosure if a Public Information Officer was satisfied that the larger public interest justified it. The DPDP amendment removes this override and prohibits the disclosure of “any information which relates to personal information”, amounting to a blanket ban. This enables rejecting requests concerning officials, procurement records, audit reports or public spending. In its campaign for the RTI, the Internet Freedom Foundation has highlighted a “legitimate uses” paradox here: while Section 7 of the DPDP Act allows the state to process personal data without consent, the RTI amendment prevents citizens from using similar principles to seek transparency from the state. Thus, while the government can monitor the citizen, the citizen is denied the ability to scrutinise the government.
This amendment also creates a severe “chilling effect” on the press. As argued in one of the writ petitions by The Reporters’ Collective, journalists could be classified as “data fiduciaries” under the DPDP Act and its Rules when collecting information for investigative reports. Non-compliance with the Act can attract fines up to ₹250 crore. Such a legal framework threatens reducing journalism to just publishing government releases. It is ironic that the DPDP Act provides exemptions to startups but omits similar protections for journalism. This is in sharp contrast with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which balances privacy and transparency to ensure accountability. The Constitution Bench must refer to the judgment, Central Public Information Officer (2019), which held that personal information should remain private unless disclosure is necessary for the larger public interest. It is known that the RTI has significantly reduced state-citizen (this includes the poor) information asymmetry over two decades. Ensuring its survival is essential for a responsive government.

AI summit’s lofty slogan contrasts with shrinking right to information in the country : Written by: Nikhil Dey, Apar Gupta

The Indian Express: Opinion: Thursday, 19 February 2026.
“Shaping AI for Humanity, Inclusive Growth, and a Sustainable Future” seems like an empty slogan.

Indian citizens and others from across the globe attending this
summit, with an interest in the use of information for public
purposes, should not be left with any illusion that they have
a place at the table to discuss the fundamentals of the
information regime and its use in AI.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has inaugurated the Global AI-India Impact Summit, running from February 16th to 20th, with the lofty slogan, “Shaping AI for Humanity, Inclusive Growth, and a Sustainable Future.” Yet, beneath the fanfare of what is essentially a corporate-government meeting and promotion for startups, a more disturbing reality is unfolding. At a time when India stands at the crossroads of mandating how information is accessed, processed, and used, the very regime meant to empower citizens has been dismantled. The summit, ostensibly about “humanity,” is taking place in the shadow of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA), a law that has fundamentally undermined the Right to Information (RTI) and comprehensively failed to protect the right to privacy.
India’s information regime invites a fundamental question: What information can be accessed, processed, and used by citizens, rulers, and the commercial sector? At the heart of this question is a simple and constitutional precept citizens have fundamental rights of their own data, which includes public data, both individual and collective. The collective ownership of information affecting public activity and interest requires strong provisions for the right to information. The need to protect information whose disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy mandates a careful balance between the Right to Information and the Right to Privacy. Groups and experts working in both domains have advocated such a balance.
The RTI Act defined information expansively and comprehensively. It was celebrated for its practical approach in mandating proactive disclosure and making information accessible on demand. It had a carefully worked out set of exemptions, including protection of the individual’s right to privacy. It is important to mention that RTI and RTP activists sat together and crafted a formulation where privacy was defined as “personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest.” It allowed a public interest override even if that meant breach of privacy, when public interest necessitated disclosure of information.
This formulation stood the test of 20 years of application and implementation, with no major complaints of people’s privacy being breached. In fact, RTI users felt it was far too often used as a shield to hide misdeeds that actually “have a relationship to public activity or interest”. The RTI Act was brought in to help citizens fight corruption, challenge arbitrary exercise of power, and realise their rights. The careful balance it struck between information access and privacy protection made these objectives achievable. Its two-decade-long experience should have been able to offer the world lessons on how “AI for Humanity” could be shaped to empower citizens globally. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) has been propagated as a rights-based law empowering people in the age of big data where their activity and lives are monetised through “datafication”. Enacted in 2023 and notified only on November 14th, 2025, it was expected to define and regulate digital data use while protecting privacy. In recent months, there has been an outcry from large numbers of citizens and advocates of information in the public interest, people who champion both the right to privacy and the right to information. The basic problem is shocking as neither act defines the right to privacy, or includes a gradation for the legal treatment of personal data. The RTI defined information and carved out a carefully drafted exemption that protected privacy.
Instead of defining or even protecting privacy, the DPDPA defines personal data as, “any data about an individual who is identifiable by or in relation to such data” — it encompasses identifiers such as name, phone number, address, post, photograph, and more without any gradation. The Act defines digital data, digital personal data, data fiduciary (anyone who processes anyone else’s information), and consent in very expansive terms that are left to be determined by a government-controlled data protection board. It also defines data breach and outlines its consequences (fines and penalties in crores of rupees) in an expansive and, therefore, chilling manner. As a final blow, through amendment 44(3), the Act destroyed the only harmony between the right to information and the right to privacy that the two acts had. By mandating that no “personal information” can be disclosed, the Right to Information Act has been transformed into the right to deny information. The amendment conflates the private with the personal by equating the right to privacy with a mandate to deny any “personal information.”
This conflation has dealt a body blow to the RTI and access to meaningful information. None of the RTI Act’s three core objectives, fighting corruption, challenging arbitrary power, or empowering citizens to realise their rights, can be achieved when any information containing identifiers is automatically exempt.
Given the wide powers and exemptions the state has under the DPDPA and the technical nature of consent that only big data companies will be able to extract at every digital step, the objectives of “Shaping AI for Humanity, Inclusive Growth, and a Sustainable Future” seem like an empty slogan, and the summit serves as a spectacle. It is meant to hide the enormous power and money they will continue to build through efficiency-enhancing algorithms and “self-learning” machines. Having been excluded by law from accessing or processing information, Indian citizens and others from across the globe attending this summit, with an interest in use of information for public purposes, should not be left with any illusion that they have a place at the table to discuss the fundamentals of the information regime and its use in AI.
(Dey is a co-convenor of the National Campaign for the People’s Right to Information, and a founder member of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan. Gupta is a Lawyer and Founder Director, Internet Freedom Foundation)

Kerala HC stays order for appointing information officers in all self-financing medical education institutions

Times of India: Kochi: Thursday, 19 February 2026.
High court has stayed for two months an order issued by the Kerala University of Health Sciences directing self-financing medical education institutions under it to appoint public information officers and appellate authorities in all colleges.

The bench of Justice M A Abdul Hakhim issued the interim order in a petition filed by the Private Nursing College Management Association of Kerala, Self-Financing Paramedical Managements Association and others, challenging the university's directive. The matter has been posted to April 10.
The petitioners contended that the university had directed self-financing colleges to appoint public information officers and appellate authorities in terms of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The order was allegedly issued pursuant to a direction from one of the state information commissioners. The petitioners further argued that their institutions do not fall within the purview of the RTI Act, as they are completely self-financed and do not receive any financial assistance or grants from the govt or any govt bodies or authorities. Though the institutions have obtained recognition and affiliation, neither the govt nor any university exercises direct control over the institutions or their day-to-day affairs, except in matters relating to academic standards, course recognition and student admissions.
They also challenged the impugned direction of the state information commissioner, contending that it lacks legal basis.

RTI Commission issues warrant against PIO-cum-Block Development and Panchayat Officer Abohar

Punjab Newsline: Chandigarh: Thursday, 19 February 2026.
The Punjab State Information  Commission has issued a warrant against PIO-cum- Block Development and Panchayat officer, Abohar  during the hearing of a case.

Giving information in this regard, Commissioner of Punjab State Information Commission Harpreet Singh Sandhu informed that in the appeal case No. 6508 of 2023 filed by Hakam Singh, s/o Amar Singh resident of Village Ramgarh, Tehsil Abohar, the Commission has issued a warrant against Antarpreet Singh PIO-cum- Block Development and Panchayat officer, Abohar to appear before the Commission on March 19, 2026.
Sandhu said that Antarpreet Singh remained absent despite the instructions of the Commission in the 5 hearings held so far in this case. He said that the commission has also issued orders to the Rural Development and Panchayat Department to attach the salary of Antarpreet Singh.
He said that now in this case, the Commission has issued an order under Section 18 (3) (a) of the RTA Act 2005 to the Senior Supritendent Of Police, Fazilka to serve a copy of these warrants on against Antarpreet Singh PIO-cum- Block Development and Panchayat officer, Abohar and issue instructions to appear before the Commission on the next date of the case on March 19, 2026.

Heartfelt Thanks to Manipur CIC Koijam Radhashyam Singh for Defending the Poor's Right to Know : Naorem Mohen

India Today NE: Opinion: Thursday, 19 February 2026.
In several critical instances, the information most urgently needed by poor RTI applicants remains out of reach precisely because they cannot afford the additional fees and document charges.

This creates a perverse incentive. Public officials exploit this financial vulnerability to shield sensitive or embarrassing details from disclosure. The reality is stark. RTI seekers must typically pay ₹10 as the initial application fee, plus ₹2 per A4/A3 page for photocopying or inspection charges (and actual costs for larger formats or samples).
The Public Information Officer (PIO) calculates these extra costs, intimates the applicant, and often demands payment via demand draft or postal order before releasing any documents. Here, the poor RTI applicants failed to pay these fees and much needed information are beyond their reach.
In this moment of historic vindication for transparency and social justice, we must express our deepest gratitude and admiration to the State Chief Information Commissioner, Koijam Radhashyam Singh, whose principled, clear-sighted, and citizen-centric leadership delivered the landmark judgment on 16 February 2026 in Complaint Case No. 15 of 2025 (Asem Roshan Singh vs The SPIO/BDO, Wangoi).
His unwavering commitment to interpreting the law in a manner that upholds the spirit of the RTI Act, rather than allowing technicalities to undermine it has not only resolved a long-standing statutory contradiction between the RTI Act, 2005 and the National Food Security Act, 2013, but has also restored hope for countless economically vulnerable citizens across Manipur.
By recognizing Priority Household (PHH) beneficiaries as the rightful statutory successors to the erstwhile Below Poverty Line (BPL) category for RTI fee-exemption purposes, Commissioner Koijam Radhashyam Singh has demonstrated exemplary judicial courage and empathy.
His decision stands as a shining example of how independent institutions can protect democratic rights in the face of administrative inertia, and every RTI activist, poor household, and advocate of transparency owes him profound thanks for this enduring contribution to inclusive governance.
Under Section 7(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, citizens holding Below Poverty Line (BPL) status enjoy complete exemption from all such fees, including application, search, and copying charges—provided they submit valid proof.
This provision was designed as a lifeline, ensuring that economic hardship does not bar the marginalized from exercising their right to transparency and accountability.
Yet, the enforcement of the National Food Security Act (NFSA), 2013, discontinued the old BPL ration card system, replacing it with Priority Household (PHH) and Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) categories.
With BPL cards no longer issued, PIOs began routinely denying fee exemptions to PHH beneficiaries, arguing the statutory reference to "BPL" in the RTI Act no longer applied. This created a hidden barrier: the very people targeted for food security relief, often the poorest and most information-needy were effectively priced out of RTI access, frustrating the Act's core promise of inclusive democracy.
Thanks to the persistent efforts of activist Asem Roshan Singh, this injustice has been decisively overturned. In the landmark judgment, the Manipur Information Commission held that PHH beneficiaries with valid certification from the competent authority are the contemporary statutory successors to the erstwhile BPL category.
The NFSA's restructuring does not abolish socio-economic vulnerability or extinguish associated concessions; it merely renames and refines the framework.
Consequently, PHH holders are fully entitled to fee exemption under Section 7(5), and any contrary demand is legally unsustainable, administrative clarifications cannot retrospectively nullify this right.
This ruling is not a mere technical correction; it is a profound reaffirmation of democratic principles in a country where inequality remains entrenched. The RTI Act, enacted in 2005, was revolutionary precisely because it democratized information, empowering ordinary citizens, especially the vulnerable to question corruption, mismanagement, and exclusion in public schemes.
Section 7(5)'s fee waiver was no afterthought; it was a deliberate safeguard to prevent poverty from becoming a gatekeeper to truth. When NFSA replaced BPL with PHH/AAY in 2013, the intent was to modernize targeting for food security, expanding coverage to roughly 67% of the population while preserving the essence of identifying the needy.
NFSA aimed at a rights-based approach to food, not at dismantling other statutory protections for the poor.The post-NFSA denial of RTI exemptions, however, turned this reform into an unintended erosion of another right.
In states like Manipur, where economic distress intersects with geographic isolation, ethnic tensions, and governance challenges, the practical impact was devastating. Poor households seeking details on PDS leakages, delayed pensions, MGNREGA irregularities, or local development funds found themselves blocked by fees they could ill afford. PIOs, citing the literal absence of "BPL" cards, could hide behind administrative ambiguity, creating a chilling effect on RTI usage among those who need it most.
The Commission's operative conclusion is unequivocal. PHH beneficiaries holding valid certification are entitled to exemption under Section 7(5), as PHH constitutes the contemporary statutory successor to BPL following NFSA's enforcement.
Any fee demand contrary to valid certification is legally unsustainable and cannot be justified by subsequent administrative clarifications lacking retrospective effect.
Public authorities must act fairly, reasonably, and with due diligence; procedural ambiguities cannot frustrate statutory rights. Deviations require clear statutory authority, reasoned orders, and due process. These findings form part of the permanent record and serve as binding guidance for all future RTI matters in Manipur involving PHH, AAY, or legacy BPL categories.
Another equally fair and thoughtful part of the judgment was the Commission's decision not to impose any penalty or fine on the SPIO (the government officer who handles RTI requests) under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
The Commission carefully looked at the situation and concluded that the officer had not acted with bad intentions or deliberately tried to block information. Instead, there was genuine confusion and uncertainty about how the new National Food Security Act rules affected the old RTI fee exemption for BPL people after BPL cards were stopped.
The officer followed the administrative guidelines available at the time, so it was an honest mistake rather than intentional wrongdoing.
By choosing not to punish the officer personally, while still correcting the wrong fee demand, the Commission showed real maturity and balance in its approach, fixing the problem for citizens without unfairly blaming someone caught in a confusing legal change. This wise and even-handed decision sets a positive example and its reasoning can guide similar cases across the country.
Many states face the same NFSA-RTI mismatch; this precedent offers a persuasive path to harmonization. Statutory interpretation must be purposive, especially for welfare laws: the RTI Act protects the economically weak, and NFSA's silence on fees implies continuity, not repeal.
This case also celebrates citizen activism. Asem Roshan Singh turned personal grievance into statewide relief, reminding us that persistence can still bend the system toward justice.
Ultimately, this judgment restores faith in inclusive governance. Transparency is democracy’s oxygen, especially for the resource-scarce. By ensuring PHH beneficiaries inherit BPL’s RTI shield, Commissioner Koijam Radhashyam Singh and the Manipur Information Commission have fortified that supply.
Other states must align; the Centre could clarify rules. Until then, this ruling stands as a beacon: welfare must empower, not silence, the people it uplifts.
In a nation pursuing equitable growth amid persistent poverty, such decisions remind us that true progress lies in enabling the needy not just to receive aid, but to question its delivery—freely, without fees or forgotten nomenclature standing in the way.
This landmark ruling is a concrete step toward realizing Viksit Bharat, a developed India by 2047 where transparency and accountability empower every citizen, especially the poor, to participate fully in nation-building.

Uttarakhand HC got 258 complaints against subordinate judges since 2020, action taken against 4: RTI

The Times of India: Dehradun: Thursday, 19 February 2026.
The vigilance cell of the Uttarakhand high court received 258 complaints against judges and judicial officers of the state's subordinate judiciary between Jan 2020 and April 2025, with action initiated against four officers during this period, according to information provided under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by the court's public information officer (PIO).

The information was disclosed in response to an RTI application filed by Indian Forest Service officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi, following the intervention of state chief information commissioner Radha Raturi. Last month, the commission directed the HC PIO to furnish the data after obtaining approval from the competent authority.
Chaturvedi had sought the information in May 2023 but was denied it on grounds of confidentiality and third-party concerns. He requested details on the authority competent to receive complaints of corruption or misconduct against subordinate judges, the total number of complaints filed between Jan 2020 and April 2025, and the number of cases in which disciplinary or criminal action was recommended or initiated.
In June 2023, the PIO responded without providing complete information. Chaturvedi's appeal before the First Appellate Authority also brought no relief. During the State Information Commission hearing, the PIO reiterated that the information was "confidential and involved third parties", but said "details of specific complaints could be shared and that approval from the Chief Justice was required before disclosure".
After hearing both sides, the commission ruled that the aggregate number of complaints should be disclosed after due approval and directed the HC to report compliance.
Reacting to the disclosure, Chaturvedi's counsel Sudarshan Goyal said, "The move marked a significant step towards transparency and accountability in the administration of justice". He noted that other HCs, including those of Chhattisgarh, Delhi and Chennai, had declined to share similar information and that "Uttarakhand HC was perhaps the first in the country to do so".

Manipur Information Commission grants RTI fee exemption to PHH beneficiaries

Imphal Times: Imphal: Thursday, 19 February 2026.
In a significant ruling strengthening access to information for economically vulnerable citizens, the Manipur Information Commission has held that Priority Household (PHH) beneficiaries under the National Food Security Act, 2013 are entitled to exemption from payment of fees under Section 7(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The decision came in Complaint Case No. 15 of 2025 filed by Asem Roshan Singh against the SPIO/BDO, Wangoi, Imphal West. The complainant had sought information relating to MGNREGA works executed under the Samusang Bitra Urokhong Gram Panchayat and claimed exemption from RTI fees on the basis of a certificate issued by the District Supply Officer (DSO), certifying that his PHH ration card was equivalent to the Below Poverty Line (BPL) category.
However, the SPIO denied the exemption and raised a demand of Rs. 8,058, citing a subsequent administrative clarification stating that PHH cards are not equivalent to BPL. The complainant alleged procedural irregularities and challenged the fee demand before the Commission.
After multiple hearings and seeking clarification from the Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution (CAF & PD) Department, the Commission examined the legal position following the enforcement of the National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA). The Commission observed that although the earlier BPL/APL framework had been replaced by the statutory categories of Priority Household (PHH) and Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY), the restructuring did not abolish poverty identification but merely changed its nomenclature and mechanism.
The Commission held that PHH beneficiaries represent the contemporary statutory successors of the erstwhile BPL category for purposes of socio-economic recognition and statutory concessions. It ruled that in the absence of any express statutory exclusion, PHH beneficiaries cannot be denied exemption under Section 7(5) of the RTI Act merely due to change in classification under the NFSA.
Importantly, the Commission noted that the certificate dated 01.07.2025 issued by the competent authority certifying PHH as equivalent to BPL was valid and had not been revoked. It further held that subsequent administrative clarifications cannot operate retrospectively to defeat a statutory benefit already accrued to a citizen.
Accordingly, the Commission set aside the fee demand as legally unsustainable and reaffirmed that public authorities must process RTI applications fairly and reasonably, without allowing administrative ambiguities to frustrate statutory rights.
With this ruling, PHH beneficiaries across Manipur are assured that their economic status will not become a barrier to accessing information under the RTI Act.

CIC upholds MHA's RTI denial over ‘enemy property’ probe citing ongoing investigation

The Hindu: New Delhi: Thursday, 19 February 2026.
Assets left behind by people who have taken citizenship of Pakistan and China, mostly between 1947 and 1962, are called enemy properties. Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal agreed with the stand of the Office of the Custodian of Enemy Property for India that the information sought was exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which bars disclosure if it would “impede the process of investigation”.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has upheld the Ministry of Home Affairs's (MHA) decision to deny information sought under the Right to Information Act (RTI) on properties under examination as “enemy property,” holding that disclosure could hamper an ongoing investigation.
Assets left behind by people who have taken citizenship of Pakistan and China, mostly between 1947 and 1962, are called enemy properties.
In an order in Hindi, Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal agreed with the stand of the Office of the Custodian of Enemy Property for India that the information sought was exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which bars disclosure if it would “impede the process of investigation”.
The applicant had asked for details regarding a man's enemy properties.
"...as per records available with your office, in which year did Abdul Saeed Barrister, son of Abdul Qadir, resident of Gonda, leave India for Pakistan? Please provide copies of the relevant records,” the applicant said.
The applicant had also sought information on “which properties of Abdul Saeed Barrister have been declared as enemy property” and copies of correspondence exchanged with the Gonda district administration for declaring those properties as enemy property.
The Central Public Information Officer had earlier rejected the RTI request, stating that the records were confidential.
"It is to be noted that since the information sought is a confidential document, it is not eligible to be disclosed under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005," the reply from the Custodian of Enemy Property of India said.
However, during the hearing, the respondent submitted that the matter was under examination under the Enemy Property Act, 1968, and that providing the information at this stage could adversely affect the probe.
Agreeing with the submissions, the commission observed that “such information, disclosure of which would affect investigation, arrest or prosecution, cannot be provided under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act,” and concluded that no further intervention was warranted.

Illegal encroachment: CIC asks MCD to put complaints, demolition drive details in public domain

Hindustan Times: New Delhi: Wednesday, 18 February 2026.
The Central Information Commission has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to proactively disclose information related to illegal encroachments, saying such details are of "recurring public interest" and frequently sought by citizens under the RTI Act.

Observing that encroachment-related information should be made readily available, Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari said, "Such information is of recurring public interest and is frequently sought by citizens through RTI applications."
The order was passed while disposing of an appeal related to alleged illegal encroachments in Main Bazar in Delhi's Paharganj area, where the appellant sought details on action taken on her complaint, norms governing occupation of roads and footpaths by shops, and accountability in case of accidents caused due to congestion.
Emphasising the need for transparency, the CIC held that "proactive and upfront disclosure of encroachment related information, including details of complaints received, action taken reports, schedules of encroachment removal drives, applicable rules/policies and decisions of the Zonal Vending Committee, in the public domain would substantially enhance transparency".
It further said such disclosure would also "reduce the need for filing multiple RTI applications on similar issues" and lessen the burden on the Right to Information machinery.
The CIC noted that the RTI application, filed in May 2024, did not receive a response within the stipulated time and even a direction by the appellate authority to the public information officer for a point-wise reply was not complied with.
Flagging the lapse, the commission said, "Such lapses defeat the spirit of the RTI Act and cause inconvenience to information seekers."
It cautioned the PIO and assistant commissioner of the Karol Bagh Zone to be more careful and diligent in handling RTI applications, warning that appropriate action could be taken for future violations.
The commission directed the MCD to initiate phased proactive disclosure within four weeks, covering the status of illegal encroachment complaints, action taken, schedules and outcomes of demolition drives, applicable rules and policies, and decisions of zonal vending committees, and place the details in public domain.

‘MDA, a haven for RTI activists’

Star of Mysore: Mysore: Wednesday, 18 February 2026.
Former Minister S.R. Mahesh asserted that the MDA (Mysuru Development Authority) has become a haven for RTI activists and agents.

Addressing a press meet here yesterday, he alleged that RTI activists, who  were engaged in irregularities when MUDA (Mysuru Urban Development Authority) existed have continued with their  wrong doings even after MUDA was renamed as MDA last year.
Alleging that some persons were misusing the RTI Act to carry out irregularities and were frequenting MDA office for threatening the officials, Mahesh regretted that it has not been possible for curbing these unscrupulous RTI activists in the CM’s home district.
Citing  a recent example, Mahesh said MDA had recently auctioned 8-10 old vehicles. An RTI activist had sought RC cards of these vehicles. But an MDA engineer declined to issue the RC cards, saying that the vehicles were a scrap.
Getting upset, this RTI activist used his influence with the higher ups and got this engineer transferred. Also, this activist personally distributed sweets to all the MDA staff, visiting various sections. This is a classic example of how administration is going on in the CM’s home district of Mysuru, he said.
The works of the people are not at all being done in MDA, while RTI activists are having a good time, he maintained and wondered what the State Intelligence was doing.

Haryana Govt Orders Time-Bound Recovery of Penalties Imposed Under the RTI Act

Punjab Newsline: Chandigarh: Wednesday, 18 February 2026.
In a decisive move to strengthen accountability under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Haryana Government has directed all departments to ensure the immediate recovery of pending penalties imposed by the State Information Commission.

In a letter issued by Chief Secretary Anurag Rastogi to all Administrative Secretaries, Heads of Departments, Chief Administrators and Managing Directors of Boards and Corporations, Divisional Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners, clear instructions have been given to implement the recovery process in a time-bound manner.
The total outstanding penalty amount stands at ₹2,94,87,657, which is to be recovered from defaulting State Public Information Officers (SPIOs) across various departments.
To ensure smooth compliance, the government has approved a structured monthly installment mechanism instead of lump-sum recovery. As per the approved schedule, recovery will be affected by the Drawing and Disbursing Officers (DDOs) from the salaries or pensions of the concerned officers. Class-A officers will contribute ₹10,000 per month (₹5,000 in case of retired officers), Class-B officers ₹7,000 per month (₹3,500 if retired), and Class-C officers ₹4,000 per month (₹2,000 if retired) until the entire outstanding amount is recovered.
The government has clarified that in cases where the concerned SPIO has expired, the penalty shall be waived. For serving Sarpanches, recovery will be made at ₹3,000 per month from their honorarium. Cases involving Ex-Sarpanches will be referred to the respective Deputy Commissioners for action under applicable revenue laws.
Administrative Secretaries have been asked to personally monitor compliance and submit periodic status reports to the State Information Commission, underscoring the government’s commitment to transparency and institutional discipline.

CIC raps Rajkot GST office for blanket RTI denial on arrests, bails; flags 'suspicion of collusion'

Hindustan Times: New Delhi: Tuesday, 17 February 2026.
The Central Information Commission has pulled up the Central GST authorities in Rajkot for denying information under the RTI Act on arrests, bails, cases and recoveries by citing pending investigations, observing that such blanket denial could "certainly lead to a suspicion of collusion with the offenders."

Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari held that while Section 8 of the RTI Act permits withholding of information that may impede investigation or prosecution, the exemption cannot be applied in a "blanket and mechanical manner" to all queries without examining their nature.
The appeal arose from an RTI application seeking information related to GST enforcement in Rajkot between July 2017 and September 2023.
The applicant had asked for details such as the number of cases where arrests were made, the number of cases in which prosecution complaints were filed, case-wise recoveries made after arrest, instances where bail was granted by courts, and the number of cases where appeals or revisions were filed against bail orders.
In the application, the appellant alleged that despite the "tall claims of 'unwavering commitment in combating tax evasion with stringent actions being taken against defaulters'," there was inaction after arrests, no post-arrest recoveries in many cases, and prosecution complaints were allegedly not being filed even in cases involving "huge revenue implications."
The appellant also claimed that enforcement actions remained "cosmetic in nature" and questioned the absence of follow-up measures to protect government revenue.
The GST department had denied most of the information, stating that investigations were ongoing and disclosure would impede the process, while invoking Section 8 of the RTI Act.
However, the commission noted that the appellant had largely sought statistical and numerical information.
"Such aggregated and non-identifiable numerical data, if provided without disclosing case-wise or sensitive particulars, would not ordinarily impede the process of investigation or prosecution," the order said, adding that even overall figures of recoveries for a specific period would not hamper investigations.
"The respondent has not demonstrated as to how disclosure of broad, non-identifiable statistical information in numbers alone would hamper ongoing investigations. A mere assertion that investigation is pending is not sufficient," the commission observed.
The CIC further said that a "blanket denial will certainly lead to a suspicion of collusion with the offenders/tax evaders, whereas its disclosure will expose any collusion that may have happened."
Directing the authorities to revisit the RTI application, the commission ordered the Central GST office in Rajkot to provide aggregated information in numerical form on arrests, prosecutions, bails, appeals and recoveries within three weeks, withholding only such information that squarely attracts exemption under the RTI Act with cogent justification.

No question of stay on RTI amendments, says SC, issues notice to Centre on pleas challenging data protection law

The Indian Express: New Delhi: Tuesday, 17 February 2026.
Issuing notice to the Centre on petitions challenging these amendments, a three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant directed that the matter be placed before a larger bench.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to grant any interim stay on the amendments made to the RTI Act by the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, but said it will examine them “to balance” competing “rights”.
Issuing notice to the Centre on petitions challenging these amendments, a three-judge bench presided by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant directed that the matter be placed before a larger bench.
The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, was dealing with petitions filed by RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak; digital news platform The Reporters’ Collective and its journalist Nitin Sethi; and one by the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI).
Taking up the petitions, the CJI said, “There is some sensitivity involved”, adding the question is how to balance the competing rights.
Appearing for one of the petitioners, Advocate Vrinda Grover said, “What it (the amendments) has done is instead of using a chisel, it uses a hammer and that hammer has dealt a body blow to multiple rights.”
The petitions have challenged the amendment made to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, stating that it “operates as a blanket ban on the obligation to disclose personal information”. They pointed out that prior to the amendment, personal information could be disclosed if there was an overriding public interest.
Nayak’s plea stated that “a blanket ban on the obligation to disclose all personal information, without the statutory scheme to balance it against larger public interest, renders section 44(3) of the DPDP Act liable to be struck down on multiple counts…”
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NCPRI, said the issue of competing rights was already settled by the 2019 Constitution bench judgment in CPIO vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal case. “They went into this question of balance and proportionality and they held expressly that the Right to Information Act section 8(1)(j)… strikes absolutely the right balance between the right to privacy and the right to information because both are competing fundamental rights,” said Bhushan.
The CJI, however, said the judgment did not directly consider Section 8(1)(j).
“I think both sides will have some arguments. A balance between both rights is needed. We will have to iron out some creases might as to what is meaning of personal information etc,” he added.
The CJI said, “ It’s complex, slightly sensitive, and, at the same time, a very interesting issue, which touches fundamental rights on both sides; some balancing exercise may be needed.”
Bhushan said NCPRI had also filed an application for stay and urged the bench to issue notice on it. But the CJI said, “No question of stay. We will decide the matter at the earliest.”
Bhushan said he was asking for the notice because “they (government) are now denying information” citing the amendment.
The CJI said the court “will not through interim orders” disrupt something which Parliament has thought of “unless we are convinced…” that it is necessary.