Exclusive | No questions on PM CARES, relief and defence funds: PMO tells LS Secretariat, cites rules - Written by: Asad Rehman

The Indian Express: Article: Monday, 9^th February 2026.
The reasoning given by the PMO was that the corpus of these funds is constituted entirely with voluntary public contribution and not from any allocation out of the Consolidated Fund of India.

THE PRIME Minister’s Office (PMO) has told the Lok Sabha Secretariat that Parliament questions and matters related to PM CARES Fund, the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund (PMNRF) and the National Defence Fund (NDF) are not admissible under rules related to the conduct of business in Lok Sabha, The Indian Express has learnt.
It is learnt that on January 30, the PMO told the Lok Sabha Secretariat that questions and matters related to the three funds are not permissible under Rule 41(2) (viii) and 41(2)(xvii) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha.
Under the stipulated conditions that govern the right to ask questions in the Lok Sabha, Rule 41(2) (viii) states that “it shall not relate to a matter which is not primarily the concern of the Government of India”. Rule 41(2) (xvii) states “it shall not raise matters that are under the control of bodies or persons not primarily responsible to the Government of India”.
The reasoning for questions and matters not being admissible in Lok Sabha given by the PMO, it is learnt, was that the corpus of these funds is constituted entirely with voluntary public contribution and not from any allocation out of the Consolidated Fund of India.
The PMO told the Lok Sabha Secretariat that in case a situation arises to determine the admissibility of a question or notice of zero hour or special mention seeking information on the three funds arises, the conditions in the provisions may be exercised, it is learnt.
The PMO did not respond to an emailed query from The Indian Express on its communication with the Lok Sabha Secretariat in this regard. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Joint Secretary, Lok Sabha Secretariat (Media & Public Relations Branch), did not respond to requests for comment from The Indian Express.
When PM CARES was set up
The PM CARES fund was set up on March 27, 2020, following the Covid outbreak. “Keeping in mind the need for having a dedicated fund with the primary objective of dealing with any kind of emergency or distress situation, like posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and to provide relief to the affected, a public charitable trust under the name of ‘Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund (PM CARES Fund)’ has been set up,” the official website of PM CARES fund states.
The fund was registered as a Public Charitable Trust and its trust deed has been registered under the Registration Act, 1908, at New Delhi on March 27, 2020.
As per the PM CARES Fund receipts and payment account report for 2022-23, which is the last published on its official website, the total balance at the end of March 2023 stood at Rs 6,283.7 crore.
In January 2023, the Centre had informed the Delhi High Court that PM CARES Fund has been set up as a public charitable trust and is not created under the Constitution or any law made by the Parliament or the state. The Centre had made the submission during the hearing of a plea seeking to declare the fund a “state” under Article 12 of the Constitution to ensure transparency in its functioning.
The Centre in its affidavit had said that the trust is “neither intended to be or in fact owned or controlled” by any government or any instrumentality of the government and the composition of the board of trustees consisting of holders of public office is merely for administrative convenience.
The affidavit also stated that since it is not constituted under law or the Constitution, PMCARES does not constitute a public authority under the provisions of the RTI Act.
On August 18, 2020, the Supreme Court had “refused” to order transfer of funds from the PM CARES Fund to the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF), saying they “are two entirely different funds with different object and purpose” and “there is no occasion” for such a direction.
The apex court had also said guidelines specifically provide for audit of the NDRF by the Comptroller & Auditor General of India, but PM CARES Fund is a public charitable trust due to which “there is no occasion” for such an audit.
Dismissing a writ petition filed by the NGO, Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), the court had said: “The funds collected in the PM CARES Fund are entirely different funds which are funds of a public charitable trust and there is no occasion for issuing any direction to transfer the said funds to the NDRF”.
In December 2020, The Indian Express had reported, based on RTI records, that apart from over Rs 2,400 crore in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) funds, over 100 PSUs from across sectors together contributed nearly Rs 155 crore from staff salaries to the PM CARES fund.
The PMNRF was established in January 1948 with public contributions to assist displaced persons from Pakistan. Its resources are now utilised primarily to render immediate relief to families of those killed in natural calamities like floods, cyclones and earthquakes, etc., and to the victims of major accidents and riots.
The NDF is used for the welfare of members of the Armed Forces, including paramilitary forces, and their dependents. The fund is administered by an Executive Committee, with the PM as Chairperson, and Defence, Finance and Home Ministers as Members, according to its official website.

98% of online RTI pleas pending in T, reveals data

Times of India: Hyderabad: Monday, 9^th February 2026.
A backlog in the processing of Right to Information (RTI) requests has surfaced as a major transparency concern in Telangana, with official data revealing that nearly 98% of RTI applications filed through the state's online portal over the past three years remain unresolved, raising serious questions about access to information and administrative accountability.

Information obtained under the RTI Act by B Vinod Reddy, an RTI activist, from the information technology, electronics and communications (ITE&C) department shows that 17,865 RTI applications were filed online between Dec 2022 and Dec 2025, of which only 377 were disposed of. The backlog is even more stark at the appellate stage: 2,502 first appeals were filed during this period, with not a single case disposed of, indicating a systemic logjam rather than routine delay.
The Telangana RTI online portal was launched on Dec 15, 2022, in compliance with binding directions of the Supreme Court in Pravasi legal cell versus Union of India, which mandated all states and Union Territories to operationalise online RTI mechanisms. While the portal is technically in place, the data shows that pendency has steadily accumulated with negligible clearance.
Poor participation
One of the principal reasons appears to be poor participation by public authorities. Of the 3,323 public authorities onboarded onto the portal, only 17 are actively using it to dispose of RTI applications, translating into a non-usage rate of nearly 99.5%. As a result, both applications and first appeals have effectively stalled within the digital system.
The issue has also drawn attention to the functioning of the Telangana Information Commission (TGIC), the statutory body tasked with enforcing the RTI Act. Citizens have flagged delays in hearings, insistence on physical submissions in several cases, and slow delivery of orders, all of which contribute to overall pendency.
Responding to concerns over the backlog, state chief information commissioner G Chandrashekar Reddy told TOI that the commission had made substantial progress over the last seven months and significantly reduced legacy pendency. "This is our progress in the last seven months. We are far ahead of many states with the least pendency," he said.
According to Reddy, the commission is now up to date in 15 of the state's 30 departments and 15 of its 33 districts. He said statutory audits, pending since the formation of Telangana, have been completed up to March 2025, and annual RTI reports have been submitted to the legislature up to 2024. He also said that Telangana is the first state to institute RTI awards to motivate public authorities.
‘Info flow for all'
"When we joined, cases were pending from 2013 onwards. We ensured information in all those cases. Now, cases are pending from 2021 onwards, which we are confident of bringing to 2025 by March," he said, adding that this progress was achieved despite prolonged vacancies in the commission in previous years. "RTI is in safe hands in the state, and we are sure to ensure information flow for all," he said.
While the commission highlights gains in clearing long-pending cases and strengthening institutional processes, the official figures from the online RTI portal continue to show overwhelming pendency. The contrast between improvements claimed at the commission level and the portal data underlines the continuing challenge of converting statutory intent and judicial mandates into timely access to information for citizens.

Omission in RTI plea: Panel orders dept action against deputy tahsildar

The Times of India: Chennai: Sunday, 8^th February 2026.
The state information commission has ordered departmental action against the headquarters deputy tahsildar in Pallavaram for trying to cover up an omission on her part, in a reply to a plea filed under the RTI Act. The matter relates to the non-implementation of a Chengalpet district revenue officer's order in 2023.

Chief information commissioner Md Shakeel Akhter directed the Chengalpet RDO to initiate departmental action against the then deputy tahsildar, Kanchana, who was also the public information officer, and submit a report by March 5.
The petitioner, T V Madhanagopal of Chromepet, was also given a remedy, as the panel directed the present PIO and headquarters deputy tahsildar, N Pushparani, to implement the RDO's order and give information to the petitioner.
The RDO's order in 2023 directed removal of a name from the ‘A register' with respect to a survey number in Pammal and inclusion of another name. Madhanagopal sought details on implementation of the order through an RTI plea in 2024.
Since Madhanagopal did not get a proper response, he approached the information commission through a second appeal. When the matter first came up for hearing in June last year, the commission ordered the then deputy tahsildar to provide the necessary information within 15 days. A month later, the reply was reviewed, and the commission concluded the information provided was not satisfactory and gave another month to provide the required information.
However, since there was no response, Madhanagopal moved a non-compliance petition before the panel and the same was taken up for hearing in Jan.

Advocate exclusion from RTI: Why the Supreme Court must settle the conflict - By Dr Ajay Kumar Pandey

 Bar and Bench: Columns: Sunday, 8^th February 2026.
Can judicial interpretation introduce categorical exclusions when parliament deliberately used inclusive language?

India’s Right to Information (RTI) regime stands at an unusual constitutional crossroads. Over the past two decades, the RTI Act, 2005 has evolved into one of the most effective accountability mechanisms within the country’s democratic framework.
Yet, recent judicial developments reveal a troubling paradox - while courts continue to strengthen transparency obligations of public authorities, interpretive restrictions simultaneously narrow the procedural rights available to citizens seeking information.
Two recent developments illustrate this growing doctrinal tension. First, the Central Information Commission's (CIC) interpretation, drawing on a Madras High Court ruling, bars advocates from filing RTI applications in matters they handle. Second, the Delhi High Court’s sharp reprimand of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for failing to comply with proactive disclosure obligations under Section 4 of the RTI Act.
Together, these developments raise fundamental constitutional questions that arguably require the Supreme Court's authoritative resolution.
The advocate exclusion: Restriction without statutory foundation
The RTI Act uses unusually expansive language. Section 6(1) provides that “any person” seeking information may file an RTI application. The Act explicitly incorporates subject matter exemptions under Section 8 and institutional exemptions under Section 24. Notably, parliament refrained from imposing professional or status-based exclusions.
Despite this legislative clarity, recent administrative practice, supported by judicial interpretation, has begun treating advocates as ineligible to invoke RTI in matters connected to the cases they represent. The underlying reasoning suggests that allowing lawyers to file RTI applications may convert the statute into a professional litigation tool.
This interpretation effectively introduces a professional disqualification that is absent from the statutory text. It raises a core question in constitutional jurisprudence: can judicial interpretation introduce categorical exclusions when parliament deliberately used inclusive language?
The anomaly becomes even more evident in practice. An advocate who files an RTI request in a representative capacity may be rejected. The same advocate, filing the same request as an individual citizen, may succeed. Such an interpretation undermines statutory transparency while incentivising procedural concealment.
Access to justice and structural inequalities
The implications of advocate exclusion extend beyond professional inconvenience. They directly affect the operational effectiveness of access to justice.
The Supreme Court has consistently recognised that access to justice forms part of Article 21. In Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan, the Court emphasised that access to justice must be practical and effective rather than merely theoretical.
In the ground realities of Indian litigation, most litigants lack the capacity to independently navigate administrative disclosure systems. Legal aid lawyers and district practitioners routinely rely on RTI to obtain government records, particularly where traditional discovery mechanisms fail.
Applications under Order XI of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) frequently encounter procedural delays. Requests under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) are often ignored or indefinitely postponed. RTI introduced statutory timelines, appellate oversight and penalty provisions that significantly enhanced record accessibility.
Restricting advocates' use of RTI, therefore, risks creating structural inequality within the justice delivery system. Litigants with resources may be able to pursue alternative compliance mechanisms, whereas marginalised litigants may effectively lose access to critical evidence.
Article 14 and the doctrine of reasonable classification
The advocate exclusion also invites scrutiny under Article 14. Constitutional jurisprudence requires that any classification satisfies the twin tests of intelligible differentia and a rational nexus to the legislative objective.
Here, the objective of the RTI Act is to promote transparency and accountability. Denying access solely on the basis of professional status appears difficult to justify within this framework. Identical information remains accessible when sought by an individual citizen, but becomes restricted when sought by a legally trained representative acting on behalf of another citizen.
Such classification risks being characterised as arbitrary, particularly when the statute itself does not contemplate professional restrictions.
Misuse concerns and the principle of proportionality
The primary justification advanced for advocate exclusion is the potential misuse of RTI by legal practitioners. However, constitutional proportionality requires that restrictions on statutory rights must be narrowly tailored and least restrictive.
The RTI Act already contains safeguards addressing misuse. Section 7(9) permits rejection of disproportionate requests. Section 8 protects sensitive information from disclosure. The appellate framework provides supervisory oversight.
A blanket professional prohibition, therefore, appears disproportionate. It restricts legitimate use while failing to eliminate misuse, which may simply shift into informal channels.
MCD case: Reaffirming the spirit of RTI
In contrast to the restrictive interpretation emerging in advocate exclusion cases, the Delhi High Court’s recent judgment concerning the MCD reinforces the foundational philosophy of the RTI Act.
In a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the Centre for Youth, Culture, Law and Environment, the Court examined MCD’s failure to proactively disclose legislative proceedings, resolutions, and committee records. The Bench, led by Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, expressed concern that even two decades after the enactment of the RTI Act, statutory obligations under Section 4 remained unfulfilled.
The Court rejected MCD’s reliance on provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act to justify non-disclosure, emphasising that municipal statutes cannot dilute the transparency obligations imposed under the RTI Act. It directed the civic body to file compliance affidavits, signalling judicial recognition of systemic administrative opacity.
Section 4: The constitutional backbone of RTI
The MCD judgment highlights Section 4 as the philosophical cornerstone of RTI. The provision envisages a governance framework in which public authorities proactively make information available to the public, thereby reducing dependence on individual RTI applications.
However, compliance with Section 4 has historically been weak across public institutions. The Delhi High Court’s intervention reflects its recognition that transparency cannot remain merely reactive. It must be institutionalised through voluntary disclosure.
This interpretation aligns with the constitutional values of participatory governance and administrative accountability.
The emerging jurisprudential conflict
The co-existence of advocate exclusion and proactive disclosure enforcement reveals an emerging doctrinal conflict. While courts are strengthening institutional transparency obligations, procedural avenues enabling citizens to access information through professional assistance are being restricted.
This duality risks creating a transparency framework that is theoretically robust but practically inaccessible.
The need for authoritative Supreme Court clarification
The conflict between inclusive statutory language and restrictive judicial interpretation necessitates authoritative clarification by the Supreme Court. The issues involved raise fundamental constitutional questions:

• Can courts introduce professional exclusions into a rights-based statute framed in universal language?
• Does advocate exclusion violate Articles 14 and 21?
• Can concerns regarding misuse justify categorical professional disqualification?
• How should courts reconcile proactive disclosure obligations with procedural access rights?

The resolution of these questions will determine whether RTI continues to function as a citizen-centric accountability mechanism or evolves into a technically accessible but functionally restricted statute.
Transparency as a constitutional value
The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised the right to information as an essential component of Article 19(1)(a). RTI represents legislative recognition of this constitutional value.
Transparency statutes operate as instruments of democratic accountability. Their effectiveness depends not merely on statutory existence, but on functional accessibility. Restricting professional facilitation of information access risks diluting the enforcement of transparency.
Simultaneously, judicial insistence on proactive disclosure reinforces that transparency is not an optional administrative practice but a constitutional governance norm.
India’s RTI regime is undergoing a significant interpretive transition. Judicial decisions are simultaneously strengthening institutional transparency obligations while narrowing procedural access.
The phrase “any person” in Section 6 represents a conscious legislative commitment to universal accessibility. Introducing professional disqualifications risks undermining both statutory fidelity and constitutional equality.
The Supreme Court now stands uniquely positioned to reconcile this emerging conflict. Its intervention can restore doctrinal coherence, protect access to justice and reaffirm RTI as a cornerstone of democratic accountability.
The future credibility of India’s transparency framework may well depend on how this constitutional tension is resolved.
(Dr Ajay Kummar Pandey is an advocate practicing before the Supreme Court of India.)

RTI Battle Reaches Supreme Court After 15-Year Legal Tug-of-War

Lagatar: Ranchi: Saturday, 7^Th February 2026.

After a prolonged legal battle spanning 15 years, Saint Joseph College (Khunti) has approached the Supreme Court, challenging the Jharkhand State Information Commission’s 2016 directive to disclose financial documents under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The case centers on the refusal to provide audit reports and utility certificates to Professor Akshya Kumar Rai.
Background of the Dispute
In 2016, Prof. Rai filed an RTI request seeking four key pieces of information:

• Audit reports from FY 2011–2015
• Utility certificates for grants used
• Minutes of Governing Body meetings during that period
• Documents detailing government grant usage and the rationale for not spending on government-appointed faculty

The college denied the request, citing its status as a minority institution and claiming the information was confidential and exempt under RTI provisions.
Information Commission’s Ruling and High Court Battles
The State Information Commission ruled in Prof. Rai’s favor in September 2016, ordering the college to furnish all requested information. The college then challenged this decision in the Jharkhand High Court, initiating a legal contest that continued for nearly a decade.
In May 2024, Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary upheld the commission’s decision. Unrelenting, the college filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), which was also dismissed in 2025 by a bench comprising Justices Sujit Narayan and Rajesh Kumar, who stated that due to the substantial government funding, the college falls within the ambit of the RTI Act.
Supreme Court Appeal Filed
Now in 2026, the college has escalated the matter to the Supreme Court. While the appeal has been admitted, the apex court has yet to schedule a hearing.

Prompt response to applicants will reflect govt.’s transparent administration: State Information Commissioners

The Hindu: Madurai: Saturday, 7^Th February 2026.
Prompt and proper response to the applicants seeking information through the Right To Information Act of 2005 would reflect the transparent administration of the government, said State Information Commissioners here on Friday.

The Sivaganga district administration had organised an interaction with the SICs and the Principal Information Officers from various departments at the District Collectorate.
The SICs R. Priya Kumar, V.P.R. Elamparithi and M Natesan stressed the need for swiftness in the response as it would give a fillip to the applicants. There were certain procedures in obtaining the information.
It would be ideal for the authorities to be aware of the amends in the RTI at regular intervals.
While some of the departments have exemption and information need not be disseminated to the applicants, the Information Officers, however, should respond to other applications without delay.
In case of any slackness, the applicants move the appellate authorities, which should be avoided in the normal course. This, the SICs said, would give a positive outlook of the departments and the officers as well.
The SIC also clarified on the rights of the petitioners and responsibilities of the officers in each department. In the event of any document missing, the officer concerned shall track for the copies and furnish the details sought by the applicant instead of simply responding that the documents are not available or missing, they suggested.
Explaining the objectives of the RTI and the role of the State Information Commission and among others, the top officers also explained the features of sharing information to those seeking them as a mark of highest integrity and a reflection of fairness in the administration.
District Revenue Officer S. Selvasurabi presided over the meeting in which officials from various departments participated.

No night parking for scheduled flights at airport, RTI reveals

Times of India: Surat: Saturday, 7^Th February 2026.
Even as demand rises for early morning departures and late-night arrivals at Surat Airport, an RTI reply has revealed that all 10 night-parking bays meant for Code-C aircraft (A321, B739) have been allotted to non-scheduled operators.

According to airport sources, at least one scheduled airline has sought two night-parking bays at present. However, no slots are currently available, as all 10 bays have reportedly been assigned to owners of non-scheduled aircraft from Surat, Ahmedabad and Mumbai.
The revelation has raised serious questions over planning and utilisation of public funds, especially after Surat International Airport underwent a major modernisation project worth Rs 353 crore, including Rs 150 crore spent on expanding aircraft infrastructure.
Documents obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act show that the airport has 17 parking bays in total 13 compatible for Code-C aircraft and four meant for smaller aircraft. However, internal Airports Authority of India (AAI) records indicate that all 10 night-parking bays earmarked for overnight use were allotted to non-scheduled operators, leaving no space for scheduled airlines such as IndiGo, Air India Express and Star Air.
The issue persists despite the construction of 18 new parking bays and a parallel taxi track as part of a major airside infrastructure upgrade aimed at boosting flight operations and aircraft movement. Of these 18 bays, five are yet to be operationalised.
Airport sources said that among the 10 allotted night-parking bays, three were given to Ventura Airconnect, while one each was allotted to Shreeji Aviation, Rajhans Infracon, Ishwer Dholakia, Steamhouse, KPAI Afrotech, Global Vectra Helicorp and Dharma Nandan Diamond.
Rajesh Modi, a long-time tracker of airport development, said, "This reflects serious mismanagement. There is no space for scheduled airlines that drive passenger traffic and regional connectivity. The airport now has permanent 24×7 operations, yet scheduled airlines are being asked to wait. This defeats the purpose of night and early morning operations and raises concerns about how capacity planning is being done."
However, airport authorities maintained that night-parking facilities would be made available once early morning and late-night flights begin operations.
"According to rules, night parking is available to any operator scheduled or non-scheduled between 10 pm and 6 am. However, we always prioritise scheduled flights. We will shift Ventura aircraft to their hangars, which will free three bays. Soon, five more parking bays for bigger aircraft will also be operationalised as they are in the final phase," an airport official said.

Meghalaya RTI activist flags lack of transparency in appointment of seven OSDs in CM’s Office

Northeast News: Shillong: Friday, 6^Th February 2026.
A Meghalaya RTI activist has raised serious questions over the appointment of seven Officers on Special Duty (OSDs) in the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO), alleging a lack of transparency and favouritism in their selection, as well as the use of public funds for their salaries and allowances.

Manbhalang Phankon, an RTI activist from Madanrting, claimed that information obtained through the Right to Information (RTI) Act shows that seven contractual OSDs were personally appointed and attached directly to Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma without any open recruitment process, competitive examination or public advertisement.
According to the RTI replies, each of the seven OSDs receives a monthly salary of Rs 1 lakh. The state exchequer has spent Rs 1,68,12,785 on their salaries since 2019.
The RTI documents also revealed that three of the OSDs alone claimed travel allowances (TA) amounting to Rs 1,49,93,374 during the same period, a figure that is nearly equal to the total salary expenditure on all seven appointees.
Phankon said, “The CMO is already staffed with senior IAS, MCS, IPS and MPS officers, as well as consultants, and questioned the need for additional OSDs on high pay when many educated youths in the state remain unemployed.
“This money could have been used to create genuine employment opportunities instead of benefiting a select few,” he said.
He alleged that the appointments lacked transparency and merit, and said this was in contrast to the Centre, where OSDs are usually senior civil servants on deputation and selected through proper procedures.
“These salaries and allowances are paid from public funds. If these positions require special expertise, they should be filled through proper recruitment channels and boards like other government posts,” Phankon said.
He said he had made the information public to allow citizens to judge the matter for themselves. “As an RTI activist, I am placing the facts before the people and leaving it to them to judge,” Phankon said.

RTI એક્ટ મુજબ શિક્ષાત્મક કાર્યવાહી કરાઈ‎:માહિતી અધિકારની અરજી તબદીલ કરવામાં 28 દિવસનો વિલંબ કરાતા અધિકારીને 7000નો દંડ

Divya Bhaskar: Ahmedabad Friday, 6^Th February 2026.

RTIનાં હેઠળ નાગરિકોના અધિકારોનું રક્ષણ કરતા ચુકાદામાં ગુજરાત માહિતી આયોગ દ્વારા ગાંધીનગર સ્થિત પ્રાથમિક શિક્ષણ નિયામક કચેરીના જાહેર માહિતી અધિકારીને કાયદાકીય જોગવાઈઓના ઉલ્લંઘન બદલ રૂ. 7000નો રોકડ દંડ ફટકારવામાં આવ્યો હતો.
આ અંગે સાવરકુંડલાના વકીલ દીપેશભાઈ જોશી દ્વારા માહિતી મેળવવા માટે અરજી કરવામાં આવી હતી. આ અરજી જે-તે કચેરીને સંબંધિત ન હોવા છતાં, RTI એક્ટની કલમ મુજબ તેને 5 દિવસની અંદર સંબંધિત વિભાગમાં તબદીલ કરવાની જવાબદારી જાહેર માહિતી અધિકારીની હતી.
જોકે, જાહેર માહિતી અધિકારી આર. એન. અસારી દ્વારા આ અરજી તબદીલ કરવામાં 28 દિવસનો ગુનાહિત વિલંબ કરવામાં આવ્યો હતો. આ મામલે થયેલી ફરિયાદની સુનાવણી દરમિયાન રાજ્ય માહિતી કમિશનર વિપુલ રાવલે નોંધ્યું હતું કે, અરજી તબદીલ કરવાની સંપૂર્ણ જવાબદારી જે-તે અધિકારીની હોય છે અને રજીસ્ટ્રી શાખાના વિલંબનું કારણ સંતોષકારક ગણી શકાય નહીં.
આયોગે સ્પષ્ટ કર્યું કે માહિતી આપવામાં કે અરજી ટ્રાન્સફર કરવામાં વિલંબ એ કાયદાનો ભંગ છે. માહિતી અધિકાર અધિનિયમની કલમ હેઠળ મળેલી સત્તાનો ઉપયોગ કરીને, આયોગે 28 દિવસના વિલંબ બદલ પ્રતિ દિન 250 લેખે કુલ રૂ. 7000નો દંડ ફટકારવામાં આવ્યો છે.
હુકમ મુજબ દંડની રકમ અધિકારીએ પોતાના અંગત ભંડોળ અથવા પગારમાંથી ભરવાની રહેશે. આ રકમ 1 માસની અંદર સરકારી તિજોરીમાં જમા કરાવી તેની પહોંચ આયોગને મોકલવા હુકમ કરાયો હતો.

Manipur: Youth group files RTI seeking transparency on flood relief funds in Senapati - by Vangamla Salle K S

East Mojo: Senapati: Friday, 6^Th February 2026.
The RTI application was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Senapati on Tuesday, seeking comprehensive information regarding the allocation, release and utilisation of relief funds meant for flood-affected families in the district.

Team Youth Rise for Change (YR4C), a youth-led voluntary movement advocating for the rights and welfare of people in Senapati district, has filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 seeking details on flood relief funds sanctioned and disbursed following the devastating floods of 2024 and 2025.
The RTI application was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Senapati on Tuesday, seeking comprehensive information regarding the allocation, release and utilisation of relief funds meant for flood-affected families in the district.
According to YR4C members, thousands of families residing along the banks of the Senapati River were severely affected during the floods, suffering extensive damage to homes, loss of property, domestic animals and important personal documents. The organisation stated that it has received numerous grievances from affected families over the past several months, alleging that they had not received relief support despite submitting applications to the district administration.
YR4C said that during field visits and interactions with flood victims, several households reported receiving no response from authorities even after repeated appeals for assistance.
In its RTI application, the organisation has sought details on the total funds sanctioned by the Manipur State Government under the Disaster Management Department for flood victims in Senapati district during 2024 and 2025, details of the release and utilisation of relief funds, the complete list of beneficiaries, bank account transaction details related to relief disbursement, flood inspection and damage assessment reports, and other related official records.
The organisation stated that the RTI move aims to ensure transparency and accountability in the utilisation of public funds meant for disaster-affected families. YR4C expressed hope that the Deputy Commissioner’s office would provide the requested information within the stipulated time frame under the RTI Act.
YR4C further stated that it may consider pursuing additional legal measures, including filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), if necessary, to ensure justice for affected communities.
The group also appealed to residents of Senapati district to remain vigilant against the misuse of public funds, stating that transparency and civic participation are essential for equitable development across both urban and rural areas of the district.

KIC claims to be fastest in country in disposing of second appeal petitions

The Hindu: Bengaluru: Friday, 6^Th February 2026.
The Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) has claimed to be the fastest in the country in disposing of second appeal petitions and has cleared 36,474 appeals in the last one year along with recommendations for fines and disciplinary action against officers who did not provide information.

“The State government had appointed eight Information Commissioners to KIC on February 4, 2025. From 2023 to February 2025, only three Commissioners were working. Due to this, the disposal of petitions was slow. However, the disposal of second appeal petitions has gained momentum in the past one year,” the KIC said in a statement on Thursday.
“In February 2025, a total of 69,471 petitions were pending for hearing, including the newly filed petitions. The Commission has disposed of 36,474 petitions in the past one year and only 32,997 second appeal petitions are pending disposal,” the statement said.
“The speedy disposal of petitions is due to the training workshop on the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, conducted by the Commission for Public Information Officers (PIOs) and First Appellate Authorities at the district level. Such workshops have been held in 23 districts so far. This has increased the number of PIOs providing information and attending the hearings of the Commission,” KIC added.
Further the KIC said it had declared the Karnataka Milk Federation and the Electronic City Industrial Township Authority (ELCITA), which had not provided information under RTI Act, 2005 earlier, as public authorities.
Public Information Officers who do not provide information within the stipulated period and who do not appear before the Commission for hearing were being fined. The maximum fine is ₹25,000. The law also provides for compensation to the applicant along with the fine. The Commission has imposed a fine of ₹45.29 lakh on 245 officers in a period of one year. “Failure to pay the fine will make it difficult to get retirement benefits,” it warned.
Recommendations
The Commission has recommended that RTI should be included as a subject in all recruitment and examinations related to the promotion of officers, school and college textbooks. It also suggested that the disposal of RTI applications be discussed as a subject in district and taluk level Karnataka Development Programme meetings.
National conference
The Commission intends to hold a national conference to work towards a more effective implementation of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Commission will consult the Chief Minister and take a decision in this regard, the Commission added.

CIC upholds denial of records on Himalayan ecosystem mission DST cites strategic sensitivity

The Week: New Delhi: Thursday, 5^Th February 2026.
Review-meeting minutes and detailed project reports related to the National Mission for Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem (NMSHE) can be withheld under the RTI Act, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has said while upholding the Department of Science and Technology's (DST) denial of such information on the ground of strategic, scientific and intellectual property concerns.

In its submissions, the DST said the NMSHE is "one of the key missions" implemented by it under the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), a national policy framework that "is reviewed by the highest authority, the Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change (PMCCC), which is chaired by the Prime Minister of India".
The department told the commission that the NMSHE supports research-and-development initiatives related to climate-change science and adaptation for the Himalayan ecosystem, which are "important not only from research perspective but also from India's strategical point of view".
It said the progress of activities under the mission is reviewed by a National Expert Committee, but the minutes of such meetings are not placed in the public domain as they "include policy discussions and interventions along with details of research endeavours which contain third-party information".
From the applicant's side, it was argued during the hearing that the information sought was not furnished and was essential for academic research. The appellant submitted that the material relating to the "NMSHE Year Wise Projects CCP-SPLICE Division should be placed in public domain for the general public".
On the denial of detailed project reports, the DST said these documents contain research and development data carrying intellectual property rights and are exempt under provisions relating to "information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party".
The CIC, after hearing both sides, said the department had adequately dealt with the RTI queries and that "in the given circumstances, intervention of the commission is not warranted under RTI Act", and disposed of the appeal.
(This story has not been edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)

HC Pulls Up MCD Over Failure To Publicise Resolutions, Records Despite 20 Years Of RTI Act

ETV Bharat: New Delhi: Thursday, 5^Th February 2026.
The court was hearing a PIL seeking the uploading of the MCD's all public information on its website.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday pulled up the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for its failure to publicise information on its legislative records, proceedings of the house and resolutions even after 20 years of the enactment of the RTI Act. A bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that section 4 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act casts a mandate on the public authorities to publicise such information on their own so that there was minimum resort to the procedure under the RTI Act, and MCD could not be given any exemption in this regard.
The court was hearing a PIL by NGO Centre for Youth, Culture, Law and Environment seeking uploading of the MCD's legislative records, proceedings of the house, resolutions passed by the standing committees and all other public information on its website in a time-bound manner.
Counsel for the MCD assured the court that corrective measures would be undertaken by the authorities, as the issue of uploading such information was under the consideration of the competent authority. He said the "process" to upload the information was "underway at the corporation level", but the same would take some time.
"Thanks to you for undertaking this exercise after 20 years. We are so thankful," retorted the bench.
"(And) What process? You are required to upload this information within 120 days and then on a regular interval. What have you been doing? This Act (RTI Act) was passed in 2005. It is 20 years down the line," the bench further said.
The court directed the MCD to file an affidavit in response to the petition and state what steps had been taken to implement section 4 of the RTI Act for providing information to the public by publishing it.
"The purpose of mandating public authorities under section 4 of the Act is apparent - that by publishing such information, the public will have minimum resort to the use of the Act as the information shall be provided suo motu by the public authorities. No exception in this regard can be granted to any authority, including the MCD," the court observed.
The petitioner told the court that in response to an RTI application, the MCD has stated that no such record had been updated on its website till now, since the work to "update" its website is going on after the unification of the three erstwhile municipal bodies.
The court was further informed that in the reply, MCD took a stand that there were no rules or guidelines that governed the publication of its resolutions on its official website, as it was governed by Section 86 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act. The court stated that section 86 had nothing to do with the dissemination of information and particulars to the public.
"Accordingly, it is apparent that the statutory mandate and the duty cast on the MCD by Section 4 of the RTI Act have yet not been followed even after lapse of 20 years," the court said. The court said it had only formed a prima facie opinion at this stage and listed the matter for further hearing in April.
The petitioner said the issue concerned millions of people residing in Delhi. "If they are so sure of the budget, why can't they upload the budget for the upcoming year on the website?" he asked. The court said the budget would be uploaded only once it was passed by the house, and added, "we should achieve what is legally permissible and possible".

Punjab State Information Commission issues warrants against Ludhiana MC official.

Times of India: Ludhiana: Thursday, 5^Th February 2026.
The Punjab State Information Commission has taken the rare step of issuing a bailable warrant against a senior municipal corporation (MC) official following a series of missed hearings in a Right to Information (RTI) appeal.

The warrant was issued against Kuljit Singh Mangat, who serves as the public information officer (PIO)-cum-assistant town planner (ATP) for the MC's building branch (Zone D). The decision comes after the official reportedly ignored multiple summons and a formal show-cause notice.
A Pattern of Non-Compliance
State information commissioner Harpreet Singh Sandhu has said the case stems from an appeal filed by Jasvir Singh of Guru Nanak Nagar, and the PIO's absence has stalled the legal process for months. Four consecutive hearings were missed. A show-cause notice issued previously to the official also went unaddressed. Under the RTI Act, the commission has the authority to compel attendance through police intervention if an officer fails to discharge their duty to provide information.
Police Intervention Mandated
In a significant move to ensure accountability, the commission has directed the Ludhiana police commissioner to personally ensure the warrant is served. "The commissioner has been ordered to not only serve a copy of these warrants on Kuljit Singh Mangat but also provide strict instructions for him to appear before the commission on the next scheduled date," commissioner Sandhu stated.
The official is now legally required to present himself before the PSIC on March 11. Failure to appear could result in further disciplinary action or financial penalties as prescribed under the Right to Information Act. The RTI Act mandates that PIOs provide requested data within 30 days. Continuous delays or refusal to attend hearings is viewed by the commission as a significant obstruction of a citizen's fundamental right to information.

MCD fails to upload info under RTI Act, draws high court’s ire

Times of India: New Delhi: Thursday, 5^Th February 2026.
Reminding Municipal Corporation of Delhi that it is 20 years since RTI Act has been enforced, Delhi High Court on Wednesday questioned why MCD had failed to proactively disseminate information relating to its legislative records, proceedings of the house and resolutions online.

A bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia underlined that Section 4 of Right to Information Act made it compulsory for authorities to act. "The purpose of mandating pu-blic authorities... is apparent that by publishing such information, the public will have minimum resort to the use of the Act, as the information shall be provided suo motu by the public authorities. No exception in this regard can be granted to any authority, including MCD," the court observed.
"You want to know the consequences of not adhering to the Act? We will tell you the consequences," the bench warned the civic body while hearing a public interest litigation by NGO Cen-tre for Youth, Culture, Law and Environment, seeking the uploading of MCD's legislative records, proceedings of the House, resolutions pas-sed by the standing committees and all other public information on its website in a time-bound manner.
Appearing for MCD, standing counsel Tushar Sannu assured the court that corrective measures would be undertaken by the authorities as the "process" to upload the information was "underway at the corporation level", but it would take some time.
"Thanks to you for undertaking this exercise after 20 years. We are so thankful," retorted the bench. "What process? You are required to upload this information within 120 days and then at regular intervals. What were you doing? This Act was passed in 2005. It is 20 years down the line," the bench pointed out.
It directed MCD to file an affidavit in response to the petition and state what steps were taken to implement the Act for providing information to the public by publishing it.
The petitioner told the court that, in response to an RTI application, MCD stated that no such record was updated on its website till now since the work to "update" its website was going on after the unification of the three erstwhile municipal bodies.
MCD took a stand that there were no rules or guidelines that governed the publication of its resolutions on its official website as it was governed by Section 86 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, the plea told the court. The bench, however, stressed that Section 86 had nothi-ng to do with the dissemination of information and particulars to the public.
The court said it formed only a prima facie opinion at this stage and listed the matter in April. The petitioner said the issue concerned millions of people residing in Delhi.

'Eureka!' moment at CIC as MCD's missing file goes from 'non-traceable' to 'available'

The Week: New Delhi: Wednesday, 4^th February 2026.

A file that was stated to be "not traceable" by the MCD in response to an RTI request "mysteriously" became available when the matter came before the Central Information Commission, prompting an amused CIC to question what had triggered the 'Eureka!' moment for the civic body.
The case relates to the information sought on records linked to a hospital layout approval in the Model Town area. Initially, the Town Planning Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) told the applicant that the file was "not available" and "not traceable". The same position was reiterated during the first appeal.
However, when the matter reached the Central Information Commission (CIC), parts of the information unexpectedly surfaced.   
Taking note of this backpedalling, Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari questioned how the file in question became "mysteriously" available after the CIC hearing notice, when two replies furnished by the record-keeper of the safe office earlier had said it could not be produced.
"Commission cannot lose sight of this diametrically opposite stand, particularly when the 'Eureka!' moment happened and what triggered it," he said.
The CIC was critical of the manner in which the request was handled, observing that "merely stating that a file is not traceable does not absolve the public information officer (PIO) of his statutory responsibilities" under the RTI framework.
It also expressed concern that official replies did not even carry basic details such as the name and contact information of the PIO, noting that such omissions were "contrary to the spirit of the RTI Act" and basic administrative transparency.
The Commission further observed that issuing internal search memos, instead of formally pursuing the information and keeping the applicant informed, appeared to have the effect of "keeping the appellant in the dark as to what all is transpiring inside the office".
In unusually strong remarks, the CIC said there was "clearly an attempt to evade disclosure of information" and cautioned that it would be a miscarriage of the RTI law if authorities could conveniently claim that records were missing, only to produce them later when scrutiny increased.
The CIC, in an order issued on Monday, directed the MCD to provide a fresh, point-wise and complete reply to the applicant within four weeks and issued a show-cause notice to the PIO, asking him to explain why penalty action should not be initiated.
(This story has not been edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)