IFF sends Representation to the to the DGP regarding the Maharashtra State panel’s suggestions to police social media posts

IFF: Maharashtra: Thursday, 3^rd September 2026.
IFF writes to the DGP of Maharashtra and files an RTI application seeking information on the particulars of the suggestions

The Sadanand Date Committee, formed under the Maharashtra government in May 2026, reportedly recommended a change to India’s criminal code, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (“BNS”), to specifically cover “defamatory social media posts”, as reported by the Indian Express on 21st August 2026. This move raises eyebrows, legally speaking, because their changes reportedly veer close to reinstating the spirit of Section 66A IT Act (“66A”); a provision which was struck down by the Supreme Court in, with the timing of such recommendations being ill-perceived given as it arrives just as the government faces increased scrutiny and criticism on social media over student-led protests over exam system integrity and school quality. Concerned about the threat to free speech and constitutionally protected dissent, IFF sent a representation to Shri Sadanand Date, DGP, Maharashtra, and filed an RTI with the department requesting the text of the Government Resolution, draft text of proposed amendment, and the safeguards the Committee is considering to prevent a repeat of 66A’s unconstitutionality.
Background 
In May 2026, The Indian Express, The Mumbai Mirror, and The Free Press Journal reported about Maharashtrian Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis expressing interest in the Maharashtra Assembly, about constituting a committee headed by Director-General of Police (“DGP”), Sadanand Date, to study legal provisions and suggest amendment to deal effectively with cases of social media defamation, stating “There is a growing trend of using social media platforms to defame people without any evidence or proof. All kinds of people are facing this, especially women. So a committee will be formed under the DGP. Their recommendations will be taken”. In August 2026, The Indian Express reported on the Sadanand Date Committee’s (“the Committee”) panel decision recommending a change to the BNS directly, since as the Indian Express’ source expressed, “it will be vetted at multiple levels and have a stronger footing if challenged in court, as compared to just amending the state law”; with the larger recommendation reportedly pointing towards reinstating the spirit of Section 66A itself. 
Before it was repealed, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, was a law which criminalized “Any person who sends, by means of a computer resources or a communication device…”, any information considered “grossly offensive”, knowingly false information to cause “annoyance, inconvenience”, with an imprisonment for a term extendable to three years, plus a fine. 66A was infamously misused in both personal and political contexts; with the constitutionality of such a provision was challenged and brought to court after an incident in 2012; wherein the Mumbai Police apprehend two girls, Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan, for posting a lambasted remark on Facebook against a then-imposed bandh imposed in the wake of a prominent politician’s death. The girls were later released, however, their apprehension was widely criticised across the country, spurring multiple petitions challenging 66A’s constitutionality and its violation of freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Chief among these was the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Shrey Singhal, a then Delhi-based law student, arguing that 66A was vaguely phrased, violative of Article 14, 19(1)(a) and 21.
In the ensuing landmark judgement of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015 (“Shreya Singhal”), a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously struck down Section 66A in its entirety as unconstitutional, resting on the following findings:

1. Vagueness and overbreadth, due to expressions like “grossly offensive”, “annoyance” were incapable of any legal meaning, and highly subjective. It was a criminal provision which failed to give citizens fair notice of what speech was prohibited.
2. Chilling effect on free speech, since it resulted in citizens potentially self-policing and restricting themselves to avoid even permissible speech, out of fear of prosecution. 
3. Article 19(2) already exhaustively laid down eight grounds on restrictions to freedom of speech; which made recourse to free-standing judicial/legislative invented ground on restraint on speech unnecessary.
4. Advocacy not being tantamount to incitement, because the former is protected under Article 19(1)(a).

Further, Section 66A was itself declared void ab initio in 2015, yet never got fully purged from the criminal justice system. In IFF’s 2018 working paper, “Section 66A and Other Legal Zombies”, documented police stations and lower courts keeping on still registering and prosecuting cases under this dead provision, years after Shreya Singhal; largely because the judgement never really got systematically disseminated to law enforcement. This prompted the People's Union For Civil Liberties (“PUCL”), the original petitioner, to return to the Supreme Court in 2019 seeking directions on actual dissemination of the knowledge about the struck down provision. To track the scale of the issue, IFF and CivicDataLab launched the Zombie Tracker in January 2021, which is a public database of prosecutions which still happened to invoke Section 66A. As of last database update (15.02.2020), the Tracker recorded 1,307 fresh cases registered after Shreya Singhal, 570 still pending, and 104 which reached judgement. A subsequent All-India status report, which was placed on record by the Union Government counsel before the Supreme Court on 12.10.2022 in PUCL v. UOI (MA No. 901 of 2021 in WP(Cr) No. 199 of 2013) confirmed that this 66A backlog’s existence persisted well beyond the Tracker’s own cut off date.
The lesson therein for the Committee is that even a provision which already has been unanimously, unambiguously invalidated by the Supreme Court is still being weaponised against citizens, without efforts for correction. A “social media defamation” provision which just happens to be worded differently, and might be similarly vague, would risk years of continued prosecution even after the courts strike it down.
In a similar vein, Kerala in 2020 had a similar experience with Section 118A of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 which criminalized communication intended to “threaten, abuse, humiliate, or defame” a person, making it a cognizable and bailable offence, carrying imprisonment of up to three years. It was justified publicly on the grounds of “curbing cyberbullying and misinformation” but due to public backlash of it being a resurrection of Section 66A IT Act, the Kerala Government rightfully repealed the provision within a week. 
Kerala is not the only precedent in this regard. July 2025 saw Karnataka’s draft Fake News Bill propose a “Fake News on Social Media Regulatory Authority” (which IFF has previously talked about) with penalties up to seven years imprisonment, and Rs 10 Lakh fines for offences built around undefined terms like “disrespect to culture”. IFF’s submission on that Bill asked the Karnataka Government to drop the criminal provisions therein instead pursuing narrowly tailored, rights respecting civil and administrative measures. 
Read together, a clear pattern emerges from the post-Shreya Singhal era’s Kerala and Karnataka examples: whatever the label, be it “cyberbullying”, “misinformation”, “fake news”, or now, “social media defamation”, any such easily invoked, vaguely worded, executively administrated route to restrict online speech has resurfaced in some permutation or variation in India various times since Shreya Singhal; and has been always struck down, or repealed.
Lastly, defamation in India isn’t an unprosecuted activity either; with Section 356 of the BNS defining defamation as the making or publication of “… any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person…”. This definition is technologically neutral, applied with equal force to a statement printed in a newspaper, versus spoken at a public meeting, versus posted on Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter/X. Section 356 also carries ten statutorily built-in exceptions: public good, good-faith opinion on conduct of a public servant, and many others, all of them balancing the right to reputable under Article 21 against the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The premise which moulds the Committee’s reported recommendation (that a “legal vacuum” exists in respect of online defamatory content) doesn’t withstand scrutiny, when put up against the text of Section 356 of the BNS. What appears to be sought is the creation of a new, lower-threshold, more easily invoked and criminalized route specifically targeting online speech; which brings the Sadanand Date Committee’s proposal squarely within constitutional infirmities which led the Supreme Court to strike down Section 66A of the IT Act, 11 years ago in Shreya Singhal.
Analysis 
RTI disclosures reported by The Indian Express on 18th August 2026 revealed that the Union Government issued nearly 1.95 Lakh blocking orders to Instagram / Facebook / Youtube between March and July 2026 alone. The surge is reported and commonly understood to coincide directly with the period of the student-led protests against examination system irregularities at Jantar Mantar, Delhi. Under IT Act, the Sahyog portal currently operates without procedural safeguards laid down in Shreya Singhal, and is itself the subject of ongoing litigation before the courts on these grounds.
This also comes at a time when India’s press freedom index, academic freedom index, etc indicators have been at their most rapid decline in decades; with India ranking 157th out of 180 countries in the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) Press Freedom index 2026, and in the bottom 10-20% of 179 countries in the Academic Freedom Index 2026, published by the V-Dem Institute. We cite these indices not for their precise ordinal rank (which is contestable, contested, and always debated over), but only for the consistent and convergent direction of travel they document across the decades, across independent, methodologically distinct international indices. The Committee's proposal risks accelerating, rather than arresting such a downward trajectory.
In such a climate, unstructured public criticism on social media, for a great many citizens, is close to the only avenue left, which constitutes a large part of citizen’s civic and democratic speech participation. Young citizens in particular have turned to social media as their primary forum for expressing frustration with the state of governance, examinations, employment, and public services. Further, such expression many times happens to be an unavoidable feature of unmediated mass public discourse in every genuine democracy. It is not, by itself, a constitutionally sufficient reason to criminalize it beyond the well-settled boundaries of defamation, incitement, and the other Article 19(2) grounds. The words of the Supreme Court in Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya, 2021, are apt in this context:
"India is a plural and multicultural society. The promise of liberty, enunciated in the Preamble, manifests itself in various provisions which outline each citizen’s rights; they State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 12
include the right to free speech, to travel freely and settle (subject to such reasonable restrictions that may be validly enacted) throughout the length and breadth of India. At times, when in the legitimate exercise of such a right, individuals travel, settle down or carry on a vocation in a place where they find conditions conducive, there may be resentments, especially if such citizens prosper, leading to hostility or possibly violence. In such instances, if the victims voice their discontent, and speak out, especially if the state authorities turn a blind eye, or drag their feet, such voicing of discontent is really a cry for anguish, for justice denied – or delayed. This is exactly what appears to have happened in this case."
Any broadened, more easily invoked criminal offence (akin to the stuck down 66A) would risk capturing and fritzing away exactly this category of legitimate democratic expression, right at a moment when the space for its other outlets is already visibly narrowing.
Action 
IFF wishes to be clear, we believe that the defamation issue has uncontroversially already been settled by constitutional law, and has adequate measles under the BNS. IFF has filed a representation to the office of the DGP of Maharashtra, Shri Sadanand Date, and also filed an RTI request to the department. In our official representation, we submitted the following recommendations, respectfully urging the Committee to:

1. Decline to recommend a state-specific amendment for “social media defamation”; on the ground that Section 356 BNS already comprehensively governs that field, in a manner technologically neutral and constitutionally balanced
2. As an alternative, should the Committee still consider some legislative response necessary, such a legislative response recommendation should not lower the existing threshold of culpability, should not alter the non-cognizable character of the offence, and should not introduce any term or standard broader or vaguer than the language which is already upheld in Section 356 BNS
3. Practice transparency, by making public and subject to genuine pre-legislative consultation for the Committee’s final report, precise text of proposed amendment, and also the “safeguards against misuse” referred to in press reports, alongside any legal opinion obtained from the Advocate General of Maharashtra. This would be consistent with the Union Government’s own Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, 2014. and
4. In formulating any recommendation, expressly record and kindly have regard for the cumulative empirical context set out in Part D of the representation letter, pertaining to the current political and civil-liberties climate. This includes: current scale of content-restriction activity, trajectories reflected in independent press-freedom and academic freedom indices, etc.

This post has been drafted with great assistance from R. Aditya, Policy Intern at IFF.
Important Links

1. IFF’s Representation to the Office of the DGP of Maharashtra [Link] 
2. RTI Request filed on 24.08.2026 to the Home Department of the Maharashtra Government [Link]
3. IFF and CivicDataLab, Zombie Tracker [Link]

J&K RTI Portal Logs 65,243 Applications In 19 Months

Kashmir Observer: Jammu: Thursday, 3^rd September 2026.

The online RTI portal for Jammu and Kashmir has received more than 65,000 RTI applications and 9,000 first appeals in 19 months since its launch, highlighting the increasing use of online mechanisms by citizens across the Union territory for accessing information, officials said.
The figures were disclosed by the General Administration Department (GAD) in response to an RTI application filed by Jammu-based RTI activist Raman Kumar Sharma.
According to the official reply issued on August 27, the J&K RTI online portal was officially launched on January 10, 2025, to facilitate citizens in filing Right to Information (RTI) applications online.
“According to the available records, the portal received 65,243 RTI applications between January 10, 2025, and August 26, 2026,” the GAD said, adding that 9,033 first appeals were also received during the same period.
The J&K portal was launched by Chief Minister Omar Abdullah in 2025 whereas the Central online portal has been operational since 2013.
On queries about the number of public authorities, central public information officers (CPIOs) and first appellate authorities onboarded on the J&K portal, the GAD said the applications are transferred to the National Informatics Centre (NIC), J&K, under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, for furnishing the requisite information.
The department said the procedure for onboarding public authorities, CPIOs or first appellate authorities is in consonance with the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
The GAD said a list of public authorities and details of nodal officers are available on the RTI portal.
Sharma said the substantial number of applications received within a relatively short period highlighted the increasing reliance of citizens on the online RTI system.
Read Also Delhi HC Rejects Plea to Bring RGF Under RTI RTI Exposes Oversight Gaps in ₹1.25 Crore Kashmir Beautification Project
He demanded the inclusion of more public authorities on the RTI portal, including officials at the district, tehsil and block levels.
Sharma cited the example of the education department and said while PIOs at the directorate level in both Kashmir and Jammu divisions are available on the RTI portal, the offices of chief education officers are unavailable.
He said the same is the case with the district offices of the police department and the rural development department.
“The GAD must ensure a clear, transparent policy for onboarding new authorities instead of giving vague replies or transferring queries to the NIC,” Sharma said.
He also appealed to Chief Minister Omar Abdullah to intervene and expedite the process, especially for grassroots-level offices, so that the common man can benefit from the transparency promised by the RTI Act.

MDU ex-VC Prof Rajbir’s 2 official cars clocked 3.5 lakh km in 7 years: RTI reply

Times of India: Rohtak: Thursday, 3^rd September 2026.
Two official vehicles used by Rohtak’s Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU) former vice chancellor Professor Rajbir Singh covered more than 3.5 lakh kilometres over nearly seven years, according to information furnished by the university under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The information was provided by MDU in response to an RTI application filed by activist Jaipal Dhankar, who has alleged irregularities in the use of the university vehicles and sought a vigilance inquiry into the matter.
According to the university’s reply, Singh used the two official vehicles from January 7, 2019, when he was appointed temporary vice-chancellor, until February 20, 2026, when his second consecutive term ended. The two vehicles together recorded an average travel of around 135 km a day during the period.
Singh served as temporary VC from January 2019 to February 2020 while also holding the charge of Vice-Chancellor of Dada Lakhmi Chand State University of Performing and Visual Arts. He subsequently served two consecutive three-year terms as MDU VC from February 21, 2020, to February 20, 2026.
Dhankar has questioned several entries in the vehicle logbooks, claiming that the distances recorded for some journeys were substantially higher than the usual road distance between the destinations.
For instance, the normal round-trip distance between Rohtak and Panchkula is around 456 km, while the MDU vehicle logbook recorded 684 km for a journey on July 2, 2020. Another journey on the same route on August 25, 2020, was recorded at 720 km.
Similarly, the round-trip distance between Rohtak and Gurugram is around 160 km, whereas the logbook showed 288 km for a journey on April 3, 2021.
In another instance, a Rohtak-Jind journey on June 22, 2021, was recorded at 243 km, despite the usual round-trip distance between the two cities being around 136 km. The entry also mentioned local travel in Jind.
Likewise, the round-trip distance between Rohtak and Narnaul in Mahendragarh district is around 260 km, while the vehicle logbook recorded 360 km.
Dhankar said the discrepancies warranted a detailed scrutiny of the vehicle logbooks, route details and official travel records.
When contacted by TOI, Prof Singh dismissed the allegations and said all procedures had been followed as per the rules. “Everything was done as per rules. We followed due procedural law,” he said.

Gurugram's celebrated 'demolition man' RS Batth fined Rs 25,000 for 4-year RTI stonewalling : Sumedha Sharma

The Tribune: Gurgaon: Wednesday, 2^nd September 2026.
The Commission has also recommended to send Batth for training at Haryana Institute of Public Administration to sensitise him on statutory compliance, institutional discipline

R S Batth, the DTP (Enforcement) official who has emerged as the celebrated face of GMDA’s demolition drives against encroachment in Gurugram, has been fined Rs 25,000 by the Haryana State Information Commission for a four-year delay in furnishing information under the RTI Act.
Beyond the fine, the Commission has also recommended under Section 25(5) that the Additional Chief Secretary, Town & Country Planning, send Batth for training at the Haryana Institute of Public Administration (HIPA) to sensitise him on statutory compliance and institutional discipline.
In the orders, State Information Commissioner Dr Ajay Kumar Sura held that Batth then SPIO-cum-District Town Planner (HQ) at the Directorate of Town & Country Planning, and now posted at GMDA had “persistently” failed to comply with the Commission’s directions and repeatedly skipped hearings despite being issued a show-cause notice as far back as August 2023.
The penalty stems from an RTI application filed on January 4, 2022, seeking details of the rules, policies and guidelines governing part-occupation and occupation certificates for group housing licences sanctioned between 2007 and 2016. The Commission had first directed complete, point-wise information to be furnished within two weeks on July 13, 2023, a direction Batth did not comply with, prompting the show-cause notice.
In his written reply, Batth had argued that relevant Acts, Rules and the Haryana Building Code 2017 were available on the department’s website. The Commission rejected this explanation as “fundamentally misconceived,” holding that an SPIO “cannot substitute a general reference to statutes, rules or a departmental website for a reasoned and point-wise response” to information specifically sought.
Calling the four-year delay “extraordinary” and citing Batth’s repeated non-appearance despite specific orders requiring his presence, the Commission invoked Section 20(1) of the RTI Act to impose the penalty, to be recovered from his salary or, if applicable, his pension.
The Commission has separately directed that appellant be allowed to inspect records pertaining to the disputed information within a month, with the concerned SPIOs required to file a compliance report within 45 days.

164 government healthcare institutions in southern Tamil Nadu lack STPs: RTI

DT Next: Madurai: Wednesday, 2^nd September 2026.
Many of these hospitals are discharging untreated waste, including biomedical waste, to rivers and other waterbodies, alleges petitioner

As many as 164 government hospitals in 10 districts in south Tamil Nadu, including government medical colleges, do not have functioning waste treatment plants, revealed information obtained under RTI.
Based on a public interest litigation that alleged that many of these hospitals are discharging untreated waste, including biomedical waste, to rivers and other waterbodies, the Madras High Court on Tuesday directed the State government and Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to file a report on the status of Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) and Effluent Treatment Plants (ETPs) in government healthcare institutions in southern Tamil Nadu.
When the case came up for hearing before a division bench comprising Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice R Sakthivel, the petitioner, R Manibharathi, an advocate from Madurai, cited the RTI information, which revealed that 164 government healthcare institutions in Thoothukudi, Kanniyakumari, Ramanathapuram, Tenkasi, Virudhunagar, Tirunelveli, Dindigul, Sivaganga, Pudukkottai, and Dharmapuri were listed as functioning without STPs.
The list covers Government Medical College Hospitals, Government Hospitals, District Headquarters Hospitals, Taluk Hospitals, Urban/Upgraded Primary Health Centres, and Primary Health Centres.
In the case of Government Rajaji Medical College Hospital, Madurai, one of the largest tertiary-care government hospitals in southern Tamil Nadu, though an STP had been installed, it was not functioning properly due to non-payment of electricity bills, said the petitioner, adding that untreated sewage was consequently being discharged into the Vaigai river.
The Government Medical College Hospital in Thoothukudi does not have an STP facility, according to the petitioner. He also informed the court that several hospitals, including Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, had not responded to the RTI applications.
Biomedical waste generated in hospitals, including pathological waste, microbiological waste, blood-contaminated materials, operation theatre waste, laboratory waste, discarded medicines, human tissues, body organs, dressings, sharps, contaminated plastics, liquid biomedical waste, blood, saliva, body fluids, and other infectious materials, is inherently hazardous, the petitioner pointed out, adding that if such waste is handled strictly in accordance with scientific standards prescribed under law, it poses serious risks of spreading infectious diseases, contaminating groundwater, damaging the ecosystem, and endangering the lives of hospital staff, patients, sanitation workers, and the general public.
The petitioner cited Rule 4 of the Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016, which imposes a statutory obligation on every occupier of a healthcare facility to ensure that biomedical waste is handled without any adverse effect on human health or the environment.
The Rule also mandates segregation of waste at source, barcoding, pre-treatment wherever necessary, scientific treatment of liquid biomedical waste, and disposal through authorised common biomedical waste treatment facilities.
The Government Rajaji Medical College Hospital, Madurai, one of the largest tertiary-care government hospitals in southern Tamil Nadu, has an STP, but it was not functioning properly due to non-payment of electricity bills, and untreated sewage was being discharged into the Vaigai river, said the PIL
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, prohibits the discharge of untreated sewage and trade effluents into streams, wells, sewers or land. However, several government hospitals were violating these provisions, the petitioner alleged.
The petitioner also cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti v. Union of India, which, he submitted, mandated institutions discharging effluents to have functional treatment plants.
He sought directions to the State government to install ETPs in all government healthcare institutions, and also periodic inspections and publication of inspection and maintenance records.
Recording the submissions, the court directed the respondents to file a status report and posted the case for further hearing on October 8.

Access fee code change adds to RTI woes : Rashidul Hasan

Daily-Sun.com: Bangladesh: Wednesday, 2^nd September 2026.
Information seekers have been left without effective redress against public offices denying access to information for the past two years, while a change in the economic code for information access fees has added a fresh layer of difficulty.

The Information Commission has been without two commissioners and a chief commissioner since the fall of the Awami League government, leaving complaints from information seekers unheard.
They are now facing further harassment because banks are not accepting fees under the old economic code, while some public offices are refusing receipts generated using the new code.
The online A Challan system has also made fee payment difficult, with many users unable to find the information access fee option, creating further problems for those seeking information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Liton Kumar Pramanik, public relations officer of the Information Commission, said 845 complaints had been received from information seekers as of 30 August.
“But there has been no hearing on the complaints since August 2024,” he said, leaving the grievances unresolved.
A public office RTI section official told the Daily Sun, “We are facing a problem as we are not notified by the Information Commission about the code change issue. Besides, many come to us with the allegation that banks are not receiving the code number.”
RTI applicants had faced the problem of a changed economic code for the information access fee for about a year, but the Information Commission had not informed RTI offices through any letter about the change.
As a result, banks sometimes refuse to accept the fee through the offline system, while RTI sections of public offices refuse to accept receipts generated through the online A Challan system.
Finance Division officials said the A Challan system is being maintained under the Strengthening Public Finance Management System project.
Information Commission Deputy Director (Administration and Finance) Healal Ahmed said many people had complained that they could not deposit the fee.
“Many people come to us with the complaints that they cannot deposit money. They allege that A Challan system keeps the economic code inaccessible to the public. We had once written to the ministry regarding the matter,” he said.
Saiful Masum, a Dhaka-based journalist and regular user of the right to information, said he had faced difficulties at banks while submitting the information access fee.
“I faced a problem in banks when submitting the information access fee. They are in a fix regarding which code to use. When I first deposited money using the new code, one public office denied receiving my deposit receipt,” he said.
He said the rate of information delivery had now declined.
Hamidul Islam Hillol, an RTI activist working at Media Resources Development Initiative, said the lack of accountability had discouraged information seekers.
“The RTI officers know there is no scope for getting redress regarding deprivation of information and they don’t have to face any accountability. As a result, the rate of information delivery has declined. As a result information seekers are getting demoralized to apply for information,” he said.
He added, “The government is not appointing the commissioners, which means that they don’t want to face public scrutiny through sharing the information. They don’t want transparency and accountability.”
Complex fee submission system
Information seekers have to deposit the access fee through the A Challan system, maintained under the Strengthening Public Financial Management Program to Enable Service Delivery Project.
RTI activists said they could not find the information access fee code on the website. Hillol said they had formally applied to the government to keep the code operative.
Programme Executive and Coordinator (Joint Secretary) of the SPFMS programme under the Finance Division Muhammad Anisuzzaman said this was not the case.
Zoabyer Ahamed, a junior consultant of the project, said confusion over the missing code arose because the system has two versions – one for official use and another for public use.
“When people search, they mostly get the official-purpose system,” he said.
“We run two versions for a challan; one is general and another training version. The training version is for official use has no access fee code, but when one searches a challan, the training version comes first. We know it; we are trying to ensure the code in the training version also. Google promotes the official version and we are trying to make the public version visible,” he said.
He said verification of identity through NID and birth registration had been disabled because checkers frequently attack the site.
“Anyone can go forward with just writing his name and an identification number,” he said.

Delhi women avail 8.25 crore free bus rides in 4 months, RTI data reveals

India Today: New Delhi: Wednesday, 2^nd September 2026.
The RTI response puts the estimated average number of women passengers travelling daily in DTC buses that month at 6.85 lakh, while the total number of free rides recorded during July stood at 212.23 lakh.

July saw the highest number of free journeys, at more than 2.12 crore, closely followed by April at over 2.11 crore. (Representative image)

Delhi’s women commuters availed 8.25 crore free bus rides between April and July 2026, underlining the sheer scale of the city’s women-only free travel benefit as the Delhi government prepares to shift the scheme from paper tickets to a digital smart-card system.
According to data provided by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, women made 8.25 crore, free journeys during the four-month period. The numbers offer a glimpse into how deeply the free bus travel scheme has become woven into the daily commute of women across the capital.
The monthly figures remained consistently high. Women availed 211.45 lakh free rides in April, 202.80 lakh in May, 199.12 lakh in June and 212.23 lakh in July. July saw the highest number of free journeys, at more than 2.12 crore, closely followed by April at over 2.11 crore.
The July figures also show the scale of daily usage. The RTI response puts the estimated average number of women passengers travelling daily in DTC buses that month at 6.85 lakh, while the total number of free rides recorded during July stood at 212.23 lakh.
The massive usage comes at a significant transition point for Delhi’s flagship women’s bus travel scheme. The government is replacing the familiar paper Pink Tickets with the Pink Saheli Smart Card, an NCMC-based digital card for eligible women residents of Delhi.
The new system was expected to become mandatory from August 31. However, the Delhi government has now extended the existing Pink Ticket facility until September 17, allowing women to continue availing free travel while the transition to the smart-card system takes place.
Transport Minister Pankaj Singh announced the extension on Monday. The move means women commuters will get additional time to shift from paper tickets to the new digital system.
Chief Minister Rekha Gupta had launched the Pink Saheli scheme as the government’s next phase of the women’s free bus travel programme. The digital system is aimed at making the scheme more transparent, efficient and trackable, while replacing the manual distribution of paper tickets inside buses.

Karnataka High Court Allows Villa Buyer To Place RTI Records In Award Challenge Over Occupancy Certificate : By - Shivani PS

Live Law Biz: Bangalore: Tuesday, 01 September 2026.

The Karnataka High Court on 25 August partly allowed villa buyer A.R. Krishnamani's petition and set aside an order of the Bengaluru Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge refusing to take on record Right to Information (RTI) replies and other official documents concerning a disputed occupancy certificate.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that a party challenging an arbitral award on the ground of fraud can produce additional evidence before a Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 only in rare and exceptional circumstances where such material is necessary to decide the fraud allegation. The Bench observed:
“A party challenging an award on the ground of fraud has no right, as a matter of course, to produce additional evidence before the Section 34 Court. Such permission may be granted only in a rare and exceptional case, where the conditions set out above are satisfied and where the reception of the material is absolutely necessary to decide the clause (b) ground, with a corresponding opportunity to the other side to meet it.”
The dispute arose from sale and construction agreements between Krishnamani and Lakepoint Builders Pvt. Ltd. for a residential villa. The developer was required to complete construction by December 2015.
Krishnamani alleged that despite paying 80% of the purchase consideration by March 2014, the construction was delayed and the villa's built-up area was 490 square feet less than agreed.
The arbitrator rejected Krishnamani's claim for delay compensation in an award dated 12 October 2021, relying on an occupancy certificate dated 27 April 2017, stated to have been issued by the Anneshwara Gram Panchayat. Krishnamani subsequently sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. In a response dated 14 February 2022, the authorities stated that the requested information concerning the occupancy certificate was not available in the Panchayat's records.
A further reply dated 7 December 2023 referred to a 15 May 2023 inspection report, which indicated that the document relied upon as the occupancy certificate had not been issued according to the Panchayat's records.
Krishnamani had challenged the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 23 August 2022, seeking its partial setting aside on the ground that it was against India's public policy and vitiated by fraud. He later sought to place the RTI material and related official documents before the Section 34 Court.
The Bengaluru Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge rejected the request on 16 September 2025, holding that following the 2019 amendment to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court could consider only material forming part of the arbitral record.
The amendment to Section 34(2)(a) replaced the words “furnishes proof” with “establishes on the basis of the record of the arbitral tribunal”, thereby restricting challenges under that provision to material placed before the arbitral tribunal.
Krishnamani then approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. He argued that the requirement that a challenge be established from the arbitral record applies to Section 34(2)(a), whereas his fraud challenge fell under Section 34(2)(b).
Lakepoint Builders opposed the petition, arguing that additional evidence cannot be introduced routinely in Section 34 proceedings and that allowing parties to improve their cases after arbitration would undermine the summary and final nature of arbitral proceedings.
The High Court held that the 2019 amendment did not impose an absolute bar on receiving additional material under Section 34(2)(b). However, such material can be received only in rare and exceptional cases where it is necessary to decide the ground raised.
The Bench found the requirement satisfied in the present case as the documents were directly connected with the occupancy certificate relied upon in the arbitral award and the allegation of fraud. It therefore set aside the 16 September 2025 order and directed that the documents be taken on record, without expressing any finding on the alleged fraud.
It further held that receiving material relating to fraud in such circumstances does not convert a Section 34 Court into an appellate court. It held:
“A Section 34 Court that receives, in a fit case, a document going to fraud is not converting itself into a Court of appeal and is not reappreciating the arbitrator's evidence. It is doing no more than the statute requires when a Clause (b) ground of fraud is raised. The safeguard against abuse lies not in a blanket refusal to look at anything outside the record, but in the strict application of the above”.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the Section 34 Court to take the RTI replies and related official documents on record and proceed with the challenge expeditiously. It left Lakepoint Builders free to contest their authenticity, admissibility and evidentiary value.
Appearances for petitioner (A.R. Krishnamani): Advocate Pradeep Nayak.
Appearances for respondent (Lakepoint Builders Pvt. Ltd.): Advocate Nishanth A.V.

Haryana info panel calls for town planner to be trained, fines him

The Times of India: Gurgaon: Tuesday, 01 September 2026.
Haryana State Information Commission (HSIC) on Monday recommended to additional chief secretary of the department of town and country planning (DTCP) that district town planner RS Batth be sent for an “appropriate training programme”. It also imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000.

HSIC has recommended the training to sensitise Batth on RTI obligations, compliance with statutory and quasi-judicial authorities, record management, public accountability and standards of conduct expected of a public servant.
According to HSIC, the direction was given after the town planner failed to provide information sought under an RTI for the last four years and repeatedly disregarded directions of the commission.
It said he should be preferably sent for the training programme at Haryana Institute of Public Administration (HIPA) or at such other institutions as the competent authority may consider appropriate.
The RTI applicant had sought information from the DTCP on the number of occupation certificates (OCs) given to group housing projects, licensed between Jan 1, 2007 and June 30, 2016. Batth was with DTCP when the RTI application was filed.
Bharat Jain, the applicant, told the commission that the department had not provided the specific information sought. Instead, it had supplied a copy of the Haryana Building Code, 2017 and referred him to the Act, rules and policies available on the department’s website. He said that it did not answer his query.
The commission had earlier directed Batth to provide complete and point-wise information within two weeks. It also issued a show-cause notice on Aug 4, 2023, after noting the delay.
The matter continued for more than four years. The commission noted that Batth repeatedly failed to appear before it despite several opportunities. It also found that he had not given a satisfactory explanation for the delay or his failure to comply with its directions.
“An SPIO (state public information officer) cannot substitute a general reference to statutes, rules or a departmental website for a reasoned and point-wise response when specific information is sought. The RTI Act does not make a citizen’s right to information dependent on the convenience or format in which a public authority maintains its records,” the commission noted.
The department eventually furnished information on different dates between 2023 and 2026.
However, the commission said subsequent disclosure did not erase the delay and thereby imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
The commission has also given Jain a final opportunity to inspect records relating to four disputed points of his RTI and obtain copies of permissible documents and asked the department to submit a compliance report within 45 days.
The competent authority has further been asked to examine whether any other official contributed to the delay or non-compliance and consider appropriate action under service rules.

'Jantar Mantar Pellet Gun Allegations Don't Qualify As Human Rights Violations': CRPF Response To RTI

ETV Bharat: New Delhi: Tuesday, 01 September 2026.
Former TMC Rajya Sabha MP Saket Gokhale, who had filed the RTI, to now appeal before Supreme Court, says response is “baffling”.

CRPF HQ (ETV Bharat)

The Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) has refused to disclose information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, regarding the alleged use of pellet ammunition against protesters during the July 20 demonstrations at Jantar Mantar in Delhi, stating that the allegations do not fall under the 'human rights violation exception' provided under law.
The CRPF's response came, after Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Saket Gokhale sought details from the Rapid Action Force (RAF), a specialised wing of the CRPF, regarding the alleged firing of pellet ammunition at protesters during the demonstrations on July 20.
The response assumes significance as security organisations, including the CRPF, are exempt from the RTI Act under Section 24(1), but the exemption does not apply to information pertaining to allegations of corruption or violation of human rights.
In his RTI application, Gokhale specifically sought a certified copy of the ammunition log/issue-and-expenditure register of RAF contingents deployed in areas including Jantar Mantar, Parliament Street and Connaught Place. He also sought details of the quantity and type of ammunition issued and used, including pellet/plastic-pellet cartridges and tear-smoke shells.
In its first response, the RAF said security organisations were exempt from disclosure under Section 24(1), except in cases involving allegations of corruption or human rights violations. However, it said the information sought related to the “operational and security-related matter” of the force and that the allegations made in the application did not come under the human-rights exception.
Gokhale subsequently filed a first appeal, challenging the denial.
The appellate authority, in an order dated August 21, again rejected the plea. It reiterated that the information sought concerned operational and security-related matters and held that the allegations did not attract the proviso relating to human rights violations under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act.
Gokhale vehemently criticised the decision, arguing that the alleged use of pellet ammunition against unarmed protesters, resulting in serious injuries, including in the eye, should qualify for scrutiny under the human rights exception. He also alleged that the authorities initially denied that pellets were used, and subsequently declined to provide details concerning the number of people affected.
Calling the CRPF’s position “baffling”, Gokhale said he would submit the RTI correspondence and the CRPF’s replies before the Supreme Court, and seek the court’s view on whether allegations concerning the use of pellet ammunition against protesters can be excluded from the human rights exception under Section 24(1).
"First the Modi-Shah government denied that pellet guns were used. Then, when exposed, they refused to give details of the total number of victims. And now, it is 'baffling' that use of pellet guns (banned under international law) on unarmed youth in India’s capital is not considered to be a human rights violation by Amit Shah’s CRPF," said Gokhle.
When this correspondent tried to get additional reactions from the CRPF, a spokesperson of the force denied to make any further comment.

No court relief for Karnataka activist who sought details of fined RTI officials - Written by: Mustafa Plumber

Indian Express: Bengaluru: Tuesday, 01 September 2026.
The Karnataka High Court termed the RTI application ‘yet another case of abuse’ of the law and said the activist failed to explain the purpose of his plea.

The activist moved the Karnataka High Court after the information commission rejected his application for details of PIOs who withheld information and the fines collected from them in 2021-22. (File Photo)

The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed by an activist who approached the court after being denied details of penalties and disciplinary action against public information officers (PIOs) who had failed to provide information under the Right to Information Act.
A bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said the Karnataka Information Commission does not maintain such information and that the activist, Ramesh Babu N, “was unable to furnish the reason why this information is sought”.
Replying to the judge’s question about the purpose for which Babu had sought the information, his counsel said the activist was a “public-spirited person”.
Section 6(2) of the Right to Information Act states that an applicant shall not be required to give any reason for requesting information or any personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting them.
“This court is of the opinion that this is yet another case of abuse of RTI Act. It is not only abuse of RTI which this court would have to look at but the effect of the abuse of the Act,” Justice Govindaraj said in his order.
“The RTI Act, being a beneficial enactment for the purpose of securing information to those in need of information, cannot be misused or abused to any person seeking information for the purpose of a roving/fishing inquiry into the action taken under Section 20,” he added.
Babu moved the court after the commission rejected his application for details of the erring PIOs and the total fines collected from them in 2021-22 as per sections 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act. He also asked for details of PIOs who refused to pay fines, as well as action initiated against them.
Advocate G B Sharath Gowda, appearing for the commission, submitted, “We are not expected to maintain these details. What happens is we direct the penalty to be paid by the PIOs to the state exchequer, and we direct the superior officer of the concerned department to collect it and deposit it with the state government.”
‘Genuine applicants pay the price’
The court also observed that if a few people misuse the RTI Act, genuine applicants may be denied the information they seek or face delays while “frivolous or vexatious applications” are considered.
“Though this court would look at encouraging applications under the RTI Act, this court would also look at discouraging the abuse of the RTI Act,” Justice Govindaraj added.
After the petition was dismissed, the court orally clarified that RTI applications should have valid reasons even though the commission or PIOs need not adjudicate them.
“If the information is sought for publishing or research, the information has to be furnished. If the petitioner had given a valid reason, we may have allowed it,” the court added.
The court also referred to a case where more than half of the 45,000 pending RTI appeals were filed by nine people whom the state information commission has subsequently blacklisted.

Privacy and Transparency: Understanding the DPDPA Amendment to the RTI Act

NASSCOM: National: Tuesday, 01 September 2026.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDPA) establishes the framework for protecting digital personal data while enabling its lawful processing. The consequential amendment made to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2025 has raised a constitutional question: how should India reconcile the right to privacy with the citizen’s right to information?

Nasscom had highlighted this issue during the stakeholder consultations in 2022 itself wherein we had emphasised the right to personal data protection must not hamper the right to information on matters of public interest.
The issue arises from Section 44(3) of DPDPA which amended Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The amendment came into force on 13 November 2025. The principal challenge is presently before the Supreme Court in Venkatesh Nayak v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 177/2026 along with other connected petitions.
Amendment to the RTI Act via DPDPA
Section 8 of the RTI Act sets out information that public authorities are not obliged to disclose.
Prior to the amendment, Section 8(1)(j) provided a balanced exemption to:
information relating to personal information where disclosure had no relationship to public activity or interest, or would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless larger public interest justified disclosure.
Section 44(3) of the DPDPA removes the public interest test. It exempts all personal information from disclosure under the RTI Act without needing to balance privacy against public benefit. 
It replaces this sub clause with this: “information which relates to personal information”.
Position before the amendment
A Public Information Officer (“PIO”) examining personal information was required to engage with questions such as: Is the information connected with a public activity or public interest? Would disclosure result in an unwarranted invasion of privacy? If privacy is implicated, does the larger public interest justify disclosure? This approach required a balancing exercise between transparency and privacy.
The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench in CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019) emphasised that “the public interest test in the context of the RTI Act would mean reflecting upon the object and purpose behind the right to information, the right to privacy and consequences of invasion, and breach of confidentiality and possible harm and injury that would be caused to the third party, with reference to particular information and the person.” For the purpose of Section 8(1)(j), the Court also clarified that it would treat the word “information,” which if disclosed would lead to invasion of privacy, to mean personal information, as distinct from public information.
Legal position post Amendment
The specific language relating to: relationship with public activity or interest; unwarranted invasion of privacy; and “larger public interest” within Section 8(1)(j) has been removed. In other words, the newly substituted clause simply refers to information which relates to personal information and broadens the scope of exemption from disclosure.
What is the constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court
The petitions challenge several provisions of the DPDP Act and Rules. In relation to RTI, the principal challenge is to Section 44(3). The petition contends that the amendment infringes Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution.
The petitioners’ argument is that the amended Section 8(1)(j) could operate as a much broader exemption from disclosure than the previous provision and information relating to a public official, public decision, public expenditure or the exercise of public power may contain personal information while simultaneously having substantial public significance. The petitioners argue that the amendment removes that balancing mechanism from Section 8(1)(j) and therefore weakens the constitutional right to information and the citizen’s right to know.
On the other hand, in a PIB statement, the government has stated that the amendment to the RTI Act does not prevent the disclosure of personal information. It simply requires that such information be assessed with care and shared only after considering the privacy interests involved. At the same time, Section 8(2) of the RTI Act remains fully operative which stipulates that a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.
Core Issues before the Court
First, the amendment has not eliminated every public-interest route to disclosure under the RTI Act. This is because Section 8(2) of the RTI Act still allows disclosure where public interest outweighs the harm to the protected interest. However, before the DPDP amendment, Section 8(1)(j) itself required authorities to balance privacy against public interest when dealing with personal information. The amendment removed this specific balancing test and replaced it with a broader exemption for information relating to personal information.
In short, public interest remains a ground for disclosure under Section 8(2), but it is no longer expressly built into Section 8(1)(j) because Section 8(2), by contrast, is a broader provision that says a public authority “may” allow access where the public interest outweighs the harm.
Therefore, the legal question is not whether public interest can still justify disclosure. It is whether Section 8(2), along with the amended Section 8(1)(j), provides enough protection against the excessive withholding of personal information. This is one of the issues the Supreme Court may have to decide.
Second, the amended RTI provision uses the expression “personal information.” DPDPA, however, principally defines “personal data”, not “personal information”. Therefore, it does not expressly say that every reference to “personal information” in the RTI Act must automatically be interpreted using the DPDPA’s definition of personal data. This could become an important interpretive issue.
Conclusion
Given the need to harmonise two crucial individual rights, our objective should not be to choose any one right at the cost of the other one. It should be to establish rules that protect privacy without making legitimate accountability impossible, and preserve transparency without turning personal information into a public commodity. The Supreme Court’s judgement may shape the broader philosophy of India's digital governance framework.