Wife can’t use RTI to access husband’s ITRs for maintenance case: Delhi High Court sets aside CIC order

Times of India: New Delhi: Saturday, 18 July 2026.

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the wife cannot use the RTI Act, 2005 to get her husband's income tax information for use in maintenance proceedings because income tax returns are “personal information” exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Court clarified that matrimonial disputes cannot be converted into a ground for disclosure of private financial information through the RTI mechanism, particularly when remedies for financial disclosure already exist under matrimonial law.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav delivered the judgment in a writ petition filed by the husband challenging an order passed by the Central Information Commission directing disclosure of his net taxable income from the financial year 2007-08 onwards.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute arose out of ongoing matrimonial litigation between the petitioner-husband and respondent-wife. During the pendency of maintenance proceedings, the wife sought details of the husband’s income through an RTI application filed before the Income Tax Department.
The Central Information Commission, by its order dated 22.07.2021, directed disclosure of the husband’s taxable income details.
Aggrieved by the said direction, the husband approached the Delhi High Court challenging the legality of the CIC’s order.
Submissions by the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the information directed to be disclosed was purely personal information and therefore exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
It was argued that income tax records have no connection with any public activity or public interest and disclosure of such information would amount to an invasion of privacy.
The husband further argued that the CIC had erred in directing disclosure of protected personal information merely because matrimonial litigation was pending between the parties. According to the petitioner, the RTI Act could not be used as a mechanism to compel disclosure of private financial information in a personal dispute.
Submissions on Behalf of the Respondent-Wife
The respondent-wife opposed the petition and argued that she had a direct and legitimate interest in knowing the financial details of the petitioner for the purpose of effectively pursuing her maintenance claim.
It was submitted that access to the husband’s income details was required/necessary for proper adjudication of maintenance proceedings and determination of the amount payable. The wife therefore argued that disclosure of the income details was justified in the facts of the case.
Issue Before the Court
The principal issue before the High Court was whether a spouse involved in maintenance proceedings could seek disclosure of the other spouse’s income tax details under the RTI Act by invoking the ground of “larger public interest”.
The Court was thus called upon to interpret Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts the disclosure of personal information unless there is a greater public interest in disclosing the information.
Court’s Analysis of Section 8(1)(j) RTI Act
The Court reviewed the statutory framework under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
It observed that the provision clearly establishes a general rule that personal information is ordinarily exempt from disclosure where it has no relationship to public activity or public interest, or where disclosure would amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The only recognized exception is where larger public interest justifies disclosure.
The Court observed:
“A bare perusal of Section 8(1)(j) indicates that the general rule is that personal information is ordinarily exempted from disclosure if it is unrelated to public interest or if it would cause unnecessary violation of an individual’s privacy.”
The High Court also observed that there was no argument whether the income tax returns and information relating to taxable income of an individual is “personal information”.
In this regard, the Court drew reference from the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner which had held that the income tax returns are personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act from disclosure.
Another significant aspect of the judgment was the Court’s interpretation of the phrase “larger public interest”.
The Court said that the meaning of the expression has to be derived in accordance with the object and scheme of the RTI Act which was enacted to ensure and promote transparency in the working of public authorities and not to help in the disclosure of private information in personal disputes.
The Court held that the expression has to be interpreted in consonance with the object and scheme of the RTI Act, which was enacted to promote transparency in the functioning of public authorities and not to facilitate disclosure of private information in personal disputes.
The Court observed:
“It could not have been the intention of the legislature to allow disclosure of personal information of individuals, having no bearing on the public at large.”
The Court further observed
“Therefore, the concept of ‘larger public interest’ cannot be interpreted in a way that allows misuse of the provisions of the Act.”
Accordingly, the High Court concluded that disclosure of the husband’s income details in a matrimonial dispute does not fall within the exception of “larger public interest”.
RTI Cannot Become a Parallel Tool
The wife had argued that the husband's financial information was essential for adjudication of her maintenance claim.
The High Court, rejecting the submissions made by the respondent-wife, clarified that the RTI mechanism cannot be converted into a parallel tool for collecting evidence in private matrimonial disputes.
The Court also said that the respondent-wife was not remediless, since the law governing maintenance proceedings already mandates financial disclosure by both spouses.
The Court placed its reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajnesh v. Neha, where directions were issued mandating parties in maintenance proceedings to file affidavits disclosing their income, assets, and liabilities.
The Court held that parties in matrimonial disputes are at liberty to seek disclosure of financial information through remedies recognized under matrimonial law rather than through the RTI framework.
CIC Order Set Aside
Taking into account of the statutory provisions and precedents, the Court concluded that the directions given by the CIC to disclose the income details of the husband were unsustainable in law.
The Court observed that if the Court allowed such disclosure under the RTI Act, it would effectively overlook the protection of privacy that is afforded under law, and the rules regulating financial disclosure in matrimonial proceedings.
Accordingly, the impugned order of the Central Information Commission was set aside.
W.P.(C) 8481/2021 & CM APPL. 26235/2021
KAPIL AGARWAL vs CPIO INCOME TAX OFFICER MORADABAD & ANR
(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)

(Click here to Download the Order)

Govt employees’ personal records cannot be disclosed without larger public interest: Chhattisgarh HC

Times of India: Raipur: Saturday, 18 July 2026.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that personal documents and service records of government employees cannot be shared under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, unless a larger public interest is established. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad on July 14 observed that a public servant’s personal documents including caste certificates, residential proof, educational qualifications, affidavits submitted during appointment, and service records fall within the ambit of personal information. The court directed public information officers (PIOs) not to disclose such private details under the RTI Act without proof of significant public interest.

The ruling comes in response to a writ petition filed by a patwari posted at Kamarga under the Lailunga tehsil in Raigarh district. The petitioner was appointed to the post on 7 March 2024. Following his appointment, a private organisation named Crime Free India Force filed an RTI application before the sub-divisional officer (revenue)-cum-PIO, Lailunga, seeking copies of the petitioner’s caste certificate, residential proof, educational documents, affidavits, and service records.
Fearing an invasion of his privacy, the patwari moved the HC seeking relief. The petitioner requested the court to restrain the authorities from providing his personal documents and confidential service records to a third party, arguing that the information is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Senior counsel Mateen Siddiqui and counsel Danish Ahmed Siddiqui, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the requested documents are purely personal and have no connection to any public activity or broader public interest. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the counsel stated that a public servant’s service record, qualification details, and asset disclosures constitute personal information exempt from disclosure. They argued that disclosing such data without substantial public interest violates the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The additional advocate general representing the state government and the counsel for the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission opposed the petition. They argued that the petitioner’s apprehensions are premature as the PIO has not taken a final decision on sharing the information. They submitted that the PIO is a statutory authority who will examine the application under the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and supreme court guidelines.
The HC observed that since the PIO has not passed a final order, intervening through a writ petition at this stage would be premature.
The court has instructed the PIO to independently examine every RTI application. The official must determine whether the requested information is personal. The court stated that if the information is personal and lacks any proven public interest, it must not be provided to the applicant. If the competent authority concludes that disclosure is necessary, a reasoned order must be passed detailing the specific legal grounds.

Section 24(4) RTI Act: Supreme Court Says MP Lokayukta SPE Cannot Claim Intelligence Agency Exemption

Law Beat: New Delhi: Saturday, 18 July 2026.
Holding that the Special Police Establishment is not an "intelligence and security organisation" under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, the Supreme Court invalidated Madhya Pradesh's 2011 notification exempting it from the transparency law.

Supreme Court invalidates MP notification exempting Lokayukta SPE from RTI.

The Supreme Court has held that the Special Police Establishment (SPE) of the Lokayukta in Madhya Pradesh cannot be treated as an "intelligence and security organisation" under Section 24(4) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, and therefore cannot be exempted from the transparency law.
A Bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar declared that the notification dated August 25, 2011, issued by the General Administration Department (GAD) of the Madhya Pradesh government excluding the SPE from the purview of the RTI Act was illegal.
Holding the notification to be excessive, the Bench observed, "The SPE having been conferred jurisdiction only to investigate offences punishable under the PC Act of 1988, Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII of the Penal Code, it cannot be termed to be an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation".
Court accordingly upheld the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment dated December 20, 2021, which had struck down the 2011 notification.
Why did the case reach the Supreme Court?
The appeal arose after the high court directed the SPE to provide information sought by respondent Kamta Prasad Mishra regarding the process of granting sanction for his prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Lokayukta's response to various queries raised by him.
Mishra, who was serving as Town Inspector at Madhav Nagar Police Station in Katni, had been implicated by the Special Police Establishment in a trap case under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
He sought information relating to the decision-making process behind the grant of sanction for his prosecution. After the information was denied, he approached the high court.
The high court held that since the investigation had already been completed and the charge sheet had been filed, the information could not be withheld by invoking Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which exempts information whose disclosure would impede an investigation
Before the Supreme Court, the SPE argued that the RTI Act itself did not apply to it because of the 2011 notification issued under Section 24(4), which exempted the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment of the Lokayukta Organisation from the Act.
Mishra, on the other hand, contended that Section 8(1)(h) had no application because the investigation was over. He submitted that he had merely sought information regarding the manner in which sanction for prosecution was granted and the communications exchanged in that regard, disclosure of which would not impede any investigation.
SPE not an "intelligence and security organisation"
The Supreme Court held that the SPE's statutory functions did not bring it within the scope of Section 24(4) of the RTI Act. Court first rejected the State's objection that the validity of the 2011 notification could not be examined because it had not been specifically challenged before the high court.
It observed that a court is not precluded from examining the validity of subordinate legislation, provided the concerned authority is given an opportunity to justify it.
"It is by now well settled that a piece of subordinate legislation does not carry the same degree of immunity that is enjoyed by a statute passed by a competent legislature. Besides the grounds on which plenary legislation can be challenged, subordinate legislation can also be challenged on the ground that it fails to conform to the statute under which it is made or it exceeds the limits of authority conferred by the enabling statute," the Bench said.
Court noted that the State Government had been given sufficient opportunity to justify the notification in the context of Section 24(4) of the RTI Act.
Examining the statutory scheme, the Bench pointed out that the organisations listed in the Second Schedule to the RTI Act are specifically concerned with intelligence and security and were constituted by the Central Government for those purposes.
In contrast, the SPE has only limited jurisdiction to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with offences under Sections 409, 420 and Chapter XVIII of the Indian Penal Code.
Rejecting the State's argument that the notification was issued to maintain institutional parity, Court observed that even the Lokayukta Organisation itself describes its role as preventing and checking corruption.
Court further noted that under the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt Act, 1981, the Lokayukta has only limited jurisdiction to inquire into allegations against public servants.
"It is, thus, clear that insofar as issues of ‘intelligence’ and ‘security’ are concerned, neither the Lokayukt nor the Up-Lokayukt under the Act of 1981 has been conferred jurisdiction to make any enquiry," the Bench said.
Court also observed that although Section 24(4) permits State Governments to notify "intelligence and security organisations" for exemption under the RTI Act, the SPE does not investigate offences relating to intelligence or security.
"The statutory scheme under which the SPE stands constituted coupled with the jurisdiction conferred on the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt clearly indicate that the SPE cannot be termed to be an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation when it assists the Lokayukt or Up-Lokayukt in matters specified by Section 7 of the Act of 1981," the Bench held.
Holding the 2011 notification to be contrary to law, the Supreme Court upheld the high court's judgment and dismissed the criminal appeal.
Case Title: Special Police Establishment Vs Vs Kamta Prasad Mishra And Others
Bench: Justices J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar
Date of Judgment: June 15, 2026
(Click here to downloadjudgment)

Project Cheetah: Concerns emerge over RTI Act 'violations', 'irregularities' in tranquillisation.

Economic Times: New delhi: Friday, July 17, 2026.

Withholding details about Project Cheetah's implementation due to national-security and foreign-relations concerns, violations of the RTI Act and irregularities in the tranquillisation process of cheetahs in the Kuno National Park are some of the issues that have been raised by wildlife activist Ajay Dubey in a letter to the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA).

The NTCA oversees Project Cheetah.

"Recent actions by the local project authorities -- who have systemically blocked public access to basic animal welfare, veterinary data and administrative expenditure -- render the project's governance both unacceptable and legally untenable," the letter says.

It highlights that Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Uttam Kumar Sharma functions as both the de-facto public information officer (PIO) and the first appellate authority (FAA) within the Project Cheetah administration.

While a PIO is an officer responsible for receiving queries filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and responding to those, the FAA is an officer senior in rank to the PIO within the same public authority, who hears the first appeal if the PIO refuses, delays or gives an incomplete reply.

Dubey told PTI that in 2024, when he filed an RTI query regarding Project Cheetah, he received a response from Sharma, whose designation was mentioned as the PIO.

However, last month, he received another letter regarding his RTI query in which Sharma's designation was mentioned as the FAA.

"This is a severe, illegal violation of the RTI Act, 2005. The law explicitly mandates a clear, independent two-tier structure so an aggrieved citizen can appeal a PIO's decision to a senior officer," Dubey has written in his letter to the NTCA.

The letter also notes that Project Cheetah authorities have repeatedly blocked RTI requests regarding the project by misapplying sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(j) of the Act.

The sections allow a public authority to withhold information if its disclosure would "prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, or the security, strategic, scientific, or economic interests of the State, or relations with a foreign country, or lead to the incitement of an offence".

Dubey has said in his letter that invoking State secrecy to hide management failures, audit reports or administrative lapses does not protect the country, it merely shields underperforming officials from public scrutiny.

According to the activist, unlike in the case of Project Cheetah, when it comes to tigers, the NTCA publishes standard operating procedures (SOPs), mortality statistics, post-mortem findings and population estimates in the public domain.

Another issue he has raised pertains to allegations that cheetahs have been excessively tranquillised, without mandatory prior sanctions from the chief wildlife warden, which is in violation of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

A September 2024 inspection report by then principal chief conservator of forests (PCCF) and chief wildlife warden of Madhya Pradesh, V N Ambade, revealed that within just two years of Project Cheetah's launch, the cheetahs in the Kuno National Park were tranquillised 110 times.

"During an inspection in 2024, the MP Chief Wildlife Warden (CWLW), Mr Ambade, flagged grave irregularities in the tranquillisation process of cheetahs within Kuno.... The denial of these medical logs heavily implies a deliberate attempt to cover up administrative and clinical negligence," Dubey has said in his letter.

He has asked the NTCA to initiate an independent probe into all the tranquillisation conducted in the park in 2024.

3,000 trees cut in Pinjore-Morni region of Haryana in last 1 year, reveals RTI info.

Tribune India: Chandigadh: Bhartesh Singh Thakur: Friday, July 17, 2026.

The information under Right to Information Act was procured by Vijay Bansal, president of Shivalik Vikas Manch and Congress leader.

Three different inquiry reports of the Haryana Forest Department in the last over one year have revealed close to 3,000 trees have been illegally felled in the Pinjore-Morni region.

Dictionaries& Encyclopedias

The information procured by Vijay Bansal, president of Shivalik Vikas Manch and Congress leader, under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, revealed that while 1,456 khair trees were felled in the area along with HMT, Pinjore, 1,148 khair trees were felled in the Aasrewali Protected Forest (part of Khol Hi-Raitan wildlife sanctuary) and 376 stumps of eucalyptus were found in Muvas village, Morni.

Area along with HMT land and Asrewali Protected Forest

Information procured under the Right to Information (RTI) Act revealed that a total of 1,456 Khair (Acacia catechu) trees were cut in the area along with HMT in Pinjore, which falls under the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP). A survey of the land on March 28 found 1,456 Khair stumps.

In an inquiry report submitted by a committee under SDM Kalka, dated April 6, it was noted that the Forest Department didn't inform the HSVP, the land owner, about the illegal felling of trees. No communication was made with them. The land was covered under Section 4 of the PLPA, and permission was required from the Divisional Forest Officer to cut trees.

Geographic Reference

The Committee was of the view that HSVP should take steps to protect trees and ensure patrolling at sensitive places and entry points. It was opined that, in the case of illegal felling of trees, immediate action should be taken and the forest department should be intimated.

To check illegal felling in Aasrewali Protected Forest, part of Khol Hi-Raitan wildlife sanctuary, an inquiry was conducted under IFS officer R Anand, Conservator of Forests, West Circle, Hisar. The four-member committee was constituted on March 2, and the next day, the survey was conducted. The Committee’s report, dated March 6, found that a total of 1,148 trees were illegally felled. The felling was highly selective, with 99.9 per cent of the trees being khair (acacia catechu), “indicating a commercial motive”, said the report.

The report further highlighted that “the recovery of a power chain saw blade cover and the presence of clean-cut stump surfaces confirm the use of mechanized saws.” There were also deliberate attempts “to hide the illicit activity by covering stumps with sand and large boulders,” added the report.

Felling in Muwas village

A report dated March 26, 2025, revealed the felling of 376 Eucalyptus stumps and 772 coppice shoots in the village of Muwas, Bhoj Matour, Morni (Panchkula). The eucalyptus plantation was carried out by the Forest Department under the Community Forestry Project as an agroforestry measure to improve the livelihoods and incomes of local farmers. However, the allegations are concerning the felling of 2,000 trees.

The matter is pending before the National Green Tribunal, and the next hearing is on July 20. The government's claims are under contest in the case.

It is pertinent to mention that the then Conservator of Forests, North Circle, had visited the site on March 21, 2025, and reported the felling of 2,000 Eucalyptus trees, though later another four-member committee, under IFS Vasvi Tyagi, concluded that there were only 376 stumps.

As per information provided to Bansal, dated May 25, it has come to light that in the Morni-Pinjore Forest Division, out of 105 sanctioned posts of Forest Guards, 83 are vacant, which is 79 per cent of the sanctioned strength. Of the seven Deputy Range Forest Officer posts, five are vacant, amounting to 71.4 per cent. Also, of the 22 sanctioned forest wildlife guards, 16 posts are vacant.

Bansal said, “More than half a dozen forest officials and employees were suspended — and two senior-most IFS officers were relieved of their duties — in connection with the illegal felling of trees.”

He added, “It is surprising that some of these officials were reinstated and re-posted to the Pinjore-Morni Forest Division just a month after their suspension.”

Kerala PSC withholds recruitment records defying RTI order.

Madhyam: Thiruvananthapuram: Friday, July 17, 2026.

Access to the answer scripts, interview scores and evaluation records was expected to establish whether the selection process had been conducted fairly and in accordance with prescribed procedures.

In a move that has triggered fresh controversy over transparency in public recruitment, the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) has refused to disclose crucial records related to the controversial recruitment of the Chief Industry and Infrastructure post in the Kerala State Planning Board despite a clear directive from the State Information Commission.

announced a probe by the Crime Branch Police, and the team has completed its preliminary sitting and, in the coming days, is expected to go deeper, IANS reported. The Commission rejected the complainant's fresh application seeking the documents, informing the candidate that the records would not be released.

At the same time, the PSC is understood to be preparing to challenge the Information Commission's order before a higher legal forum, a move candidates allege is aimed at delaying disclosure. The latest development comes barely days after the State Information Commission delivered a significant setback to the PSC by directing it to hand over all documents sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act within seven days.

The order overturned the PSC's earlier refusal and mandated the release of answer scripts, interview marks, the complete marks list of all candidates, and other records connected with the recruitment. The Information Commission's intervention assumed greater significance because the recruitment had already come under a cloud following allegations that ten answers in the written examination were left unevaluated.

The revelation had raised serious concerns about the integrity of the assessment process and prompted demands from unsuccessful candidates for complete transparency

and in accordance with prescribed procedures. Instead of complying with the order, the PSC's latest decision to withhold the records has intensified suspicion among candidates, many of whom believe the continued secrecy could be an attempt to shield procedural lapses from public scrutiny. They have now resolved to challenge the PSC's stand through legal means, arguing that the constitutional recruitment agency cannot selectively deny information after a statutory authority has ordered its disclosure. The controversy has also acquired a political dimension.

The Planning Board appointment was made during the Pinarayi Vijayan-led Left government, while the entire 15-member PSC board was also constituted during the previous Left administration. With the Congress and the BJP already demanding an independent investigation into alleged irregularities in PSC recruitments, the Commission's refusal to comply with the RTI order is likely to deepen scrutiny of its functioning. The outcome of the legal battle could determine not only the fate of this recruitment but also set an important precedent on transparency and accountability in one of Kerala's most important constitutional institutions.

FCRA renewal data: CIC says blanket denial appears ‘misplaced’, flags obstruction of RTI right.

The Print: PTI: New Delhi: Friday, July 17, 2026.

The Central Information Commission has said the blanket denial of information sought on FCRA renewal applications by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs “appears to be misplaced and without any basis”, while observing that the CPIO prima facie “obstructed” the complainant’s right to information.

The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) regulates the acceptance and utilisation of foreign contributions by individuals and associations in India. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) administers the law and grants or renews registration for eligible organisations to receive foreign funds, subject to compliance with the Act and applicable rules.

The observations were made by Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal while hearing a complaint filed by an RTI applicant against the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), MHA, over non-receipt of a reply to an RTI application.

The applicant had sought information on organisations that had applied for renewal of their FCRA registration from January 1, 2022, applications for which renewals had been granted, those that were pending along with reasons for the delay and the SOP or other information regarding grant of renewal after queries raised by the FCRA Division (regarding the applications) had been resolved.

The RTI application was filed on October 16, 2024. The complainant approached the Central Information Commission (CIC) on December 5, 2024, alleging that the CPIO had not replied to his application.

The MHA informed the commission that a reply had subsequently been sent on December 24, 2024.

In the reply, the CPIO said the information was exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which relates to personal information, and advised the applicant to visit the FCRA online portal for application-specific queries.

The CIC, however, said the CPIO had failed to provide a proper point-wise reply in terms of the RTI Act and had invoked Section 8(1)(j) “in a mechanical manner”.

“Be that as it may, the fact remains that the CPIO has prime-facie caused an obstruction to the complainant’s right to information by failing to reply to the RTI application within the prescribed time period of the RTI Act,” the Commission said.

It further observed that “the blanket applicability of the exemption in terms of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act appears to be misplaced and without any basis”.

The Commission also said the CPIO’s blanket denial of the information had caused “further obstruction” to the complainant’s right to information.

It directed the CPIO to furnish a written response explaining the failure to reply to the RTI application within the prescribed period under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.

The CPIO was also directed to explain the “blanket denial of the information causing further obstruction to the complainant’s right to information”.

The CIC’s registry has also been directed to schedule a show-cause hearing under Section 20 of the RTI Act. 

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

Ministry Refuses to Disclose Project Ayla Agreements Under RTI Act, Citing Commercial Confidentiality

Howl. Link: Maldives: Thursday, 16 July 2026.

Minister of Economic Development and Trade Mohamed Saeed at the press conference held in the President’s Office on March 29, 2026 | Photo: President’s Office

The Ministry of Economic Development and Trade has refused to release the core investment agreement and approval documents for the USD 790 million Project Ayla sustainable township development, citing commercial confidentiality provisions under Section 25 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The refusal was revealed in an official response to an RTI request submitted by MV+, which sought access to the full Investment Agreement, annexes, and Special Economic Zone (SEZ) approval documents executed between the government and the developer.
The ministry withheld the primary contracts in full, citing legal provisions intended to protect trade secrets and prevent potential “detrimental impact” on the financial interests of third parties.
According to the ministry’s response, the decision was made under Section 25 of the RTI Act, which provides exemptions from disclosure of certain categories of information.
The specific provisions cited by the ministry include:

• Section 25(a): Allows non-disclosure of confidential information containing trade secrets or information that could harm the business or financial interests of a third party.
• Section 25(b): Allows non-disclosure of information obtained through relations or agreements with foreign countries or international bodies where disclosure could adversely affect the Maldives’ relationship with them.
• Section 25(c): Allows non-disclosure of information held under an official state mandate relating to private agreements or transactions between individuals or companies if disclosure would reveal personal, financial, debt-related, or business secrets.

While the ministry refused to provide the foundational legal agreements behind Project Ayla, it provided details regarding the approved scope and permitted activities of the development.
Project Ayla, which covers Dhigufaru, Dhekenanfaru, and Kuramaadhoo Falhu in Noonu Atoll, was designated as an SEZ through a presidential decree issued on 31 December 2025, following an agreement between Crystal Holdings Private Limited and the Board of Investment.
According to the RTI response, the project has only been approved to undertake economic activities permitted under Article 70-1 of the SEZ Act, specifically for the development of a “Sustainable Township”.
The ministry also stated that it had not received any applications or expressions of interest for establishing offshore banks, trust services, insurance companies, finance leasing businesses, or money-changing operations within the SEZ.
It added that any financial or banking-related activities within the zone would require separate prior approval from the Board of Investments.
Addressing concerns regarding financial oversight and regulatory safeguards, the ministry stated that the Project Ayla application underwent the vetting process prescribed under the SEZ framework.
The ministry further said the project remains subject to the Maldives’ anti-money laundering (AML) and countering the financing of terrorism (CFT) regulations.
Project Ayla is scheduled for completion in 2028, with plans to develop a reclaimed sustainable township featuring luxury residential units, a marina resort, an international healthcare facility and hospitality schools.
The project also has a target of meeting 60 per cent of its energy requirements through renewable energy sources.
However, the exact terms of the USD 790 million agreement between the state and the developer, including any concessions granted under the investment arrangement, will remain undisclosed following the ministry’s decision to apply the RTI exemptions.

सरकारी कर्मचारियों की आधिकारिक पहचान निजी जानकारी नहीं हो सकती: CIC

Navodaya Times: New Delhi: Thursday, 16 July 2026.

नई दिल्ली/ टीम डिजिटल। केंद्रीय सूचना आयोग (सीआईसी) ने कहा है कि आधिकारिक कर्तव्यों का निर्वहन कर रहे लोक सेवकों की पहचान को सूचना का अधिकार (आरटीआई) अधिनियम के तहत निजी जानकारी नहीं माना जा सकता। सीआईसी ने यह फैसला रेलवे को दो अलग-अलग मामलों में यात्रा टिकट परीक्षकों (टीटीई) के नाम और पदनाम सार्वजनिक करने का निर्देश देते हुए सुनाया। सूचना आयुक्त स्वागत दास ने उत्तर पश्चिम रेलवे और पश्चिम रेलवे के खिलाफ अलग-अलग सुनाए गए फैसलों में कहा कि रेलवे ने आधिकारिक दायित्वों का निर्वहन कर रहे टीटीई के नाम और पदनाम बताने से इनकार करने के लिए आरटीआई कानून की धारा 8(ए)(जे) के तहत हासिल छूट का गलत इस्तेमाल किया।
मामला उदयपुर एक्सप्रेस में तैनात एक टीटीई से जुड़ा हुआ था
इनमें से एक मामला उदयपुर एक्सप्रेस में तैनात एक टीटीई से जुड़ा हुआ था, जिसमें अपील करने वाले ने अधिकारी के नाम और पद के साथ-साथ उनसे जुड़ी शिकायतों, सतर्कता रिकॉर्ड, अनुशासनात्मक कार्यवाही और सेवा से जुड़ी अन्य जानकारियां मांगी थीं। वहीं, दूसरा मामला असरवा-जयपुर सुपरफास्ट एक्सप्रेस से संबंधित था, जिसमें अपीलकर्ता ने ड्यूटी पर तैनात टीटीई का नाम, कर्मचारी आईडी और पदनाम जानना चाहा था। दास ने दोनों ही मामलों में रेलवे की दलीलों को खारिज करते हुए कहा, "सार्वजनिक सेवा में अपने आधिकारिक दायित्वों का निर्वहन कर रहे किसी लोक सेवक की पहचान उसके सार्वजनिक कार्यों के निर्वहन से जुड़ी जानकारी होती है और इसे आरटीआई कानून की धारा 8(1)(जे) के तहत छूट प्राप्त 'व्यक्तिगत जानकारी' नहीं माना जा सकता।"
सीआईसी ने कहा कि लोक सेवकों में पारदर्शिता और जवाबदेही सुनिश्चित करना आरटीआई कानून के प्रमुख उद्देश्यों में शामिल है। उसने कहा कि ऐसी बुनियादी जानकारी देने से इनकार करना कानून के मूल उद्देश्य को विफल कर देगा और सरकारी कामकाज में पारदर्शिता की कमी को बढ़ावा देगा। आयोग ने संबंधित सीपीआईओ को निर्देश दिया कि वे संबंधित टीटीई के नाम और पद से जुड़ी जानकारियां उपलब्ध कराएं।

CIC flags lack of OCI admission records of DU foreign students, recommends proactive disclosure

The Print: New Delhi: Thursday, 16 July 2026.
The Central Information Commission has flagged the non-maintenance of records relating to foreign students admitted through OCI cards as a matter of concern for all international students and recommended that the University of Delhi proactively disclose such information to promote transparency.

Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi made the observation while deciding an RTI appeal seeking data on foreign student admissions over the last five years, including the number of admitted students holding Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cards and whether they had applied as foreign nationals or as Indian citizens using OCI benefits.
During the hearing, Delhi University informed the Central Information Commission (CIC) that while it maintains statistics on foreign student admissions, it does not maintain separate records of students admitted using OCI or Person of Indian Origin (PIO) cards.
The university said foreign applicants had been admitted on the basis of their foreign passports and, therefore, no separate data was maintained for OCI/PIO card holders.
The Commission accepted the university’s submission, observing that under the RTI Act, a public authority can only provide information available on its records and is not required to create or compile information that does not exist.
It also referred to a Delhi High Court judgement holding that public authorities are under no obligation to create information in response to RTI applications.
However, the CIC observed that the “non-maintenance of records of foreign students admitted through OCI cards despite being a part of records of Delhi University is a matter of concern for all the foreign students” and warranted action in the larger public interest. The Commission, invoking Section 25(5) of the RTI Act, recommended that Delhi University maintain information on foreign students admitted through OCI cards and place it in the public domain through proactive disclosure under Section 4 of the Act.
It said making such information available on the university’s website would improve transparency and reduce the need for citizens to seek it through RTI applications. PTI MHS PRK
(This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.)

The real cost of an absent information commission : Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz

The Daily Star: Bangladesh: Thursday, 16 July 2026.

FILE VISUAL: SHAIKH SULTANA JAHAN BADHON

It may sound like a broken gramophone record for us to continue lamenting the absence of the chief information commissioner and two information commissioners in Bangladesh since September 2024, following the political transition after the July uprising. We make no apology for doing so. Their absence has rendered the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2009 largely ineffective, depriving citizens of one of the most important legal instruments for promoting transparency and accountability. We persist because we believe the RTI Act has enormous potential to strengthen democracy by enabling citizens to play a meaningful role in promoting transparent, accountable and responsive governance. That potential makes the present vacancies all the more troubling.
Almost two years have passed since the posts became vacant. Neither the interim government, which remained in office for about 18 months, nor the government popularly elected nearly five months ago has completed the appointments. Reports suggest that both governments have, at different times, initiated the process. The current government reportedly formed a five-member selection committee on July 9 to appoint the chief information commissioner and information commissioners. Still, we must wonder why it has taken so long to take this step to fill the positions that are indispensable to implementing the RTI Act.Does this reflect a diminished commitment to transparency and accountability, or merely administrative inertia? Whatever the explanation may be, the consequence is the same: a law enacted to empower citizens has been left without the institutional leadership necessary to make it work. The people have the right to know why, because the consequences are serious, though not immediately visible.
Unlike a power outage or disruption to public transport, the weakening of an oversight institution produces no instant crisis. Instead, transparency gradually erodes, accountability weakens, and citizens lose an effective means of seeking redress. To appreciate what is at stake, it’s worth recalling what the RTI Act and the Information Commission, although often very weak, have already achieved. They will also help us understand what to expect.
One of the best known examples is the BGMEA Tower in Dhaka’s Hatirjheel area. While many remember the building’s eventual demolition, few know that RTI played a crucial role. The Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA) sought information from Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha (Rajuk) about construction approvals. When the information was withheld, the Information Commission ordered its disclosure. The released documents exposed irregularities and strengthened efforts to protect one of the capital’s most valuable wetlands. The case demonstrated that public authorities can be required to explain their decisions and that citizens have a lawful means of demanding accountability.
RTI has proven equally valuable in addressing local environmental concerns. In Nilphamari, residents concerned about pollution of the Burikhora River allegedly caused by a nearby ceramic tile factory submitted RTI applications to the Department of Environment. The applications prompted inspections, warning notices, and measures to ensure that the factory’s effluent treatment plant was functioning properly. Follow-up RTI requests enabled citizens to monitor implementation, illustrating how access to information can encourage timely administrative action before environmental damage becomes irreversible.
The RTI law’s impact extends well beyond environmental protection. At Nilphamari general hospital, RTI applications seeking information on patient privacy and staffing led to the installation of privacy screens for women undergoing ultrasound examinations and to greater transparency regarding service responsibilities, including gender sensitivity.  At Panchagarh railway station, an RTI application prompted the restoration of a long-defunct drinking water facility within weeks. In the same district, citizens investigating the distribution of agricultural inputs in Debiganj upazila insisted that officials provide information through the legal procedures prescribed by the law, reinforcing the principle that access to public information is a legal right, not an administrative favour.
These examples may appear modest individually, but together they demonstrate the transformative power of transparency. RTI has improved public services, strengthened environmental governance, and enabled citizens to participate directly in improving local administration. It has also been used to examine school management, development projects, local government expenditure, public resource allocation, and the delivery of essential services. Information obtained through the RTI Act has enabled communities to identify shortcomings and press for corrective action. Good governance is built not only through major reforms but also through thousands of everyday acts of accountability.
This is especially important in Bangladesh, where ordinary citizens often have limited opportunities to influence public institutions. RTI gives them a peaceful and lawful means of engagement. It enables farmers, parents, patients, and local communities to question public authorities and demand better services. Many young Bangladeshis aspire to build stronger public institutions; RTI offers one of the most practical ways of doing so by encouraging constructive citizen participation rather than confrontation.
However, the system functions only when there is an independent institution capable of enforcing the law. When public authorities fail to disclose information, citizens need an impartial body to hear appeals, investigate complaints, and order compliance. The central ask is clear: appoint the Information Commission so that it can do this work. An RTI law without a functioning Information Commission is like a court system without judges. Rights may remain on paper, but citizens are left without an effective remedy. Every day without commissioners weakens the implementation of the law. Appeals remain unresolved, complaints cannot be adjudicated, and public authorities receive the unfortunate message that non-compliance may carry no consequences.
The vacancies at the Information Commission are more than empty chairs. They represent a growing silence in which citizens should be able to seek answers, challenge arbitrary decisions, and hold public institutions accountable. Restoring the Information Commission is therefore not merely an administrative task but an urgent step towards reaffirming Bangladesh’s commitment to transparency, accountability, and democratic governance.

---

Dr Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz are chairman and assistant director (RTI), respectively, at Research Initiatives, Bangladesh (RIB). They can be reached at rib@citech-bd.com

RTI Chief Commissioner denied entry into Guntur police station during surprise inspection

The Hindu: Amaravati: Thursday, 16 July 2026.
Following the refusal, the CIC returned without inspecting the police station; he later continued his scheduled inspection by visiting the nearby MPDO offices

A surprise inspection by Andhra Pradesh Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Vajja Srinivasa Rao at Medikonduru Police Station in Guntur district has sparked controversy after police personnel allegedly denied him entry while he was reviewing the implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
According to official sources, the CIC visited the police station on Monday (July 13, 2026) as part of a statewide inspection drive to assess compliance with RTI provisions in government offices. However, the Sub-Inspector and Circle Inspector reportedly stopped him at the entrance, stating that he could enter the premises only after obtaining permission from the district Superintendent of Police (SP).
Following the refusal, the CIC returned without inspecting the police station. He later continued his scheduled inspection by visiting the nearby Mandal Tahasildar and Mandal Parishad Development Officer (MPDO) offices.
The development assumes significance as the Andhra Pradesh Information Commission has just concluded a two-day statewide inspection covering 258 government offices across 18 districts to evaluate the implementation of the RTI Act at the field level.
The inspection teams, led by Mr. Vajja Srinivasa Rao and Information Commissioners Rehana Begum, Chavali Sunil, P. Simhachalam Naidu, Vonteru Ravi Babu, Gajula Adenna and V.S.C.K. Chakravarthy, examined whether Public Information Officers (PIOs) and First Appellate Authorities (FAAs) were maintaining mandatory records and displaying statutory information boards required under the Act.
During a review meeting held at the State Information Commission office in Mangalagiri on Tuesday evening, the Commission found widespread violations of Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. It identified deficiencies in maintaining mandatory records, displaying details of PIOs and FAAs, Annexures I and II, and citizen service information boards. Show-cause notices were issued to 162 Public Information Officers for non-compliance. The Commission also observed that RTI norms were largely absent in village and ward secretariats.
The Commission has treated the Medikonduru PS entry denial incident seriously, particularly as the CIC was carrying out a statutory inspection. The Commission decided to initiate all appropriate action to ensure the officer obeys the law. Mr. Srinivasa Rao, when asked about the denial at Medikonduru, said that once the police officials blocked the entry into the PS by standing at the gate, he returned without any further argument with the personnel.
The Commission is also expected to submit a detailed report on its statewide inspections to the Governor and the State Government, recommending measures for stricter implementation of the RTI Act across all government departments.

Governor urged to strengthen Information Commission by initiating action against erring officials

The Hindu: Belagavi: Wednesday, 15 July 2026.
Belagavi-based RTI activist complains to Governor saying that they are weakening the Right to Information Act by not enforcing it properly

RTI activist Bheemappa Gadad speaking to reporters in Belagavi on Tuesday. | Photo Credit: SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT

Belagavi-based RTI activist Bheemappa Gadad has complained to the Governor against Information Commissioners saying that they are weakening the Right to Information Act by not enforcing it properly.
“I have complained to the Governor against the Information Commissioners in the State. The Governor should take immediate action on the serious allegations made against the Chief Commissioner and Commissioners of the State Information Commission. If there is no action, then, I will be constrained to resort to legal action,” Mr. Gadad said.
He told reporters in Belagavi on Tuesday that along with him, several activists and members of various organisations have also written to the State government against the Information Commissioners.
“We submitted all necessary documents to the Chief Secretary earlier but, there has been no action. Then, we wrote to the Governor. However, there has been no action against them till now,” he said.
“If the allegations are not investigated immediately, then, we will be forced to take up legal action,” Mr. Gadad said.
“As the Constitutional head of the State, the Governor should protect all Constitutional and government institutions. He should take up the responsibility of strengthening the State Information Commission by initiating action against erring officials,” he said.
Mr. Gadad also said that the appointment of the Chief Information Commissioner and other Information Commissioners has not been properly carried out.
“The State government has violated a Supreme Court directive about the appointment process. It calls for constitution of a search committee before the appointment. But that was not done. A case has been registered in the High Court against this. The Information Commissioners have been saying that they will blacklist activists who file more than 25 applications. This is not backed by law. The Information Commissioners are summarily rejecting some applications giving trivial reasons. This is not acceptable,” he said.

Puducherry: Road ‘corruption’ file goes missing, CIC flags delay in probe as attempt to cover tracks

The Print: New Delhi: Wednesday, 15 July 2026.

The vanishing of a book on alleged road corruption and a yearlong delay in starting a probe into its disappearance has prompted the Central Information Commission (CIC) to observe that the delay was “cultivated” to allow interested parties to cover their tracks and it “cannot lightly be dismissed.” Information Commissioner P R Ramesh pulled up the Yanam Municipality in Puducherry over the disappearance of M-Book No 667, an official engineering record relating to a road project which alleged Rs 8 lakh in corruption.
Calling the episode “not mere administrative lapse, but a pattern of institutional apathy that strikes at the very root of public accountability,” the commission directed the municipality to complete a time-bound inquiry, identify the officials responsible for the missing record, explain the delay in initiating the probe and disclose the inquiry report under the RTI Act.
The case reached the commission after an RTI applicant sought details about the whereabouts of M-Book No 667, the official responsible for its custody and whether a police complaint had been lodged.
According to the municipality, the then assistant engineer handed over a list of M-Books in July 2023, but three of them, including M-Book No 667, were found missing during verification.
Officials initially believed the record had been sent to the Department of Accounts and Treasuries (DAT) for processing work bills, but its whereabouts could not be established.
After repeated efforts to trace the document failed, a police complaint was lodged in February 2025. However, a departmental inquiry committee was constituted only in February 2026.
During the hearing, the appellant alleged the missing M-Book was a crucial piece of evidence that may have been intentionally destroyed to shield those responsible.
The municipality, on the other hand, informed the commission that a police complaint had been filed and a departmental inquiry was underway.
The commission noted that the Yanam Police, in its report dated March 11, 2025, concluded that M-Books were required to be maintained and handed over by authorised officials and that the failure to do so reflected negligence on the part of those responsible for their custody.
Yet, despite the police findings, the municipality waited more than a year before constituting an inquiry committee.
“This commission finds this hiatus of over twelve months neither explained nor explicable,” the order said, adding that prompt administrative action should ordinarily have followed to fix accountability and ascertain what had become of a record concerning the award of government contracts.
Observing that the disappearance of such a document was “not a matter of clerical inconvenience”, the commission said it directly impaired citizens’ right to know how public money was spent and contracts were awarded.
“Where such a document goes missing and the administrative response is one of prolonged silence, the inference of mala fides becomes difficult to resist, and the suspicion that the delay itself was cultivated to allow interested parties to cover their tracks cannot lightly be dismissed,” it said.
The CIC directed the inquiry committee to complete its probe in a time-bound manner, and disclose the identity of the officials in whose custody the record was last traceable.
It also asked it to explain the delay through a reasoned affidavit and share the final report with the appellant while proactively publishing it under Section 4 of the RTI Act. PTI MHS VN VN
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.