Delhi High Court refuses to disclose Safety Analysis Report of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant under RTI Act

India Legal Live : Chayanika: New Delhi: Tuesday, June 02, 2026.

The Delhi High Court has held that the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) relating to Units I and II of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant in Tamil Nadu is exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005, holding that the document is protected by statutory exemptions concerning fiduciary relationships, national security interests and India’s relations with a foreign State. 

The single-judge Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav set aside a 2012 order of the Central Information Commission (CIC), which had directed the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) to disclose the report to RTI applicant SP Udaykumar after redacting proprietary design-related information.

The Court held that NPCIL was in possession of the SAR in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of the Russian Federation and, therefore, the document was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The Court further ruled that disclosure of the report could adversely affect India’s scientific and strategic interests, as well as its diplomatic relations with a foreign government, thereby attracting the exemption contained in Section 8(1)(a) of the Act. While examining the nature of the project, the Court noted that the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant was established pursuant to an inter-governmental agreement between India and Russia, with the reactor technology and design being supplied by the Russian side.

The judgment records that the Russian entity associated with the project had specifically objected to the publication of the Safety Analysis Report, asserting confidentiality over the document. The High Court observed that the Safety Analysis Report contains sensitive technical and safety-related information concerning the nuclear facility and forms part of a framework involving international cooperation and strategic infrastructure. In such circumstances, disclosure of the document could not be treated as an ordinary exercise under the transparency regime of the RTI Act.

Justice Kaurav also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in *G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India*, wherein the apex court had examined and rejected various challenges concerning the safety and operational aspects of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project. Referring to the findings of the Supreme Court, the High Court held that safety concerns relating to the project had already undergone judicial scrutiny at the highest level. Consequently, no overriding public interest existed that would justify disclosure of the report despite the statutory exemptions available under the RTI Act.

The dispute originated from an RTI application filed by Udaykumar in 2010 seeking access to the Safety Analysis Report, Site Evaluation Report and Environmental Impact Assessment Report relating to Reactors I and II of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant. Following the application, the Central Information Commission in 2012 directed disclosure of the Safety Analysis Report after excluding proprietary reactor design details. 

Aggrieved by the CIC’s direction, NPCIL approached the Delhi High Court challenging the order. Allowing the petition, the High Court held that the CIC had failed to adequately consider the fiduciary nature of the information, the strategic implications of disclosure and the international obligations arising from the Indo-Russian nuclear cooperation framework Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Safety Analysis Report of Units I and II of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant is protected from disclosure under the RTI Act and set aside the CIC’s order directing its releas

Students of law varsity learn about RTI Act during 2-day workshop.

Tribune India: Shimla: Tuesday, June 02, 2026.

Over 1,500 students of Himachal Pradesh National Law University (HPNLU), Shimla, were apprised of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, during a two-day workshop organised by the Legal Aid Clinic of the university in collaboration with Vidhi Vimarsh. The workshop aimed at promoting awareness regarding transparency, accountability and citizens’ rights under the RTI.

The workshop featured distinguished experts in the field of transparency and governance, including Shailesh Gandhi and Uday Mahurkar, former Central Information Commissioners, Government of India; Rahul Singh, former State Information Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh; and Nikhil Dey, founder member of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) and the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI). Prof Priti Saxena, Vice-Chancellor of the university was also present during the workshop.

Held in four comprehensive modules over two days, the workshop provided participants with in-depth knowledge of RTI, procedures for filing RTI applications, transparency mechanisms, the role of Information Commissions, landmark judicial pronouncements and contemporary debates concerning reforms in the RTI framework. The resource persons highlighted the continuing relevance of RTI as one of the most effective democratic tools available to citizens for ensuring transparency, accountability and good governance.

Through practical illustrations and real-life experiences, the speakers emphasised the transformative role played by the RTI movement in strengthening participatory democracy and empowering citizens.

dvocate Seeking Information Under RTI Act To Defend Client Cannot Be Dragged Into Criminal Case: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR.

Verdictum: Bengaluru: Tuesday, June 02, 2026.

The Court strongly admonished the complainant, a public servant, for dragging the defence counsel into a matrimonial and caste-related dispute merely for discharging his professional obligations.

The Karnataka High Court quashed a criminal case registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against an advocate who was arrayed as an accused for simply seeking information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to defend his client. The Court expressed deep disquiet over the rising trend of disgruntled litigants weaponizing the criminal justice system to intimidate advocates. The Court categorically held that an advocate acting strictly within the confines of professional duties and institutional instructions cannot be subjected to the trauma of investigative proceedings, as such intimidation strikes a paralyzing blow to the independence of the Bar and the purity of the administration of justice.

The Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, "Before parting with the matter, this Court considers it both necessary and appropriate to record its deep, disquiet and increasingly disturbing trend that has surfaced in recent times. This Court is encountering plethora of cases, wherein Advocates, who merely represent parties before Courts of law in the discharge of their professional obligations, are themselves being dragged into criminal proceedings and arrayed as accused. The only “fault” attributable to such Advocates, is that they appeared for their clients and articulated their cause before the concerned judicial forum." 

Brief Facts of the Case

The Petitioner was an advocate by profession who came to be arrayed as accused number four in a criminal case registered by the jurisdictional police. A matrimonial dispute arose between the complainant, who was working as an Assistant Conservator of Forest, and the co-accused individuals. The petitioner was engaged professionally to represent the co-accused and accordingly entered appearance by filing his vakalathnama and subsequent statement of objections before the family court. In the course of discharging his professional duties and acting upon instructions from his clients, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act before an educational institution to secure certain information concerning the complainant for production before the court.

Consequent to the collection of information regarding the caste of the complainant from the school, the complainant lodged a criminal complaint. The said complaint was registered as a first information report against several individuals, including the petitioner, for offences punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Agitated by the registration of the said crime, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings.

Contentions of the parties

The Petitioner vehemently contended that the registration of the criminal case against an advocate was a gross abuse of the process of law and a clear misuse of the criminal justice system. It was submitted that the petitioner had no personal animosity or involvement in the inter-se dispute between the parties and was merely acting in his professional capacity to defend his clients. It was argued that the act of seeking information under the Right to Information Act to bolster a client’s legal defense could not be construed as a criminal offence, and allowing the investigation to continue would result in a miscarriage of justice.

The Complainant countered the arguments, asserting that the petition was premature as the investigation was at its threshold. It was contended that the petitioner-advocate had exceeded the scope of his professional duties by attempting to gather information beyond what was legally necessary for presentation before the court. The Respondent sought the dismissal of the petition, arguing that the true role and intent of the petitioner could only be unearthed through a comprehensive police investigation. 

Observations of the Court 

High Court observed that to attract the provisions of Section 336 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), there must exist the deliberate making of a false document or electronic record with the intent to cause injury or unlawful prejudice. The Court noted that how these ingredients could be attributed to the petitioner remained shrouded in mystery, as his role was strictly confined to procuring school documents under professional instructions from his clients. The Court further noted that the invocation of Sections 336(3) and 340 of the BNS—which contemplate forgery for the purpose of cheating or using a forged document as genuine—was wholly untenable. The complaint was found to be conspicuously silent regarding any participation, fabrication, or fraudulent intent on the part of the petitioner, meaning the offenses could not independently survive or justify an investigation against him It was held that the allegations pertaining to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were woven in the most fragile and nebulous manner. 

The Court observed that the complaint contained no whisper of any overt act or hurling of abuses by the petitioner in a public place or a place of public view, thereby failing to disclose the foundational ingredients required to invoke the rigors of the special penal provisions. The Court expressed deep disquiet over the increasingly disturbing trend of dragging advocates into criminal proceedings merely for discharging their professional duties. It observed that exposing advocates to criminal prosecution for articulating their clients' causes would have a paralyzing and chilling effect on the fearless discharge of their duties, thereby striking at the very independence of the Bar and the purity of the administration of justice. The High Court unequivocally admonished the second respondent-complainant, noting that such conduct, especially coming from a public servant, displayed a reckless misuse of authority and an abuse of coercive powers. 

The Court observed that the sanctity of the justice delivery system must remain inviolable and warned that any future reiteration of such unfounded conduct would be viewed with the utmost seriousness. "Such tendency strikes at the very heart of independence of the bar, by necessary extension the purity of administration of justice itself. Advocates are officers of the Court, they function within the confines of professional duty, acting upon the instructions of their client and presenting their cause within the four corners of law. If every Advocate, merely by a reason of appearing for a litigant is exposed to criminal prosecution and trauma of investigative proceedings, the inevitable consequence would be a chilling and paralyzing effect upon fearless discharge of professional responsibilities. The majesty of legal profession cannot be permitted to be diminished by disgruntled litigants to wield criminal law as a weapon of intimidation against the members of the bar", the Court observed.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition preferred by the petitioner. The criminal proceedings impugned in the petition pending before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court were quashed qua the petitioner. 

Cause Title: Sri Pradeep Kumar v. The State and Anr. [Neutral Citation:2026:KHC:21597] Appearances: Petitioner: Advocate Sravanna S Respondents: Addl. SPP BS Jagadeesh and Advocate BS Sachin

CIC pulls up law ministry over incomplete RTI on Court fee data

Telangana Today: New Delhi: Monday, 1^St June 2026.
An RTI seeking nationwide court fee collection data remained incomplete despite being transferred across four entities. The Central Information Commission has ordered a fresh reply and issued show-cause notices to Law Ministry officials over mishandling and procedural lapses

An RTI application seeking nationwide data on judicial court fee collections was transferred to four government departments and public sector entities but the information provided remained incomplete, prompting the CIC to direct a fresh reply and issue show-cause notices to officials of the law ministry.
The RTI applicant had sought details of annual collections of judicial court fees, including e-court fees, on an all-India basis, the total amount collected since June 1, 2014, with state-wise annual figures and the utilisation of such collections and related allocations.
According to the Central Information Commission (CIC) order, the application was filed with the Department of Legal Affairs under the Ministry of Law and Justice and was subsequently transferred to the Department of Financial Services (DFS), its Institutional Finance-I (IF-I) Division, Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd (IFCI) and finally the Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd (SHCIL). The IF-I Division informed the applicant that the information sought was not available with it and transferred the application to IFCI.
IFCI, in turn, said the queries appeared to pertain to SHCIL and forwarded the application to the company. SHCIL provided details of e-court fee collections for 16 states and Union Territories where it operates e-court services. However, on the second query relating to court fee collections since June 2014 and the third query regarding utilisation of the collections, it stated that the information sought was not applicable to it.
During the hearing, the appellant submitted that the information provided on the first two points was incomplete and that no information had been received on the utilisation of court fees, which related to the Ministry of Law and Justice.
The Commission observed that the application had moved from the Department of Legal Affairs to DFS, then to the IF-I Division, IFCI and finally SHCIL. It noted that SHCIL had provided replies only on the first two points and had stated that information on the third point was not available with it.
“The CPIO Stockholding Corporation of India Ltd. provided the reply only on points 1 and 2 of the RTI application and said that the information on point 3 is not available,” the order said.
Recording SHCIL’s submission that it would revisit its response and rectify any discrepancy, the CIC directed the company’s CPIO to provide a revised reply on points one and two.
The Commission also issued a show-cause notice to the CPIO of the Department of Legal Affairs, asking why action under Section 20 of the RTI Act should not be initiated for wrongly transferring the entire application to DFS and for remaining absent during the hearing without prior intimation.
A separate show-cause notice was issued to the First Appellate Authority in the Ministry of Law and Justice for not responding to the appellant’s letter dated October 12, 2024.

No law bars visitors from carrying mobiles inside police stations: Police’s RTI reply : BY SHABIR IBN YUSUF

Greater Kashmir: Srinagar: Monday, 1^St June 2026.
Response says no provision in BNS or BNSS prohibits visitors from carrying phones; no circular or notification issued imposing such restriction

No law bars visitors from carrying mobiles inside police stations: Police’s RTI reply Photograph: (For Representation)

Police has clarified that there is no specific legal provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) that prohibits visitors from carrying mobile phones inside Police Stations.
The clarification came in response to a Right to Information (RTI) application filed by advocate Nitin Bakhshi, a resident of Upper Barnai, Jammu, seeking information regarding restrictions on the use or carrying of mobile phones by visitors in police stations.
In a reply issued by the Public Information Officer (PIO), District Police Office (DPO) Jammu, vide communication No. RTI/131/2026 dated May 26, 2026, the police said that information had been sought from all Zonal Superintendents of Police in District Jammu before furnishing the response.
The RTI reply categorically states, “There is no specific section in BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) or BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) that explicitly says visitors are not allowed to carry mobile phones inside a police station.” The police further informed the applicant that no notification, circular, order or other official instruction exists under which visitors are barred from carrying mobile phones into police stations.
The response assumes significance as visitors to Police Stations in various parts of Jammu and Kashmir and elsewhere in the country are often asked by police personnel to deposit mobile phones before entering certain areas of police establishments, citing security or administrative reasons. However, the RTI reply indicates that no specific statutory provision or district-level order authorising a blanket prohibition exists in District Jammu.
The communication also informed the applicant that if he is dissatisfied with the reply, he may file an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act before the First Appellate Authority, District Police Office Jammu, within 30 days of the issuance of the response. The First Appellate Authority in the matter is Anna Sinha, who is presently serving as Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Jammu. The RTI application was received by the police on May 25, 2026, and the response was issued the following day after obtaining inputs from the concerned police officers.

RTI activist shot dead; cousin held within hours

The Times of India: Jalandhar: Sunday, 31 May 2026.

RTI activist, who had stepped out of his home without the armed police cover provided by government, was shot dead near a private university in Phagwara on Saturday morning.
The murder sent shockwaves through the state as victim Simranjit Singh was known for approaching the courts on controversial issues and had also filed complaints against senior officials on the basis of RTI replies.
Police said they solved the crime within hours, arresting his cousin Sharnjit Singh. A financial dispute led to the murder, they say.
According to police, the activist had two Punjab Police gunmen, but he left his home alone in his Fortuner at 7.15am. Phagwara SP Madhvi Sharma said police were alerted at 11am that he was lying dead in Maheru village, 20km from here.
Kapurthala SSP Gaurav Toora said Simranjit was shot twice from behind at close range.

Explained: Can cooperative housing societies refuse RTI queries? Haryana SIC answers - By Bhartesh Singh Thakur

The Tribune: Chandigarh: Sunday, 31 May 2026.
Haryana State Information Commission holds that information cannot be denied merely because the society itself is not a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act

The State Information Commission (SIC) has ruled that if information held by a cooperative group housing society is accessible to the office of the registrar of cooperative societies, it must be provided under the RTI Act.
The commission held that information cannot be denied merely because the society itself is not a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
Why is the order significant?
Group housing societies have been taking the plea that they are not covered under the RTI Act as they do not receive any aid or support from the state and therefore do not come within the RTI ambit. The Commission's order clarifies that information accessible through the Registrar can still be sought under the RTI Act.
In which case was the order passed?
The order was passed while directing the office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, to provide the complete unedited videography of the General Body Meeting of the New Haryana Officers Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited, Panchkula.
A retired district and sessions judge, Kuldip Jain, who is serving as a Member (Judicial) in the Haryana Human Rights Commission, filed an RTI application on September 5, 2023, seeking a certified copy of the unedited video of the entire proceedings of the General Body Meeting held on July 8, 2023, along with the minutes of the meeting. He is a member of the Society, having IAS, IPS and HCS officers as members.
What information was provided and what was denied?
The minutes of the meeting were furnished to Jain, but the videography was not provided.
The society contended that the videography was its property and that it did not fall within the ambit of a "public authority" as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. During a hearing on January 9, 2025, Satwanti Ahlawat, a retired IAS, then President of the Society, submitted that the society was fully owned, controlled and financed by its members and not by the Haryana Government, and therefore did not come within the purview of the RTI Act.
At another hearing on October 8, 2025, the subsequent President, Renu Phulia, also a retired IAS, stated that the information sought concerned personal discussions of members related to the affairs of the society and had no public-interest connection.
What did the Commission observe?
The Commission observed that the issue was not whether the society itself was a public authority, but whether the information sought by the appellant was accessible to the office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies.
The Commission noted that the Registrar exercises statutory, supervisory and regulatory control over cooperative societies and had directed the society, through a letter dated August 7, 2023, to furnish the complete videography of the General Body Meeting.
What provision of RTI Act did Commission rely upon?
The Commission referred to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, which states that the term "information" includes information relating to any private body that can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.
The Commission directed that the videography be obtained from the society and provided to the applicant. It further stated that if the society failed to comply, the Registrar should initiate appropriate action under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act and related rules.

Enough is enough: HC says bring Chandigarh Golf Club under RTI within a month

The Tribune: Chandigarh: Sunday, 31 May 2026.
After examining the matter, the court held that the Chandigarh Administration exercised substantial control over the Golf Club and also extended substantial financing indirectly to it

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Chandigarh Golf Club to put in place a mechanism to comply with the Right to Information (RTI) Act within a month. The direction came as the Bench dismissed its plea against a 2012 Central Information Commission (CIC) order that declared it a “public authority”.
Dismissing the 14-year-old challenge mounted by the club against the CIC order, Justice Kuldeep Tiwari observed that the time had come to make the club accountable to the public. “Enough is enough. The time has now come to tell the Golf Club that if its members want to enjoy playing golf at the cost of taxpayers’ money, it must make itself accountable by adopting an RTI mechanism,” the Bench asserted.
The court upheld the CIC’s October 8, 2012, order declaring the Chandigarh Golf Club a “public authority” under Section 2(h)(ii) of the RTI Act and directing it to establish an appropriate mechanism for providing information under the transparency law.
Court upholds finding of ‘public authority’
After examining the matter, Justice Tiwari held that the Chandigarh Administration exercised substantial control over the Golf Club and also extended substantial financing indirectly to it. “This Court concludes that the UT Chandigarh Administration exercises substantial control over, and extends substantial financing indirectly to, the Golf Club, thereby bringing it within the definition of a ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h)(ii) of the RTI Act,” the court held.
The judgment added that there was no illegality or infirmity in the CIC’s order declaring the Golf Club a public authority and directing it to put in place an appropriate mechanism for compliance with the RTI Act.
132 acres of prime land
Referring to the material on record, Justice Tiwari observed that the Golf Club was situated in the heart of Chandigarh and occupied 132 acres of prime land. The Bench added that the market value of the land was noted in the impugned order as Rs 1,000 crore, while observing that its present market value might be considerably higher.
The Golf Club came to occupy the land, along with the swimming pool, Golf Club Building and its extension in Sector 6, Chandigarh, under a lease deed dated March 16, 1988, executed between the club and the Chandigarh Administration acting on behalf of the President of India.
Findings on lease and financial assistance
The court noted that besides a monthly rent to be determined by the Estate Officer in accordance with the prescribed formula, the Golf Club was liable to pay an annual lease amount of Rs 3,960 for the golf course at the rate of Rs 30 per acre per annum.
Referring to the record, the court observed that against an assessed rent of Rs 33,45,268 computed at 2003 rates, the Golf Club had been paying only Rs 8,530 per month, comprising Rs 8,200 towards rent and Rs 330 towards lease charges. This constituted only 0.255 per cent of the assessed rent.
Court lists factors relied upon
Justice Tiwari added a survey of the record established that the Golf Club building, swimming pool and related structures were originally constructed by the Chandigarh Administration from public funds and were subsequently handed over to the club along with 132 acres of land on lease and public property was made available to the club on concessional and symbolic lease.
“In the absence of such substantial financial assistance in the form of land, buildings, and heavily subsidised lease amount extended by the UT Chandigarh Administration, the existence of the Golf Club would not have been feasible,” Justice Tiwari observed.
‘Substantially financed’ by public funds
Referring to the factors, the court held that the Golf Club was substantially financed by the Chandigarh Administration from public funds. “Consequently, this court has no hesitation in concluding that the Golf Club is substantially financed by the UT Chandigarh Administration from public funds and, therefore, qualifies to be declared a ‘public authority’ under the RTI Act,” the Bench stated.
Petition pending since 2012
Noting that the writ petition had remained pending adjudication since 2012 and that the Golf Club had been enjoying interim stay since November 5, 2012, the High Court directed compliance with the RTI Act within one month.

Kudankulam Nuclear Plant's safety analysis report exempt from RTI disclosure: Delhi High Court - S N Thyagarajan

Bar and Bench: New Delhi: Sunday, 31 May 2026.
The Court held that NPCIL held the report in a fiduciary capacity in relation to the Russian Federation and therefore, it was exempt from disclosure.

Delhi High Court and RTI Act

The Delhi High Court has held that the Safety Analysis Report of Units I and II of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant in Tamil Nadu is exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [Nuclear Power Corporation Vs SP Uday Kumar].
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav set aside a direction issued by the Central Information Commission (CIC) to Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) to supply the safety analysis report (SAR) to RTI applicant SP Udaykumar.
The Court held that NPCIL held the report in a fiduciary capacity in relation to the Russian Federation and, therefore, it was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
“The petitioner holds the SAR in a fiduciary capacity qua the Russian Federation. Under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, such information is clearly exempt from the scope of the statute,” the Court said.
The Court also held that the report was covered by Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, which exempts information whose disclosure would prejudicially affect the scientific, strategic and economic interests of the State, as well as foreign relations with a foreign State.
The case arose from an RTI application filed in 2010, when the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant was under construction. Udaykumar had sought information relating to Reactors I and II, including the safety analysis report, site evaluation report and environmental impact assessment report.
NPCIL furnished the EIA report but refused to provide the safety analysis report and the site evaluation report. It said the documents contained proprietary details of the reactor design and were exempt from disclosure.
The CIC, by an order passed in April 2012, directed NPCIL to provide copies of the two reports after severing any proprietary details of designs. It also directed NPCIL to publish the same on its website.
NPCIL challenged the CIC order before the High Court.
During the hearing, NPCIL told the Court that the site evaluation report had already been furnished to the RTI applicant and uploaded on its website after the filing of the petition.
Therefore, the only issue before the Court was whether the direction to disclose the safety analysis report could be sustained.
NPCIL argued that the Kudankulam project was established pursuant to an inter-governmental agreement between India and Russia. Under this arrangement, the design of the plant was to be done by the Russian Federation, while construction, erection and commissioning were to be carried out by NPCIL.
The Court noted that NPCIL had communicated the CIC order to Atomstroyexport, the Russian entity involved in the project, and that Atomstroyexport had objected to publication of the safety analysis report.
The High Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s 2013 judgment in G Sundarrajan v Union of India, where safety-related aspects of the Kudankulam project had been considered.
In that case, the Supreme Court had noted that the Kudankulam plant incorporated advanced safety features. It had also referred to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board’s post-Fukushima safety recommendations and the safety review undertaken for Indian nuclear power plants.
Justice Kaurav said that since the Supreme Court had already adequately considered and rejected safety-related concerns regarding Kudankulam, there was no larger public interest warranting disclosure of the Safety Analysis Report.
“Considering the Supreme Court decision in G Sundarrajan, wherein, the safety related concerns have been adequately considered and rejected, there cannot be any larger public interest concerns warranting disclosure of the information,” the Court observed.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the CIC’s direction with respect to the disclosure of the safety analysis report.
NPCIL was represented by advocates ER Kumar, DP Mohanty, Aditya Sharma and Jayant Bajaj.
The respondent was unrepresented.

Karnataka Information Commission disposed of 40,000 RTI cases in a year, says Commissioner

The Hindu: Kalaburagi: Sunday, 31 May 2026.
Information Commissioner B. Venkata Singh says strict action being taken against officials delaying information; ₹4.33 lakh penalty imposed in 101 days

Karnataka Information Commissioner B. Venkata Singh (Kalaburagi Bench) addressing a press conference in Hosapete on Saturday. | Photo Credit: SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT

The Karnataka Information Commission is committed to ensuring that citizens receive information in a transparent and time-bound manner under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, Information Commissioner B. Venkata Singh said.
Addressing a press conference in Hosapete on Saturday after inaugurating an RTI awareness workshop and interaction programme for officials and Public Information Officers, Mr. Singh said such workshops were being organised to clear doubts and misconceptions among government officials and facilitate easier access to information for citizens. The programme was organised with the support of the district administration.
Sharing details of the commission’s performance, Mr. Singh said the disposal of RTI appeals and complaints had accelerated significantly after the appointment of new commissioners. He said that when six commissioners assumed office in February 2025, around 56,000 cases were pending before the commission. Within a year, nearly 40,000 cases had been disposed of, marking a significant achievement.
The Commissioner said a special drive launched between March and December to clear old cases pending from 2010 to 2020 had yielded encouraging results, with nearly 75% of such cases being disposed of. Hearings are now being taken up for cases filed during 2023 and 2024, he added.
Referring to the Kalaburagi Bench, which has jurisdiction over Raichur, Kalaburagi, Ballari, Vijayanagara, Yadgir, Koppal and Bidar districts, Mr. Singh said there were 6,200 pending cases when he assumed charge. Since commencing hearings on November 24, 2025, the Bench has taken up 3,537 cases during 101 sitting days and disposed of 1,548 cases, enabling applicants to obtain the information sought.
Mr. Singh said the commission was taking a strict view of officials who failed to furnish information within the stipulated period. During the last 101 days, penalties amounting to ₹4.33 lakh had been imposed on erring officials. In addition, compensation totalling ₹38,000 had been awarded to applicants who suffered loss of time and money due to delays in receiving information.
Providing district-wise figures of pending cases under the Kalaburagi Bench, he said Raichur accounted for 2,337 pending applications, followed by Kalaburagi (1,318), Ballari (835), Koppal (650), Vijayanagara (611), Yadgir (580) and Bidar (400).
Mr. Singh said that the RTI awareness workshop had already been conducted in Bidar, Ballari, Koppal and Kalaburagi districts, with Vijayanagara becoming the fifth district to host the programme. Similar workshops would soon be organised in Raichur and Yadgir districts to strengthen the effective implementation of the RTI Act, he added.
State Information Commissioners K. Badruddin and Harish Kumar of the Bengaluru Bench, and Additional Deputy Commissioner P.N. Lokesh were present at the press conference.

School fee structure is public info, can’t be kept secrect: Tamil Nadu Information Committee

Times of India: Chennai: Saturday, 30 May 2026.
All private schools in the state matriculation, govt-aided and CBSE should promptly display the Class-wise fee structure on their notice boards at the entrance, publish the same on their websites as well as the enrolment application forms issued to students, the state information commission has ordered.

Information commissioner V P R Ilamparithi appointed school education dept director (private schools) S Suganya as the public information officer to ensure compliance and asked the official to file a compliance report before the commission in person on June 15.
In a detailed order, the commissioner said transparent fee structure in private schools was essential as parents oftn pay beyond their capacity to ensure that their wards get a good education. “Every penny the parents pay should be accounted for,” the commissioner said.
The directions were pronounced when an appeal under RTI claiming delayed and incomplete information regarding fee structures of private schools came up for hearing. The appellant M Liyakathi Ali had in 2022 filed an RTI plea before the public information officer of Coimbatore district chief education office seeking govt’s directives regarding fee fixation by private schools. But the plea was forwarded to the district education officer, who in turn forwarded the plea to all private schools in the district, instead of furnishing the reply. Since the first appeal to the chief education officer was also forwarded to the district education officer, the applicant approached the info panel with the second appeal.
When the matter came up for hearing on April 8, the PIO (PA to chief education officer) submitted that a reply to the original petition was furnished in June 2025. Liyakath Ali said it was complete as it said the information can be obtained on the website. The applicant sought action against the PIO for providing false and misleading information and compensation for mental agony and financial loss.
Criticising the district appellate authority CEO (private schools), PIO (CEO’s PA) as well as the DEO of Coimbatore district for violating RTI Act, unreasonable delay in providing information and for furnishing false and misleading information, the commission sought explanation from all three as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against them. The commission also awarded ₹25,000 to the appellant. The commission also ordered the CEO to conduct an inquiry and submit a report in person along with a copy of the information furnished to the appellant along with acknowledgement of receipt of the reply on June 15.

'Disturbing Trend Of Dragging Advocates': Karnataka HC Quashes FIR Against Accused's Lawyer Who Filed RTI Seeking Info On Complainant : Sebin James

Live Law: Karnataka: Saturday, 30 May 2026.
Cautioning against 'increasingly disturbing trend' of dragging lawyers into criminal proceedings, Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR against a lawyer booked for forgery and offences under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, who had appeared for the co-accused in a matrimonial case and sought RTI information on the complainant.

The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna underscored that the independence of the Bar cannot be meddled with when the lawyers are merely discharging their professional obligations.
"Before parting with the matter, this Court considers it both necessary and appropriate to record its deep, disquiet and increasingly disturbing trend that has surfaced in recent times. This Court is encountering plethora of cases, wherein Advocates, who merely represent parties before Courts of law in the discharge of their professional obligations, are themselves being dragged into criminal proceedings and arrayed as accused.
The only “fault” attributable to such Advocates, is that they appeared for their clients and articulated their cause before the concerned judicial forum. Such tendency strikes at the very heart of independence of the bar, by necessary extension the purity of administration of justice itself. Advocates are officers of the Court, they function within the confines of professional duty, acting upon the instructions of their client and presenting their cause within the four corners of law. If every Advocate, merely by a reason of appearing for a litigant is exposed to criminal prosecution and trauma of investigative proceedings, the inevitable consequence would be a chilling and paralyzing effect upon fearless discharge of professional responsibilities. The majesty of legal profession cannot be permitted to be diminished by disgruntled litigants to wield criminal law as a weapon of intimidation against the members of the bar"
The petitioner-lawyer [accused no.4) had represented accused numbers 2 & 3 in two separate proceedings initiated by the complainant against them in 2017 and 2018: a matrimonial case seeking restitution of conjugal rights and a dowry demand case coupled with caste abuse matter.
The petitioner lawyer had filed two RTI applications with a School seeking details about the complainant's caste. The school, upon two consecutive queries, provided the lawyer with the necessary information.
In October, 2024, the complainant woman instituted fresh criminal proceedings against the petitioner and his clients by filing a complaint before for offences under Sections 336(2), 336(3) (forgery) and 340 BNS and Sections 3(1)(r) (intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view) & (s) (abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view) of SC ST Act. of the SC/ST Act.
The court recalled that even in 2024, while granting an interim relief in favour of the accused lawyer in the same case, the High Court had briefly examined the offences alleged to be committed by him. Then, the court had found that even upon a bare reading of the complaint, not a single ingredient of forgery or atrocity was attracted against him. The said interim order had been in force till the disposal of the case.
"The role attributed to the petitioner is singularly confined to procuring certain documents from the school in which the 2nd respondent/complainant has studied and that too at the instance of accused Nos.2 and 3 whom the petitioner represented in his professional capacity, as an Advocate. Beyond this limited and purely professional act, the complaint is conspicuously silent as to any participation, connivance, fabrication or fraudulent intent on the part of the petitioner”, the court said.
Relying on the apex court's decision in Karuppudayar v. State, Gunjan @ Girija Kumari v. State [2026 LiveLaw (SC) 684], and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand (2020), the Court held that for the offence under SC/ST Act to be made out, the alleged insult or abuse must take place 'in any place within public view', a necessary ingredient absent in the current case.
"….The complaint even when read as a whole and accepted as true, fails to disclose foundational ingredients that would constitute the offence so alleged. There is not even a whisper of any overt act attributable to the petitioner which could legitimately invite the rigour of penal provisions against him," the Court held in its order.
The court also did not approve of the actions by the complainant-government servant.
“…Such conduct, particularly emanating from a public servant, displays a reckless misuse of authority and abuse of coercive powers vested in the state machinery. The complainant, therefore, deserves to be unequivocally admonished for such irresponsible invocation of criminal process against the petitioner, an Advocate…."
The Court warned that any repetition of such conduct in the future, without any legal foundation, would invite 'strict judicial scrutiny'.
Accordingly, the court allowed the writ petition preferred by the lawyer and quashed the pending criminal proceedings in Crime No. 94/2024 before an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Bengaluru.
(ClickHere to Read/Download Order)

RTI breaches high walls of Chandigarh Golf Club

Hindustan Times: Chandigarh: Saturday, 30 May 2026.
Disposing of a petition from the club, pending since 2012, the HC bench of justice Kuldeep Tiwari said the UT administration exercises substantial control over, and extends substantial financing indirectly to, the club

The court noted that the club is situated in the heart of Chandigarh, occupying 132 acres of prime land, the market value of which was recorded at ₹1,000 crore in 2012 and may currently be considerably higher. (HT Photo for representation)

The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has held that the Chandigarh Golf Club (CGC) comes under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and is liable to provide information as per law.
Disposing of a petition from the club, pending since 2012, the HC bench of justice Kuldeep Tiwari said the UT administration exercises substantial control over, and extends substantial financing indirectly to, the club. “ …thereby bringing it within the definition of a public authority under Section 2(h)(ii) of the RTI Act. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order declaring the Golf Club a public authority and directing it to put in place an appropriate mechanism for compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act,” the court ruled, adding that since the petition remained pending since 2012, the club is directed to implement an appropriate mechanism for compliance with RTI law within a month.
The public authority refers to an organisation, established, constituted, owned, controlled or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the central or state government.
Club plea against 2012 order of central info commission
The petition was from the club against the 2012 decision of the Central Information Commission, New Delhi, which declared the club a public authority under the RTI law and directed it to implement an appropriate mechanism for compliance with RTI law. The plea from the club argued it is neither directly nor indirectly dependent upon any financial assistance extended by the administration or any other governmental organisation, nor is it in any manner subject to or under the control of the administration. It is a duly registered private society functioning under the exclusive control and supervision of its own managing committee, it had argued.
‘Club deriving benefits of concessional land allotment’
The court noted that the club is situated in the heart of Chandigarh, occupying 132 acres of prime land, the market value of which was recorded at ₹1,000 crore in 2012 and may currently be considerably higher. It came into being pursuant to a lease in March 1988. The monthly rent was to be decided by the estate office and an annual lease amount of ₹3,960 for the golf course at the rate of ₹30 per acre per annum was decided. It found that against the assessed rent of ₹33.4 lakh, computed at 2003 rates, the club has been paying merely ₹8,530 a month, which constitutes no more than 0.255% of the assessed rent.
“Consequently, this court has no hesitation in concluding that the Golf Club is substantially financed by the Chandigarh administration from public funds and, therefore, qualifies to be declared a “public authority” under the RTI Act,” it held.
It also took into account that in March 2018, the terms and conditions of the lease were amended, and the UT administration can nominate three members – one permanent and two mid-week. It also took note of a 2012 communication from the UT estates office that the club, deriving all benefits of concessional allotment of land and utilising public property (land and building), is under an obligation to comply with the requirements of the RTI Act as a “public authority”. “All this reflects that the control of Chandigarh administration is not merely supervisory in nature or regulating through a statute, rather it has effective control in the prominent affairs of the Golf Club, specifically upon the land and its building,” the bench held dismissing the plea.

TN panel tells CBSE, private schools to display class-wise fee at entrances : Subashini Vijayakumar

The New Indian Express: Chennai: Saturday, 30 May 2026.
The commission has directed Director of Private Schools S Suganya to submit a compliance report by June 15.

In a sweeping directive to ensure transparency in collection of school fees, the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission has ordered district education authorities to ensure public display of fee structure by all private, CBSE, and aided schools across the state.
Bringing to end the three-and-a-half-year battle of a Coimbatore resident to obtain information on school fees under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, information commissioner VPR Ilamparithi directed schools to display class-wise fee structures at their entrances, on their websites, and furnish them along with the admission application forms.
Coming down heavily on officials for the prolonged delay in furnishing the information, the commission also directed the School Education Department to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation to the applicant, M Liaquath Ali of Coimbatore, and sought explanations from the officials who repeatedly transferred the RTI application instead of providing the requested details.
The commission has directed Director of Private Schools S Suganya to submit a compliance report by June 15.
The order was passed recently on the second appeal filed by Liaquath Ali, who had sought information in October 2022 on the fee structure prescribed for private matriculation higher secondary schools under government guidelines.
According to the commission’s order, the RTI application was transferred between the office of the Chief Educational Officer, the District Educational Officer (Private Schools) and school principals in Coimbatore, resulting in a delay of more than two-and-a-half years. The panel noted that even after receiving its notice, officials had failed to furnish complete information to the applicant.
Notice issued to PIOs of TN education officers
The petitioner said lack of clarity on school fee norms caused financial hardship and mental distress to his family during the Covid-19 period.
Holding that the delay and failure to provide complete information had caused unnecessary hardship, the commission ordered compensation of Rs 25,000 to the petitioner and directed the authorities to submit proof of payment.
It further issued show-cause notices to the then Public Information Officer/Personal Assistant to the Chief Educational Officer and the District Educational Officer (Private Schools), asking why penalties of Rs 25,000 each should not be imposed under the RTI Act.
Report by June 15
The state information commission has ordered Director of Private Schools to submit a compliance report by June 15. The order was issued on a petition filed by a Coimbatore resident after his query under RTI was kept pending for over 3 years

RTI Response Reveals that the Viksit Bharat Sampark Whatsapp Initiative was Allocated Funds amounting to 18 Crores : Jhanvi Anam

 IFF: New Delhi: Saturday, 30 May 2026.
An RTI was filed with Digital India Corporation in order to seek details on the Viksit Bharat Sampark's WhatsApp initiative's start date, outreach medium, funds allocated, etc. Therefore, IFF publishes an analysis of the response received

Recently, an RTI response was shared with the Internet Freedom Foundation revealing the allocation of funds towards the Viksit Bharat Sampark Whatsapp initiative. The response also disclosed that the outreach mediums included WhatsApp chatbots, AI bot calls, and manual calls, and relied on beneficiary databases developed for flagship schemes as well as TRAI’s universal wireless telephone subscriber database. IFF had previously written about it here and filed an RTI in the regard as well. 
This blog further analyses the RTI response. 
Background
In March 2024, several WhatsApp users had received messages from a verified business account named “Viksit Bharat Sampark.” The message contained a letter from Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking feedback and suggestions on Government of India initiatives. Following this, an RTI application was filed seeking details on the Viksit Bharat Sampark’s WhatsApp initiative’s start date, outreach medium, the number of people contacted, the source of and extent of data collected, financial allocation, data sharing practices, suggestions received, and whether any private institutions had been contracted for the initiative. 
The first RTI response however only disclosed limited information. The response disclosed that the WhatsApp outreach initiative had started on 15 March 2024 and that no expenditure had been incurred by MeitY “so far”. The remaining information was withheld under Sections 8(1)(d), 8(1)(t), and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. These provisions relate to information such as commercial confidence or intellectual property, cabinet papers or records of ministerial deliberations, and personal information where disclosure may amount to an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
The applicant then filed a first appeal, arguing that the RTI application had been repeatedly transferred following a complaint before the Central Information Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act, alleging obstruction in the dissemination of information. During the CIC proceedings, MyGov issued a revised disclosure. This response disclosed the following information: 

• The Vikisit Bharat Sampark's whatsapp initiative had begun on 14 February 2024
• The initiative was framed as a feedback collection mechanism for six flagship schemes: PM Kisan Samman Nidhi, PM SVANidhi, PM-JAY Ayushman Bharat Cards, Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana 2.0, Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Rural), and Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban). 
• It also stated that an Inter-Ministerial Committee and Technical Committee chaired by the Secretary, MeitY had been set up for operationalising the feedback mechanism.
• The outreach was conducted through WhatsApp chatbots, AI bot calls and manual calls.
• Till 17 March 2024, around 39 lakh people had been contacted through manual calls, 6.45 crore through AI bot calls, and 41.99 crore through WhatsApp chatbots. 
• BSNL was the implementing agency
• The beneficiary databases for the mentioned flagship schemes along with TRAI’s universal wireless telephone subscriber database, were used for the initiative.
• Importantly, the revised response disclosed that Rupees 18,97,89,468, including applicable taxes, had been allocated by MyGov, Digital India Corporation, on behalf of MeitY for the initiative. 

We would like to thank @Viceroy_India for sharing the RTI Response with IFF
However, for questions on the number of suggestions received, with whom the data could be shared, and which ministries the suggestions had been shared with, the response stated that no information was available. It also stated that no contract had been given to any private institution. 
Analysis 
The whatsapp message from Viksit Bharat Sampark was circulated through a verified ‘public and government service’ account. The message carried a letter from Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking feedback on government initiatives. 
However, soon after it was circulated, several concerns were raised. Firstly, it was observed by the Trinamool Congress (“TMC”) that the message was a violation of the Model Code of Conduct (“MCC”). It was highlighted by TMC leader Derek O’Brien, that while the attached letter was dated 15 March 2024, it was circulated and received by voters on 16 March 2024, which was after the MCC had come into effect. He further argued that the language of the message was not a neutral government communication because it highlighted the achievements of the BJP led Central Government and stated that it had been sent under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. On this basis, the complaint alleged that public funds and government communication channels were being used to reach voters and promote the achievements of the incumbent political leadership. Secondly, several WhatsApp users in India and abroad also raised concerns about how their phone numbers had been accessed for this outreach and noted privacy concerns around a possible “data breach.” The issue therefore became about the use of public funds, public databases, and government communication channels for a large-scale outreach exercise during an election period.
The RTI response however reveals that there was no data breach as such, the route of acquiring data has been clarified through the disclosure. It further reveals that the outreach was conducted through WhatsApp chatbots, AI bot calls, and manual calls, using beneficiary databases for flagship schemes, along with TRAI’s universal wireless telephone subscriber database and disclosed that Rupees 18,97,89,468 had been allocated by MyGov, Digital India Corporation, on behalf of MeitY. The concern is therefore not limited to whether the data was leaked or breached, but whether existing legal frameworks provide sufficient safeguards against such use cases.
Importantly, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”) and associated Rules, while not yet in force, puts the expectation on public authorities to undertake proactive compliance measures. Further, the DPDPA and associated Rules permit the State and its instrumentalities to process personal data without consent in limited circumstances. First, such processing is allowed under Section 7(b) of the DPDP Act when it is necessary to provide or issue a subsidy, benefit, service, certificate, licence, or permit, especially where the individual has previously consented to such processing or where the data is available in a government-maintained database. However, even this carveout is not unrestricted. The processing must relate to a State function, government policy, or publicly funded scheme, and must comply with prescribed standards on lawful processing, accuracy, security safeguards, notice to the Data Principal, grievance access, and accountability.
Second, the State may process personal data without consent to perform functions under any law, or in the interests of sovereignty, integrity, or security of the State. Separately, notified government instrumentalities may also be exempted from the requirements of the DPDP Act altogether under Section 17(2)(a). Since these provisions operate outside the ordinary notice and consent framework, they significantly reduce the control that individuals have over the use of their personal data.
The present case highlights the exact concerns that were raised by many. While the outreach may arguably fall within the broad wording of Section 7(b), the present case demonstrates the limitations of a framework that permits extensive state processing outside the ordinary consent architecture. Individuals whose data was originally collected for welfare delivery or telecommunications regulation may not have reasonably expected that the same datasets would later be used for alleged political campaigns disguised as feedback mechanisms. 
Further, IFF had previously written about this issue and highlighted the following: 
“The message, broadcast to millions of people through WhatsApp, may be viewed in the context of the upcoming elections as the communication happened around the time the Model Code of Conduct went into effect. Reports of the message being received by individuals surfaced as early as March 16, the same day the ECI announced the election dates. The MCC prohibits the party in power from the misuse of official mass media during the election period for partisan coverage of political news and publicity regarding achievements. The ECI, through the MCC, also prohibits the issuance of advertisements at the cost of the public exchequer in newspapers and other media during the election period. This may lead us to question - Does the timing of the communication, which happened around the time the election dates were announced and the MCC went into effect, have potential electoral implications?”
Therefore, the concern is that the present legal framework may allow such repurposing of data without sufficiently clear limits. 
Action
IFF has publicised the information disclosed through the RTI response in order to enable public access and also enable discussion.