Delhi High Court rejects order asking for data on ‘delayed’ judgments of ex-HC judge : Written by: Ashish Shaji

The Indian Express: Article: Tuesday, 3^rd November 2026.
The court set aside a Central Information Commission's order directing the Public Information Officer to disclose details of cases heard by former judge Justice A K Sikri in which judgments were reserved and not pronounced within two months.

The Delhi High Court set aside the CIC's disclosure order. (Image generated using AI)

The Delhi High Court has set aside a Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing the Public Information Officer (PIO) to disclose details of cases heard by former judge Justice A K Sikri in which judgments were reserved and not pronounced within two months.
Justice Amit Mahajan observed that while timely delivery of judgments is important, public interest cannot compel a public authority to create information it does not hold.
“This Court is mindful that while timely delivery of judgments is undoubtedly a matter of public concern, the consideration of public interest arises only when the information exists. The same cannot be used to compel a public authority to create information which is not held by it,” the order dated October 29 read.
RTI application
The case concerns an RTI application filed in April 2009 by former judicial officer P D Gupta, who sought details of cases heard by then Delhi High Court judge Justice A K Sikri, either singly or as part of a Division Bench, in which judgments were delivered more than two months after the conclusion of arguments.
The judicial officer had pointed out that arguments in a case filed by him against the Delhi High Court were heard on July 31, 2007, and the judgment was pronounced on May 2, 2008. He therefore sought similar details of all cases heard by Justice Sikri during the relevant period.

Justice Amit Mahajan found that the CIC had passed the order merely on the premise that the information “should be available” on account of the practice of giving such lists to the Chief Justice.

Since no reply was received within thirty days, the officer filed a first appeal. Thereafter, the PIO informed the judicial officer that no such data was specifically maintained or compiled.
After the first appeal was rejected, the judicial officer approached the CIC. The PIO had argued that, firstly, the information sought is not maintained, and secondly, the information was being furnished to the Chief Justice in a sealed cover and was held in a fiduciary capacity and was thus exempt under the RTI Act.
The CIC rejected both the arguments by observing that, owing to the practice of court masters compiling such lists every month, the information “should be available”, and that its disclosure would serve a larger public interest. Challenging the order, the PIO approached the high court.
The court observed that furnishing the information would require the PIO to examine the records of all the cases heard by a particular Judge, whether sitting singly or in a Division Bench, to calculate the time taken in each case, and to prepare a fresh list which would amount to collecting and collating information, which, the public authority is not obliged to do.
The court took note of PIO’s stand that no such data is maintained or compiled as required by the judicial officer. “The said stand, supported by the affidavit of the PIO, has not been disputed by the respondent by way of any counter affidavit,” the court said.
The court found that the CIC had passed the order merely on the premise that the information “should be available” on account of the practice of furnishing such lists to the Chief Justice. “A direction under the RTI Act cannot be issued on such an assumption. Such practice does not, by itself, mean that the lists are preserved year after year,” the court said.
It therefore allowed the petition and set aside the order passed by CIC.
(Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express (Digital), where he specialises in legal journalism.)

Plea in Supreme Court to finalise MoP on appointment of judges, bring Collegium decisions under RTI : By Ritu Yadav

Bar and Bench: New Delhi: Tuesday, 3^rd November 2026.
The matter came up for hearing on Monday before a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe when the former chose to recuse from the case.

Supreme Court Collegium

A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Chief Justice of India and the Central government to finalise the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) laying down the procedure for appointment of judges to High Courts and the Supreme Court
The plea filed by NGO Loka Prahari states that appointment of judges to constitutional courts should be based on the unanimous view of the Collegium taking into consideration factors mentioned in the top court's 2015 judgment in NJAC case.
The plea has also sought directions to bring the Collegium decisions within the purview of the Right to Information Act (RTI Act).
The matter came up for hearing on Monday before a bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe when the former chose to recuse from the case.
Justice Narasimha said that he had appeared as an Additional Solicitor General in a similar case related to MoP.
The MoP was first drafted in June 1999 pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in the Second Judges case. It laid down the procedure to be followed under the Collegium system for appointing judges to the higher judiciary.
In 2015, the Parliament enacted the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act to mark a significant shift in the manner of the appointment of judges. The NJAC Act sought to replace the collegium system by providing for a body comprising representatives from both the judiciary and the Centre to make recommendations for the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary.
However, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, on October 16, 2015, struck down the NJAC as unconstitutional for violating independence of judiciary. Subsequently, for the first time ever, the Court invited suggestions for improving the Collegium system of appointing judges with the object of ensuring greater transparency in judicial appointments. Based on the inputs received, the Court on December 16, 2015 passed an order by which it left the task of amending the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) to the central government.
During the initial phase after the NJAC judgment, the MoP did not materialise due to disagreements between the Centre and the Collegium.
The disagreement between the two was pronounced during the tenure of former Chief Justice of India TS Thakur.
In March 2017, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the recommendation of the Centre that they should have the power to reject any name for appointment as a judge of the high court for reasons of “national security”. Calls for a permanent secretariat to appoint judges were also rejected.
There were calls to take up the issue on the judicial side and this happened in October 2017 when a Bench of of justices AK Goel and UU Lalit decided to seek Centre’s response on the delay, stating in its order,
“…we need to consider the prayer that there should be no further delay in finalization of MOP in larger public interest. Even though no time limit was fixed by this Court for finalization of the MOP, the issue cannot linger on for indefinite period. The order of this Court is dated 16th December, 2015 and thus more than one year and ten months have already gone by.”
The order was passed in a petition by advocate RP Luthra but the case was subsequently pulled from that Bench and listed before a Bench headed by then CJI Dipak Misra who proceeded to recall the order passed by Justice Goel led Bench.
The new petition by Lok Prahari has now sought directions to the Chief Justice (on the administrative side) to make necessary changes to the MoP as mandated by the 2015 NJAC verdict.
The Central government's Ministry of Law and Justice should then finalise the MoP within a month after consultation with the CJI, the plea has sought.
As per the plea, the existing MoP suffer from serious flaws due to lack of transparency and objectivity affecting the quality and performance of judges of the constitutional courts and directly affecting the litigants' right to justice.
"Finalisation of the MoP for appointment of judges of constitutional courts at the earliest is necessary to ensure that it meets the requirement of the selection process ensuring that they possess four essential qualities of impartiality, fearlessness, transparency and purity mandated by the Constitution Bench in the case of Chief Election Commissioner and Election commissioners. This is evidently more necessary in the case of judges of Constitutional courts and especially, the Apex Court since their orders are final," the plea states.

RTI Act Cannot Compel Public Authority to Create Information Not Maintained by It: Delhi High Court

Law Trend: New Delhi: Tuesday, 3^rd November 2026.
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a public authority cannot be directed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to prepare fresh records merely because the information sought concerns a matter of public interest. The Court consequently quashed a Central Information Commission (CIC) order requiring disclosure of details relating to delays in pronouncing judgements by former judge Justice A K Sikri.

In an order dated October 29, Justice Amit Mahajan held that the CIC could not presume the existence of information simply because similar records might have been prepared as part of an administrative practice.
The Court observed that responding to the RTI request would require examining individual case records, determining the time taken to pronounce judgements and compiling a new list. Such an exercise could not be imposed on a public authority when the requested information was not maintained in the specified form.
CIC Order Based on Assumption About Availability of Records
The dispute arose from an RTI application submitted in April 2009 by former judicial officer P D Gupta. He sought information about cases heard by Justice A K Sikri, either as a Single Judge or as a member of a Division Bench, in which judgements were pronounced more than two months after arguments concluded.
The CIC had directed disclosure after concluding that the information should be available because court masters followed a practice of preparing monthly lists. It also considered disclosure to be justified by larger public interest.
However, the High Court found that the existence of such a practice did not establish that the lists had been retained over successive years.
The Court held that the CIC could not issue directions under the RTI Act merely on an assumption that records should exist.
Public Interest Cannot Require Creation of New Information
Justice Mahajan acknowledged that delays in pronouncing judgements were a legitimate matter of public concern. However, the Court clarified that public interest could become relevant to disclosure only when the information actually existed.
The Court explained that providing the details sought by Gupta would involve scrutinising the records of every case heard by the particular judge, calculating the interval between the conclusion of arguments and delivery of the judgement, and compiling the results.
It held that the RTI Act did not oblige the public authority to undertake such collection and collation to generate information that was not already maintained.
The Court also relied on the Public Information Officer’s affidavit stating that the requested data was neither maintained nor compiled. Gupta had not challenged that assertion through a counter-affidavit.
Background of the RTI Dispute
Gupta’s application followed proceedings in a case he had filed against the Delhi High Court. Arguments in that matter concluded on July 31, 2007, while the judgement was pronounced on May 2, 2008.
Seeking comparable information about other matters heard by Justice Sikri, Gupta submitted his RTI application in April 2009.
After receiving no response within the prescribed thirty-day period, he filed a first appeal. The PIO subsequently informed him that the requested data was not specifically maintained or compiled.
Following the rejection of his first appeal, Gupta approached the CIC.
Before the Commission, the PIO maintained that the information was not available in the requested form. The PIO also argued that information submitted to the Chief Justice in a sealed cover was held in a fiduciary capacity and was exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.
The CIC rejected both objections and directed disclosure, prompting the PIO to challenge its decision before the High Court.
Allowing the petition, the Delhi High Court set aside the CIC order, holding that a direction to disclose information could not rest on an assumption about records that the public authority did not maintain.

CIC asks UGC, CBSE to ensure accessibility in educational institutions

New Indian Express: New Delhi: Tuesday, 3^rd November 2026.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) on Monday recommended that the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) establish monitoring mechanisms to ensure that universities and affiliated schools provide mandatory accessibility facilities, including ramps, wheelchairs and accessible toilets, for students with disabilities.

In two separate orders, Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi invoked Section 25(5) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, to recommend measures for ensuring compliance with disability-related provisions in educational institutions. The orders followed appeals filed by an applicant who had raised concerns over the absence of basic accessibility infrastructure in educational institutions in Bihar.
In the appeal concerning the UGC, the applicant had sought inquiry reports and details of action taken on a complaint regarding the lack of facilities for persons with disabilities in colleges affiliated with Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University.
Responding to the commission, the university said ramps had been constructed to provide access to its administrative building and key departments. It also informed the CIC that work was underway to construct separate accessible toilets for men and women with disabilities.
The university further stated that all constituent and affiliated colleges had been instructed to provide essential accessibility infrastructure, including ramps with handrails, accessible toilets, lifts wherever required, designated parking spaces, suitable library facilities and wheelchairs. The colleges were subsequently asked to furnish details of the actual status of these facilities.
The CIC also recommended that the UGC issue appropriate guidelines to ensure barrier-free access in accordance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and take steps to ensure strict compliance by universities under its purview.
In the separate appeal involving the CBSE, the applicant had sought information on action taken on complaints concerning accessibility facilities in private and government schools in Bihar and the Delhi-NCR region.
The board informed the commission that it had issued mandatory guidelines to all affiliated schools regarding provisions for children with special needs.
The CIC recommended that the CBSE issue necessary directions to affiliated schools and establish a monitoring mechanism to ensure effective implementation of the guidelines. It emphasised that eligible children must not be denied prescribed facilities and support.
While finding the replies furnished by the public information officers appropriate under the RTI Act in both cases, the commission underscored the wider public interest in safeguarding the educational rights of children with special needs.

RTI case: Punjab info panel issues bailable warrants against Amritsar Improvement Trust official: By Hillary Victor

Hindustan Times: Chandigarh: Tuesday, 3^rd November 2026.
The commission has directed the Amritsar senior superintendent of police (SSP) to execute the warrants and ensure that Rajesh Kumar appears before it with the information sought by the appellant

The order further noted that the officer’s failure to respond despite being given repeated opportunities had set an undesirable precedent. (HT File)

In a stern move against an official for repeatedly ignoring its notices and directions, the Punjab State Information Commission (PSIC) has issued bailable warrants against Rajesh Kumar, executive officer (EO)-cum-public information officer (PIO) of the Amritsar Improvement Trust, for repeatedly failing to appear before it in an appeal under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The commission has directed the Amritsar senior superintendent of police (SSP) to execute the warrants and ensure that Rajesh Kumar appears before it with the information sought by the appellant. The matter has been adjourned to January 6.
The action was taken by state information commissioner Harpreet Sandhu while hearing an appeal filed by Pradeep Kumar against the PIO, Amritsar Improvement Trust. The appellant told the commission that the information sought through an RTI application dated April 15, 2025, had not been provided.
Taking note of the submissions, the commission observed that no representative of the respondent authority had appeared at the hearing. It further pointed out that Rajesh Kumar had also remained absent during the earlier hearings on March 12 and July 1, 2026, despite notices being served through registered post.
The commission noted that a show-cause notice had been issued to Rajesh Kumar under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act through its order dated July 1, 2026. However, the officer had neither appeared before the commission nor submitted a written response to the notice.
Describing the repeated absence as a matter of serious concern, the commission observed that the officer’s conduct reflected disregard for its proceedings and statutory directions. It said the continued non-compliance had obstructed the adjudication of the appeal, caused avoidable delays and undermined the effective functioning of the commission.
The order further noted that the officer’s failure to respond despite being given repeated opportunities had set an undesirable precedent.
Exercising its powers under Section 18(3)(a) of the RTI Act, the commission ordered the issuance of bailable warrants against Rajesh Kumar to secure his presence at the next hearing.

Over Rs 110 Crore Disbursed As Interim And Final Compensation Among Child Victims Of Sexual Offences In Tamil Nadu

ETV Bharat: Madurai: Monday, 2^nd November 2026.
As per a response to an RTI query, the compensation details were compiled across 37 districts from May 2021 to July 2026.

A total of Rs 110.64 crore has been paid as interim and final compensation to child victims of sexual offences registered under the POCSO Act in Tamil Nadu from May 2021 to July 2026.
Based on data requested via the RTI Act by Prabhakar, a lawyer from Chengalpattu district, and provided by the Department of Child Welfare and Special Services, the compensation details were compiled across 37 districts (with Chennai further divided into North and South zones).
Rs 35.70 crore in interim compensation
Between May 7, 2021, and July 7, 2026, a total of Rs. 35,70,57,000 (Rs 35.70 crore) was provided as interim compensation to 5,359 child victims of POCSO-related offences. The reply stated there are no pending cases requiring the disbursement of interim compensation for this period.
The district-wise data shows, Namakkal recorded the highest interim compensation, with a total of Rs 3,21,85,000 distributed among 276 children. Similarly, in Madurai district, Rs 30,35,000 was provided as interim compensation to 52 children.
In other districts, the interim compensation amounts provided are: Rs 1.78 crore in Coimbatore, Rs 1.58 crore in Kanchipuram, Rs 1.40 crore in Dindigul, Rs 1.38 crore in Mayiladuthurai, Rs 1.27 crore in Salem, and Rs 1.42 crore in Chengalpattu. In Chennai, Rs 2.32 crore was provided for the southern zone and Rs. 1.44 crore in the northern zone. Furthermore, Rs 2.30 crore was disbursed in Tiruppur, Rs 2.12 crore in Thiruvallur, and Rs 2.07 crore in Virudhunagar as interim compensation.
Final Compensation of Rs. 74.93 Crore
In addition to interim compensation, the RTI response also includes details regarding the final compensation awarded to child victims in POCSO cases. Accordingly, between May 7, 2021, and July 7, 2026, a total of Rs 74,93,48,000 was provided as final compensation to 2,592 children.
It was reported that only one case remains pending regarding the payment of final compensation, with an amount of Rs. 6 lakh yet to be disbursed. Looking at the data district-wise, Cuddalore recorded the highest final compensation payout, with Rs 5.19 crore which benefited 133 children. This is followed by Dindigul district with Rs 4.04 crore, Coimbatore district with Rs 4.30 crore, Sivaganga district with Rs 3.66 crore and Madurai district with Rs 2.47 crore in final compensation payments.
In Madurai district, the compensation was provided to 94 children. However, the document indicates that there is one outstanding case for which a final compensation of Rs 6 lakh is yet to be paid.
Furthermore, final compensation amounts of Rs 2,55,20,000 in Thanjavur district, Rs 2,30,45,000 in Tiruppur, Rs 3,58,35,000 in Virudhunagar, and Rs 2,12,70,000 in Thiruvallur have been disbursed.
Districts leading in compensation
Namakkal district ranks first in interim compensation, with a total of Rs 3.21 crore while Cuddalore ranks first in final compensation, with a total of Rs 5.19 crore. In Madurai district, Rs 30.35 lakh has been provided as interim compensation, and Rs 2.47 crore as final compensation.
This RTI information reveals that a total exceeding Rs 110 crore comprising both interim and final compensation—has been provided to the affected children across Tamil Nadu.
Special POCSO courts in every district
When contacted via phone regarding the issue, Prabhakar told ETV Bharat "The government must take immediate steps to establish special POCSO courts in all districts across Tamil Nadu where they do not yet exist". He emphasized that in such cases, the law’s mandate for a swift trial must be upheld, and immediate relief and support must be provided to the child victims.
Beyond compensation: Other crucial considerations
In POCSO cases, providing compensation to child victims plays a vital role in ensuring their rehabilitation and future well-being. In this context, it is equally important to ensure that the processes for awarding compensation are efficient, and that child victims have proper access to psychological counseling, medical care, education, and rehabilitation services.
Specifically, it is essential for authorities to ensure that there are no delays in the procedures for finalizing and disbursing compensation, and that the victims receive the necessary relief in a timely manner.

Over 3,500 hectares of land leased to Harrison Malayalam, Cochin Malabar Estates without specified tenure, reveals RTI reply: RTI

The Hindu: Thrissur: Monday, 2^nd November 2026.
RTI disclosures from Chalakudy Forest Division reveal land allotments dating back to 1911; Plantation Corporation’s 4,261-hectare lease expired in 2017

More than 3,500 hectares of land have been leased to private plantation companies Harrison Malayalam Limited and Cochin Malabar Estates under the Chalakudy Forest Division, with the lease records dating back to 1911 without specifying an expiry date.
The details emerged from official records released under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by the Chalakudy Divisional Forest Office in response to an application filed by Raju Vazhakkala, a resident of Kakkanad. The documents, provided by State Public Information Officer and Senior Superintendent Shijo C. Kurian, contain details of land leased to public sector undertakings, private entities and individuals for various purposes.
According to the records, Harrison Malayalam Limited was allotted 2,453.73 hectares for rubber cultivation from 1911, while Cochin Malabar Estates was given 1,080.9632 hectares for rubber plantations the same year. The records do not specify an expiry date for either lease. Together, the two companies account for 3,534.6932 hectares of leased land.
For 50 years
The disclosures also reveal that the Plantation Corporation of Kerala was allotted 4,261.048 hectares for rubber and cashew plantations in 1967 for a period of 50 years. The lease tenure ended in 2017, according to the records.
Another allotment was made to the Aluva Settlement Colony in 1935. Of the 80.71 hectares allotted, 67.03 hectares were meant for the settlement colony and 4.05 hectares for a government tribal school. The Forest department has reclaimed 9.63 hectares of this land.
The records also list land leased for various infrastructure and public utility projects, including the Vettillappara ferry bridge, the Dharbapadam Lift Irrigation Project of Varandarappilly grama panchayat, roads, an underground electric cable project, a pump house and a repeater station.

Privacy, the press, and the space between - By: Brijesh Singh

The Sunday Guardian: Opinion: Sunday, 1^st November 2026.
As the Supreme Court takes up the DPDP Act, the world’s data protection laws show how democracies have tried to reconcile two rights that both matter

Last week I wrote about the constitutional tightrope of competing rights: how they are harmonised, and where their boundaries lie. This is another case in point. A journalist essentially works like an investigator, she checks a name against a land record, matches a director’s identification number across two companies, reads a court filing, calls a neighbour, writes it all down.
Painstakingly uncovering linkages, actors, actions across documents, data and personal accounts of sources. In the vocabulary of modern data protection law, each of those acts is the “processing of personal data”. The person who does it is a “controller” or a “fiduciary”, and the person written about is a “data subject” or a “data principal”, with rights that the law takes seriously.
Two goods sit in that one notebook: a citizen’s claim to privacy and the public’s claim to information. Both are constitutionally recognised in India, and neither cancels the other. How a legal system draws the line between them is one of the more delicate questions of the digital age.
In India, that question is now before the Supreme Court. On October 27, the court issued notice to the Centre on a petition by the Digital  News Publishers Association, which represents 21 digital publishers. The petition challenges several provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and the 2025 Rules.
The petitioners’ central contention is that the framework has no specific exemption for journalistic activity. Their counsel argued that this could affect news gathering and the confidentiality of sources. The court declined interim relief before hearing the Union, whose response is awaited, and listed the matter for November 17. The petition joins an earlier batch from The Reporters’ Collective, the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information and RTI activist Venkatesh Nayak.
Those focus largely on the Act’s amendment to Section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information Act, and the court has observed that they raise complex and constitutionally sensitive questions. The government, for its part, has maintained that press freedom will be protected. The constitutional questions are for the court, and this piece does not presume to answer them.
What may be useful, while the court deliberates, is a wider view, because India is hardly the first democracy to face this problem. Every major data protection regime of the past two decades has had to decide what to do with journalism. Their answers form a spectrum: wide exclusions at one end, narrowly conditioned exemptions at the other, and a great deal of careful drafting in between.
The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation is often assumed to exempt journalists. It does not, quite. Article 85 instead obliges each member state to reconcile data protection with freedom of expression in its own law. The result is a patchwork: the Nordic countries are broadly generous, others more restrictive. The Court of Justice of the European Union has supplied an interpretive spine.
In Satamedia (2008), and again in Buivids (2019), a case about a man who filmed police officers and posted the video on YouTube, it held that journalism is defined by purpose, the disclosure of information and ideas to the public, rather than by whether the person is a professional or works for a media house. The court also held that the exemption is not absolute. It applies only so far as it is necessary.
The United Kingdom’s 2018 Act turns this into a working test. Processing must be with a view to publication. The controller must reasonably provision on journalists’ sources. Indonesia’s 2022 law, by contrast, has no such exemption, and press groups there have raised concerns. A comparative map, in short, shows a range of choices rather than a single template. The record also counsels caution in both directions.
Where an exemption is thin, or a regulator reads it narrowly, data protection procedures can become a tool for the powerful. A widely discussed Hungarian decision of 2020 penalised Forbes Hungary for not individually notifying a family included in its rich list, though the data came from public company records. A later decision of the same authority on a similar list was seen by observers as giving more weight to press freedom. Regulators, too, learn. believe that publication is in the public interest.
And complying with a given obligation must be incompatible with the journalistic purpose. Throughout, the controller must have regard to recognised codes of practice. The exemption is real but conditional, and newsrooms there have learned that it must be reasoned and documented, not merely asserted. Others travel further. Brazil excludes processing carried out exclusively for journalistic purposes from the scope of its law altogether.
South Africa does the same, but only to the extent needed to reconcile privacy with freedom of expression in the public interest, and it ties that judgment to codes of conduct. Australia takes an institutional route. Media organisations are exempt when acting in the course of journalism, provided they are publicly committed to privacy standards, and the exemption does not cover their advertising or subscription business.
Canada’s private-sector law excludes data collected for journalistic purposes. Kenya, Nigeria, Thailand and the Philippines have each written some version of the carve-out, with their own conditions, and the Philippines adds a specific in J&K. Whether this was sheer incompetence or a subtle sleight of the hand to allow the terrorists to gain the upper hand and separate J&K from India is open to question. Whatever the case may be, one thing is certain—there was no concerted attempt by the Farooq Abdullah government to protect the Kashmir Pandits.
He fiddled (like Nero) as Kashmiri Pandits continued to be slaughtered day after day, culminating to January 19, 1990, when overnight, hundreds of Kashmiri Pandit families, women, elders and children with nothing more than the clothes on their backs abandoned their homes they or their families had lived in for decades or centuries and fled the Valley using any means of transport they could find.
By dawn hundreds of towns and villages had been emptied of the KP population. For a man who presided over the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits from Kashmir, it is a little rich to claim that Muslims are being persecuted in India based on a few questionable and isolated events. Equally, where an exemption is too broad, privacy becomes the casualty. The people journalists write about are people, and the right affirmed in Puttaswamy belongs to them as fully as to anyone else.
A wide exemption keyed to identity rather than purpose could be claimed by anyone with a website and a grievance, and there are commercial actors who would happily dress data harvesting in a press card. This is why the more careful regimes protect the act of journalism, condition it on public interest and proportionality, and bind it to codes of conduct, so that the benefit is earned by accepting a discipline.
The question is not privacy versus the press. It is how to give each its due when they meet in the same notebook. Seen this way, the international experience offers less a verdict than a vocabulary: purpose and entity, exclusion and exemption, public interest, necessity, proportionality, codes and sources. Whatever the court decides, and whatever course policy takes afterwards, these are the terms in which the debate will have to be conducted.
Newsrooms, meanwhile, may find it prudent to do what their counterparts elsewhere have done regardless of what the law finally says. That means writing down their own standards for handling personal data, documenting the public interest behind sensitive stories, and treating the privacy of the people they cover as part of their own ethics rather than an external imposition. The matter returns to court on November 17, and questions of this weight are rarely settled in a single hearing.
What is already clear is that the balance struck here will shape how a great many people, reporters and the reported alike, understand the meaning of their rights in a digital republic. The digital age is not merely testing our rights; …it is rewriting the jurisprudence that defines them.
(Brijesh Singh is a senior IPS officer and an author (@ brijeshbsingh on X). His latest book on ancient India, “The Cloud Chariot” (Penguin) is out on stands. Views are personal.)

NMCG Has Not Allocated Funds for New Wetland Projects in 2026, Awaiting State Proposals: RTI

ETV Bharat: New Delhi: Sunday, 1^st November 2026.
The NMCG sanctioned wetland conservation and management projects to the state forest departments of Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand during 2023, 2024 and 2025

The National Mission for Clean Ganga (NMCG) has not allocated any budget so far in 2026 for new wetland conservation projects under the Namami Gange Programme, with proposals from states awaited, according to an RTI reply.
The NMCG said it has undertaken initiatives for the identification, assessment, conservation and rejuvenation of wetlands in the Ganga basin in collaboration with Wetlands International South Asia (WISA), New Delhi, and the state forest departments concerned.
Wetland inventory and prioritisation studies have been undertaken by WISA in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Delhi. The technical reports for Uttar Pradesh and Bihar are available, while the wetland identification study for Delhi is underway, the reply said.
The NMCG sanctioned wetland conservation and management projects to the state forest departments of Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand during 2023, 2024 and 2025. These projects are ongoing.
In Uttarakhand, the project for conservation and management of the Ramsar site Asan Wetland in Dehradun district was sanctioned in 2025 at a cost of Rs 2.47 crore, of which Rs 52 lakh has been released.
In Uttar Pradesh, a project for conserving and sustainably managing three priority wetlands -- Kalewala Jheel in Muzaffarnagar, Numaiya Dahi Jheel-Kheduva Taal in Prayagraj and Dahtal Reoti Wetland in Ballia -- was sanctioned in 2023 at a cost of Rs 5.37 crore. Of this, Rs 3.22 crore has been released.
In Bihar, the project for conserving and sustainably managing Nathmalpur Bhagad Wetland in Bhojpur district was sanctioned in 2025 at a cost of Rs 3.51 crore, with Rs 72.8 lakh released.
In Jharkhand, an integrated management plan for Udhwa Lake Bird Sanctuary in Sahibganj district under Namami Gange Mission-II was sanctioned in 2024 at a cost of Rs 25.89 crore. The NMCG has released Rs 7.70 crore for the project. The mission said it regularly monitors the physical progress of the projects through review meetings and field visits. Further details can be obtained from the respective state forest departments implementing them.
The NMCG's technical report on Uttar Pradesh said 285 wetlands were inventoried within a 10-km buffer on either side of the Ganga River channel. The inventory was based on the 2020 land-use and land-cover map of the buffer region and was undertaken using a rapid assessment tool.
The wetlands were assessed for their geographical location, extent, type, catchment, hydrology, water sources, connectivity, inundation patterns, species and habitats, ecosystem services, threats and management arrangements. The report said wetland health cards were prepared using nine indicators related to wetland extent, hydrology and catchments, biodiversity, ecosystem services and governance.
The wetlands were prioritised on the basis of scores for threats and a cumulative score of the ecosystem services index and hydro-geomorphic function score. The report classified them into three phases high, moderate and low priority for conservation and management.
The technical report on Bihar inventoried and prioritised 124 wetlands in the Ganga floodplain area. Of these, 19 were identified as high priority for conservation and management, according to a PIB release. The Bihar report also assessed the wetlands for their ecological and hydrological characteristics, ecosystem services, threats, ownership patterns and rights and privileges associated with them.

Madras High Court Advocates Association challenges 1965 Union Cabinet decision to continue English as common language for Supreme Court and all High Courts

The Hindu: Chennai: Sunday, 1^st November 2026.
Says, the 1965 decision came to its notice only in 2025 pursuant to details obtained by a lawyer under the Right to Information Act, 2005

MHAA has contended that the bar imposed on use of regional languages in High Courts violates Articles 14 (right to equality), 19 (freedom of speech and expression) and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution. | Photo Credit: FILE PHOTO

The Madras High Court Advocates Association (MHAA) has filed a public interest litigation petition in the High Court challenging the constitutional validity of an Union Cabinet Committee’s 1965 decision that English should continue as the common language for the Supreme Court and all High Courts in the country until it could be replaced with Hindi.
First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan would be hearing the case on Monday (November 2, 2026). MHAA has contended that the bar imposed on use of regional languages in High Courts violates Articles 14 (right to equality), 19 (freedom of speech and expression) and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution.
In his affidavit MHAA secretary S. Arivazhagan said, the association came to know about the 1965 Cabinet decision only last year from an advocate who had obtained the details under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 and hence it had chosen to challenge it now. The assocation did not want the Cabinet decision to hamper the long pending demand to make Tamil as the official language of Madras High Court.
MHAA said, a conference of Chief Justices of all High Courts in the country was held in the first week of March 1965 under the chairmanship of the then Chief Justice of India (CJI) P.B. Gajendragadkar. The resolutions passed in the conference were not released to the press but they were forwarded to Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri, Union Home Minister Gulzarilal Nanda and all Chief Ministers on March 26, 1965.
The CJI’s letter to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) stated that the conference had recommended that the Supreme Court and all High Courts should have a common language, English should continue to be such common language “until in due course Hindi becomes rich and ripe enough to take its place” and that regional languages should not be introduced as languages of High Courts.
Subsequently, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) put up a note before the Cabinet Committee, constituted to consider different aspects of regional language policy, on May 17, 1965. The note read that there would be difficulty in elevating High Court judges to the Supreme Court and also in the appearance of lawyers before various High Courts and the Supreme Court if there was no common language for these courts.
“One of the major unifying factors in the country is a unified judicial system with a common language and uniform way of functioning in High Courts. Nothing should be done that is likely to weaken the present system. There can be little doubt that if regional languages were permitted to be used in the High Courts, we would be moving towards fragmentation of the judicial system, and it would not be possible to maintain for long the unitary character of the judicial system with the Supreme Court at the apex. An all-India bar of any sort cannot also continue to exist,” the note read.
The MHA said, the Cabinet may accept the recommendation of the Chief Justices’ conference that the Supreme Court and all the High Courts in the country should have a common language and that English should continue to be used until Hindi could take its place.
On Article 348(2) of the Constitution which empowers the Governors, with the previous consent of the President, to authorise the use of regional languages in the High Court proceedings (but for judgements, decrees or orders passed by the court), the MHA said, the President would be justified in denying consent since the CJI as well as the Chief Justices of the High Courts were opposed to introduction of regional languages.
“It might also be desirable to adopt a convention whereby the CJI would be consulted before the President gave his consent to any such proposal,” the MHA note read. The Cabinet Committee considered the note and approved it on May 21, 1965.
Questioning as to how a new procedure of consulting the CJI could be introduced by way of an executive decision when Article 348(2) does not pescribe any such requirement, MHAA said, though it was not against any consultation with the judiciary, its grievance was actually against the requirement of such consultation being treated as the need to obtain mandatory consent from the CJI.
MHAA said, the Centre had shot down proposals sent by the Tamil Nadu government in December 2006 and June 2014 to permit the use of Tamil in the proceedings of the Madras High Court and the fate of a latest resolution passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on September 3, 2026 was not known yet. It insisted that the Centre must be called upon to disclose its decision.
The association also brought it to the notice of the court that there was no uniformity in considering similar proposals from other States. It said, the proposals sent by the governments in West Bengal, Gujarat and Karnataka in 1997, 2012 and 2014 respectively to permit the use of Bengali, Gujarati and Kannada in their High Court proceedings were rejected by the Centre.
On the other hand, Rajasthan High Court was permitted to use Hindi way back in 1950 itself and the States of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar had been allowed to use Hindi in their High Courts since 1969, 1971 and 1972 respectively pursuant to orders of the Governors under Article 348(2) and Presidential consent thereto.
“The authorisations for Hindi in Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar demonstrate that English need not remain the exclusive language of every High Court proceeding,” the MHAA concluded.
Madurai Bar Association case
The Madurai Bar Association of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, represented by its secretary R. Venkatesan, too has filed a separate PIL petition seeking a declaration that the litigants have a right to file pleadings, advance oral arguments and receive judgements, orders and decrees in a language they understand.
The case, filed through advocate M. Velmurugan, also insists on issuing a direction to the Centre to take all necessary steps required under Article 348(2) of Constitution and Section 7 of the Official Languages Act, 1963 to declare Tamil to be the primary language of the Madras High Court and its Madurai Bench.

IITs slip on faculty quota norms despite high applications from reserved communities : By Basant Kumar Mohanty

Telegraph India: Explainer: Sunday, 1^st November 2026.
At IIT Kharagpur, SC, ST and OBC staff make up less than 10 per cent of faculty strength, while the institute records 10 student suicides over five years

The IITs have failed to adhere to the constitutionally mandated reservation policy in faculty recruitment, impacting SC/ST representation in key bodies meant to curb discrimination.
Data obtained by Pranav Jeevan P, an alumnus of IIT Bombay, through the Right to Information (RTI) Act shows that only about 20 per cent of faculty members were from SC, ST and OBC communities in seven IITs that have shared data (see chart).
Under the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers’ Cadre) Act, 2019, institutes are supposed to reserve 15 per cent of faculty posts for SCs, 7.5 per cent for STs, and 27 per cent for OBCs.
Through his RTI application, Jeevan sought data on department- and category-wise composition of faculty in all IITs, faculty vacancies, the number of applications received for faculty posts from 2025 till now, mental health facilities, complaints received and their nature and the actions taken by the SC/ST cells.
According to data, SC, ST and OBC faculty members constitute less than 10 per cent of the existing faculty strength at IIT Kharagpur, the country’s first IIT. There are 20 SC, 46 OBC and two ST faculty members at the institution against 236, 118 and 424 sanctioned posts, respectively.
The shortfall can’t be blamed on the lack of applicants. Data shows that 48 per cent of the applications received by the institute since 2025 were from SC, ST and OBC candidates.
In the last five years, IIT Kharagpur has witnessed 10 student suicides, which include two SC students and one ST student. The institute has 12 regular counsellors and one psychiatrist hired on contract for 14,764 students, a ratio that doesn’t even meet the UGC norm of one mental health professional for every 500 students.
The situation is similar in other IITs, too. Jeevan said the IITs have been lying that they were not getting enough applicants.
“About 50 per cent of all faculty applications come from SC, ST, and OBC candidates. IITs have a savarna hegemony problem. Unless they are forced to follow reservation norms, casteism will remain rampant in these institutes. The only way to counter casteism is to have more members from these marginalised categories in faculty positions,” he said.
Jeevan said most departments in the IITs were devoid of SC/ST/OBC faculty members, which means students from these communities don’t have anyone to approach when they face discrimination.
“Most of these institutes do not have a functioning SC/ST cell for students or an established grievance redress mechanism. In some institutes, the cells exist for the sake of it. They are not allotted funds. They don’t conduct any outreach events and activities for students. None of them raises the issue of reservation violation in faculty recruitment,” he said.
Prof. Avatthi Ramaiah, former dean of the Equal Opportunity Centre at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Mumbai, who specialises in caste, social exclusion and inclusive policy, said there was evidence of deserving SC/ST/OBC candidates being rejected over caste.
“Those from savarna castes occupying positions of power in academic and professional institutions such as the IITs are very conscious of not considering SC/ST/OBC candidates despite the existence of a reservation policy. There is no dearth of talent among the SC/ST/OBC candidates,” he said.
“By virtue of being a part of several selection panels either as subject expert or as observer, I know that those competing for reserved posts often face relatively tougher questions. The selection committee subsequently concludes that those candidates are ‘not found suitable’,” Ramaiah said.
JNU PhD admission
The SFI, the student arm of the CPM, on Wednesday alleged violation of reservation policy in Jawaharlal Nehru University’s advertisement for 711 regular PhD seats this year.
According to the SFI, against the 7.5 per cent reservation requirement for ST candidates, at least 53 seats should have been earmarked for them. However, the PhD Admission Prospectus 2026–27 has advertised only 38, a shortfall of around 15 seats.
Similarly, it said, the prospectus advertised 103 seats for SC candidates against around 107 required under the 15 per cent reservation requirement. For persons with benchmark disabilities, the prospectus earmarked 17 seats against a minimum of around 36, the SFI alleged.
The SFI has filed separate complaints with the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) and the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) against the violations, SFI secretary Aishe Ghosh and its president Adarsh M. Saji told reporters on Wednesday.

DPDP Act faces questions over its impact on press freedom : By Rakesh Kumar

New Indian Express: Explainer: Sunday, 1^st November 2026.
The legislation is now facing criticism from the digital media industry, which says some of its provisions could make news gathering difficult and affect the ability of journalists to report on matters of public interest.

The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, which was introduced to protect people's personal data in the digital space, is back in the news, this time over concerns about its impact on press freedom.
Enacted by Parliament in August 2023, the law was seen as a major step towards protecting citizens' digital privacy. It established a legal framework for collecting, storing and processing personal data. However, the legislation is now facing criticism from the digital media industry, which says some of its provisions could make news gathering difficult and affect the ability of journalists to report on matters of public interest.
The Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), which represents 21 prominent news organisations, including The New Indian Express, The Hindu, Dainik Bhaskar, Times Internet, India Today, NDTV, Network18, Zee Media, ABP and Bennett Coleman, has challenged the DPDP Act and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, in the Supreme Court.
In its petition, the association has argued that the law does not provide any specific exemption for the media and could restrict journalists' ability to collect and use personal information while reporting. It has also raised concerns that the law could weaken citizens' right to information.
The Supreme Court has sought the Centre's response to the petition. Union Electronics and Information Technology Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, however, has said that press freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution and that the government has no intention of restricting it.
What is the DPDP Act and why was it introduced?
The DPDP Act was enacted in August 2023 to regulate the processing of digital personal data. The government notified the accompanying rules in November 2025.
The law lays down how organisations collecting or using personal information must handle that data. It also gives individuals certain rights over their personal information and requires organisations to take steps to protect it. Under the law, an organisation that decides why and how personal data is processed is called a Data Fiduciary. The individual whose data is being processed is called a Data Principal.
The law requires organisations to give individuals clear information about the data being collected and the purpose for which it will be used. In most cases, they must obtain consent before processing personal data. Individuals can also withdraw their consent and seek correction or erasure of their personal information, subject to the provisions of the law.
The rules provide for a phased implementation of the law. The main obligations relating to the processing of personal data are scheduled to come into effect after 18 months from the notification of the rules.
Why are news publishers opposing the law?
The central concern raised by the DNPA is that the law does not provide a separate exemption for journalism carried out in public interest. The petitioners argue that journalists often have to collect and use personal information without informing the person concerned in advance. This is particularly important in investigative reporting involving public officials, companies or individuals suspected of wrongdoing.
For example, a journalist investigating the financial dealings or assets of a public official may need to examine documents and information relating to that person. Seeking consent before collecting or using such information could alert the person to the investigation and allow evidence to be destroyed or witnesses to be influenced, the petition argues.
The petitioners say the notice and consent requirements could, therefore, affect the way journalists gather information and publish reports. They also argue that time-sensitive and live reporting could become difficult if prior consent is required.
The petition further raises concerns over the right of individuals to withdraw consent and seek deletion of their personal data. According to the petitioners, these provisions could be used to pressure news organisations into removing factual reports or information from their digital archives, even when it is relevant to the public interest. The petition argues that the law should distinguish between the commercial use of personal data and its use for journalism, particularly when reporting on matters of public importance.
What is the concern over the Right to Information Act?
The DNPA has also challenged an amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, introduced through Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act. The RTI Act allows citizens to seek information from public authorities. However, certain categories of information are exempt from disclosure, including personal information.
Before the amendment, the provision allowed disclosure of personal information in certain cases where the public interest in disclosure outweighed the harm to the individual’s privacy. The petitioners argue that the amended provision removes this balancing mechanism and makes it harder to obtain personal information through the RTI route.
They say this could affect journalists seeking information about public officials, government decisions and matters involving public accountability. The petition argues that information relating to an individual may also be relevant to understanding the functioning of public institutions.
Why are Sections 36 and 37 being challenged?
The petitioners have raised concerns over the powers given to the government under Sections 36 and 37 of the Act. Section 36 allows the Centre to call for information from a Data Fiduciary or an intermediary for specified purposes. The petitioners argue that such powers could affect the confidentiality of journalistic sources if information held by news organisations is sought without adequate safeguards.
Journalists often rely on whistleblowers and confidential sources to report on corruption, corporate wrongdoing and other sensitive matters. The petition argues that the possibility of such information being disclosed could discourage people from sharing information with the media.
Section 37 empowers the government to restrict public access to certain information in specified circumstances. The petitioners argue that the provision gives the government wide powers and could affect the circulation of news and information. They have questioned whether adequate safeguards are in place to prevent the misuse of these powers.
What has the Supreme Court said?
The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Centre on the DNPA petition as well as its plea seeking an interim stay on the challenged provisions. During the hearing, the bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant stressed the need to balance the privacy rights of ordinary citizens with the media’s freedom to investigate and report.
The court asked the publishers to suggest safeguards that could prevent misuse while protecting journalistic activities. It has listed the matter for further hearing on November 17. The court has not yet ruled on the constitutional validity of the challenged provisions or granted the requested interim relief.
What does the petition seek?
The petitioners have sought to strike down several provisions of the DPDP Act, including Sections 7, 17(2), 18, 19, 27, 29, 36, 37 and 44(3), along with Rules 16, 17 and 23 of the DPDP Rules. They have also challenged the amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, arguing that it restricts access to information in the public interest. The petition contends that the provisions violate constitutional rights, including freedom of speech and expression, the right to practise a profession and the right to equality.
The legal challenge brings into focus a larger question: how can the government protect the personal data of citizens without making it difficult for journalists to investigate and report on issues of public interest? The Supreme Court’s examination of the petition will be important in determining how these competing rights are balanced.