NHAI crackdown on erring contractors patchy: RTI

The Sunday Guardian: National: Sunday, July 19, 2026.

NHAI crackdown on erring contractors patchy: RTI image:x

The RTI applications were addressed individually to NHAI offices across the country, and every application contained the same three questions. The replies, however, varied substantially.
Responses received under the Right to Information (RTI) Act on applications filed by The Sunday Guardian from Project Implementation Units (PIUs) of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) reveal wide variation in the action taken against contractors for poor road quality, substandard construction and failure to meet prescribed technical specifications during the last five financial years.
The findings are based on identical RTI applications filed on 11 February 2026 with NHAI offices across the country under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The applications sought three categories of information: details of action taken against contractors for poor road quality in the last five years; substandard construction or failure to meet prescribed technical specifications; year-wise details of penalties, liquidated damages, fines or other financial recoveries imposed on such contractors; and year-wise details of the total amount recovered from contractors on account of poor road quality.
The replies, covering a substantial cross-section of the RTI applications filed with NHAI’s Project Implementation Units, show that while several offices furnished detailed contractorwise records of penalties and recoveries imposed on highway projects, many others stated that no such action had been taken within their jurisdiction during the period covered by the RTI.
A total of 53 unique NHAI offices were covered in this nationwide audit, revealing that only 15 offices actively levied financial penalties over the half-decade bracket, totalling an absolute nationwide cumulative penalty pool of Rs 3,096,912,197 (approximately Rs 309.69 crore).
The responses also show that identical RTI applications were dealt with differently by different PIUs. While some offices enclosed detailed annexures containing project-wise penalties, contractor names, financial recoveries and arbitration status, others replied that there were no such cases. Some offices asked the applicant to inspect records, some stated that the information was not available in the requested format, some sought payment of the prescribed RTI application fee, while others transferred the applications to different public authorities.
The remaining states across India’s 28 states and 8 Union Territories either have their local replies tied up in internal processing delays or their regional headquarters structurally deflected the queries through administrative routing.
The RTI applications were addressed individually to NHAI offices across the country, and every application contained the same three questions. The replies, however, varied substantially depending on the Project Implementation Unit concerned.
CONTRACTOR PENALTIES RUNNING INTO CRORES DISCLOSED BY SEVERAL PIUS
Among the replies received, some Project Implementation Units furnished detailed records of financial action taken against contractors, identifying highway projects, concessionaires, contractors, financial years, penalty amounts, recoveries and, in some cases, the status of arbitration proceedings.
The largest disclosure came from PIU Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh). The office disclosed that a penalty of Rs 119 crore was imposed in 2025 on M/s Centrodorstroy (India) Pvt. Ltd., and NKC Projects Pvt. Ltd. (JV) in connection with the balance work of four-laning of the Bhopal-Biaora section of NH-12 (Package-II). According to the reply, the matter is presently under arbitration or conciliation.
The office also disclosed that in 2024, a penalty of Rs 1.196 crore was imposed on M/s NKC-CDS (JV) for the balance work of four-laning of the Obedullaganj-Itarsi section of NH-69 (Package-I), adding that the amount had been recovered.
In an equally massive enforcement drive missing from initial institutional compilations, PIU Surat (Gujarat) emerged as a premier fiscal enforcement node. The Surat office systematically levied Rs 314,474,000 (approximately Rs 31.44 crore) in financial penalties for non-compliance with maintenance obligations. This included encashing a massive Rs 13.87 crore penalty from the bank guarantee of M/s Shankar Ramchandra Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd., for defaults spanning 2024-25. The unit further hit M/s Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd., with compounding penalties of Rs 6.4 crore and Rs 80 lakh, initiated a risk-and-cost notice of Rs 4.31 crore against M/s Wagad Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., and penalized M/s Shiwalay Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., a cumulative Rs 5.76 crore and Rs 35.74 lakh across successive evaluation terms.
PIU Muzaffarpur (Bihar) furnished details containing project-wise penalties relating to maintenance obligations. Moving past initial transitional reporting, the office disclosed heavy penalties of Rs 80.52 crore and Rs 3.85 crore relating to the Muzaffarpur-Darbhanga-Purnia section of NH-57 (Imposed on M/s SMS AABS India Tollways Pvt. Ltd., for breach of maintenance obligations), besides Rs 19.593 crore relating to the Muzaffarpur-Sonbarsa section of NH-77 (imposed on M/s North Bihar Highway Ltd.). The reply attributed these massive penalties to explicit breaches of maintenance obligations and unresolved work.
PIU Rudrapur (Uttarakhand) furnished one of the most detailed replies among the RTI responses received. The office disclosed penalties and recoveries across several highway projects. For the Sitarganj-Tanakpur section of NH-125 (Khatima Bypass Package-II), penalties amounting to Rs 7.61 crore were disclosed, with recoveries of Rs 1.23 crore. For the Rampur-Kathgodam section of NH-87 (Package-I), the office disclosed that Rs 8.60 crore had been imposed and fully recovered during FY 2024-25. For the Rudrapur-Kathgodam section of NH-87 during the operation and maintenance stage, penalties totalling Rs 27.27 crore were disclosed, with recoveries recorded across FY 2024-25 and FY 2025-26. The office also disclosed penalties of Rs 6.97 crore on the Rudrapur-Kathgodam Package-II project under Hybrid Annuity Mode, with recoveries of Rs 5.70 crore, besides a penalty of Rs 0.31 crore on the Kashipur-Sitarganj section of NH-74, which was reported to have been fully recovered. The mathematical summation of these Rudrapur infrastructure penalties stands at Rs 50.76 crore.
PIU Moradabad (Uttar Pradesh), enclosed contractor-wise details relating to two highway projects. For the Hapur Bypass-Moradabad section, the office disclosed penalties or damages amounting to Rs 0.14 crore, Rs 0.85 crore, Rs 0.54 crore and Rs 0.76 crore. For the Moradabad-Bareilly section of NH-24 under the DBFOT Phase-III project, the office disclosed penalties of Rs 4.66 crore and Rs 0.46 crore.
PIU Vijayawada (Andhra Pradesh) enclosed an active project matrix identifying highway projects where financial penalties and recoveries had been imposed on contractors, clarifying earlier regional ambiguities. The attached records from the Project Implementation Unit Amaravati file disclosed penalties and recoveries against projects executed by Varaha Infra Ltd.-Jinjaxi JV, Lakshmi Infrastructure & Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Shiva Build Tech Pvt. Ltd., Abhipsa Constructions and Dilip Buildcon Ltd., including a recovery of Rs 3.52 crore relating to the Vijayawada-Machilipatnam EPC project.
PIU Purnea (Bihar) informed the applicant that Non-Conformance Reports (NCR) had been issued against contractors for poor road quality, substandard construction, or failure to meet technical specifications. The unit disclosed that rectification had been carried out by contractors and penalties totaling Rs 2,35,30,391 had been recorded in respect of four highway projects. The reply disclosed project-wise maintenance deficiency penalties for the Narenpur-Purnea section (Rs 91,667 in FY 2025-26), Forbesganj-Jogbani section (Rs 868,664 in FY 2023-24, Rs 2,542,998 in FY 2024-25, and Rs 4,655,600 in FY 2025-26), Bahadurganj-Araria section (Rs 666,919 in FY 2025-26), and Purnea-Dalkhola section (Rs 8,449,125 in FY 2023-24, Rs 2,456,688 in FY 2024-25, and Rs 3,798,730 in FY 2025-26) under liquidated damages for deficiency in maintenance services.
PIU Gajwel (Telangana) enclosed Annexure-A relating to the four-laning of NH-161 from Mangalore to Hyderabad. The office disclosed that liquidated damages of Rs18,04,203 had been imposed under Clause 17.8 of the Concession Agreement after deficiencies including rutting, depression, non-functional Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) components and delays in rectification were recorded. According to the reply, rectification work was subsequently completed, while the concessionaire challenged the damages before the Delhi High Court and the matter is under arbitration.
PIU Kannur (Kerala) disclosed that NHAI imposed a penalty of Rs 30 lakh on M/s MEIL Chengala Roadways Pvt. Ltd., after a collapse at Chainage 72+927 caused by failure of staging material during construction.
PIU Cochin-II (Kerala) disclosed that a penalty of Rs 15.35 lakh had been imposed following the collapse of four girders on the Thuravoor-Paravoor stretch of the Alappuzha viaduct project.
PIU Malda (West Bengal) similarly reported direct financial recoveries arising from structural and road surface deterioration. Following a definitive quality audit by an independent engineer that flagged severe cracking, rutting, potholes, and disintegrating pavement edges between km 191.700 and km 212.500 of the Berhampore Bypass stretch, the office penalized the concessionaire Rs 34.68 lakh for non-maintenance.
PIU Bathinda (Punjab) documented active financial enforcement over consecutive financial terms, recovering Rs 11.97 lakh in damages during FY 2023-24, Rs 5 lakh in FY 2024-25, and consecutive recoveries of Rs 4.21 lakh and Rs 5 lakh during the FY 2025-26 cycle on northern stretches.
PIU Shillong (Meghalaya) disclosed that a contractor had been penalised Rs 20,000 after defects were noticed in an overlay work and rectification was carried out.
PIU Madurai (Tamil Nadu) also confirmed an active penalty of Rs 300,000 levied against its contractor following a major engineering failure on the Chettikulam section of the Madurai-Natham road, noting that three massive engineering girders collapsed due to a catastrophic hydraulic jack failure.
The replies from these Project Implementation Units identified specific highway projects, contractors or concessionaires, financial years, penalty amounts and, in several cases, the status of recoveries or arbitration proceedings.
MAJORITY OF PIUS REPORTED NO FINANCIAL ACTION AGAINST CONTRACTORS
While a number of Project Implementation Units furnished detailed records of penalties and recoveries, the majority of substantive replies received by the applicant stated that no financial action had been taken against contractors for poor road quality, substandard construction or failure to meet prescribed technical specifications during the period covered by the RTI.
The wording varied across offices, with some replies stating that the information may be treated as “Nil”, others reporting that no such cases or incidents had occurred under their jurisdiction, and a few stating that no deficiencies had been found in newly constructed roads. The responses, however, conveyed substantially the same position.
In Andhra Pradesh, most PIUs informed the applicant that there were no reportable instances of contractor action. PIUs at Anantapur, Chittoor, Nellore, Ongole, Tirupati, Visakhapatnam and Vizianagaram furnished Nil replies. A separate disclosure from PIU Rajahmundry similarly confirmed a zero-incident return for both quality breaches and penalties within its local operational jurisdiction. The Vijayawada area project data was the notable exception, tracking contractor penalties across multiple projects via the regional files.
In Bihar, several PIUs stated that no financial action had been taken against contractors. Begusarai informed the applicant that no deficiencies had been found in newly constructed roads and therefore no penalties or recoveries were reported. Bhagalpur replied that the information sought was Nil. Patna, Madhubani and several other PIUs also reported Nil responses.
In Uttar Pradesh, the majority of PIUs reported that no such action had been taken. Varanasi stated that no case of poor road quality or substandard construction had been recorded under its jurisdiction. Gorakhpur informed the applicant that the information relating to all three queries was Nil. Azamgarh replied Nil for action taken and penalties, while describing the total recoveries as “Not Applicable”. Ayodhya stated that the information for all three queries was Nil. Bahraich informed the applicant that the information with respect to PIU Bahraich may be treated as Nil. Raebareli also reported Nil and marked the total recoveries as “Not Applicable”. Palampur similarly replied that the requested information may be treated as Nil. Moradabad, however, furnished contractor-wise penalty details across two highway projects.
In Madhya Pradesh, Ratlam informed the applicant that no deficiencies had been found in newly constructed roads within the last three years and therefore no penalties or recoveries had been reported. Ujjain replied that the total amount of penalties, liquidated damages, fines or recoveries imposed or collected during the period covered by the RTI was Nil. Indore informed the applicant that no records matching the request existed under its jurisdiction. Gwalior reported that no such cases had been recorded, while the same communication stated that the information may be treated as Nil with respect to Jabalpur. In contrast, Bhopal disclosed contractor penalties exceeding Rs 120 crore, while Harda did not furnish the requested information in the format sought.
In Telangana, almost all substantive replies reported no financial action. Mahabubnagar, Khammam-I, Khammam-II, Warangal, Kamareddy and Mancherial informed the applicant that the information may be treated as Nil or that no such cases had been reported under their jurisdiction. A standalone “Nil” statement was also tracked for the regional data filed under the Gaisgawel node. Gajwel was the only PIU in the state to furnish a detailed statement of liquidated damages imposed under a concession agreement.
The replies from Kerala reflected different positions across PIUs. Kozhikode informed the applicant that the information may be treated as Nil. Cochin-I stated that no such information was available at NHAI PIU Cochin-I. Palakkad did not process the application because it stated that the prescribed RTI fee had not been received. Thiruvananthapuram sought copying charges before furnishing records. Cochin-II and Kannur, however, disclosed penalties imposed on contractors.
In Assam, Silchar informed the applicant that no such cases had been identified under its jurisdiction. Bongaigaon similarly stated that no such incidents had occurred under the PIU. PIU Guwahati similarly stated that “no such incident has happened under this PIU,” returning a blank slate for both actions and recoveries.
In Himachal Pradesh, Hamirpur replied that the information sought was Nil, while Mandi informed the applicant that the information under its jurisdiction was Nil.
In Chhattisgarh, Raipur stated that no such incidents relating to poor road quality, substandard construction or contractor penalties had occurred under its jurisdiction. PIU Abhanpur informed the applicant that no deficiencies relating to construction quality or technical specifications had been recorded under the jurisdiction of the PIU and that the information may therefore be treated as Nil. PIU Korba similarly returned a flat statement confirming that there were no such deficiencies or penalties reported within its local jurisdiction.
In Jammu and Kashmir, PIU Srinagar replied that the information sought was Nil under its jurisdiction. This absolute absence of punitive metrics was mirrored by PIU Jalgaon (Maharashtra), which filed a categorical Nil report across all active quality columns.
Across these replies, the Project Directors and Central Public Information Officers used different expressions, including “Nil”, “No such cases”, “No such incident”, “No deficiencies” and “Not Applicable”. In each instance, the replies indicated that the offices were not reporting financial action against contractors for the period covered by the RTI.
SEVERAL PIUS SOUGHT INSPECTION, CITED PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS OR TRANSFERRED APPLICATIONS
Besides replies furnishing contractor penalty records or stating that no such action had been taken, a third set of responses consisted of offices that did not provide the information in the format sought. These replies cited provisions of the RTI Act, fee-related issues, record management practices or administrative procedures.
One of the recurring grounds cited by some PIUs was that furnishing the information in the requested form would require compilation of records.
PIU Harda, in its reply, informed the applicant that providing the information in the manner sought would require compilation of data that would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Referring to Sections 2(f) and 7(9) of the RTI Act, the Project Director requested the applicant either to specify the information sought or inspect the records at the PIU office after prior intimation.
A similar response had earlier been furnished by PIU Motihari and PIU Chhatarpur, which also invoked Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, stating that compiling the information would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority and inviting the applicant to inspect the records locally.
Another group of PIUs stated that the information was not available in the form requested.
PIU Cochin-I informed the applicant that no such information was available with the office. The reply did not report whether any penalties had been imposed, but stated that the requested information was unavailable with the PIU.
PIU Coimbatore (Tamil Nadu) went further, issuing a multi-page statutory pushback noting that the targeted fine data was “not available on record” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, asserting that the law does not compel public officers to compile, deduce, or create fresh datasets to fulfil an inquiry.
In another reply, one Project Implementation Unit informed the applicant that the records sought existed but could not be supplied electronically because the PDF files exceeded the 1 MB upload limit of the online RTI portal. The Central Public Information Officer requested the applicant to visit the office during working hours after prior intimation, inspect the relevant records and obtain photocopies on payment of the prescribed charges.
A different approach was adopted by another PIU, which informed the applicant that the information sought was already available on the official NHAI website and directed the applicant to the public domain instead of furnishing project-specific records.
One office merely acknowledged the RTI application without furnishing any substantive reply. PIU Prayagraj, while communicating receipt of the application and providing details of the First Appellate Authority, did not respond to the three queries relating to contractor action, penalties or recoveries.
The replies also reflected differing positions on RTI application fees.
PIU Bareilly, PIU Kanpur, PIU Chhapra, PIU Palakkad, PIU Lucknow and PIU Ramban informed the applicant that the prescribed application fee of Rs 10 under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act had not been received. The offices stated that the information would be processed after receipt of the prescribed fee through a Demand Draft or Indian Postal Order, or upon production of proof of payment if the fee had already been deposited.
Unlike these replies, PIU Thiruvananthapuram did not question the RTI application itself but informed the applicant that the requested information could be supplied only after payment of Rs 18 per page towards photocopying charges. The office asked the applicant to remit the amount before copies of the records could be furnished.
Several Regional Offices did not themselves answer the RTI applications but transferred them to the concerned Project Implementation Units under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. Regional Offices including Chennai, Bhopal and other NHAI regional offices transferred the applications to the respective PIUs having jurisdiction over the projects referred to in the RTI applications. Similarly, the online RTI portal records show that one application was transferred to PIU Badaun, where it was assigned a fresh registration number for independent disposal.
IDENTICAL QUESTIONS, DIFFERING RESPONSES
The RTI responses also showed that even where the applications were identical and sought the same three categories of information, the manner in which they were processed differed across offices.
Some PIUs enclosed detailed annexures identifying projects, contractors, concessionaires, penalty amounts, recoveries and arbitration status. Others furnished brief Nil replies. A third group relied on procedural provisions of the RTI Act, sought payment of statutory fees, invited inspection of records or transferred the applications to other public authorities.
The RTI exercise covered Project Implementation Units across multiple states, with every application seeking identical information for the last five financial years.
The stark systemic contradictions in how identical queries were processed ranging from casual, single-line “Nil” text dispatches to highly technical statutory rejections also expose a profoundly fragmented administrative apparatus lacking a uniform institutional protocol or standardized regulatory training for NHAI’s public information officers.

Information Commission orders police station video footage be given to appellant

The Hindu: Bengaluru: Sunday, July 19, 2026.

Nagaraju M.R. of Malavalli had filed an application under the Right to Information Act before the Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned on August 4, 2022, seeking CCTV footage of Malavalli Town and Rural police stations from October 10, 2021, to March 31, 2022, in connection with the investigation of a case involving him.
In an interesting case, the Karnataka Information Commission has ordered that video footage from the CCTV cameras installed at a police station be furnished to an appellant.
Nagaraju M.R. of Malavalli had filed an application under the Right to Information Act before the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) concerned on August 4, 2022, seeking CCTV footage of Malavalli Town and Rural police stations from October 10, 2021, to March 31, 2022, in connection with the investigation of a case involving him.
However, the station officers of both stations had refused to hand over the CCTV footage to him. Although the DySP was required by law to transfer the application to the appropriate public authority, as the matter did not fall under his jurisdiction, he had failed to do so.
Instead, he had just written reminder letters to the station heads, said a release by the Karnataka Information Commission. The station heads had issued an endorsement that such video footage cannot be furnished. During the inquiry, they admitted that they had issued such an endorsement following oral instructions from senior officials, stated the release.
When the matter came up for hearing before him, Information Commissioner Rudranna Harthikote ordered the police to submit the hard disks containing the video recordings to the FSL for verification. He directed that the CCTV footage showing the appellant’s visits to the police stations for inquiry be provided to him, while the remaining footage be masked.
As per the direction, the video footage was provided to the appellant after all instructions were followed, the release said. The commission has warned the heads of the two police stations against violating RTI norms. It has also directed that disciplinary action be initiated against the then DySP, Naveen Kumar, who is currently serving as Additional SP in Ballari. A notice has been issued to him in this regard, and he has replied, claiming that he did not violate any norms. Further proceedings are under way, the release said.

PMO Says PM Modi's Personal YouTube Channel Isn't Managed By PMO or Govt Of India; CIC Dismisses RTI Appeal

Law Beat: New Delhi: Sunday, July 19, 2026.

CIC has dismissed a plea seeking details of the annual expenditure incurred on maintaining and operating Prime Minister Narendra Modi's YouTube channel.

The Commission held that the RTI applicant had not sought specific information within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and found no ground to interfere after the PMO stated that Prime Minister Narendra Modi's personal YouTube channel is not managed by the PMO or the Government of India.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has dismissed a second appeal filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking details of the annual expenditure incurred on maintaining and operating Prime Minister Narendra Modi's YouTube channel, after taking note of the Prime Minister's Office (PMO)'s stand that the PM Modi's personal YouTube channel is not managed by the PMO or the Government of India.
Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal passed the order while deciding a second appeal filed by Kunal Gupta.
The appellant filed an RTI application on June 27, 2024, seeking information on the annual expenditure incurred in maintaining and operating the Prime Minister's official YouTube channel. After receiving no response, he preferred a first appeal.
The First Appellate Authority (FAA) on August 22, 2024, directed the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the PMO to furnish a reply within 15 working days, clarifying that the request to initiate penalty proceedings against the CPIO was not maintainable before the appellate authority.
Alleging non-compliance with the FAA's directions, the appellant approached the CIC by way of a second appeal. During the hearing, the appellant remained absent.
Appearing on behalf of the PMO through video conference, the CPIO informed the Commission that a reply had been furnished to the RTI applicant on October 8, 2024, stating: "The Personal YouTube channel of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi is not managed by the PMO or GoI."
On being queried about the delay in responding to the RTI application, the CPIO expressed regret and stated that there was no intention to withhold information or obstruct the appellant's right to information.
According to the CPIO, additional time was required to gather the relevant inputs needed to reply to the application.
After considering the matter, the Commission observed that the RTI application did not seek a specific record or information within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
It noted that the application sought an answer to a conjecture-based query, without identifying any specific record or indicating the relevant time period for which the information was sought. The CIC therefore found that the CPIO had responded in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act.
The Commission further noted that there was no mala fide or wilful concealment of information on the part of the CPIO. Finding no scope for granting any relief or directing further action, it dismissed the appeal.
Case title: Kunal Gupta vs CPIO Prime Minister's Office

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

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

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

(Click here to Download the Order)

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

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court invalidates MP notification exempting Lokayukta SPE from RTI.

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

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

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

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

The NTCA oversees Project Cheetah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dictionaries& Encyclopedias

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

Area along with HMT land and Asrewali Protected Forest

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

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

Geographic Reference

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

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

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

Felling in Muwas village

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kerala PSC withholds recruitment records defying RTI order.

Madhyam: Thiruvananthapuram: Friday, July 17, 2026.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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