Social Justice Ministry contradicts itself on records behind the Trans Amendment Act : By Partha Sarathi Biswas, Esha Mitra

Queerbeat: National: Wednesday, 19 August 2026.

In two RTI responses, the ministry says it has no documented records of the evidence or consultations behind the Act. In the third, it says the records exist but can’t be made available.
The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment has given contradictory responses to three Right to Information (RTI) applications about the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026. We filed these applications seeking official documentation of the processes the ministry followed while drafting the Trans Amendment Act, including the evidence it relied on and the stakeholders it consulted. 
The new law amends the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, which codified the civil rights of India’s trans citizens. The amendments roll back their right to self-identify their gender; introduce government-appointed medical boards to determine who legally qualifies as trans; and potentially criminalise community structures that support trans persons. 
We filed the first RTI application on 21 April 2026, requesting the social justice ministry for the following records relating to the Trans Amendment Act: 

1. All reports or files used to draft the 2026 Act
2. Cases that the ministry received regarding the fraudulent usage of transgender cards/facilities in India in the past five years (A transgender identity card is a certificate issued by the social justice ministry. It enables trans people to change their name and gender in official documents and access certain government benefits. The government recently told the Supreme Court that cards issued as per the 2019 Trans Act  would not be invalidated by the 2026 Amendment.)
3. Any recommendations—from persons, social organisations, or NGOs—concerning the alleged misuse of the 2019 law that were considered in drafting the amendments
4. Details of the members of the drafting committee of the 2026 Act 
5. Number of meetings held by the drafting committee and the minutes of each meeting

In response to the first question, the ministry wrote, “No reports, files, or separate documents… were used/maintained” to draft the Trans Amendment Act. On the second and third questions about cases of fraudulent usage and any recommendations made to the social justice ministry, it replied, “not available.” On the fourth question about the drafting committee, the ministry wrote, “No such drafting committee exists.” Following from this, it noted, in relation to the fifth question: “no such meetings/minutes are available.” 
On 13 July, we filed a second RTI application, this time with the Ministry of Home Affairs. We did so to ascertain whether this ministry had received any inputs from state officials over potential security threats arising from the alleged misuse of transgender cards. Our second application requested the home ministry for details of the number of reports it had received from state governments or district collectors about the “fraudulent usage of transgender cards.” This RTI application also requested copies of any correspondence carried out by the home ministry on this issue. Finally, the application asked for details of any legal opinions that the ministry might have sought on the alleged misuse of transgender identity cards. 
The home ministry redirected this RTI application to the social justice ministry. “No such information is available in the records maintained by the undersigned CPIO [Chief Public Information Officer],” the social justice ministry responded. 
Finally, to ensure that we had covered all bases, we filed a third RTI application with the social justice ministry on 30 July. Many of our questions were similar to those we had asked in the first application. 
The third application requested the ministry for copies of any files, file notings, reports, letters, or submissions used to draft the Trans Amendment Bill. We also asked for copies of any letters or reports the ministry had received about legal issues that other departments or state governments faced in implementing the Trans Act, 2019. As with the previous applications, we asked for copies of any reports, inputs, or letters the ministry had received about the alleged misuse of transgender cards. Finally, we requested copies of any communication about the Trans Amendment Act between the ministry and the National Council for Transgender Persons (NCTP)—a statutory body meant to advise the government on policies relating to trans and intersex people. 
This time, the social justice ministry had a different response. It said that records “relating to detailed consultations, internal deliberations, inter-ministerial consultations, correspondence, and related materials” all formed part of the “decision-making process” that culminated in the submission of a Cabinet Note—an official proposal or policy document that a ministry submits to the Cabinet or relevant Cabinet Committee for approval. 
The social justice ministry refused to share any records of this Cabinet Note. It cited Section 8 1 (i) of the RTI Act, which exempts the disclosure of cabinet papers, including records of deliberations among the Union Council of Ministers—the group of ministers appointed to assist the prime minister in running the central government. 
“Certain portions of such records also contain internal inputs and details of officials, disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act,” the ministry added. Section 8 (1) (g) exempts the disclosure of any information that would “endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source or information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes.” 
However, the ministry’s response offered an incomplete reading of the exemption relating to cabinet papers. As Venkatesh Nayak, the director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative in India, has previously noted, the RTI Act permits the disclosure of cabinet papers once the decision involving these documents has been finalised. In June 2012, in a case involving Venkatesh, the Chief Information Commission—the central government body that oversees the RTI Act’s implementation—held that all cabinet notes and material related to a bill must be placed in the public domain within seven days of being tabled in Parliament. 
When we spoke to Venkatesh over the phone, he termed the social justice ministry’s refusal to share the Cabinet Note on the Trans Amendment Act “ridiculous.” Section 8(1) (i), he said, “makes it clear that once the matter is completely over, all cabinet papers, internal deliberations, reasons for the cabinet decision or materials to make that cabinet decision—all of that has to be in the public domain.” 
Venkatesh also argued that the ministry needed to have “very cogent reasons” for withholding the identities of the officials involved in drafting the law, since they were performing a public duty that directly affected India’s citizens. Even if the ministry had the grounds to protect their identities, he added, it “could have easily redacted the names of the officers from the files and shared the content of the files at least.” 
He was equally critical of the ministry’s initial responses, in which it claimed that it had no records of the processes it followed to formulate the Trans Amendment Act. “How can there be a bill without a drafting committee—somebody should have worked on it, it would not have materialised out of thin air,” he said. “It is a public law and affects the rights of people; there is every right, not only for transgender persons, but definitely for the citizenry of the country to know who was involved in the drafting of this law.”
At the same time, whether or not a law is grounded in reliable research seems to be left to the ministry involved. Neither India’s laws nor its Constitution legally mandate that bills or amendments be informed by an evidence-based approach, noted Namrata Mukherjee, a Senior Resident Fellow in the Legal Design and Regulation Vertical at the private think tank Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.  
“Ideally, legislation and policy must be informed by an evidence-based approach. Technically, is there any mandate as such in the law? No. But should this be a part of legislative drafting culture? Yes,” Namrata said. By and large, policymaking in India tends to be “discretionary,” she noted. This means that the degree to which a particular ministry depends on reliable evidence, records that evidence, or seeks the expertise of stakeholders and external consultants “depends on whether they want to do it or not,” Namrata added. 
We sent requests for comment to the information officer who had responded to our RTI applications as well as a senior bureaucrat from the social justice ministry. This copy will be updated if they respond. 
We have also filed an appeal with the social justice ministry under the RTI Act to obtain the cabinet papers relating to the Trans Amendment Bill.
Why these RTI responses matter
The absence of any public records that can shed light on the Indian government’s rationale for the Trans Amendment Act becomes significant when we look back at how this Act came about.
In early March 2026, when Social Justice Minister and senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Virendra Kumar introduced the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2026 in the Lok Sabha, a nationwide uproar followed. Members of the  National Council for Transgender Persons (NCTP) revealed that they were neither informed nor consulted about the amendments. Queer and trans rights groups demonstrated against the Bill across India. Opposition politicians condemned it as “draconian.” 
Despite this outcry, the Bill was passed by voice vote in both the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha amid walkouts by Opposition members. By the end of March, the Bill had received the President’s assent and was enacted into law. Throughout this time, confusion prevailed over what had prompted the Trans Amendment Act and why it had been passed in such haste. 
The government offered several explanations. A Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Trans Bill claimed that the provision in the 2019 Act that earlier allowed trans persons to self-determine their gender made it “impossible to identify the genuine oppressed persons.” It further contended that the 2019 Act’s definition of trans persons was “vague,” rendering the implementation of its provisions “unworkable.” The social justice ministry never elaborated on the evidence that informed these conclusions. Neither did it offer clarity on who it had consulted before pushing the amendments through.  
Meanwhile, in the Lok Sabha, just as the discussion on the Trans Bill began on 24 March, BJP leader and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said that the government’s proposed amendments were “not very big.” He added that the standing committee on social justice and empowerment had been engaged in “extensive discussions” over these amendments for the past year. But when queerbeat contacted four of 31 members of this standing committee—including its chairman and BJP leader PC Mohan—to ask whether the committee had deliberated the amendments at length, they contradicted Rijiju’s claim.  
Days before this Lok Sabha debate, social justice ministry officials also summoned NCTP members to a meeting in Delhi, as queerbeat has earlier reported. The Council members asked officials why they hadn’t been consulted on the amendments. The officials said that they had been “talking to delegations for a long time” and that these delegations had made submissions to the ministry, one NCTP member told queerbeat. 
More recently, during the monsoon session of the Parliament, the social justice ministry revealed that its senior officials had met “a delegation of transgender persons” before the Trans Amendment Act came into force. The ministry was responding to a Lok Sabha question by Thiru DM Kathir Anand, a Member of Parliament from the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam.
Given this backdrop, the social justice ministry’s reluctance to offer any clarity on the processes behind the Trans Amendment Act raises concern, said Venkatesh. “Only when we get hold of the cabinet notes can one find out about what all took place in the decision-making process inside the government,” he told us. “Access to such information is absolutely crucial if you want to be a responsible democracy.”  
The ministry’s RTI responses reinforce the government’s non-consultative approach to the Trans Amendment Bill, said Anil Ukarande, founder-director of YUTAK LGBTQ Trust, a queer rights organisation in Pune. This approach showed a “wilful disregard for the rights of the community,” he added. 
Petitions challenging the Trans Amendment Act are currently being heard before the Supreme Court of India.
Credits
Authors
Partha Sarathi Biswas : Partha Sarathi Biswas (he/him) is a senior journalist who has worked with publications such as The Indian Express and DNA. At present, he is on an academic break and pursuing a Master’s in Sociology from Savitribai Phule Pune University.
Esha Mitra : Esha Mitra is an award-winning journalist and producer who has reported on issues of socio-political inequalities and oppression across South Asia.
Editor
Nikita Saxena : Nikita Saxena (she/her) is an independent reporter and editor who has contributed to publications such as Rest of World, The Caravan, and The News Minute.
Illustrator
Mia Jose : Mia Jose (she/they) is a non-binary illustrator from Kerala whose work highlights personal stories marked by gender, body experiences, and their South Indian heritage. When not lost in their sketchbook, they can be found devouring all things camp and horror.
Copy Editor
Anishaa Tavag : Anishaa Tavag (she/they) is a Bengaluru-based writer, editor, dancer, and certified teacher of yoga and the Alexander Technique.

Rajouri shrine: J&K Waqf Board denies RTI info on donations, offerings

Hindustan Times: Jammu: Wednesday, 19 August 2026.
The reply has been furnished by the Waqf board in an RTI application by a Jammu-based RTI activist Raman Kumar Sharma, who sought financial year-wise details of cash offerings and donations received at the shrine from 2020-21 onwards

The RTI activist has objected to the manner in which the application has been dealt with, saying that the information sought pertained to financial records maintained by the Waqf Board. (HT Photo for representation)

The J&K Waqf Board has declined to provide information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act regarding donations and offerings received during the financial year between 2020-21 to 2026 at Baba Ghulam Shah Badshah Shahdara Sharif shrine at Rajouri citing staff shortage.
The reply has been furnished by the Waqf board in an RTI application by a Jammu-based RTI activist Raman Kumar Sharma, who sought financial year-wise details of cash offerings and donations received at the shrine from 2020-21 onwards.
He also sought the assessed value and quantity of gold, silver, jewellery, precious metals, precious stones and other valuables received as offerings in the holy shrines during the same period.
The activist sought a certified copy of the standard operating procedure (SoP), policy or guidelines governing the opening and accounting of donation boxes installed at the shrine and other places.
In its reply, the Waqf Board stated that it did not have sufficient staff to prepare the required information as it was voluminous and the applicant was asked to attend the Waqf office on any working day, after prior intimation, for perusal of the records.
The RTI activist has objected to the manner in which the application has been dealt with, saying that the information sought pertained to financial records maintained by the Waqf Board.
“If the records are available, staff shortage should not become an excuse for providing access to information under the RTI Act,” he said.

Info panel brings all private varsities in Punjab under RTI umbrella

Hindustan Times: National: Tuesday, 18 August 2026.
The commission clarified that the ruling would apply to all private universities across Punjab that have been established through state legislation

In a decision that has brought all 18 private universities in Punjab under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, the Punjab State Information Commission has ruled that private universities established through Acts of the state legislature are “public authorities” under the transparency law.
Passing an order on August 14 in the case of Akal University, Talwandi Sabo, Bathinda, chief information commissioner Inderpal Singh declared the university a public authority under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act and directed it to appoint a public information officer (PIO) and first appellate authority (FAA). The university has also been directed to make mandatory disclosures prescribed under the Act on its official website.
The commission clarified that the ruling would apply to all private universities across Punjab that have been established through state legislation.
At present, only some private universities in the state maintain dedicated RTI cells or make statutory disclosures on their official websites, either voluntarily or in compliance with specific directives. Following the commission’s ruling, all 18 private universities will be required to put in place formal mechanisms for receiving and responding to RTI applications and ensure greater disclosure of information in the public domain.
The order came on an appeal filed by Ramandeep Kumar, a former assistant professor at Akal University’s physics department, who had sought his salary slips from July 2015 to October 2021. Akal University had contested the maintainability of his RTI application, arguing that it was not a public authority under Section 2(h).
Rejecting the contention, the commission observed that Akal University had been established through an Act enacted by the Punjab Legislature. Section 2 (h)(c) specifically includes any authority, body or institution established or constituted by a law made by a state legislature within the definition of a public authority.
The commission also took note of the university’s governance structure, including the Punjab governor being its Visitor and government nominees being represented on various committees.
These provisions, it said, indicated the university’s statutory character and its linkage with government oversight.
The order further emphasised that the RTI Act seeks to promote transparency and accountability, with maximum disclosure and minimum exemptions. The commission referred to Supreme Court judgments underscoring citizens’ right to information as an essential component of democratic governance.
The case also raised questions over the university’s claim regarding the non-availability of records. The university submitted that records relating to the Kalgidhar Trust/Society campus at Baru Sahib in Himachal Pradesh had been destroyed or damaged in flash floods in 2022. However, the appellant pointed out that proceedings concerning gratuity deductions and financial recoveries had taken place in 2023.
The commission has directed the university’s PIO to produce the complete file relating to the recoveries and gratuity deductions made from the appellant in 2023. If no such recoveries were made, the university will have to submit an affidavit confirming this.
The chief finance and accounts officer has also been impleaded as a necessary party and directed to file sworn affidavits regarding the location and destruction of the relevant records, including salary bills for July 2015 to October 2021.
The commission warned that failure to comply could lead to bailable warrants against the chief finance and accounts officer or the PIO-cum-registrar. The matter has been listed for further hearing on October 14.

Private Documents Obtained Through RTI Can’t Automatically Be Treated As Public Documents Or Certified Copies: Gujarat High Court

Verdictum: Ahmedabad: Tuesday, 18 August 2026.
The High Court distinguished between private documents kept by a public authority and public records of private documents, holding that the RTI Act does not alter the nature of the document supplied.

The Gujarat High Court has held that private documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 do not automatically become public documents within the meaning of Section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 merely because they are supplied by a public authority.
The Court further held that true copies of such private documents cannot be treated as certified copies under Section 65(e) or Section 65(f) of the Evidence Act unless the party seeking to rely on them first lays the foundation for proving them as secondary evidence under Section 65(a), (b) or (c).
The Court was hearing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order passed by the trial court in a civil suit, by which documents produced by the plaintiffs through a document list were exhibited on the ground that they had been received under RTI.
A Bench of Justice Maulik J. Shelat held: “Accordingly, I hold that the aforesaid three documents in question are not public documents within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 74 of the Act, 1872. Merely because they obtained under RTI, they cannot be treated as certified copies as per clause (e) or (f) of Section 65 of the Act, 1872. I also hold that unless a foundation lay down by the plaintiffs to prove those documents as secondary evidence as per clause (a), (b) or (c) of Section 65 of the Act, 1872, these documents cannot be admitted as secondary evidence. Consequently, at this stage, they cannot be exhibited. Thus, a burden is upon the plaintiffs to prove these documents as a secondary evidence in accordance with law.”
Senior Advocate R.R. Marshall appeared for the petitioners. Advocate Arpit A. Kapadia appeared for the respondents.
Background:
The dispute arose in a civil suit filed for partition, maintenance, declaration and permanent injunction before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surat.
At the stage of completion of the plaintiffs’ evidence, the plaintiffs filed an application seeking to place additional documents on record and have them exhibited. The trial court allowed the application and gave exhibit numbers to the documents.
The defendants challenged the order only in relation to three documents. These were completion certificates of two bungalows issued by an architect and a family partition agreement. The documents had been received by the plaintiffs under RTI from the Surat Municipal Corporation.
The defendants contended that the documents were private documents and did not become public documents merely because they were obtained from a public authority under RTI. The plaintiffs argued that the documents were certified copies issued by a public authority and were admissible under Section 74(2) read with Section 77 of the Evidence Act.
Court’s Observations:
The High Court noted that the trial court had accepted the documents only because they were received under RTI and treated them as public documents without properly addressing the objection raised by the defendants.
The Court observed, “The facts noted at the outset are not in dispute. It appears that the trial court has accepted the additional documents submitted by the plaintiffs vide impugned application, solely on the ground that they were received by the plaintiffs under RTI and being public documents, thus, they are admissible in evidence. I could not find any other reason than observed above.”
It further observed, “As observed above, the trial court has not considered the objections of the defendants, rather assumed that the aforesaid documents are public documents, as received under RTI, accordingly exhibited those documents. No other and further reason assigned.”
The Court examined Sections 61 to 65 and Sections 74 to 77 of the Evidence Act and held that the disputed documents were private documents. It then considered whether they could become public documents under Section 74(2), which deals with public records kept in any State of private documents.
The Court held, “The documents which are disputed by the defendants undoubtedly are private documents, inasmuch as they could not be said to be public documents in any manner whatsoever.”
After referring to Deccan Paper Mills Company Limited v. Regency Mahavir Properties and others (2021), Smt. Rekha Rana and others v. Smt. Ratnashree Jain (2006), N.N. Global Private Limited v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. (2023) and Jagdishchandra Chandulal Shah v. State of Gujarat and others (1989), the Court held that a private document does not itself become a public document merely because a public record of it exists.
The Court explained, “Thus, in view of the aforesaid legal position as it stands today, it is abundantly clear that a private document of which public record is kept does not in itself constitute a public document. However, the public record of such private document kept in any State is a public document. To put it simply, a private document merely stored or available in a public office does not automatically become a public document unless it is kept as public record.”
The Court rejected the submission that documents received under RTI from the Surat Municipal Corporation became public documents for that reason alone.
The Court held, “The plaintiffs have indisputably received the aforesaid documents in question under RTI from SMC. As observed above, the documents are private documents and for any purpose submitted to SMC. Since the documents submitted on record of the case are photostat copies of the documents whose records are kept by SMC, their certified/true copy obtained through under RTI Act, 2005 do not constitute public documents.”
The Court clarified that documents received under RTI may be treated as certified copies if the underlying document is a public document. However, this principle does not apply to private documents merely supplied as true copies by the Public Information Officer.
The Court observed, “Yet, the photo copy of documents certified by the designated Public Information Officer under RTI of private documents are not themselves the certified copy within the provisions of Section 65 of the Act,1872. They are merely true copies of the private documents available in the records of the particular Department.”
The Court held that true copies of private documents obtained under RTI may be produced only after satisfying the statutory requirements for secondary evidence.
The Court observed, “The production and marking of such copies are permissible only after laying a foundation for acceptance of secondary evidence under clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Section 65 of the Act, 1872.”
Agreeing with the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Kumarpal N. Shah v. Universal Mechanical Works Private Limited (2019), the Court held that a private document obtained under RTI does not lose its private character and the party relying on it must lead evidence explaining non-availability of the original.
The Court separately noted that the genuineness of the family partition agreement was disputed by the defendants. It recorded that, pursuant to a criminal complaint, the Executive Magistrate whose seal and signature appeared on the document had stated before police that neither the seal nor the signature was his.
The Court observed, “Nonetheless, for the reasons supra, the aforesaid document, i.e., the family partition agreement though received under RTI by the plaintiffs, would not automatically become a public document as per the provisions of the Act, 1872 and even if it may be admitted as secondary evidence, first the plaintiffs are required to lay its foundation and prove it in accordance with law.”
The Court held that the trial court’s reasoning was unsustainable because it exhibited the documents after treating them as public documents merely on the basis of RTI supply.
The Court observed, “I am of the considered view that the reasons assigned by the Trial Court while giving exhibits to the aforesaid three documents by treating them as public documents is nothing but a gross error of law and the view taken by the Trial Court is not sustainable in law.”
Conclusion:
The petition was partly allowed. The trial court’s order was modified to the extent that the three disputed documents could be admitted as secondary evidence only after the conditions under Section 65 of the Evidence Act were fulfilled.
The High Court directed the trial court to de-exhibit the three documents at that stage. It clarified that once the plaintiffs prove the documents in accordance with law, the trial court may exhibit them. The order was not disturbed in relation to the remaining documents.
The Court directed the trial court to proceed with the suit at the earliest and conclude the trial as early as possible. The request made by the plaintiffs to suspend the order for two weeks was refused. No costs were imposed.
Cause Title: Rajeshbhai Krushnakant Jariwala & Ors. v. Falguniben Kamalkant Jariwala & Ors.
Appearances:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate R.R. Marshall with Advocate Mrugen K. Purohit
Respondents: Advocate Arpit A. Kapadia
(Click here to download Judgment)

Non-Supply Of RTI Information After Election Results Is Not 'Corrupt Practice' U/S 123(7) Of RP Act: Bombay High Court : By - Saksham Vaishya

Live Law: Mumbai: Tuesday, 18 August 2026.

The Bombay High Court has held that non-supply of information sought under the RTI Act after the declaration of election results does not constitute assistance for furthering the prospects of a candidate's election and therefore cannot constitute a corrupt practice under Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Court observed that the election petition must contain specific pleadings demonstrating that the candidate or his agent obtained assistance for furthering the prospects of the candidate's election.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh was hearing an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC read with Sections 83, 86 and 87 of the RP Act seeking rejection of an Election Petition on the ground that the Petition does not disclose material facts constituting a cause of action as mandatorily required under Section 83 of the RP Act. The Election Petition sought to declare the election of the candidate from the 214 Pune Cantonment Legislative Assembly Constituency in the 2024 election void.
The Applicant contended that the allegation of corrupt practices under Section 123(7) of the RP Act is based on the non-supply of information sought under the RTI Act, which application was made after the declaration of the results. It was submitted that the allegation of EVM tampering is vague and no details have been given so as to challenge the elections.
On the issue of compliance with Section 61A of the RP Act due to failure to issue notification specifying that elections would be conducted through Voting Machine, the Court held that the issuance of a press note is sufficient compliance of Section 61A, and there is no requirement of issuance of a notification.
Next, while dealing with the contention around non-supply of information under the RTI Act, the Court noted that the election results were declared on November 23, 2024, whereas the RTI application was made on November 27, 2024. It observed that the essence of corrupt practice under Section 123(7) is an attempt by a candidate or his agent to procure assistance for furtherance of the prospects of that candidate's election from a person belonging to the specified classes, which is essentially referable to assistance procured during the election process.
Hence, refuting the contention, the Court observed:
“… the non-supply of the information under the RTI Act, after the results have been declared, does not constitute assistance for furthering of prospects of the candidate's election. The pleading of non-supply of information under RTI Act does not constitute a ground for corrupt practice.”
The Court further held that the Petition did not set out how the refusal to provide the information could be said to constitute assistance given to the returned candidate for furthering his prospects at the election. The Court also noted that Section 83 requires full particulars of any corrupt practice, including the names of the parties alleged to have committed such practice and the date and place of such practice, and found the Petition lacking in this regard.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejected the Election Petition.
Case Title: Sunil Dnyandev Kamble v. Ramesh Anandrao Bagwe [Application (L) No. 11620 of 2026 in Election Petition No. 32 of 2025]
(Click Here to Download Order)

Delhi HC dismisses plea to declare Rajiv Gandhi Foundation ‘public authority’ under RTI Act

The Hindu: New Delhi: Tuesday, 18 August 2026.
Judge observes that the petitioner had failed to appear before the court on several dates

The Delhi High Court on Monday (August 17, 2026) dismissed a 2011 petition seeking to bring the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation (RGF) within the ambit of the Right to Information Act, observing that the petitioner had failed to appear before the court on several dates.
Justice Swarana Kanta dismissed the petition filed by Delhi-based lawyer Shanmuga Patro, who had challenged an October 15, 2010 order of the Central Information Commission holding that the foundation did not qualify as a “public authority” under the RTI Act.
The issue centred on whether RGF could be treated as a public authority and consequently be required to meet the transparency and disclosure obligations prescribed under the RTI law.
Mr. Patro had first approached RGF under the RTI Act seeking its constitution, updated by-laws and rules and regulations, as well as documents relating to its organisational structure. The foundation declined to provide the information in 2009, maintaining that it was not a public authority.
He had argued that RGF had received government funding and was involved in extensive public activities, giving it the character of a public authority under the RTI Act.
During the proceedings, the High Court had directed RGF to place its annual audited accounts on record. The foundation was asked to submit year-wise audited accounts from its inception up to 2010-11 to assist the court in determining whether it fell within the scope of the RTI Act.
RGF, however, maintained that it had not been created through a government notification and was not established by the government. Its counsel also argued that government funding accounted for only about four per cent of the foundation’s overall funding and was therefore insignificant for the purposes of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

Haryana info panel advises Faridabad MC, all departments to appoint senior rank officials as SPIOs

The Tribune: Chandigarh: Monday, 17 August 2026.
The State Information Commission, Haryana, has advised all the departments to ensure that officers of an appropriate mid-level or senior rank, possessing adequate administrative authority and experience, should be designated as state public information officers (SPIOs).

In the backdrop, while hearing a complaint regarding inadequate information being provided to an applicant, the commission found that an assistant level official was deputed as SPIO to provide information under Right to Information (RTI) Act by the municipal corporation (MC), Faridabad.
Confirming the development Dr Ajay Sura, State Information Commissioner, Haryana, said the MC had defied the directives of the Chief Secretary (Administration Reforms) addressed to all the administrative secretaries and all the head of departments categorically notified the rank of officials who could be assigned the duties of SPIOs and First Appellate Authorities (FAAs).
Dr Sura said that any disclosure made by an SPIO is deemed to be an official disclosure on behalf of the public authority and, therefore, demands a high degree of responsibility, legal acumen and administrative competence.
“The commissioner, MC Faridabad has designated an assistant rank employee as SPIO which was completely contrary to the government's instructions. Since there was no malafide intention, the commissioner has been ‘advised’ to review its existing arrangement and revamp it by appointing a senior and experienced administrative level officer as SPIO. This advisory is generally for all the departments,” he said.
The commission was of the firm opinion that the designation of clerical staff, Assistants as SPIOs was neither conducive to the effective implementation of the RTI Act nor consistent with the spirit and object of the legislation as well as state government's own instructions.
An SPIO is required not only to process RTI applications but also to judiciously determine the distinction between information that is liable to be disclosed and information that is exempt from disclosure under the provisions of the Act.
The rationale behind designating a sufficiently senior officer as an SPIO is expected to possess the requisite authority to access records maintained across different branches of the public authority, obtain necessary assistance from subordinate officers under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act, objectively evaluate claims of exemption, and take informed decisions balancing the competing considerations of transparency and the protected interests recognised under the Act.
Dr Sura said that the idea was to not only facilitate an efficient and lawful discharge of the duties under the RTI Act 2005, but also ensure effective compliance with the statutory duties and liabilities attached to the office of the SPIO.
“The SPIO is expected to effectively present the stand of the department, ensure faithful compliance with the directions issued by the Commission, and act as the vital link between the Commission and the concerned public authority,” 0said.
Meanwhile, in the MC case, there was no malafide denial or deliberate obstruction in providing information from the record and that there was no constraint in providing adequate information to the complainant, the case was settled. Moreover, the complainant was at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy available under the provisions of the RTI Act and hence the case was closed.

In a democracy, RTI is an accountability tool : Dr Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz

The Daily Star: Opinion: Monday, 17 August 2026.

While awaiting the completion of a government-initiated process to select the three information commissioners, following a prolonged vacancy that this column has lamented time and again, it may be useful to revisit the enduring value of right to information (RTI) in strengthening democratic governance. Few would dispute that transparency and accountability are fundamental to this endeavour. Citizens can participate meaningfully in public affairs only when they have access to information about how decisions are made, how public resources are used, and whether public institutions are fulfilling their responsibilities. RTI provides an essential bridge between citizens and the state, replacing a culture of secrecy with one of openness and strengthening public trust.
Bangladesh took an important step in this direction by enacting the Right to Information Act, 2009, one of the country’s most progressive governance reforms. The act is founded on the principle that information held by public authorities belongs to the people. By enabling citizens to access official information, it promotes transparency, strengthens accountability, reduces opportunities for corruption, and encourages informed public participation. Over the past decade, through this column, we have consistently argued that transparency, accountability, citizen participation, and citizen empowerment constitute the greatest contribution of the RTI law to good governance.
Transparency is the foundation of good governance. When information about procurement, recruitment, public expenditure, development projects, and service delivery is accessible, arbitrary decision-making is deterred and public confidence grows. The RTI Act enables citizens to seek information from ministries, local government institutions, statutory bodies, and many publicly funded organisations. Equally important is the fact that it encourages proactive disclosure, making information routinely available without the need to file formal requests.
Access to information benefits the government as much as it benefits citizens. Public institutions that operate transparently tend to make better decisions, maintain more reliable records, and earn greater public trust. Openness should be seen as a hallmark of responsible governance, not an administrative burden.
Without access to official records, citizens, journalists, researchers, and civil society cannot determine whether public authorities are acting fairly, efficiently, and in accordance with the law. RTI transforms accountability from an abstract principle into a practical mechanism. Citizens can seek explanations for delays in public services, examine expenditures on development projects, monitor government programmes, and verify compliance with laws and regulations. This is particularly important in Bangladesh, where health, education, local government, land administration, infrastructure, and social protection directly affect crores of people. Information obtained through the RTI law enables citizens to identify weaknesses in governance before they become systemic failures.
Democracy requires informed participation, not passive acceptance. The RTI Act empowers people by reducing the traditional information imbalance between the government and citizens, enabling communities to monitor local development projects, parents to inquire into school management, patients to examine health services, and beneficiaries to verify social protection programmes. Access to reliable information also strengthens public debate and helps counter misinformation.
One of RTI’s greatest contributions is its ability to prevent corruption. When officials know that records and decisions may be subject to public scrutiny, arbitrary actions and misuse of public resources become more difficult. International experience demonstrates that RTI laws expose irregularities in procurement, recruitment, licensing, and public expenditure. Bangladesh has the same opportunity if a wider and more effective implementation of its RTI Act is adopted.
Beyond improving administration, RTI strengthens democracy itself. Elections provide citizens with periodic opportunities to choose their representatives, but accountability must continue between elections. The RTI law makes way for continuous public oversight by allowing citizens to question decisions, monitor government performance, and participate more effectively in public affairs. An informed citizenry in turn contributes to better policymaking, constructive public debate, and greater confidence in democratic institutions.
Of course, RTI is one component of a broader accountability framework that also includes independent oversight institutions, effective auditing, investigative journalism, and an impartial judiciary.
Despite its considerable promise, implementation of the RTI Act in Bangladesh continues to face important challenges. Public awareness remains limited, particularly among rural communities and marginalised groups. Many citizens are unfamiliar with their rights or the procedures for requesting information. Weak record management and inadequate digitisation also delay responses and undermine the law’s effectiveness. A strong and fully functioning Information Commission is essential here. Prolonged institutional vacancies inevitably weaken implementation and undermine public confidence. A robust commission can ensure compliance with the law, prompt resolution of disputes, and safeguard citizens’ right to information.
The government should embrace a culture of proactive disclosure by routinely publishing information on budgets, procurement, recruitment, development projects, and service delivery. This will reduce the need for individual RTI applications while also enhancing transparency and administrative efficiency.
Realising the full potential of the RTI Act in Bangladesh requires sustained political commitment, timely appointments of information commissioners, stronger institutional capacity, better records management, wider digitisation, continuous training for designated information officers, and nationwide public awareness programmes. Civil society, universities, media and development partners also have important roles to play in promoting the responsible use of the RTI Act and helping citizens exercise their rights effectively.
The Right to Information Act remains one of the country’s most significant democratic achievements. It affirms a simple but powerful principle: information held by public institutions belongs to the people. By promoting transparency, strengthening accountability, encouraging citizen participation, and deterring corruption, RTI contributes directly to better governance and sustainable development. As Bangladesh seeks to build a more democratic, inclusive and prosperous future, effective implementation of the RTI Act should be treated as a national priority. Governments open to public scrutiny earn greater public trust, while informed citizens become active partners in development. Together, transparency and accountability provide the foundation for stronger institutions and a more resilient democracy.

---

Dr Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz are chairman and assistant director (RTI), respectively, at Research Initiatives, Bangladesh (RIB). They can be reached at rib@citech-bd.com.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own. 

Inquiry officer a ‘public authority’ under RTI Act: PB Panel

Times of India: Chandigarh: Monday, 17 August 2026.
The Punjab State Information Commission has ruled that an inquiry officer appointed by the state govt falls within the definition of a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

Directing a retired additional district and sessions judge (ADJ) to provide information regarding inquiries conducted by him, chief information commissioner Inderpal Singh held that the officer was “controlled” by the govt.
The case stems from an RTI application filed by a Chandigarh resident seeking data on the number of inquiries assigned, pending and completed by the retired ADJ between Jan 2020 and June 2023. The personnel department initially denied the information, suggesting the applicant approach the individual departments that commissioned the inquiries.
The retired ADJ argued he was not a public authority and had no statutory obligation under Section 4 to maintain records. He said original files and reports were returned to departments upon completion, and that he was provided no secretarial assistance.
The commission observed that inquiry officers handling civil or corruption cases must maintain records systematically. Without records, an officer cannot prove that files were handed over or justify remuneration claims.
The bench framed three key issues, focusing on whether an inquiry officer falls under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of RTI Act as a body “owned, controlled, or substantially financed” by the govt. Examining the scope of govt oversight, compliance guidelines and administrative direction, the bench concluded inquiry officers are “controlled” by the state.
The commission said the personnel department panelled the officer and highlighted a Dec 20, 2019, govt order capping an inquiry officer’s workload at 20 cases per calendar year, a limit the officer was responsible for enforcing. The commission recommended that the Punjab chief secretary compile quarterly or annual data on inquiries to ensure compliance with the 20-case limit.

Unfinished Sports Infrastructure And Limited Recruitment In Jammu Kashmir, Reveals RTI Data

ETV Bharat: Srinagar: Sunday, 16 August 2026.
RTI data reveals Jammu and Kashmir filled only 60 sports department vacancies in five years, with 128 sports infrastructure projects unfinished due to funding shortages.

File photo of Jammu Kashmir Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha at a felicitation ceremony of a sports event. (ANI)

The Jammu and Kashmir Youth Services and Sports Department filled only 60 vacancies during Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha’s five-year tenure, according to Right to Information (RTI) data. It also revealed that at least 128 sports infrastructure projects remained unfinished due to funding shortages.
The details were provided by the Directorate of Youth Services and Sports in response to a query by RTI activist and journalist MM Shuja.
According to the department, the posts filled during the period included 19 physical education lecturers, 35 junior assistants and six multi-tasking staff members.
The RTI response also revealed that 128 sports infrastructure projects across Jammu and Kashmir could not be completed during 2024 and 2025 because of inadequate funding.

File photo of athletes showcase their skills during an event organised by Jammu and Kashmir Sports Council as part of the Khelo India 10 Ka Dum programme, at Indoor Stadium Polo View, in Srinagar on Mar 16, 2023. (ANI)

The delayed projects include playfields, indoor sports halls, synthetic athletic tracks, football turfs, hockey fields, volleyball courts, badminton courts and basketball grounds in several districts across the Union Territory.
Among the major pending projects are a synthetic athletic track at Khelgaon Nagrota in Jammu, a synthetic turf hockey field at the same venue, a synthetic football turf at Parade Ground Jammu, a synthetic hockey field at Government Boys Higher Secondary School Poonch, a synthetic football turf at Government College of Physical Education Ganderbal and a youth hostel at GCOPE Ganderbal.
The department said the projects are being executed by agencies including the Jammu and Kashmir Sports Council, the Public Works Department and the Rural Development Department.
Official records indicate that some projects were delayed because work had not started, while others were retendered or faced site-related issues. In one case, funds for a synthetic hockey field in Poonch were surrendered after the contractor failed to begin work.

Delhi High Court Refuses RTI Disclosure of Bank Officer’s Vigilance and Promotion Records; Holds Personal Information Protected Where Larger Public Interest Is Not Established

Raw Law: New Delhi: Sunday, 16 August 2026.
Delhi High Court Dismisses LPA Seeking Vigilance and DPC Material; Holds Personal Promotion Records Cannot Be Disclosed Without Stronger Public Interest

Facts
The Delhi High Court considered a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury challenging the dismissal of his writ petition concerning information sought from Punjab & Sind Bank under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The judgment was delivered on 14 August 2026.
The appellant had filed an RTI application on 12 January 2024 seeking information relating to one Pankaj Dwivedi, an employee of the Bank who had been promoted to Scale VI on 1 April 2018 and thereafter to Scale VII on 1 April 2020.
The information sought included copies of the Vigilance Clearance Certificates relied upon by the Departmental Promotion Committee before both promotions, along with complete file notings, office notes, circulars, Office Memoranda, IBA/CVC guidelines and Board Resolutions relied upon in constituting the relevant DPCs. The appellant also sought details of the Chief Vigilance Officer.
The Public Information Officer supplied the CVO details but denied the vigilance-clearance and promotion-related records under Section 8(1)(j) RTI Act, holding them to be personal information of a third party whose disclosure did not serve any public activity or interest.
The First Appellate Authority affirmed the PIO’s decision. The Central Information Commission subsequently dismissed the second appeal on 20 March 2025, also holding that the requested information was personal information protected by Section 8(1)(j). The Single Judge then dismissed W.P.(C) 12204/2025 on 2 February 2026.
The appellant thereafter filed the present intra-court appeal.
Issues
The principal issues before the Division Bench were:

1. Whether the vigilance-clearance certificates and DPC-related records concerning an individual bank officer constituted personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
2. Whether the appellant had demonstrated a sufficiently strong larger public interest to override that exemption under Section 8(2).
3. Whether the PIO, First Appellate Authority and CIC had failed to undertake the required public-interest balancing exercise.
4. Whether pending allegations of sexual harassment and criminal complaints against the promoted officer justified disclosure of the vigilance material relied upon for his promotions.
5. Whether disclosure of internal DPC file notings, CVC guidelines and related promotion material served a legitimate public purpose.
6. Whether the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition warranted interference in appeal.

Appellant’s Arguments
The appellant fairly conceded that the information sought at serial nos. 1 to 4 fell within Section 8(1)(j) because it concerned personal information of a third party.
His argument, however, was that Section 8(2) required disclosure because public interest outweighed any possible harm to the individual’s privacy.
The appellant contended that when Pankaj Dwivedi was promoted to Scale VI and later Scale VII, he was allegedly facing proceedings under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 as well as a criminal complaint under Sections 354A and 509 IPC.
According to the appellant, if vigilance clearances were issued and relied upon despite those pending allegations, the public had an interest in knowing whether the promotions of an officer of a nationalised bank had been lawfully granted.
He further argued that neither the RTI authorities nor the Single Judge had properly considered whether the public interest in disclosure outweighed the privacy harm, as expressly contemplated by Section 8(2).
Respondent’s Arguments
Punjab & Sind Bank opposed the appeal.
It submitted that the information admittedly concerned an identifiable individual and therefore constituted personal information.
According to the Bank, disclosure served no public purpose and would instead cause prejudice and harm to the individual concerned.
The Bank maintained that the Single Judge had correctly applied the statutory exemption and that no ground for interference was made out.
Analysis of the Law
Information Was Admittedly Personal
The Division Bench began by noting that even the appellant accepted that the requested vigilance and promotion materials were covered by Section 8(1)(j).
The real controversy was therefore not whether the information was personal, but whether the public-interest override under Section 8(2) required its disclosure.
PIO Had Considered Public Interest
The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the RTI authorities had mechanically invoked Section 8(1)(j) without considering public interest.
The PIO’s response expressly stated that disclosure of the information “does not serve any public activity or interest” and therefore fell within the exemption.
The First Appellate Authority concurred with that conclusion.
Accordingly, the High Court held that it was incorrect to say that the public-interest issue had not been considered at all.
CIC Also Applied Privacy–Public Interest Balance
The Central Information Commission had relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal.
The CIC noted that professional records such as qualifications, performance assessments, evaluation reports, ACRs and disciplinary proceedings are ordinarily personal information entitled to protection against unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Disclosure is permissible only where a larger public interest justifies overriding that protection.
The Division Bench therefore rejected the contention that the CIC had ignored Section 8(2).
Vigilance Clearance Certificate Does Not Serve Public Purpose Merely Because Officer Was Promoted
The Court specifically considered the request for the vigilance-clearance certificates relied upon before the promotions in 2018 and 2020.
It held that disclosure of the vigilance clearance concerning an individual employee did not serve any public purpose in the circumstances of the case.
On the contrary, disclosure could cause personal harm and prejudice to the individual concerned.
The information was therefore rightly withheld under Section 8(1)(j).
DPC Files and Promotion Material Also Protected
The appellant had also sought extensive materials including file notings, office notes, circulars, OMs, CVC guidelines and Board Resolutions relied upon in constituting the DPCs responsible for the officer’s promotions.
The High Court held that, in the context in which they were sought, these materials were directly connected with the promotion of a particular individual.
The Court characterised the request as appearing to amount to an attempt at “micro-management of the affairs of the respondent-Bank.”
It held that public interest in disclosure did not outweigh the potential personal harm to the promoted officer.
Pending Sexual Harassment or Criminal Complaints Did Not Automatically Trigger Disclosure
A significant aspect of the appellant’s case was that the officer was allegedly facing sexual-harassment proceedings and criminal allegations when vigilance clearance was granted.
The Court nevertheless declined to treat those allegations as sufficient, by themselves, to establish a larger public interest requiring disclosure.
The statutory test under Section 8(2) requires an actual balancing exercise between:

• the public benefit of disclosure; and
• the harm to the protected privacy interest.

The Court found that the appellant had not shown a public-interest justification strong enough to overcome the privacy protection.
RTI Cannot Become a Tool for Monitoring Individual Personnel Decisions
The judgment draws an important distinction between transparency in public institutions and indiscriminate access to personal service records.
The Court accepted that Punjab & Sind Bank is a public authority, but held that this does not make all material relating to promotions, vigilance or individual service matters automatically public.
Where information concerns the promotion of a particular employee, the requester must demonstrate a larger and identifiable public interest, rather than merely seek to scrutinise or supervise the internal personnel administration of the institution.
Precedent Analysis
CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal
This was the principal precedent relied upon by the CIC and High Court.
The Supreme Court recognised that personal and professional records, including performance-related material and disciplinary information, fall within the sphere of privacy.
Such information is protected unless disclosure is justified by a sufficiently compelling larger public interest.
CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay
The Single Judge had relied upon this Supreme Court decision while considering the limits of the right to information and balancing transparency against competing statutory interests.
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner
This judgment was also relied upon for the proposition that information concerning an employee’s service matters and disciplinary or employment-related records is ordinarily personal information.
Disclosure cannot be compelled merely because the employee works for a public authority unless a larger public interest is demonstrated.
CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal
The Single Judge again relied upon this authority specifically to reject the invocation of the Section 8(2) public-interest exception in the facts of the case.
Court’s Reasoning
The Division Bench found no flaw in the approach adopted by the PIO, First Appellate Authority, CIC or Single Judge.
The appellant’s case was not that the requested information fell outside Section 8(1)(j); that exemption was expressly conceded.
His only route to disclosure was therefore Section 8(2).
However, each authority had considered whether disclosure served a public purpose and had concluded that it did not.
The Court found that the requested documents were intimately connected with an individual officer’s vigilance status and promotion process.
Even the existence of allegations against the officer did not automatically convert his personal service records into public information.
The Court therefore concluded that the potential public benefit of disclosure did not outweigh the privacy harm.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held that vigilance-clearance certificates and promotion-related records concerning an individual officer are personal information protected under Section 8(1)(j) RTI Act, unless a larger public interest justifies disclosure.
It found no such overriding public interest in the present case.
The Court further held that seeking extensive DPC file material relating to an individual promotion appeared to amount to an attempt to micro-manage the Bank’s internal affairs.
Accordingly, the Division Bench found no ground to interfere with the Single Judge’s judgment.
The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Case Details Case: Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury v. Punjab and Sind Bank & Anr.
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: LPA 558/2026; CNR No. DLHC010323042026
Judges: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia
Date: 14 August 2026
Date: 14 August 2026
Result: Appeal dismissed; denial of vigilance-clearance certificates and promotion-related records under Section 8(1)(j) RTI Act upheld for absence of overriding larger public interest.
(Click to download Order)