Ahmedabad: 9 AMC libraries shut, 52 lack AC facilities: RTI

Times of India: Ahmedabad: Wednesday, 8^th July 2026.

Nine of the 57 libraries run by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) are currently closed, while 52 do not have air-conditioning facilities, according to information obtained through an RTI application. The reply also revealed that three libraries lack drinking water facilities, raising concerns about the availability of basic amenities for readers.
Advocate Atik Saiyed, who filed the RTI application, alleged that AMC-run libraries are failing to provide adequate facilities to citizens.
“The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation claims to be developing Ahmedabad as a ‘Mega City’ and a ‘Smart City’, but it has failed to provide proper reading and learning facilities to residents. Students and readers visiting libraries during summer face considerable hardship,” Saiyed said.
“The administration collects crores of rupees in taxes but has failed to provide basic amenities to readers. While air conditioners operate round the clock in the offices of politicians and officials, students striving to build their future are left to study under ceiling fans in difficult conditions,” Saiyed alleged.
Saiyed demanded that the AMC upgrade its libraries and ensure they are equipped with all essential facilities for students and readers.

NSE's 16-Year War against Transparency Must Finally End : Sucheta Dalal

Moneylife: Pune: Wednesday, 8^th July 2026.

Sixteen years. That is how long the National Stock Exchange (NSE) has fought to avoid being held directly accountable under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Last week, the Delhi High Court finally dealt a decisive blow to that resistance, dismissing the Exchange's appeal and affirming that the NSE is, indeed, a ‘public authority’ under the RTI Act. The judgement is about far more than one exchange or one law. It raises fundamental questions about transparency, regulatory accountability and the governance of India's most important market institution.
On 1st July, a division bench of the Delhi High Court upheld an April 2010 judgement by a single judge declaring that the NSE is a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of the RTI Act. That judge was justice Sanjiv Khanna, who went on to become the chief justice of India in 2025, but NSE’s appeal dragged on until last week. The legal battle may still not be over. The NSE can still appeal the Delhi High Court judgement before the Supreme Court. (RTI Act applies To National Stock Exchange: Delhi High Court)
Meanwhile, the RTI Act itself has been defanged and eviscerated so much over the past decade that the Exchange may find it easier to accept the judgement and stonewall queries as many government departments have begun to do. Whether NSE chooses to do so may, ultimately, depend as much on the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) as on the Exchange itself.
The battle to bring exchanges under RTI began with a citizen approaching the central information commission (CIC), asking it to declare the Exchange a ‘public authority’. A full bench of the CIC agreed; NSE promptly challenged the decision before the Delhi High Court. Justice Khanna delivered a comprehensive ruling in 2010 backing the CIC stand. He noted that the NSE performs essential public functions and can only operate through recognition granted under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (SCRA). Further, the SCRA and the SEBI Act have extensive regulatory powers, including approval of rules/bye-laws, board nominations, oversight of operations, power to supersede governing bodies, etc. This amounts to ‘deep and pervasive control’ by the government, not mere regulation. NSE contested the ruling and ensured that it benefited enormously from legal delays.
Ironically, the 16-year delay has only strengthened the case for greater public scrutiny of the Exchange. The NSE is far more than a profit-making company. It is a near-monopoly market infrastructure institution (MII) that functions as a de facto public utility, handling trillions of rupees of daily transactions while, simultaneously, regulating thousands of systemically important market participants.
For over two decades, the NSE cultivated an image of exemplary governance. That illusion collapsed after Moneylife published a whistle-blower's letter in 2015 exposing the co-location (Colo) scandal (Blowing the Whistle on Manipulation in NSE). The letter described how select brokers obtained an unfair trading advantage by accessing backup servers with lower latency. This arrangement discriminated against other Colo traders as well as ordinary investors and appeared to enjoy official protection within the Exchange, which refused to act on specific complaints.
The investigation that followed exposed serious governance failures, capricious appointments and the fact that its then managing director (MD) was making decisions on the guidance of a ‘Himalayan Guru’ with an email ID, with whom she shared confidential financial projections, board agendas and human resource allocations. These leaks as well as the highly irregular appointment and salary of the group operating officer went unquestioned by the board and the regulator right until the colocation investigation.
Had the NSE been subject to the RTI Act, it might have found it far harder to use its market dominance, immense profitability and advertising clout to discourage scrutiny, capture its regulator and silence critical questions from the media. Even today, NSE has 90% share of the cash equity market and around 80% of the derivatives market. Its market dominance gives it enormous pricing power and fee income, allowing it to run a highly profitable operation. Earlier this month, a division bench of justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla upheld the 2010 ruling and reiterated that the NSE qualifies as a public authority under the RTI Act.
The IPO Paradox
It may be argued that NSE’s long-awaited initial public offering (IPO) will compel mandatory disclosures under the listing agreement leading to greater transparency. Paradoxically, it will also alter management incentives and subject an already very profitable exchange to the relentless pressure of having to deliver revenue and profit growth every quarter.
When a public utility faces intense pressure to optimise revenues and margins to maximise short-term shareholder value, the temptation to cut corners, encourage frothy trading volumes and skirt its compliance and supervisory obligations as a first-level regulator is even greater. Remember, NSE’s reluctance and failure to regulate broker-members who whipped up large trading volumes by misusing client funds has already led to as many as 32 broker defaults and expulsions between May 2019 and early-2022. Investors losses due to these defaults were in thousands of crore rupees.The tension between profit maximisation and public obligations of exchanges is a globally recognised concern. This makes it even more important that the RTI Act applies to the Exchange's regulatory functions.
Earlier this month, the NSE filed a formal Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP) for listing of its shares on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE). This happened after it negotiated with SEBI to settle or abandon investigations triggered by the Colo scam. The NSE agreed to a ₹1,491.21–crore settlement for the Colo and dark fibre cases, in addition to previous payments of ₹643.05 crore (TAP architecture case) and ₹72.65 crore for a massive technical glitch leading to trading stoppage in 2021. (Read: NSE Discloses ₹1,491 Crore Settlement Bid, Sweeping Legal Overhang Ahead of IPO)
Given NSE’s market dominance, SEBI can easily settle the RTI issue with a binding administrative directive to all exchanges to comply with the Act, appoint public information officers (PIOs) and put in place systems for receiving and answering public queries. The long legal standoff has comprehensively dismantled arguments against the RTI Act, based on commercial confidentiality or the sufficiency of SEBI's oversight. Not only does SEBI have the legal authority to do so, but its official stance before the CIC had strongly supported RTI compliance in 2010. That it stood by silently and allowed NSE to challenge the CIC order in court is an example of regulator capture.
What remains on trial is SEBI’s ability to exert itself in favour of transparency and accountability. Writing in Moneylife in 2010, the late Prakash Kardaley, an RTI activist, asked:  “What is wrong in being transparent, unless one desperately wants to cover up one’s own misdeeds? Transparency in public life, either as the spirit or as a piece of legislation, when codified into a law, knows its legitimate Laxman Rekha. It does not cause any unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy. It does not expect disclosure of any information that would be detrimental to society at large. On the other hand, it attacks excessive and unnecessary secrecy that, in fact, is injurious to the well-being of society. Any opposition to the spirit of transparency, therefore, must be seen as profound disrespect to society.” Subsequent events at the NSE only revealed how prescient this was.
The Delhi High Court has removed another legal challenge to bringing the NSE within the RTI framework. SEBI no longer has any credible reason to remain passive. By issuing clear directions requiring every recognised exchange to appoint PIOs and comply with the Act, it can end years of needless litigation and, finally, align India's largest market institution with the transparency standards it expects of everyone else.

CIC Advises NHAI To Publish Contract And Safety Documents

Construction World: National: Wednesday, 8^th July 2026.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has advised the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to publish contract agreements, safety plans and key project documents in the public domain to promote transparency and accountability. Information Commissioner Jaya Varma Sinha issued an advisory under the Right to Information Act after finding that the authority was not placing contract agreement related information on its website. The commission said contractual and safety documents directly affect public safety and accountability in infrastructure projects.
According to the order, proactive disclosure would enhance transparency in public procurement and execution of highway projects, ensure accountability of contractors and the authority in adhering to safety norms, and empower citizens to monitor compliance with safety standards and contractual obligations. The advisory arose from a second appeal by an applicant who sought certified copies of documents relating to construction of flyovers at Shivpuri Bypass Crossing and Medical College Crossing in Jhansi. The commission noted that while the central public information officer had provided the Letter of Award, copies of the contract agreement and approved safety plans had been denied.
The body held that the exemption relied on to withhold the documents had been wrongly applied and was contrary to the RTI Act, and it directed the central public information officer to furnish the requested material. The commission reminded the authority of its obligation to proactively disclose information and referred to the Supreme Court's 2023 judgment in Kishan Chand Jain versus Union of India to stress that transparency laws work when accountability governs the relationship between right holders and duty bearers. It advised the authority to publish the specified documents and to keep them regularly updated.
The commission said that publishing these records would reduce routine RTI applications and strengthen public oversight of highway project delivery and safety compliance. The advisory aims to foster greater openness in infrastructure governance and to build public confidence.

Panchayat secretary faces bailable warrants over non-compliance

Times of India: Mumbai: Wednesday, 8^th July 2026.
Chandigarh: The Punjab State Information Commission has issued bailable warrants against a panchayat secretary for failing to appear before it despite repeated notices.

State information commissioner Harpreet Sandhu passed the order against public information officer (PIO) and panchayat secretary posted at Wazir Bhullar gram panchayat in Rayya block of Amritsar district.
A show-cause notice was earlier issued to the PIO in connection with an appeal arising from a RTI application of Feb 26, 2024, but he failed to appear.
The commission said the continued absence of the officer delayed adjudication of the appeal and adversely affected the proceedings, terming his conduct as gross negligence. "This reflected a lack of diligence and disregard for the proceedings. All PIOs are duty-bound to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act and attend proceedings whenever required," the commission said, warning that deliberate non-compliance could invite action under the Act.
Exercising powers under Section 18(3)(a) of the RTI Act, the commission ordered the issuance of bailable warrants against the erring official. It also directed Amritsar (Rural) SSP to ensure service of the warrants and secure the officer's presence before it on Oct 9 at 11 am, along with the information sought in the RTI application.

RTI activist Jeetendra Ghadge questions Maharashtra SIC order denying access to corruption sanction data

Times of India: Mumbai: Wednesday, 8^th July 2026.
A recent order of the Maharashtra State Information Commission (SIC) upholding the Anti-Corruption Bureau's (ACB) response to an RTI application seeking details of prosecution sanctions in corruption cases has triggered fresh debate over transparency in anti-corruption investigations.

Mumbai-based RTI activist Jeetendra Ghadge, founder of The Young Whistleblowers Foundation, has criticised the order, alleging it effectively shields information on prosecution sanctions sought, granted, refused or pending under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The RTI application had sought statewide data from January 2020 on sanction proposals, decisions on those proposals, copies of sanction or rejection orders, and details of cases allegedly delayed for want of government approval.
After hearing the matter, the SIC dismissed Ghadge's appeal, accepting the ACB's contention that the information sought was not maintained in the compiled format requested and that the information available with the public authority had already been provided.
Ghadge has argued that the Commission should have examined whether the Public Information Officer was required under Sections 5(4) and 6(3) of the RTI Act to obtain records from other authorities or transfer the application to departments holding the information.
He also contended that while compiled statistics may not exist, individual records such as sanction proposals, pending files and sanction or rejection orders could still be disclosed under the RTI Act.
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires prior government approval before investigation against a public servant in specified circumstances, making the sanction process a key stage in corruption cases.
"This was never about statistics alone. It was about finding out whether corruption complaints are being buried because prosecution sanctions are refused or indefinitely delayed. When the transparency watchdog refuses to enforce the RTI Act in such a matter, the public loses its only independent window into how anti-corruption laws are functioning," Ghadge said.
He further alleged that permitting public authorities to deny information on the ground that it is "not compiled" could weaken transparency and accountability under the RTI Act.
The order was passed by State Information Commissioner Dr. Pradeep Vyas. Ghadge has also raised concerns over Vyas hearing the matter, noting that Vyas's name had figured in the investigation into the Adarsh Housing Society scam. Public records show Vyas was arrested during the probe and later granted bail. The case remains pending before the courts, and there has been no final finding of guilt against him.
Ghadge has appealed for wider public attention to the issue, saying access to information on prosecution sanctions is essential to independently assess whether corruption investigations are progressing or being delayed.
The ACB's position, as recorded by the Commission, is that the information sought is not maintained in the form requested and that all available information had already been furnished. Meanwhile, SIC Mumbai Dr Pradeep Vyas did not respond to the message regarding the same order when contacted.

CIC tells MCD to publish residential lift plans, maps, approvals in wider public interest

The Print: New Delhi: Wednesday, 8^th July 2026.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has advised the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to proactively place in the public domain residential lift installation plans, building maps, approvals and related records, observing that such information is of “recurring public relevance”.

It will help promote transparency and reduce the need for individual RTI applications, Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari said in an advisory issued under Section 25 of the RTI Act while disposing of show-cause proceedings against an MCD public information officer (PIO) over delay in providing information in a matter relating to records on lift installation in a residential apartment complex.
The Commission noted that the information sought in the matter pertained to “permissions, sanctions, plans and allied documents concerning installation of lifts in residential premises”, which are matters having “wider public interest and recurring public relevance”.
Observing that sanctioned building plans are already disclosed proactively by the civic body, the Commission said, “Now, it makes sense to also proactively disclose information relating to the installation of lifts in the buildings including those provided via retrofitting/retro-installation.” It accordingly advised the MCD to proactively place in the public domain information and documents relating to grant of permissions or sanctions for installation of lifts, applicable guidelines, procedures, formats and related records in compliance with the spirit of Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, “so as to promote transparency and reduce the need for individual RTI applications”.
The advisory came after the Commission accepted the PIO’s explanation for the delay and found no mala fide intention or deliberate obstruction warranting penal action under the RTI Act. PTI MHS RT
(This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.)

THRC suggests probe by Revenue Secretary on complaint related to RTI appeal hearing

Tripura Times: Agartala: Wednesday, 8^th July 2026.
The Tripura Human Rights Commission (THRC) has suggested the state Revenue Department to examine allegations of misconduct against officials of the Directorate of Land Records and Settlement (DLRS) during the hearing of a Right to Information (RTI) appeal.

In an interim order, the Commission, headed by Justice Arindam Lodh, asked the Secretary of the Revenue Department to conduct an inquiry into the allegations and submit a report before the next scheduled hearing.
“Before taking cognizance of the complaint, the Commission thinks it appropriate to send the copy of the complaint to the Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of Tripura with request to make an inquiry /investigation as to the allegation lodged by the complaint and to submit a report by the next date,” the order of the commission reads.
The complaint was filed by advocate Uttam Das, a member of the Tripura Bar Association, who alleged that officials involved in the RTI appeal proceedings behaved in an inappropriate and unprofessional manner during a hearing held on July 01.
According to the complaint, the RTI application was submitted on April 2, but no reply was received within the time prescribed under the RTI Act. The applicant subsequently filed a first appeal and later issued a reminder. Although the department eventually provided a partial response, Das alleged that several documents sought under the application were still not supplied.
The complaint further claimed that tensions arose during the hearing after the complainant referred to the penalty provisions contained in Section 20 of the RTI Act. It alleged that the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) accused him of violating the decorum of the proceedings, wasting official time and arguing unnecessarily before the First Appellate Authority (FAA).
Das also alleged that the First Appellate Authority did not intervene despite the situation escalating and that the SPIO left the hearing before the proceedings concluded. The complaint additionally accused the RTI Cell dealing assistant of making dismissive remarks, allegedly stating that even approaching the Human Rights Commission would have no consequences.
The petition also alleged that the SPIO remarked that the RTI application fee should be increased to discourage what he described as misuse of the Act. It further claimed that records relating to land conversion and associated procedures were deliberately withheld despite being available with the department.
After examining the complaint, the Human Rights Commission observed that the allegations warranted an independent verification before any further action could be considered. It has therefore sought a detailed inquiry report from the Revenue Department.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 28, by which time the Commission expects the Revenue Department to place its findings on record.

RTI shows plasma is leaking out of AIIMS : Swapnil R Mishra

Mumbai Mirror: Mumbai: Wednesday, 8^th July 2026.
Days after a Mirror exposé on blood plasma being sent out of Mumbai’s government hospitals triggered an official inquiry, an RTI query has revealed that the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Nagpur, has sold over 1,000 litres of surplus plasma collected from voluntary donors.

The commercial exploitation of this priceless blood component has been going on since 2023, earning the institution over Rs 16.44 lakh, the RTI application has revealed. AIIMS Nagpur, however, did not disclose the identity of the recipient organisation or if approvals were taken for the sale, leaving key aspects of the transactions outside public scrutiny.
The information was furnished in response to an RTI application filed by Mumbai-based activist Chetan Kothari on June 7, 2026.
In its reply dated July 7, AIIMS Nagpur’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) and Administrative Officer, Shabbir Sheikh, confirmed that the institute’s blood bank, operational since June 14, 2022, has regularly supplied surplus FFP to outside clinics.
The documents show that 10 consignments were dispatched between March 2023 and October 2025, each priced at Rs 1,600 per litre. Collectively, the 10 consignments accounted for more than 1,000 litres of surplus plasma and generated revenue of Rs 16,44,523.20. AIIMS also clarified that the supplies were made for monetary consideration rather than through an in-kind exchange, with the proceeds credited to the institute’s Bank of Baroda account.
While the records establish the volume of plasma supplied and the revenue earned, they reveal little about the administrative framework governing the transactions.
The RTI applicant sought the identity of the organisation that received the plasma, along with copies of the administrative approvals authorising the supplies. AIIMS declined both requests, invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and stating that the information related to a third party and could not be disclosed.
The reply leaves unanswered who received the plasma collected from voluntary blood donors, how the recipient was selected and under what administrative approval the supplies were authorised.
Responding to queries from Mumbai Mirror, a Maharashtra State Blood Transfusion Council (SBTC) official said the council would examine why the recipient’s identity had not been disclosed.
“We will look into the matter and ascertain the reasons for not disclosing the name. We will seek the necessary information from AIIMS Nagpur and examine whether the reply is in accordance with the applicable provisions,” the official said.
Vijay Nayak, deputy director, AIIMS, did not respond to Mirror’s requests for comment till press time.
The RTI records also raise questions about the selection process. Asked whether any tender had been floated before the supplies were made, AIIMS responded: “Nil.”
The documents do not indicate whether any competitive process was followed, whether multiple eligible plasma fractionators were considered, how the recipient was identified, or the basis on which the uniform price of Rs 1,600 per litre was fixed. They are also silent on the duration and terms of the arrangement.
The records provide a rare glimpse into a little-known segment of India’s blood supply chain, where surplus Fresh Frozen Plasma (FFP), no longer required for transfusion, is transferred to licensed plasma fractionation facilities for the manufacture of plasma-derived medicines such as albumin, immunoglobulins and clotting factor concentrates.
Under India’s regulatory framework, licensed blood banks are permitted to transfer surplus plasma that is no longer required for clinical transfusion to authorised plasma fractionation facilities. Instead of being discarded, the plasma is processed into plasma-derived medicinal products used in the treatment of burns, trauma, immune deficiencies, haemophilia and several other serious medical conditions.
PLASMA TRAIL OUT OF AIIMS, NAGPUR
AIIMS supplied:
128.02 litres on March 15, 2023. Price: Rs 2,04,832
86.80 litres on June 19, 2023. Price: Rs 1,38,880
93.669 litres on September 22, 2023. Price: Rs 1,49,870
64.641 litres on October 27, 2023. Price: Rs 1,03,425
92.427 litres on February 22, 2024. Price: Rs 1,47,883
86.669 litres on May 24, 2024. Price: for Rs 1,38,670
117.272 litres on August 30, 2024. Price: Rs 1,87,635
155.534 litres on January 21, 2025. Price: Rs 2,48,854
106.281 litres on August 19, 2025. Price: Rs 1,70,049
96.514 litres on October 28, 2025. Price: Rs 1,54,422

Kerala Information Commission pulls up PSC, orders release of Planning Board recruitment records

Onmanorama: Kerala: Tuesday, 7^th July 2026.
RTI reveals nearly 2,000 trains also ran behind schedule in just 17 months, exposing the growing

The Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) suffered a setback on Monday after the State Information Commission directed it to disclose examination records related to the controversial recruitment for the post of Chief (Industry & Infrastructure) in the Kerala State Planning Board.
Allowing a second appeal filed by candidate Shyamkrishnan K, the Commission directed the PSC's State Public Information Officer (SPIO) to furnish all the requested records within seven days and submit a compliance report. It observed that withholding the information without any legal basis under the Right to Information (RTI) Act was "unjustified and unacceptable."
The Commission ordered the PSC to provide copies of the answer scripts, the marks secured by all candidates in Paper I, Paper II and the interview, copies of the examination papers, the work experience certificates submitted by the first and second rank holders, and the order or decision fixing the maximum interview marks at 25.
The case stems from allegations of irregularities in the recruitment examination held on July 13, 2023, which was conducted as a common test for three Planning Board posts — Chief (Industry & Infrastructure), Chief (Perspective Planning Division) and Chief (Plan Co-ordination Division). A total of 228 candidates appeared for the examination. The rank list for the Industry & Infrastructure post was published on May 31, 2025, and the first-ranked candidate, Arun J Prathap, was appointed the following month.
The controversy surfaced after Shyamkrishnan, who secured the third rank, obtained a copy of his answer script under the RTI Act and found that answers to Questions 9 to 18 had not been evaluated during the digital On-Screen Marking (OSM) process. A preliminary verification by the PSC confirmed that the same 10 questions had remained unevaluated in the answer scripts of all 228 candidates. Despite this, the Commission allegedly did not revise the evaluation or disclose the lapse.
Seeking further details, Shyamkrishnan filed an RTI application on July 10, 2025, requesting the marks of all candidates, copies of the work experience certificates of the top two rank holders and the order fixing the maximum interview marks. The PSC declined to provide the marks, arguing that the examination was common to three posts and that one of the rank lists was yet to be published. It also refused to provide the order relating to the interview marks, while agreeing only to furnish the work experience certificates upon payment of the prescribed fee.
After the PSC rejected his first appeal, Shyamkrishnan approached the State Information Commission.
The Commission found that the applicant had sought information only in relation to the Chief (Industry & Infrastructure) post, whose rank list had already been published. It held that the PSC had failed to justify why the marks of candidates in that rank list could not be disclosed merely because the rank list for another post arising from the common examination was still pending.
The Commission further observed that even if there was a court order restraining appointment, it could not be cited as a reason to deny information under the RTI Act. Holding that all the requested records were disclosable, it directed the PSC to provide the information within seven days and submit a compliance report to the Information Commission, disposing of the appeal.

371 trains cancelled in 18 months in Nagpur, over 5 lakh passengers affected: RTI

Nagpur Today: Nagpur: Tuesday, 7^th July 2026.
RTI reveals nearly 2,000 trains also ran behind schedule in just 17 months, exposing the growing reliability crisis on one of Central India's busiest rail corridors

For lakhs of passengers, a confirmed railway ticket no longer guarantees a journey. Over the past one-and-a-half years, frequent train cancellations and delays have turned travel to and from Nagpur into an ordeal, forcing commuters to scramble for costly alternatives, postpone important engagements, or abandon travel plans altogether.
An analysis of data obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act has revealed that 371 trains were cancelled between January 1, 2025, and May 31, 2026, potentially disrupting the travel plans of more than 5.19 lakh passengers. The figures, obtained by Nagpur-based RTI activist Abhay Kolarkar from Central Railway, paint a grim picture of mounting inconvenience for one of the country’s busiest railway hubs.
The cancellations affected thousands of passengers travelling for work, education, medical treatment, family emergencies and holidays. Many found themselves making last-minute arrangements, often paying several times the normal fare for flight tickets, while others were left with overcrowded private buses or expensive road travel as their only options.
Railway experts estimate that a typical long-distance train comprising 22 to 24 coaches accommodates around 1,400 to 1,600 passengers. During festive seasons and vacation periods, this number often crosses 2,000 due to unreserved and waitlisted travellers. Even using the conservative estimate of 1,400 passengers per train, the cancellation of 371 services could have impacted nearly 5,19,400 commuters.
The RTI data also highlights specific periods when the disruption peaked. May 2025 witnessed the highest number of cancellations at 84 trains, followed by 64 cancellations in January 2025 and 56 in February 2025. These months coincide with heavy passenger demand, making the impact even more severe.
For many travellers, especially senior citizens and middle-class families, the cancellations translated into financial and emotional hardship.
“Air travel remains beyond the reach of many people, while private buses are uncomfortable and often unsuitable for elderly passengers and children. For most families, trains are the only affordable and reliable option. When services are cancelled repeatedly, people are left with very few choices,” said a senior citizen.
However, cancellations tell only part of the story.
The RTI records show that 1,949 trains were delayed during the same 17- month period, further affecting passengers who managed to retain their bookings.
Of these, 1,016 trains originated late from Nagpur, while 933 trains reached Nagpur behind schedule, reflecting persistent operational challenges across the railway network.
The worst disruption among terminating trains was recorded in June 2025, when 107 trains arrived late, while May 2026 witnessed the highest number of delayed departures from Nagpur, with 79 trains originating behind schedule.
Frequent delays not only prolong journeys but also disrupt connecting trains, business schedules, medical appointments and family commitments, leaving passengers uncertain about reaching their destinations on time.
The RTI findings have once again raised questions about the reliability of railway operations despite the growing dependence on rail transport. With Nagpur serving as a major railway junction connecting north, south, east and west India, commuters believe that improving punctuality and reducing cancellations should be among the highest priorities for railway authorities to restore passenger confidence.

Planning Board recruitment: Kerala PSC ordered to reveal records

New Indian Express: Kerala: Tuesday, 7^th July 2026.
Kerala SIC directs PSC to release recruitment records in 7 days, calls withholding of information without RTI exemption "unjustified and unacceptable."

In a setback for the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC), the State Information Commission has directed it to disclose records pertaining to the controversial recruitment for the post of Chief (Industry & Infrastructure Division) in the Kerala State Planning Board.
While allowing a second appeal filed by Shyamkrishnan K, who was a candidate to the post, State Information Commissioner Sonichan P Joseph directed the PSC to furnish all requested records within seven days. He termed as “unjustified and unacceptable” PSC’s action of withholding the information without any exemption under the RTI Act.
The complaint relates to the alleged irregularities in the recruitment exam held on July 13, 2023, which served as a common test for three posts—Chief (Industry & Infrastructure Division), Chief (Perspective Planning Division) and Chief (Plan Co-ordination Division).
The rank list for the Industry & Infrastructure post was published on May 31, 2025 and topper Arun J Prathap was appointed. Sensing foul play, third rank holder Shyamkrishnan obtained a copy of his answer script under RTI Act and found that answers to 10 questions were not digitally evaluated. He filed an RTI plea on July 10, 2025, seeking marks awarded to all candidates, copies of work experience certificates of the top two rank holders, and the order fixing interview marks.
However, PSC refused to disclose the details saying the exam was common to all three posts and that one of the rank lists was yet to be prepared.
Info commissioner seeks copies of answer scripts
State Information Commissioner Sonichan P Joseph has directed the PSC to provide copies of answer scripts and marks secured by all candidates in the written exam and interview, copies of question papers and work experience certificates submitted by the first and second rank holders. It also sought a copy of the order fixing the maximum interview marks at 25.

CIC faults central Haj Committee for denying info under RTI on Mumbai's Haj House expenditure, contract

Deccan Herald: New Delhi: Tuesday, 7^th July 2026.
In its order, the Commission said expenditure on the maintenance of Haj House 'cannot be treated as third-party information' and therefore could not be denied by invoking Section 8(1)(j).

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the Haj Committee of India to revisit an RTI application seeking details of expenditure on the maintenance of Mumbai's Haj House, room allotments and an umbrella procurement contract, holding that the authority had wrongly invoked privacy exemptions to deny the information.
The Haj Committee of India is a statutory body under the Ministry of Minority Affairs.
Information Commissioner Sanjeev Kumar Jindal observed that the Haj Committee had incorrectly applied Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to withhold information relating to public expenditure and failed to provide clear replies on certain allegations raised by the applicant.
The case arose from an RTI application seeking information on advance withdrawals and settlement of bills for Haj House maintenance, alleged free allotment of rooms to relatives and associates of officials, the award of an umbrella supply contract during Haj 2022, and certain service-related matters concerning Haj Committee employees.
The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) had denied parts of the information citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, while stating that accommodation at Haj House was allotted as per approved bye-laws and that some information sought was either not available or did not fall within the definition of "information" under the Act. The First Appellate Authority upheld the CPIO's reply.
Section 8(1)(j) exempts personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
During the hearing, the appellant argued that the information related to financial and administrative irregularities involves public funds and institutional integrity and should not have been withheld under the RTI Act. The Haj Committee maintained that all information permissible under the Act had already been furnished through a point-wise reply.
In its order, the Commission said expenditure on the maintenance of Haj House "cannot be treated as third-party information" and therefore could not be denied by invoking Section 8(1)(j).
It also noted that the CPIO had failed to give clear replies regarding the alleged free allotment of rooms and the allegation that the umbrella supply contract had been awarded to the fourth-lowest bidder.
The CIC directed the CPIO to re-examine the RTI application and furnish a revised reply on points relating to maintenance expenditure, room allotments and the umbrella contract strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act.

RTI portal still seeking ID proof and ₹30 fee despite govt stay: Activists

Times of India: Maharashtra: Tuesday, 7^th July 2026.
The state’s official online filing system for filing RTI application is yet to reflect the changes despite the Maharashtra govt staying the Right to Information (RTI) Rules 2026 following intense backlash from activists.

As of now, the portal continues to demand an increased application fee of Rs30 (up from the original Rs10) and requires applicants to upload proof of identity a provision that was supposedly put on hold.
Civic activist Vivek Velankar pointed out that a significant number of citizens use the online system to file applications under the RTI Act 2005. “When the new rules were notified on June 12, the authorities modified the system almost instantly. Now, even four days after those rules were rolled back, the system remains unchanged. This arbitrary functioning is highly objectionable,” he said.
Adding to the criticism, activist Vijay Kumbhar called the delay a “mockery” of the RTI Act. He argued that the current confusion stems from a lack of formal procedure. “By law, a govt notification can only be withdrawn or kept in abeyance by issuing another official notification. Letters, circulars, or oral announcements carry no legal weight. The govt must either issue an official notification suspending the new rules or admit that they remain in effect,” Kumbhar stated.
The state govt announced the stay on July 2, just days before veteran social activist Anna Hazare was set to launch an indefinite hunger strike in protest. Following instructions from chief minister Devendra Fadnavis, Atul Patane, the principal secretary of the general administration department (GAD), issued a letter to the state information commission directing that the old rules be reinstated. However, Patane could not be reached for comment regarding the delay in updating the web portal.
The 2026 rules required every applicant to furnish a self-attested photo ID. Activists argue that the RTI Act 2005 itself does not mandate identity proof and that such hurdles are designed to discourage whistleblowers.
Notably, former central information commissioner (CIC) Shailesh Gandhi, along with a group of civic leaders, recently served a legal notice to the Maharashtra govt demanding a total rollback. Gandhi alleged that several of the new provisions were framed not to facilitate the Act, but to restrict and burden the exercise of a fundamental right.

'मंदिर पब्लिक अथॉरिटी नहीं', यह कहकर पल्ला नहीं झाड़ सकता है सरकारी विभाग; CIC ने RTI को लेकर सुनाया फैसला

Jagran: New Delhi: Monday, 6^th July 2026.
केंद्रीय सूचना आयोग (CIC) ने फैसला सुनाया है कि सरकारी विभाग मंदिर से जुड़े रिकॉर्ड सार्वजनिक करने की अपनी जिम्मेदारी से यह कहकर पल्ला नहीं झाड़ सकते कि मंदिर 'पब्लिक अथॉरिटी' नहीं है।

केंद्रीय सूचना आयोग (CIC) ने सूचना के अधिकार (RTI) को लेकर एक बेहद महत्वपूर्ण और संवेदनशील फैसला सुनाया है। सीआईसी ने पुडुचेरी के हिंदू धार्मिक संस्थान और वक्फ विभाग को कड़े निर्देश देते हुए कहा है कि कोई मंदिर 'पब्लिक अथॉरिटी' नहीं है, सिर्फ इस दलील के आधार पर सरकारी विभाग मंदिर से जुड़े रिकॉर्ड सार्वजनिक करने की अपनी वैधानिक जिम्मेदारी से पल्ला नहीं झाड़ सकता।
दरअसल, यह पूरा मामला 'श्री वेदपुरीश्वरर श्री वरदराजपेरुमल देवस्थानम' मंदिर से जुड़े रिकॉर्ड्स और बजट की जानकारी मांगने से जुड़ा है। एक आवेदक ने पुडुचेरी के हिंदू धार्मिक संस्थान और वक्फ विभाग से इस मंदिर के साल 2021 से 2025 तक के वार्षिक बजट, ऑडिट रिपोर्ट, संपत्तियों के हस्तांतरण और प्रशासनिक अधिकारियों के खिलाफ आई शिकायतों तथा उन पर हुई कार्रवाई का ब्योरा मांगा था।
विभाग अपनी जिम्मेदारी से पीछे नहीं हट सकता
विभाग ने इस आरटीआई आवेदन को मंदिर प्रशासन के पास भेज दिया। लेकिन मंदिर प्रशासन ने यह कहते हुए जानकारी देने से साफ इनकार कर दिया कि देवस्थानम को पुडुचेरी सरकार से कोई बड़ी वित्तीय मदद नहीं मिलती, इसलिए वह आरटीआई कानून की धारा 2(एच) के तहत 'पब्लिक अथॉरिटी' नहीं है।
इस पर सुनवाई करते हुए सूचना आयुक्त पी.आर. रमेश ने बेहद भावपूर्ण और तार्किक रुख अपनाया। उन्होंने स्पष्ट किया कि आवेदक ने जानकारी मंदिर से नहीं, बल्कि सरकारी विभाग से मांगी थी, जो कि आरटीआई कानून के तहत खुद एक 'पब्लिक अथॉरिटी' है।
सीआइसी ने कहा कि भले ही मंदिर सीधे तौर पर इस कानून के दायरे में न आता हो, लेकिन जो रिकॉर्ड कानूनन सरकारी विभाग के पास मौजूद हैं या उसकी कस्टडी में हैं, उन्हें देने से विभाग इनकार नहीं कर सकता। सिर्फ आवेदन को दूसरी जगह ट्रांसफर कर देने से विभाग की जवाबदेही खत्म नहीं हो जाती।
पारदर्शिता और सूचना के अधिकार की जीत
सीआईसी ने विभाग की इस दलील को भी खारिज कर दिया कि शिकायतों और जांच से जुड़ी जानकारियां आरटीआई के दायरे में नहीं आतीं। आयोग ने कहा कि अगर विभाग के पास शिकायतों, जांच की स्थिति और अनुशासनात्मक कार्रवाई का रिकॉर्ड मौजूद है, तो वह कानूनन 'सूचना' की श्रेणी में आता है।
आयोग ने विभाग को आदेश दिया है कि वह बजट, ऑडिट खातों और शिकायतों से जुड़े सवालों की समीक्षा करे और बिंदुवार संशोधित जवाब दाखिल करे। साथ ही, आवेदक को जरूरी दस्तावेजों का निरीक्षण करने की सुविधा भी दी जाए। सीआईसी का यह फैसला प्रशासनिक पारदर्शिता को मजबूत करने और आस्था के केंद्रों के प्रबंधन में जवाबदेही तय करने की दिशा में एक बड़ा कदम है।
(समाचार एजेंसी पीटीआई के इनपुट के साथ)

CIC says temple ‘not a public authority’ plea can’t absolve Puducherry dept of disclosing records

The Print: New Delhi: Monday, 6^th July 2026.

The CIC has directed the Department of Hindu Religious Institutions and Wakf in Puducherry to revisit an RTI plea on Sri Vedhapureeswarar Sri Varadarajaperumal Devasthanam and furnish available records, saying the temple’s status as “not a public authority” does not absolve the department of its statutory obligation to disclose information held by it about the temple.
Information Commissioner P R Ramesh noted that the appellant had approached the Department, which is “admittedly a public authority” under the RTI Act, and not the temple.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) passed the order on an appeal seeking copies of the temple’s annual budgets for 2021-22 to 2024-25, audited account statements for 2020-21 to 2023-24, audit reports and details of rectification of audit objections.
The applicant also sought details of complaints received against the temple’s administrative officer and staff since 2021, disciplinary action taken, pending complaints, copies of complaints and related proceedings, besides inspection reports, registers maintained under the Puducherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act and orders relating to alienation of temple properties.
The Department had transferred the RTI application relating to budget and audit records to the temple administration under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
The temple administration, however, rejected the request, contending that the Devasthanam was not a “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the Act as it was not substantially financed by the Government of Puducherry, and relied on an earlier CIC order passed in 2020.
Information Commissioner Ramesh noted that the appellant had approached the Department which is “admittedly a public authority” under the RTI Act.
“Merely because the temple itself may not qualify as a public authority does not ipso facto absolve the Department of its statutory obligation to furnish information that is available with it or is held by it under law,” the CIC said “The Department cannot deny access to records in its custody by simply transferring the application to an entity which itself disputes its status as a public authority,” it added.
The Commission observed that the department had merely relied on the temple’s response to queries relating to annual budgets, audited accounts and audit reports, without indicating whether copies of those records were available with it in discharge of its supervisory and statutory functions under the Puducherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act.
It also disagreed with the department’s contention that details regarding complaints, investigations and disciplinary action did not fall within the definition of “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
“The appellant has sought the number of complaints received, the status of investigation and disciplinary action taken. If such records are maintained by the Department, they constitute information under Section 2(f). Only where no such records exist the PIO can state that the information is not available. The PIO cannot reject the request by invoking Section 2(f) where existing records are sought,” the Commission said.
The Commission directed the department to re-examine queries relating to budgets, audited accounts, audit reports and complaint records and furnish a revised point-wise reply, clearly stating wherever information is unavailable.
It also directed the department to facilitate inspection of the remaining records and provide copies of documents identified by the appellant after redacting information exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act. PTI MHS RT RT
(This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.)

Donation theft: Ram temple trust should come under RTI for transparency, CPI(M) MP tells Centre

New Indian Express: Lucknow: Monday, 6^th July 2026.
John Brittas cited the example of the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, arguing that institutional autonomy and public accountability are not mutually exclusive.

CPI(M) MP John Brittas speaks in Rajya Sabha.(Photo | ANI, FILE)

Amid the controversy over the alleged embezzlement of donations at the Ram temple in Ayodhya, CPI(M) Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas has written to Union Home Minister Amit Shah urging the Centre to reconsider its stand that the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust is not a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Sharing the letter via X on Sunday, Brittas said it was not prudent to keep the trust outside the ambit of the RTI Act merely because the government described it as an "autonomous" body, when it had been constituted through a government-approved scheme, vested with land acquired under a parliamentary law and continued to have serving IAS officers in its governing framework.
He urged the Union government to revisit its earlier position, saying: "Trusts that enjoy unparalleled public faith must also uphold the highest standards of public transparency and accountability."
Referring to a Central Information Commission (CIC) order dated 6 June 2025 holding that the trust was not a "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, Brittas said the decision had relied substantially on the Ministry of Home Affairs' stand and requested the ministry to review its position in the interest of transparency and public accountability.
In his letter, Brittas said the trust's origins were unique.
Following the Supreme Court's November 2019 Ayodhya judgment, the Centre framed the scheme governing the trust, constituted it through a gazette notification and vested in it the acquired land.
He added that the trust's initial structure comprised 15 members, of whom 12 were nominated by the Centre while the remaining three were chosen at its first meeting.
Brittas argued that the broader question was whether a trust created by the government pursuant to a Supreme Court judgment and vested with property by the Centre should remain outside the accountability framework envisaged under the RTI Act.
He questioned the interpretation accepted by the CIC that the trust could not be regarded as having been established or constituted by a government notification because the notification was issued in compliance with the Supreme Court's directions.
"Section 2(h)(d) simply refers to a body established or constituted by a Government notification or order; it does not distinguish between a notification issued pursuant to a judicial direction and one issued independently by the Government," he said.
Citing Supreme Court judgments in D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions (2019) and Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2013), as well as the Delhi High Court's 1 July judgment declaring the National Stock Exchange a public authority under the RTI Act, Brittas argued that institutions deriving their legal existence and public character from government action should receive a purposive interpretation that advances transparency.
He also highlighted the continued presence of serving government officials in the trust's governing framework, including nominees of the Centre and the Uttar Pradesh government, and the Ayodhya district magistrate. The Centre's current representative on the trust, he noted, is an Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs.
"If the Trust is entirely private in character and wholly beyond the sphere of public accountability, why did the Government itself considers it necessary to continue governmental representation in its governing structure?" he asked.
While these representatives may not have voting rights, Brittas said their statutory inclusion reflected the trust's public character and the government's continuing institutional association with its administration.
He further argued that the trust administered one of the country's most revered religious institutions, managed land acquired under a parliamentary enactment and vested through a government notification, and received contributions from millions of devotees in India and abroad.
"The public character of the Trust also arises from the nature of the functions entrusted to it. It administers one of the country's most revered religious institutions, manages land acquired under a Parliamentary enactment and vested through government notification, and receives contributions from millions of devotees across India and abroad," he said.
He added that the "extraordinary confidence" reposed by the public in the trust naturally carried with it an equally compelling expectation of transparency in governance, financial administration, contracts and the utilisation of donations.
Drawing a comparison with the Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, Brittas said institutional autonomy and public accountability were not mutually exclusive, as major religious institutions established under statutory or government frameworks continued to enjoy autonomy in religious matters while functioning within transparent administrative and financial systems.
Brittas urged the Home Ministry to reconsider its stand and place a revised position before the jurisdictional high court so that the trust's status under the RTI Act could receive an authoritative judicial determination.
The Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust is at the centre of a controversy over the alleged embezzlement of donations offered by devotees.