Intellectual Property Protection Under SHANTI Act: Promotion of innovation in India’s nuclear energy push - By Suhani Trivedi

India Legal: National: Thursday, 6^th August 2026.

The Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy (SHANTI) Act, 2025 consolidates India’s nuclear energy laws, replacing outdated 1962 and 2010 statutes, to promote private and foreign investment in nuclear power generation, strengthen regulatory oversight via AERB, and, under Section 14, recalibrate liability by placing residual exposure beyond the Second Schedule on the Union Government, thereby advancing India’s clean energy and net-zero objectives.
It is a major step forward in enhancing India’s nuclear energy ecosystem by fostering technological progress, research, and innovation while promoting safe and responsible use of nuclear technology. With India aiming to boost its clean energy generation and minimise fossil fuel reliance, the role of innovation in nuclear science becomes significant.
Intellectual property rights (IPRs) are therefore important in this context because they stimulate research, safeguard technological innovations, and encourage investment in public and private research and development. This framework is reflected in the Patents Act, 1970, which governs patent protection in India, and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), particularly Articles 27 to 34, which establish minimum international standards for patent protection.
The technological progress of the nuclear industry, meanwhile, brings its own set of concerns, such as national security, public safety and international non-proliferation requirements. The SHANTI Act aims to balance the interests of innovation and the interests of the public as a whole.
This article delves into the intellectual property protection as provided in SHANTI Act with a special focus on patent protection, technology transfer and innovation in nuclear energy. It examines  legal and policy issues arising from the protection of nuclear IP rights, while keeping in mind national security considerations and public interest.
The Importance of Intellectual Property Rights in Nuclear Innovation
IPRs are important incentives to encourage innovation by safeguarding ideas and inventions of researchers, scientists and organizations. The legal basis for these protections is found in the Patents Act, 1970, which prescribes the criteria for patentability and identifies non-patentable inventions, while Article 27 of the TRIPS Agreement requires WTO Members to make patents available for inventions in all fields of technology, subject to specified conditions.
In an industry such as nuclear power, where new technology is being developed that needs a lot of investment, the years of research needed and advanced scientific knowledge involved make IP protection an incentive to further innovation by allowing the inventor to benefit from it. This legal measure helps build trust in safer and more efficient nuclear technologies among public institutions and private companies.
The SHANTI Act acknowledges the significance of technological progress towards long-term energy goals of India. Section 38 of the SHANTI Act, 2025 permits patents for inventions relating to peaceful uses of nuclear energy and radiation, fostering research and innovation while barring patents on strategically reserved activities.
Development of innovative technologies like advanced reactor design, radiation safety technology, nuclear waste management technology, and improvements in fuel-cycle technology can help advance science and bolster the nation’s clean energy infrastructure.
Patent Protection and Technology Transfer under the SHANTI Act
A major driver to foster innovation in the nuclear industry is patent protection. Section 38 of the SHANTI Act, 2025 provides patent protection for inventions relating to nuclear technology, including advanced reactor designs, radiation safety systems, fuel-cycle technologies, and waste management processes. Such protection is available only where the invention satisfies the requirements of novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability under Sections 2(1)(j) and 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970.
The Act fosters research, public institutions and private enterprises to invest in technologies that enhance the efficiency, safety and sustainability of nuclear energy.
Along with patent protection, the SHANTI Act highlights how important technology transfer is in bringing scientific innovations out of the lab and into the real world. The technology transfer process allows knowledge, expertise and inventions to be transferred from research institutions to commercial enterprises via patenting, joint research, public-private partnerships and international institutions.
In the case of nuclear technology transfer, however, it is very different from transfer of ordinary commercial technologies. Nuclear technologies tend to be associated with strategic and security issues and the transfer should happen under a tightly managed legal environment, with the proper government control and respect for India’s international obligations.
The delicate balance between IP Rights, National Security and Public Interest
The need to strike a balance between the protection of IPR, national security and the public interest is one of the major issues under the SHANTI Act. While patents promote innovation through granting exclusive rights to inventors, the nuclear industry has a unique regulatory framework due to some of the strategic and security aspects of many nuclear technologies.
The Act encourages research and technological advancement, and acknowledges the requirement for protection of sensitive information. The patent system, in general, requires disclosure of technical details, but for some inventions involving nuclear technology, confidentiality may be necessary not to endanger national security, accordingly, Section 39 of the SHANTI Act overrides the RTI Act, 2005, allowing the government to declare such nuclear-related information “restricted” and exempt from disclosure.
This is based on the idea that intellectual property rights, as a legal right, can be justifiably subject to reasonable public interest regulation, reflected in Patents Act Sections 84–92, which allow compulsory licensing, and Section 100, which permits government use of patents with compensation, consistent with TRIPS Article 31’s allowance for authorized use without consent under defined conditions.
Problems in safeguarding nuclear IP
 Legal, technical and policy issues arise when it comes to protecting IP in the nuclear energy industry. Nuclear technologies are particularly sensitive, as they contain a great deal of information which is relevant to national security, public safety and international relations. Therefore, a well-balanced  legal regime is needed for effective IP protection and for ensuring that the strategic technologies are not used in an unethical manner.
One of the big problems is keeping information confidential while at the same time encouraging innovation. Normally, patenting an invention involves revealing the invention to the public, in return for which the patentee gets exclusive rights to it, but disclosure of some nuclear technologies could lead to security concerns or be inconsistent with India’s international commitments on non-proliferation. It is, therefore, up to policymakers to decide whether innovations are appropriate for patent protection or should be kept confidential.
The other challenge is to encourage technology transfer and avoid unauthorized access to sensitive technology. Research institutions, universities, government bodies and private firms must work together to make scientific advances possible. But low protection levels can lead to the risk of intellectual property theft, cyberattacks, or the misuse of confidential information. Enhanced cyber security, confidentiality and regulatory oversight are therefore critical.
—Suhani Trivedi is a second-year LL.B. student of Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida

RTI Commission fines 254 public institutions GH¢20,000 each for failing to submit annual reports

Modern Ghana: Ghana: Thursday, 6^th August 2026.
The Right to Information (RTI) Commission has sanctioned about 254 public institutions, including Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) as well as Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies (MMDAs), with administrative fines of GH¢20,000 each for failing to submit their 2025 Right to Information Annual Reports as required by law.

In a statement issued on Wednesday, August 5, 2026, the Commission said the penalties were imposed under Section 77(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2019 (Act 989), which obliges all public institutions to file annual reports on the implementation of the RTI law.
The Commission explained that the affected institutions failed to meet the reporting requirement despite repeated reminders published in the Ghanaian Times on January 20, 2026, and the Daily Graphic on April 24, 2026.
According to the Commission, the annual reports are essential for compiling its consolidated report to Parliament, making compliance a key requirement for promoting transparency, accountability and effective implementation of the RTI Act.
It noted that the statutory deadline for preparing and submitting the consolidated 2025 report to Parliament has already elapsed, leaving it with no option but to enforce the sanctions against defaulting institutions.
The RTI Commission has therefore directed all affected institutions to settle the GH¢20,000 administrative penalty within 14 days of receiving official notification.
It cautioned that any institution that fails to comply within the stipulated period will face additional enforcement measures as provided under the law.
“The Commission reminds heads of public institutions that compliance with the reporting requirements under Act 989 is a statutory obligation and not a matter of discretion,” the statement said.
The Commission reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring full compliance with the Right to Information Act while promoting openness, accountability and public access to information across state institutions.

Grading the Courts on openness : V. Venkatesan

Supreme Court Observer: New Delhi: Thursday, 6^th August 2026.
A new index scores India's higher judiciary on disclosure, and no court clears 60 percent

On 1 August, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court, at the launch of the Judicial Transparency Index, asked whether the Collegium had “taken a step back” from transparency. He said that the last three resolutions recommending judges to the Supreme Court carried no reasons at all. 
The claim was already tested by the report. The past five resolutions recommending judges to the High Courts disclosed no reasons. Only a few resolutions recommending judges to the Supreme Court carried some reasoning, which were formulaic, stating that the candidate had been picked after “evaluating merit, integrity and competence and also accommodating a plurality of considerations.” What that evaluation actually found was not disclosed.
Justice Bhuyan stated that the citizens have a right to know who their judges are.
The remark landed in a year already marked by disclosure. A cash discovery at the Delhi residence of Justice Yashwant Varma triggered an in-house probe. The report was leaked by the media. In the aftermath, the Court resolved to declare assets of all sitting judges under a 2025 resolution. The Index turns that year into a standing yearly framework, covering the Supreme Court and all 25 High Courts. As of 4 August 2026, 28 out of the 35 sitting judges have revealed their assets. 
What the Index measures
The Index scores courts on 68 indicators across 18 themes, sorted into judicial processes, institutional governance and personnel administration. High Courts are scored out of 91 points, the Supreme Court out of 88. 
Websites were reviewed between November 2025 and February 2026. The framework was devised in an earlier 2025 report by JALDI researchers—Jyotika Randhawa, Shruthi Naik and Shreya Tripathy. Its application to the higher judiciary is authored by Randhawa with fellow researchers Abhishek Rath and Navami Krishnamurthy.
A single indicator shows why the method matters. For instance, a litigant looking to attend a virtual hearing starts with the cause list. Cause lists from 19 High Courts include a video-conferencing link, six do not. That gap ties to a 2023 Supreme Court order in Sarvesh Mathur v The Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which directed every High Court to make virtual access available. Formally open hearings carry little value if the route to them cannot be found.  
What the Index found
As per the Index, no High Court cleared 60 percent of the available points. Himachal Pradesh ranks first overall, with 52.5 out of 91. Tripura follows closely at 52. Orissa, Delhi and Chhattisgarh round out the top five. Meghalaya and Bombay rank lowest, at 34 and 34.7 respectively. Himachal Pradesh leads on institutional governance, with strong Right to Information (RTI), Protection of Sexual Harassment policy and budgetary disclosures. It discloses little on physical access to hearings. Tripura leads on personnel-related transparency. Chhattisgarh tops judicial processes outright but trails elsewhere, landing sixth overall.
Some findings cut across nearly every court. For instance, no High Courts except eight of them give a 24 hours notice before publishing the cause list. No High Court publishes the criteria governing case allocation or recusals. Only Delhi High Court indicates how a litigant might request one. 
Only eight High Courts published an annual report for 2024-25, and four published none. Twenty-one High Courts run online RTI portals, but fifteen have RTI rules adding exemptions beyond Section 8 of the RTI Act itself. 
Budgetary disclosure is starker. Only five High Courts had published a budget for the current financial year, 2025-26. Eight published no budget at all, and fifteen published no expenditure data for either year examined.
On personnel, only 87 of 813 judges disclose their assets to some degree—across just seven High Courts. No High Court publishes a code of conduct for judges. Only Jammu and Kashmir and Tripura publish disciplinary sanctions against district judicial officers. Translation is thin too: Delhi High Court translated its judgments consistently until 2024, then managed only six in 2025.
The Supreme Court scored 53 out of 88, unevenly spread. It scored strongest on governance—22.5 out of 31—having published ten years of annual reports, though not committee mandates or minutes. It scored 15 out of 28 on judicial processes. It live-streams only Constitution Bench matters, and does not publish the criteria behind its own roster. It scored 15.5 out of 29 on personnel, the category where its own resolutions substantiate Justice Bhuyan’s point most directly. It managed one point on six further indicators covering AI use and open data. This was not counted toward the main score.
From principle to practice
The launch itself was with a panel discussion titled “From Principle to Practice: Understanding Openness in the Indian Judiciary”. Senior Advocates Dr. Aditya Sondhi and Saurabh Kirpal joined the panel, with report co-author Randhawa moderating.
Sondhi pressed a different failing: inconsistency. He pointed out that different High Courts approach disclosure in their own way. Transparency, in his argument, flows from the right to information and access to justice. Both are pan-Indian constitutional rights. “It shouldn’t depend on which state you’re a litigant in,” he said. 
Kirpal pressed the disciplinary gap suggesting that the Supreme Court should publish the reports of in-house inquiries evaluating complaints against judges. He pointed out that the district judiciary already publishes reports when district judges face inquiry. This should work for the higher judiciary too, he said. 
Kirpal questioned the ad hoc character of the in-house machinery. The committee that examined the allegations against Justice Varma, he noted, was constituted afresh by then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna. A standing committee, on his argument, would serve the process better. He cautioned that disclosure must be balanced. An unproven allegation can cause stigma.
The report gives his complaint empirical footing. Its reviewers found no inquiry report, and no orders recording sanctions against judges of the higher judiciary on the Supreme Court website.
The panel also embodied one of the keynote’s sharpest examples. Justice Bhuyan cited the Collegium’s January 2023 resolution reiterating Kirpal’s own recommendation for the Delhi High Court. Yet more than three and a half years on, he noted, no appointment has followed. Government inaction on reasoned and reiterated recommendations, on this account, is opacity of another kind.
Independence is not the same as secrecy
The report’s numbers point to a broader question. Why do courts which routinely require government bodies to give reasons and act through fair procedure inconsistently apply that standard to themselves?
Judicial independence protects who decides a case and how. It does not arguably require budgets, recruitment, rosters, committee mandates or disciplinary statistics to stay confidential. In Subhash Chandra Agarwal, the Court held the Chief Justice of India’s office a public authority under the RTI Act. In Swapnil Tripathi, it tied open courts to the right to receive information under Article 19(1)(a). The e-Committee’s model live-streaming rules permit narrow exceptions for sensitive matters. Openness and confidentiality were meant to coexist through defined limits, not general discretion. The Index shows where that line blurs.
What a score cannot show
A disclosure index counts documents, not decisions. A court can publish its cause list punctually while deciding cases erratically. It may say little about personnel while its judgments remain sound. The Index’s claim is narrower: sunlight on process, not the soundness of outcome. That is what makes the scoring auditable, rather than a subjective verdict on any one court.
The weighting still creates a difficulty. Basic access indicators carry substantial points; case allocation and recusals carry very few. The report is candid about its own limits too. It confined itself to what court websites proactively display, and did not assess the veracity of the information or whether it was up to date. Live-streaming and other daily-changing indicators were checked on a single working day. 
Justice Bhuyan’s own verdict was gentler than his critique itself. The judiciary, he said, has taken significant strides towards transparency, though much more remains to be done. The report’s own conclusion agrees, crediting the Supreme Court with leadership while noting that no court has achieved full transparency in any single category. Neither the Supreme Court nor the Law Ministry had issued a public response to Justice Bhuyan’s remarks as of this report. The Collegium’s most recent resolutions, the ones already found wanting in reasons, remain on the Supreme Court’s website in that form.

UGC refuses to explain controversial equity rules even after RTI appeal

India Today: New Delhi: Thursday, 6^th August 2026.
The UGC refused to explain how it framed its now-stayed equity rules in response to an RTI request and subsequent appeal. The stand relies on a sub judice claim that CIC rulings have repeatedly rejected under the RTI Act.

UGC took over four months to reply. Its full answer to all five questions was a single sentence

An RTI request asking the University Grants Commission (UGC) to explain how it drafted its now-suspended equity rules for colleges and universities has been met with a refusal, and that refusal was then upheld on appeal without any fresh information being shared.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE NEW RULES?
In January 2026, UGC brought in stricter, mandatory equity rules to replace its softer 2012 guidelines, following years of pressure after the deaths of students Payal Tadvi and Rohith Vemula over alleged caste discrimination. The notification sparked immediate backlash: a city magistrate in Bareilly resigned citing the rules, several BJP functionaries in UP stepped down in protest, and then Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan had to publicly assure that the rules wouldn't be misused and that discrimination would not be allowed against anybody.
Two changes drew the sharpest criticism. The final rules dropped a penalty clause for false complaints that an earlier draft had included, and they defined caste discrimination as applying only to SC, ST and OBC students, prompting advocate Vineet Jindal to challenge in the Supreme Court why general category students were left unprotected. Student groups split on expected lines: RSS student wing ABVP sought clarity from UGC and the Court, Congress student wing NSUI welcomed the rules while demanding guaranteed SC/ ST/ OBC representation on committees, and AISA defended the regulations outright.
Within weeks, the Supreme Court stayed the new rules, reviving the 2012 framework.
It's in this context that an RTI request was filed, asking UGC to explain how it arrived at the narrower definition, whether it took any legal advice on it, why the new rules seem to offer less protection than the old ones, whether it consulted students, teachers or experts before finalising them, and what it plans to do now that the Supreme Court has stepped in.
WHAT UGC ACTUALLY SAID?
UGC took over four months to reply. Its full answer to all five questions was a single sentence, stating that the regulations were sub judice before the Supreme Court and that no comments or clarifications could be furnished while the matter remained under judicial consideration.
An appeal was then filed. Nearly six months after the original request, the appeal was disposed of with a finding that the CPIO had already furnished the available information in accordance with the RTI Act, and that the appeal was accordingly closed.
In effect, a one-line refusal citing a pending court case was treated as if it were a full and satisfactory answer, even though no documents, details of legal opinions, or consultation records were ever shared - including on why the penalty clause for false complaints was dropped between the draft and final versions.
WHY THIS EXCUSE DOESN'T HOLD UP
UGC's justification - that it cannot answer because the matter is sub judice - has repeatedly been rejected by the Central Information Commission (CIC) as invalid under the RTI Act.
In Jitendra Pratap Singh v. CPIO, Ministry of Finance (2019), the CIC held that Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, which lists the only grounds for withholding information, contains no exemption for sub judice matters. This was backed by a Delhi High Court ruling in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v RK Jain and an earlier CIC decision, Ashu v CPIO/Sr Supdt of Posts, both holding that the only valid exception is where a court has expressly forbidden disclosure, or where disclosure would amount to contempt. UGC's reply cited neither in its response.
The order also referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in CBSE v Aditya Bandopadhyay, clarifying that while authorities need not share "advice" or "opinion," this does not cover existing records, such as file notings or proof that legal advice was sought - which is exactly what was asked for here.
Based on this, the CIC in 2019 directed the authority to re-examine the matter and give a proper reply within 15 days, rejecting the sub judice excuse outright. UGC's handling of the present request suggests that precedent has yet to change how the Commission's own member.
Published By: Mridusmita Deka

Maha clears appointment of three additional information commissioners to clear RTI appeal backlog

The Times of India: Pune: Thursday, 6^th August 2026.
The state cabinet on Tuesday approved the appointment of three additional state information commissioners for three years to speed up disposal of Right to Information (RTI) cases, amid a backlog of more than 40,500 second appeals pending before the Maharashtra State Information Commission.

The additional commissioners will be posted at the commission’s benches in Mumbai, Nashik and Amravati. Govt will create 18 additional posts across the three benches to support the new commissioners. Each bench will have a deputy secretary and section officer on deputation, along with a stenographer, clerk-cum-typist and peon to be hired on a contractual basis through an external agency.
State chief information commissioner Rahul Pandey said the appointments would significantly boost disposal of pending cases. “This has been a long-pending demand of RTI activists and the Supreme Court also recently issued directions to this effect. The appointments will help clear pending second appeals and complaints much faster,” he said.
Official data showed that between 2016 and 2025, the commission received 4.31 lakh second appeals and disposed of 3.90 lakh, leaving 40,537 appeals pending. During the same period, it received 66,652 complaints and disposed of 55,482, resulting in a backlog of 11,170 complaints.
The pendency rose sharply during the Covid-19 years. In 2021, the commission disposed of 21,015 appeals against 45,169 fresh filings, while it cleared 26,545 appeals compared to 48,194 received in 2022. The situation improved over the past three years, with disposals consistently exceeding fresh filings. In 2023, the commission disposed of 56,971 appeals against 46,723 received, 63,656 against 52,676 in 2024 and 51,303 against 39,936 in 2025, helping reduce the accumulated backlog.
RTI activists urged govt to adopt a wider and more transparent selection process for the posts rather than limiting appointments to retired senior bureaucrats.
The cabinet has also authorised the state chief information commissioner to transfer appeals between benches or redeploy additional commissioners based on pendency levels to ensure quicker disposal of cases. The contractual appointments will be made in accordance with the finance department’s guidelines. A senior govt official said, “The decision is expected to expedite hearings under the RTI Act and improve citizens’ access to information and transparency-related justice.”

Unabated menace of fake RTI activists

Star of Mysore: Mysuru: Thursday, 6^th August 2026.
Former State Information Commissioner Dr. L. Krishnamurthy explains how RTI Act is blatantly being misused

Former Commissioner of Karnataka Information Commission Dr. L. Krishnamurthy has expressed his regret over how the fake Right To Information (RTI) activists have reduced the very purpose of framing RTI Act.
He was addressing the gathering at the 40th death anniversary observance of former Deputy Prime Minister Dr. Babu Jagjivan Ram, organised by Dr. Babu Jagjivan Ram Research and Extension Centre, University of Mysore (UoM), at its auditorium, in Manasagangothri here on Monday.
Recalling how RTI Act had evolved as a potential weapon against corruption, he said, several scams including that of 2G spectrum were unravelled with the help of RTI Act. Nowadays, the same Act is being weakened and misused, undermining the purpose behind framing the Act in the interest of general public.
The Supreme Court has ruled against gathering any personal information, besides restricting under Rule 14 of RTI Act to seek information in 150 sentences or about any particular subject. However, many create nuisance by writing lengthy letters seeking information of their choice. Of late, the rising number of fake RTI activists has turned into a menace, he noted.
“If the officers lack knowledge, there would certainly be hurdles. The officers should have a clarity, while providing a clear reply in a simplest form, under RTI Act,” said Dr. Krishnamurthy.
UoM VC Prof. N.K. Lokanath said, the programmes organised in commemoration of personalities including Dr. Babu Jagjivan Ram should not be reduced to one-day event. What assumes significance is to follow the ideologies and principles envisaged by such great personalities. Whatever we receive on cell phones aren’t true. The information we access on social media about Dr. Babu Jagjivan Ram, Kuvempu, Subhash Chandra Bose and many other personalities, are bereft of clarity. While a detailed information about such great personalities can be gathered from the books, he observed.
Director of Kuvempu Institute of Kannada Studies Prof. Nanjaiah Honganur, retired Director of Dr. Babu Jagjivan Ram Research and Extension Centre Prof. Mylahalli Revanna, Visiting Professor H.R. Bheemashankar, Coordinator Dr. M. Srinivas Murthy and Political Science Assistant Professor Dr. R. Aishwarya were present.

Karnataka Information Commission declares Kalaburagi-Yadgir DCC Bank as ‘public authority’ under RTI Act

The Hindu: Kalaburagi: Thursday, 6^th August 2026.
Commission directs Kalaburagi-Yadgir DCC Bank to appoint Public Information Officers and comply with mandatory disclosure provisions

B. Venkata Singh, Information Commissioner, Kalaburagi Bench | Photo Credit: SPECIAL ARRRANGEMENT

In a significant ruling, the Karnataka Information Commission’s Kalaburagi Bench has declared the Kalaburagi-Yadgir District Central Cooperative (DCC) Bank a “public authority” under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, holding that the bank functions under substantial government control despite not receiving significant direct financial assistance from the State.
Information Commissioner B. Venkat Singh delivered the order on July 30, 2026, while disposing of a second appeal filed by Rajkumar Aland.
The appellant had sought information under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act regarding action taken on a representation submitted to the Aland branch of the Kalaburagi-Yadgir DCC Bank on January 25, 2022.
The bank had rejected the request, contending that it was not a public authority under the RTI Act as it did not receive substantial financial aid from the government. Dissatisfied with the response, the appellant approached the Karnataka Information Commission.
After hearing the matter, the Commission held that although the bank may not receive substantial direct financial assistance, its functioning is governed by government rules, directions and regulatory control, bringing it within the ambit of a public authority under the RTI Act.
The Commission observed that the government has invested share capital in the bank and appoints its Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director. It also noted that the government has the power to supersede the bank’s management in cases of proven irregularities following an inquiry by the Cooperation Department.
Noting that the government nominates both an official and a non-official member to the bank’s Board of Directors, the Commission considered the fact that interest on loans extended to farmers through NABARD is borne by the government and that loan waiver amounts are reimbursed by the government to the bank. Recruitment of bank staff is carried out with prior government approval, with a government representative participating in the selection process, the Commission observed.
The Commission further held that NABARD and the Apex Bank, both operating under the indirect control of the Central and State governments, conduct annual inspections of the bank and submit reports to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies.
Relying on these factors, as well as an earlier order passed by the Bengaluru Bench of the Karnataka Information Commission on February 9, 2026, the Commission declared the Kalaburagi-Yadgir DCC Bank a public authority under the RTI Act.
The Commission directed the bank to comply with the provisions of Sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act relating to proactive disclosure of information and instructed the bank to designate Public Information Officers and First Appellate Authorities.
Copies of the order have been forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Cooperation Department, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Bengaluru, and the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kalaburagi, for necessary action.
Information Commission disposes of 526 cases in July
The Karnataka Information Commission’s Kalaburagi Bench disposed of 526 cases during July after taking up 767 matters for hearing.
The Commission also imposed penalties totalling ₹60,000 on officials for failing to provide information under the RTI Act and directed payment of ₹27,000 as compensation to six appellants.
Assistant Executive Engineer Rajkumar of the Panchayat Raj Engineering Sub-Division was fined ₹20,000 in two separate cases. Penalties of ₹10,000 each were also imposed on Gram Panchayat Secretaries Eshappa (Harehanagi, Sirwar taluk), Vijayakumar (Basapur, Sindhanur taluk), Devendrappa (Khanapur, Shahapur taluk) and Ravindra (Chikka Jantakal, Gangavathi taluk).
Between November 24, 2025, and July 31, 2026, the Kalaburagi Bench heard 5,123 cases, of which 2,448 were disposed of. During the period, penalties amounting to ₹5.93 lakh were imposed, ₹4.72 lakh was recovered, and compensation of ₹86,000 was ordered to be paid to appellants.

'Hand over all requested documents to candidate by August 10'; RTI Commission to PSC

Kerala Kaumudi: T'puram: Wednesday, 5^th August 2026.

The Right to Information Commission has warned that strict action will be taken against the PSC Information Officer for not providing information related to the planning board examination irregularities. The information commission, through a notice, stated that it is completely irresponsible to deny a candidate who appeared for an examination access to copies of their answer sheets and the marks awarded in the interview.
The commission blamed that the order to provide the information was being deliberately obstructed, stating that it amounted to a challenge to the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The RTI Commission said that although the lapse on the part of the officer is considered serious, it is being given another chance. The strict instruction given to the PSC is to provide all the requested information to the candidate by August 10 and submit a report.

Maharashtra Cabinet Approves Three Additional Information Commissioners to Fast-Track RTI Appeals : By Anita Shukla

Marksmen Daily: Mumbai: Wednesday, 5^th August 2026.
New Appointments Across Mumbai, Nashik and Amravati Benches Aim to Reduce Backlog and Strengthen Transparency

In a significant move to expedite the disposal of pending appeals under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Maharashtra Cabinet has approved the appointment of three Additional State Information Commissioners for a period of three years. The appointments will be made at the Greater Mumbai, Nashik and Amravati Benches of the State Information Commission.
The decision is aimed at addressing the growing backlog of second appeals and ensuring faster delivery of justice to citizens seeking information under the RTI Act.
To support the functioning of the additional commissioners, the Cabinet has also approved the creation of 18 supporting positions across the three benches. Each bench will have one Deputy Secretary and one Section Officer on deputation, while one stenographer, one clerk-cum-typist, and one peon will be engaged on a contractual basis through an external agency.
The Cabinet has empowered the State Chief Information Commissioner to redeploy the Additional State Information Commissioners to other benches if the pendency of appeals declines. The Chief Information Commissioner will also have the authority to transfer second appeals between benches to ensure optimal utilisation of resources and balanced workload.
The government has clarified that all contractual appointments through external agencies will be made in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Finance Department.
The initiative is expected to significantly accelerate the disposal of pending second appeals before the Maharashtra State Information Commission, improving the efficiency of the RTI mechanism and enabling citizens to secure timely and effective access to information guaranteed under the Right to Information Act.

Info commission pulls up PSC over RTI lapse

Times of India: T’puram: Wednesday, 5^th August 2026.

The state information commission, in its order issued on Aug 3, criticised the public service commission (PSC) for failing to comply with its earlier order directing the latter to release the information sought by an exam candidate under Right to Information (RTI) Act. The commission said though it had issued a directive on July 6, PSC’s state public information officer (SPIO) failed to give the information sought by the applicant and submit a report within a week.
On Jan 5, Shyam Krishnan filed an RTI application seeking details of his answer sheet marks and interview score. Later, he filed a complaint before the information commission on July 17 when PSC refused his request. The applicant alleged that PSC did not give him the information despite the information commission’s earlier order.
In its communication dated Aug 3, the commission termed PSC SPIO’s failure to implement its order as a matter of concern. It warned that action under Section 20 of RTI Act, 2005, could be initiated against the official responsible for disobeying the commission’s directive.
While observing that the lapse on the part of the official was serious, the commission decided to give the official an opportunity to make amends. It told PSC to give all the information sought by the candidate, including copies of the answer sheets and interview marks, by Aug 10 and submit a compliance report to the information commission. The commission made it clear that the information should be furnished directly to the candidate who appeared for the exam.
The commission also sought an explanation for the delay in informing it about the action taken on its earlier order. The commission made it clear that failure to comply with its latest directive would invite action under Section 20 of RTI Act.

RTI से खुली BMC की पोल, भ्रष्टाचार के आरोपी 207 अफसरों में से सिर्फ 27 पर गिरी गाज

Aaj Tak: Mumbai: Tuesday, 4^th August 2026.
RTI से सामने आया है कि BMC के 207 अधिकारी ACB के भ्रष्टाचार मामलों में शामिल हैं. इनमें 112 अभी भी नौकरी में हैं, जबकि 68 मामले खत्म होने से पहले रिटायर हो चुके हैं और केवल 27 को निलंबित किया गया है. कुछ मामले 2005 से लंबित हैं.

RTI के मुताबिक, BMC के 207 अधिकारी ACB के भ्रष्टाचार मामलों में शामिल हैं. इनमें 112 अभी भी नौकरी में हैं. (File Photo)

मुंबई महानगरपालिका (BMC) के अधिकारियों से जुड़े भ्रष्टाचार के मामलों को लेकर एक RTI से चौंकाने वाली जानकारी सामने आई है. अधिकार कार्यकर्ता जीतेंद्र घाडगे को मिले RTI जवाब के मुताबिक, BMC के 207 अधिकारी एंटी करप्शन ब्यूरो (ACB) के मामलों में शामिल हैं. इनमें से 112 अधिकारी अभी भी नौकरी में हैं, जबकि 68 अधिकारी अपने मामलों का अंतिम फैसला आने से पहले ही रिटायर हो चुके हैं.
30 अप्रैल 2026 तक के आंकड़ों के मुताबिक, ACB के मामले दर्ज होने के बावजूद 207 में से केवल 27 अधिकारियों को निलंबित किया गया है. यानी भ्रष्टाचार के मामलों का सामना कर रहे करीब 87 फीसदी अधिकारी या तो अभी भी सेवा में हैं या रिटायर हो चुके हैं.
RTI से यह भी सामने आया कि भ्रष्टाचार के कई मामले लंबे समय से लंबित हैं. सबसे पुराने लंबित ACB मामले 2005 के हैं. यानी कुछ मामले 21 साल से ज्यादा समय से अंतिम नतीजे तक नहीं पहुंच पाए हैं.
इंजीनियरों से जुड़े सबसे ज्यादा मामले
RTI के मुताबिक, BMC के इंजीनियरिंग विभाग से जुड़े कर्मचारियों की संख्या भ्रष्टाचार के मामलों में सबसे ज्यादा है. ACB मामलों में 33 सब इंजीनियर, 13 असिस्टेंट इंजीनियर और 13 जूनियर इंजीनियर शामिल हैं. इनके अलावा कई एग्जीक्यूटिव इंजीनियर और वरिष्ठ इंजीनियरिंग अधिकारी भी मामलों में शामिल हैं. BMC के इंजीनियरिंग विभाग सड़कों, नालियों, इमारतों और इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर से जुड़े हजारों करोड़ रुपये के सरकारी कॉन्ट्रैक्ट संभालते हैं.
RTI के आंकड़े बताते हैं कि भ्रष्टाचार के आरोप सिर्फ वरिष्ठ अधिकारियों तक सीमित नहीं हैं. क्लास-IV कर्मचारियों में 48 सफाई कर्मचारी, 24 मजदूर, 6 मुकादम और 6 चपरासी समेत कई अन्य फील्ड कर्मचारी भी ACB की कार्रवाई का सामना कर रहे हैं.
मुकदमा चलाने की मंजूरी के प्रस्ताव भी लंबित
RTI में सामने आया कि ट्रैप और रिश्वत के मामलों में मुकदमा चलाने की मंजूरी से जुड़े पांच प्रस्ताव लंबित हैं. इसके अलावा आय से अधिक संपत्ति से जुड़ा एक प्रस्ताव भी कार्रवाई का इंतजार कर रहा है. इनमें से कुछ प्रस्ताव 2024 से लंबित हैं और उनका स्टेटस अभी भी 'In Progress' है. सक्षम अधिकारी से मुकदमा चलाने की मंजूरी के बिना आपराधिक कार्रवाई प्रभावी तरीके से आगे नहीं बढ़ सकती.
कोविड के दौरान 43 निलंबित कर्मचारी हुए थे बहाल
RTI जवाब के मुताबिक, कोविड-19 महामारी के दौरान पहले निलंबित किए गए 43 नगर निगम कर्मचारियों को दोबारा ड्यूटी पर बहाल किया गया था. क्वारंटीन और इमरजेंसी से जुड़े कामों के लिए कर्मचारियों की जरूरत को इसकी वजह बताया गया. हालांकि, BMC ने इन कर्मचारियों के नाम बताने से इनकार कर दिया. इसके लिए RTI एक्ट के प्रावधानों और लंबित आपराधिक या विभागीय कार्रवाई का हवाला दिया गया.
भ्रष्टाचार के मामले रिटायरमेंट स्कीम नहीं बन सकते
द यंग व्हिसलब्लोअर्स फाउंडेशन के कार्यकर्ता जीतेंद्र घाडगे ने कहा कि केवल 27 अधिकारियों का निलंबित होना, 112 का नौकरी में बने रहना और 68 का मामले खत्म होने से पहले रिटायर हो जाना गलत संदेश देता है. उन्होंने कहा कि जांच में देरी भ्रष्टाचार विरोधी कानूनों के उद्देश्य को कमजोर करती है. भ्रष्टाचार के मामले ऐसी 'रिटायरमेंट स्कीम' नहीं बन सकते, जिसमें अधिकारी केवल समय बीतने का इंतजार करें. उन्होंने सभी लंबित ACB मामलों की तय समय सीमा में निगरानी, मुकदमा चलाने की मंजूरी पर जल्द फैसला और कार्रवाई में पूरी पारदर्शिता की मांग की.