skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Northeast News: Shillong: Friday, 6Th February
2026.
A Meghalaya RTI activist
has raised serious questions over the appointment of seven Officers on Special
Duty (OSDs) in the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO), alleging a lack of
transparency and favouritism in their selection, as well as the use of public
funds for their salaries and allowances.
Manbhalang Phankon, an RTI
activist from Madanrting, claimed that information obtained through the Right
to Information (RTI) Act shows that seven contractual OSDs were personally
appointed and attached directly to Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma without any
open recruitment process, competitive examination or public advertisement.
According to the RTI
replies, each of the seven OSDs receives a monthly salary of Rs 1 lakh. The
state exchequer has spent Rs 1,68,12,785 on their salaries since 2019.
The RTI documents also
revealed that three of the OSDs alone claimed travel allowances (TA) amounting to
Rs 1,49,93,374 during the same period, a figure that is nearly equal to the
total salary expenditure on all seven appointees.
Phankon said, “The CMO is
already staffed with senior IAS, MCS, IPS and MPS officers, as well as consultants,
and questioned the need for additional OSDs on high pay when many educated
youths in the state remain unemployed.
“This money could have
been used to create genuine employment opportunities instead of benefiting a select
few,” he said.
He alleged that the
appointments lacked transparency and merit, and said this was in contrast to
the Centre, where OSDs are usually senior civil servants on deputation and
selected through proper procedures.
“These salaries and
allowances are paid from public funds. If these positions require special
expertise, they should be filled through proper recruitment channels and boards
like other government posts,” Phankon said.
He said he had made the
information public to allow citizens to judge the matter for themselves. “As an
RTI activist, I am placing the facts before the people and leaving it to them
to judge,” Phankon said.
Divya Bhaskar: Ahmedabad Friday, 6Th February
2026.
RTIનાં હેઠળ નાગરિકોના અધિકારોનું રક્ષણ કરતા ચુકાદામાં
ગુજરાત માહિતી આયોગ દ્વારા ગાંધીનગર સ્થિત પ્રાથમિક શિક્ષણ નિયામક કચેરીના જાહેર
માહિતી અધિકારીને કાયદાકીય જોગવાઈઓના ઉલ્લંઘન બદલ રૂ. 7000નો રોકડ દંડ ફટકારવામાં આવ્યો હતો.
આ અંગે સાવરકુંડલાના
વકીલ દીપેશભાઈ જોશી દ્વારા માહિતી મેળવવા માટે અરજી કરવામાં આવી હતી. આ અરજી જે-તે
કચેરીને સંબંધિત ન હોવા છતાં, RTI એક્ટની
કલમ મુજબ તેને 5 દિવસની અંદર સંબંધિત વિભાગમાં
તબદીલ કરવાની જવાબદારી જાહેર માહિતી અધિકારીની હતી.
જોકે, જાહેર માહિતી અધિકારી આર. એન. અસારી દ્વારા આ અરજી તબદીલ
કરવામાં 28 દિવસનો ગુનાહિત વિલંબ કરવામાં
આવ્યો હતો. આ મામલે થયેલી ફરિયાદની સુનાવણી દરમિયાન રાજ્ય માહિતી કમિશનર વિપુલ
રાવલે નોંધ્યું હતું કે, અરજી તબદીલ કરવાની
સંપૂર્ણ જવાબદારી જે-તે અધિકારીની હોય છે અને રજીસ્ટ્રી શાખાના વિલંબનું કારણ
સંતોષકારક ગણી શકાય નહીં.
આયોગે સ્પષ્ટ કર્યું કે
માહિતી આપવામાં કે અરજી ટ્રાન્સફર કરવામાં વિલંબ એ કાયદાનો ભંગ છે. માહિતી અધિકાર
અધિનિયમની કલમ હેઠળ મળેલી સત્તાનો ઉપયોગ કરીને, આયોગે
28 દિવસના વિલંબ બદલ પ્રતિ દિન 250 લેખે કુલ રૂ. 7000નો દંડ ફટકારવામાં આવ્યો
છે.
હુકમ મુજબ દંડની રકમ
અધિકારીએ પોતાના અંગત ભંડોળ અથવા પગારમાંથી ભરવાની રહેશે. આ રકમ 1 માસની અંદર સરકારી તિજોરીમાં જમા કરાવી તેની પહોંચ આયોગને
મોકલવા હુકમ કરાયો હતો.
East Mojo: Senapati: Friday, 6Th February 2026.
The RTI application was
submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Senapati on Tuesday, seeking
comprehensive information regarding the allocation, release and utilisation of
relief funds meant for flood-affected families in the district.
Team Youth Rise for Change
(YR4C), a youth-led voluntary movement advocating for the rights and welfare of
people in Senapati district, has filed an application under the Right to
Information (RTI) Act, 2005 seeking details on flood relief funds sanctioned
and disbursed following the devastating floods of 2024 and 2025.
The RTI application was
submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Senapati on Tuesday, seeking
comprehensive information regarding the allocation, release and utilisation of
relief funds meant for flood-affected families in the district.
According to YR4C members,
thousands of families residing along the banks of the Senapati River were
severely affected during the floods, suffering extensive damage to homes, loss
of property, domestic animals and important personal documents. The organisation
stated that it has received numerous grievances from affected families over the
past several months, alleging that they had not received relief support despite
submitting applications to the district administration.
YR4C said that during
field visits and interactions with flood victims, several households reported
receiving no response from authorities even after repeated appeals for
assistance.
In its RTI application,
the organisation has sought details on the total funds sanctioned by the
Manipur State Government under the Disaster Management Department for flood
victims in Senapati district during 2024 and 2025, details of the release and
utilisation of relief funds, the complete list of beneficiaries, bank account
transaction details related to relief disbursement, flood inspection and damage
assessment reports, and other related official records.
The organisation stated
that the RTI move aims to ensure transparency and accountability in the
utilisation of public funds meant for disaster-affected families. YR4C
expressed hope that the Deputy Commissioner’s office would provide the
requested information within the stipulated time frame under the RTI Act.
YR4C further stated that
it may consider pursuing additional legal measures, including filing a Public
Interest Litigation (PIL), if necessary, to ensure justice for affected
communities.
The group also appealed to
residents of Senapati district to remain vigilant against the misuse of public
funds, stating that transparency and civic participation are essential for
equitable development across both urban and rural areas of the district.
The Hindu: Bengaluru: Friday, 6Th February 2026.
The Karnataka Information
Commission (KIC) has claimed to be the fastest in the country in disposing of
second appeal petitions and has cleared 36,474 appeals in the last one year
along with recommendations for fines and disciplinary action against officers
who did not provide information.
“The State government had
appointed eight Information Commissioners to KIC on February 4, 2025. From 2023
to February 2025, only three Commissioners were working. Due to this, the
disposal of petitions was slow. However, the disposal of second appeal petitions
has gained momentum in the past one year,” the KIC said in a statement on
Thursday.
“In February 2025, a total
of 69,471 petitions were pending for hearing, including the newly filed
petitions. The Commission has disposed of 36,474 petitions in the past one year
and only 32,997 second appeal petitions are pending disposal,” the statement
said.
“The speedy disposal of
petitions is due to the training workshop on the Right to Information (RTI)
Act, 2005, conducted by the Commission for Public Information Officers (PIOs)
and First Appellate Authorities at the district level. Such workshops have been
held in 23 districts so far. This has increased the number of PIOs providing
information and attending the hearings of the Commission,” KIC added.
Further the KIC said it
had declared the Karnataka Milk Federation and the Electronic City Industrial
Township Authority (ELCITA), which had not provided information under RTI Act,
2005 earlier, as public authorities.
Public Information
Officers who do not provide information within the stipulated period and who do
not appear before the Commission for hearing were being fined. The maximum fine
is ₹25,000. The law also provides for compensation to the applicant along with
the fine. The Commission has imposed a fine of ₹45.29 lakh on 245 officers in a
period of one year. “Failure to pay the fine will make it difficult to get
retirement benefits,” it warned.
Recommendations
The Commission has
recommended that RTI should be included as a subject in all recruitment and
examinations related to the promotion of officers, school and college
textbooks. It also suggested that the disposal of RTI applications be discussed
as a subject in district and taluk level Karnataka Development Programme
meetings.
National conference
The Commission intends to
hold a national conference to work towards a more effective implementation of
the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Commission will consult the Chief
Minister and take a decision in this regard, the Commission added.
The Week: New Delhi: Thursday, 5Th February
2026.
Review-meeting minutes and
detailed project reports related to the National Mission for Sustaining the
Himalayan Ecosystem (NMSHE) can be withheld under the RTI Act, the Central
Information Commission (CIC) has said while upholding the Department of Science
and Technology's (DST) denial of such information on the ground of strategic,
scientific and intellectual property concerns.
In its submissions, the
DST said the NMSHE is "one of the key missions" implemented by it
under the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), a national policy
framework that "is reviewed by the highest authority, the Prime Minister's
Council on Climate Change (PMCCC), which is chaired by the Prime Minister of
India".
The department told the
commission that the NMSHE supports research-and-development initiatives related
to climate-change science and adaptation for the Himalayan ecosystem, which are
"important not only from research perspective but also from India's
strategical point of view".
It said the progress of
activities under the mission is reviewed by a National Expert Committee, but
the minutes of such meetings are not placed in the public domain as they
"include policy discussions and interventions along with details of
research endeavours which contain third-party information".
From the applicant's side,
it was argued during the hearing that the information sought was not furnished
and was essential for academic research. The appellant submitted that the
material relating to the "NMSHE Year Wise Projects CCP-SPLICE Division
should be placed in public domain for the general public".
On the denial of detailed
project reports, the DST said these documents contain research and development
data carrying intellectual property rights and are exempt under provisions
relating to "information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or
intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive
position of a third party".
The CIC, after hearing
both sides, said the department had adequately dealt with the RTI queries and
that "in the given circumstances, intervention of the commission is not
warranted under RTI Act", and disposed of the appeal.
(This story has not been
edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)
ETV Bharat: New Delhi: Thursday, 5Th February
2026.
The court was hearing a
PIL seeking the uploading of the MCD's all public information on its website.
The Delhi High Court on
Wednesday pulled up the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for its failure to
publicise information on its legislative records, proceedings of the house and
resolutions even after 20 years of the enactment of the RTI Act. A bench of
Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that section 4 of
the Right to Information (RTI) Act casts a mandate on the public authorities to
publicise such information on their own so that there was minimum resort to the
procedure under the RTI Act, and MCD could not be given any exemption in this
regard.
The court was hearing a
PIL by NGO Centre for Youth, Culture, Law and Environment seeking uploading of
the MCD's legislative records, proceedings of the house, resolutions passed by
the standing committees and all other public information on its website in a
time-bound manner.
Counsel for the MCD
assured the court that corrective measures would be undertaken by the
authorities, as the issue of uploading such information was under the
consideration of the competent authority. He said the "process" to
upload the information was "underway at the corporation level", but
the same would take some time.
"Thanks to you for
undertaking this exercise after 20 years. We are so thankful," retorted
the bench.
"(And) What process?
You are required to upload this information within 120 days and then on a
regular interval. What have you been doing? This Act (RTI Act) was passed in
2005. It is 20 years down the line," the bench further said.
The court directed the MCD
to file an affidavit in response to the petition and state what steps had been
taken to implement section 4 of the RTI Act for providing information to the
public by publishing it.
"The purpose of
mandating public authorities under section 4 of the Act is apparent - that by
publishing such information, the public will have minimum resort to the use of
the Act as the information shall be provided suo motu by the public authorities.
No exception in this regard can be granted to any authority, including the
MCD," the court observed.
The petitioner told the
court that in response to an RTI application, the MCD has stated that no such
record had been updated on its website till now, since the work to
"update" its website is going on after the unification of the three
erstwhile municipal bodies.
The court was further
informed that in the reply, MCD took a stand that there were no rules or
guidelines that governed the publication of its resolutions on its official
website, as it was governed by Section 86 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation
(DMC) Act. The court stated that section 86 had nothing to do with the
dissemination of information and particulars to the public.
"Accordingly, it is
apparent that the statutory mandate and the duty cast on the MCD by Section 4
of the RTI Act have yet not been followed even after lapse of 20 years,"
the court said. The court said it had only formed a prima facie opinion at this
stage and listed the matter for further hearing in April.
The petitioner said the
issue concerned millions of people residing in Delhi. "If they are so sure
of the budget, why can't they upload the budget for the upcoming year on the
website?" he asked. The court said the budget would be uploaded only once
it was passed by the house, and added, "we should achieve what is legally
permissible and possible".
Times of India: Ludhiana: Thursday, 5Th
February 2026.
The Punjab State
Information Commission has taken the rare step of issuing a bailable warrant
against a senior municipal corporation (MC) official following a series of
missed hearings in a Right to Information (RTI) appeal.
The warrant was issued
against Kuljit Singh Mangat, who serves as the public information officer
(PIO)-cum-assistant town planner (ATP) for the MC's building branch (Zone D).
The decision comes after the official reportedly ignored multiple summons and a
formal show-cause notice.
A Pattern of
Non-Compliance
State information
commissioner Harpreet Singh Sandhu has said the case stems from an appeal filed
by Jasvir Singh of Guru Nanak Nagar, and the PIO's absence has stalled the
legal process for months. Four consecutive hearings were missed. A show-cause
notice issued previously to the official also went unaddressed. Under the RTI
Act, the commission has the authority to compel attendance through police
intervention if an officer fails to discharge their duty to provide
information.
Police Intervention
Mandated
In a significant move to
ensure accountability, the commission has directed the Ludhiana police
commissioner to personally ensure the warrant is served. "The commissioner
has been ordered to not only serve a copy of these warrants on Kuljit Singh Mangat
but also provide strict instructions for him to appear before the commission on
the next scheduled date," commissioner Sandhu stated.
The official is now
legally required to present himself before the PSIC on March 11. Failure to
appear could result in further disciplinary action or financial penalties as
prescribed under the Right to Information Act. The RTI Act mandates that PIOs
provide requested data within 30 days. Continuous delays or refusal to attend
hearings is viewed by the commission as a significant obstruction of a
citizen's fundamental right to information.
Times of India: New Delhi: Thursday, 5Th
February 2026.
Reminding Municipal
Corporation of Delhi that it is 20 years since RTI Act has been enforced, Delhi
High Court on Wednesday questioned why MCD had failed to proactively
disseminate information relating to its legislative records, proceedings of the
house and resolutions online.
A bench of Chief Justice
DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia underlined that Section 4 of Right to
Information Act made it compulsory for authorities to act. "The purpose of
mandating pu-blic authorities... is apparent that by publishing such
information, the public will have minimum resort to the use of the Act, as the
information shall be provided suo motu by the public authorities. No exception
in this regard can be granted to any authority, including MCD," the court
observed.
"You want to know the
consequences of not adhering to the Act? We will tell you the
consequences," the bench warned the civic body while hearing a public
interest litigation by NGO Cen-tre for Youth, Culture, Law and Environment,
seeking the uploading of MCD's legislative records, proceedings of the House,
resolutions pas-sed by the standing committees and all other public information
on its website in a time-bound manner.
Appearing for MCD,
standing counsel Tushar Sannu assured the court that corrective measures would
be undertaken by the authorities as the "process" to upload the
information was "underway at the corporation level", but it would
take some time.
"Thanks to you for
undertaking this exercise after 20 years. We are so thankful," retorted
the bench. "What process? You are required to upload this information
within 120 days and then at regular intervals. What were you doing? This Act was
passed in 2005. It is 20 years down the line," the bench pointed out.
It directed MCD to file an
affidavit in response to the petition and state what steps were taken to
implement the Act for providing information to the public by publishing it.
The petitioner told the
court that, in response to an RTI application, MCD stated that no such record
was updated on its website till now since the work to "update" its
website was going on after the unification of the three erstwhile municipal
bodies.
MCD took a stand that
there were no rules or guidelines that governed the publication of its
resolutions on its official website as it was governed by Section 86 of Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act, the plea told the court. The bench, however,
stressed that Section 86 had nothi-ng to do with the dissemination of
information and particulars to the public.
The court said it formed
only a prima facie opinion at this stage and listed the matter in April. The
petitioner said the issue concerned millions of people residing in Delhi.
The Week: New Delhi: Wednesday, 4th February
2026.
A file that was stated to
be "not traceable" by the MCD in response to an RTI request
"mysteriously" became available when the matter came before the
Central Information Commission, prompting an amused CIC to question what had
triggered the 'Eureka!' moment for the civic body.
The case relates to the
information sought on records linked to a hospital layout approval in the Model
Town area. Initially, the Town Planning Department of the Municipal Corporation
of Delhi (MCD) told the applicant that the file was "not available"
and "not traceable". The same position was reiterated during the
first appeal.
However, when the matter
reached the Central Information Commission (CIC), parts of the information
unexpectedly surfaced.
Taking note of this
backpedalling, Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari questioned how the
file in question became "mysteriously" available after the CIC
hearing notice, when two replies furnished by the record-keeper of the safe
office earlier had said it could not be produced.
"Commission cannot
lose sight of this diametrically opposite stand, particularly when the
'Eureka!' moment happened and what triggered it," he said.
The CIC was critical of
the manner in which the request was handled, observing that "merely
stating that a file is not traceable does not absolve the public information
officer (PIO) of his statutory responsibilities" under the RTI framework.
It also expressed concern
that official replies did not even carry basic details such as the name and
contact information of the PIO, noting that such omissions were "contrary
to the spirit of the RTI Act" and basic administrative transparency.
The Commission further
observed that issuing internal search memos, instead of formally pursuing the
information and keeping the applicant informed, appeared to have the effect of
"keeping the appellant in the dark as to what all is transpiring inside
the office".
In unusually strong
remarks, the CIC said there was "clearly an attempt to evade disclosure of
information" and cautioned that it would be a miscarriage of the RTI law
if authorities could conveniently claim that records were missing, only to produce
them later when scrutiny increased.
The CIC, in an order
issued on Monday, directed the MCD to provide a fresh, point-wise and complete
reply to the applicant within four weeks and issued a show-cause notice to the
PIO, asking him to explain why penalty action should not be initiated.
(This story has not been
edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)
The Indian Express: Article: Wednesday, 4th
February 2026.
Introduced in 2005, the
Act has seen several amendments in the past 20 yrs, which are alleged to have
weakened it. Economic Survey’s latest proposed changes will be “murder” of the
landmark law, says Congress
Twenty years after the
Right to Information Act was introduced, the Economic Survey 2025-26 has called
for its re-examination. Tabled in Parliament last week, the survey suggested
“adjustments” to exempt disclosures on deliberative process of policy-making
and possibly a ministerial veto with parliamentary oversight to guard against
disclosures that could “unduly constrain governance”.
The legislation, the
survey said, carries risks of becoming an “end in itself”, with disclosures
celebrated regardless of contribution to better governance, and said the Act
was never intended “as a tool for idle curiosity,” nor as a mechanism to
micromanage government from the outside.
Congress president
Mallikarjuna Kharge called it a plan to “murder” the UPA-era law after its
“systematic weakening” since 2014.
A look at the evolution of
the Act, which was hailed as a transformative tool for democratic
accountability when introduced in 2005:
The making of the RTI Act
The RTI Act in India
emerged from grassroots struggles dating back to the 1970s. In 1997, in
response to a demand for such legislation, the H D Deve Gowda-led United Front
government set up a working group to prepare a Freedom of Information Bill.
After extensive changes, this led to the passage of the Freedom of Information
Act of 2002.
In 2004, the Manmohan
Singh-led UPA government came to power. One of the crucial components of this
government was the National Advisory Council (NAC), led by Sonia Gandhi, which
made right to information one of its primary goals. Alongside civil society
organisations, the NAC deliberated several revisions of the 2002 law, resulting
in a more robust framework.
In 2005, the UPA
government brought in the RTI Bill. During the debate in Parliament, Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh described its passage as “the dawn of a new era in our
processes of governance… an era which will bring the common man’s concern to
the heart of all processes of governance”.
The final RTI Act was
passed with 150 amendments to the Freedom of Information Act, and officially
came into force on October 12, 2005, applying across all levels of government,
including local bodies. “The information which cannot be denied to Parliament
or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person”, the Act held.
Around 20 years later,
roughly 40 to 60 lakh RTI applications are filed on an average annually, from
Central offices to grassroots levels.
The changes since
In 2006, still under the
UPA government, there were attempts to amend the RTI Act by removing “file
notings (internal notes by government officials on files)”. While these changes
could not materialise due to public protests, the UPA government continued to
have internal reservations.
In 2011, on the sixth
anniversary of the Act, PM Manmohan Singh expressed his concern that RTI
queries with “no bearing on public interest” were being filed. A year later, he
spoke of the Act’s “frivolous and vexatious” use.
The Second Administrative
Reforms Commission, in its report submitted around this time, recommended
exempting the armed forces from the RTI Act. By then, the UPA had already
exempted the CBI from its purview. Then Law Minister M Veerappa Moily approved
the exemption to the CBI despite the fact that as chairman of the Second
Administrative Reforms Commission, he had written a special chapter on RTI,
terming it ‘Master Key to Good Governance’.
Early attempts to amend
the Act, however, were thwarted not just by activists but also then Opposition
parties, including the BJP.
In October 2015, PM
Narendra Modi, who had taken over a year earlier as head of the NDA government,
hailed the RTI Act at an annual conference of the Central Information
Commission, urging citizens to not only access documents but also “ask
questions and demand accountability from public authorities”. This right forms
“the very foundation of democracy”, he said.
However, in 2019, the Modi
government brought in amendments altering the terms, tenure, and emoluments of
the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (ICs),
which was seen as weakening the structure of the RTI.
The original Act placed
the CICs and ICs on parity with equivalent ranks in the Election Commission of
India meaning a fixed tenure of five years, with removal possible only under
specific conditions. The 2019 amendment, however, removed equivalence with the
EC, and gave the government control over the tenure, emoluments and terms of
appointment of CIC and ICs.
In 2023, the NDA
government brought in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act),
dealing with personal information. The RTI Act had held that personal
information could be disclosed if larger public interest justified it, despite
potential privacy invasion. However, the new Act exempted disclosure of
information relating to “personal information” more broadly.
Civil rights organisations
protested against this “dilution” of the RTI Act.
Why the worry
The Economic Survey’s
remarks come at a time when the RTI Act is increasingly seen as under siege.
The Act defines “information” expansively to include any material in any form –
records, documents, emails, opinions, reports, data in electronic form, and
even information held by private bodies accessible under other laws. Despite
this broad scope, obtaining disclosures has grown difficult, as noted by
various activists.
One example of how the Act
remains unenforced is the CIC’s June 2013 order declaring six national
political parties (Congress, BJP, CPI (M), CPI, NCP, BSP) as “public
authorities” under the Act. Neither the BJP nor the Congress has complied with
this, failing to appoint Public Information Officers or respond to requests.
As per an October 2025
appraisal report of information commissions by Satark Nagrik Sangathan, till
June 30 last year, 4.13 lakh appeals and complaints were pending before 29
information commissions.
What Economic Survey has
said
The Economic Survey
suggests exempting brainstorming notes, working papers, and draft comments
until they form part of the final record of decision-making, protection of
service records, transfers, and confidential staff reports. It also suggests
exploring a “narrowly defined” ministerial veto to guard against disclosures
that could “unduly constrain governance”.
The survey also draws
parallels between the RTI Act and similar laws in the US, UK and Sweden, and
argues that unlike the Indian Act, internal personnel rules, inter-agency
memos, and financial regulations are exempt from disclosures internationally.
If every draft or remark is disclosed, officials may “hold back”, leading to
fewer “bold ideas”, the survey says. “Democracy best functions when officials
can deliberate freely and are then held accountable… not for every half-formed
thought expressed along the way.”
Transparency campaigner
Anjali Bharadwaj, co-convenor of the National Campaign for People’s Right to
Information, has questioned this, saying issues flagged over impact on
officials are not borne out by evidence, and that the Act already has a robust
mechanism on exempting certain disclosures.
(Shyamlal Yadav is one of
the pioneers of the effective use of RTI for investigative reporting. He is a
member of the Investigative Team. His reporting on polluted rivers, foreign
travel of public servants, MPs appointing relatives as assistants, fake journals,
LIC’s lapsed policies, Honorary doctorates conferred to politicians and
officials, Bank officials putting their own money into Jan Dhan accounts and
more has made a huge impact. He is member of the International Consortium of
Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). He has been part of global investigations
like Paradise Papers, Fincen Files, Pandora Papers, Uber Files and Hidden
Treasures. After his investigation in March 2023 the Metropolitan Museum of
Art, New York returned 16 antiquities to India. Besides investigative work, he
keeps writing on social and political issues.)
Law Chakra: Uttar Pradesh: Wednesday, 4th
February 2026.
The Uttar Pradesh State
Information Commission ruled that a son-in-law cannot seek personal details of
his father-in-law under the RTI Act. The Commission held RTI cannot be misused
to invade privacy or collect material for private disputes.
The Uttar Pradesh State
Information Commission has determined that a son-in-law is not entitled to
access personal information about his father-in-law such as salary, loans, and
assets under the RTI Act.
State Information
Commissioner Mohammed Nadeem, in an order dated January 7, stated,
“The objective of the RTI
Act is not to gather evidence for private lawsuits, nor does this law permit
unwarranted interference in a person’s privacy.”
The case involves Kulwant
Singh, who requested details regarding his father-in-law, Rishipal Singh, a
retired revenue inspector, to use the information in a dowry case initiated by
his wife. Kulwant filed his RTI application on July 27, 2025, with the Tehsildar
of Najibabad in Bijnor district, seeking financial information about his
father-in-law up until his retirement on January 1, 2015.
After not receiving the
requested information, Kulwant appealed to the State Information Commission,
asking for the Public Information Officer to be directed to provide the
details. Reports indicate that Kulwant was accused by his wife of demanding a
dowry of Rs 26 lakh, prompting him to seek information on his father-in-law’s
financial status, including salary, GPF (General Provident Fund), loans,
advances, and details of his movable and immovable properties.
Kulwant argued that since
the individual in question is not an outsider but his father-in-law, the
requested information was essential for the dowry-related case to ascertain
whether the alleged dowry of Rs 26 lakh could have been realistically offered given
his father-in-law’s finances.
In addressing the case,
Commissioner Mohammad Nadeem noted that the Supreme Court has clarified in
various rulings that salary details, income tax records, provident fund
information, loans, family details, and property-related information are
categorized as personal data that are generally not disclosed under the RTI
Act.
The bench stated,
“Therefore, the Commission
is of the opinion that the argument of being a son-in-law or seeking
information for use in a lawsuit cannot be considered a larger public interest
under the RTI Act,”
It further emphasized
that,
“the objective of the RTI
Act is not to gather evidence for private lawsuits, nor does this law permit
unwarranted interference in a person’s privacy.”
The bench advised that if
Kulwant feels it is necessary to obtain such information for his defense, the
proper course would be to pursue it in the court where his case is ongoing. He
can procure this information through legal avenues, and if deemed necessary,
the court may instruct the relevant department to provide it.
Ultimately, the bench
found that ordering this information at their level did not align with the
principles of the Right to Information Act, leading to the dismissal of the
appeal.
Times of India: Lucknow: Wednesday, 4th
February 2026.
After a woman accused her
husband of taking Rs26 lakh as dowry, the latter sought information under the
Right to Information (RTI) Act about his father-in-law's financial worth to
know if his wife's father had the financial capacity, or "haisiyat",
to give that much dowry. The state information commission (SIC), however,
denied the information on the grounds that it was "personal".
The appellant in this case
needed information for his divorce case, which was ongoing in another court.
Information commissioner (IC) Mohammad Nadeem said that being a son-in-law does
not entitle him to obtain his father-in-law's personal information.
"The purpose of the
RTI Act is not to gather evidence for private litigation, nor does this law
permit unwarranted interference with a person's privacy," said Nadeem.
After the wife's
accusation of taking Rs26 lakh as dowry, the man sought details of his
father-in-law's salary, GPF, loans, advances and movable and immovable assets
under the RTI to determine his financial status.
He argued that he was
seeking information about his father-in-law and was not an outsider, and that
the information was crucial for him in a dowry-related lawsuit to determine
whether the person allegedly offering Rs26 lakh in dowry was capable of paying
such a large sum.
The appellant, Kulwant
Singh submitted an application under the RTI Act to the tehsildar of Najibabad
in Bijnor district in July 2025 because his father-in-law was the revenue
inspector in the tehsil.
After he did not get the
information, he filed an appeal in the SIC.
Hearing the case, the
bench headed by IC Mohammad Nadeem said that the Supreme Court clarified in
several important judgments that salary details, income tax records, provident
fund details, loans, family details and property information clearly fall under
the category of personal information, which cannot generally be provided under
the RTI Act.
Consequently, the
commission was of the opinion that the plea of being a son-in-law, or seeking
information for use in a lawsuit, cannot be considered a "large public
interest" under the RTI Act. The bench clarified that the purpose of the
RTI Act is not to gather evidence for private litigation, nor does the law
permit unwarranted interference with an individual's privacy.
The bench said that if the
applicant finds it necessary to gather such information for his or her defence,
the appropriate forum is the court where his or her case is pending. He or she
may legally disclose all this information before the court. An application can
be made to the relevant department to obtain it, and if the court deems it
necessary, it can order the relevant department to provide all this information
on its own.
The Week: New Delhi: Tuesday, 3rd February 2026.
New Delhi, Feb 2 (PTI) The
Central Information Commission has said matters concerning the implementation
of guidelines for disposal of thermoset plastic waste are of "significant
public importance" as it has serious environmental implications.
In an order, Information
Commissioner P R Ramesh reprimanded the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)
for repeated failures to provide details under the Right to Information (RTI)
Act on action taken regarding the enforcement of guidelines for disposal of
thermoset plastic waste, including fibre reinforced plastic (FRP).
Thermoset plastics can not
be remelted or reshaped once set, and their disposal is considered highly
difficult.
"The issues raised by
the appellant are of significant public importance, and appropriate action is
required to ensure effective and transparent implementation of the guidelines
issued by the CPCB," the Central Information Commission (CIC) observed.
The CIC noted that despite
clear directions from the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the CPCB failed to
furnish point-wise replies to multiple RTI applications and did not allow
inspection of records in several cases.
Admonishing the conduct of
the then Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), the Commission said it
amounted to a "gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act",
adding that such conduct reflected a "casual behaviour of officers towards
RTI applications".
The CIC also stated in its
order dated January 30 that the waste disposal guidelines were framed pursuant
to directions of the National Green Tribunal, making their implementation
critical for environmental protection and public interest.
Directing corrective
action, the Commission ordered the CPCB to "re-examine the matter and
furnish a revised point-wise reply strictly as per the provisions of the RTI
Act" within four weeks.
It also directed the
authority to "afford an opportunity of inspection of relevant
records" to the appellant on a mutually decided date and time.
Emphasising transparency
in environmental governance, the CIC said accountability in the enforcement of
plastic waste management norms is essential in the interest of the public at
large.
(This story has not been
edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)
The Morning: Sri Lanka: Tuesday, 3rd February
2026.
The Right to Information
(RTI) Commission has ordered the External Resources Department (ERD) to release
three external loan agreements that were previously withheld from public
access.
The rulings were issued as
final orders on two appeals filed separately by journalist Tharindu Iranga
Jayawardhana and economist Dr. M. Sarvanathan against the ERD. The Commission’s
decisions mark the first instance in which it has explicitly directed the full
disclosure of external loan agreements, rejecting the position that such
agreements are exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act, No. 12 of 2016.
The appeals related to
requests for copies of loan agreements entered into by the Government of Sri
Lanka for major development projects, including water supply schemes,
university development, road construction, and port-related infrastructure. The
ERD had declined to release the documents, citing confidentiality clauses and
stating that disclosure could affect Sri Lanka’s international relations (IR)
and the debt restructuring process.
After extensive hearings,
the Commission rejected those arguments, ruling that the ERD had failed to
follow the procedure set out in the RTI Act and had not demonstrated that
disclosure would cause serious harm. The Commission stated that access to information
relating to public debt and financial commitments is a constitutional right,
particularly in the context of the country’s economic crisis.
Under the first appeal,
the Commission ordered the release of two loan agreements linked to the
Gampaha–Attanagalla–Minuwangoda Water Supply Project and the South Eastern
University Development Project (Phase 1B). Under the second appeal, it directed
the ERD to release the loan agreement for the Katana Water Supply Project,
signed in 2017 with the China Development Bank, on or before 27 February of
this year (2026).
Jayawardhana told the
Commission there were allegations of fraud and the misuse of funds linked to
several projects financed through external borrowing. He said that loans were
taken for development projects, but that doubts persist over how the money was
used and whether the intended outcomes were delivered. He also said the public
has a right to know how these loans were negotiated, the terms attached to
them, and how the funds were spent, particularly since the burden of repayment
ultimately falls on the people. He referred to issues that emerged during Sri
Lanka’s 2023 debt restructuring process and matters discussed in the related
Supreme Court (SC) proceedings.
The Commission accepted
these submissions and noted that the release of loan agreements serves a clear
public interest. It pointed out that public funds are used to service these
loans and that findings by the Auditor General have highlighted irregularities
in projects financed through such borrowing. The Commission further referred to
the International Monetary Fund’s 2023 report on debt restructuring and
observations made by the SC on the economic downturn.
The Commission warned that
the failure to comply with its orders could result in relevant legal
proceedings against the Information Officer and the relevant public authority
of the ERD under the RTI Act.
Deccan Herald: Bengaluru: Tuesday, 3rd February
2026.
The commission has also
directed the Urban Development Department (UDD) to ensure that ELCITA complies
with the order within a month.
Ruling that the
Electronics City Industrial Township Area (ELCITA) is both a state authority
and a public authority, the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) has directed
its management to immediately appoint Public Information Officers (PIOs) and
First Appellate Authorities (FAAs) in accordance with Section 5 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005.
The commission has also
directed the Urban Development Department (UDD) to ensure that ELCITA complies
with the order within a month.
In his order, State
Information Commissioner Rajashekara S directed officials, including the Chief Secretary
of Karnataka, not to issue letters exempting any authority from the purview of
the RTI Act. “Any violation should be dealt with through disciplinary action
under the Karnataka Civil Services Rules,” the commissioner's order said.
The direction was issued
while hearing an appeal filed by Naveen Kumar, who had sought information on
property taxes fixed by ELCITA for companies, commercial buildings, housingmcomplexes
and plots within its jurisdiction.
Times of India: Jabalpur: Tuesday, 3rd February
2026.
A BPL card holder seeking
information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act was asked to deposit over
Rs 4 lakh as a fee by a power distribution company office here, prompting
intervention by the Madhya Pradesh State Human Rights Commission.
Law student Aman Vanshkar
sought certified details of regular and outsourced employees, as well as
registered consumers, under the Manegaon Pipariya DC of Madhya Pradesh Poorv
Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company's north circle in Jabalpur.
Along with his RTI
application, Vanshkar submitted documents clearly stating that he belonged to a
below poverty line (BPL) family, which entitled applicants to seek information
free of cost under the RTI Act.
However, the public
information officer and assistant engineer concerned issued a written notice
asking him to deposit Rs 4.08 lakh to obtain the information. Aggrieved,
Vanshkar approached the State Human Rights Commission, alleging violation of
provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. As per Section 7(5) of the Act, no fee is
chargeable from BPL applicants for seeking information.
Taking serious note of the
complaint, the State Human Rights Commission directed the Jabalpur district
collector to conduct a fair inquiry into the matter and ensure appropriate
action. The commission also sought a report on the entire issue, officials said.
The case raised questions over adherence to RTI norms by govt departments and
the treatment of economically weaker applicants seeking information under the
transparency law.
Telegraph India: Editorial: Tuesday, 3rd
February 2026.
The RTI is not an
indulgence granted by the State but a mechanism through which sovereignty is
exercised by citizens. Any attempt to dilute it weakens the democratic compact
itself
The Economic Survey’s
suggestion that the Right to Information Act should be reviewed, coupled with
its characterisation of information-seeking as idle curiosity, places
unmistakable institutional pressure on a law that lies at the heart of India’s
democratic architecture. The Survey, it must be pointed out, is not a detached
policy note; its arguments signal the government’s priorities and legitimise
future interventions. This adds an ominous element to the Economic Survey’s
take on the RTI. Notably, any evidence showing that the RTI Act has impaired
decision-making is absent from the Survey.
But then scepticism
towards transparency is not new. Governments in India have rarely embraced the
spirit of the RTI with enthusiasm. Even the United Progressive Alliance, which
had enacted the law, expressed misgivings about its use. The former prime minister,
Manmohan Singh, warned that “frivolous” and “vexatious” requests could drain
administrative resources and served little public purpose. The National
Democratic Alliance, the UPA’s successor, has been only too happy to continue
with this culture of assault. In 2019, the Narendra Modi government brought out
an amendment that permitted the Centre to set the terms, salary and tenure of
the chief information commissioner and his/her lieutenants, thereby striking a
blow at the autonomy of these office holders. There is thus a deep unease
within the political executive about the redistributing of informational power
from the State to citizens.
What explains the
persistent attempts to weaken the RTI is perhaps its centrality to democratic
practice. The law operationalises the constitutional promise that citizens are
not passive recipients of governance but active participants in its oversight. Democracy
depends on informed consent. Elections lose much of their meaning if citizens
are denied the information necessary to assess how decisions are made, how
resources are allocated, and whether power is exercised fairly. The RTI Act
addresses this by enabling citizens to trace policy evolution, detect
arbitrariness, expose corruption, and demand explanations for administrative
action or inaction. In doing so, it strengthens accountability mechanisms
beyond courts and legislatures, which are often distant or slow-moving. Equally
important, transparency under the RTI Act fosters institutional discipline.
Officials, aware that records may be scrutinised, are incentivised to adhere to
procedure and reasoned decision-making. This is the opposite of weakening governance.
The Economic Survey risks normalising the idea that democratic scrutiny is
expendable when weighed against administrative convenience. Such an approach
misunderstands misconstrues the role of transparency in a constitutional
democracy. The RTI is not an indulgence granted by the State but a mechanism
through which sovereignty is exercised by citizens. Any attempt to dilute it
weakens the democratic compact itself.
Jansatta: Editorial: Monday, 02 February 2026.
इस कानून के तहत देश का
हर नागरिक सरकारी विभाग और संस्थाओं से उनके कामकाज, योजनाओं एवं उनके प्रभाव, वित्तीय स्थिति तथा
नियमों आदि की जानकारी मांग सकता है।
सूचना का अधिकार
(आरटीआइ) कानून ने देश में लोकतंत्र की नींव को और मजबूत किया है। इसका
मुख्य उद्देश्य शासन के कामकाज में पारदर्शिता लाना और जवाबदेही तय करना है। यह देश
के नागरिकों को अधिकार देता है कि वे सरकारी तंत्र और उसके कार्यों की जानकारी हासिल
कर सकते हैं। यानी यह कानून सरकार और जनता के बीच सूचना के सेतु के रूप में काम
करता है और परस्पर भरोसे का निर्माण करता है।
भ्रष्टाचार पर अंकुश
लगाने और दोषियों को कानून के कठहरे में लाने की प्रक्रिया में भी इसकी महती भूमिका है। स्वस्थ
लोकतांत्रिक व्यवस्था के लिए जरूरी इन विशेषताओं में अगर कमी या कटौती की जाती है, तो निश्चित तौर पर यह कानून
कमजोर होगा। यह मसला इसलिए चर्चा का विषय बन गया है, क्योंकि संसद में हाल में पेश की गई आर्थिक समीक्षा
रपट में आरटीआइ कानून का फिर से अध्ययन करने की वकालत की गई है।
तर्क दिए गए हैं कि इस
कानून में कुछ ऐसे प्रावधान किए जाने की जरूरत महसूस की जा रही है, ताकि गोपनीय रपट और मसविदों को
सार्वजनिक किए जाने से छूट प्राप्त की जा सके। गौरतलब है कि लंबे समय से सूचना के
अधिकार की मांग के मद्देनजर वर्ष 2005
इससे संबंधित कानून को लागू किया गया था। इसके तहत देश का हर नागरिक सरकारी विभाग
और संस्थाओं से उनके कामकाज, योजनाओं
एवं उनके प्रभाव, वित्तीय स्थिति तथा
नियमों आदि की जानकारी मांग सकता है।
संबंधित अधिकारी तय समय
के भीतर यह सूचना उपलब्ध कराने के लिए बाध्य होते हैं। मगर समय के साथ सरकारी
तंत्र की उदासीनता, लापरवाही और निहित
स्वार्थों के कारण जानकारी छिपाने के प्रयासों से इस कानून की प्रभावशीलता में कमी
देखी गई है, जो चिंता का विषय है। ऐसे
में आर्थिक समीक्षा रपट में सूचना के अधिकारों का फिर से अध्ययन करने और कुछ
मामलों मे छूट हासिल करने की वकालत ने चिंता के स्तर को और बढ़ा दिया है।
एक तरफ सरकार जब अपने
कामकाज में ‘पारदर्शिता लाने’ और भ्रष्टाचार को लेकर ‘कतई बर्दाश्त नहीं करने’ की
नीति अपनाने पर जोर देती हो और दूसरी तरफ सूचना के अधिकारों को सीमित करने का
प्रयास किया जाए, तो यह नीति और नीयत के
बीच विरोधा भास पैदा करता है।
आर्थिक समीक्षा में यह
भी उल्लेख किया गया है कि आरटीआइ अधिनियम का मकसद कभी भी इसे व्यर्थ की जिज्ञासा
का जरिया बनाने का नहीं था, न
ही इसका उद्देश्य बाहर बैठकर सरकार के हर छोटे-छोटे काम में दखल देना या उसे
नियंत्रित करना था।
यह बात सही है कि बिना
कारण या सरकार के कामकाज में किसी सुनियोजित तरीके से बाधा उत्पन्न करने के लिए इस
कानून का सहारा लेना उचित नहीं है। मगर सवाल यह है कि इस तरह आरटीआइ कानून का
दुरुपयोग करने वालों की तादाद कितनी होगी? जाहिर
है,
इसमें कुछ खास वर्ग के
चंद लोग ही शामिल होंगे, पर
क्या उन पर अंकुश लगाने के लिए सभी नागरिकों के सूचना के अधिकार को सीमित किया
जाना चाहिए?
इस कानून में पहले से
ऐसे कई प्रावधान मौजूद हैं, जिनके
तहत राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा, संप्रभुता, जांच प्रक्रिया और व्यक्तिगत
गोपनीयता समेत अन्य संवेदनशील मसलों की जानकारी सार्वजनिक नहीं की जा सकती। अब अगर
सूचना को रोकने के और प्रावधान किए जाते हैं, तो
इससे यह कानून वास्तव में कमजोर होगा और इसका मकसद भी अधूरा ही रह जाएगा।
Manbhalang Phankon, an RTI
activist from Madanrting, claimed that information obtained through the Right
to Information (RTI) Act shows that seven contractual OSDs were personally
appointed and attached directly to Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma without any
open recruitment process, competitive examination or public advertisement.
.JPG)
.JPG)
