Apex Bank is a public authority, rules Karnataka Information Commission

The Times of India: Bengaluru: Thursday, 2^nd April 2026.
In a move to boost transparency in the cooperative banking sector, the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) has ruled that the Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank qualifies as a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The order passed on Feb 9 by a bench presided over by state information commissioner Rajashekara S came after a second appeal by a citizen seeking loan-related documents.
The saga began on May 9, 2024, when Hanamanth Vasant Shinde from Mudhol taluk, Bagalkot district, filed an application under the RTI Act. Shinde sought details from the bank regarding documents and explanatory notes submitted by Nirani Sugars Ltd for loans availed between March 2022 and June 2024.
However, in a reply dated May 21, 2024, the bank rejected the request, citing an earlier order of the commission and maintaining that it is not a "public authority" under the RTI Act. Shinde filed his first appeal before the registrar of cooperative societies. The registrar's office, however, returned the appeal, stating that the bank's president was the designated first appellate authority. Left with no remedy, Shinde approached the commission with a second appeal on Aug 12, 2024.
In its defence, the Apex Bank argued that it is a cooperative society registered under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, carrying out banking business for its members in accordance with its bylaws and regulatory directions. It contended that it is neither owned, controlled, nor substantially financed by the state govt, and therefore does not fall within the definition of a "public authority" under the RTI Act. The bank also relied on earlier high court rulings and the commission's orders to argue that such cooperative institutions are outside the RTI framework and that the appeal was not maintainable.
In its observations, the commission noted that the bank was established by the registrar of cooperative societies in his official capacity and later designated as the state cooperative bank. It found that the govt has contributed to its share capital and continues to exercise significant administrative and financial control. Senior officials, including the registrar, have powers to inspect records, order audits, and conduct inquiries into the bank's functioning. The bank's audited accounts are required to be placed before the state legislature, and its operations are guided by govt policies and directions.
The commission also pointed out that govt nominees are part of the bank's management and that recent amendments to the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act have also strengthened such oversight. The bank operates within a broader cooperative credit framework, extending loans through district central cooperative banks and primary agricultural credit societies, performing functions closely aligned with governmental objectives, particularly in the agricultural sector.
The commission concluded that there exists deep control of the state over the bank. It held that the bank qualifies both as a "state" under Article 12 of the Constitution and as a "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
The commission directed the bank to immediately appoint public information officers and first appellate authorities across its offices and ensure proactive disclosure of information under the RTI Act. It also instructed the principal secretary (cooperation), chief secretary, and registrar of cooperative societies to ensure compliance with the Act without delay.
———
Roots in co-op movement
The Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank traces its roots to the cooperative movement of the erstwhile Mysore state. The movement began in 1905 with the Mysore Cooperative Societies Act, aimed at providing equitable access to credit and promoting people-centric banking. In 1915, MA Narayan Iyengar set up the Mysore Provincial Cooperative Bank to finance and supervise co-operatives, gradually becoming the apex financing hub for the sector.
The Bangalore Central Cooperative Bank, founded the same year by K Ramaswamaiah and others, operated separately. Plans to merge the two were resisted, leading the govt in 1925 to convert the provincial bank into the Mysore Provincial Cooperative Apex Bank with statewide jurisdiction. Over the decades, it shifted focus from long-term agricultural lending to housing and consumer cooperatives, adapting to economic changes.
Today, the bank operates under dual regulation of RBI and NABARD, with administrative oversight from the state's cooperation department. Audited accounts are placed before the legislature, and govt representation on the board has expanded.

SC dismisses plea on Air India crash report, questions petitioner’s ‘agenda’, Top court refuses to entertain challenge to preliminary probe findings; says remedy lies under RTI Act : By NH Digital

National Herald: New Delhi: Thursday, 2^nd April 2026.
The Supreme Court on 1 April dismissed a petition related to the preliminary investigation report into the Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad, with the bench questioning the petitioner’s intent behind the plea.

File photo from the day of the crash of the Air India Boeing
787 outside Ahmedabad airport @javedrashidINC

A bench headed by Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi expressed strong disapproval of the petition.
“What is your deep-rooted agenda? As if we don’t understand the motive,” the Chief Justice said, adding that families of victims had not approached the court while the petitioner had filed the plea.
Plea and court observations
The petitioner had challenged a 25 February order of the Delhi High Court, which rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking disclosure of the “complete sequence of events” leading to the crash in the preliminary report.
He had sought directions to modify the report of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau to include technical details such as the timeline of engine “flame out” and fuel switch transitions.
The Supreme Court declined to entertain the request and also refused to treat the plea as a representation to authorities.
The Delhi High Court had earlier termed the PIL “highly misconceived” and held that such directions could not be granted.
It had said the petitioner could instead seek information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, adding that relevant details would be provided if permissible under law.
The case relates to the crash of Air India flight AI 171, a Boeing 787-8 aircraft bound for London Gatwick, which went down shortly after take-off from Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport on 12 June last year.
The crash killed 241 of the 242 people on board and 19 persons on the ground.
The Supreme Court’s dismissal reinforces judicial reluctance to intervene in technical investigations through PILs, particularly where alternative legal remedies such as the RTI mechanism are available.

CMDA told to pay 20K compensation to RTI applicant

The Times of India: Chennai: Thursday, 2^nd April 2026.
The state information commission has ordered Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) to release 20,000 as compensation to an RTI applicant for a delay of two years in furnishing the required information.

The public information officer of the CMDA has been directed to submit the proof of compensation received by the applicant in person on April 14 along with the copy of the information furnished by the CMDA as sought by the petitioner.
The petition originally filed in Jan 2024 by BR Jayaraj of Old Pallavaram and addressed to the special tahsildar (Chennai Outer Ring Road project) sought land acquisition details with respect to certain survey numbers.
Since there was no reply, he filed an appeal to the then appellate authority Poongodi, before filing the second appeal before the information commission in June 2024. The appeal came up for hearing before the chief information commissioner Md Shakeel Akhter on March 24, to which the present CMDA PIO Shanmugasundaram appeared in person.
Since the then PIO Manikandan had expired, the information commission directed the appellate authority to show cause for not disposing of her duty under RTI Act and submit her response on April 16. Though the present PIO submitted that a reply was furnished to the applicant in Nov 2024 with required information attached as annex, the appellant argued that there were no attachments in the reply.
Since the PIO could not produce any evidence that the response was sent with annexures, the commission concluded that the applicant did not receive the required information.
Apart from compensation, the commissioner also ordered CMDA to provide information to the applicant when he visits the office in person.

Penalty on RTI officer for delay upheld — Patna High Court, 2025 : By Aditya Kumar

Samvida Law Associates: Patna: Thursday, 2^nd April 2026.
The Patna High Court refused to cancel a Rs. 25,000 penalty imposed on a government officer under the Right to Information Act. The officer had failed to give information and did not answer a show cause notice from the State Information Commission. The Court held that the Commission’s orders were proper and reasoned. The officer must now pay the penalty to the applicant, or pay extra costs if he delays.

Case Background
This case started with an information request under the Right to Information Act, 2005. On 04.04.2012, respondent no. 4 applied for information relating to mutation applications at the Circle Office, Phulwarisarif, Patna.
At that time, another officer was posted as Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Patna and was the Public Information Officer (PIO). On 30.06.2012, that officer wrote to the Circle Officer, Phulwarisarif, asking him to give the required information. This showed that the earlier officer started the process.
On 12.07.2012, the petitioner took charge as Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Patna in place of the earlier officer. On 06.09.2012, he informed respondent no. 4 that the information should be obtained from the Circle Officer, Phulwarisarif.
Not satisfied, respondent no. 4 filed a First Appeal and then a Second Appeal before the Bihar State Information Commission. The Second Appeal was registered as Case No. 76147/2012-13. During this period, the petitioner says that the Circle Officer eventually supplied the information on 06.08.2014 and that a copy was also sent to the Commission.
Meanwhile, on 10.09.2014, the Commission issued notice to the petitioner. He was asked to explain why the information had not been given and why penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed. The petitioner remained in the post for almost eleven more months.
On 12.08.2015, the petitioner was transferred, and on 14.08.2015 he handed over charge and joined a new post in the Bihar State Housing Board. The final hearing before the Commission took place on 28.09.2015, when neither the petitioner nor respondent no. 4 was present. The Commission then passed an order imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000 under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
This penalty order, dated 28.09.2015, was communicated to the petitioner through memo no. 11920 dated 01.10.2015. The petitioner then sought review before the Commission, which was heard on 27.11.2015. The Commission refused to change its earlier order and directed that the penalty be executed. This order was communicated by memo no. 13991 dated 16.12.2015.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15830 of 2016, challenging both the orders of the Commission.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioner asked the Patna High Court to quash the penalty order dated 28.09.2015 in Case No. 76147/12-13 and all subsequent orders, including the order dated 27.11.2015 refusing review.
He argued that the information sought by respondent no. 4 was essentially available with the Circle Office, Phulwarisarif. According to him, his predecessor had already acted promptly by writing to the Circle Officer on 30.06.2012. He further said that he himself had asked respondent no. 4, by letter dated 06.09.2012, to seek the information from the Circle Officer, Phulwarisarif.
The petitioner claimed that the information was eventually given to respondent no. 4 on 06.08.2014 by the Circle Officer and that a copy was sent to the State Information Commission. He emphasised that he was transferred on 12.08.2015 and handed over charge on 14.08.2015, so he could not be present on 28.09.2015 when the Commission passed the penalty order. He submitted that his review petition was wrongly rejected, and the penalty should be set aside.
Counsel for the State Information Commission opposed the petition. She pointed out that the notice dated 10.09.2014 was issued while the petitioner was still in office. He continued as PIO for nearly eleven months after that notice.
The Commission’s counsel argued that the notice required the petitioner to reply on two points: first, why the information had not been given; and second, why penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed. There was no material on record to show that the petitioner ever filed any show cause on these points.
She further highlighted that although the petitioner claimed that the information was given to respondent no. 4 and that a copy was sent to the Commission, there was no acknowledgment or record on file to support this. In such circumstances, the Commission was justified in holding that the PIO had failed in his duty and in imposing the penalty.
The High Court carefully reviewed the records and accepted that the previous Deputy Collector, before the petitioner, had acted promptly by seeking information from the Circle Officer, Phulwarisarif. However, once the petitioner took over, the Court found that he failed to carry the matter to its logical end.
The Court noted that when respondent no. 4 filed the Second Appeal, the case was pending before the Commission and the petitioner, as PIO, was served with notice. At that stage, he should have acted in a professional manner, ensured timely supply of information, and responded to the show cause notice.
Instead, he did not submit any show cause explaining the delay or opposing the proposed penalty. Even his claim that the information had already been given was not backed by any acknowledgment from respondent no. 4 or by any proof before the Commission.
The Court then examined Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. This provision empowers the Central or State Information Commission to impose penalty on a Public Information Officer if, without reasonable cause, he refuses to receive an RTI application, fails to give information in time, denies information malafidely, gives incorrect or misleading information, destroys information, or obstructs access in any manner.
Under this section, the Commission can impose a penalty of Rs. 250 per day, subject to a maximum of Rs. 25,000, after giving the PIO a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The law also clearly says that the burden of proving that the PIO acted reasonably and diligently lies on the PIO himself.
Applying this provision, the Patna High Court held that the Commission had considered the relevant facts and only then passed its orders dated 28.09.2015 and 27.11.2015. The Commission found that repeated chances were given to the petitioner but he did not respond, nor did he provide the information in time.
Justice Rajiv Roy held that the Commission’s orders were reasoned and did not call for interference in writ jurisdiction. The Court underlined the very purpose of the RTI Act: to empower citizens to know how the Government functions, to make them active participants instead of passive subjects, and to ensure accountability of officers in a democratic setup.
The Court observed that when an officer does not provide necessary information, it defeats the very purpose for which the RTI Act was enacted. In such cases, the Commission is bound to act and enforce responsibility by imposing penalty where appropriate.
At the same time, the Court took note of one practical aspect. By the time the penalty order was passed on 28.09.2015, the petitioner was no longer posted in that office. There was also no representation before the Commission by the new incumbent PIO, so the Commission may not have been fully aware of later developments.
Considering this, the Court gave a limited relief. It directed that while the penalty of Rs. 25,000 would stand, payment of this amount and the penalty order itself would not affect the petitioner’s service career. In other words, it should not be used adversely in his service record or for future consideration.
The Court then turned to the question of payment of the penalty. It held that much time had already passed since the penalty order, and it was now “high time” for the petitioner to pay the amount. The Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 25,000 to respondent no. 4 within four weeks.
If the petitioner fails to pay within four weeks, respondent no. 4 will be entitled to an additional cost of Rs. 5,000, to be paid by the petitioner after that period. With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of as being without merit.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for all government officers who act as Public Information Officers under the RTI Act, and for citizens who use RTI to get information.
It shows that once a PIO receives an RTI application and later a notice from the Information Commission, he cannot simply ignore it or pass the responsibility to another office. He must ensure that the information is given in time and that he replies to any show cause notice.
The Patna High Court confirms that the State Information Commission has full power to impose penalty when there is delay or non-supply of information, especially when the officer does not even respond to the notice. The burden is on the officer to prove that he acted reasonably and diligently.
At the same time, the Court balanced fairness by directing that the penalty should not spoil the officer’s service record, keeping in view that he had been transferred when the final order was passed.
For citizens, this decision reinforces that the RTI Act is meant to work in practice. If an officer fails to provide information and ignores notices, the Commission and the Courts will support penalty so that the right to information remains meaningful.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Whether the Bihar State Information Commission was justified in imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the Public Information Officer under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for delayed and incomplete response to an RTI application.
Answer: Yes. The Patna High Court held that the Commission’s penalty order was based on proper reasoning, after giving repeated opportunities, and did not require interference.
Issue: Whether the petitioner’s transfer before the date of the penalty order was a valid ground to set aside the penalty.
Answer: No. The Court held that the petitioner remained in office for almost eleven months after the show cause notice and failed to reply or ensure timely supply of information. Transfer later did not erase his earlier inaction, though the Court protected his service record.
Cases Cited by the Court
No previous judicial decisions were cited or relied upon in the text of this judgment. The Court mainly referred to Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15830 of 2016
Link to Judgment: Clickhere to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court

No judge-specific information on corruption, misconduct allegations: Supreme Court to Delhi High Court

Bar and Bench: New Delhi: Thursday, 2^nd April 2026.
The Supreme Court's lawyer said that collating such information would involve significant resources and will be exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act.

The Supreme Court of India told the Delhi High Court on Wednesday that it does not maintain judge-specific information about allegations of corruption or misconduct.
Advocate Rukhmini Bobde appeared for the public information officer of the Supreme Court and stated that even collating such information may not be possible, as it would involve diverting significant resources.
The lawyer made the submission before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav during the hearing of a plea filed by journalist Saurav Das challenging denial of information under the RTI Act about whether any complaints of corruption or improper conduct were received with respect to Justice T Raja during his tenure as a Madras High Court judge.

Bobde added that such information may also be protected from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act (RTI Act).
“Specifically, about corruption and misconduct, we don’t maintain of any judge. So, this is now a fishing and roving inquiry and we cannot divert our resources to collate this information for him,” Bobde said.
She argued that even if it was possible for the Supreme Court to maintain such information, the top court is obliged to provide it under the RTI Act since it relates to specific individuals, against whom all kinds of complaints are made.
“Inputs are quite different from the decision itself…So, the Collegium decision is one thing. But the complaints they [Collegium] received - whatever supporting documents they have received in favour of that decision - that is not subject to public scrutiny whatsoever,” Bobde underscored.
She added that the Supreme Court had provided details about the total number of complaints received in the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) in the last ten years to parliament because the total data is available.
Das had asked the Supreme Court to provide the number of complaints received and action taken in respect of those complaints. The Supreme Court's central public information officer (CPIO) responded to Das’ RTI application stating that no such information is maintained.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for Das and argued that the information he is seeking cannot be said to be personal, because it involves public interest.
“If there are complaints regarding corruption and misconduct against a judge, clearly they have a bearing on public activity or public interest. And, therefore, it cannot be denied on the ground that this is personal information,” Bhushan said.
He argued that the Supreme Court gave certain information to the government, which was furnished to parliament. This contained the total number of complaints received in the office of the CJI against sitting judges between 2016 and 2025.
However, Bobde said that the information was not about the type of complaints received, but only the total number of complaints received in the office of the CJI.
Bhushan said that while he agrees that many of the complaints against judges may be frivolous, the office of the CJI is obligated to deal with those complaints. After examination, the CJI's office can say that the allegations are frivolous, he added.
After hearing the case for some time, the Court adjourned the matter to next month.
It also asked both sides to suggest a mechanism to ensure that the reputation of honest judges is protected and at the same time, the public knows how the complaints against judges are handled.

1,079 Cases Disposed in 71 Days: Karnataka Information Commission Clears Backlog, Orders Compensation

Bengaluru Live: Kalaburagi/Bengaluru: Wednesday, 1^st April 2026.
In a significant push to clear pending Right to Information (RTI) cases, the Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka Information Commission has disposed of 1,079 cases in just 71 working days over the past five months.

State Information Commissioner B. Venkata Singh said that between November 24, 2025, and the end of March 2026, a total of 2,520 cases were taken up for hearing, out of which 1,079 cases were successfully resolved.
Highlighting accountability measures, the Commission imposed penalties amounting to ₹2.28 lakh for delays and lapses in providing information. Additionally, compensation of ₹34,000 was awarded to applicants who suffered financial loss and inconvenience due to undue delays in receiving information.
The Commissioner emphasized that priority was given to long-pending cases, some of which had been awaiting disposal for nearly a decade. He added that the Commission will continue to expedite hearings of new cases and ensure timely access to information for applicants.
The move is seen as a major step towards strengthening transparency and improving the efficiency of RTI implementation in the state.

RTI law can’t be used for parallel proceedings: Panel

Times of India: Chandigarh: Wednesday, 1^st April 2026.
Taking a firm stand against misuse of the Right to Information (RTI) law, the Punjab State Information Commission has ruled that parallel invocation of remedies by concealing material facts cannot be permitted, warning that such practices undermine both the spirit and efficiency of the transparency framework.

The ruling came while the bench of state information commissioner Sandeep Singh Dhaliwal disposed of seven appeals filed by a Ludhiana resident.
During the hearing, the respondent public information officer (PIO) was represented through counsel, assisted by a draftsman from the municipal council, Khanna. However, neither the appellant nor any authorised representative appeared before the commission, and no written explanation for the absence was submitted.
The respondent's counsel argued that in several cases, along with connected complaints, the appellant had filed both a second appeal under Section 19 and a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, on the same RTI application, thereby invoking parallel remedies.
After examining the record, the commission observed that the appellant had pursued parallel proceedings on the same cause of action by filing both a complaint and a second appeal over the same RTI application. It noted that such conduct prima facie reflected suppression of material facts and multiplicity of proceedings, which was not in line with the settled legal framework governing the RTI Act.
The commission held that entertaining such parallel remedies amounted to misuse of the statutory process and led to avoidable duplication of proceedings.
It also noted that despite being given an opportunity, the appellant neither appeared nor placed any material on record to justify the conduct or rebut the respondent's submissions.
The commission said filing multiple proceedings on the same issue unnecessarily burdened its limited time and resources, delayed disposal of cases and prejudiced other litigants awaiting adjudication.
While disposing of the appeals, the commission said: "Parallel invocation of remedies by concealing material facts cannot be permitted."

Parliamentary caucus on OGP urges RTI not to relent on its mandate

The Business & Financial Times: Ghana: Tuesday, 31 March 2026.
The Right to Information of citizens is very fundamental and crucial to good democratic governance for which reason the Right to Information Commission must not relent on its mandate, Emmanuel Kwasi Bedzrah, Member of Parliament for Ho West and Chairman of the Parliamentary Caucus on Open Governance Partnership (OGP) has said.

He maintained that smooth and unimpeded access to information by all citizens and organizations must be treated as a human right issue and given the right attention by all stakeholders including the Right To Information Commission which leads and champions the cause.
Mr. Bedzrah made the call when he led members of the Parliamentary Caucus on Open Governance Partnership to a fact-finding visit to the RTI offices in Dzorwulu in Accra to assess the operations and state of the Commission and share thoughts with it.
He urged the Commission to put in more effort irrespective of any challenges to let the world know what it stood for and what it was doing to ensure transparency and accountability in the governance of the nation from Government and all institutions alike.
The Executive Secretary, Ms. Genevieve Shirley Lartey disclosed that the Commission has religiously carried out requirements of the National Action Plan (NAP-4) which was committed to rollout administrative and institutional arrangement for the implementation of Act 989 following its passage in 2019 and that commitments under NAP-4 have been reprioritized under NAP-5 to include the development of Information, Education and Communication (IEC) materials, building capacity of the Public on RTI Law and the passing of regulation for the Legislative Instrument.
Ms. Lartey said the major challenge facing RTIC was funding and subsequent lack of accommodation, a situation that does not augur well for the smooth implementation of its plans and activities.
Mr. Chris Dougan, member of the Governing Board of the Commission, explained that arrangement was far advanced for members of the new Board to be apprised with what was contained in the draft LI before it would be re-submitted to Parliament for consideration.
In response to an issue on Public awareness creation, Mr. Kweku Sersah-Johnson, Technical Advisor, RTIC said the Commission has a Comprehensive Communication Strategy encompassing all aspects of information dissemination and education.
The purpose of the National Action Plan is to improve government transparency and accountability, strengthen public participation in governance and promote open data and anti-corruption efforts.
Members of the Parliamentary Caucus present at the meeting included Mr. Alexander Akwasi Acquah, Vice Chairman of the Caucus, Dominic Napare, Shaibu Mahama, Adelaide Ntim and Kaakyire Asira Gyasi, Assistant Secretary, OGP Caucus. Others were Mr. Kofi Sarpong, Ms Kate Swanzy, Mr. Staphen Owusu, Mr. Michael Duodo-Sakyiama, Miss Audrey Korlekuor Odjeawo and Mr. Baffour Eugene all of the RTIC.

CIC asks Delhi Govt to address Ladli scheme gaps related to claim updates, tech glitches

Daily Excelsior: New Delhi: Tuesday, 31 March 2026.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has called out gaps in information flow affecting the implementation of the Delhi government’s Ladli scheme, flagging the lack of claim updates and technical glitches faced by beneficiaries in accessing policy documents.

Issuing an advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act, the Commission noted that due to “technical issues” on the insurer’s website, beneficiaries are unable to download their policy documents.
Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari observed that once maturity claims are sent to the insurance company, “beneficiaries do not get any progress report or information regarding the claim amount or its processing”.
He further pointed out that beneficiaries are also unaware of “which official/employee in the insurance company is handling their case”, underlining gaps in transparency.
The Commission suggested that the department and the insurance company establish better coordination between their systems, including integration through “API/bridging software” for seamless information flow.
It also advised that beneficiaries be informed via SMS as soon as their maturity claims are forwarded so they remain aware of the status.
The Commission also noted that such issues are leading to a surge in RTI filings, observing that beneficiaries are being forced to seek information through applications and appeals.
It said this results in “unnecessary wastage of time and labour” of both public authorities and the commission, which could be avoided by addressing the technical shortcomings and improving information access systems.
The observations came during the hearing of an RTI appeal where issues such as non-receipt of policy documents and lack of clarity on claim processing were raised.
The Ladli scheme of the Delhi government aims to empower girl children by linking financial assistance with their education up to the senior secondary level.
The sanctioned amount is deposited in the name of the girl child with SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., which manages it until she attains 18 years of age and meets the prescribed education criteria.
The maturity amount can then be used for higher education, vocational training or setting up a micro enterprise. (PTI)

Census 2027: Your data won’t be accessible under RTI or in courts, says Registrar General

The Statesman: New Delhi: Tuesday, 31 March 2026.
India’s next Census will run in two stages with digital data collection, separate timelines across states, and detailed demographic surveys, including caste enumeration in the second phase.

Registrar General Mritunjay Kumar Narayan speaks during a
press briefing, stressing that individual Census 2027 data will
remain confidential and outside RTI and court access.
 IANS/PIB

Individual information collected during Census 2027 will remain strictly protected and cannot be accessed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act or used in court proceedings, Registrar General of India and Census Commissioner Mritunjay Kumar Narayan said on Monday.
The assurance comes as the government prepares to begin the next nationwide Census exercise, which will be conducted digitally and in two phases. Census 2027 will be the 16th Census in India and the eighth after Independence.
“Census is a vast task to carry on. Census will be carried out in two phases, and this time the data will be collected digitally. The procedure of the Census is carried out under the provisions of the Census Act 1948 and the Census Rules 1990. Under Section 15 of the Census Act, the individual data is kept confidential. The data cannot be accessed under the RTI or presented as evidence in court. Only aggregate numbers are used for tabulation. Census 2027 is the 16th Census overall and the eighth after independence.”
Census 2027 to be conducted in two phases
Addressing a press conference in New Delhi, Narayan said the Census will follow provisions of the Census Act, 1948, and Census Rules, 1990. He underlined that Section 15 of the law guarantees the confidentiality of personal data, with only aggregated figures used for official purposes.
The first phase, known as House Listing, will focus on housing conditions, available amenities and household assets. In this first step, no personal information about individuals will be taken.
The second phase, called Population Enumeration, will gather details about people’s background, including social, economic and cultural aspects, along with information on migration and fertility trends. Caste enumeration will also be carried out during this phase.
The reference date for the Census will be 00:00 hours of March 1, 2027. However, for snow-bound areas such as Ladakh and parts of Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, the reference date will be October 1, 2026.
Self-enumeration to begin from April in several states
Narayan said self-enumeration will begin between April 1 and April 15 in Delhi and several other regions, followed by the House Listing phase from April 16 to May 15.
Different timelines have been set for some states and Union Territories. In parts of Delhi under the MCD area, self-enumeration will take place from May 1 to 15, followed by House Listing from May 16 to June 14.

He also said the Union Cabinet has approved an outlay of Rs 11,718.24 crore for the exercise. Instruction manuals for Phase I have been prepared in 19 languages, and training of Census officials is currently underway.
Narayan noted that the Census process had earlier been planned for 2021 but was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

RTI shows just one caste killing case in south TN in six years

Times of India: Madurai: Monday, 30 March 2026.
Madurai: RTI data obtained by activist S Karthik has revealed that only one case of caste killing was officially recorded in the last six years in seven districts of south Tamil Nadu, and he urged Justice K N Basha's commission to conduct statewide field studies and consult stakeholders to draft a caste killing law.

According to the RTI response, data provided by the additional superintendent of police (Headquarters) shows that between Jan 1, 2020, and Dec 31, 2025, only one case of caste killing was reported across Madurai, Theni, Sivaganga, Virudhunagar, Kanyakumari, Ramanathapuram and Pudukkottai districts.
The solitary case was registered in 2021 at Emaneswaram police station in Ramanathapuram district. Police in the remaining six districts reported zero cases during the six-year period.
Karthik said the lack of official recognition of such crimes stems from the absence of a specific legal definition. He noted that while the Supreme Court had, in 2018, called for special laws to prevent caste-based crimes, the Tamil Nadu government has shown little progress over the past eight years.
In contrast, he pointed to neighbouring Karnataka, which recently enacted the Karnataka Freedom of Choice in Marriage and Prevention and Prohibition of Honour and Tradition (Eva Nammava Eva Nammava) Bill, 2026 on March 24.
He said the delay has also cast a shadow over the state-appointed commission. In October 2025, chief minister M K Stalin announced the formation of a committee headed by retired high court judge Justice K N Basha to draft a special law. The commission, comprising legal experts, progressive thinkers and anthropologists, was tasked with creating a robust legal framework. However, six months after its formation, allegations have surfaced that the committee has yet to meet even a single family affected by caste-based violence.
He urged the commission to move beyond administrative processes and conduct a statewide field study to gather testimonies from affected families, educators and civil society members.
He said there is a growing demand among the public that only through such a study and a formal feedback mechanism can changes be refined and a constructive draft law be formulated.

Detonators continue to top list of stolen explosives, shows RTI data : Written by, Ritu Sarin

The Indian Express: Article: Monday, 30 March 2026.
Information from PESO, both recent and past, reveals alarming levels of “missing” blasting caps, detonating cord and explosives.

Seized explosive material. (File Photo)

Magazines, or stores for explosives especially those located in Naxalism or terror-affected areas continue to be the target for audacious thefts, according to data received via a Right To Information (RTI) application filed with the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO).
Detonators, a small explosive device or blasting cap, continue to see the largest number of recorded thefts reported in thousands as per both current and past data.
Information received from PESO reveals that there has been a major theft of explosives from a magazine in Janjgir Champa, a district in Naxalism-affected Chhattisgarh, on August 6, 2023. It could be a coincidence, but just two months later, on October 3, 2023, the Government of India banned the manufacturing, possession and import of electric detonators in view of “security concerns and public safety.” Electric detonators, the government notification stated, are “dangerous” devices. The ban was announced in 2023, but was to be implemented fully only from April 2025.
PESO gave details of the stolen stockpile of explosives. In all, 1,829 detonators were stolen in three different categories from Janjgir Champa. Of these, 1,688 were of the “supreme AED” type; 116 listed as “instantaneous electric detonators” and 25 being short-delay detonators.
Besides the detonators, 110 kgs of Class 2 gel (Kelvix powder, an emulsion explosive) and 3,000 meters of detonating fuse were stolen from the magazine in Janjgir Champa. According to PESO, following the theft, an FIR was filed and a showcause notice issued after four weeks to the police and the District Magistrate.
As per the information, a significantly high number of detonators (also of Class 6 type, or super electric detonators) have been stolen from magazines and vans over a 10-year period in Uttar Pradesh. The PESO unit in Agra has provided data for 61,311 detonators being stolen, but without specifics of the dates of theft or location of the magazines. The PESO unit has also not clarified if the 61,311 detonators were stolen in one or several heists.
Earlier batches of data obtained by The Indian Express had also revealed a similar pattern – detonators topping the list of stolen explosive materials. A previous RTI application filed by The Indian Express revealed that in two years (2010 and 2011), as many as 2,18,624 detonators were stolen from magazines and vans in Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.
In addition to this, as much as 1,907 kg of ammonium nitrate-based explosives, 3,500 metres of detonating fuse and 16.58 tonnes of emulsion matrix (a key ingredient for making explosives) were stolen from across the country in these two years.
In October 2007, The Indian Express, in a series titled ‘The Ticking Time Bomb,’ had reported how PESO had received information about thousands of detonators, slurry explosives and fuses being stolen from government magazines. Back then, the police had managed to recover only a fraction of the stolen stockpiles.
Data accessed for the years 2004-2006 showed that the scale of theft was staggering: 86,899 detonators, 150 kg of slurry explosives, 52,740 meters of detonating fuse and 419 kg of gelatin sticks were looted from magazines and explosive vans.
The data then showed that the largest number of detonators (19,800) were stolen from Shankerpur in Madhya Pradesh, while the largest number of safety fuses (11,975) and the biggest volume of slurry explosives (19,700 kgs) were stolen from Dantewada in Chhattisgarh.
Presently, besides Chhattisgarh and Uttar Pradesh, PESO offices at other places have claimed they have no information about any theft of explosives. Among those who have said that they had “nil” information are Dehradun, Prayagraj, Vadodara, Patna, Faridabad, Bhubaneswar, Ernakulam, Navi Mumbai, Secunderabad, Jaipur and Guwahati.
PESO officials in two cities cited other reasons for the “nil” information. The Controller of Explosives of Mangalore denied the data on grounds of it being too “massive.” The communication stated: “…this kind of massive data on so many variables and compilation of the same for a period of 10 years is beyond the scope of RTI Act.” The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives from Kolkata also did not supply the data saying it was “sensitive” in nature and was not being provided as per section 8 (dealing with exemptions from disclosure) of the RTI Act.

Delhi police spent ₹43.51 crore on VVIP vehicles, reveals RTI reply

The Hindu: New Delhi: Monday, 30 March 2026.
The Delhi police’s Security Wing spent ₹43.51 crore on hiring vehicles to provide protection to VVIPs between 2021 and 2025, the police department has stated in response to a Right to Information (RTI) query filed by The Hindu.

The Security Wing spent ₹23.13 crore on hiring vehicles in
2022-23 in the run-up to the G20 Summit in New Delhi.
Photo Credit: SHIV KUMAR PUSHPAKAR

The Security Wing is a specialised unit responsible for providing security, protection, and escort services to VIPs and VVIPs including the Prime Minister, who falls under the Special Protection Group, various Chief Ministers and high-profile politicians, who receive Z+ security, and important dignitaries who visit the Capital.
The department’s reply shared data showing that the Security Wing spent ₹23.13 crore on hiring vehicles in the financial year 2022-23 in the run-up to the 18th G20 Summit hosted in New Delhi.
This was followed by an expenditure of ₹16.89 crore in the 2023-24, the year in which the country hosted the high-profile event, during which dignitaries from across the globe visited the Capital.
However, despite high spending in previous years, the Security Wing spent only ₹2.05 crore in 2024-25. Speaking to The Hindu, a senior official said the department’s spending changed after a large number of vehicles were purchased in 2023 in the run-up to the G20 Summit.
“A large number of vehicles were purchased, many of which were routed to the Delhi police’s Security Wing, and some were given to the district police. At present, most vehicles used by VVIPs are owned by the Delhi police,” the official said.
‘Records not traceable’
The department stated in its response that records of hiring vehicles from 2015 onwards were not “traceable” due to “shifting of the administrative branches/offices from Vinay Marg to the new building at Manas Marg, Chanakyapuri, during 2020-21”.
The RTI reply added that records up to March 2020 were “destroyed” in accordance with an official order dated July 19, 2024.

Complainant Has No Right To Be Heard In Penalty Proceedings Against SPIO U/S 20 RTI Act: Kerala High Court

Verdictum: Kerala: Monday, 30 March 2026.
The High Court held that penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, are between the Information Commission and the concerned Public Information Officer, and the complainant has no vested right to participate unless permitted.

The Kerala High Court has held that an appellant under the Right to Information Act, 2005, has no right to be heard in penalty proceedings initiated against a State Public Information Officer under Section 20(1) of the Act, and that such proceedings are essentially between the Information Commission and the concerned officer.
The Court was hearing a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the order of the State Information Commission dropping penalty proceedings initiated against the State Public Information Officer in connection with an RTI application.
A Bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman observed: “… the appearance of the ‘appellant’ before the State Information Commission is optional. Even if the appellant opts not to be present, the State Information Commission has to dispose of the appeal as per the provisions of the RTI Act. However, the RTI Act mandates that, before any penalty is imposed, the SPIO shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The penalty proceeding under Section 20 of the Act is essentially a matter between the State Information Commission and the concerned SPIO. Therefore, the petitioner’s contention that the 3rd respondent was absolved of liability without furnishing her a copy of the explanation of the 3rd respondent and without affording an opportunity to rebut the same is untenable.
The petitioner has no right to be heard in the penalty proceedings under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, unless permitted by the State Information Commission”, the Bench Added
Advocate Vimal Vijay appeared for the petitioner, while Senior Government Pleader Surya Binoy represented the State and Standing Counsel M. Ajay appeared for the State Information Commission.
Background
The petitioner had submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information relating to the exclusion of her application from consideration in a Revenue Adalat under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
It was contended by the petitioner that no reply was furnished within the statutory period, compelling her to file a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the State Information Commission. The Commission, upon finding delay and alleged furnishing of misleading information, initiated penalty proceedings under Section 20(1) of the Act.
The petitioner contended that the Commission subsequently dropped the penalty proceedings without furnishing her a copy of the explanation submitted by the SPIO and without allowing her to rebut the same.
The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the SPIO had submitted an explanation attributing the delay to administrative reasons, including election-related duties and staffing issues, and that the Commission, upon considering the explanation, found no wilful default warranting imposition of a penalty.
Court’s Observation
The Court examined the scheme of Sections 19 and 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It noted that while Section 19 deals with appellate remedies and empowers the Commission to grant compensation to the complainant under Section 19(8)(b), Section 20 specifically governs the imposition of a penalty on the Public Information Officer.
The Court emphasised that under the first proviso to Section 20(1), the Act mandates that the SPIO must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed. However, no such statutory right is conferred upon the appellant to participate in penalty proceedings.
Interpreting the procedural framework, the Court referred to Rule 7 of the Kerala State Information Commission (Procedure for Appeal) Rules, 2006, and observed that the presence of the appellant in appeal proceedings is optional and not mandatory.
The Court held: “Even if the appellant opts not to be present, the State Information Commission has to dispose of the appeal as per the provisions of the RTI Act.”
Distinguishing between compensation and penalty, the Court noted that while compensation is awarded to the complainant and may require adjudication of loss, penalty is imposed for statutory violations and is payable to the State exchequer.
The Court further held: “the penalty proceeding under Section 20 of the RTI Act is purely a matter between the… Commission and the… SPIO.”
Addressing the grievance of the petitioner, the Court held: “the petitioner’s contention that the 3rd respondent was absolved of liability without furnishing her a copy of the explanation… and without allowing rebutting the same is untenable.”
The Court also clarified that the opinion formed by the Commission at the stage of issuing a show cause notice is only prima facie, and that upon receiving a satisfactory explanation from the SPIO, the Commission is empowered to drop the penalty proceedings.
Conclusion The High Court held that the State Information Commission was justified in dropping the penalty proceedings after accepting the explanation of the SPIO and that no interference was warranted in the absence of any perversity or illegality.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Cause Title: Raisa Eapen v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:21070)
(Click here to read/download Judgment)