RTI right statutory, but doesn’t permit repetitive proceedings: Haryana Panel

Times of India: Haryana: Thursday, 24^th September 2026.
The Haryana State Information Commission has ruled that the Right to Information Act cannot be used to file multiple applications or complaints on the same issue.

“The right to seek information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 is a statutory right but the same cannot be construed as conferring an unrestricted right to institute repetitive proceedings on an identical cause of action,” state information commissioner Ajay Sura observed in detailed orders released this week.
“The RTI Act has to be implemented in a manner that advances transparency and accountability while ensuring that the limited administrative resources of public authorities and adjudicatory bodies are utilised efficiently,” he said.
The observation came in a complaint filed by Palwal resident Sharwan Kumar against the SPIO-cum-district education officer (DEO), Palwal. His RTI application was filed on Aug 24. During the hearing, the SPIO pointed out that the same application had already resulted in complaints in two other matters before the commission and that the application was identical, word for word, to the earlier one.
The commission was also informed that 36 cases filed by Kumar against the education authorities concerned were pending before it and that he had filed 130-150 RTI applications before the offices of the district elementary education officer (DEEO), DEO, block education officer and district project coordinator (DPC) in Palwal.
The commission has now directed Kumar to furnish an affidavit in respect of each RTI case already filed before it and any future complaint or appeal, affirming that he had not filed another complaint or appeal concerning the same RTI application and subject matter.
He was also directed to furnish similar affidavits before the DEO, DEEO, BEO and DPC, Palwal, in respect of his pending RTI applications, affirming that he had not filed multiple applications concerning the same or substantially identical subject matter.
Henceforth, every RTI application submitted by Kumar before these authorities must also be accompanied by an affidavit affirming that he had not already filed an RTI application concerning the same or substantially identical subject matter.
The commission noted that complaints concerning the same RTI application had been instituted more than once. When questioned about the multiple complaints, Kumar did not furnish a satisfactory explanation, except stating that if one complaint had already been decided, the others could also be decided accordingly.
The commission referred to earlier judicial pronouncements concerning repetitive and vexatious use of the RTI mechanism, reiterating that the legal right to information should not be abused. It also observed that a public authority cannot be disproportionately overloaded with complaints and RTI applications to the extent that providing information consumes the majority of its time and resources.

Examination evaluation records are “information” under S. 2(f), RTI Act; Confidentiality or fiduciary claim can’t be invoked mechanically: CIC

SCC Online: New Delhi: Thursday, 24^th September 2026.
The Central Information Commission held that “a general assertion of confidentiality or fiduciary capacity cannot substitute the statutory requirement of demonstrating the applicability of an exemption”.

Central Information Commission, New Delhi: While considering the scope of disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) in relation to the evaluation of law semester examination answer scripts at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Sudha Rani Relangi, Information Commissioner, held that while the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) could not be required to create information which did not exist, existing records could not be denied merely because they concerned the examination or evaluation process.
Brief Facts
The appellant filed an RTI application dated 7 June 2025 before the University of Delhi seeking information concerning the evaluation criteria, protocol and step-wise procedure adopted for assessment of law semester examination answer scripts for the 3-year LLB semester examinations conducted by the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. The appellant sought, inter alia, certified copies of:

1. rules, guidelines, circulars, manuals, orders and instructions governing evaluation,
   
2. model answers, marking schemes, sample evaluated scripts and scoring rubrics,
   
3. any weightage assigned to case law, legal principles, statutory provisions, answer structure or word limits,
   
4. the step-by-step evaluation procedure,
   
5. whether scripts underwent moderation, rechecking or quality control,
   
6. whether student identity was anonymised,
   
7. mechanisms for standardisation to minimise examiner subjectivity,
   
8. details of persons involved at different stages of evaluation,
   
9. training, briefing or orientation provided to evaluators,
   
10. moderation, double evaluation, cross-evaluation, auditing, peer review and score-calibration mechanisms,
    
11. marking or grading schemes,
    
12. use of digital/on-screen evaluation, and
    
13. where requested documents did not exist, a categorical statement to that effect together with disclosure of existing formal or informal practices.
    

The appellant specifically requested that the information be supplied point-wise and contended that a general reference to voluminous regulations or ordinances would not amount to a complete response.
The CPIO responded on 7 July 2025 stating that relevant input from the Joint Registrar (Examinations) was still awaited and that the matter was being pursued with the officer concerned. The appellant was accordingly advised to contact the Joint Registrar (Examinations).
Aggrieved by the response, the appellant preferred a first appeal on 12 July 2025.
The First Appellate Authority (FAA), by order dated 5 August 2025, noted that the appellant had not received the information sought. Consequently, the FAA directed the Joint Registrar (Examinations) to provide the relevant disclosable information to the appellant, under intimation to the Information Section, within 2 weeks from receipt of the order.
The appellant alleged non-compliance with the FAA’s direction and approached the Central Information Commission (CIC) by way of the present second appeal.
Parties’ Contentions
The appellant pointed out the practice of denying information in vague terms and sought the CIC’s intervention.
The CPIO submitted that a point-wise reply together with relevant available inputs had already been supplied to the appellant by email dated 8 September 2025. The CPIO explained that answer scripts were evaluated according to the broad marking scheme and instructions contained in the question paper, together with necessary instructions issued by the Coordinator/Head Examiner to examiners for maintaining uniformity in the marking scheme. It was stated that no formal documentation of the meetings was endorsed to or maintained by the University’s Examination Branch.
The CPIO also contended that a majority of the appellant’s queries amounted to requests for clarification, which, according to the CPIO, did not conform to the statutory concept of “information” under Section 2(f). In addition, the CPIO asserted that the evaluation process and related information were confidential in nature and were held by the University in a fiduciary capacity and therefore could not be disclosed under the RTI Act.
Issues for Determination
Whether information relating to the evaluation of University examination answer scripts can be denied under the RTI Act merely because the applicant seeks explanations/clarifications or because the evaluation process is stated to be confidential and held in a fiduciary capacity.
Analysis
At the outset, the CIC reiterated that Section 2(f) contemplates disclosure of material or information held by or under the control of the public authority. Accordingly, the CPIO is “not required to create information, give an opinion, interpret records, or furnish explanations which are not available on the record”. Therefore, queries seeking reasons, justification, opinion or clarification regarding how an evaluation was undertaken would not, by themselves, constitute “information” under Section 2(f).
However, the CIC made it clear that this principle cannot be used to deny existing records merely because they concern examinations or evaluation. Where identifiable records such as prescribed marking schemes, written examiner instructions, notices, circulars, guidelines, records of decisions or other documents concerning the evaluation procedure are maintained by the University, they constitute “information” within Section 2(f), subject to the exemptions specifically available under Section 8 or Section 9, RTI Act.
Further, the CIC held that the University could not be directed to create records which admittedly did not exist. Nevertheless, the CPIO was required to clearly identify and disclose the records available and corresponding to the appellant’s queries, subject to lawful exemptions.
The CIC rejected the proposition that describing information as “confidential” is, by itself, sufficient to justify its denial. Any refusal of information must be traceable to a specific exemption under Section 8 or Section 9, RTI Act.
Likewise, Section 8(1)(e), concerning information available to a person in a fiduciary relationship, cannot be invoked mechanically. The public authority must establish the existence of the fiduciary relationship in respect of the particular information sought and demonstrate how the statutory exemption applies.
Decision and Directions
Although the CIC found that the CPIO had substantially responded to the appellant and furnished available information pursuant to the FAA’s directions, it held that the justification for withholding information relating to the evaluation process had not been adequately articulated with reference to a specific exemption under the RTI Act. A general assertion of confidentiality or fiduciary capacity could not substitute the statutory requirement of establishing an exemption.
Therefore, the CIC directed the CPIO to file a detailed, duly signed and dated written statement identifying:

1. each item of information relating to the evaluation process that had been denied or withheld,
   
2. the reason for such denial,
   
3. the precise provision of the RTI Act under which exemption was claimed,
   
4. where Section 8(1)(e) was invoked, the nature of the alleged fiduciary relationship and its applicability to the information sought, and
   
5. whether any severable portion could be disclosed under Section 10, RTI Act.
   

The CIC directed to file the revised statement within two weeks from receipt of the order. Accordingly, the second appeal was disposed of.
[Rishabh Mishra v. CPIO, File No: CIC/UODEL/A/2025/641908, decided on 3-9-2026]

When ‘record not found’ under RTI becomes a criminal question: By Siddhartha Shankar Mishra

Bar and Bench: Columns: Thursday, 24^th September 2026.
An RTI regime cannot function effectively if an official can knowingly defeat a statutory right simply by stating that an existing record cannot be found.

The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 creates a statutory right in favour of citizens and corresponding statutory duties for public authorities and public information officers (PIOs).
A PIO is not merely processing an administrative request. The officer is required to adhere to duties prescribed by the Act, including the obligation under Section 7 to deal with an application within the prescribed period and communicate the decision in accordance with law.
The question becomes legally significant when an official response is not merely delayed or erroneous, but knowingly false. If a PIO knows that a record exists and nevertheless states that it does not, the issue may move beyond ordinary administrative lapse and into the field of statutory and, in an appropriate case, criminal accountability.
A criminal analysis must begin by separating three situations. A record may genuinely be unavailable to the PIO despite a reasonable search. There may be negligence or defective record management. Or an officer may know that the record exists and deliberately deny its existence. These situations cannot be treated alike. Section 20 of the RTI Act itself recognises the significance of mala fide denial and knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or misleading information. It also covers destruction of information and obstruction in furnishing it. Thus, the Act itself draws a distinction between an ordinary failure and conduct involving knowledge or mala fides.
Why Section 198 BNS matters
Section 198 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 provides a possible criminal law framework in a narrow class of cases. It applies where a public servant knowingly disobeys a direction of law concerning the manner in which he is required to conduct himself as a public servant, with the intention of causing injury to a person or with knowledge that such injury is likely to result. Four elements therefore require attention: the accused must be a public servant; there must be a legal direction governing the conduct; the disobedience must be knowing; and the required intention or knowledge concerning injury must be established. The provision does not criminalise every breach of official duty.
The important question is whether the relevant RTI obligation amounts to a "direction of law" for the purposes of Section 198. In a case involving a PIO, the statutory duties under Sections 5 and 7 provide the starting point. Section 7 requires the PIO to deal with the request and communicate the decision in the manner prescribed by law. Where information is denied, the statutory scheme requires the response to identify the reasons for rejection and the appellate remedy. A deliberate false statement that a known record does not exist cannot be equated with a lawful refusal under Sections 8 or 9. Whether the particular conduct satisfies Section 198, however, remains a question for the competent court on the evidence.
The most important limitation is the requirement of injury. Section 198 does not punish knowing disobedience by itself. The prosecution must establish the additional mental element relating to injury. The BNS defines injury broadly to include harm illegally caused to the body, mind, reputation or property. But broad statutory language does not mean that every inconvenience caused by an RTI violation amounts to criminal injury. A complaint should identify the injury relied upon and explain how the accused's conduct caused, or was known to be likely to cause, that injury.
It would, therefore, be unsafe to convert every unsuccessful RTI application into an allegation of criminal mental injury. Repeated proceedings, unnecessary expenditure, loss of a legal opportunity, reputational consequences or other concrete harm may become relevant depending upon the facts. But the complainant must establish the factual basis and causal connection. A bare assertion that the applicant was harassed or frustrated should not substitute for the statutory requirement under Section 198.
Knowledge is the evidentiary core
In a case based on a statement such as “record not found”, the central evidentiary question will often be what the PIO knew when the reply was issued. A later discovery of the record, by itself, does not prove criminal intention. Stronger evidence may include earlier correspondence before the PIO, file movement entries, internal communications, previous orders referring to the record, acknowledgements, or subsequent departmental records showing that the officer had access to information establishing its existence. The issue is not simply whether the reply was wrong. It is whether the officer knew it was wrong and nevertheless gave it in circumstances satisfying the statutory ingredients of the alleged offence.
A false document may raise a separate offence
The BNS also contains provisions dealing with public servants who knowingly prepare incorrect documents or records with the requisite intention concerning injury or loss. Sections 201 and 256, however, contain their own specific ingredients and should not be mechanically applied to every false RTI response. If the allegation concerns preparation of an incorrect document, the prosecution must identify the document, the statutory duty attached to its preparation, the accused's knowledge that it was incorrect and the required intention or knowledge concerning injury or loss. The mere existence of an inaccurate RTI reply is not enough.
The RTI remedy and criminal law serve different functions
Section 20 of the RTI Act provides a specific statutory mechanism for penalty and disciplinary recommendation. That mechanism remains the ordinary route for establishing an RTI violation. A criminal proceeding is different. The existence of a Section 20 penalty does not, by itself, establish a BNS offence, nor does a BNS allegation eliminate the need to satisfy the RTI Act. The two regimes operate on different legal questions. A criminal complaint must, therefore, stand on its own statutory ingredients and evidence.
The RTI Act itself protects acts done in good faith under Section 21. This reinforces the need for caution before invoking criminal law against a PIO. An honest inability to trace an old record, a bona fide misunderstanding of the scope of a request, or a reasonable but ultimately incorrect administrative decision cannot simply be converted into criminality because an appellate authority later takes a different view. The decisive distinction is between bona fide error and knowing, deliberate conduct accompanied by the mental element required by the penal provision.
Even where the facts appear to disclose a possible offence, criminal process must follow the applicable procedure. Depending upon the status of the public servant and the circumstances in which the alleged offence was committed, the requirement of previous sanction under Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita may arise. This is a procedural question that must be examined at the stage of cognizance and cannot be assumed either way.
The proposition, therefore, should not be stated as “a false RTI reply is a crime”. That would be legally excessive. The more precise proposition is that where a PIO, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys a statutory direction governing the handling of an RTI request, and does so with the intention of causing injury or knowledge that such injury is likely to result, the conduct may potentially attract Section 198 of the BNS, subject to proof of every statutory ingredient. Depending on the facts, another specific BNS provision may also be relevant.
Transparency cannot depend on the honesty of a reply alone
The significance of the issue lies in the integrity of the information system itself. An RTI regime cannot function effectively if an official can knowingly defeat a statutory right simply by stating that an existing record cannot be found. At the same time, criminal law should not become a substitute for the appellate and penalty mechanisms of the RTI Act. Where the evidence shows only error or negligence, the matter may remain within the RTI and service law framework. Where it demonstrates knowing disobedience, deliberate falsehood and the legally required injury, criminal scrutiny may legitimately arise. The decisive question is, therefore, not whether the reply was inconvenient or even wrong, but whether the evidence establishes the state of knowledge and intention required by the penal law.
(Siddhartha Shankar Mishra is an advocate at the Supreme Court of India.)

SSC Selection Post Phase 13 exam: ‘No data available on candidates affected by centre changes, tech failures’

Indian Express: New Delhi: Wednesday, 23^rd September 2026.
The SSC Selection Post Phase 13 exam 2025, which started on July 24, 2025 and was scheduled to conclude on August 1, was disrupted by complaints of abrupt cancellations, server crashes, unresponsive systems and remote examination centres.

Some candidates had also alleged that they were allotted examination centres hundreds of kilometres from their homes. (Express photo by Gajendra Yadav/ representative)

The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) has no specific data on the number of candidates affected during the SSC Selection Post Phase 13 exam 2025 due to examination centre changes, cancellations and technical failures, even as re-examinations were scheduled for 76,153 candidates following disruptions, according to its response to the Central Information Commission (CIC).
The examination and data-system irregularities prompted SSC aspirants and teachers to stage a widespread protest over alleged mismanagement of the recruitment exam. The protest gathered at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar, demanding accountability and reforms in the examination process as a “Delhi Chalo” call echoed around.
The SSC Selection Post Phase 13 exam 2025, which started on July 24, 2025, and was scheduled to conclude on August 1, was disrupted by complaints of abrupt cancellations, server crashes, unresponsive systems and remote examination centres. A few candidates also alleged that they were allotted examination centres which were located hundreds of kilometres away from their homes.
In a Right to Information (RTI) application, the petitioner asked for the number of candidates whose centres were changed less than 24 hours before their examination time, along with a city- and state-wise breakup and additional details if any special arrangements were made for them.
As a written submission before the CIC, the SSC said, “Since EC-2 has no role in changing the examination centres of candidates, no data is available in this regard.” The applicant had also sought the data containing the total number of candidates affected by centre changes, cancellations and technical or logistical failures, along with copies of internal reports prepared on these issues.
“No data is available with us, as EC-2 has a limited role in such activities,” the SSC responded.
It said the section monitors the examination during its conduct.
The SSC further added that re-examinations were also conducted for multiple affected candidates during the examination, originally scheduled from July 24 to August 1, 2025.
“However, re-examination was conducted on August 2 and August 29, 2025 for 76,153 affected candidates,” the commission said. Simultaneously, the commission also acknowledged that the “specific data relating to such candidates is not available in EC Section.”
The RTI application also sought information on complaints received by the SSC or its partners regarding alleged mistreatment of students at examination centres, including incidents of physical abuse or aggression, medical emergencies and the reported case of a student fainting and bleeding from the mouth.
The SSC responded that “No complaints are received in this regard.”
On the student and teacher protest which unfolded on July 31, 2025 near Jantar Mantar and the CGO Complex, the applicant sought communications between the commission and Delhi Police or other authorities, including any directives issued for handling the demonstration.
The SSC said, “Insofar as the examination section was concerned, no communication was made between the Commission and Delhi Police.”
The RTI applicant had also demanded names and designations of officials involved in exam conduct activities like centre allocation, coordination with Eduquity (exam conducting agency) and other agencies, and examination-day operations.
The SSC cited Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act in response to this query, saying disclosure could hamper the “sanctity, integrity and security of future examinations”.
During the hearing, the CIC noted that the SSC could not satisfactorily explain the constitutional act used to deny information and orded it to submit a written justification.
CIC later scrapped the appeal after receiving the response but warned the SSC to “act strictly within the precincts of the RTI Act” and follow the prescribed timelines.
(With inputs from PTI)

RTI: MeitY has no records of MIB’s order that asked for teams to tackle ‘fake content’

Media Nama: Bangalore: Wednesday, 23^rd September 2026.

A response from an RTI filed by MediaNama revealed that Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has no information on record related to MIB’s July 27 ‘fake content’ order. The said order asks central ministries and departments to set up Quick Response Teams (QRTs) to counter fake, misleading, and manipulated content on social media. MediaNama received this RTI reply from MeitY’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), disposed of on September 18, 2026.
MediaNama has also filed a similar RTI with Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) as it reportedly issued the order. We are yet to receive a MIB’s response. We’ve also written to MeitY challenging this RTI response. We’ll publish a fresh copy if and when MIB or MeitY replies to the RTI applications.
Some background on Quick Response Teams: 
Earlier in August, MediaNama reported regarding the order, based on a PTI report that the MIB advisory directed the social media teams of various ministries to monitor content related to their own ministries and departments. The order also asked them to report anything deemed “fake, misleading, factually incorrect, manipulated, distorted, taken out of context, or likely to cause public confusion” to Quick Response Teams. The QRTs were in turn expected to coordinate with the Press Information Bureau’s Fact Check Unit (FCU) for a fact-checked response, ideally within two hours of the content being flagged.
As per a letter accessed by the New Indian Express, the MIB Secretary Chanchal Kumar said rumours on social media “travel fast,” and that the government must match the pace. The order reportedly capped fact-checked responses at 200 words and required them to be cross-posted on platforms like Instagram and YouTube as memes, posters, and short videos for “algorithmic amplification.” The directive came after Prime Minister Modi asked ministers to be proactive on social media, in the fallout of CJP’s Jantar Mantar protests. 
What the MeitY reply reveals:
MediaNama asked for the Terms of Reference (ToR) and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), any amendments, and the internal file notings behind the notice.  Rather than responding point-by-point to the four questions asked, MeitY’s CPIO returned a single, blanket response covering the entire application.
“No information is available in records of the undersigned Central Public Information Officer (CPIO).” – RTI Response.
The reply goes on to cite clause 2(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, which defines “information” and notes that only information that is “available and existing” and “held by the public authority or is held under the control of the public authority” can be supplied under the Act.
In effect, MeitY says it holds no record connecting it to MIB’s order, its ToR or SOPs, any amendments, or any correspondence between the two Ministries.
Why MeitY? And, why it matters:
MediaNama filed identical RTIs with both MeitY and MIB because of a distinction of the identical name of Fact Checking Unit under both Ministries. For some context, Press Information of Bureau’s Fact Check Unit comes under the MIB, which may or may not have been tasked to co-ordinate with the so-called Quick Resposne Teams (QRT) under the MIB’s advisory. 
Whereas, now struck down Fact Check Unit under Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the IT Rules, 2021 comes under the MeitY. The Ministry notified provision that let a government-designated unit flag information about “any business of the Central Government” as fake, false, or misleading, and which the Bombay High Court struck down in 2024. Bombay HC’s Justice GS Patel found the terms like ‘fake’, ‘misleading’ are “entirely subjective” and called the provision ‘vague’ and overbroad.
Later in March 2026, the Supreme Court declined to strike down that 2024 Bombay HC order and itself raised questions about how the Rules define “misleading” content. MIB’s newer Quick Response Teams now resembles similar language. 
What are the questions asked?
Kindly provide certified copies of the following records held by your Ministry:

1. Any order, office memorandum, advisory, circular, or letter issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on or around Ministry of Information and Broadcasting’s order on July 27, 2026, directing Union Ministries/Departments to constitute Quick Response Teams (QRTs) to counter allegedly fake, misleading, factually incorrect, manipulated, distorted, out-of-context, or confusing content on social media. Include the file number and date.

2. The Terms of Reference (ToR), Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), guidelines, manuals, or similar documents (including annexures) issued by the Ministry or under its authority, specifying:

• (a) The mandate, functions, and composition of these QRTs.
• (b) The process and timelines for monitoring social media content related to ministries/departments and identifying content as fake, misleading, factually incorrect, manipulated, distorted, taken out of context, or likely to cause public confusion.
• (c) The procedure for reporting such content to QRTs and coordinating with the Press Information Bureau’s Fact Check Unit (FCU). 
• (d) Requirements regarding format, word limits (e.g., 200 words), use of memes, posters, short videos, cross-posting across platforms (Instagram, YouTube, etc.), and any reference to “algorithmic amplification” of fact-checked responses.

3. Any subsequent amendments, clarifications, or follow-up instructions issued by the Ministry relating to the above order, ToR, SOPs, or guidelines.
4. File notings and intra-ministerial correspondence within the Ministry that document the decision-making process leading to the issuance of the order and SOPs/guidelines mentioned in points 1 and 2, limited to the stage after the final decision was taken, as per the proviso to Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Ballari Road RTI plea remains stuck in civic bottlenecks: ByY Maheswara Reddy

Bangalore Mirror: Bangalore: Wednesday, 23^rd September 2026.
Environmentalist says RTI application seeking information on Ballari Road tunnel project has been circulating between civic departments since January 2026 without any response or disclosure received

An application submitted to the Public Information Officer of Bengaluru Smart Infrastructure Limited (B‑SMILE) has been circulating among various city corporation departments since January 2026. Under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, authorities are mandated to furnish requested details within the stipulated time frame, but the response allegedly remains pending.
The standard time limit to get a reply under the RTI Act, 2005, is 30 days from the date the application is received by the Public Information Officer (PIO).
The application was filed by Dattatreya T Devare, an environmentalist, on January 13, 2026, seeking some documents pertaining to the proposed Ballari Road tunnel project. However, the officer allegedly forwarded the application to the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA).
The GBA Public Information Officer wrote letters to personal assistants of Additional Commissioners (Development), Bengaluru North City Corporation, Bengaluru South City Corporation, Bengaluru East City Corporation, Bengaluru West City Corporation, Bengaluru Central City Corporation and the Chief Engineer (Planning and Coordination) of the Greater Bengaluru Authority.
A copy of the letter was sent to Dattatreya T Devare on January 23, 2026. “I used the same copy to send a reminder to the Bengaluru East City Corporation. The Executive Engineer (KR Puram) of BECC wrote a letter to the Assistant Executive Engineer directing him to provide the information sought by me and also forwarded the copy of the letter to me on July 7, 2026. However, I am yet to receive a reply even after two months,” said Devare, adding that he wrote a reminder in the last letter, which kept going from one office to another before returning to him.
Commenting on the delay in providing information, HM Venkatesh of Naija Horatagarara Vedike noted that authorities are supposed to provide information sought by applicants under the RTI Act within a stipulated time.
“They can forward the application to the department concerned if they do not have the information sought by the applicant. Section 6(3) of the RTI Act requires a public authority to transfer an RTI application to another relevant department within five days if the requested information is held by them or relates to their functions,” said Venkatesh.

Goshamahal school’s Rs 10 lakh toilets exist only on paper: RTI

The Siasat Daily: Hyderabad: Tuesday, 22^th September 2026.
Only remnants of unfinished construction material were reportedly found at the site marked for the toilets, with no functional structure in place.

An RTI query has revealed that Rs 10 lakh sanctioned for the construction of toilets at a government-aided school in Hyderabad’s Goshamahal constituency was marked “completed” in official records, despite no structure being constructed. The toilets in use at the school have now been built by the school management itself, not with the sanctioned funds.
The query, filed by Harish Singh Jamedar under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, sought details of works funded through the Goshamahal MLA’s local development funds.
The response he received reportedly shows that Rs 10 lakh was sanctioned on October 1, 2018, for the construction of two eco-green toilets at the Marwadi Hindi Vidyalaya High School, with the executing agency listed as the chairman of the Telangana State Slum Clearance Board and the status recorded as “completed.”
On visiting the school, however, only remnants of unfinished construction material were reportedly found at the site marked for the toilets, with no functional structure in place.
B Sandhya, identified in the video as the school’s in-charge, told the visiting resident that the toilets currently in use at the school were built by the school management using its own funds, and that no toilets were provided through the MLA’s office despite the official paperwork.
Goshamahal is represented by Raja Singh, who has held the seat since 2014. He was a BJP MLA at the time the funds were reportedly sanctioned in 2018, but resigned from the party in mid-2025 and currently sits as an Independent MLA.

Over 71 per centadministrative postsvacant in NMC: RTI

The Hitavada: Nagpur: Tuesday, 22^th September 2026.

Citizens bear the brunt of multi-charge system: IN A startling revelation exposing severe administrative paralysis within the city’s civic body, an inquiry under the Right to Information (RTI) Act has disclosed that a staggering 71.26 per cent of regular sanctioned posts in the Nagpur M u n i c i p a l Corporation (NMC) are currently lying vacant. The acute human resource crunch has forced single officers to juggle portfolios across multiple critical departments, severely crippling daily civic governance, basic public amenities, and infrastructure delivery across Nagpur.
The official data, furnished by the Public Information Officer and officials of NMC’s General Administration Department to RTI activist Sanjay Thul, details the working and vacancy status across Class 1 to Class 4cadres as of September 1, 2026, benchmarked against the statutory staffing pattern(Akrutibandh) approved on May 10, 2023. Out of 9,321 sanctioned regular posts across Class 1 to Class 4, barely 2,678 personnel are currently on active payroll, leaving 6,643 posts vacant. The vacancy profile paints an alarming picture across all administrative tiers: Class 1 (Senior Officers): Out of 309 sanctioned posts, 194 positions (62.78 per cent) remain unoccupied, leaving just 115 officers to steer policymaking and supervisory roles.
Class 2 (Mid-Level Officers): Out of 229 sanctioned posts, 177 positions (77.29 per cent) lie vacant. Only 52 personnel are working, of whom 10 are school teachers deputed to these posts. Class 3 (Clerical, Field and Technical Staff): Considered the administrative backbone directly interfacing with the public, this cadre has 4,560 vacant posts (69.78 per cent) out of 6,534 sanctioned positions. Only 1,974 employees are active, including 310 teachers. Class 4 (General Support Staff): Out of 2,249 posts, a massive 1,712 (76.12 per cent) are vacant, with only 537 personnel working. Because nearly four out of every five Class 1 and Class 2 supervisory positions are vacant, executive engineers and assistant commissioners are routinely burdened with additional charges spanning three to four disparate civic departments. This has led to compromised oversight, extensive delays in issuing town planning permissions and property tax corrections, and mounting pendency of development files. Ordinary citizens visiting the civic headquarters and zonal offices are regularly turned away due to the physical absence of officers attending field meetings or handling overlapping portfolios.
Sanitation Wing also short of hands: Beyond the regular administrative ranks, the field sanitation workforce is also grappling with acute deficits. Out of 8,660 sanctioned posts for sweepers and sanitation workers, 2,162 positions (24.96 per cent) remain vacant, directly hitting solid waste collection, street sweeping, and desilting drives in expanding suburbs. When accounting for both administrative personnel and sanitation workers, the civic body is operating with an overall vacancy deficit of 49.02 per cent, with 8,805 out of 17,981 total posts vacant.

Liquor outlets rise across seven J&K excise ranges since 2021, RTI reveals: By Syed Rizwan Geelani

Greater Kashmir: Srinagar: Tuesday, 22^th September 2026.
The RTI responses obtained from seven excise ranges show that the number of liquor shops in these jurisdictions rose from 118 in 2021-22 to 180 in 2025-26, an increase of nearly 53 per cent. The figure stood at 183 by August 2026 across the seven ranges.

The number of liquor shops has increased substantially across several excise ranges of Jammu and Kashmir since 2021, with the sharpest growth recorded in parts of Jammu and the Chenab region, according to information furnished by the Excise Department under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The RTI responses obtained from seven excise ranges show that the number of liquor shops in these jurisdictions rose from 118 in 2021-22 to 180 in 2025-26, an increase of nearly 53 per cent. The figure stood at 183 by August 2026 across the seven ranges.
The data, however, does not indicate an increase in the overall number of retail liquor vends in J&K, as the Excise Department had stated in March 2025 that the UT-wide number of JKEL-2 retail vends had remained at 305 since 2023-24, with 291 in Jammu and 14 in Kashmir.
The RTI replies show that the City Excise Range, North Jammu had the highest number of liquor shops among the seven ranges, increasing from 68 in 2021-22 to 84 in 2025-26.
In Kathua, the number rose from 15 to 31, while the Rajouri-Poonch range saw an increase from 13 to 26 over the same period.
The Doda-Kishtwar-Ramban range recorded an increase from 12 shops in 2021-22 to 23 in 2025-26.
In Kashmir, the Srinagar-Budgam-Ganderbal range reported an increase from 10 shops in 2021 to 16 in 2025, with the figure remaining 16 in the response for 2026 till August 15.
The Baramulla-Kupwara-Bandipora range, which reported no liquor shop in 2021, had four by 2023 and continued to have four in 2024, 2025 and 2026.
The Anantnag-Pulwama-Shopian-Kulgam range also reported no shop in 2021, but had two from 2023 onwards.
The range-wise data also shows a substantial rise in excise revenue.
Across the seven ranges, combined revenue reported for 2021-22 was about Rs 381.6 crore, compared with approximately Rs 612 crore in 2025-26, based on the figures furnished by the respective Excise and Taxation Officers.
The North Jammu range alone reported revenue of Rs 237.94 crore in 2025-26, up from Rs 173.89 crore in 2021-22.
Kathua's revenue rose from Rs 69.02 crore to Rs 100.19 crore, while Doda-Kishtwar-Ramban reported an increase from Rs 35.43 crore to Rs 60.84 crore.
Rajouri-Poonch recorded Rs 65.90 crore in 2025-26, against Rs 43.78 crore in 2021-22.
In the Kashmir ranges covered by the RTI, Srinagar-Budgam-Ganderbal reported Rs 81.68 crore in 2025, compared with Rs 59.51 crore in 2021. Baramulla-Kupwara-Bandipora reported Rs 5.64 crore in 2025, while the Anantnag range reported Rs 9.03 crore.
The 2026 figures in the RTI are only up to August 15 or August 31, depending on the range, and therefore are not comparable with full-year figures.
The Excise Department says its policy is not to encourage indiscriminate growth in consumption of intoxicants, but to regulate existing consumption and ensure that consumers use legally regulated sources rather than illicitly distilled or non-duty-paid liquor.
The J&K Government has also continued to rely on e-auctions for retail liquor vends. For 2025-26, the Excise Department issued a notice for 305 JKEL-2 retail vends, with the government subsequently reiterating that the number had not increased from the 2023-24 level.
At the same time, liquor remains an important source of government revenue. The Excise Department's official revenue portal lists excise revenue receipts of Rs 2269.93 crore for 2024-25 and a budget figure of Rs 2280.85 crore for 2025-26.
Official data reported earlier this year also showed that more than 5.63 crore liquor bottles were sold across civil, CSD and paramilitary outlets in J&K up to January 2026 during 2025-26.
The RTI material also highlights manpower shortages in the Excise Department.
The Kathua Excise Range, for instance, has 23 vacancies against a sanctioned strength of 36, while the Doda-Kishtwar-Ramban range has 14 vacancies against 24 sanctioned posts.
The Srinagar-Budgam-Ganderbal range has eight vacancies against 35 sanctioned posts. The Baramulla-Kupwara-Bandipora response also shows vacancies in its divisional establishment, while the North Jammu range's cadre statement records significant vacancies, particularly among Excise Guards.
The RTI responses say the department undertakes raids, inspections and naka checking at vulnerable locations to detect and prevent illegal transportation and trafficking of liquor and drugs.
They also cite the Social Responsibility Corpus Fund under the 2026-27 Excise Policy for activities including rehabilitation of families involved in illicit liquor trade and support for awareness, counselling and drug de-addiction programmes.
The RTI disclosures come amid renewed public and political debate over liquor sales in J&K. In February, the government told the Legislative Assembly that there was no proposal to open new wine shops in the next financial year.
The government has also previously said that prohibition could have implications for revenue, smuggling, illegal distillation and sectors including tourism and hospitality.
The latest RTI figures therefore point to a more complex picture than a simple increase in the total number of liquor shops: while the overall sanctioned retail-vend count has remained unchanged in recent years, the number of outlets reported within several individual excise ranges has increased markedly, alongside higher revenue collections.

When the right to information meets silence: Mphatso Mkwende

Malawi24: Malawi: Monday, 21^th September 2026.

Malawi’s Access to Information law was enacted to give citizens the right to seek information from public institutions. But what happens when public institutions do not respond?
Access to information exists to make government more open, transparent and accountable.
For journalists, citizens and civil society organizations, the Access to Information (ATI) Act provides a legal framework to ask public institutions for information that matters to the public.
But putting that right into practice can be a different story
As par of this investigation, interviews were conducted with people who had actually used the ATI legal framework to request information from public institutions.
Their experiences reveal the practical barriers they faced when seeking information.
Separately, ATI requests were submitted to 10 public institutions to test how effectively the right to information works in practice. The test requests form part of the wider investigation and were used alongside the experiences of information seekers and documentary evidence.
The findings reveal a troubling pattern: too often, information seekers are met with silence, delays or incomplete answers.
The numbers:
35%-No response
More than a third of the reported reasons why information requests failed involved institutions that did not respond.
20%-Delays
Delays were the second most common problem, making it difficult for information seekers to obtain information when they needed it.
10%-Incomplete information
Some responses provided only part of the information requested.
10%-Officials unavailable
In some cases, access was affected by the unavailability of officials.
Other reasons recorded included confidentiality, court delays, permission requirements, security concerns.
When silence becomes a barrier
A refusal is visible. Silence is harder to challenge.
When an institution does not respond to an ATI request, the requester is left without the information and may have to spend additional time following up, escalating the matter or pursuing other avenues.
For journalists, this can have a direct impact on investigations.
A story about public spending, service delivery or government decisions may depend on documents held by a public institution. If those documents are delayed or never provided, the investigation can stall.
This raises an important question:
What is the value of a legal right if exercising that right does not consistently produce information?
A water supply request shows why information matters
One request examined intermittent water supply in Chiuzira area in Liongwe.
The request sought information on whether the Lilongwe Water Board had received complaints or requests concerning the water situation, why residents were experiencing running water mainly at night, and what measures were being taken to address the problem.
These are not merely administrative questions.
They are questions about public service delivery and accountability.
Residents experiencing unreliable water supplies have a legitimate interest in knowing what is causing the problem and what the responsible institution is doing about it.
ATI provides a mechanism for seeking those answers.
But the effectiveness of that mechanism depends on institutions responding meaningfully and within the required framework.
The problem is bigger than one request
The pattern emerging from the requests suggests that accessing information is not always a straightforward process.
Requests can encounter delays, incomplete responses, unavailable officials and requirements for additional permission.
In other cases, information may be withheld on grounds such as confidentiality or security.
Some of these restrictions may be legitimate where provided for by law. The concern is whether such grounds are being applied consistently, transparently and in accordance with the ATI framework.
The investigation therefore points to an important distinction:
Having a right to request information is not the same as having effective access to information.
What the evidence tells us
The findings point to three key problems.
1. Non-response is undermining the right
The fact that 35% of reported request failures involved no response is significant. An unanswered request provides neither the requested information nor a clear explanation to the information seeker.
2. Delays reduce the value of information
For journalists and citizens seeking information about current issues, timing matters. Information received after a story, decision or public controversy has passed may have significantly less practical value.
3. Implementation matters as much as legislation
The ATI Act provides the legal framework. But its success ultimately depends on public institutions implementing that framework and information seekers being able to use it effectively.
The bigger picture
Evidence from ATI-related reports and engagement with oversight and media stakeholders points to broader challenges in implementation, including concerns around enforcement, awareness and utilization of the law.
The problem, therefore, cannot be solved simply by telling citizens to submit more requests.
Public institutions must also recognize that responding to lawful information requests is part of their responsibility to the public.
Journalists and citizens, meanwhile, need greater awareness of the law and the mechanisms available when information is not provided.
A right that must work in practice
Access to information is often described as a foundation for transparency and accountability.
But transparency cannot exist where information is routinely delayed, incomplete or simply unanswered.
The findings from this investigation suggest that Malawi’s ATI challenge is no longer only about whether the right exists.
It is about whether the right works.
For the citizen waiting for answers, the journalist trying to complete an investigation and the community demanding accountability, the test of the Access to Information Act is simple:
When information is requested, does it actually reach the person who asked for it?
The data suggests that, too often, the answer is no.
Acknowledgement: This report was produced with support from the Hivos Connect, Defend, Act! programme. If you have similar investigative tips, please email editor@malawi24.com

Pune Civic Committees Spend ₹3.2 Lakh On Tea Without Tenders, RTI Reveals: Varad Bhatkhande

FPJ: Pune: Monday, 21^th September 2026.
The Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) spent ₹3.2 lakh on tea and snacks served during subject committee meetings, but the expenses were approved without inviting tenders or following a formal quotation process, information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act has revealed

The Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) spent ₹3.2 lakh on tea and snacks served during subject committee meetings, but the expenses were approved without inviting tenders or following a formal quotation process, information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act has revealed.
The highest spending was recorded for Standing Committee meetings, which accounted for ₹2.70 lakh of the total tea expenditure. The information was obtained by Umesh Naik, a member of the RTI Forum, through an RTI application. The details were provided by the PMC Municipal Secretary Department.
Standing Committee tea bill crosses ₹2.7 lakh
According to the information, ₹2,70,140 was spent on tea served during Standing Committee meetings. Other committees also incurred expenses on tea and refreshments. The Naming Committee spent ₹15,716, while the Legal Committee spent ₹14,134.
The City Improvement Committee spent ₹10,248 on tea. The Women and Child Welfare Committee spent ₹8,788. The Sports Committee had the lowest recorded expenditure, with a tea bill of ₹420. Together, the expenses across the committees amounted to around ₹3.20 lakh.
The RTI information has raised questions over the procedure used by the civic body to approve these bills. According to the information provided, PMC normally invites tenders or obtains quotations for various expenses. However, a similar formal process is not followed for tea and refreshments provided during committee meetings.
The bills submitted by hotel vendors are also paid without reconciliation of the actual quantity of tea and refreshments served, according to the information cited by Naik. The process does not establish a clear comparison between the quantity supplied and the amount billed before payments are made.
RTI activist seeks transparency
Naik has demanded greater transparency in the system used for approving tea and refreshment bills.
The expenditure has come to light through the RTI application and raises questions about how such recurring expenses are authorised and verified within the civic body.
The information relates to tea expenses incurred for meetings of various PMC subject committees.