Why Allahabad High Court refused to release answer sheets of higher judicial service exam under RTI

Indian Express: Allahabad: Tuwsday, May 05, 2026.

The Allahabad High Court recently set aside an order passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC), which had directed the disclosure of evaluated answer sheets of the UP Higher Judicial Service Examination, 2009, under the Right to Information Act, 2005. A bench of Justices Ajit Kumar and Indrajeet Shukla held that the higher judicial services examination is sacrosanct and confidentiality has to be maintained.

The Allahabad High Court was hearing a plea against a Central Informa“We find that the examination conducted to the High Court namely the Higher Judicial Services Examination are sacrosanct and confidentiality and sanctity has to be maintained even while ensuring transparency, supply of the answer books, under no circumstances is necessary,” the court held in its order dated April 17.

The Allahabad High Court was hearing a plea against the order passed by the CIC, New Delhi, directing the disclosure of photocopies of evaluated answer sheets of UP Higher Judicial Service Examination, 2009, after masking all the references to the examiners. tion Commission order directing the disclosure of photocopies of evaluated answer sheets of the exam, after masking all references to examiners.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that in view of the provisions contained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and looking to its object, once the marks obtained by a candidate are disclosed, then there is sufficient information regarding the marks obtained. It was further submitted that if a candidate has doubts regarding the difference in the marks given in tabulation sheets or otherwise published and the marks allocated in the answer sheets or answer book in a public examination, perusal of the answer books/sheets would suffice. It was argued that the rules framed for facilitating the disposal of applications made under the Right to Information Act (RTI) provide that any applicant seeking information will be furnished with the information requested for, if the furnishing of such information is requested with a positive assertion that the motive for obtaining such information is proper and legal. Also, it is not likely to disproportionately divert the resources of the Allahabad High Court or the subordinate court, as the case might be, and that it is not likely to be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the records in question, and not otherwise against any law or practice prevailing, it was stated. The petitioner’s counsel further contended that if there was no practice of providing copies of the answer books of the higher judicial service examination, the supply of answer books by masking the reference to the examiners could not have been directed.

‘Not necessary’ The Allahabad High Court bench noted that while the RTI Act aims to promote transparency, it must be balanced with maintaining the confidentiality and sanctity of judicial examinations.

If any candidate has any grievance after perusing the answer sheets, such candidate can always put notes in his own diary for the purposes of further grievance in the matter, if he may so desire but providing the answer books is not necessary, more especially when the rules do not provide for the same,” the Allahabad High Court said. It further remarked that there has been no established practice of furnishing such copies in judicial service examinations.

“We also find that there has never been any practice to provide for copies of answer books to candidate in respect of High Judicial Examination conducted by the High Court. Hence, under the the Rules framed by the High Court for giving information under Right to Information Act, 2005 copy of answer books can not be supplied,” the bench held. The court therefore allowed the plea and quashed the order directing disclosure of evaluated answer sheets. “The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 04.04.2013 passed by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi is hereby quashed,’ the Allahabad High Court ruled.

GIDC officials fined after RTI info denied due to missing file.

Times of India: Panaji: Tuesday, May 05, 2026.
Goa State Information Commission (SIC) on Monday directed the managing director of Goa Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) to conduct a thorough inquiry against staff and officers for failing to maintain records and fix responsibility. 

The direction came after information sought under RTI was denied as the file was reported missing. SIC imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 jointly on the assistant public information officer (APIO) and public information officer (PIO) of GIDC for denial of information under the Right to Information Act.

It also directed the PIO to reconstruct the missing file and provide the documents to appellant Vithal Prabhu Desai. “The drawal and disbursal authority at the GIDC is hereby directed to proportionally recover penalty to the tune of Rs 25,000 jointly from both the officers on or before May 20 and submit compliance to that effect on May 26 at 11 am through any authorised representative,” state information commissioner Atmaram Barve said.

Aggrieved by the lack of response from the PIO and APIO, the appellant filed a second appeal before the commission. The APIO and PIO, Sohan Uskaikar and Jeetendra Gawandalkar, contended that the documents sought were in the custody of the APIO and that the file may have been misplaced or lost. They also submitted a certificate from the police inspector of Panaji police station regarding a complaint filed on the missing GIDC documents. The appellant presented objections to the replies filed by the APIO and PIO from time to time.

MSN.CON: New Delhi: Monday, May 04, 2026.

रूस से भारत के तेल आयात के डेटा को लेकर पारदर्शिता पर बहस छिड़ गई है। अधिकारियों ने सूचना का अधिकार (RTI) अधिनियम के तहत इसे लेकर आंकड़े साझा करने से इनकार कर दिया है। पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय के तहत काम करने वाले पेट्रोलियम प्‍लानिंग एंड एनालिसिस सेल (PPAC) ने इसके पीछे तर्क दिया है। प्रकोष्‍ठ का कहना है कि ऐसी जानकारी व्यावसायिक रूप से संवेदनशील है। इसे सार्वजनिक रूप से जाहिर नहीं किया जा सकता। केंद्रीय सूचना आयोग (सीआईसी) ने इस रुख का समर्थन किया है। ऐसा करते हुए व्यापक राष्ट्रीय और भू-राजनीतिक पहलुओं का हवाला दिया है।

क्या था मामला?

यह मामला एक आरटीआई आवेदन से जुड़ा है। इसमें जून 2022 से जून 2025 के बीच रूस से भारत आने वाले कच्चे तेल की खेप के बारे में विस्तृत जानकारी मांगी गई थी।

पीटीआई की रिपोर्ट के अनुसार, इस अनुरोध में विशेष रूप से कंपनी-वार ब्योरा मांगा गया था।

इसमें आईओसीएल, बीपीसीएल, एचपीसीएल, ओएनजीसी विदेश, रिलायंस इंडस्‍ट्रीज और नायरा एनर्जी जैसी प्रमुख कंपनियां शामिल थीं।

हालांकि, केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (CPIO) ने इस अनुरोध को खारिज करते हुए कहा: 'कच्चे तेल के आयात से संबंधित देश-वार और कंपनी-वार जानकारी व्यावसायिक और गोपनीय प्रकृति की है। आरटीआई अधिनियम 2005 के सेक्शन 8(1) (डी) और 8 (1) (ई) के तहत इसे जाहिर करने से छूट हासिल है। हालांकि, कच्चे तेल के आयात की कुल मात्रा और मूल्य (वर्तमान और ऐतिहासिक दोनों) पीपीएसी की वेबसाइट से डाउनलोड किए जा सकते हैं।'

आवेदक ने क्या दिया था तर्क?

सुनवाई के दौरान आवेदक ने तर्क दिया कि इस क्षेत्र के कामकाज को समझने के लिए ऐसे डेटा तक पहुंच जरूरी है। इसके बावजूद आयोग ने जानकारी जाहिर न करने के पक्ष में फैसला सुनाया।

अपने अंतरिम आदेश में सीआईसी ने कहा कि जानकारी जाहिर करने से रणनीतिक और आर्थिक हितों पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव पड़ेगा। साथ ही दूसरे देशों के साथ संबंधों पर भी असर पड़ेगा। इस बात पर जोर दिया कि यह मुद्दा संवेदनशील भू-राजनीतिक समीकरणों से जुड़ा हुआ है।

आयोग ने आरटीआई अधिनियम की धारा 8(1)(ए) और 8(1)(डी) के तहत दी गई छूट को बरकरार रखा। यह निष्कर्ष निकाला कि इस मामले में कोई अतिरिक्त राहत नहीं दी जा सकती।

सरकार के रुख का समर्थन पर इसलिए जताई चिंंता

गोपनीयता पर सरकार के रुख का समर्थन करते हुए भी आयोग ने प्रक्रियागत चूकों को लेकर चिंताएं जताईं। आयोग ने पीपीएसी के अधिकारी को कारण बताओ नोटिस जारी किया। कारण है कि पूर्व सूचना दिए जाने के बावजूद वह सुनवाई में उपस्थित नहीं हुए थे। आयोग ने पूछा कि आरटीआई अधिनियम की धारा 20(1) के तहत उनके खिलाफ कार्रवाई क्यों न की जाए।

इसके अलावा, सीआईसी ने जानकारी को सक्रिय रूप से जाहिर करने के मामले में भी कमियां पाईं। इसमें यह बताया गया कि जवाब देने वाले की वेबसाइट पर 'सूचना का अधिकार' टैब में कोई जानकारी उपलब्ध नहीं है। अथॉरिटी को निर्देश दिया गया कि वह आरटीआई एक्ट, 2005 के सेक्‍शन 4 का पालन सुनिश्चित करे।

सेक्‍शन 25(5) के तहत अपनी शक्तियों का इस्तेमाल करते हुए आयोग ने अथॉरिटी को सलाह दी कि वह अपनी तरफ से दी जाने वाली जानकारियों को और बेहतर बनाए। इनमें संगठन से जुड़ी जानकारी, भूमिकाएं और जिम्‍मेदाररियां, अधिकारियों की शक्तियां, दस्तावेजों की श्रेणियां, कर्मचारियों की सूची और वेतन संरचनाएं प्रकाशित करना शामिल है।

Telangana RTI Cases: One lakh applications disposed, more by May 15.

Edexlive: Nalagonda: Monday, May 4, 2026.

Chief Information Commissioner G Chandrashekar Reddy said they now targeting to resolve most of 10,000 pending cases by May 15 to strengthen citizen oversight. 

Telangana has responded to one lakh out of 1,20,000 applications it received under the Right to Information Act in the last two years, according to state Chief Information Commissioner G Chandrashekar Reddy.

The information commissioner revealed this while speaking at an awareness session on the RTI Act organised for the benefit of Public Information Officers (PIOs) and administrative bodies at the Nalgonda collectorate on Tuesday.

He also said that in the last 10 months alone, the State Information Commission resolved 15,000 cases.

“In the last two years, the State Information Commission visited 18 districts and resolved all cases pending for the last five years. Action was also taken against 15 Public Information Officers (PIOs) who intentionally withheld information,” he said.

“Currently, 10,000 cases are pending with the Commission. All the cases, except those related to Revenue and Municipal departments, would be resolved by May 15,” he added.

Describing the Right to Information (RTI) Act as a powerful weapon in the hands of citizens to seek and ensure transparency and accountability within the administration, he said that the people also have the authority to inspect records and field-level works.

Retired IAS officer Sathyavathi G. is new Chief Information Commissioner

The Hindu: Bengaluru: Sunday, 03 May 2026.

The Punjab State Information Commission (PSIC) has issued a showcause notice under Section
Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot has appointed retired IAS officer Sathyavathi G. as the Chief Information Commissioner of the Karnataka Information Commission.
A notification issued by the State government said that the terms and conditions of the State Chief Information Commissioner's office will be governed by Section 16 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

RTI non-compliance: Officer gets showcause notice, warrant warning

Times of India: Patiala: Sunday, 03 May 2026.

The Punjab State Information Commission (PSIC) has issued a showcause notice under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the office the Block Development and Panchayat Officer (BDPO), Nabha, for continued failure to furnish complete information to an RTI appellant, and warned that a bailable warrant will follow if the officer fails to comply at the next hearing on June 11.
The order was passed by state information commissioner Harpreet Singh Sandhu during a video conference hearing in appeal case No. 1069 of 2024. The appellant, Gurpreet Singh of Thuhi village of Nabha, Patiala, appeared through the platform. None of the respondents, neither the PIO of Block Nabha nor any representative of the First Appellate Authority, appeared or sent any intimation to the Commission.
Gurpreet Singh had filed a RTI application (No. 97111) seeking information from the Office of the BDPO, Nabha block of Patiala. The First Appellate Authority in the matter was the Office of the District Development and Panchayat Officer (DDPO), Patiala. When his application did not yield complete results through the department's appeal mechanism, Gurpreet Singh escalated the matter to the PSIC. The case passed through multiple adjournments, with the Bench's previous order dated Dec 12 2025. The matter was then adjourned to Feb 12 this year, again to Feb 24, and reached its hearing in March this year.
Gurpreet Singh told the commission that in compliance with the previous order, he communicated the deficiencies in the information supplied, in writing, to the notice of the PIO. He said the concerned panchayat secretary subsequently provided some information pertaining to those deficiencies. However, he maintained that the information remained incomplete, and requested the commission to take action against the respondent PIO for willful delay and denial. "The respondent PIO remained absent from the proceedings and provided no prior intimation. The Commission found the conduct unacceptable," said a source.
The commission also directed the PIO to provide the complete certified information to the appellant, appear in person on the next hearing date, and file a written reply to the notice. The order stated that failure to comply will result in the issuance of a bailable warrant.
When questioned, Nabha BDPO JS Dhillon said he has joined recently, but assured that he will look into the matter.

Supal inspector fined Rs 25k for rejecting RTI request

Times of India: Patna: Sunday, 03 May 2026.
State information commissioner Prakash Kumar has imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 on the then public information officer-cum-police inspector, Vasudev Ram, for violating the Right to Information (RTI) Act in Supaul district.

SIC Bihar Prakash Kumar

During the hearing, it emerged that the appellant, Nikesh Kumar Jha, had sought information on three points through registered post. However, the officer concerned allegedly refused to accept the application, prompting the appellant to file both first and second appeals.
In the course of the proceedings, the commission sought an explanation from Vasudev Ram, who claimed that the registered mail had never reached him. To verify this claim, the commission summoned the postman, Laldeo Ram, along with supporting evidence.
Appearing before the commission, the postman stated that when he went to deliver the registered letter, officials present in the office, including Vasudev Ram, refused to accept it, forcing him to return the mail.
Based on the postman’s testimony and the evidence presented, the commission concluded that Vasudev Ram had deliberately refused to receive the RTI application, amounting to a serious violation of the RTI Act.
Accordingly, the commission imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 and directed that the order be communicated to the Supaul DM, SP, treasury officer, and the accountant general for further action.

Delhi HC rules husband’s income details cannot be disclosed with estranged wife under RTI

The Hindu: New Delhi: Saturday, 02 May 2026.
Income details of an individual do not fall under the purview of ‘larger public interest’, thus remains exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, the court rules

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a man’s net taxable income details cannot be disclosed to his estranged wife under the RTI Act, holding that income tax returns are personal information exempt from disclosure.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the order on April 28 while hearing a petition filed by a man challenging the July 22, 2021 decision of the Central Information Commission ordering disclosure of details of his net taxable income for the financial year 2007-08 and onwards.
The case stemmed from an ongoing matrimonial dispute, with the wife seeking maintenance and arguing that she had a legitimate interest in knowing her husband’s income details to pursue her claim.
The husband contended that the information sought was personal and exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act, which bars release of personal information unrelated to public interest, or that would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
The court ruled that the information directed to be disclosed, by way of the CIC order, does not fall under the exception of “larger public interest”. It said the RTI Act was enacted to promote transparency.

CIC Raps ICMR Over Missing Rotavirus Trial Data, Calls RTI Handling Cavalier, Seeks Affidavit : By Sheeba Farhat

 Medical Dialogues: New Delhi: Saturday, 02 May 2026.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) pulled up the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) for claiming that participant-level data on a rotavirus vaccine trial is "not maintained".

The ICMR said this in response to an RTI plea seeking statistical details of trial outcomes, including cases of intussusception (a condition where part of the intestine slides into another, causing blockage).
The CIC termed the handling of the RTI plea as "cavalier". It directed the ICMR to conduct a fresh search for the records and file an affidavit confirming their nonavailability if they are not found.
The case pertains to an RTI application filed by RTI activist Amrita Johri seeking details of a clinical trial of the 116E strain of rotavirus conducted with government funding and registered with the Clinical Trial Registry of India.
The applicant had sought data on the number of children who received the vaccine and placebo in Vellore, Tamil Nadu, and on cases of intussusception recorded during the two year study period.
During the hearing, Information Commissioner Jaya Varma Sinha noted that neither the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) nor the First Appellate Authority had furnished a reply within the stipulated time under the RTI Act.
"The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that no reply has been given to the Appellant either by the CPIO or by the First Appellate Authority within the stipulated frame as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, the Commission expresses displeasure at the conduct of both the CPIO and FAA for treating the instant matter in a cavalier manner," the order said.
However, in its written submission, the ICMR said the Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI) maintains trial protocols and methodological details but does not hold participant-level data, adding that "the participant's data is not maintained in CTRI and hence the queries are not relevant to CTRI".
Taking note of the contention, the Commission directed the CPIO to make a thorough effort to trace the relevant records and provide the requested statistical information within three weeks, if available.
"On the contrary, if the relevant record is still not found, the CPIO is directed to submit an appropriate affidavit, on non-judicial stamp paper, deposing the factum of nonavailability of the relevant record," the Commission said.
Johri told PTI that she had sought details of the trial results, "especially the incidence of the risk of intestine obstruction," but received no response to her RTI application or first appeal.
She said, "The RTI application was filed more than 18 months ago. The ICMR also claimed that they did not maintain this information. In the hearing, it was pointed out that no personal details of the trial participants have been sought, only statistics regarding the results of the study."
She also flagged concerns over transparency, saying such information "should in any case be proactively published since this is an issue of great public interest due to its direct impact on our health".
According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), Rotavirus is the leading cause of severe, dehydrating diarrhoea in children under 5 years old.

Madhya Pradesh High Court: Employees Entitled To Access Their ACRs Under RTI- By : Himanshi Hans

Law Beat: Bhopal: Saturday, 02 May 2026.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that employees are entitled to access their own ACRs under RTI, rejecting privacy-based objections.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently reiterated that information relating to an employee’s Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) cannot be withheld under the Right to Information Act merely by invoking privacy concerns, holding that such records must ordinarily be disclosed to the concerned individual in the interest of fairness and transparency in public administration.
Deciding a writ petition filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, Justice Deepak Khot upheld an order of the State Information Commission directing disclosure of information sought by an applicant regarding his own ACRs. The State had challenged the Commission’s order dated December 1, 2009, contending that the information sought fell within the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which protects personal information from disclosure unless larger public interest justifies it.
The State argued that both the Public Information Officer and the appellate authority had rightly rejected the application, and that the Information Commission failed to record a finding of “objective satisfaction” showing that public interest outweighed privacy concerns, as required by the Supreme Court in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi.
However, the High Court found no merit in the State’s contention. It noted that the applicant had sought access to his own ACRs, and that the legal position on disclosure of such records had been clearly settled by the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India. Relying on this precedent, the Court emphasized that transparency in service matters is a necessary facet of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Quoting from Dev Dutt judgment, the Court observed that “fairness and transparency in public administration requires that all entries… in the annual confidential report of a public servant… must be communicated to him within a reasonable period so that he can make a representation for its upgradation.”
The Court underscored that this obligation exists irrespective of whether service rules expressly mandate disclosure or even prohibit it, since the constitutional guarantee against arbitrariness overrides such limitations. In this context, it held that denying access to one’s own ACR would defeat the very purpose of ensuring accountability and fairness in administrative decision-making.
Addressing the reliance placed by the State on the judgment in Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi, the Court clarified that the requirement of balancing public interest against privacy arises in cases where disclosure may intrude upon confidential or third-party information. In contrast, the present case involved an employee seeking access to his own performance records, which could not be equated with an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
The Court further noted that the Supreme Court itself had acknowledged that certain categories of information, particularly those concerning appointments or third-party disclosures made in confidence, may warrant protection. However, ACRs stand on a different footing, as they directly impact an employee’s career progression and must therefore be made accessible.
It observed that in the absence of communication of ACR entries by the employer, an employee is left with no option but to invoke the RTI mechanism. In such circumstances, rejecting the request on technical grounds such as absence of recorded satisfaction on public interest would be unjustified.
“The applicant has sought information in regard to his ACRs, which cannot be said to be invasion of privacy… The ACRs are required to be communicated to the employees,” the Court held.
Reaffirming the need to strike a balance between the right to privacy and the right to information, the Court emphasized that both rights emanate from constitutional values and must be harmonised. However, where the information sought pertains to the individual himself and serves the purpose of ensuring transparency and fairness, the balance tilts in favour of disclosure.
Finding no illegality in the order of the State Information Commission, the Court affirmed the same and dismissed the writ petition filed by the State, with no order as to costs.
Case Title: The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chief Information Commissioner and Others

RSF Says India’s Data Protection Law Cripples The Right To Information Act : By P. K. Balachandran

Eurasia Review: Chennai: Saturday, 02 May 2026.
Reporters Without Borders points out that whistle-blowers will be deterred by the requirement that the Right to Information Act can be invoked only with the express permission of the subject of enquiry.   

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has slammed India’s new data protection law in its latest report on freedom of information. The report points out that whistle- blowers will be deterred by the requirement that the Right to Information Act can be invoked only with the express permission of the subject of enquiry.  
The report for 2025-26 noted that there has been a deterioration in more than 60% of states — 110 out of 180 and is notably the case in India (157th), Egypt (169th), Israel (116th) and Georgia (135th).
“The criminalisation of journalism, which is rooted in circumventing press law and misusing emergency legislation and common law, is proving to be a global phenomenon,” RSF said.
Digital Personal Data Protection Act
The report recalled that twenty years ago, India improved transparency in public life with the Right to Information Act (RTI), which allows citizens and journalists to access and use certain types of personal data, provided the “larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.
However, in November 2025, the government published new rules to accompany the 2023 Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act). The new legal framework directly undermines the fundamentals of journalism by restricting access to, processing of, and publication of certain types of information that could be of interest to the public, starting with administrative documents, public archives, and all other information that could implicate public officials or institutions entrusted with a mission of general interest, the report said.
The most striking part of the new rules is that if journalists were investigating someone, they would be legally required to inform that person about the information being collected or used. This requirement would seriously hinder investigative reporting and could discourage whistleblowers from coming forward, RSF said.
Case in the Supreme Court
In response to this new threat to the right to information, The Reporters’ Collective, alongside several civil society organisations, journalists, and transparency advocates, filed petitions with the Indian Supreme Court to challenge these provisions.
The petitioners told the Court that the effectiveness of the RTI Act rests on two foundational principles: (1) that personal or sensitive information may be disclosed where a demonstrable public interest justifies such disclosure; and (2) that public authorities cannot invoke privacy or confidentiality as a blanket cover to shield illegality, corruption, or abuse of power.
The petitioners pointed out that investigations into corruption and maladministration often rely on access to records such as personnel files, asset disclosures, inspection reports, file notations, sanction orders, tender documents, and official correspondence. Almost all such records contain some element of personal information.
Before the enactment of the DPDP Act, 2023 and DPDP Rules, 2025, such information was disclosable where the public interest in transparency outweighed the individual’s privacy interest, as specified in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The Petitioners submitted that the freedom of speech and expression, including the freedom of the press, and the right to information are core fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
“This Hon’ble Court has consistently held that a free, independent, fearless, and robust press is essential to constitutional democracy and informed public participation,” they pointed out.
The investigative work undertaken by the Petitioners is not carried out in isolation and is fundamentally dependent on the active assistance of on-ground reporters, citizens, researchers, whistleblowers, RTI activists, civil society organisations, and other stakeholders, without whose participation such journalism would be impossible.
These actors help the Petitioners perform their journalistic functions by collecting data through lawful and recognised means, including the use of (i) RTI, (ii) document-based investigations, (iii) source-led reporting, and (iv) independent verification of information in the public interest.
“Several of these efforts, undertaken through collaborative and lawful means of collecting data for public purposes, including for journalistic purposes, have resulted in landmark investigative projects that have brought issues of grave public concern to light. Such petitions are of the utmost importance for Indian democracy as the case will determine whether and how the right to privacy can be invoked to restrict press freedom and citizens’ right to information,” the petitioners said.
The first hearing before the Indian Supreme Court took place on 23 March 2026, and the next is scheduled for 13 May.
Commenting on this, Celia Mercier, Head of RSF’s South Asia Desk, said, “The protection of personal information must not become a pretext for shielding government actions from scrutiny by journalists. RSF calls on the Indian government to amend the rules concerning the implementation of the DPDP Act to ensure they are compatible with press freedom and the right to information. Processing personal data for public interest purposes must be explicitly exempted from the restrictions and penalties applicable to other uses of such information. Without these safeguards, the law risks not only further weakening the press but depriving Indian citizens of their fundamental right to information.”

AAI withholds fresh obstacle data from RTI applicant

The Hindu: Chennai: Saturday, 02 May 2026.
The Airports Authority of India has refused to share data from a fresh obstacle survey around Surat airport under the RTI Act, citing third-party confidentiality, triggering concerns among citizens over public safety and property purchases.

The issue arose after a Surat resident seeking to buy an apartment in the Vesu or Althan areas filed a Right to Information application in March, seeking details of the latest Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) survey and a list of buildings classified as obstacles near the airport.
The AAI had begun the OLS survey for Surat airport in Aug, well ahead of its scheduled timeline of Jan 2026, after the Ahmedabad plane crash. While the survey has since been completed, details of newly identified obstacles have not been made public. The previous OLS survey at Surat airport was conducted in 2022.
In response to the RTI application, AAI's public information officer denied access to the verified and officially recorded obstacle height data, citing "third party" confidentiality provisions under the RTI Act.
Rajesh Modi, who has been closely monitoring OLS surveys over the past two decades, said the information has a direct bearing on public safety and citizens' financial security.
"I am thinking of buying a property in the area around the airport. It is Surat citizens' hard-earned money, which should not be wasted due to the lack of an obstacle list. It is the right of people to know which buildings are classed as obstacles. That is the heart of the OLS, which takes place every three to four years," he said.
The first OLS survey at Surat airport was conducted in 2007. Subsequent surveys were held in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, after a controversy over alleged illegal constructions that surfaced in 2016. The most recent survey before the current one was carried out in 2022. The latest survey, due in Jan 2026, was advanced and launched in August 2025.

Senior official penalised for delay in providing information under RTI Act

The Hindu: Chennai: Saturday, 02 May 2026.
Petitioner said the holding back of information led to her mother’s property being sold to a third party

The Tamil Nadu Information Commission has imposed a maximum penalty of ₹25,000 on the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Tiruvallur district, after a woman complained of an inordinate delay in providing information about her mother’s property.
The case pertains to the petition of Yashoda of Tiruvallur, who sought details of the town survey remarks, settlement file, approval noting among other details relating to a property owned by her mother in Periyakuppam on August 19, 2023. While the information called for should have been furnished within 30 days of the petition under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the woman said she got the response only on December 24, 2025.
After the petitioner moved an appeal before the Commission requesting action against the authorities concerned for the inordinate delay in providing information and suitable compensation under the Act, the State Information Commissioner R. Priyakumar summoned both parties for an inquiry.
During the hearing, the Public Information Officer/Survey Inspector informed the Commission that the post of PIO was lying vacant after the earlier official was transferred. Noting the supervisory officer should have ensured the charge (from the outgoing officer) was handed over to a substitute or a new PIO appointed in his place, Mr. Priyakumar ordered a compensation of ₹25,000 be given to the petitioner.
He directed the Director, Survey and Land Records, to recover a penalty amount from the then Assistant Director, Tiruvallur, for not taking timely action and keeping the post of PIO vacant for 5 months. The commission also called for an explanation why disciplinary action should not be taken against the Assistant Director for violating the provisions under the Act.

No records of RTI training being provided to PIOs

New Indian Express: Coimbatore: Friday, 01 May 2026.
PIO of DEE forwarded TNIE’s petition to district officers, asking them to provide the details instead of responding directly.

In a recent reply to a Right to Information (RTI) petition filed by TNIE, it was revealed that the Department of School Education has no details on the conduct of RTI training for its Public Information Officers (PIOs) in the respective education offices in previous years.
Following information from PIOs that the department had not conducted RTI training for them, TNIE sought details on how many RTI training programmes had been conducted for staff over the past two decades.
The PIO of the Directorate of Elementary Education (DEE) forwarded TNIE's petition to district-level officers, directing them to provide the details instead of furnishing the information themselves.
Notably, PIO of the director's office of school education said that it is considered that information can be provided only from current files and records under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
A PIO in office of a Chief Educational Officer in a district, on conditions of anonymity, told TNIE that in the two decades since the implementation of the RTI Act, the school education department has not provided RTI training to staff serving as PIOs.
He said that officers should regularly provide RTI training to ensure staffs are well-informed, and that proper training records should be maintained in offices. "As there has been no training, PIOs at the district level are unaware of the RTI Act. As a result, RTI petitioners do not receive proper information and instead get tactical information in a mechanical manner, with officials refusing to provide complete information or even giving false information. The objective of the RTI Act has been undermined, and citizens are unable to assess the department's transparency," he alleged.
"For instance, due to lack of knowledge, a block educational officer in a district had provided a teacher's personal details and photographs to a petitioner under the RTI Act. Before sharing such information, the PIO should have sought the concerned teacher's consent. If the department had provided regular training, these incidents would not have happened. There are several incidents like this," he pointed out.
RTI activist P Arulkumar said, "The school education department has already clarified under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act that 'information' includes any material in any form, including records, memos, emails, circulars, orders, log books, etc., which can be provided to applicants. But, in reply to TNIE's petition, they said that only current files and records are considered and can be provided under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It is a contradiction and shows that officer is unaware of RTI Act," he alleged.
"Central Information Commission said that advocates cannot use the RTI Act by filing applications to seek details related to cases they are handling for their clients. But whether PIOs in this department are aware of this or not," he said.
School education secretary B Chandra Mohan was not available for comment.

PIC penalises LDA officer for ‘wilful’ RTI violations : By Asif Mehmood Butt

News Pakistan: Lahore: Friday, 01 May 2026.

The Punjab Information Commission building. The News/File

The Punjab Information Commission (PIC) has imposed a fine of Rs50,000 on a senior official of the Lahore Development Authority (LDA) for persistent failure to provide information sought under the Punjab Transparency and Right to Information Act 2013, in a case that underscores systemic gaps in compliance with transparency laws.
The penalty was awarded to the Public Information Officer (PIO) and Deputy Director Saad Bin Tariq in a complaint filed by citizen Mehr Muhammad Nadeem who had sought inspection of project sites and official records related to multiple development schemes in Lahore.
According to the commission’s detailed order issued on April 6, 2026, the complaint had remained pending since November 11, 2025, and was fixed for hearing on eight occasions. The PIO appeared only once on January 14, 2026 to seek time for compliance but failed to attend subsequent hearings or respond to a show-cause notice issued under Section 15 of the RTI law. Consequently, the commission imposed a fine of Rs50,000 on the PIO, directing that the amount be deducted from his salary. When contacted, Saad Bin Tariq denied knowledge of the development.

Punjab info panel recommends action against Kharar EO for RTI delay : By Hillary Victor

Hindustan Times: Chandigarh: Friday, 01 May 2026.
The commission granted the state government the liberty to transfer or reassign the staff concerned, including the EO, if deemed necessary
The Punjab state information commission (PSIC) has recommended disciplinary action against the executive officer (EO) of Kharar municipal council and other officials for delay in processing Right to Information (RTI) applications, and repeatedly ignoring the commission’s directions.

The case was filed by Rajiv Mohammad of Kharar, Mohali, who sought information related to administrative and local issues concerning the functioning of the nagar council.
EO Sukhdev Singh, who also serves as the public information officer (PIO) of the nagar council, was named the respondent.
After not receiving the requested information, the appellant approached the first appellate authority – Mohali additional deputy commissioner (urban development) – and later filed a second appeal before the commission.
Despite a formal notice sent through registered post, the EO failed to submit a reply, take action on the RTI application or appear before the commission on January 22, 2026.
Taking a serious view of the non-compliance, the commission issued a show-cause notice to the officer and scheduled another hearing on March 19, 2026. However, the EO again failed to appear, and no written submissions or representation were made on his behalf. The commission observed that such repeated absence indicated a willful disregard of its orders and a clear violation of the RTI Act.
Following this, chief information commissioner Inderpal Singh recommended disciplinary action against the officer. The commission granted the state government the liberty to transfer or reassign the staff concerned, including the EO, if deemed necessary. The matter has now been listed for hearing on May 12, in Chandigarh.

Kashmir Food Safety Wing Hit by Staff Crunch and Case Backlog, RTI Reveals

Kashmir Life: Srinagar: Friday, 01 May 2026.

The Food Safety Department in Kashmir is grappling with manpower shortages, limited laboratory infrastructure and a mounting backlog of cases, reveals official information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by activist MM Shuja.
The RTI reply states that 25 posts are lying vacant in the Kashmir division, including 5 gazetted and 20 non-gazetted posts. It said that against a sanctioned strength of 13 gazetted posts, only 8 are in position, while in the non-gazetted category, 41 officials are working against 61 sanctioned posts.
Regarding budget utilisation, the reply states that the department has consistently utilised most of its allocated funds over the last five financial years. In 2025–26, out of Rs 878.02 lakh allocated, Rs 868.30 lakh was spent.
Similarly, Rs 786.85 lakh out of Rs 795.57 lakh was spent in 2024–25, Rs 738.98 lakh out of Rs 767.69 lakh in 2023–24, Rs 721.08 lakh out of Rs 736.84 lakh in 2022–23 and Rs 614.10 lakh out of Rs 621.73 lakh in 2021–22.
Regarding inspections, the reply states that figures show a fluctuating trend over the years. While 13,201 inspections were conducted in 2021–22, the number declined to 10,920 in 2025–26. The figures stood at 12,068 in 2022–23, 11,873 in 2023–24 and 12,204 in 2024–25.
The RTI also reveals limited sampling in certain categories. “Only 29 egg samples were collected, all of which were found conforming to standards. However, in meat quality checks carried out during 2025, 104 samples were lifted, out of which 30 were found substandard, unsafe or with labelling defects,” it reads. It added that action was taken under relevant provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
As per the RTI, 1,011 civil cases are pending as of February 28, 2026, with Rs 1.16 crore in fines imposed.
Additionally, 84 criminal cases have been registered, with fines amounting to Rs 4.46 lakh. The department has also issued 1,499 challans, collecting around Rs 18.89 lakh in penalties.
The reply further states that over the past five years, 1,145 civil cases have resulted in convictions, while only 7 criminal cases have ended in conviction, indicating low conversion in criminal enforcement.
The RTI states that the Kashmir division currently has only one functional food testing laboratory at Dalgate Srinagar, along with six mobile food testing vans. Samples are also sent to national-level laboratories for advanced analysis.
Notably, the department has disclosed that ‘no Detailed Project Report (DPR)’ has been prepared or submitted so far for establishing modern food testing laboratories or strengthening monitoring systems.
Officials said that district-level food safety offices are operational across Kashmir, headed by designated officers and supported by field staff. However, the existing manpower shortage continues to affect enforcement on the ground. (KNO)

Arunachal: DPGC Hosts National Seminar on RTI

Arunachal24: Kamki: Friday, 01 May 2026.
Scholars and officials discuss the role of RTI in promoting transparency, accountability, and citizen empowerment in governance.

The Department of Political Science at Donyi Polo Government College (DPGC), in collaboration with its Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC), organised a one-day national seminar on “Role of Right to Information in Promoting Transparency and Accountability” on April 30.
Sponsored by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, the seminar brought together faculty members, research scholars, and students from various institutions, with a total of 88 participants attending the programme.
The event was inaugurated by Tamo Riba, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamba, as Chief Guest. Tejum Padu, Vice Chancellor of North East Frontier Technical University (NEFTU), attended as Guest of Honour, while Sailajananda Saikia, Dean of the Faculty of Environmental Sciences at Rajiv Gandhi University, participated as the Resource Person.
The programme began with a welcome song by sixth-semester students and was anchored by Dr. Gektum Tangu. In his welcome address, Principal Dr. Gomo Karbak highlighted the continued relevance of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, describing it as a key instrument for ensuring transparency and accountability in governance.
In the keynote address, Prof. Saikia elaborated on the role of the RTI Act in empowering citizens by enabling access to information held by public authorities. He noted that transparency mechanisms and public scrutiny can act as deterrents to corruption and improve institutional functioning.
Dr. Padu, in his address, described the RTI Act as a fundamental tool for citizens, emphasising its role in strengthening awareness of rights and encouraging participatory governance. Chief Guest Riba urged students to utilise the RTI mechanism responsibly, acknowledging its potential as a legitimate instrument for seeking accountability.
The technical session, chaired by Prof. Saikia and anchored by Dr. Dipak Sharma, featured presentations of 15 research papers examining various aspects of the RTI Act, including its implementation, challenges, and impact on democratic governance.
The seminar concluded with a valedictory session during which certificates were distributed to paper presenters in recognition of their contributions. The vote of thanks was delivered by Mrs. Dombi Boje Potom, Head of the Department of Political Science, who acknowledged the participation of attendees and the efforts of the organising team.
The event served as a platform for academic engagement on issues of transparency, governance, and citizen empowerment, particularly in the context of Arunachal Pradesh.

Centre silent on compensatory afforestation as forest land diverted for projects; RTI reveals lapses : CP Sreeharshan

Mathrubhumi: New Delhi: Thursday, 30 April 2026.
Even as the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change continues to divert large stretches of protected forest land for development projects, it remains silent on whether compensatory afforestation is being carried out in return. Between February and June 2025 alone, more than 3,457 hectares of forest land were cleared for such projects.

Aerial view of Andaman Nicobar Island. Photo: P Venkidesh

In a reply under the Right to Information Act, the ministry said it does not maintain data on whether the land and funds required for compensatory afforestation were secured while approving the diversion of these forest areas. While the ministry informed Parliament that protected forests account for 5.4 per cent of India’s total geographical area, concerns are growing that the lack of clarity over afforestation measures could result in significant depletion of forest cover.
The Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife is responsible for clearing large-scale diversion of forest land for development projects. Since 2014, nearly 97 per cent of the projects placed before the committee have involved land located near protected forest areas. Its own rules of procedure state that decisions concerning protected forests must contribute to the improvement of wildlife habitats.
However, minutes of 58 meetings of the Standing Committee, accessed under the Right to Information Act, suggest that the panel has moved away from the framework of forest conservation. The lack of clarity has emerged from replies obtained by Prakriti Srivastava, a former Indian Forest Service officer from the Kerala cadre.
In three meetings held in 2020, approval was granted for the diversion of 1,792 hectares of forest land. Between January and June 2021 alone, permissions were issued for the transfer of more than 14,000 hectares of forest land.
Under the law, whenever forest land is diverted for non-forest purposes, an equivalent area of non-forest land must be earmarked for compensatory afforestation. In addition, an amount equal to the total market value of the diverted forest land must be deposited into the afforestation fund. However, when asked whether these conditions were complied with in the case of the 3,457 hectares of forest land diverted last year, the ministry responded that no such information was available.
While minutes of Standing Committee meetings held before 2014 recorded detailed discussions and dissenting views, no such information appears in meeting records after 2014, raising concerns over a lack of transparency in the committee’s functioning.
The Supreme Court had ruled on November 13, 2000, that the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife does not have statutory authority to de-notify wildlife sanctuaries or national parks without prior permission from the apex court. However, when asked whether this directive was followed in relation to the controversial Andaman project, the response stated that no information was available.
There is also a provision requiring the Wildlife Board to submit a report to the ministry every 10 years after assessing the status of wildlife conservation. The RTI reply stated that no information was available on this matter as well.
Major controversial projects:

• The Great Andaman Project in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands was approved in January 2021. Galathibey Wildlife Sanctuary and Megapod Sanctuary were given away. This is a centre for rare sea turtles.
• The Kachua Wildlife Sanctuary, located on the banks of the Ganges in Varanasi, has been given over to inland waterways and tourism. It is a habitat for sea turtles and dolphins.
• In the 86th meeting of the committee held in October last year, 262 sq km of the Pamed Wildlife Sanctuary in Chhattisgarh was given over to the CRPF for a Jungle Warfare College.

Big Moment for Exam Transparency Supreme Court to Clarify If PSC Can Deny Answer Sheets Despite RTI

 Indian Masterminds: New Delhi: Thursday, 30 April 2026.
The Supreme Court will examine if State PSC rules can override the RTI Act on answer sheet disclosure. The verdict may change transparency rules for government exams in India.

The Supreme Court RTI answer sheets case has become a major legal issue in India, as it will decide whether State Public Service Commission (PSC) rules can override the Right to Information Act, 2005 in matters of answer sheet disclosure.
This case is important for lakhs of government job aspirants. The Supreme Court will examine if candidates can demand answer sheets before the stage fixed by PSC authorities or must follow internal rules.
The final decision may reshape transparency norms in recruitment exams across India.
Details of the Supreme Court RTI Answer Sheets Case
The Supreme Court is set to examine a key legal question:

• Can a State Public Service Commission decide when exam-related information is disclosed?
• Or can candidates use the RTI Act, 2005 to access answer sheets earlier?

According to the report, the Court will decide whether PSC rules can limit access to information, even when RTI law allows disclosure.
In simple terms, the conflict is between:

• Administrative rules of PSCs  vs
• Legal rights under RTI Act

Why Supreme Court RTI Answer Sheets Case Is Important
This issue directly affects:

• Government job aspirants
• Competitive exam transparency
• Recruitment fairness

Many candidates want early access to answer sheets to:

• Check evaluation errors
• Challenge results
• Ensure fairness

But PSCs often restrict access until the recruitment process is complete.
Legal Conflict: RTI Act vs PSC Rules
RTI Act, 2005
The RTI Act gives citizens the right to access information held by public authorities.

• Promotes transparency
• Ensures accountability
• Applies to exam bodies

PSC Rules
State PSCs create their own rules for recruitment exams.

• They may delay answer sheet disclosure
• They argue early access can affect exam integrity

Core Legal Question
The Supreme Court will decide:
Whether PSC rules can legally override RTI rights.
Background: What Courts Have Said Earlier
Transparency Favored

• Courts have often supported transparency in exams
• Example: Marks are not confidential and can be shared under RTI

Limited Disclosure

• Some rulings restrict access to others’ answer sheets
• Authorities may allow inspection but not copies

Recent Developments

• In some cases, candidates were allowed to inspect answer sheets even before final results
• Courts stressed that procedural rules cannot block legal rights

Key Issues Before the Supreme Court
1. Timing of Disclosure
Can candidates demand answer sheets immediately after exams?
Or only after the final result?
2. Transparency vs Confidentiality

• Transparency ensures fairness
• Confidentiality protects exam process

3. Uniform Policy Needed
Different states follow different rules
This case may create a nationwide standard
Supreme Court RTI Answer Sheets Case: Possible Outcomes
If RTI Act Prevails

• Candidates can access answer sheets earlier
• Transparency in exams will increase
• PSCs may need to change rules

If PSC Rules Prevail

• Access may remain restricted
• Candidates must wait for official stages
• Less immediate transparency