ADR calls for law to regulate parties stricter disclosure norms to curb money power in polls

The Week: PTI: New Delhi: Friday, March 13, 2026.

India's electoral democracy faces profound challenges from the pervasive influence of money, a new report by the Association for Democratic Reforms has said, calling for a comprehensive law to regulate political parties, stricter disclosure norms for donations, and stronger powers to the Election Commission to curb the influence of money in elections.

The report titled ‘Political Finance in India: Assessment and Recommendations’ identified seven key limitations – dominance of money and muscle power; lack of internal democracy within parties; absence of statutory backing to EC rules; inability of EC to deregister defaulting parties; evasion of Right to Information (RTI) scrutiny; flouting of existing laws by contestants; and lack of political will to implement reforms.

These systemic weaknesses enable financial opacity and unaccountable campaign financing, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) said.

The report by the NGO recommended enacting a comprehensive political parties' law to regulate finances, internal democracy, and leadership accountability, and empowering the Election Commission (EC) to de-recognise or deregister parties that fail to comply with financial disclosure or court directives.

It also recommended bringing political parties under the ambit of the RTI Act, and define bribery and freebies as corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

On political funding, the report proposed imposing limits on private donations and mandating full disclosure of donors, including the parent companies behind electoral trusts.

It also recommended banning anonymous and cash donations and requiring all political contributions to be made through digital transactions.

It called for independent audits of party accounts verified by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) and said the audit reports must be made public.

To reduce dependence on private funding, the report suggested public funding of polls, adopting objective and transparent criteria for public funding of political parties, including vote or seat-based funding models, and incentives for parties that promote women and underrepresented groups in electoral politics.

The report also stressed the need for stricter enforcement of campaign expenditure limits for both political parties and candidates.

The suggestions on strengthening the EC called for aligning the appointment process of election commissioners with the Supreme Court's 2023 directive, legally empowering the EC to countermand elections in cases of money power abuse, and enhancing capacity building and stakeholder dialogue for effective electoral management.

Monetary penalties and loss of tax exemptions for non-compliance or falsified disclosures, authorising the EC to withdraw financial privileges of defaulting parties, and maintaining a public database of sanctions and penalties to ensure accountability were also among the recommendations.

(This story has not been edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)

Madurai AIIMS: Only 47% complete, reveals RTI reply.

DT Next News: Madurai: Friday, March 13, 2026.

Pandiyaraja, a social activist from Thippanampatti village near Pavoorchathiram in Tenkasi district, had submitted eight questions under the RTI Act seeking details about the progress of the Madurai AIIMS project.

Construction of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in Madurai has been completed only 47 per cent, according to a reply from the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to a Right to Information (RTI) query filed by a social activist from Tenkasi district.

Pandiyaraja, a social activist from Thippanampatti village near Pavoorchathiram in Tenkasi district, had submitted eight questions under the RTI Act seeking details about the progress of the Madurai AIIMS project.

In its reply, the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare stated that the estimated cost of the project is Rs 2,021 crore and that Rs 471 crore has been released so far by the Union government through the central budget.

The ministry also said the construction work is scheduled to be completed by October 2026.

Pandiyaraja stated that proper responses were not provided for five of the eight questions raised in the RTI application.

He further said that reports had circulated on social media and in some media outlets that certain completed portions of the project might be inaugurated by the Prime Minister as early as March. However, he said the hospital should be opened only after the entire construction is completed and made ready for public use.

He also pointed out that although the AIIMS Madurai project was launched on May 22, 2024, students admitted to the AIIMS medical college are currently studying at the Government Medical College in Ramanathapuram.

According to him, there is a possibility that these students may complete their course without studying at the AIIMS campus, as the hospital construction is still under way.

Pandiyaraja urged the authorities to ensure quality construction, secure the required funds from Japan, and expedite the works so that the hospital can be opened at the earliest.

Himachal exempts State Vigilance, ACB from ambit of RTI Act.

Tribune India: Shimla: Friday, March 13, 2026.

State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau will no longer be required to share information sought through Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

In an interesting move, the Himachal Pradesh government on Thursday excluded the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (SV & ACB) from the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

As a result, the bureau will no longer be required to share information sought through the act.

Significantly, the bureau is headed by Ashok Tewari, who is also the officiating Director General of Police (DGP).

An official notification regarding this has been issued by the Chief Secretary, Sanjay Gupta.

The notification reads, “In exercise of the power conferred under section 24 (4) of the RTI Act, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, is pleased to exclude the SV & ACB from the ambit of the RTI Act.”

In an interesting move, the Himachal Pradesh government on Thursday excluded the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (SV & ACB) from the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

As a result, the bureau will no longer be required to share information sought through the act.

Significantly, the bureau is headed by Ashok Tewari, who is also the officiating Director General of Police (DGP).

An official notification regarding this has been issued by the Chief Secretary, Sanjay Gupta.

The notification reads, “In exercise of the power conferred under section 24 (4) of the RTI Act, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, is pleased to exclude the SV & ACB from the ambit of the RTI Act.”

Section 24 (4) of the RTI Act exempts the intelligence and security organisation established by the state government from the purview of the act.

However, the government should specify via a notification that information about the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded. Also, information should be provided within 45 days from the date of receipt of the request in the case of information sought that is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights. The information should only be provided after the approval of the State Information Commission.

'Interesting Question Is What's Public Data & Personal Data?' : Supreme Court On Challenge To DPDP Act.

Live Law: Anmol Kaur Bawa : New Delhi: March 13, 2026.

"If there are sweeping provisions in the Act, then how do we protect some individuals?" CJI asked.

The Supreme Court today, while issuing notice in a plea challenging the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and Rules, expressed that protection of data privacy has now become a global issue. The Court will also examine the issue of what would be considered as public data and private data.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing the petition filed by journalist Geeta Seshu and NGO Software Freedom Law Centre challenging the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) and DPDP Rules 2025.

Sr Advocate Indira Jaisingh, appearing for the petitioner, stressed that the impugned Act and Rules in effect legalise disproportionate State surveillance, create a compensation vacuum for citizens, dilute the Right to Information, erode the ability of journalists to practice their profession, and establish a data protection regulator that is structurally dependent upon the Executive.

Jaisingh submitted that the DPDP ACt amended the RTI Act, omitting the 'public interest' ground to disclose the personal data of a public servant. Thus, the personal data of a public servant has been totally exempted from disclosure. As a result, if a journalist is writing about a public servant, they would not be able to have access to data relating to the officer.

At this juncture, the CJI remarked that this issue also raises an "interesting question that we will have to determine, that is, what is public data and what is personal data?"

Taking the example of the RTI Act, Jaisingh explained that in the RTI Act, an exception was carved out where information of 'public interest' could have been accessed; this aspect is not there in the impugned Act. She added, "That's what is causing the trouble; otherwise, there would have been no other problem."

Secondly, she pointed out that the impugned Act gives powers to the Centre to acquire data on anything on the ground of 'Public order', a term that Jaisingh stressed to have a wide and broad interpretation.

The CJI weighed in to add that this will raise concerns for individuals' right to privacy. He said:

"If there are sweeping provisions in the Act and where right to privacy and this conflict comes, then how do we protect some individuals? What can be the measures can be taken without affecting the right to privacy?"

The CJI, referring to the pending case of Meta Platforms Inc v. CCI, remarked that data privacy has now become a global issue. He added, "data is becoming the real true wealth as of date."

Jaisingh further submitted that the impugned act repeals and omits Section 43A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Impugned Act fails to provide any equivalent or effective civil remedy to individuals whose personal data is unlawfully processed or breached.

As per the new Act, the compensation, if any, will go to the Data Protection Board and not the individual affected.

The bench issued notice in the matter and tagged it with other pending petitions. While hearing the previous petitions, the CJI had orally commented that there were "some creases which required to be ironed out."

Notably, the Court is presently seized with three other writ petitions - one filed by Venkatesh Nayak, another by digital news platform The Reporters Collective and journalist Nitin Sethi, and the third one filed by the National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI). The petitioners have essentially challenged Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, amending Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, giving a blanket exemption to the disclosure of personal information. Before the amendment, personal information could have been disclosed if there was an overriding public interest.

The present plea seeks the following reliefs :

a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction or declaration quashing and setting aside Sections 7, 17(2)(a), 19(3) 24, 36, 44(2)(a), and 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, to the extent challenged herein, as being unconstitutional, void and inoperative, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 21 and 21A of the Constitution of India.

b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside Rules 5, 6, 17, 18, 21 and 23, and the Second Schedule, Fifth Schedule, Sixth Schedule and Seventh Schedule of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, to the extent challenged herein, as being unconstitutional, void and inoperative, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 21 and 21A of the Constitution of India.

c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside Section 17(2) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, insofar as it empowers the Central Government to exempt any of its instrumentalities from the application of the provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025.

d) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside the Second Schedule of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025.

e) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside Section 44(2)(a) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, insofar as it extinguishes the right of affected persons to seek compensation or civil remedy for unlawful processing of personal data and/or data breach.

f) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 insofar as it dilutes the right to information of the citizens of India.

g) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside Section 19(3) and Section 24 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 read with Rules 17, 18 and 21 and the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, insofar as they relate to the constitution, appointment, service conditions and functioning of the Data Protection Board of India.

h) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration directing the Respondent No. 1 to frame a constitutionally compliant mechanism for appointment, tenure and service conditions of the Data Protection Board of India, ensuring its independence from executive control.

i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside Section 36 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 read with Rule 23 and the Serial No. 1 of the Seventh Schedule of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025.

j) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration directing the Respondent No. 1 to incorporate and notify a specific and proportionate exemption under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 for processing of personal data for journalistic, editorial, investigative and public interest reporting purposes, including protection of journalistic sources. Alternatively, issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside Section 7 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, insofar as it fails to provide an exemption for processing of personal data for journalistic purposes. The plea was filed through Advocate-on-Record Paras Nath Singh.

Case Details: GEETA SESHU AND ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS| W.P.(C) No. 275/2026

RTI privacy vs public results: Allahabad High Court answers if you can see other candidate’s examination marks : Written by: Ashish Shaji

The Indian Express: New Delhi: Thursday, 12 March 2026.
The Allahabad High Court held that exam marks in public recruitment are not confidential under the RTI Act, but answer sheets of other candidates cannot be compelled.

Allahabad High Court news: The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that marks obtained by a candidate in a public examination are not confidential private information which may require the consent of the party whose marks have been sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
A bench of Justices Ajit Kumar and Swarupama Chaturvedi made the observation in a judgment passed on February 26 while dealing with a writ petition filed by the Union of India and officials of the diesel locomotive works, Varanasi.
“Marks obtained by a candidate, if information regarding that is sought by another candidate who has also participated in examination, is not such a confidential private information which may require even consent of that third party under Section 8. Well of course, if an outsider seeks information, department may take a valid defence of confidentiality,” the court noted.
What was the case about?

• The dispute arose after a railway employee who had appeared in a written examination for the post of legal assistant held by the Railways sought some information under RTI.
• In his application, he requested the marks obtained by himself and two other candidates, along with photocopies of their answer sheets.
• While the public information officer provided a copy of the question paper, the request for photocopies of answer sheets and disclosure of marks was initially declined.
• The applicant was, however, allowed to inspect the answer sheets.
• Following an appeal, the Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the Railways to provide photocopies of the answer sheets.
• The Railways later disclosed the marks of the three candidates but challenged the CIC’s direction to supply the answer sheet copies, arguing that such disclosure could be exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act relating to personal information.
• Also Read| Acid attacks are ‘gender-based violence’: Allahabad High Court upholds man’s conviction, reduces life term to 14 years

Court’s observations

• It is true that if a candidate seeks information about another candidate’s marks, then it becomes third-party information, and therefore, Rule 11 (third-party information) of the Act gets attracted. However, the information must be such in nature that if disclosed, it would cause damage in terms of the privacy of the third party.
• In this case, the information required is related to a public examination for the post of Legal Assistant.
• The information was sought regarding marks obtained, and we fail to understand as to how this information is private information or giving of this information to a candidate would amount to invading the privacy of a candidate.
• All those who have obtained marks, are open to all ultimately when the merit is prepared.
• While it may be true that for a certain period an information may be withheld in a matter where any investigation or enquiry is pending and marks have not been disclosed, but where no investigation or enquiry is pending such an information, if sought for under the RTI Act, such information can always be provided.
• On the question of photocopies of the answer sheets, it may involve checking of answer sheets, signatures of examiners, etc. and therefore, it may not be appropriate to disclose the names, signatures of the examiners.
• There is no vested right in an applicant to obtain the photocopies of answer sheets of another candidate, however, he can always ask for the photocopy of his own answer sheet.
• The purpose of a candidate seeking information in such competitive examination can be understood as a curiosity to know how many marks he has obtained and whether his answer sheet is correctly examined or not, inasmuch as, the perusal of other candidate’s answer sheet can also be helpful to him but in no case we can compel an authority to supply the photocopies of answer sheets of other candidates.
• On the count of furnishing marks of other desired candidates, the judgment and order passed by the CIC cannot be faulted with, nor do we find any manifest error in the order dismissing the review petition.
• Sufficient information has been given and therefore, providing for photocopies of answer sheets is not necessary and the original order of commission to that extent and order in review offering the same deserve to be reversed.
• The orders passed by the CIC and the Information Commission are quashed to the extent they directed the supply of photocopies of answer sheets.

‘Failed to apply mind’: CIC slams its officers for ‘evasive’ RTI replies over hearing delays

The Print: New Delhi: Thursday, 12 March 2026.
In December 2012, a Punjab resident filed an application with the police seeking daily diary

New Delhi, Mar 11 (PTI) The Central Information Commission (CIC) has rapped its officials for their “inadequate and inaccurate” replies to RTI applications seeking information on delays in hearing second appeals, observing that the officers had “failed to apply their mind” while responding to the queries. In a recent order, Information Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam said the responses by the concerned Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) did not properly address the issues raised by the appellant and reflected an “evasive pattern” in handling the requests. The RTI applications had sought details regarding the time taken for listing and hearing second appeals before the commission, reasons for delays in hearings, the procedure for seeking early hearings, and the steps taken by the CIC to ensure the timely disposal of cases. During the hearing, the commission noted that the replies provided by the officials were either incomplete or did not directly respond to the questions raised. “The replies given by the CPIO in both the appeals are inadequate and inaccurate with respect to the RTI requests raised by the appellant,” the order said. The commission further observed that the manner in which the replies were furnished suggested that the RTI requests had not been examined carefully. “The respondent has failed to apply his mind and examine the contents of the RTI request diligently and give a proper and point-wise reply,” the order noted. The commission also pointed out that when the appellant sought the names of officers who had handled his earlier representation regarding speedy hearings, the reply merely mentioned the section that examined the matter rather than identifying the officials involved. Taking note of the lapses, the commission has sought explanations from the concerned officials for furnishing such replies and directed them to provide a revised, point-wise response to the appellant. PTI MHS MHS MPL MPL
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.

Under RTI Act, accused can’t get case diary of FIR pending trial: HC

Hindustan Times: Chandigarh: Thursday, 12 March 2026.
In December 2012, a Punjab resident filed an application with the police seeking daily diary orders of the Jagraon police station of the period of 2004-05 in relation to an FIR registered in July 2004

The Punjab and Haryana high court has held that an accused, by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act (RTI) Act, is not entitled to access a police case diary relating to his criminal case, particularly when the investigation or trial is still in progress.
While dealing with an appeal filed by the Punjab government against the state information commission’s decision, the high court bench of justice Kuldeep Tiwari said that if Sections 8(1)(h) and 22 of the RTI Act are read together with Section 172(3) of the CrPC, it clearly demonstrates that these provisions “function in tandem”. Now, the CrPC has been replaced with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
“..the legislative intent behind Section 172(3) of the CrPC is to preserve the confidentiality of investigation records. The restriction imposed through Section 172(3) of the CrPC inherently indicates that disclosing the police case diary would impede the ongoing investigation or trial, and there comes exceptions carved out under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act to achieve the same object,” the court said. It added that the act of the public information officer declining the applicant access to police case diary of a criminal case, trial whereof was in progress at the relevant time, is legally sustainable.
“The Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act complements and subserves the underlying objective of Section 172(3) of the CrPC. The provisions of the CrPC expressly curtail the disclosure of police case diaries to an accused while an investigation or trial is pending, and the exemption enshrined in Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act ensures the enforcement of this prohibition,” the court said.
The Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act exempts the PIO from disclosing any information that would impede the process of investigation, apprehension, or prosecution of offenders. While Section 22 of the RTI Act provides that the provisions of the RTI Act shall have an overriding effect over any other law in force, or any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.
Section 172 of the CrPC mandates that every police officer conducting an investigation must maintain a diary recording the time at which information is received, the time at which the investigation commences and concludes, the places visited by him during the course of the investigation, and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation.
While courts can summon police diaries during trial or probe but accused is not entitled to inspect or access the same.
In December 2012, a Punjab resident filed an application with the police seeking daily diary orders of the Jagraon police station of the period of 2004-05 in relation to an FIR registered in July 2004. As information was denied. he approached SIC and in 2016, the SIC ruled in his favour and imposed the penalty on a police officer and also awarded compensation.
It was against this order the Punjab government had approached the high court in 2016 arguing that the RTI Act cannot be invoked to secure information by an accused about a police case diary of a case, trial whereof is in progress.
On the other hand, the complainant, who had also become a party in the HC, had contended that to ensure a fair trial, an accused has the right to seek information under the RTI Act about the case diary and other records.

Appoint information commissioners immediately

The Daily Star: Bangladesh: Wednesday, 11 March 2026.
Govt must amend RTI 2026 ordinance further before passing it

We second the Right to Information (RTI) Forum’s call to immediately appoint information commissioners and further amend the RTI (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026, before passing it in the upcoming parliamentary session. It is a shame that the Information Commission has been left without leadership for 18 months, after all three previous commissioners resigned following the July 2024 uprising. Despite repeated calls since then from rights activists and civil society organisations (CSOs), the interim government did not appoint new commissioners.
Although it did amend the 2009 RTI law, it skipped several important changes proposed by CSOs. For instance, the 2026 amendments expanded the definition of “information” to include memoranda, maps, contracts, and audiovisual materials, but left out official note sheets. Furthermore, local government bodies, private entities operating under government contracts or licences, and political parties registered with the Election Commission have not been brought under the purview of the law. CSOs also urged the government to review Section 7 of the RTI Act, 2009, which outlines the categories of information that public, autonomous, and statutory organisations, as well as private institutions constituted or run by the government or through foreign financing, are not required to publish or provide. However, many government departments may misuse the clauses in this section to withhold crucial information. Therefore, it is pertinent that these amendments be made.
Nevertheless, the appointment of information commissioners is even more urgent. Without them, citizens cannot file complaints with the commission when their right to access information is denied. As stipulated in the current RTI Act, when a designated officer of an organisation that falls within the scope of the law fails to provide requested information to a citizen, the latter has the right to appeal to the appellate authority within the same office. If the appellate authority does not take any action, the citizen can then complain to the commission. But without commissioners, there has been no one to take citizens’ complaints into cognisance. As a result, more than 1,000 complaints are already pending.
Therefore, the government should take immediate steps to form the Information Commission and introduce a time limit within which the commissioners must be appointed. This will help avoid long vacancies in these crucial posts in the future. It goes without saying that the independence of the commission must be ensured by appointing qualified, non-partisan individuals. To ensure transparency, the appointment committee should include CSO members and rights activists. The government must take all necessary measures to ensure that this vital organisation functions properly.

Delhi Jal Board Got 43,000 Complaints Of Contaminated Water In 5 Years: RTI Reply

News18: New Delhi: Wednesday, 11 March 2026.
When asked if complainants had reported illness or adverse health effects, the DJB replied that it had no records

The Delhi Jal Board is responsible for supplying water across the national capital,
(File)

The Delhi Jal Board has received more than 43,000 complaints of contaminated drinking water between 2021 and 2025, according to information provided under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
In the RTI, filed by News18, the DJB was asked about complaints related to contaminated water and whether complainants had reported illness or adverse health effects linked to the utility’s drinking water supply.
To the adverse health effects question, the DJB reply stated that the RTI Act, 2005 provides access to information as available on record. “No specific document or record sought in the query is available in the records of this office."
The DJB, responsible for supplying water across the national capital, said it has received a total of 43,325 complaints related to contaminated drinking water between 2021 and 2025.

Excerpt from the RTI response provided by the Delhi Jal Board showing year-wise
complaints of contaminated drinking water and the department’s
response on illness-related records.

Listing the year-wise complaints, the DJB reply stated that in 2021, there were just 2,549 complaints related to contaminated drinking water that increased to 12,286 in 2022 – almost five times higher than 2021. This means complaints increased from about seven per day in 2021 to roughly 34 per day in 2022.
Since 2023, the numbers have remained largely consistent, with 9,767 complaints recorded in 2023, 9,387 in 2024, and 9,336 in 2025. On average, the city reported around 26 complaints of contaminated drinking water each day over the last two years.
Earlier this year, News18 had reported that the water and sewer pipelines in the national capital are as old as 50 years and no fixed timeline has been set for the replacement of these old pipelines.
In May 2025, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) pulled up the DJB, along with the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), for alleged contamination of drinking water supplied to residents of Janakpuri. The Residents’ Welfare Association (RWA) in March 2025 had alleged that sewage had mixed with the drinking water due to corroded pipelines caused by a blocked sewer line.
The water supply contamination has been gathering attention after 15 people died and several others were hospitalised due to consuming contaminated water in Indore’s Bhagirathpura in January this year. The contamination of water in Madhya Pradesh was allegedly caused by sewage leakage that led to mass hospital visits.

HC: RTI applicants can seek marks of fellow candidates

Times of India: Prayagraj: Wednesday, 11 March 2026.
The Allahabad high court has ruled that marks obtained by candidates in public examinations are not confidential and can be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act without requiring consent from the third party as long as the request comes from another candidate of the same exam.

A division bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi, in a judgment dated Feb 26, held that marks secured in a public test do not fall within the category of private or sensitive information that attracts protection under section 8 of the RTI Act. "However, if an outsider seeks such information, the department may take the defence of confidentiality," the bench added.
The court drew a distinction between marks and answer sheets, observing that providing photocopies may reveal the identity and signatures of examiners, or other sensitive details not meant for disclosure. In such cases, authorities may allow candidates to inspect answer sheets instead of issuing photocopies.
"There is no vested right in an applicant to obtain photocopies of another candidate's answer sheets. He is entitled to the photocopy of only his own," the bench said.
The judgment came on a writ petition filed by the Union of India through the GM, Diesel Locomotive Works (DLW), Varanasi.
In 2008, one Santosh Kumar had sought marksheets of three candidates—including himself—under RTI after appearing in a Railways exam for the post of legal assistant.
While authorities allowed him to inspect the answer sheets, they did not provide photocopies.
He moved the The Central Information Commission (CIC), Delhi, which directed Railways to supply photocopies, prompting DLW to seek a review, which was rejected. This led to the writ petition before the high court.
The bench said personal information unrelated to public interest may be withheld to avoid unwarranted invasion of privacy. But if disclosure serves public interest, it must be provided.
Referring to section 11 of the RTI Act, the court said adequate safeguards exist when third-party information is sought, including mandatory notice to the third party. The key concern, it noted, is maintaining confidentiality and respecting the right to privacy.
The court also observed that information could be withheld if an inquiry involving the candidate was pending.
The bench held that while the marks requested by the RTI applicant should have been provided, authorities cannot be compelled to release photocopies of answer sheets.
Departments may frame their own rules regarding such disclosures, the court added.
It clarified that permitting an applicant to inspect records satisfies the requirements of the RTI Act if the purpose of the request is met.
"Furnishing relevant information satisfies the application. It is not always necessary to provide copies of official documents if the department believes inspection is sufficient," the court said.

India’s CIC advises NFRA to put audit directions in the public domain

The Accountant Online: New Delhi: Wednesday, 11 March 2026.
The recommendation was issued while the CIC was ruling on an appeal under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

India’s Central Information Commission (CIC) has called on the National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) to put in the public domain its orders, directions, circulars and policy decisions that influence audit practices and standards.
The recommendation was issued while the CIC was ruling on an appeal under the Right to Information (RTI) Act , according to a Press Trust of India report.
The appeal requested records on the NFRA’s decision to allow auditors and audit practices to be represented by lawyers during oral hearings.
Stressing the importance of greater openness in rule-making around audits, the Commission observed: “Any orders, directions, circulars and policy decisions affecting audit practices and standards should be placed in public domain for protecting public interest by strengthening trust in financial reporting.”
The CIC also pointed to the NFRA’s obligations under the RTI law to proactively publish information.
The order stated: “There is no denying that the respondent is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information.”
The NFRA, created in 2018 under the Companies Act, 2013, is the statutory body that supervises auditors. It ensures adherence to accounting and auditing standards for companies.
Its responsibilities also include monitoring the quality of audits to support dependable financial disclosures.
CIC Information Commissioner PR Ramesh was quoted by the news agency as saying: “NFRA safeguards the credibility of financial statements, which are relied upon by investors, lenders, regulators and the public at large.”

‘94 RTI pleas sought police station CCTV footage in A’bad in 2025’

The Times of India: Ahmedabad: Tuesday, 10 March 2026.

The govt informed the assembly on Monday that 54 RTI applications were filed in 2024 and 94 in 2025 seeking CCTV footage from police stations in Ahmedabad city. Similarly, in Surat city, 32 RTI applications were filed in 2024 and 52 in 2025 to obtain CCTV footage from police station premises.
In reply to a question by AAP MLA Gopal Italia, the govt said that during these two years, footage was provided in response to 40 applications in Ahmedabad and 22 in Surat.
In reply to another question, the govt said that footage could not be provided for 12 applications in Ahmedabad and 19 applications in Surat because the CCTV cameras were non-functional.
In 2011, following a PIL alleging custodial torture at the city crime branch headquarters, the Gujarat high court ordered the installation of CCTV cameras in all police stations across the state.
The issue resurfaced in 2022 when the HC sought a report on the installation and functioning of CCTVs in police stations after two women complained of being beaten following a dispute over a traffic violation at Vastrapur police station in Ahmedabad. The court noted that the CCTV cameras at the police station were not functioning.
Similarly, the CCTV cameras at the city crime branch were not functioning when constable Chandrakant Makwana was killed by an accused, Manish Balai, at its headquarters in Gaekwad Haveli.
In various cases alleging custodial torture or police misconduct, the HC has received petitions seeking directions to the police department to preserve CCTV footage from the concerned police stations as crucial evidence.

CIC’s power to penalise officers for delay in RTI reply must be reasoned and preceded by a fair enquiry: Allahabad HC - Written by: Bhupendra Pandey

The Indian Express: Article: Tuesday, 10 March 2026.
HC quashes 19-year-old order issued by CIC to penalise Regional Passport Officer for 4-month delay in giving information under the RTI Act

“While the Commission is entrusted with enforcement, it must ensure
that its decisions are grounded in careful consideration of facts,
statutory limits, and procedural fairness", the Bench observed.
(File Photo)

Quashing the Central Information Commission’s 19-year-old order to initiate penal action against IPS officer Shailesh Kumar Yadav for delay in providing information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Allahabad High Court said the CIC’s orders against the then Regional Passport Officer (RPO) of Ghaziabad “lacked impartiality” and were influenced by “bias and personal disapprobation”.
The Division Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi was hearing a petition filed by Yadav, seeking quashing of the CIC’s two orders issued in 2007 in which the Central Information Commission (CIC) directed initiating penal action against the then Regional Passport Officer for the delay of more than four months in providing information under the RTI Act and recommended the Chief Passport Officer and Joint Secretary, (CPV Division), Ministry of External Affairs, to take strictest action against him.
Yadav was also the Public Information Officer (PIO) at the Ghaziabad Passport Office then.
“We are of the considered view that Section 20 of the RTI Act confers power to impose a penalty on officers who deliberately obstruct or delay the supply of the information. However, the exercise of this power must be reasoned, proportionate, and preceded by a fair enquiry… Issuing the maximum penalty in tandem with a recommendation for Government action within a negligible time gap suggests undue haste and raises concerns of arbitrariness,” the Division Bench said in its February 27, 2026, order.
“While the Commission is entrusted with enforcement, it must ensure that its decisions are grounded in careful consideration of facts, statutory limits, and procedural fairness. The imposition of penalty and related recommendations must not appear rushed, prejudged, or compromise the statutory safeguards and the rule of law,” the Bench further observed.
The matter dates back to March 26, 2006, when a man filed an RTI application seeking information regarding duplicate passports, submission forms, procedures, and time limits. The application was returned to the applicant on June 14 over “wrong details on the demand draft”, which was corrected and resubmitted by the applicant. The then RPO (Yadav) marked it to the PRO (Public Relations Officer) and the APIO (Assistant Public Information Officer). On August 4, 2006, the applicant was directed to furnish a “Key Number” and “File Number,” stating that the website could not be operated without these details. Aggrieved by this non-furnishing of information, the applicant filed a complaint with the CIC.
In its February 8 and March 19, 2007 orders, the CIC decided to initiate penal action against the PIO for the delay of more than four months in providing the information and issued a penalty notice. The CIC also recommended to the Chief Passport Officer and Joint Secretary (CPV Division), Ministry of External Affairs, to hold an enquiry into the matter and take the strictest action against the Regional Passport Officer, Ghaziabad.
After hearing the submissions in the petition filed by Yadav, the High Court observed that at no stage was there any allegation or observation supported by any evidence, by any authority, or by the CIC that there was any deliberate act or omission by the petitioner in supplying the information desired by the complainant.
“Instead, the fact-finding inquiry report has clearly given justification for the delay at the institutional level, which was more of an infrastructure problem than has anything to do with the petitioner, and the report in fact clearly says that the reason for the delay shall not be assigned to any of the officers,” the High Court said.
The Bench further observed that the CIC had already formed a prejudiced view against the petitioner even before a proper enquiry could be conducted.
Referring to a part of the March 19, 2007 order by the CIC, the court stated, “…respondent no. 2 (Information Commissioner) described the petitioner in highly disparaging terms, noting that he does not have any respect for the members of the public or statutory body like the Central Information Commission, and further attributing to him the cause of public perception that bureaucracy is insensitive and high-handed. Such observations demonstrate that respondent no.2 approached the matter with a pre-determined opinion and a mindset already hostile to the petitioner, rather than an objective assessment of the facts.”
The court also referred to another paragraph of the same order stating that “the CIC only wishes that it had the powers to dismiss the services of such ill-behaved bureaucrats, and direct the foreign secretary to initiate disciplinary proceedings immediately on receipt of this order”.
“Proceeding to determine the penalty and also recommending action to the Government without awaiting the completion of the enquiry undermines the procedural safeguards enshrined in the statute,” the Bench said.
“For the foregoing reasons, having regard to the statutory scheme under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the enquiry report of the Chief Passport Officer, and the circumstances demonstrating bias and predetermined opinion on the part of respondent no. 2 (Information Commissioner), this Court is satisfied that the order dated 08.02.2007 and order dated 19.03.2007 passed by the Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission were unjustified, arbitrary, and contrary to law,” the High Court, quashing both the orders issued by the CIC.

If Information Is Given And Perusal Of Records Is Permitted, Giving Copies Of Documents Not Necessary Under RTI Act: Allahabad High Court

Verdictum: Allahabad: Tuesday, 10 March 2026.
The Court held that an application moved under the Right to Information Act, 2005, is satisfied if marks of a public exam are furnished and providing photocopies of answer sheets would not be necessary.

The Allahabad High Court has held that if the information sought is given and perusal of records is permitted, it would suffice the requirements under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and that providing copies of documents is not always necessary.
It held that an application moved under the Right to Information Act, 2005, is satisfied if marks of a public exam are furnished. The High Court added that when sufficient information has been given, providing photocopies of answer sheets would not be necessary.
The Petition before the High Court was filed by the Union of India and Public Information Officer, Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi, challenging the orders of the Central Information Commission as well as the order dismissing their review petition.
The Division Bench of Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi and Justice Ajit Kumar held, “We may further observe that an application moved under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking relevant information, if furnished, the application stands satisfied. It may not be necessary always to provide the copies of the official records/ documents which the department considers would neither be necessary nor, would serve any purpose practically for which the information has been sought. If sufficient information is there and perusal of records is permitted, it should suffice the need qua mandate contained under the Act, 2005.”
“Thus, according to us, sufficient information has been given and therefore, providing for photocopies of answer sheets of the petitioners is not necessary and the original order of commission to that extent and order in review offering the same deserve to reversed”, it added.
Advocate Krishna Ji Shukla represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Ashish Kumar Srivastava represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
A written test was held by the respondent Railways for selection for the post of Legal Assistant. One Santosh Kumar, Office Superintendent-II, appeared in it and later made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to the Information Officer, Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi, asking for marks as well as photostat copies of the answer sheets of three candidates. The Senior Personnel Officer, acting as nodal officer, Public Information, supplied a copy of the question paper demanded, but insofar as the photocopies of the answer sheets were demanded, they were refused. However, the said Santosh Kumar was permitted to peruse the answer sheet on any working day. The information as to marks was also not disclosed. He filed an appeal against the order before the appellate authority.
The appellate authority, Central Information Commission, New Delhi, directed the supply of the photocopies of answer sheets demanded by the appellant for Law Assistant Exams. Though the petitioners revealed the marks obtained by the three candidates to Santosh Kumar, but instead of supplying the photocopies of answer sheets, they filed a review application, taking the plea that in the light of Full Bench decision of the Central Information Commission itself, such an information could be declined under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, 2005. The review petition was dismissed on the ground that Indian Railways would fall under the category of Public Authority whose main action is not to conduct examinations, but is to conduct examinations to fill up the posts and, therefore, answer sheets could have been supplied. It was in such circumstances that the petitioners approached the High Court.
Reasoning
Referring to Section 8(1)(j) of Act, 2005, the Bench explained, “Thus, in substance, any information that does not invade the privacy of any individual may be withheld and the authority may not be placed under obligation to give this information, but otherwise, if an information can be given looking to larger public interest or where public activity may be involved, then such information shall be given.”
Reference was also made to Section 11, which speaks of an obligation in the matter of third-party information. As per the Bench, sufficient safeguards have been provided in the event any third-party information is sought, and in such circumstances, the authority, which is under the obligation to give information, has to give notice to that third party to give its reply before the information is given. “The main threat is on the confidentiality of information on the principle of right to privacy”, it added.
The Bench clarified that in a matter where, in general, a public interest may be involved, the information must be given in a realm. The object of the Act is to give information subject to the riders created under Section 8. The Bench was thus of the view that wherever there is public interest involved, and there is absolutely no private information sought for, the authority would endeavour to furnish the information sought for.
The Bench stated, “In the instant case information required was relating to public examination held by the respondents for the post of Legal Assistant to which the applicant namely respondent no. 4 was an applicant like others regarding whose information was sought. The information was sought regarding marks obtained and we fail to understand as to how this information is private information or giving of this information to a candidate would amount to invading the privacy of a candidate. All those who have obtained marks, are open to all ultimately when the merit is prepared."
The Bench thus concluded that sufficient information had been given and therefore, providing for photocopies of answer sheets of the petitioners was not necessary. Partly allowing the writ petition, the Bench directed the respondents to provide photocopies of the answer sheets of the candidates. “Since the petitioners have not raised any irregularity in his answer sheets therefore, information regarding marks is taken to be sufficient”, it held.
Cause Title: Union Of India Thru G.M. Diesel Locomotive and Another v. Central Information Commission New Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:44589-DB)
Appearance Petitioner: Advocates Krishna Ji Shukla, Shekhar Kumar Yadav Respondent: Advocate Ashish Kumar Srivastava
(Click here toread/download Order)

Karnataka Information Commission slaps Rs 1.2 lakh penalty on two Bengaluru officials for RTI violations

The Times of India: Bengaluru: Tuesday, 10 March 2026.
Cracking the whip over violations of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) has imposed hefty penalties on two senior officials of Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for failing to furnish information sought by citizens, underscoring the importance of transparency and accountability in public offices. Umesh, deputy secretary at BDA, has been fined Rs 1 lakh in four separate cases for neglecting to respond to RTI applications, while secretary CL Shivakumar has been fined Rs 25,000.

KIC, while hearing multiple appeals, found that the officials failed to comply with provisions of the RTI Act despite repeated opportunities. The Act allows the commission to penalise those who deliberately deny or delay information. All public authorities are required to proactively disclose key information about their functioning under Section 4 of the law and regularly update it on their official websites. The Supreme Court has also emphasised strict implementation of Section 4(1)(a) and Section 4(1)(b), directing govt departments to ensure transparency by periodically publishing such information. However, the commission noted that even two decades after the RTI Act came into force, several public authorities continue to ignore these mandatory provisions.
In the case involving Umesh, four applicants Takshak, Tanvita Gaur, Ashwija P, and Balachandra Rao had sought information under Section 4 of the RTI Act from the deputy secretary's office. When their requests went unanswered, they appealed to KIC. Despite a show-cause notice issued by the commission, Umesh allegedly failed to provide the information. Taking serious note of the lapse, the commission imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 in each of the four cases, taking the total to Rs 1 lakh. It also issued a notice asking why disciplinary action should not be recommended against him.
In the final case, RTI applicant Suresh Chandra Babu had sought from Shivakumar a copy of the govt order related to the jurisdiction of additional land acquisition officers. When the request was ignored, the applicant approached KIC. After an inquiry, the commission fined Shivakumar Rs 25,000 and warned that disciplinary action could be recommended if the requested documents are not furnished immediately.

NPP communications director files RTI request over Feed Ghana Programme details : By Abigail Teye

Asaase Radio: Ghana: Monday, 9^th March 2026.
The Director of Communications of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Richard Kwadwo Ahiagbah, has filed a Right to Information (RTI) request seeking details on the implementation of the government’s Feed Ghana Programme for the 2025 fiscal year.

In a letter dated 5 March 2026 and addressed to the Information Officer and Chief Director of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Ahiagbah invoked Ghana’s Right to Information Act, 2019 (Act 989) to request detailed information on the programme’s funding, expenditure, beneficiaries and outcomes.
According to the NPP communications director, the request is aimed at promoting transparency and informing public discourse on the programme, which seeks to strengthen Ghana’s food security, create employment opportunities for young people and support the country’s agricultural transformation agenda.
“Since Ghana’s economy relies heavily on agriculture, the public deserves clarity on how resources allocated to major agricultural initiatives are utilised and the outcomes achieved,” Ahiagbah stated in the letter.
Budget and expenditure details
Among the information requested is the total budgetary allocation for the Feed Ghana Programme in 2025, including the sources of funding such as the Government of Ghana, internally generated funds and development partner support.
Ahiagbah is also seeking details on the total funds released for the programme within the year and the actual amount spent.
The request further asks for a breakdown of expenditure across key components of the programme, including input support such as seeds, fertilisers and agrochemicals, mechanisation services and equipment, irrigation development, livestock and poultry interventions, as well as extension services and farmer training.
Beneficiaries and geographic coverage
The RTI request also seeks data on the number of farmers who benefited from the programme in 2025.
Ahiagbah asked for a regional breakdown of the beneficiaries as well as the specific interventions received, including crop production, livestock support and irrigation initiatives.
In addition, the NPP official requested information on the programme’s geographic coverage, including the regions, districts and communities where the Feed Ghana Programme was implemented during the year.
Programme outcomes
Beyond financial and beneficiary details, the NPP communications director is seeking measurable outputs and outcomes from the programme.
These include indicators such as increases in acreage cultivated, crop yields, livestock production and other performance metrics used by the ministry to assess the programme’s impact.
Under the Right to Information Act, public institutions are required to respond to requests within the timelines stipulated by law.