You must divulge, we shan’t disclose : Venkatesh Nayak

Deccan Herald: Opinion: Sunday, April 19, 2026.
Things were much better a decade ago, when Cabinet notes were released in response to RTI applications.

Venkatesh Nayak

Last week, country-wide field operations for listing households began under the muchdelayed census exercise. Government-appointed enumerators are visiting our homes to ask 33 questions about the condition of our dwellings, the nature of building materials used, the name, age and sex of people living together, access to water and electricity, cooking facilities, type of toilets and sewage outlets constructed, and our ownership of assets like radio, TV, computer, vehicles, and telephones. They will also ask what foodgrain we eat.
Under the 1948 Census Act, we are obligated to answer these questions to the best of our knowledge. Intentionally refusing to answer or giving false answers invites a fine of up to Rs 1,000 or imprisonment for up to three years.
Next year, they will quiz us about caste affiliation. Ironically, the report of the 2011 SocioEconomic Caste Census has never been made public. Now, the government has told a prominent English daily that the materials on the basis of which the Union Cabinet has decided to count people’s caste claims, once again, cannot be revealed under RTI. When this decision to include caste as a census category was announced last April, I had sought the relevant Cabinet note put up for discussion. The Cabinet Secretariat denied access, citing Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act, which protects pre-decisional cabinet confidentiality. People do not have the right to know if they can name their caste themselves or will have to choose from a list that the government might compile, at least not yet.
The 21-year-old RTI regime covers the entire State apparatus from village panchayats to Rashtrapati Bhawan, where the Cabinet Secretariat was housed until this February. Our transparency law is one of the few in the world which mandate the disclosure of all materials that form the basis of Cabinet decision-making, after the matter is complete and over. Nevertheless, bureaucrats are arbitrating what we, the citizenry, may be told about the working of the country’s top-most executive decision-making body. There are no adverse legal consequences for their opacity.
Of course, press notes are often released about major decisions taken in the weekly or special Cabinet meetings. But for more than a decade, little else is revealed – be it the agenda items, or the notes which contain details of the proposals put up for the Cabinet’s approval and which ministry said what about each proposal, or matters which were sent back for reconsideration.
Things were much better a decade ago, when Cabinet notes were released in response to RTI applications. This is how we got to know that the nodal department for RTI implementation under the Prime Minister was initially excluded from the inter-ministerial consultations over introducing new exemption clauses through the now-shelved Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill. Similarly, it is through the enforced disclosure of Cabinet notes that we learned how and why the CBI got itself excluded from RTI. The government’s stance that citizens cannot have an absolute right to blow the whistle on internal corruption and wrongdoing was also revealed when amendments were proposed to the stillborn Whistleblowers Protection Act.
But of late, queries about decisions taken to weaken Cabinet oversight and departmental accountability are being rejected. For example, I had sought Cabinet documents relating to the decision taken recently to exempt prior approval by the Union Cabinet for international agreements and MoUs which our ministers and babus sign during foreign visits. I had also queried last year’s decision to remove the requirement of reporting to the Cabinet details of work done by the departments every month, under the Transaction of Business Rules. The Cabinet Secretariat refused information by not only invoking Section 8(1)(i) but also Article 74(2) of the Constitution, which prohibits courts from inquiring into the advice tendered by ministers to the President. This is despite the Supreme Court’s crystal-clear case law stating that the bar applies only to the ministerial advice given, not to the materials on which it is based.
Interestingly, data published by the Central Information Commission shows the use of the Cabinet-related RTI exemption nearly doubled last year, from 396 to 654 cases. Public authorities under the Finance Ministry used it more than 300 times. In the world’s largest democracy, the government wants to know more about citizens’ affairs. But records of the work done by the country’s top-most ‘panchayat’ are locked up as sarkari secrets in cabinets (I saw their manner of storage during an RTI inspection), in perpetuity.
The writer wakes up every morning thinking someone somewhere is hiding something.
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.

40,000 RTI appeals disposed of in a year: Karnataka information commissioner

The Hindu: Karnataka: Sunday, April 19, 2026.
Karnataka Information Commission (Kalaburagi bench) and the Kalaburagi district administration organise workshop on RTI Act for district, taluk and gram panchayat PDOs

B. Venkat Singh, Karnataka Information Commissioner (Kalaburagi bench), along with other commissioners, addressing a media conference after the inauguration of a workshop on the RTI Act in Kalaburagi on April 18, 2026. | Photo Credit: ARUN KULKARNI

The Karnataka Information Commission has disposed of a record 40,000 Right to Information (RTI) appeal cases in the past one year, the highest in India, according to B. Venkat Singh, Commissioner of the Kalaburagi bench of the commission.
On April 18, he inaugurated a workshop on the RTI Act organised jointly by the Karnataka Information Commission (Kalaburagi bench) and the district administration at the Deputy Commissioner’s office in Kalaburagi for district, taluk and gram panchayat PDOs.
Mr. Singh said the commission is committed to providing information to people and added that the disposal of cases had gained further momentum after the appointment of new commissioners in October 2025. “After assuming charge at the Kalaburagi bench, around 1,187 appeal cases have been disposed of within 90 days, including several pending for five to six years,” he said.
He noted that in certain cases, penalties had been imposed on officials for failing to provide information, but the fines were not being deducted from their salaries. He urged Deputy Commissioners to take note of the issue and issue necessary directions to ensure compliance.
Emphasising the importance of transparency and accountability in public administration, Mr. Singh said the RTI Act was enacted to ensure that citizens have access to information. He traced the history of the law, noting that similar legislation dates back to 1766 in Sweden, and was later adopted in Finland, the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, and in India in 2005.
Another Information Commissioner Richard Vincent D’Souza said that a proper understanding of the Act would make it easier to dispose of applications. He added that the law plays a crucial role in building a corruption-free society and mandates accountability among public servants. Except for information exempted under the Act, such as matters relating to privacy and national interest, departments should proactively disclose information on their websites, he said.
Another Commissioner, Mahesh Valwekar, advised officials not to be apprehensive about RTI applications. “If the Act is properly understood, there is no need to fear applications. Clear and timely responses must be given,” he said, adding that applications should be disposed of within 30 days, and those pertaining to other offices should be transferred within five days.
Pro-active disclosure to reduce RTI applications
Addressing a media conference later in the day, Mr. Singh said Public Information Officers have been instructed to proactively disclose departmental information in accordance with Sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act.
He said that if departments voluntarily placed information in the public domain, the number of RTI applications would come down significantly. “The core objective of the RTI Act is transparency and accountability. Pro-active disclosure will help achieve this, and reduce the burden on offices,” he said.
Mr. Singh added that similar workshops were being organised across districts in the Kalaburagi division to create awareness among officials about provisions of the Act, and the need for timely disposal of applications. He said several doubts raised by officials regarding the processing of applications were clarified during the workshop, and directions had been issued to serve notices to those who remained absent.
He pointed out that some individuals were misusing the RTI Act without any larger public interest, causing unnecessary inconvenience to officials. “26 such persons across Karnataka have been barred from filing RTI applications, including some from the Kalaburagi division,” he said.
Municipal Commissioner Avinash Shinde, Assistant Commissioner Sahitya Aladakatti, Zilla Panchayat Deputy Secretary Laxman Shrungeri, Planning Director Jagadeppa and officials at various levels, including PDOs and VAs, attended the workshop.

पटना हाईकोर्ट ने RTI की व्यवस्थागत असफलता पर जताई नाराजगी, मामले की अगली सुनवाई 18 जून तय

Dailyhunt: Patna: Saturday, 18 April 2026.
पटना हाईकोर्ट ने बिहार में सूचना के अधिकार की व्यवस्थागत असफलता पर सख्त रुख अपनाया.30,000लंबित अपीलों के मामले पर चीफ जस्टिस संगम कुमार साहू की खंडपीठ ने सुनवाई की. इस मामले की अगली सुनवाई18जून,2026को की जाएगी.

बिहार राज्य में सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005के प्रावधानों को लागू करने में भारी विफलता और राज्य सूचना आयोग में लगभग30,000अपीलों के लंबित होने के मामले को पटना हाईकोर्ट ने बहुत गंभीरता से लिया है.
राज्य में आरटीआई व्यवस्था में इस दुर्दशा के विरुद्ध कोर्ट से हस्तक्षेप की मांग करते हुए अधिवक्ता प्रवीण कुमार द्वारा एक जनहित याचिका दायर की गई थी. कोर्ट में इस जनहित याचिका में याचिकाकर्ता की ओर से अधिवक्ता राजेश कुमार शर्मा ने पक्ष को प्रस्तुत करते हुए बताया कि सूचना का अधिकार,जो भारत के संविधान के अनुच्छेद19(1)(क) के तहत नागरिकों के जानने के मौलिक अधिकार और अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता का एक अभिन्न अंग है,वह आज अधिकारियों द्वारा सूचना देने में अत्यधिक विलंब और वैधानिक दंडों के प्रभावी ढंग से लागू नहीं होने के कारण पूरी तरह असफल हो गया है.
वर्तमान मामला बिहार में सूचना अधिकार तंत्र की पूर्ण व्यवस्थागत विफलता को दर्शाता है. जहाँ नागरिकों के आवेदन वर्षों तक आयोग में लंबित रहते हैं,दोषी लोक सूचना अधिकारियों पर अनिवार्य जुर्माना शायद ही कभी लगाया जाता है.
आम लोगों को उनके सूचना के मौलिक अधिकार से वंचित रहना पड़ रहा है. अधिवक्ता ने कोर्ट के समक्ष यह बात प्रमुखता से रखी कि ऐसी प्रशासनिक विफलताएँ इस अति महत्वपूर्ण कानून को कमजोर करती हैं.
इससे व्यवस्था की पारदर्शिता,जवाबदेही और संपूर्ण लोकतांत्रिक शासन व्यवस्था बुरी तरह प्रभावित होती है. जब नागरिकों को सूचना के अधिकार के अधिकार से वंचित किया जाता है,तो वास्तव में उनके मौलिक अधिकारों का हनन होता है.
सुनवाई के दौरान,राज्य सूचना आयोग की ओर से वरीय अधिवक्ता ललित किशोर ने कोर्ट को सूचित किया कि इसी तरह का एक मामला सुप्रीम कोर्ट के समक्ष लंबित है,जिस पर सर्वोच्च न्यायालय में अगली सुनवाई28अप्रैल,2026को निर्धारित है.
इन तथ्यों पर विचार करते हुए कि यह मामला सुप्रीम कोर्ट के समक्ष विचाराधीन है,पटना हाईकोर्ट ने इस जनहित याचिका पर अगली सुनवाई की तिथि18जून,2026निर्धारित की है.
कोर्ट का यह आदेश इस बात को स्पष्ट करता है कि नागरिकों के सूचना प्राप्त करने के अधिकार को इस तरह मृत पत्र बनाकर निष्क्रिय नहीं होने दिया जा सकता है.

RTI Documents Link NHAI to Pashan Lake Fish Deaths in Pune

Punekar: Pune: Saturday, 18 April 2026.
Fresh disclosures obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act have brought the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) under scrutiny in connection with the recent ecological damage at Pashan Lake, where thousands of fish were found dead.

According to official records from the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC), a major drainage line was damaged during excavation work carried out by NHAI along the Bavdhan service road. The drainage infrastructure had been installed by the civic body following earlier directions from the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to protect the lake’s ecosystem.
Civic documents indicate that the damaged line was not repaired promptly, leading to the discharge of more than 200,000 litres of untreated sewage per day into stormwater lines. These lines eventually connect to the water system feeding Pashan Lake, potentially contributing to the deterioration of water quality.
Advocate Krunnal Gharre, who accessed and shared the RTI documents, alleged that the incident reflects multiple administrative lapses. He claimed that the continuous flow of untreated sewage near the lake contributed significantly to water toxicity. Gharre also alleged that repeated warnings issued by PMC officials to NHAI regarding the damage and associated public health risks were not acted upon.
The records further suggest that PMC had cautioned NHAI about possible outbreaks of vector-borne diseases such as dengue and malaria due to stagnant and contaminated water. Despite formal communication and follow-ups, the repair work was allegedly not completed, and the site was left unattended.
Gharre also stated that attempts to coordinate corrective measures were met with a lack of clarity and accountability among officials. He has called for a broader investigation into the roles of various agencies, including NHAI, and has urged authorities such as the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) and PMC to examine liability and initiate appropriate legal and financial action.
Authorities have not yet issued an official response to the latest allegations. The investigation into the Pashan Lake incident is ongoing.

30,000 Second Appeals And Complaints Under RTI Pending Before Bihar Information Commission

ETV Bharat: Bihar: Saturday, 18 April 2026.
Amarendra said that over 100 second appeals filed by me and pertaining to several serious issues of corruption are pending before the BIC.

Around 30,000 second appeals and complaints under the Right To Information (RTI) are pending before the Bihar Information Commission (BIC), revealing the poor implementation of the Act that was brought in 2005 to empower citizens to hold the government accountable and bring transparency in its work. The data tumbled out after the Patna high court took up a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to address the situation.
Hearing the PIL (CWJC 3089 of 2026) Praween Kumar versus the State of Bihar, the division bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar observed on Thursday that 28,291 second appeals or complaints were pending before the BIC as of December 2024. It has scheduled the next hearing of the case on June 18, 2026.
“The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before us annexure P/4 to the writ petition, which contains information supplied to one Amarendra Kumar, dated April 28, 2025, wherein it is mentioned that the total pendency of second appeals or complaints before the BSIC as of December 2024 was 28,292,” the high court said in its order on Thursday.
Amarendra is an RTI activist based in Muzaffarpur. Talking to ETV Bharat, he said: “Over 100 second appeals filed by me and pertaining to several serious issues of corruption are pending before the BIC. Suitable and timely redressals will improve public welfare and check corruption.”
The PIL in the Patna high court has sought first appeals to be strictly disposed of within 45 days as stipulated under the RTI Act, and second appeals within 90 days or such reasonable time the high court deems fit. It also called for issuance of a direction to the Bihar government to frame executive guidelines to ensure that ‘adverse entries’ are recorded in the annual confidential reports (ACR) of officers who are penalised thrice of more under the RTI Act.
Further, the case sought the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus (court’s command or order) to the state information commission to strictly enforce section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, by imposing the mandatory penalty of Rs 25,000 on government public information officers (PIOs) appointed in all cases where information is delayed beyond 100 days without reasonable cause. It has also requested the high court to direct that the penalty must be automatically deducted from the officer’s personal salary, and is not paid by the concerned department.
The PIL has also sought a direction to the state government to pay interim compensation to citizens who have suffered ‘loss of opportunity’ due to excessive delays in furnishing information and treat such delays as ‘Constitutional tort’ and violation of Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.
Appearing on behalf of the respondents, the senior counsel submitted before the court that a similar matter was before the Supreme Court in Anjali Bhardwaj vs Union of India, which was disposed of vide order dated February 15, 2019. However, a miscellaneous application number 1979 of 2019 was filed in the said case.
The senior counsel produced a copy of the order dated February 10, 2026 that Bihar has only four sanctioned posts of the chief information commissioner and information commissioners, of which one is lying vacant and the process of filling it up was going on.
The Supreme Court, while hearing the case, directed Bihar to consider the desirability of a suitable increase in the sanctioned strength, keeping in view the pendency of almost 30,000 appeals, and to file a response in that regard before the next hearing fixed on April 28, 2026.
Taking into consideration the fact that the matter was sub judice before the Supreme Court, the Patna high court listed the PIL on June 18 and directed the counsels for the respondents to apprise about the status of the miscellaneous application no. 1979 of 2019.

Even if dormant, the RTI Act’s promise remains powerful : Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz

The Daily Star: Bangladesh: Saturday, 18 April 2026.

As the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2009 remains effectively dormant in Bangladesh, RTI advocates must now rely on the new government’s resolve to operationalise it. The law has been inoperative due to the absence of information commissioners since the interim government assumed power in August 2024 following a mass uprising a situation that appears to reflect deliberate inaction intended to shield its activities from public scrutiny. While prioritising pressing issues in its early days, the current government has chosen to postpone consideration of the slapdash RTI (Amendment) Ordinance, along with a few others, left behind by the interim administration. While that matter must now wait, what cannot be delayed any further is the urgent need to fill the vacant posts of information commissioners and restore the law to full functionality.
This is important not only in its own right but also because the law’s effective use can help the government fulfil its commitments commitments in which citizens themselves have an important role to play through the proper use of the RTI Act.
However, as we await its revival, citizens would do well to acquaint themselves with the law’s broader possibilities beyond the routine uses observed since its adoption. For this, we need not look far: experiences of our neighbouring countries that embarked on the RTI journey around the same time offer valuable lessons. We highlight a few recent cases from India and Sri Lanka for their relevance to Bangladesh.
Indeed, RTI enthusiasts in Bangladesh—and the new team of information commissioners, once appointed—would do well to consult, among other sources, the decisions of the Right to Information Commission of Sri Lanka and the Court of Appeal’s role in strengthening RTI jurisprudence. These experiences underscore the critical importance of an independent and neutral dispute resolution mechanism in advancing the effective use of the RTI law.
We begin with the story of former Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who fled the country in 2022 at the height of a popular uprising—a situation not entirely unfamiliar in our own context. A citizen sought information on whether he had left aboard a naval vessel and what public resources were used. The authorities refused, citing national security.
Sri Lanka’s RTI Commission, and ultimately the Court of Appeal, rejected this blanket refusal. While allowing limited withholding of sensitive operational details, they held that financial information regarding the use of public resources must be disclosed. The court affirmed that “national security” cannot serve as a blanket excuse for withholding information when public money and executive accountability are at stake, underscoring the primacy of transparency even in moments of crisis.
By contrast, public engagement with such sensitive uses of the law in our own context remains limited. Unless civil society, equipped with knowledge and a sense of responsibility, actively utilises the RTI framework, its full potential will remain unrealised.
Another Sri Lankan case, M.J.K. Dissanayake v. Asia Broadcasting Corporation (Pvt) Ltd, further illustrates the law’s reach. The Court of Appeal upheld a ruling by the Information Commission that a private television broadcaster, Hiru TV, could be treated as a “public authority” under the RTI Act. The case arose from an RTI request seeking information on the editorial verification of a disputed news report. Rejecting the claim that the broadcaster was purely private, the Information Commission and the Court of Appeal underlined that entities performing public functions under a state licence, such as the use of public frequencies, are subject to RTI obligations, while allowing for the protection of journalistic sources.
This decision is significant for extending RTI’s reach beyond the state to private actors exercising public influence. In Bangladesh, we often lament that the law does not extend to private entities while doing little to explore its existing possibilities, including recourse to the High Court.
An instructive example from India concerns the disclosure of a committee report. In Sajimon Parayil v. State of Kerala and Others, a citizen sought access to the Justice Hema Committee Report on gender discrimination in the Malayalam film industry. Although it was submitted in 2019, the government withheld it, citing sensitivity.
The Kerala State Information Commission ordered disclosure with redactions, and the Kerala High Court upheld the decision on August 13, 2024. It affirmed that the RTI Act does not permit blanket refusal merely because parts of a document are sensitive; rather, it permits partial disclosure, with protected information removed. The court emphasised that privacy concerns can be addressed through redaction and that matters of public interest warrant disclosure. In Bangladesh, many such committee reports remain out of public reach, largely because citizens seldom seek them under the RTI Act.
The lesson is clear. Even in its current state, the RTI Act retains immense, largely untapped potential. Realising its full promise will depend not only on the government’s political will but also on an informed and engaged citizenry ready to use it. The responsibility, therefore, lies with them—to understand the law, test its limits, and begin reclaiming it as an instrument of accountability, even before the information commissioners are appointed, and more so once they are.
(Dr Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz are chairman and deputy director (RTI), respectively, at Research Initiatives, Bangladesh (RIB). They can be reached at rib@citech-bd.com.)

What's the reason behind the death of 149 leopards in Madhya Pradesh within 14 months?

MSN.COM: Bhopal: Friday, April 17, 2026.

According to the latest figures that have come to light through the RTI Act, roughly 149 leopards have lost their lives in Madhya Pradesh in just 14 months starting from January 2025. The shocking statistic highlights the concern for the safety of one of the most versatile large cat species in India. Collisions with vehicles on roads become the primary reason for deaths caused to leopards.

The statistics, released due to an RTI application submitted by Ajay Dube, a wildlife activist, suggest that there is a grave threat to leopards in Madhya Pradesh. While conservationists regard the situation as alarming, forest officials argue that the deaths are within the acceptable range considering the large number of these animals and their interaction with humans.

According to a report published by the PTI, as per the official explanation, about one-third of the deaths recorded had been related to accidents involving vehicles, with some deaths having occurred due to the movement of highways in forested regions. It was also stated that at least 19 deaths had been caused by incidents involving vehicles on the highways alone.

Natural factors such as disease and aging had resulted in about one-fourth of the deaths recorded. In addition to this, one-fifth of the deaths were due to conflicts within the species such as territorial fighting. Such conflicts have been common among wild animals competing for territories.

Human activities like poaching and retaliatory killings have also caused many deaths. Leopards have sometimes been electrocuted either by mistake or deliberately, while others have been caught up in traps. Another nine percent of deaths could not be explained.

What's the reason behind the death of 149 leopards in Madhya Pradesh within 14 months?

As per the report, forest officials have initiated effective programs to decrease such deaths. It is important to note that unlike many other species, leopards are very adaptive creatures and can be found in various regions in the state and near human settlements as well.

The forest department has made several attempts to curb such accidents by building passageways for animals in the construction of new roads, putting up warnings in protected wildlife areas, and patrolling vulnerable sites. Such steps have been undertaken to not only decrease such accidents but also human-wildlife conflict.

It is noteworthy that the state is known for its rich wildlife, especially leopards, in India. According to the Status of Leopards in India 2022 report, which was published in 2024, Madhya Pradesh hosts around 3,907 leopards, which is the highest in India. It is higher than 3,421 reported in 2018 and creates difficulties in contemporary times.

Nevertheless, it has been noticed that while an increased population is certainly a positive aspect regarding conservation achievements, it increases the contact between wildlife and humans. Leopards that are able to survive in fragmented areas often move through cultivated fields, settlements, and highway systems, making them vulnerable to road accidents and human encounters.

The latest numbers definitely stress the need for balancing growth and wildlife movement routes. With infrastructure development continuing to progress, the protection of animal routes will become increasingly important for maintaining healthy populations.

Even though the authorities remain optimistic regarding their steps towards mitigation of the problem, it is evident that any conservation will have to adapt to new challenges posed by the dynamic environment.

Transparency in public prosecutor recruitment builds trust says CIC asks ED to reconsider RTI plea.

The Week: PTI: New Delhi: Friday, April 17, 2026.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has observed that public recruitment and engagement to public posts must enjoy the confidence and trust of the public, while advising the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to re-examine an RTI application seeking details on prosecutorial posts. 

The commission has also said "transparency in such matters strengthens institutional credibility".

The case pertained to an application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by a lawyer who had sought to know the "rules prescribing eligibility criteria for Asst Public Prosecutor, Addl Public Prosecutor and Public Prosecutor of Enforcement Directorate" and "the no. of Vacancies of Asst PPs, Addl PPs and Public Prosecutor (category wise General, OBC, SC and ST)" in Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka.

The ED had denied the information citing exemption under section 24 of the RTI Act that excludes certain intelligence and security organisations from disclosure obligations, a stand upheld by the First Appellate Authority.

Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari observed that "public recruitment and engagement to public posts must always enjoy the confidence and trust of the general public.

He further said that it would be appropriate for the public authority "to relook the RTI application in the light of the nature of information sought, particularly with respect to general eligibility criteria and vacancy-related details which may already be available in the public domain, and take an appropriate decision as per its administrative wisdom".

During the hearing, the ED submitted that there are no regular vacancies for the posts of assistant public prosecutor, additional public prosecutor or public prosecutor, and that appointments are generally made for special public prosecutors or consultants in accordance with the requirement.

It added that such engagements are carried out through public advertisements available in the public domain.

The CIC observed that while the exemption claimed by the ED is valid, the nature of the information sought warrants a broader consideration in line with transparency principles.

With these observations, the commission disposed of the appeal, noting that no further intervention was required under the RTI Act.

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

Senior town planning officer in Haryana fined ₹25k for delaying RTI reply.

Times of India: Gurgaon: Friday, April 17, 2026.

In an order reinforcing accountability under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, Haryana State Information Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 on a senior town planning officer for failing to provide information within the stipulated time and for ignoring multiple notices.The penalty has been imposed on RS Batth, the then state public information officer (SPIO)-cum-district town planner (enforcement), Gurgaon, who is now posted with GMDA. The order was passed by state information commissioner Kulbir Chhikara on March 12, 2026, following prolonged non-compliance in a complaint filed by Delhi-based applicant Nitin Garg.

On April 8, the commission sent the order to the director general of town and country planning, the drawing and disbursing officer of GMDA, and other officials, including Batth, directing immediate compliance. Referring to its earlier notice dated Feb 26, 2026, the commission instructed all respondents to act on the order without delay and submit a compliance report.

According to the commission’s findings, the RTI application was filed on May 6, 2022, seeking specific information from the town and country planning department. Despite a clear directive from the first appellate authority on Dec 14, 2022, the information was not furnished within the prescribed timeframe. The commission noted that the officer neither complied with the order nor offered any reasonable explanation for the delay.

The matter involved multiple hearings and notices over nearly two years. As recorded in the order, Batth failed to appear before the commission and did not respond to repeated show-cause notices issued on June 20, 2025, Nov 3, 2025, Jan 28, 2026, and Feb 26, 2026. The commission observed a “lack of diligence” and described the conduct as a clear violation of the RTI Act, 2005.

Invoking Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, the commission held that this was a fit case for penalty, observing that public officials are legally bound to provide information in a timely manner. The order also referred to a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment in 2014, Chander Kanta vs state information commission and others, which mandates penalties in cases of unjustified delay or denial of information.

Under the order, the Rs 25,000 penalty will be recovered from the officer’s salary in two instalments or within 60 days. The amount is to be deposited under the designated govt head for RTI penalties. The commission has also directed the director general of town and country planning and the drawing and disbursing officer of GMDA to ensure compliance and submit a report.

The registrar of state information commission has been tasked with monitoring the recovery process to ensure timely execution of the order.

A senior commission official underscored the urgency, stating that the directions must be followed with “immediate compliance by the respondent, with intimation to the commission,” thereby emphasising the binding nature of the ruling.

Batth said, “I have to check matter and surely will apprise the facts to hon’ble commission and all compliances will be made.”

CIC Flags 'Avoidable Suspicion' Of Tax Evasion Complaints Being 'Quietly Settled'; Moots Tracking System

ETV Bharat: New Delhi: Thursday, 16 April 2026.
Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari observed that complainants currently have no structured way to know the progress of their tax evasion petitions

The lack of a formal status-tracking mechanism for tax evasion complaints can fuel suspicion among complainants that their case may have been "quietly settled" or closed without due consideration, the Central Information Commission has said, while advising GST authorities to introduce a monitoring system.
In a recent order, Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari observed that complainants currently have no structured way to know the progress of their tax evasion petitions (TEPs), forcing them to repeatedly use the RTI route.
"The absence of any institutional mechanism within the Respondent Public Authority for enabling complainants/TEP filers to ascertain the status of their complaints often gives rise to avoidable suspicion and apprehension in the minds of such complainants that the matter may have been quietly settled or closed without due consideration of the allegations raised," Tiwari observed.
He said that "such opacity unnecessarily results in multiple RTI applications and avoidable second appeals before the Commission".
The advisory came while disposing of a batch of 10 appeals where the applicant had sought detailed information on action taken against multiple firms based on her tax evasion complaints. The Commission upheld the denial of detailed information during the pendency of investigations, noting that such disclosures are exempt under provisions of the RTI Act.
However, it stressed that complainants are entitled to know the broad outcome of their complaints once investigations are completed.
Citing legal position, the Commission said complainants "would be certainly entitled to know as to how their complaints have been treated and the results thereof", though not the detailed records of investigation.
Accordingly, it directed GST authorities to inform the applicant about the status and action taken on her complaints after the probes conclude.
In its advisory, the Commission suggested that authorities "ought to evolve an appropriate administrative mechanism, preferably an online status-tracking facility… whereby complainants… may be able to view the broad status of their complaints." Such a system, it said, would promote transparency, enhance public confidence and reduce the burden of repetitive RTI applications.

Speech under watch: Reading the 2026 IT rules

Frontline Magazine: National: Thursday, 16 April 2026.
Draft IT Rules shift online speech control toward Ministries, allowing direct takedown orders to users and making platform advisories binding. Compliance pressure pushes platforms toward pre-emptive removal of political and critical content.

New draft IT Rules give Ministries wider control over online content, linking safe harbour protections to compliance and faster takedown mandates in India. | Video Credit: Moderated by Jinoy Jose P.; Produced by Kavya Pradeep M. & Saatvika Radhakrishna

On March 30, 2026, the Union government proposed amendments to the IT Rules, 2021, that would give it sweeping new powers over online speech. For the first time, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting could issue takedown notices directly to individual users, while the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has tied safe‑harbour protections for platforms to strict compliance with its advisories.
The government insists that these measures will strengthen enforcement. But critics warn they could expand censorship, especially as takedown orders increasingly target political, satirical, and critical content.
In the latest edition of Frontline webinar, Associate Editor Jinoy Jose P. speaks with cybersecurity researcher Srinivas Kodali, journalist and founder of MediaNama Nikhil Pahwa, and Sanjay Kapoor, President of Editors Guild of India. Together, they discuss what these draft rules mean for free speech, press freedom, and the future of India’s digital space.
Edited excerpts:
Jinoy Jose P.: Nikhil, the government says these rules are “clarificatory and procedural”. What do they actually change?
Nikhil Pahwa: There is nothing clarificatory about them. They expand the scope and powers of the Ministry substantially. Over the last two months, the amount of censorship on social media has expanded manyfold—more and more speech is being taken down because platforms are afraid of being held liable if the government goes after them.
You’ll remember that in 2021, Delhi Police landed at Twitter’s office because Twitter had refused to take down speech during the CAA/NRC protests. The government threatened that it would lose its safe harbour protection. In February 2021, the government changed the rules to expand the scope to include digital news publishers, streaming services, and even news aggregators like Google News and InShorts. It became a mechanism for censorship, even though the law doesn’t allow it.
These rules expand that further. They transfer the power of online censorship for news-related speech, so if anyone is even commenting on news, not reporting but commenting, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) can send a notice to the platform to take it down. Right now, all those orders come from the Ministry of IT, and MIB has to route through them. Now they want to remove that friction. We will see an expansion of censorship of speech, especially as we get closer to elections, criticism, parody of the Prime Minister, and comedians having their content removed. The scale and scope is increasing without any checks and balances.
Second: the rules that are being changed are ordinarily supposed to be placed before Parliament for ratification and scrutiny. What they’re changing now is that the ability to expand the scope of rules will happen through circulars and advisories, which previously never had legal power. A government can just issue an advisory without any checks, and platforms will have to comply.
Third: there is something called the Interdepartmental Committee of the Government of India that will now be allowed to take a call on what they want to allow or remove online, on their own, without needing a complaint. This is basically what the government had previously attempted with the Fact Check Unit. The Bombay High Court in 2024 struck it down as unconstitutional. What’s happened is that these new rules allow them to resurrect it as an IDC [International Data Corporation], bypass the Bombay High Court ruling, and grant the government greater censorship powers in the guise of addressing misinformation.
They gave a 15-day consultation for this. These are supposed to be public consultations—under the government’s pre-legislative consultation policy, submissions are to be held in the public domain so journalists can report on them. But for the last few years, the Ministry of IT has not been releasing these submissions and has been refusing them under RTI. In the last amendment, there was a consultation in November–December last year, notified in February this year. Aditi Agrawal of Tech Trace reported that Secretary S. Krishnan told platforms the 10-day implementation deadline was fine because they should have started implementing when the draft itself was done. Which means the outcome was already predetermined and the consultation is just for show. It’s a farce.
There have now been seven amendments to the IT rules since 2021. Courts have only been able to strike things down once—the Fact Check Unit—and that has also been resurrected. The speed at which the government is amending rules is much faster than we can get recourse from courts to protect free speech. This is bypassing the democratic process to build an infrastructure of censorship constructed over the last seven to ten years. Today, there was a news report that the next plan is to include X’s Community Notes under government regulation. Six months from now, there’ll be another plan. Bit by bit, like the boiling frog, they will keep expanding this digital public infrastructure for censorship.
Jinoy Jose P.: The Editors Guild issued its statement within five days of the draft being published. What specifically alarmed you?
Sanjay Kapoor: A lot of our history is being forgotten. The media played a very big role in raising the banner of revolt against British rule. India was a beacon of hope for many democracies. So when a democracy is getting undermined, there’s cause for major worry—and that worry gets aggravated when the legislative process is being bypassed.
You have platforms being taken down—4 PM, which has a huge subscriber base. The Wire had similar problems. A gentleman who mocked the Prime Minister over his diplomacy has come to grief. Yesterday, I was trying to figure out where we were inspired when drafting these laws, and only two countries showed up: China and Russia. Do we really want to be like them—totally illiberal and unmindful of our democratic rights?
Investigative journalism is getting impacted. There is a power of takedown that has been granted to petty officers across the country. Not just Delhi and Chennai—in large parts of India, people practising in the media are coming to grief because someone lesser than the district magistrate suddenly feels a report should be taken down. The chilling effect is being felt everywhere.
Jinoy Jose P.: Srinivas, these rules bring ordinary social media users under the oversight of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry—not just registered news publishers, but people posting about current events. Secretary Krishnan admitted there is no line between a post and content. You’ve tracked surveillance and policing. What happens in practice when the state has a vague rule and a very fast trigger finger?
Srinivas Kodali: There’s this famous saying in India—there’s no problem with free speech, there’s a problem after free speech. After you post something, that’s when the cops come knocking. Two satire accounts critical of the current establishment recently had their accounts shut down permanently. Twitter shut them down for good. YouTube channels of independent news outfits are going down. When they approach the High Court, the state is saying: ‘You were anonymous, and that’s not acceptable. If you want to be critical of the state, whether through satire or any other medium, you have to disclose your identity.’ This goes against the very idea of the right to privacy.
Within the rules, there are specific clauses requiring intermediaries—Facebook, Twitter, YouTube—to disclose who a user is when the Ministry demands it. Recently, the Delhi Police has been demanding that these agencies disclose large amounts of user information as part of investigations. So this isn’t just censorship. It’s also policing. It’s what happens post-censorship.
And when they say anybody can issue censorship orders now—not just the Ministry of IT, but MIB, anybody, the Interdepartmental Committee—by decentralising this, you allow pretty much any constable anywhere in India. The Mamnoor Nagar Police in Telangana recently issued Twitter a notice asking for a tweet to be censored just because someone posted something the local establishment didn’t like.
But we also need to understand: these are emergency rules. You have to shut the content down within three hours. Emergency rules are for emergencies. The question is—are we under an emergency? If we’re not, why do we need them? And even if we were, that’s when you’re told fundamental rights are suspended. If it’s not an emergency scenario, why are the people being censored not receiving notices or being heard? That goes against the very idea of natural justice.
This goes to the very idea of shutting speech for good. During the right to privacy hearings, the debate around encryption—WhatsApp, Signal—was about not wanting the state to know private communications. But in broadcast mediums, the state is now saying that anyone broadcasting essentially becomes a publisher. You can’t do that. And if the state does want to bring these mechanisms, they need to be debated in Parliament. They can’t be brought in the form of rules. It’s very excessive.

Apps for Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and other social networks on a smartphone in Chennai in March 2018. Short compliance windows and liability risk reshape newsroom and creator behaviour, narrowing space for dissent as elections approach. | Photo Credit: Arun Sankar/AFP/Getty Images

Jinoy Jose P.: Nikhil, under the proposed Rule 3(4), any written instruction from the Ministry—an advisory, guideline, even an SOP—becomes binding on platforms. If they don’t comply, they lose their legal shield. The rational response for any platform is to take down first and ask questions never. There’s also an assumption that big tech should be held responsible for what’s posted on them. Could these rules end up favoring big tech?
Nikhil Pahwa: Big tech companies are also badgered into submission. There are two types of relevant law here. One is Section 69A—secret blocking orders not available for scrutiny. In the landmark Shreya Singhal case in 2015, Justice Nariman wrote that if a user whose speech is taken down is identified, they will be given a hearing. That has never been followed. We don’t even know if scrutiny by the review committee takes place anymore.
Platforms used to push back. In 2021, when police landed at Twitter’s doorstep, Twitter had pushed back, saying orders—including the censoring of publishers like The Caravan—were unconstitutional. Since then, the government has constantly been at platforms in meetings. IPS [Indian Police Service] officers are part of the review committee, and they will lean towards censorship. That check and balance is no longer a check and balance.
The timeline for platforms to act on an order has gone from 14 days to 36 hours, and there was a report from the Indian Express that a Ministry official said they plan to bring it down to one hour. In a Bangalore High Court filing, X submitted that over a six-month period, they received 29,000 orders—an average of 160 per day. If you give a three-hour timeline to implement 160 orders, who has the legal capacity to examine each one?
This is happening because of scale—through the Sahyog portal, which X is challenging, it’s almost a hotline between platforms and multiple government departments: seven Central agencies, 33 State governments and government bodies reaching 70 platforms for censorship. Many orders don’t even come through that portal—they come from constables, as Srinivas said.
So platforms have no capacity to deal with it. They censor to protect themselves. Platforms are not being empowered—they are being used to censor us. Protecting the platforms that carry our speech is an integral part of protecting our speech. Yes, they need to be held to account for the censorship they do of our speech on their own. But here, the might of the state is on the platform to censor our speech without any accountability or transparency. If you file an RTI for a copy of a Section 79A order—which is supposed to be available under RTI—the government refuses to give it.
This entire system has been built to expand censorship and evade accountability. In software, we say: move fast and break things. This is moving fast and breaking speech.
Jinoy Jose P.: Is there room for meaningful revision, or is the basic design beyond repair?
Sanjay Kapoor: An infrastructure of censorship has been created. To stop it, you need safeguards—a review committee loaded not only with IPS and administrative service officers but also with journalists, editors, and others who question. Everything has to go through a process. But I think the desire in the government right now is not a calibrated response. They want to put the fear, put the scare, have a chilling impact—that people should be mindful of what they post, and it should not be against the government. We saw something posted about the head of state’s diplomacy that was taken down despite great viewership, and subsequently, another gentleman with 36 million Instagram followers posted it anyway.
The government thinks it can control the entire mindset of people, control free speech, but it’s not really working. They get away with it because there is no political party cognizant enough to challenge their authority. Our belief is that review committees need to be strengthened, safeguards need to be strengthened—ones mindful of our past, mindful of the fact that we are a democracy and not an illiberal state like China or Russia.
Jinoy Jose P.: A viewer says such restrictive laws get passed primarily because the news media in all its forms have become lamentably pliable over the past decade. How do you respond?
Sanjay Kapoor: I agree with what he’s saying. Everything is not being questioned adequately. In a real democracy, people challenge on the ground, in the courts, in Parliament. In India, there is a reconciliation that has happened—that the government will have its way regardless. Despite Amartya Sen writing The Argumentative Indian, the fact is, we don’t argue enough. We’re not even asking questions, and that is cause for major worry.
Jinoy Jose P.: Nikhil, if a viewer watching this wants to act—not just feel informed—what is the single most useful thing they can do?
Nikhil Pahwa: Before I address that, to say that the media is pliant or not pushing back is not correct. Newspapers might be, TV channels might be, but the web is vibrant with pushback, and it has been for over a decade. I ran the net neutrality campaign along with many others—Srinivas was there too. Citizens pushed back. We have the fundamental right to privacy. People have gone to court. The government right now is so powerful that it is making so many changes so quickly that it’s impossible to keep pace. And even when there’s pushback, everyone moves to the shiny new thing.
This is why, as Apar Gupta and I wrote, we need to focus on the infrastructure that has come up—and we need courts to take action on it.
Practically, the Internet Freedom Foundation is running a campaign where you can send comments to the ministry — they’ve drafted helpful guidance. But also, talk to your local MP, your MLA, your State government, and your Central government. Even within the party in power, MPs will be empowered to raise this when their constituents tell them something. Pick up the phone and call them.
Our role doesn’t stop at voting. We have social media to raise our voices. I got a censorship notice just yesterday to try and prevent me from reporting on a data breach—and people have the right to know about it. I’m now having to go to lawyers. Running a media company is not easy. We are trying our best, but everyone needs to step up. Please go to internetfreedom.in and participate in this democratic process—push back not just against these rules but against the infrastructure that has come up.

Protesters from the Anonymous India group of hackers wear Guy Fawkes masks as they protest against laws they say give the government control over censorship of internet usage in Mumbai. Rule changes lean on advisories and circulars rather than parliamentary scrutiny, reducing legislative visibility. | Photo Credit: By Special Arrangement

Jinoy Jose P.: Srinivas, the Sahyog portal was launched in 2024. It allows more than 30 State police units and around eight Central agencies to send takedown orders directly to platforms, often without the procedural safeguards the Supreme Court insisted on in the Shreya Singhal judgment. With these draft rules on top, are we looking at a single joined-up censorship infrastructure?
Srinivas Kodali: Sahyog Portal is the newest entity in the setup. If you look at digital infrastructures in policing in India, they largely pop up after the Mumbai attacks—NATGRID [National Intelligence Grid], the National Population Register, identity, censorship, and policing, all integrated. When you ask the people building them, they keep saying: This is about empowerment. But if you’re building systems to empower police, you’re going to get more policing. In Telangana, our police used to say one CCTV was equivalent to 100 police officials. We said: ‘That means we’re getting excessive policing.’
When you bring a portal like Sahyog and connect 30 policing agencies, someone posting something critical about Assam from Hyderabad could get a censorship notice not only from Assam Police but from Hyderabad Police as well. You’ve networked all these agencies together. Usually, to arrest someone in a different State, you need to go to court and get a transit permit. You don’t need any of that for digital censorship now.
What you’re witnessing is coordinated censorship—a network coordination across policing departments and Ministries. The Minister for Electronics and IT is also the Minister for Information and Broadcasting. When the Minister is the same for both Ministries, they coordinate better, and they coordinate better to censor us. There are no limits on these portals. We really need to talk about purpose limitations. What is the purpose of these entities, and why are you continuously increasing their scope? When Aadhaar was brought in, they said it was about welfare, and they continuously expanded its scope. We saw that function creep. We are witnessing it again.
When Nikhil refers to this as DPI for censorship, it’s actually control infrastructure—systems to control population, control their minds, empower police to do more censorship.
Jinoy Jose P.: Our legal columnist V. Venkatesan used the term “collateral censorship”—the idea that when the government sends a notice to a platform that is liable for user content, platforms tend to over-remove content, creating a system of broader suppression. Is there enough awareness in the media community about what is happening? Are we doing enough?
Sanjay Kapoor: That’s exactly my fear. The matter is being taken to a core group and discussed there. There’s no great awareness in the media beyond a certain point—the feeling is that this is in the domain of lawyers and they should discuss it. Recently, EGI organised a seminar where Apar Gupta and others came, and we discussed the challenges to media. I don’t know what impact it had, but I’m cognizant of the gap and we’re trying to correct it.
People are afraid. The courts, the media, the intermediaries—all are mortally afraid of the consequences. So even if the content is not really problematic, they remove it fearing adverse impact, fearing challenge by the state. Nobody is willing to take them on. The courts themselves are unclear about how far they can go. The people backing the censorship are prospering in this environment.
Jinoy Jose P.: Srinivas, the government’s argument is that some blanket rules are needed to curb misinformation and deepfakes. Are there any global best practices or models we can emulate?
Srinivas Kodali: We’re having an information overload. It’s not that there’s a lack of information—there’s a lack of required information. Very few people understand the depth of what’s happening. And now the state is saying: I’m going to censor that kind of information. Keep people a little dumb. The state does not want to give you information that makes you an active citizen, that makes you question the state.
Usually, this is the role of courts and media—different pillars of democracy to keep the state in check. The state has realised this and is actively suppressing the powers of all these other entities. Digital infrastructures are not just coming in to control media, they’re coming in to control court systems too.
When you talk of resistance, it usually goes underground. I don’t mean a militia—I mean information going underground. Think of what happened during the Emergency, when news still existed but through different channels, word to word, offline. If digital media is being censored, can we start printing? The state can’t stop me from buying a printer. We need to start innovating, finding spaces where we can produce speech the state can’t see.
The state is trying to control platforms it can see and thinks are important. There are offline spaces—universities, social spaces. We need to do a lot more offline. We need to coordinate, the way the police coordinate, but strategically, about protecting rights.
Over the last few decades, civil rights movements have decreased. Digital rights movements are young—digital became big with smartphones post-2010, 2012. But over those years, we did fight back. We got the right to privacy, net neutrality, and we fought against 66A. It’s about organising. Go to internetfreedom.in. They are fighting back. It’s as simple as that.
Jinoy Jose P.: Srinivas, two more things: the impact on language media, since most social media activity in India happens in Tamil, Malayalam, Bangla, Hindi, and those users are facing a centralised system largely comprising English-speaking or Hindi-speaking administrators. And someone has argued that privacy is a 20th-century idea—that in this era, you can’t really ask for privacy. How do these two angles connect to this issue?
Srinivas Kodali: On language and AI: as we start codifying Indian languages—whether allowing people to type in them or speak them so information becomes accessible to everyone—I’m afraid that as big tech entities make language models for our languages, it may lead to more censorship. We may stop remembering. Memory is something people keep talking about with AI. When we don’t talk about these issues, we forget them.
In some southern Indian States, there’s a certain kind of memory—when it comes to the freedom movement, their histories, their cultures—which the north has completely forgotten. That’s because of what kind of information is discussed and what kind is suppressed. Language plays a role, especially when you say you want to impose Hindi on the South.
On privacy and speech: what’s happening here is we’re codifying rights with digitisation. Think of an alphabet on your screen as an image of an alphabet—its symbols, codification. My own face right now is an image. Law is also codification. How you codify these mathematical models, how you codify the physical world online, determines what rights you have online. If you are digitising and ensuring people’s rights are protected while you digitise, you will have rights. It’s about how you design these systems.
The state is saying: I have the monopoly on everything when it comes to digital, and I decide how digitisation happens. Or the monopoly of the market, and the state is saying the market has no monopoly, I determine everything. That’s where the challenges are coming.
Yes, privacy has become hard to have in the digital age, just like clean air or clean water in an industrial society. But these are issues we need to fight for: better livelihoods, for a better social life, for a better human life. These fights will continue.
Jinoy Jose P.: Sanjay, final thoughts?
Sanjay Kapoor: These intermediaries are US-based. There are foreign policy implications in whatever is being done. X is owned by Elon Musk, Facebook by Zuckerberg—both close to Trump. If you’re trying to put a screw on them, there will be foreign policy implications. If India comes closer to the US, maybe the restrictions will ease, but that remains to be tested.
Jinoy Jose P.: Thank you, Srinivas Kodali, Sanjay Kapoor, and Nikhil Pahwa.
What we’ve heard today tells us something larger than a set of draft rules. As Nikhil said, this is the construction, piece by piece, of an infrastructure in which the government can control what citizens see, share, and say online—done not through a single ordinance or act, but through an accumulation of vague clauses, compressed timelines, and compliance obligations.
The word the IT Secretary used was “clarificatory”. The word the Bombay High Court used for the last version of these rules was “unconstitutional”. Somewhere between those two adjectives, the future of online speech in India will be decided.
This transcript has been edited for length and clarity