BCCI not government body, not subject to RTI Act: Central Information Commission : Arna Chatterjee

Bar and Bench: New Delhi: Tuesday, 19 May 2026.
The CIC revisited its earlier ruling and concluded that the board remains a private autonomous body under law, and hence cannot be subject to the RTI Act.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) on Monday held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is not covered by the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) as it does not fall within the definition of a 'public authority' under the Act [Geeta Rani v Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports & Anr.]
Information Commissioner PR Ramesh said that BCCI is a private organisation created to promote the game of cricket.
“BCCI is a private organization whose objects are to promote the game of cricket. Its functions are regulated and governed by its own Rules and Regulations independent of any statute and are only related to its members." the CIC ruled.
The verdict came in a plea seeking information on the functioning and affairs of the BCCI and whether such details could be accessed under the RTI framework at all, given that the body is not formally recognised as a public authority.
In 2018, Central Information Commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu held that BCCI was a “public authority under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act and therefore amenable to the RTI regime. The order directed the BCCI to designate Public Information Officers and create a mechanism for receiving RTI applications.
BCCI challenged it in before the Madras High Court, contending that it was a private autonomous society not substantially funded or controlled by the government and therefore outside the ambit of the RTI Act.
The High Court did not decide whether BCCI was covered by the RTI Act. Instead, it remitted the matter back to the CIC for a fresh examination.
BCCI is a private organization whose objects are to promote the game of cricket.
Central Information Commission
In its order passed on Monday, the CIC explained that under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act (defines which bodies must disclose information), an organisation qualifies as a 'public authority' only if it is created by law or is owned, controlled, or substantially funded by the government.
Applying this test, the CIC found that the BCCI does not meet any of these conditions.
It noted that the BCCI is a society registered under law but not created by any statute or government order. It held that registration merely gives legal recognition to a private entity and does not make it a statutory body accountable under the Act.
It also detailed on what counts as “control” by the government, clarifying that it must be deep and pervasive, not just regulatory oversight.
“The working committee elected from amongst its members in accordance with its own rules, controls the entire affairs and management of the BCCI. It is pertinent to mention that there is no representation of the government or any statutory body of whatsoever nature by whatever form in the BCCI. There exists no control of the government over the functions, finance, administration, management and affairs of the BCCI. Thus, the status of public authority cannot be given to the BCCI,” observed the Commission.
The CIC further examined whether the BCCI could still fall under RTI as a body 'substantially financed' by the government.
Referring to Supreme Court in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd v State of Kerala (2013) and Zee Telefilms Ltd v Union of India (2005), the Commission said such funding must be significant and essential for the organisation’s functioning.
In BCCI’s case, the CIC found no such dependence. It recorded that the board generates its own revenue through media rights, sponsorships, and commercial activities, and that tax exemptions or general benefits available under law cannot be treated as government funding.
There exists no control of the government over the functions, finance, administration, management and affairs of the BCCI.
Central Information Commission
Additionally, the CIC addressed the argument that the BCCI performs public functions by selecting the Indian team and representing the country internationally.
This argument was also rejected on the ground that the RTI Act does not treat 'public function' as a test for deciding whether an organisation must disclose information.
“Another commonly advanced argument is that the BCCI performs ‘public functions’ and enjoys a monopoly over cricket in India. While this may be factually accurate, it is legally irrelevant for the purposes of Section 2(h). The RTI Act does not include ‘public function’ as a criterion for determining a public authority,” said the Commission.
In a broader observation, the CIC cautioned against assuming that greater government control automatically ensures transparency or fairness.
“The evolution of the Board of Control for Cricket in India from a colonial-era administrative body into the financial epicentre of global cricket reflects one of the most significant transformations in contemporary sports economics. Unlike many national sports bodies that depend substantially on state support, the BCCI operates as a largely autonomous, market-driven entity, with revenues running into tens of thousands of crores and substantial financial reserves,” it observed.
Another argument is that the BCCI performs ‘public functions’ and enjoys a monopoly over cricket in India. While this may be factually accurate, it is legally irrelevant for the purposes of RTI Act.
Central Information Commission
With these findings, the CIC ultimately dismissed the appeal seeking information under the RTI Act, holding that the law does not apply to the BCCI in this case.
Advocates Aditya Mehta, Shivani Garg, Agneya Gopinath, Deeksha Dev Singh, Biswa Patnaik, Melinda Colaco and Prakhar Maheshwari represented the BCCI.
[Read Order]

‘BCCI not under RTI Act’: CIC warns superimposed govt control could disrupt ‘finely balanced’ economic structure

The Times of India: New Delhi: Tuesday, 19 May 2026.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) on Monday reversed its 2018 order and held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) doesn’t come under the purview of Right To Information (RTI) act. The commission dismissed an appeal filed in front of Ministry Of Youth Affairs & Sports in 2017 seeking information regarding the provisions/guidelines under which BCCI represents India and selects players for national and international cricket tournaments and also raised queries concerning the authority vested in BCCI by the Government of India.

In the order accessed by TOI, the CIC also observed that it’s not appropriate to assume increased governmental supervision enhances the functioning of BCCI . It warned that superimposed govt control could risk ‘disrupt a finely balanced economic structure’.
The commission also pointed out the Supreme Court-appointed Justice Lodha committee’s reform recommendations for transparency in sports administration were only advisory in nature and “and could not override the express statutory framework contained in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.”
The matter was reconsidered after the Madras High Court in Sept last year remitted the CIC’s earlier order in Oct 2018 for fresh adjudication. In 2018, CIC held the BCCI as the public authority under RTI Act and directed then president, secretary and committee of administrators (CoA) to designate information officers and put in place a system of online and offline mechanisms to receive the applications for information under RTI Act. The order also issued a few more directions against BCCI. The cricket board subsequently challenged the order in front of the Madras High Court. The commission clarified that the Supreme Court had not declared the BCCI to be a “public authority” under the RTI Act.
In its fresh order, passed through information commissioner PR Ramesh, CIC stated: “the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) does not fall within the ambit of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and therefore is not subject to the provisions of the RTI Act.”
The CIC order cited that the BCCI is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. “BCCI is neither established by or under the Constitution nor created by any law enacted by Parliament or a State Legislature. The Commission further noted that the BCCI was not constituted through any govt notification or executive order,” read the order.
Besides stating that the govt has no role in appointment of office-bearers and internal functioning of the board, the commission further noted BCCI’s financial independence as the board generates its revenue through media rights, sponsorships, broadcasting arrangements, ticket sales, and other commercial activities. The order also mentioned that the tax exemptions offered to the board can’t be construed as govt funding. “Tax exemptions or statutory concessions available generally under law cannot be treated as “substantial financing” by the Government within the meaning of the RTI Act,” the order stated.
‘Indian cricket ecosystem a compelling illustration’
The CIC chose to address assumptions that increased governmental supervision is sufficient for functioning of an organisation. According to the commission, this premise “does not adequately account for the complexities of modern economic institutions.”
The CIC also highlighted the efficient economic model that the BCCI has managed to create through the IPL which now drives the global cricket economy.
“It may not be appropriate to proceed on the assumption that increased governmental supervision would, in and of itself, enhance the functioning or fairness of institutions such as the BCCI,” read the observation in the order. “To superimpose a model of oversight premised solely on governmental control may fail to account for these realities and could risk unintended consequences, including inefficiencies or disruptions in a finely balanced economic structure,” it added.
“Legislative and executive interventions—however well-intentioned—have, at times, produced outcomes marked by inefficiency, exclusion, or distortion, owing to challenges in implementation, lack of contextual sensitivity, or concentration of authority,” said the commission.
“The ecosystem of cricket in India presents a compelling illustration. The evolution of the BCCI from a colonial-era administrative body into the financial epicentre of global cricket reflects one of the most significant transformations in contemporary sports economics. Unlike many national sports bodies that depend substantially on state support, the BCCI operates as a largely autonomous, market-driven entity, with revenues running into tens of thousands of crores and substantial financial reserves,” the observation read.
“At the heart of this economic structure lies the Indian Premier League, whose franchise-based model and media rights regime have redefined the financial architecture of the sport,” it added.
According to the CIC, this kind of intricate ecosystem could not be achieved by any administrative oversight. “This intricate and high-value ecosystem demonstrates that the functioning of such an organisation is shaped not merely by administrative oversight but by a complex interplay of market forces, contractual arrangements, and international commercial dynamics.”

BCCI Not A 'Public Authority', Not Subject To RTI Act: Central Information Commission

Live Law: New Delhi: Tuesday, 19 May 2026.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has held that the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is not a “public authority” under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and therefore cannot be compelled to disclose information under the transparency law.

Information Commissioner P R Ramesh passed the order while dismissing a second appeal filed by Delhi resident Geeta Rani, who had sought information regarding the legal basis under which the BCCI represents India in international cricket and selects players for the national team.
The appellant had originally filed an RTI application in 2017 before the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports seeking details including the authority under which BCCI selects players for India, why governments provide infrastructure and security for cricket events, and whether any government authority exercises legal control over the BCCI. The Ministry responded that the information was not available with it and said the RTI application could not be transferred to the BCCI as it had not declared itself a public authority under the RTI Act.
The matter had previously taken a different turn in 2018 when the CIC, under then Information Commissioner M Sridhar Acharyulu, held that the BCCI was a public authority and directed it to appoint Central Public Information Officers and comply with proactive disclosure obligations under Section 4 of the RTI Act. However, the BCCI challenged that decision before the Madras High Court, which in September 2025 remanded the matter to the CIC for fresh consideration in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Cricket Association of Bihar.
Reconsidering the issue, the CIC held that the BCCI does not satisfy the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
The Commission reasoned that the BCCI was neither established by or under the Constitution, nor created by a parliamentary or state law, nor constituted through a government notification or order. It observed that the BCCI is merely a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, and that registration under a statute does not amount to being established by statute.
The Commission relied on Supreme Court judgments including Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd v. State of Kerala, Dalco Engineering Pvt Ltd v. Satish Prabhakar Padhye, and Zee Telefilms Ltd v. Union of India to conclude that mere regulatory oversight or public importance does not convert a private entity into a public authority under the RTI framework.
Rejecting the argument that the BCCI is under government control, the Commission held that the degree of control required under Section 2(h) must be “substantial” and not merely supervisory or regulatory.
“It is pertinent to mention that there is no representation of the Government or any statutory body in the BCCI. There exists no control of the Government over the functions, finance, administration, management and affairs of the BCCI,” the Commission said.
On the issue of funding, the CIC found that the BCCI is financially self-sustaining through media rights, sponsorships, ticket sales and other commercial activities, and does not depend on government financing for its functioning.
The Commission also held that incidental benefits such as tax exemptions or access to infrastructure do not amount to “substantial financing” under the RTI Act unless the entity's existence depends on such support.
Addressing the contention that the BCCI performs public functions such as selecting the Indian cricket team and regulating the sport nationally, the CIC said this factor alone is legally insufficient.
“While this may be factually accurate, it is legally irrelevant for the purposes of Section 2(h). The RTI Act does not include 'public function' as a criterion for determining a public authority,” the Commission observed.
The Commission further noted that although the Supreme Court in the 2016 Cricket Association of Bihar judgment had recognised the public character of BCCI's functions and subjected it to judicial scrutiny, it had not declared the BCCI to be a public authority under the RTI Act. Instead, any such move would require legislative intervention, the CIC said.
Referring to the recently enacted National Sports Governance Act, 2025, the CIC noted that the law extends RTI obligations to recognised sports organisations receiving government grants, but held that since the BCCI does not receive such financial assistance, it does not fall within that statutory framework either.
Concluding that the appellant had failed to establish that the BCCI is owned, controlled or substantially financed by the government, the Commission dismissed the appeal.

In an extended obiter, the Commission also cautioned against assuming that increased governmental supervision would necessarily improve transparency or fairness in institutions like the BCCI, noting the unique commercial and economic ecosystem surrounding Indian cricket.
(Click here to read theorder)

Thane: Two journalists, 'RTI activist' held for extortion bid

Mid-day: Mumbai: Monday, 18 May 2026.
The three were arrested on the complaint of a sub-registrar, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime) Shivraj Patil told reporters

The Thane police in Maharashtra have arrested two journalists and an "RTI activist" for allegedly trying to extort money from a government official by defaming him and orchestrating a fake protest, an official said on Saturday, reported news agency PTI.
The police have identified the trio as Santosh Bhikan Hirey (44) of the weekly 'Navasfurti', published from Ambernath in Thane district, Samsad Sajjadkhan Pathan (48), editor of the weekly 'Lok Rajkaran' in Nashik, and Subash Nathu Patil (40), a Nashik resident who acquired information under RTI, reported PTI.
The accused told the government official that they would print reports in their publications that corrupt practices were going on in his office and would demand his dismissal if he didn't pay up Rs 2 lakh, reported PTI.
When the sub-registrar ignored the demand, they printed defamatory reports and staged a fast, said the DCP, reported PTI.
The official then filed a complaint with the anti-extortion cell (AEC) of the Thane police who laid a trap and arrested Hirey and Pathan on Thursday while collectively accepting Rs 1.5 lakh from the victim, the official said, reported PTI.
Senior inspector Shekar Bagde of the AEC said the three have been remanded in police custody till November 7. They have also extracted money from many government officials in Mumbai, Thane, Navi Mumbai and Nashik using the same method, he said, reported PTI.
In another case, two history-sheeters were arrested at Virar in Palghar district of Maharashtra for allegedly stealing jewellery and other valuable items of a man, police said on Saturday, reported PTI.
The arrested duo has several criminal cases registered against them in Thane, Mumbai and Palghar districts, they said, reported PTI.
The man lodged a complaint against the duo, accusing them of stealing his gold ornaments after striking a conversation with him in September 2023, an official of the Mira Bhyandar-Vasai Virar police commissionerate said, reported PTI.
Following his complaint, the police examined the CCTV footage and zeroed in on the accused - Vijay Dattaram Tambe (54) and Ajay Ashok Sawant (50), he said, reported PTI.
The police arrested them and found that several cases were registered against them in the Mumbai metropolitan region, reported PTI.
While Tambe is named as accused in 53 different offences in Thane, Mumbai and neighbouring townships, Sawant has 13 offences registered against him., the official said, reported PTI.
(With inputs from PTI)

दतिया महिला एवं बाल विकास DPO की वेतन वृद्धि रोकी:RTI के जवाब में मांगे 1.66 लाख रुपए; खुद की कॉलर पकड़कर बोले थे- 'मारो मुझे'

Dainik Bhaskar: Datia: Monday, 18 May 2026.

शोभनीय व्यवहार करने के मामले में उन्हें कारण बताओ नोटिस जारी किया गया है।

दतिया में महिला एवं बाल विकास विभाग के जिला कार्यक्रम अधिकारी (DPO) अरविंद उपाध्याय के खिलाफ कलेक्टर स्वप्निल वानखेड़े ने सख्त कदम उठाया है। आरटीआई के जवाब में 1.66 लाख रुपए मांगने और कार्यालय में अधिवक्ता के सामने अपनी ही कॉलर पकड़कर अशोभनीय व्यवहार करने के मामले में उन्हें कारण बताओ नोटिस जारी किया गया है। प्रशासन ने उनकी एक वार्षिक वेतन वृद्धि रोकने की चेतावनी भी दी है।
यह पूरा विवाद एक आरटीआई (RTI) आवेदन से शुरू हुआ। अधिवक्ता शंभू गोस्वामी ने विभाग से आंगनबाड़ी कार्यकर्ताओं की नियुक्ति, उनकी चयन प्रक्रिया और वेतन आहरण से संबंधित दस्तावेज मांगे थे। जानकारी उपलब्ध कराने के बजाय, विभाग ने उन्हें 1.66 लाख रुपए जमा करने का फरमान (नोटिस) थमा दिया।
कैश लेकर पहुंचे तो किया हाई-वोल्टेज ड्रामा जब अधिवक्ता ने यह जानकारी चाही कि इतनी बड़ी राशि किस मद या खाते में जमा करनी है, तो विभागीय अधिकारी टालमटोल करने लगे। इसके बाद 11 मई को जब अधिवक्ता खुद नकद राशि लेकर कार्यालय पहुंचे, तो स्थिति बिगड़ गई। इस घटना का एक वीडियो सोशल मीडिया पर वायरल हो रहा है, जिसमें डीपीओ अरविंद उपाध्याय बेहद उत्तेजित नजर आ रहे हैं। वीडियो में अधिकारी अपनी ही कॉलर पकड़कर अधिवक्ता को उकसाते हुए कह रहे हैं- 'मारो झापड़, मारो मुझे।'
कलेक्टर ने माना गंभीर कदाचरण, जांच कमेटी गठित कलेक्टर स्वप्निल वानखेड़े ने एक जिम्मेदार राजपत्रित अधिकारी के इस तरह के बर्ताव पर कड़ी आपत्ति जताई है। उन्होंने इसे शासकीय मर्यादा के खिलाफ, अनुशासनहीनता और सरकारी कार्यालय की गरिमा को ठेस पहुंचाने वाला मानते हुए गंभीर कदाचरण की श्रेणी में रखा है।
इस पूरे मामले की निष्पक्ष और विस्तृत जांच के लिए कलेक्टर ने एक दो सदस्यीय उच्चस्तरीय कमेटी का गठन किया है। इस जांच कमेटी में संयुक्त कलेक्टर श्रुति अग्रवाल और तहसीलदार अमित दुबे को शामिल किया गया है, जो जल्द ही अपनी रिपोर्ट सौंपेंगे।

'RTI में झूठे निकले सुक्खू सरकार के दावे, नहीं हुआ किसी पुरुष मरीज के बच्चेदानी का ऑपरेशन'

ETV Bharat: Dharamshala: Monday, 18 May 2026.
हिमकेयर और आयुष्मान योजना पर घोटाले के आरोप को लेकर भाजपा विधायक ने कांग्रेस सरकार पर तीखा निशाना साधा.

हिमाचल प्रदेश में हिमकेयर और आयुष्मान योजना में घोटाले को लेकर भाजपा विधायक डॉ. जनक राज ने कांग्रेस सरकार पर तीखा हमला बोला है. भरमौर के विधायक डॉ. जनक राज ने कहा कि प्रदेश सरकार गरीबों के लिए शुरू की गई स्वास्थ्य योजनाओं को बदनाम कर बंद करने की साजिश रच रही है और झूठे व भ्रामक आरोप लगाए जा रहे हैं. गौरतलब है कि कांग्रेस सरकार ने पूर्व भाजपा सरकार पर हिमकेयर और आयुष्मान योजना में घोटाले करने के गंभीर आरोप लगाए हैं.
"कांग्रेस सरकार खुद अपने दावों में उलझी हुई है. पहले विधानसभा के बजट सत्र में हिमकेयर योजना में 1100 करोड़ रुपए के घोटाले की बात कही गई. बाद में इसे घटाकर 110 करोड़ रुपए कर दिया गया. इसके बाद पुरुषों में बच्चेदानी (यूट्रस) ऑपरेशन किए जाने जैसे दावे सामने लाए गए, जो पूरी तरह से भ्रामक हैं. प्रदेश सरकार खुद स्पष्ट नहीं है कि वो क्या साबित करना चाहती है." - डॉ. जनक राज, विधायक, भरमौर
4 सालों में हुए बच्चेदानी के ऑपरेशन
भाजपा विधायक डॉ. जनक राज ने कहा कि आरटीआई के तहत इंदिरा गांधी मेडिकल कॉलेज और डॉ. राजेंद्र प्रसाद मेडिकल कॉलेज से प्राप्त आंकड़ों में कहीं भी पुरुष मरीज के बच्चेदानी के ऑपरेशन का मामला सामने नहीं आया है. उन्होंने कमला नेहरू अस्पताल शिमला में हुए बच्चेदानी ऑपरेशनों का भी वर्षवार ब्यौरा साझा किया है. जिसके तहत साल 2019 में 814 ऑपरेशन हुए हैं, साल 2020 में 429 ऑपरेशन, साल 2021 में 600 ऑपरेशन और साल 2022 में 779 ऑपरेशन
हुए हैं.
'नहीं हुआ कोई फर्जी भुगतान या घोटाला'
भरमौर से भाजपा विधायक डॉ. जनक राज ने कहा कि जिन चार मामलों को कांग्रेस सरकार बार-बार उछाल रही है, उनमें कोई सर्जरी नहीं हुई थी. संबंधित मरीज कैंसर से पीड़ित थे और उन्हें केवल कीमोथेरेपी दी गई थी. पैकेज एडजस्टमेंट और डॉक्यूमेंटेशन प्रक्रिया के कारण यह तकनीकी एंट्री हो सकती है, लेकिन इसमें किसी प्रकार का फर्जी भुगतान या घोटाला नहीं हुआ है.
'डॉक्टरों और मेडिकल साइंस का बनाया मजाक'
पेशे से न्यूरोसर्जन डॉ. जनक राज ने कहा कि इस तरह के बयानों से प्रदेश सरकार ने पूरे चिकित्सा जगत की प्रतिष्ठा को ठेस पहुंचाई है. उन्होंने कहा कि आईजीएमसी शिमला और टांडा मेडिकल कॉलेज से पढ़े डॉक्टर देश के प्रतिष्ठित संस्थानों जैसे एम्स और आर्म्ड फोर्सेज मेडिकल कॉलेज सहित विदेशों में भी सेवाएं दे रहे हैं. उन्होंने कहा कि मेडिकल साइंस में पुरुषों में यूट्रस जैसी दुर्लभ स्थितियों के कुछ मामले दुनिया में सामने आए हैं, लेकिन हिमाचल में हिमकेयर योजना के तहत ऐसा कोई ऑपरेशन नहीं हुआ है. भाजपा विधायक ने लोगों और मीडिया से अपील की है कि इस विषय को राजनीतिक नजरिए से देखने की बजाए वैज्ञानिक तथ्यों के आधार पर समझा जाए.
चेस्टर हिल लैंड घोटाले पर सरकार को घेरा
भाजपा विधायक डॉ. जनक राज ने प्रदेश सरकार पर दोहरा रवैया अपनाने का आरोप लगाते हुए कहा कि बहुचर्चित चेस्टर हिल लैंड स्कैम मामले को दबाने की कोशिश की जा रही है. उन्होंने दावा किया कि इस मामले में पूर्व मुख्य सचिवों तक ने बयान दिए हैं, लेकिन सरकार इसे आपसी मामला बताकर नजरअंदाज कर रही है. विधायक ने आरोप लगाया कि जिन अधिकारियों के नाम ओडीआई (Officer of Doubtful Integrity) सूची और सीबीआई की रेड लिस्ट में हैं, उन्हें बचाने का प्रयास किया जा रहा है.
जनक राज ने सरकार को दी खुली चुनौती
भरमौर विधायक डॉ. जनक राज ने मुख्यमंत्री सुखविंदर सिंह सुक्खू और कांग्रेस सरकार को खुली चुनौती देते हुए कहा कि अगर आरोपों में सच्चाई है तो सरकार तथ्य सार्वजनिक करे. उन्होंने कहा कि झूठे प्रचार के जरिए जनता को गुमराह करना लोकतांत्रिक मर्यादाओं के खिलाफ है. हिमकेयर जैसी गरीब हितैषी योजना को बदनाम कर बंद करने का प्रयास नहीं होना चाहिए, क्योंकि इसका सबसे ज्यादा लाभ गरीब और जरूरतमंद लोगों को मिलता है. विधायक ने कहा कि भाजपा इस मुद्दे पर पूरी मजबूती से जनता की आवाज उठाती रहेगी.

Did CBSE Collect Rs 23.19 Crore From Rechecking System? RTI Raises Questions

Times Now: National: Sunday, 17 May 2026.
At a time when thousands of students are seeking minimal or zero revaluation fees as OSM is allegedly failing to deliver its intended objective, an RTI reply has revealed a shocking amount earned by CBSE from students last year.

Amid the debate surrounding On-Screen Marking (OSM), which has prompted many to seek revaluation of their answer scripts, an RTI reply revealing shocking figures has been accessed by Times Now. It shows that CBSE has collected a whopping Rs. 23.19 crore for Class 10 and 12 answer sheet review-related applications in the preceding academic year.
In response to the RTI filed by Keshav Agarwal, an educationist and career counselor from New Delhi, the board disclosed that it has received Rs. 3.09 crore by providing photocopies of answer booklets. A substantial amount came from the re-checking facility where students paid approximately Rs. 20.09 crore in 2024–25.
While the board did not share a distinct figure for ‘re-totaling of answer scripts’, the total amount stands at Rs. 23,19,44,644.97.

RTI Response

What worries students and educators even more is that CBSE does not reimburse the amount if the claims are found to be valid. This puts an additional burden on the pockets of students and their parents who did not even make a mistake in the first place. "The bitter irony? In a significant number of cases, marks do increase after revaluation which proves the fault lies with CBSE's own examiners. Yet it is the student who pays the price financially and emotionally for CBSE's marking errors," Keshav remarked.
If a student wishes to apply for re-evaluation, he/she cannot opt for it directly. They first have to apply for verification of marks, which costs Rs 500 per subject. Under this, the copies are checked for totaling errors, missing evaluation, and mark entry mistakes. Following this, they get an option to obtain a scanned copy of their evaluated answer book, which costs Rs 700. After reviewing the copy, if they are sure about a discrepancy, they are allowed to go for re-evaluation of select questions.
For re-evaluation, the board charges Rs 100 per question. This implies that the cost keeps soaring with the number of questions getting reassessed.
The steep re-evaluation cost has also sparked a debate on the microblogging site X, with many slamming the board for capitalising on others’ pain. “With widespread frustration over CBSE results this year and thousands of students expected to file revaluation applications again, these RTI figures raise a serious question: Is CBSE profiting from its own examination failures? The system needs accountability, not just appeals," Keshav concluded.

Transparency runs into custom error : Venkatesh Nayak

Deccan Herald: Opinion: Sunday, 17 May 2026.
Despite being the primary stakeholders of the transparency regime, we do not know which cases will be taken up for hearing, on which date, and by which information commissioner.

Earlier this month, the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) got its first woman Chief Information Commissioner. Now, the state has its full complement of 10-plus-one commissioners to decide disputes under the RTI Act. We also know their names and office locations, but that is nearly all the Commission will tell us about its functioning.
Despite being the primary stakeholders of the transparency regime, we do not know which cases will be taken up for hearing, on which date, and by which information commissioner. At the time of writing, the ‘cause list’ link on the KIC’s website drew a blank when queried about the daily listing of cases for May 2026.
The website is also silent about the KIC’s roster– which departments and public authorities have been assigned to which commissioner for deciding information-related grievances. We can only infer from the ‘contact us’ segment of the website that those stationed in Belagavi and Kalaburagi may be hearing cases from those parts of the state.

Admirably, Karnataka was the first state in the country to establish and populate its Information Commission in 2005, even before the Central Information Commission (CIC) was set up. Its primary job is to entertain citizens’ grievances about the replies of public authorities to their requests for information or even the lack of response. It probes the appeals and complaints of RTI applicants unhappy with the quantity, quality, orcorrectness of the information supplied by public information officers (PIOs).
Between 2017-18 and 2021-22, KIC disposed of almost 90,000 cases. We do not know what happened later because the Commission has not published its annual reports. What is worse is that the decisions of the information commissioners have become sarkari secrets as most of them are no longer uploaded on the Commission’s website.
Strangely, 30 cases listed for the new state Chief Information Commissioner, for resolution in the month of May, only display the decision to adjourn every matter without any indication about the next date of hearing. Two commissioners are not even listed in the ‘decisions’ section.
Last month, the information commissioner stationed at Kalaburagi claimed that the KIC had disposed of 40,000 cases in one year and that his contribution was resolving almost 1,187 cases within 90 days. A commendable achievement indeed, as several were apparently pending for 5-6 years. At the time of writing, clicking on this commissioner’s ‘date-wise orders’ for May displayed “404 custom error” messages.
If the Commission’s decisions are not publicly accessible, where will appellants and public authorities find precedents to support their contentions during hearings? Cases decided over the last two decades by previous information commissioners have been removed from the website, for reasons best known to the KIC.
Until 2021-22, Karnataka ranked just behind the Union government and Maharashtra in the volume of RTI applications. The departments of rural development, revenue, and urban development, in that order, reported handling more than 60% of the 3.79 lakh RTI applications that year – indicating the popularity of the law in both rural and urban areas. Interestingly, the departments of education, social welfare, food and civil supplies, and women and child welfare, which attract a large number of information requests in other states, did not make it to the top-10 list in Karnataka. In the absence of subsequent annual reports, we know nothing about recent trends.
More than 10% of the RTI applications filed with Karnataka’s top three departments escalated to the first appeals stage in 2021-22. 50% of these matters decided by the appellate authorities ended up at the KIC. This indicates a very high level of dissatisfaction with the performance of those public authorities.
We do not know the current pendency status because the KIC’s website does not display this data, unlike the CIC, which regularly updates pendency figures (36,307 pending cases as of today). The KIC’s mandatory disclosure of basic information, required under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, is currently stuck in 2022-23, as evidenced by its budgetary data, even though the document is marked ‘2025-26’.
The KIC, like its counterparts elsewhere in the country, is mandated to steer public authorities away from pointless opacity towards purposive transparency that strengthens our democracy. The Commission must practise what it preaches if it intends to remain relevant to the citizenry. The state Chief Information Commissioner must lead from the front.
(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH)

ITAT Ahmedabad Deletes Rs 52 Lakh Addition based on information received through Insight Portal : Aishwarya Singh

Study Cafe: Ahmedabad: Saturday, 16 May 2026.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal deleted a Rs 52 lakh addition made under Sections 68/69A after finding that the alleged bank accounts were actually fixed deposit accounts where cash deposits were not possible. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer made the addition without proper verification of bank records.

Tribunal grants relief to taxpayer after bank records proved that the disputed accounts were fixed deposits and not cash deposit accounts
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal recently provided major relief to taxpayer Pragnesh Rameshbhai Pandya by deleting an addition of Rs 52 lakh made by the Income Tax Department under Sections 68 and 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case involved Assessment Year 2015-16.
The Assessing Officer had reopened the assessment based on information received through the Insight Portal alleging cash deposits of Rs 52 lakh in three Bank of Baroda accounts. The department treated the amount as unexplained money and added it to the assessee’s income. However, the Assessee argued that the mentioned accounts were not regular savings accounts but fixed deposit accounts in which cash deposits could not be made.
During the appellate proceedings, the Assessee obtained information under the RTI Act from the department and produced bank certificates showing that all three accounts were fixed deposits opened on 17.08.2013 and later closed during 2014 and 2015. The Assessee contended that the Assessing Officer failed to properly verify the bank records before making the addition.
The Tribunal observed that the Assessee discharged the initial burden by placing the documentary evidence from the bank. It also said the Faceless Assessing Unit added the amount without proper inquiry or verification. The RTI information did not clearly establish the alleged cash deposits of Rs 52 lakh either.
Accordingly, the ITAT held that the addition was not sustainable in law and directed the deletion of the entire addition. The appeal of the Assessee was accordingly allowed.

A paralysed Information Commission is undermining citizens’ right to know : Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz

The Daily Star: Bangladesh: Saturday, 16 May 2026.

Recently, Dr. Zahed Ur Rahman, adviser to the prime minister on information and broadcasting, has welcomed constructive criticism from citizens regarding the government’s performance. We take that invitation in the spirit in which it was offered—not to criticise the government per se, but to reiterate the deep concern of many citizens over the troubling state of Bangladesh’s Right to Information (RTI) regime and to urge swift corrective action.

This decline began soon after the interim government assumed office in August 2024, when the three information commissioners vacated their positions amid political uncertainty. Their posts have remained unfilled ever since, severely impairing the effectiveness of one of the country’s most important instruments of democratic accountability, the Information Commission. Repeated calls for timely appointments went unheeded, perhaps reflecting an unwillingness on the part of the interim authorities to submit themselves to the scrutiny the law was designed to ensure.
We had hoped this would be rectified with the arrival of an elected government committed to strengthening democracy and amplifying citizens’ voices. Unfortunately, that expectation remains unfulfilled. One is left to wonder whether the government has yet fully appreciated the central importance of the RTI Act to its stated goals of good governance, transparency, and public participation.
This column, therefore, urges the government to revisit this issue urgently.
To begin with, we would like to underline that there is no necessary connection between appointing information commissioners to restore the RTI regime’s full functioning and the separate question of amending the RTI Act, which has recently arisen.
The RTI Amendment Ordinance, introduced by the interim government, lapsed when it was not placed before parliament by the incumbent government. Subsequently, through sustained engagement by concerned citizens, the government initiated consultations with civil society groups on possible amendments to the act. This is welcome. Encouragingly, there are also indications that the appointment of information commissioners is receiving serious attention, although no public announcement has been made yet.
Both of these processes may proceed in parallel. But if the government has any thoughts of linking the appointments to the amendments, as suggested in some quarters, we urge that this approach be abandoned. The two issues are entirely distinct.
Moreover, the matter carries legal urgency. In response to a writ petition filed by concerned citizens, the High Court, on August 31, 2025, directed the ministry of information and broadcasting to inform the court of the steps taken regarding these appointments. Despite the time that has since passed, the government is still under a clear legal obligation to act. Moreover, RTI requests on the matter remain pending with the relevant government office.
Even with the absence of information commissioners, the RTI Act has continued to be used by many of its most committed adherents across the country. What has been lost is not the law itself, but an effective avenue of redress when public officials refuse to comply, while complaints continue to accumulate at the commission.
Despite this institutional paralysis, committed citizens across the country continue to use the law with remarkable courage. In the northern districts alone, some 2,650 RTI applications were filed in 2025 by fishermen, farmers, women, minorities, and youth seeking answers to issues affecting their communities. A few examples will illustrate this spirit.
In Nilphamari, citizens used RTI to investigate the sale of government-owned trees, secure livestock vaccination services, and challenge irregularities in local schools. In one case, when residents seeking information about questionable school activities were threatened by an angry headmaster, they appealed to higher authorities rather than baulking. It resulted in the withholding of the headmaster’s salary.
In Jaldhaka, when activists faced intimidation for seeking information about an abandoned bridge project, fellow campaigners responded by filing multiple RTI applications in solidarity, effectively neutralising the pressure. In Cox’s Bazar, residents used RTI to question the official response to rising dengue cases, prompting stronger public health measures.
Back in Nilphamari, citizens responding to chemical contamination of a local river caused by industrial effluents filed multiple RTI applications, ultimately compelling the authorities to act and bringing the pollution to a halt.
These may appear to be isolated incidents, but together they reflect something deeper: the emergence of what may be called “organic activists”—ordinary citizens using the law not merely to resolve personal grievances but to protect public resources, demand accountability, and strengthen democratic culture.
Most significantly, during the nearly two years of institutional paralysis, such citizen-led initiatives have kept the spirit of the RTI Act alive at the grassroots. This momentum culminated in the formation of a national citizens’ platform in January 2026 to support and protect RTI users nationwide.
It has taken years to nurture public trust in, and commitment to, the RTI Act. Any further delay in appointing the information commissioners risks undermining that trust, dampening citizens’ confidence, and weakening one of the country’s most promising instruments of democratic accountability. That would be immensely harmful for the country, and a setback to the government’s pledge to strengthen people’s power, but—more importantly—for the growth of a new civic culture in which citizens actively promote good governance, use the law to voice their concerns, and seek redress, rather than resort to protest on the streets.
(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.)

CIC asks Lok Sabha Secretariat to revisit denial of disclosure of Rs 1.7 crore electronic procurement bills for 2021-22

The Economic Times: Ahmedabad: Saturday, 16 May 2026.
The Central Information Commission has ordered the Lok Sabha Secretariat to reconsider its refusal to share bills for electronic items bought for over Rs 1.7 crore. The Secretariat must now either provide the bills or explain why they cannot be disclosed. This follows an RTI request for spending details on computer hardware and peripherals.

The CIC has directed the Lok Sabha Secretariat to revisit its denial of disclosure of bills of procurement of electronic items worth Rs 1.7 crore during 2021-22 and either furnish their copies or explain the reasons for the denial.
The Central Information Commission made the order after obtaining feedback from third-party vendors under the RTI Act.
The case pertains to an RTI application seeking details of spending on electronic equipment procured during 2021-22, including copies of bills and details of old gadgets.
According to records cited in the order, the Lok Sabha Secretariat informed the applicant that Rs 1,70,06,897 was spent on the procurement of computer hardware and peripheral items during the period, including laptops, desktops, printers, scanners, UPS systems and tablets.
The secretariat, however, refused to provide copies of invoices, claiming disclosure would "harm the competitive position of a third party and no larger public interest has been established by the Appellant."
In his order, Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal observed that the respondent public authority had already furnished item-wise expenditure details but denied disclosure of bills, citing Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
"The Respondent's denial ... is neither reasoned nor substantiated by proceedings followed under Section 11 of the RTI Act," the commission said.
"Hence, the Commission is of the view that the Respondent - PIO, Lok Sabha Secretariat should revisit the query regarding the bills pertaining to the expenditure already disclosed by them and send a revised reply i) either furnishing the copies of bills to the Appellant or ii) explaining the reason for denial of information, on the basis of feedback from the third party - vendor/s," it said.
Goyal also said that non-adherence to the commission's direction shall attract penal action against the respondent.
The commission, while issuing the direction, referred to a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the BSNL versus CIC case.
"A balance has to be struck between the principle of promoting honest and open government by ensuring public access to information created by the government on the one hand and the principle of confidentiality breach whereof is likely to cause substantial harm to competitive position of the person from whom information is obtained," it said, citing the court's observation.

Furnish bills or explain denial in RTI on electronics purchase, CIC tells Lok Sabha Secretariat

The Tribune: Ahmedabad: Saturday, 16 May 2026.
The case pertains to an RTI application seeking details of spending on electronic equipment procured during 2021-22, including copies of bills and details of old gadgets.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the Lok Sabha Secretariat to revisit its denial of disclosure of bills of procurement of electronic items worth Rs 1.7 crore during 2021-22. It directed the Lok Sabha Secretariat to either furnish their copies or explain the reasons for the denial.
The case pertains to an RTI application seeking details of spending on electronic equipment procured during 2021-22, including copies of bills and details of old gadgets. The CIC issued the above order after obtaining feedback from third-party vendors under the RTI Act.
According to records cited in the order, the Lok Sabha Secretariat informed the applicant that Rs 1,70,06,897 was spent on the procurement of computer hardware and peripheral items during the period, including laptops, desktops, printers, scanners, UPS systems and tablets. The secretariat, however, refused to provide copies of invoices, claiming disclosure would “harm the competitive position of a third party and no larger public interest had been established by the appellant”.
In his order, Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal observed that the respondent public authority had already furnished item-wise expenditure details but denied disclosure of bills, citing Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
“The respondent’s denial is neither reasoned nor substantiated by proceedings followed under Section 11 of the RTI Act,” the commission said.
“Hence, the Commission is of the view that the respondent, “PIO, Lok Sabha Secretariat should revisit the query regarding the bills pertaining to the expenditure already disclosed by them and send a revised reply i) either furnishing the copies of bills to the Appellant or ii) explaining the reason for denial of information, on the basis of feedback from the third party “ vendor/s," it said.
Goyal said non-adherence to the commission’s direction shall attract penal action against the respondent.
The commission, while issuing the direction, also referred to a Delhi High Court judgment in the BSNL versus CIC case. “A balance has to be struck between the principle of promoting honest and open government by ensuring public access to information created by the government on the one hand and the principle of confidentiality breach whereof is likely to cause substantial harm to competitive position of the person from whom information is obtained,” it said, citing the court’s observation.