Mumbai: RTI Disclosures Expose Cost Disparity In Monsoon Track Dewatering Pumps Between Central And Western Railways; Officials Cite Difference In Capacity & Operational Hours

FPJ: Mumbai: Thursday, 15^th October 2026.
RTI disclosures show Central Railway spent Rs 5.93 crore on 219 dewatering pumps during Monsoon 2026, averaging Rs 2.70 lakh per pump, compared with Western Railway’s Rs 1.06 lakh. The disparity has prompted calls for a vigilance inquiry, while Central Railway cited possible differences in pump capacity, operating hours and water volume.

RTI disclosures show a significant difference in monsoon dewatering pump expenditure between Central and Western Railways in Mumbai | AI Generated Representational Image

Disclosures obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act have uncovered a glaring expenditure disparity in monsoon rainwater removal pump contracts between Central Railway (CR) and Western Railway (WR).
Despite both railway zones operating within Mumbai's suburban network under identical diesel-supply arrangements, Central Railway spent more than 2.5 times as much per pump as Western Railway during Monsoon 2026.
RTI Data Reveals Cost Disparity
Official RTI replies, obtained by prominent railway activist Samir Zaveri, revealed that CR’s Mumbai Division deployed 219 dewatering pumps across 127 track locations for the monsoon this year at a total cost of Rs 5.93 crore.
The expenditure translates to an average spending of Rs 2.70 lakh per pump. In contrast, WR’s Mumbai Central Division deployed 126 pumps at a total expenditure of Rs 1.34 crore, for an average cost of Rs 1.06 lakh per pump.
According to the RTI data, CR paid about Rs 1.64 lakh more per pump than WR, nearly 155%, despite both authorities procuring diesel independently for their contractors. Under contractual agreements, both Central Railway and Western Railway supplied diesel to power the pumps regardless of operational hours.
Initial RTI Rejection Overturned
Notably, the figures were obtained after Central Railway authorities initially refused. In response to the RTI application filed on July 10, CR’s public information officer and senior divisional engineer, Kailash Meena, denied the financial details, citing commercial confidentiality. The office further claimed that information on compiled costs was unavailable.
Citing Western Railway’s open disclosure, Samir Zaveri filed a first appeal on August 17, after which the first appellate authority and additional divisional railway manager overturned the initial stance and directed the engineering department to release the figures. Notably, WR’s PIO and assistant divisional engineer furnished their expenditure and pump deployment figures without resistance.
Pump Deployment Across Railway Sections
According to the information furnished by CR, it deployed 63 pumps across 39 locations between Panvel-Roha, Pen-Thal and freight lines, while 62 pumps were placed at 30 locations between CSMT and Kurla railway stations.
Activists Seek Vigilance Inquiry
Railway observers and activists have called upon the Railway vigilance authority to initiate an immediate inquiry into Central Railway's rate fixation, tendering processes, contractual terms and scope of work to ensure public funds were spent prudently.
They highlighted that both railway divisions operate within the same metropolitan limits and handle identical geographical monsoonal challenges; such a wide cost differential raises serious questions regarding fiscal prudence.

Why SL's NGOs must face real public scrutiny and the RTI?: BY Nuwan Peiris

The Morning: Sri Lanka: Thursday, 15^th October 2026.

The national conversation surrounding the newly proposed Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) (Registration and Supervision) Bill has largely locked horns over a false dichotomy. On one side, critics argue that the Legislation introduces bureaucratic overreach and constricts civic freedom. On the other, proponents defend it as a necessary tool for State regulation and compliance.
Yet, before we even debate the contents of the Bill, a fundamental affront to democracy stares us in the face: the secretive, selective manner in which this draft Law has been handled.
The stigma of the selective draft
To date, the precise line-by-line text of the 2026  NGO Bill has not been made openly and universally accessible to the public on open Government portals. Instead, drafts have been shared selectively behind closed doors trickling down only to specific civil society collectives and select legal bodies upon request.
This practice treats ordinary citizens as lesser stakeholders who have no business inspecting laws that govern public-welfare organisations. Laws that shape public trust, civic accountability, and foreign or domestic funding flows cannot be drafted like exclusive club bylaws. If a Bill is designed to regulate organisations that supposedly serve the public, the public itself has a primal, non-negotiable right to read, scrutinise, and debate that draft from its inception. Treating national Legislation as classified material breeds immediate suspicion and signals a profound contempt for participatory democracy.
Notwithstanding this secretive method of drafting, several key legal mechanisms have been put forward for consideration, proceeding on the assumption that these vital aspects may have been overlooked or excluded from the current framework.
The myth of operational secrecy in public-benefit work
This culture of backroom exclusivity trickles down directly into the non-profit sector itself. A troubling premise has quietly entrenched itself within NGOs: the notion that because an organisation carries a noble or charitable label, its internal mechanisms, funding flows, and decision-making pathways are proprietary secrets.
In a robust democracy, public benefit cannot coexist with operational opacity. When substantial funds stream into organisations aiming to shape public policy, influence legislation, or impact vulnerable communities, the public possesses an absolute right to trace how those resources are utilised. Philanthropy and social advocacy are not private commercial ventures. They occupy public space and affect the social fabric. Shielding their choices behind closed doors invites misuse, shields inefficiencies, and breeds widespread public skepticism.
Bringing NGOs under the RTI framework
To dismantle this culture of secrecy, both in State drafting rooms and within non-profit boardrooms, accountability must extend beyond routine administrative audits. The most potent tool for transparency at our disposal is the Right to Information (RTI) Act, No. 12 of 2016.
While State institutions are rightly bound to disclose information in the public interest, bodies operating under public mandates, tax exemptions, or public-benefit privileges should similarly be brought within the outer perimeter of transparency standards. Expanding the philosophy of the RTI framework ensures that any citizen can scrutinise how an NGO operates, how project funds are allocated, and who truly benefits from its initiatives. Sunshine remains the best disinfectant. Bringing non-profits under active public scrutiny transforms them from insulated entities into genuinely participatory partners in national development.
Extending Asset and Liability Declaration Laws to administrators and key employees
True transparency must go beyond high-level balance sheets; it must capture the individuals who steer these organisations. At present, rigourous Asset and Liability Declaration Laws are typically confined to public servants and State politicians. However, the immense financial flows, policy influence, and socio-economic footprint wielded by major non-profit leaders mean that they hold power and manage resources on a scale parallel to public officials.
To safeguard public trust entirely, all key administrators, directors, and principal employees of NGOs should be brought under Statutory Asset and Liability Declaration frameworks.
Eradicating conflicts of interest
Mandatory declarations expose hidden financial entanglements, commercial cross-holdings, or partisan ties that could quietly compromise an organisation's stated humanitarian mission.
Guaranteeing financial integrity
When massive grants and public donations are managed, transparency regarding personal wealth accumulation ensures that non-profit leadership remains driven by authentic public service rather than private enrichment.
Shielding the honest majority
Honest administrators who genuinely live by their mission have nothing to hide. Clear Asset Disclosures protect the broader, hard-working non-profit sector from generalised suspicions of illicit enrichment or foreign manipulation.
Proposed Legislative Provisions for integration into the NGO Bill
To translate these principles into Statutory reality, the following provisions are proposed for inclusion within the text of the Bill.
Section 15 Maintenance of a public information repository, digital accessibility, and transparency
Every NGO registered under this Act shall maintain an updated public information repository at its principal office, containing: (a) Certified annual audited financial statements, including itemised statements of both foreign and local grants, project expenditure, and administrative overheads; (b) Comprehensive reports detailing project objectives, targeted local communities, implementation timelines, and measurable output evaluations; and (c) The full names, professional profiles, national identity card numbers, and concurrent directorships of all members of the governing board and principal executive officers.
The records specified in Subsection (1) shall be open for inspection by any citizen during standard working hours, subject only to nominal administrative reproduction fees prescribed by regulations.
Mandatory digital availability
All records specified under Subsection (1), including Asset and Liability Declarations submitted by key administrators and employees, shall be made digitally available and easily accessible to the public via an online portal maintained by the National Secretariat for NGOs, ensuring full transparency without necessitating physical presence.
Section 16 Application of the RTI framework
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the RTI Act, any NGO utilising public-benefit status, tax exemptions, State-allocated resources, or foreign funding channels shall be deemed a body fulfilling a public function for the purposes of ensuring citizen access to information regarding public-interest projects.
Any citizen may make an information request to a designated Information Officer of the NGO concerning: (a) The allocation, disbursement, and ultimate utilisation of project funds or grants; (b) Memorandums of understanding, implementation agreements, or partnership pacts entered into with State agencies or foreign donors; and (c) Beneficiary lists, selection criteria, and programmatic execution reports.
Information requests under this Section shall follow the timelines, procedural constraints, and appeal mechanisms laid down in the principal RTI Act.
Section 17 Declaration of Assets and Liabilities by key administrators and employees
Every director, board member, chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and project director of a registered NGO whose annual operational budget or foreign receipts exceed the threshold prescribed by the Minister in charge of the subject by way of regulation shall submit a formal Declaration of Assets and Liabilities.
Filing and scope: (a) The declaration shall be delivered under sealed cover to the Auditor-General (AG) upon initial appointment and subsequently on or before the 31st of March of each year for the preceding financial year; and (b) The declaration shall encompass all movable and immovable property, cash assets, offshore investments, commercial enterprise cross-holdings, and substantial gifts or foreign honoraria held by the officer, their spouse, and dependent children.
Offences and penalties: (a) Failure to submit an Asset and Liability Declaration within the stipulated timeframe, or the submission of willfully false, incomplete, or misleading disclosures, shall constitute an offence under this Act; (b)(i) Upon conviction before a Magistrate, the offender shall be liable to a fine or to a term of imprisonment, or to both such fine and imprisonment; and (b)(ii) Additionally, the Court may order the permanent disqualification of such person from holding any administrative, managerial, or fiduciary position within any non-profit or charitable entity in Sri Lanka.
Section 18 Citizen application to District Court for financial investigation and audit commissions
Any citizen of Sri Lanka having reasonable grounds to suspect financial mismanagement, malfeasance, or opacity in the conduct of affairs of a registered NGO may apply by way of summary procedure to the relevant District Court (DC) for an order: (a) Compelling the disclosure and production of accounts and financial records; and (b) Appointing a commission or a qualified independent chartered accountant or directing the AG to conduct a full financial investigation and special audit into the conduct of affairs and resource utilisation of the said NGO.
Upon being satisfied that a prima facie case of public interest or financial irregularity has been established, the DC may issue appropriate orders and directions for the execution of such audit, with costs and parameters to be determined by the Court.
Section 19 Overriding effect, application to pvt. member foundations, and implied repeal
Universal application
The provisions of this Act shall apply to all NGOs, trusts, charitable foundations, and public-benefit entities operating within Sri Lanka, including any such body established, incorporated, or governed by or under any special Act or Private Member Bill, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any such prior written Law.
Supervening authority and implied repeal: (a) This Act shall operate as a supervening framework of public accountability. To the extent that any provision of a prior written Law, incorporation Statute, or Private Member's Bill is inconsistent with the transparency, reporting, RTI compliance, Asset and Liability Disclosure, or audit mechanisms mandated under this Act, such conflicting provisions shall be deemed impliedly repealed or modified to give full force and effect to the provisions of this Act; and (b) No charitable foundation or trust incorporated via a Private Member's Bill shall be exempt from the scope of this Act unless expressly and specifically excluded by name within the text of this Act, a schedule attached to this Act, or subsequent Statutory Amendment.
Explanatory memorandum for law reform and editorial review
Subject: Incorporating citizen-centric transparency, digital portals, judicial audits, and overriding Legislative Provisions into the Draft NGO Bill
Context
The discourse on the NGO Bill has focused excessively on top-down State bureaucracy. True accountability requires that non-profits answer vertically to the citizenry whose welfare they champion.
Digital accessibility and judicial oversight
Moving toward central digital repositories and empowering citizens to approach the DC directly for specialised audits ensure real-time accountability and grassroots enforcement.
Eliminating loopholes via Private Member Bills
Ensuring that historical foundations incorporated via Private Member Acts are fully subordinated to this supervening Law closes critical loopholes, guaranteeing uniform public accountability across all non-profit entities.
Conclusion
The debate over the supervision of NGOs should not be framed as a standoff between State control and civic autonomy, but as a covenant with public trust. If NGOs are truly acting for the public benefit, they should embrace the light of public scrutiny, open their operations to the RTI mechanism, and subject their leadership to transparent Asset and Liability Declarations. Accountability is not the enemy of compassion, it is its ultimate guardian.
The writer is an attorney-at-law
-------------------
The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication

How to survive when RTI was in ‘senile’! in India: By Dr Madabhushi Sridhar Acharyulu

Countercurrents: National: Thursday, 15^th October 2026.

Every teacher of our Constitution should necessarily talk about Article 19(1)(a), which is expected to guarantee freedom of speech and expression, which includes a dharna, agitation for protection of the rule of law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognised that this freedom includes a citizen’s right to receive information necessary to participate meaningfully in accountability and to be liable for any injury. Because we are in a democratic government.
Three judgments are the strength of RTI
There are three significant cases, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975), wherein the Supreme Court recognised the public’s right to know about public acts of public officials, subject to legitimate restrictions. In the second great judgment, S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), the Court emphasised the importance of openness in government and the public interest in disclosure. In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2003), it reaffirmed the constitutional importance of the voter’s right to know relevant information about electoral candidates. The right to vote, its existence or doubt of it, is itself in ‘controversy’, threatening the Constitution and citizenship. If the CEC exercises the power to remove crores of voters from lists, it is not called an ‘election’; it’s a sham.
The RTI Act translated these constitutional principles into an enforceable statutory framework. Its preamble expressly recognises that democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information, while also acknowledging the need to preserve confidentiality in genuinely sensitive matters.
Section 3 confers the right to information on citizens. Section 4 imposes proactive disclosure obligations on public authorities. Sections 6 and 7 establish the application and response mechanisms. Sections 8 and 9 provide specific exemptions, while Section 10 permits disclosure of the non-exempt portions of a record.
The withdrawal by the Tamil Nadu Government of its September 21, 2026, Government Order exempting the Public (Law and Order) Department from the Right to Information Act, 2005, is an important victory for transparency and democratic accountability. The controversy is especially significant because the department deals with communal and caste clashes, police firing, custodial deaths, police torture, preventive detention, public protests, and reports submitted to the government about law-and-order incidents. These are not merely matters of administrative convenience. They concern the exercise of coercive state power, the protection of fundamental rights and the accountability of public authorities.
The Madras High Court’s verdict
A particularly relevant precedent is V. Vidya v. The State Chief Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Information Commission, W.P. No. 21847 of 2014. The case concerned a woman’s request for a report prepared by the Special Branch Criminal Investigation Department (SBCID). She alleged that police officials had acted improperly against her and sought the report of an inquiry into her complaints. The State argued that the report was protected because the Special Branch was an exempt organisation under Section 24(4). The High Court rejected the argument that the exemption was absolute and unfettered. Justice Sumanth explained the statutory balance in these terms:
“However, the exemption is circumscribed by excluding information relating to corruption and human rights violations, placing such situations on a higher pedestal.”
The Court also stressed that statutory interpretation must remain faithful to the purpose of the law, even when security concerns are raised. At paragraph 39, it observed that there was a constitutional duty to interpret the statute in accordance with its specific terms, objects and purpose. Before this judgment, the transparency in Tamil Nadu was in senile. 
This judgment is especially important for its treatment of allegations of corruption and human-rights violations. The Madras HC held that the allegations need not already have been conclusively proved before the exception to Section 24(4) could be considered. The allegations must have some basis and cannot be arbitrary or random, but the government cannot insist that a citizen first establish the entire case before obtaining information that could help substantiate it. At paragraph 35, the Court explained:
“Hence even an allegation of corruption or human rights violation would suffice though the allegations cannot be random or arbitrary to attract the exception.”
The Court further emphasised the statutory safeguard of approval by the State Information Commission and the 45-day period prescribed by Section 24(4).
Most importantly, the Court did not stop at a general declaration. It allowed the writ petition and directed the Public Information Officer of the Special Branch CID to supply the requested report within four weeks. It concluded that the State Information Commission had erred in treating the exemption as absolute. All of India has to thank the Madras HC for keeping RTI kicking and alive.  RTI Zindabad.
National Security and Law of Order
These provisions establish an important principle: the starting point is disclosure, and any refusal must find legal justification in an applicable exemption. The right is not absolute. National security, privacy, the integrity of investigations and other legally protected interests can justify withholding particular information. But a government cannot simply declare an entire field of administration secret and thereby displace the statutory framework Parliament enacted.
Section 24(4): What can a State government exempt?
Section 24(4) is the crucial provision in the Tamil Nadu controversy. It allows a State government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to specify intelligence and security organisations established by that government to which the RTI Act will not apply.
The statutory language is significant. It refers to “intelligence and security organisations”, not every department that deals with public order, police administration or politically sensitive matters.
The section also contains two important safeguards:

• Information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human-rights violations is not excluded from the Act by the exemption.
• Where the request concerns alleged human-rights violations, the information must be provided after approval of the State Information Commission within 45 days of receipt of the request.

The precise wording matters because an exemption under Section 24(4) is not a general licence to classify inconvenient information as secret. It must be exercised within the authority conferred by Parliament.
The Public (Law and Order) Department described in the news report performs a much wider range of functions than intelligence gathering. Its work includes examination of reports concerning police firing, custodial deaths and torture; action on communal and caste clashes; detention under preventive-detention laws; responses to parliamentary questions; and consideration of protests and political agitations.
Some records held by such a department may genuinely reveal confidential intelligence, operational plans or information whose disclosure could endanger individuals. But many others concern completed administrative decisions, expenditure, the implementation of government policy, official inquiries and the treatment of citizens by public officials.
The fact that a department deals with law and order cannot, by itself, make all these records intelligence or security information.
That is the central legal objection to a blanket exemption. The question must be whether the body qualifies as an intelligence or security organisation within Section 24(4), and whether the particular information can lawfully be withheld. The statutory test cannot be replaced by the broad administrative label of “sensitivity.”
Let us not silence questioners ‘by’ Jantar Mantar
It is a victory of the Right to Information Act, which was enacted on October 12, 2005.  After the Constitution of India, 1950, it was the first-ever accountability law for information and transparency 21 years ago.
The withdrawal by the Tamil Nadu Government of its September 21, 2026, Government Order exempting the Public (Law and Order) Department from the Right to Information Act, 2005, established democratic accountability.
It is not only about Jantar Mantar agitations in Delhi; they are across India. This article is not dealing with the way the Government is working. (Generally, Jantar Mantar translates, quite literally, to the “instrument used for calculation”, but the transition from its literal, historical definition to its contemporary satirical interpretation highlights how the youth-led movement has reframed the space.)
As witnessed now, it is significant because the department deals with communal and caste clashes, police firing, custodial deaths, police torture, preventive detention, public protests, and reports submitted to the government about law-and-order incidents. These are not merely matters of administrative convenience. They concern the exercise of coercive state power, the protection of fundamental rights and the accountability of public authorities.
October 12 reminds us that the right to information cannot be protected merely by celebrating the enactment of a progressive law. It must also be defended against administrative orders that seek to place public institutions beyond public scrutiny. Government and the police administration, with force and violence, men and women equally, including lady police, have to be taught accountability. Each ‘act’ or atrocious act is a crime and tort, for which one should be compensated at the cost of the public treasury, and a significant part of compensation should be individually liable to be paid by those officers and police public servants. Because they are servants of the public, in deed.
There is an essential distinction between protecting genuinely sensitive intelligence and security information and exempting an entire government department simply because some of its files concern law and order. The former may be justified by law; the latter demands rigorous scrutiny under the statute and the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has now reinforced the importance of that distinction in its June 2026 decision concerning the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment. The judgment offers a particularly timely legal foundation for examining the Tamil Nadu controversy and the wider problem of state governments using Section 24(4) to expand RTI exemptions beyond the limits Parliament prescribed.
(Madabhushi Sridhar Acharyulu is the author of 65 books (in Telugu and English), a former Central Information Commissioner, a professor, a former Registrar at NALSAR, Bennett, and now an advisor (Founding Dean) at Mahindra University, Hyderabad.)

CERC-NDMC RTI row: CIC fines civic official, orders probe into 2-year delay

The Print: New Delhi: Thursday, 15^th October 2026.
The Central Information Commission has ordered a department inquiry into the New Delhi Municipal Council’s handling of an RTI application filed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, which went unanswered for more than two years.

Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari also directed payment of Rs 20,000 in compensation to the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) and imposed a penalty of Rs 10,000 on the New Delhi Municipal Council’s (NDMC) then-public information officer.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) had earlier termed the matter an “extremely disturbing” situation, noting that a statutory government body was forced to use the RTI Act and approach another statutory commission to obtain basic information from another government body.
It observed that the CERC had to seek the transparency watchdog’s intervention after its RTI application and first appeal went unanswered.
In the show-cause proceedings, Tiwari directed an inquiry into the acts and omissions of officials responsible for leaving the RTI application and first appeal unattended.
The NDMC chairman has also been asked to examine systemic deficiencies in RTI processing, monitoring and disposal.
The RTI application, filed on May 14, 2024, sought information on action taken on CERC’s letters, security deposits held by the NDMC against specified premises identification numbers, and the procedure for refunding the deposits after the premises were vacated.
The CERC had rented an office accommodation at the Chanderlok Building on Janpath in New Delhi from the civic body since 2007. It vacated the premises on June 30, 2024, and handed over the keys the following day.
The application and the first appeal, filed on June 19, 2024, remained unanswered. The NDMC furnished information only on July 8, 2026, after receiving a hearing notice from the CIC.
The penalty has been imposed under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, with the Commission directing that the amount be deducted from the concerned official’s pension or other payments due.
The official had cited staff shortages, supervisory vacancies, transfers without replacement, heavy workload, court cases and election duties for the delay.
However, the Commission found that the explanation did not adequately demonstrate effective supervision of the RTI process.
The CIC dropped show-cause proceedings against the then-first appellate authority, finding insufficient evidence of deliberate disregard of the statutory process.
It said the role of the subordinate officials who failed to process or place the appeal could still be examined.
The CERC had stated that its security deposits totalled Rs 4.86 crore, of which Rs 3.48 crore was refunded and Rs 1.38 crore adjusted against alleged dues and interest.
The Commission clarified that the correctness of these financial adjustments was a separate issue and was not being adjudicated in the RTI proceedings. PTI MHS ARI
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.

Information commission seeks explanation from Kochi corporation on move to seek probe against RTI applicants

Times of India: Kochi: Thursday, 15^th October 2026.

The state information commission has sought an explanation from the Kochi corporation secretary regarding the local body’s move to collect details of those filing a greater number of RTI applications and seek a vigilance probe into the financial status of such applicants. A meeting of the corporation council held last week had taken such a decision to prevent what the local body officials term misuse of RTI applications.
According to the commission, the move is against the clauses in RTI Act.
Mayor V K Minimol and UDF councillors in the corporation allege that some of RTI activists are collecting details by filing RTI applications and misusing such details for seeking bribes. At the same time, LDF councillors, including Elizabeth Idikkula, said that the UDF council’s decision will kill the spirit of the RTI Act which helps divulge information regarding the governance and various other aspects which is the lifeline of democracy.

RTI Act awareness exercise by TNSTC underscores transparency, curbing corruption

The Hindu: Coimbatore: Thursday, 15^th October 2026.

A TNSTC staff handing awareness pamphlets on the RTI Act to passengers.

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Coimbatore) Ltd. recently organised a week-long programme to spread awareness on Right to Information Act, 2005 across its jurisdiction, which also encompasses Erode, Tiruppur and the Nilgiris districts.
The initiative was led by Managing Director S. Gopalakrishnan and focused on transparency, enhancing a sense of responsibility, and curbing corruption. Pamphlets were issued to passengers and the public, underscoring the three points.
In 2025, the corporation had received and addressed 2,658 petitions under the RTI Act in the four districts. About 50% of the petitions pertained to the terminal benefits of the employees, and the remaining pertained to new routes, stoppages, and queries on the Vettri Payanam Scheme.
So far this year, up to 800 petitions in Coimbatore district have been addressed, official sources said. The corporation has also conducted separate awareness programmes on RTI Act for its employee unions.

Duty To Inform Or Duty To Deny? RTI Act's Quiet Turn From Answering To Evading: By - Manvi Kumari

Live Law: Articles: Thursday, 15^th October 2026.

When Parliament enacted the Right to Information Act in 2005, it reversed a colonial-era default in the Indian administration which was inherited from the Official Secrets Act of 1923: that government functioned best behind closed files, and citizens had to justify why they deserved to see inside them. RTI inverted that logic. Disclosure to any citizen, on any public record held by a government body, became the rule while withholding it became the narrow exception, permitted only under specific, listed grounds. Two decades later, that inversion is being reversed - not by repealing the law, but by hollowing it out through vagueness, discretion, and a handful of amendments that make evasion easier than answering.
The Statutory Design and Its Escape Hatch
The Act's basic structure sounds good. Section 3 guarantees citizens a right to information, and Section 8 lists ten narrow exemptions, national security, cabinet papers, commercial confidence, fiduciary relationships, and personal privacy being among them, subject to a public-interest override under Section 8(2), which permits disclosure even of exempted material where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm. The Central Information Commission (CIC), however, has had to repeatedly intervene just to enforce the basics, that access is the rule and exemption the exception and that a denial must be reasoned rather than just asserted, which clearly shows that in practice this override is rarely being tested. In one such case, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs refused an applicant access to a copy of his recorded statement, relying on Section 8(1)(h) without giving any explanation as to how the disclosure would be a hindrance to any investigation; the Commission set the denial aside precisely because citing an exemption is not, by itself, a justification. This captures the deeper problem: the law is not being violated so much as being played with.
Patterns of Procedural Evasion
The public authorities have established an identifiable list of methods to respond to an RTI application without answering it.
The most common is the missing-file defence - a response simply stating that the requested record is “not traceable,” “misplaced,” or “scattered.” The CIC has held repeatedly that non-traceability is not a recognised exemption at all, and that a missing file is itself evidence of a public authority's failure to maintain records as required under the Public Records Act, 1993. A subtler variant of this is the flat “no such information exists” reply even to matters of clear institutional record: when a citizen asked in 2024 whether the President had ever returned a Cabinet decision for reconsideration, Rashtrapati Bhavan's reply was simply that no such information was available — an answer that neither confirmed nor denied the substance of the query, and one nearly identical to a reply given to a different applicant asking the same question of a previous President's office. In some cases even the procedure has had similar effect, online portals have declined to forward applications to departments which are not yet “onboarded” to a digital system, in apparent tension with Section 6(3)'s of five-day transfer requirement. And since no dedicated mechanism exists to penalise non-compliance, Section 4(1)(b)'s obligation to proactively publish seventeen categories of information, precisely so citizens need not file individual requests, remains the least-enforced provision in the Act. None of these methods will require an officer to defy the law. And still each one exploits the gap between what the Act requires procedurally and what it fails to require substantively.
The 2023 Amendment to Section 8(1)(j)
The most important development, however, is not administrative improvisation but a legislative one. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, replacing a detailed, multi-part provision with a six-word exemption covering personal information. The original clause permitted personal information to be withheld only when it had no relation to public activity or if amounted to an unwarranted invasion of privacy while also carrying a proviso stating that nothing deniable to Parliament could be denied to a citizen either. Former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi argues that the amended clause drops this point entirely, and that if the DPDP Act's own expansive definition of “person” which covers firms, companies, and associations and not merely individuals is read into the RTI exemption, then almost any record can plausibly be labelled personal and withheld. Since the DPDP Act simultaneously imposes penalties for wrongful disclosure, PIOs face an asymmetric incentive: an unjustified denial risks a modest penalty under the RTI Act, while an improper disclosure risks a far larger one under the DPDP Act - an incentive structure that, Gandhi argues, pushes officers toward reflexive refusal.
Under the original provision, an authority holding personal information still had to show that the disclosure served no larger public interest which was a case-by-case weighing exercise that placed the burden of justifying secrecy on the state. Journalist Kurian Mathew argues that the amended provision actually inverts this completely: an official can now classify a record as personal and decline to engage with the public-interest question at all, which shifts the practical burden on the applicant to disprove a classification the law no longer requires the state to defend.
A Competing Rationale: Privacy Protection
The DPDP Act did not appear out of nowhere. It followed the Supreme Court's 2017 recognition of privacy as a fundamental right in Puttaswamy, which pushed Parliament toward a dedicated data protection framework. RTI's critics on this point are not wrong that the Act has, in practice, been used as a workaround for exactly the kind of personal-data disclosure a privacy regime is meant to prevent - including applications that are aimed less at institutional accountability and more at extracting a private individual's address, service history, or family details for use in a personal dispute. A narrower, harder-edged personal-information exemption has a real case behind it. What that case doesn't answer is why the fix required removing the balancing test altogether rather than tightening it, Section 8(2) could have been preserved for personal information genuinely tied to public duties (an official's asset disclosures, a contractor's conflict-of-interest filing) while still closing the door on the inappropriate use case. Instead, the amendment removed the mechanism that distinguished the two.
Why Vagueness Carries Less Risk Than Refusal
Contextually hollow replies that conform to the letter of the law allow an officer to parry potential political attacks that are almost guaranteed to accompany an accurate report. It is, however, important to note that the issue runs deeper along institutional lines rather than being a tale of individually corrupt officers. Vague answers bear no repercussions beyond public disgruntlement, compared to backlash that can come from both the masses and their official superiors in response to controversial responses or silence. Since the RTI Act's penalty provisions under Section 20 were designed to punish outright refusal and unreasonable delay, they are poorly calibrated to catch the quieter offence of an answer that is technically timely but devoid of substance.
None of this required Parliament to repeal the RTI Act, and none of it shows up as a single dramatic act of censorship. It shows up instead as a missing file here, a “no information available” reply there, an exemption clause invoked without explanation, and finally a statutory amendment that removes the very language commissions once used to test such claims. The task facing RTI's next generation of reformers, then, is not to win back the right to ask, but to define and enforce, what counts as an actual answer.
(Author is a 2^nd Year Law student at Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur. Views are personal.)

भ्रष्टाचार और मानवाधिकार उल्लंघन से जुड़ी जानकारी RTI Act के तहत देने से इनकार नहीं किया जा सकता: मद्रास हाईकोर्ट

Live Law: Chennai: Wednesday, 14^th October 2026.
मद्रास हाईकोर्ट ने कहा है कि सतर्कता एवं भ्रष्टाचार निरोधक निदेशालय (DVAC) को सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम (RTI Act) के तहत मिली छूट का इस्तेमाल भ्रष्टाचार और मानवाधिकार उल्लंघन से संबंधित जानकारी रोकने के लिए नहीं किया जा सकता।

जस्टिस हेमंत चंदनगौदर ने स्पष्ट किया कि RTI अधिनियम की धारा 24(4) के तहत किसी विभाग को छूट दिए जाने के बावजूद, भ्रष्टाचार के आरोपों और मानवाधिकार उल्लंघन से संबंधित जानकारी इस छूट के दायरे से बाहर रहती है।
अदालत ने यह भी कहा कि DVAC मैनुअल के नियम 29 के तहत जांच संबंधी जानकारी को गोपनीय बताकर ऐसा अपवाद नहीं बनाया जा सकता, जिसकी अनुमति RTI अधिनियम स्वयं नहीं देता।
हाईकोर्ट ने तमिलनाडु सरकार की उस याचिका को खारिज कर दिया, जिसमें राज्य सूचना आयोग के उस आदेश को चुनौती दी गई थी, जिसके तहत अधिकारियों के नाम और अन्य पहचान संबंधी विवरण हटाकर जांच के रिकॉर्ड उपलब्ध कराने का निर्देश दिया गया था।
क्या था मामला?
एक सेवानिवृत्त पुलिस महानिदेशक (DGP) ने RTI आवेदन दाखिल कर कथित भ्रष्टाचार के एक मामले में की गई जांच से संबंधित दस्तावेज मांगे थे। इनमें जांच रिपोर्ट की प्रतियां, सरकार द्वारा उठाए गए सवाल, जांच अधिकारी द्वारा दर्ज किए गए बयान और जांच के दौरान एकत्र किए गए दस्तावेज शामिल थे।
हालांकि, DVAC के लोक सूचना अधिकारी ने RTI अधिनियम की धारा 8(1)(g) का हवाला देते हुए जानकारी देने से इनकार कर दिया। इस प्रावधान के तहत ऐसी जानकारी देने से छूट है, जिसके खुलासे से किसी व्यक्ति की जान या शारीरिक सुरक्षा को खतरा हो सकता है।
सेवानिवृत्त अधिकारी की पहली अपील भी खारिज कर दी गई। इसके बाद उन्होंने तमिलनाडु राज्य सूचना आयोग में दूसरी अपील दाखिल की। आयोग ने संबंधित रिकॉर्ड उपलब्ध कराने का निर्देश दिया, जिसके खिलाफ राज्य सरकार ने हाईकोर्ट का रुख किया।
DVAC ने क्या दलील दी?
राज्य सरकार ने अदालत में तर्क दिया कि जांच से जुड़े दस्तावेजों का खुलासा करने से गोपनीय सूत्रों और गवाहों की सुरक्षा खतरे में पड़ सकती है। सरकार ने यह भी कहा कि तीसरे पक्ष से संबंधित जानकारी साझा नहीं की जा सकती और DVAC मैनुअल का नियम 29 जांच संबंधी सूचनाओं को गोपनीय रखने का प्रावधान करता है।
राज्य की ओर से यह भी दलील दी गई कि रिकॉर्ड की बड़ी मात्रा होने के कारण उनमें से सभी नाम और पहचान संबंधी विवरण हटाना व्यावहारिक रूप से कठिन होगा।
दूसरी ओर, सेवानिवृत्त अधिकारी ने कहा कि वह स्वयं उस जांच का हिस्सा थे, जिसे अंततः उनके पक्ष में बंद कर दिया गया था। इसलिए उन्हें यह जानने का अधिकार है कि जांच किन तथ्यों और दस्तावेजों के आधार पर की गई।
उन्होंने यह भी कहा कि किसी गवाह या सूत्र की जान को वास्तविक खतरा होने का कोई ठोस सबूत पेश नहीं किया गया और नाम हटाने में होने वाली प्रशासनिक कठिनाई सूचना देने से इनकार करने का आधार नहीं हो सकती।
RTI अधिनियम के तहत छूट पर कोर्ट की टिप्पणी
जस्टिस हेमंत चंदनगौदर ने धारा 24(4) के प्रभाव पर विचार करते हुए कहा कि DVAC को सरकारी आदेश के जरिए RTI अधिनियम से छूट दी गई है, लेकिन अधिनियम का प्रावधान स्पष्ट करता है कि भ्रष्टाचार और मानवाधिकार उल्लंघन से संबंधित जानकारी पर यह छूट लागू नहीं होती।
अदालत ने कहा कि किसी विभाग का आंतरिक प्रशासनिक निर्देश RTI अधिनियम में उपलब्ध छूट के अतिरिक्त कोई नई छूट पैदा नहीं कर सकता।
DVAC मैनुअल के नियम 29 का उल्लेख करते हुए कोर्ट ने कहा:
“जांच के दौरान एकत्र की गई जानकारी को गोपनीय मानने का आंतरिक प्रशासनिक निर्देश ऐसी छूट नहीं बना सकता, जो RTI अधिनियम में मौजूद नहीं है।”
कोर्ट ने स्पष्ट किया कि गोपनीयता का पहलू यह तय करने में प्रासंगिक हो सकता है कि किसी विशेष जानकारी को विश्वास में दिया गया था या नहीं, लेकिन इसके आधार पर जांच के पूरे रिकॉर्ड को रोकना उचित नहीं है।
गवाहों की सुरक्षा के लिए ठोस आधार जरूरी
अदालत ने कहा कि राज्य सरकार ऐसा कोई ठोस सामग्री या सबूत पेश नहीं कर सकी, जिससे यह साबित हो कि संबंधित नामों और विवरणों का खुलासा करने से किसी व्यक्ति की जान या शारीरिक सुरक्षा को खतरा होगा।
कोर्ट के अनुसार, केवल यह सामान्य आशंका जताना कि जानकारी सामने आने से किसी की सुरक्षा प्रभावित हो सकती है, RTI अधिनियम की धारा 8(1)(g) के तहत छूट देने के लिए पर्याप्त नहीं है।
अदालत ने यह भी स्पष्ट किया कि जांच का हिस्सा होने मात्र से संबंधित अधिकारी को जांच के प्रत्येक दस्तावेज को प्राप्त करने का असीमित अधिकार नहीं मिल जाता। यदि किसी दस्तावेज में किसी असंबंधित तीसरे पक्ष की वास्तविक निजी जानकारी है, तो उसे सुरक्षित रखा जा सकता है।
हालांकि, राज्य सरकार पूरे रिकॉर्ड को रोकने के लिए पर्याप्त आधार प्रस्तुत नहीं कर सकी।
राज्य सरकार की याचिका खारिज
इन टिप्पणियों के साथ मद्रास हाईकोर्ट ने तमिलनाडु राज्य सूचना आयोग के आदेश को बरकरार रखा और राज्य सरकार की याचिका खारिज कर दी।
अदालत के फैसले का सार यह है कि RTI के तहत विभाग को मिली छूट या जांच रिकॉर्ड की गोपनीयता का हवाला देकर भ्रष्टाचार से जुड़ी जानकारी को पूरी तरह रोका नहीं जा सकता। किसी विशेष जानकारी को रोकने के लिए कानून में निर्धारित छूट और उसके समर्थन में उचित आधार होना आवश्यक है।

Follow Info Commission's order, share inquiry records with ex-DGP Jangid: Madras High Court to DVAC

DT Next: Chennai: Wednesday, 14^th October 2026.

Retired DGP SR Jangid

The retired DGP argued that the inquiry, in which he was the subject, ended in his favour and that he was entitled to access the related records.
The Madras High Court has upheld an order of the State Information Commission directing the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to disclose inquiry records to retired DGP SR Jangid, observing that the State failed to justify withholding the entire records under the RTI Act.
The Public Information Officer of the DVAC challenged the Tamil Nadu Information Commission's order directing it to furnish details of an inquiry in an alleged corruption case after masking the names and particulars of the officers concerned.
Jangid had sought copies of the inquiry reports, queries raised by the government, statements recorded by the inquiry officer, and other documents.
The Public Information Officer rejected the application under Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act, citing risks to the life and physical safety of witnesses and confidential sources.
His appeal was also rejected, following which he approached the State Information Commission, which directed disclosure of the records.
When the matter came up for hearing before Justice Hemant Chandanagoudar, the State argued that disclosure could endanger witnesses and confidential sources, that third-party information could not be shared, and that masking names in voluminous records was impracticable.
The retired DGP argued that the inquiry, in which he was the subject, ended in his favour and that he was entitled to access the related records.
He contended that there was no evidence of any real threat to witnesses or sources, and that the names of other officers could be masked, as administrative difficulty was not a ground to deny information.
Though DVAC was exempted from the RTI Act under Section 24 (4) through a Government Order dated August 26, 2008, the proviso to the section makes it clear that the exemption does not apply to information relating to allegations of corruption and human rights violations, the court noted.
The judge also rejected the DVAC's argument that inquiry details were confidential under Rule 29 of the DVAC Manual, and observed that an internal administrative instruction could not create an exemption beyond those provided under the RTI Act.
While confidentiality could be considered to determine whether specific information was supplied in confidence, it could not be used to justify withholding the entire inquiry records, it said.
The court held that Jangid was entitled to the detailed inquiry records, as the State had failed to justify withholding the entire records under Sections 24 (4) or 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act.
The court directed the Public Information Officer to furnish the records in accordance with the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission's order dated May 30, 2024, after masking the names and particulars of other officers.
For documents attracting Section 11, the prescribed procedure must be followed without withholding other information that can be disclosed.
Upholding the Information Commission's order dated May 30, 2024, the court dismissed the writ petition.