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.

‘Conviction rate in cases of crimes against SC/STs very low in T.N.’ : RTI

The Hindu: Madurai: Friday, 15 May 2026.
Officials in many districts, including Thoothukudi and Tirunelveli, have not responded to RTI queries regarding the number of crimes reported and the status of cases, says A. Kathir, executive director of Evidence

A. Kathir, executive director, Evidence

Atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Tamil Nadu had been continuously increasing and the new government, headed by C. Joseph Vijay, should give an assurance to the minorities and the downtrodden that law enforcement would be strict, said A. Kathir, executive director, Evidence, an NGO fighting for the rights of the downtrodden and the oppressed classes, here on Thursday.
Addressing a press conference, Mr. Kathir said Evidence had gathered information through the Right to Information (RTI) Act for the last 11 years from across Tamil Nadu with regard to crimes reported in police stations and the number of cases registered, charge-sheets filed and cases pending or disposed of by courts.
Compiling of the date began in February 2026. “The law says officials should give the information within 30 days” else they had to face punishment, he said.
He said officials in Kanniyakumari, Sivaganga, Cuddalore, Ranipet, Tiruchi, Kallakurichi, Kancheepuram, Salem, Karur, Dharmapuri, Tiruvarur, Tiruppur, Perambalur, Erode, Madurai, Nagapattinam, Ramanathapuram, Vellore, Ariyalur, Tiruvannamalai, Tirupattur, Pudukottai, The Nilgiris, Mayiladuthurai, Villupuram, Dindigul and Krishnagiri districts, Coimbatore, Salem, Tiruppur and Madurai cities, and Mylapore and Washermenpet in Chennai had responded.
Those in Thoothukudi, Tirunelveli, Tiruvallur, Namakkal, Tenkasi and Theni districts, Tiruchi city, and Kilpauk and T. Nagar in Chennai were yet to respond. In a few cases, Evidence had sent appeals and was awaiting response, Mr. Kathir said.
Several incidents
The date showed that 11,117 incidents had been reported in the last 11 years (2015 — 2025). It was shocking that accused in only 406 of these cases — a mere 3.6% — had been convicted.
Madurai district topped in the number the crimes against SC/STs with 1,322 cases reported and the accused in only 44 cases (3.32%) had been convicted. While Sivaganga district stood second with a conviction rate of 1.32%, in Salem the conviction rate was a negligible 0.56%. In Villupuram district, accused in 77 of the 709 cases (11%) had been punished. In Karur, the conviction rate was 7.36%.
Shockingly, Mr. Kathir said, there was not a single conviction in Mayiladuthurai district. There were over 100 cases pending in police stations. As per Supreme Court directions, the special courts should deliver judgment within three months of the date of filing chargesheets, which should have been completed within two months from the date of registration of cases.
Mr. Kathir said the new government should take it up with an iron hand, which alone would instil confidence among the SC/ST victims. It should give adequate protection to them and enhance the relief amount from ₹12 lakh to ₹25 lakh.
The government should declare Madurai, Tirunelveli, Thoothukudi, Pudukottai, Thanjavur, Villupuram, Kallakurichi districts “atrocities-prone”. A senior-level IAS officer should be entrusted with overseeing the progress of the cases and police officers in the rank of Inspector General should be made responsible for monitoring the cases.
There were sufficient laws and amendments, the last being done in 2015. However, the crimes against SC/STs increased by 30-35% in Tamil Nadu in the meantime, he said.

Students’ right to access exam answer scripts under RTI affirmed by CA

Ceylon Daily News: Sri Lanka: Friday, 15 May 2026.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Dr. Sumudu Premachandra with Justice R. Gurusinghe agreeing, has been widely viewed as a major affirmation of transparency, accountability, and students’ rights within Sri Lanka’s higher education system.

A landmark judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal has significantly strengthened the rights of university students and examination candidates in Sri Lanka by affirming that examinees are entitled to obtain their scrutinised answer scripts under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
In a ruling delivered on May 8, the Court dismissed a revision application filed by the The Open University of Sri Lanka challenging an order of the Right to Information Commission directing the university to release the answer scripts and marks of a student who sat for the university’s LLB Selection Test.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Dr. Sumudu Premachandra with Justice R. Gurusinghe agreeing, has been widely viewed as a major affirmation of transparency, accountability, and students’ rights within Sri Lanka’s higher education system.
The case arose after R.A. Janaka Roshan Ranasinghe sought access to the answer scripts and marks of his daughter, R.A.D. Sashindya Ranasinghe, who sat for the Open University’s LLB entrance examination held in January 2023. The university initially refused the request, relying on Section 5(1)(l) of the RTI Act, which permits denial of information where disclosure would “harm the integrity of an examination.”
University authorities argued that releasing answer scripts and examination-related material could compromise confidentiality and undermine the integrity of future examinations.
However, the RTI Commission rejected that position and ordered the disclosure of the requested information. The university then sought to challenge that determination before the Court of Appeal. In a strongly worded judgment favouring transparency, the Court held that a student requesting access to his or her own answer script could not reasonably be denied such information.
Justice Premachandra observed: “There cannot be hide-and-seek games in higher institutions, and transparency is a paramount consideration.”
The Court emphasised that the RTI Act and Article 14A of the Constitution recognise access to information as a fundamental democratic value intended to promote accountability and good governance.
Importantly, the Court noted that if a standard marking scheme had been properly applied, disclosure should not threaten the integrity of the examination process.
RTI Overrides University By-Laws
A central issue in the case was whether university examination by-laws could prevent disclosure of answer scripts. The Court firmly rejected that argument, holding that Section 4 of the RTI Act gives the legislation overriding effect over inconsistent institutional regulations or by-laws.
The judgment stated that university rules “suppressing the RTI” had “no force in law” where they conflicted with the statutory right to information.
This aspect of the ruling may have broader implications for all State universities and public educational institutions that maintain restrictive policies regarding examination records.
The Court also drew extensively from Indian jurisprudence on students’ rights to access evaluated answer scripts.
Citing the Indian Supreme Court decision in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011), the Court recognised that evaluated answer scripts constitute “information” under RTI laws because they contain the opinions and assessments of examiners.
The Sri Lankan Court endorsed the principle that: “Every examinee will have the right to access his evaluated answer-books.”
At the same time, the Court recognised that the identity of examiners could remain confidential in order to protect evaluative independence. The judgment also clarified that public authorities cannot issue blanket refusals under the RTI Act without demonstrating concrete and credible reasons.
The Court stressed that exemptions under Section 5(1)(l) are not absolute and must be interpreted narrowly. Merely claiming that disclosure could affect examination integrity was insufficient without factual justification.
There is no doubt this aspect of the ruling could influence future disputes involving public examinations, university admissions tests, and professional qualifying examinations. In addition to dismissing the university’s substantive arguments, the Court criticised the institution for invoking the Court’s revisionary jurisdiction instead of pursuing the statutory appeal mechanism provided under the RTI Act.
The judges observed that revisionary powers are discretionary and reserved only for exceptional circumstances involving grave injustice or manifest error.
Since the university had failed to show exceptional circumstances or explain why it had not pursued the ordinary appeal process, the Court declined to intervene.
Wider Significance
The ruling is likely to have far-reaching consequences for students across Sri Lanka seeking greater transparency in examination and admissions processes.
Legal observers note that the decision reinforces several important principles:

• Students have a legitimate right to know how their examination papers were evaluated.
• Public universities are subject to the RTI regime.
• Institutional secrecy cannot override constitutional transparency obligations.
• RTI exemptions relating to examinations must be narrowly interpreted.

The judgment also signals a growing judicial willingness to expand access to information rights within the education sector.
For thousands of students who annually sit competitive examinations for university admission, professional qualifications, and public sector recruitment, the ruling may become an important safeguard against opaque or arbitrary evaluation practices. As the country continues to strengthen its RTI framework nearly a decade after the enactment of the RTI Act in 2016, the Court of Appeal’s decision marks another significant milestone in the country’s evolving culture of transparency and accountability.

Forest dept targets officer for RTI disclosure amid illegal tree felling inquiry

The Times of India: National: Friday, 15 May 2026.
In a controversial move, top Rajasthan forest department officials have initiated proceedings against Deputy Conservator of Forests (DCF) and Public Information Officer (PIO) Gazanfar Ali Zaidi for sharing inquiry-related documents under the RTI Act in connection with an illegal tree-felling case in Bhilwara.

Sources said the disclosed documents later formed the basis of a court case, after which the National Green Tribunal directed recovery of about Rs 1.31 crore as environmental compensation from eight forest officials and a private individual.
Instead of fixing accountability and acting for the alleged illegal removal of Prosopis juliflora from nearly 250 hectares of forest land, officials are scrutinising the PIO, accusing him of violating provisions meant to protect ongoing investigations.
RTI activist Rajendra Tiwari said, “The department is targeting dutiful officials and shielding officers involved in illegal felling. At the time when the documents were sought, the preliminary report was already filed. Why do senior officials want to hide the information, and why is there a delay in action against the guilty officials?”
Official communications accessed by TOI show that the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force), Rajasthan, termed the disclosure “prima facie” contrary to provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which exempts disclosure of information that may impede an ongoing investigation.
Subsequently, the Chief Conservator of Forests (CCF) issued a show-cause notice to Zaidi asking why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him. A reminder notice was later issued after officials claimed that no reply had initially been received within the stipulated period.
CCF Ram Karan Khairwa told TOI, “A show-cause notice was issued regarding furnishing information under the RTI Act, 2005, without obtaining approval from the competent authority before forwarding information related to rules or policy decisions. Also, the information was provided when the inquiry was pending.”
A senior official, on the condition of anonymity, said, “The district in-charge who was appointed for the inquiry had already submitted the preliminary report.”
In his written response, Zaidi defended the decision, stating that information under the RTI Act is required to be furnished within 30 days and that the documents were provided in discharge of official duties. He further stated that the information was shared only after discussions with and directions from the then CCF, Jaipur, Rajeev Chaturvedi.
A source said, “Under the RTI Act, 2005, the PIO is independently empowered to provide information. In case of any dispute or objection regarding furnishing of information, the competent authority for resolution is the Information Commission.”

Balancing The Accountability

Daily Excelsior: J&K: Friday, 15 May 2026.

The Central Information Commission’s recent ruling in a case involving Jammu & Kashmir’s Directorate of School Education Kashmir offers a timely moment for reflection. At its heart, the judgment raises a question that democratic societies have long wrestled with: where does the right to know end, and where does the duty to govern begin? The Right to Information Act was conceived as a powerful corrective. It has, without doubt, served that purpose admirably. From exposing ghost beneficiaries in welfare schemes to unmasking fictitious employees on government payrolls, RTI has been the citizen’s most effective torch in the darkest corridors of power. To diminish its importance would be both dishonest and dangerous.
Yet the CIC’s caution against “indiscriminate and impractical” RTI demands deserves serious consideration. The application in question sought exhaustive data spanning six years – teacher shortages, infrastructure deficits, scholarship records, student-teacher ratios and budget utilisation across an entire division. Collating such information would have required a disproportionate diversion of administrative resources, leaving routine governance functions starved of attention. The Supreme Court’s oft-quoted warning – that the nation cannot afford for three-quarters of public staff to spend three-quarters of their time furnishing information – is not hyperbole. It is a practical reality that watchdog bodies must internalise. However, one must be equally vigilant about the other side of this coin. Departments have long mastered the art of hiding behind procedural complexity. “Information not readily available,” “data not compiled centrally,” and “disproportionate burden” are phrases that have shielded genuine negligence and deliberate opacity as comfortably as they have flagged legitimate operational concerns. Without firm benchmarks distinguishing the two, such defences risk becoming a bureaucratic escape hatch.
Herein lies the real challenge. There exist no codified, granular guidelines that empower the CIC or State Information Commissions to cleanly separate vexatious overreach from legitimate, sweeping public interest enquiries. Each case is adjudicated largely on discretion, leaving considerable room for inconsistency. What is needed is a structured framework – one that preserves RTI’s accountability mandate whilst establishing proportionality tests for voluminous requests. Commissioners ought to explore mechanisms such as phased information release, aggregated departmental disclosures, and proactive publication of commonly sought data, which would reduce the burden on both filer and institution. RTI is neither a weapon nor a burden. Used with precision, it remains democracy’s finest audit tool. The challenge is ensuring it stays sharp without becoming unwieldy. The line is thin but has to be distinguished.

213 IAS trainees reappeared in exams over ‘poor performance’ between 2020-‘26: RTI

The Times of India: Agra: Friday, 15 May 2026.
About 213 IAS officer trainees from multiple batches at Mussoorie-based Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration (LBSNAA) had to reappear for examinations during training between 2020 and 2026 due to “poor performance” in various assessments, according to data obtained under the RTI Act.

The data showed that 1,079 IAS officer trainees underwent training at the academy between Jan 1, 2020, and Jan 1, 2026. Also, it showed the number of IAS probationers enrolled annually remained largely stable over the six years, ranging between 182 and 187 trainees each year.
Among the cadres, AGMUT (Arunachal Pradesh-Goa-Mizoram and UTs) recorded the highest number of officer trainees who reappeared for examinations at 21, followed by TN with 18 and UP 16. It was followed by Bihar and WB at 15, MP with 14, Odisha 13, Maharashtra 12 and Gujarat 11, among others.
Regarding cheating cases and the use of unfair means during examinations at the academy, the academy stated that “no IAS probationer was found during the period under review”.
A serving chief development officer (CDO) told TOI: “An IAS officer’s training at LBSNAA is rigorous as it demands high levels of competence, adaptability and accountability. Training goes far beyond classroom academics and includes field exposure, district attachments, physical fitness, public administration, law, economics and governance-related assessments.”
“Reappearing in examinations should not necessarily be viewed negatively, as the academy continuously evaluates officer trainees on multiple parameters to ensure they are prepared for real-world administrative responsibilities,” said the CDO, who is an IAS officer.
She added that the fact that there were no reported cheating or unfair means cases reflects the professionalism and integrity maintained during the training process.
The IAS training programme at LBSNAA is a two-year induction process designed to transform civil service recruits into field-ready administrators via academic instruction, field exposure, and practical governance training.

TN information panel orders Pollachi panchayat union to pay fine over missing files : Rudhran Baraasu

The New Indian Express: Tamilnadu: Friday, 15 May 2026.
Invoking Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, it directed the public authority to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation to Muthumani within a week of receiving the order.

The state information commission has directed the Pollachi South panchayat union to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation to an RTI applicant for misplacing files and failing to furnish documents sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The order was passed while hearing an appeal filed by M Muthumani, who had sought information from the panchayat union office. In December 2025, state Information Commissioner R Priyakumar had directed the assistant director of the rural development department to submit a report on whether the information sought by the applicant had been provided.
When the matter came up for hearing on May 12, the present Public Information Officer (PIO) of the panchayat union, M Santhosam, appeared before the commission and submitted a report.
According to the report, former PIO Sakthivel and former appellate authority V Senthilkumar had furnished the information sought by the applicant within the stipulated time.
However, the supporting documents and registers connected to the information were allegedly misplaced during repeated office relocations. Rejecting the explanation, the commission observed that safeguarding records and ensuring their proper transfer during office relocation is a basic responsibility of every government office.
It strongly criticised the Pollachi South Panchayat Union for administrative negligence and poor record management. Invoking Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, it directed the public authority to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation to Muthumani within a week of receiving the order.
BASIC DUTY
The commission said safeguarding records and ensuring their transfer during office relocation is basic responsibility of every govt office.

अपनी ACR मांगने का कर्मचारी को अधिकार, निजता का हवाला देकर जानकारी नहीं रोक सकता राज्य: मध्य प्रदेश हाईकोर्ट

Live Law: National: Thursday, 14 May 2026.
मध्य प्रदेश हाईकोर्ट ने कहा कि कोई भी सरकारी कर्मचारी सूचना का अधिकार कानून के तहत अपनी वार्षिक गोपनीय प्रतिवेदन (ACR) की प्रतियां मांग सकता है और राज्य सरकार निजता का हवाला देकर ऐसी जानकारी देने से इनकार नहीं कर सकती।

जस्टिस दीपक खोत की पीठ ने कहा कि जब किसी कर्मचारी के पास जानकारी प्राप्त करने का कोई अन्य प्रभावी उपाय नहीं बचता, तब वह RTI कानून के तहत आवेदन करने के लिए बाध्य होता है। ऐसे मामलों में केवल इस आधार पर आवेदन खारिज नहीं किया जा सकता कि सार्वजनिक हित और निजता के बीच संतुलन को लेकर अलग से संतोष दर्ज नहीं किया गया।
अदालत ने कहा,
“सार्वजनिक हित की व्याख्या करते समय निजता के अधिकार और सूचना के अधिकार के बीच संतुलन बनाए रखना जरूरी है। दोनों अधिकार भारतीय संविधान की मूल संवैधानिक मूल्यों से उत्पन्न होते हैं।”
मामला उस याचिका से जुड़ा था, जिसमें राज्य सरकार ने मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त के उस आदेश को चुनौती दी थी, जिसके तहत एक सरकारी कर्मचारी को उसकी ACR उपलब्ध कराने का निर्देश दिया गया था।
राज्य सरकार का तर्क था कि मांगी गई जानकारी RTI कानून की धारा 8(1)(जे) के तहत निजी सूचना की श्रेणी में आती है, जिसका खुलासा करने से निजता का अनावश्यक उल्लंघन हो सकता है। सरकार ने कहा कि लोक सूचना अधिकारी और अपीलीय प्राधिकारी ने सही तरीके से आवेदन खारिज किया लेकिन राज्य सूचना आयुक्त ने गलत तरीके से जानकारी देने का आदेश दे दिया।
हाईकोर्ट ने राज्य सरकार की दलील खारिज करते हुए सुप्रीम कोर्ट के 'देव दत्त' मामले के फैसले का हवाला दिया। उस फैसले में कहा गया कि निष्पक्षता और प्रशासनिक पारदर्शिता बनाए रखने के लिए कर्मचारियों की एसीआर में की गई सभी प्रविष्टियों की जानकारी उन्हें उचित समय के भीतर दी जानी चाहिए।
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी कहा था कि यदि कोई सरकारी आदेश एसीआर की जानकारी देने से रोकता है तो वह संविधान के अनुच्छेद 14 का उल्लंघन होगा।
हाईकोर्ट ने कहा कि मौजूदा मामले में कर्मचारी ने केवल अपनी ही एसीआर की जानकारी मांगी थी, इसलिए इसे निजता का उल्लंघन नहीं माना जा सकता।
अदालत ने यह भी स्पष्ट किया कि जब ACR सामान्य रूप से कर्मचारी को उपलब्ध नहीं कराई जाती, तब RTI कानून के तहत उसे मांगना ही एकमात्र उपाय रह जाता है।
इन्हीं टिप्पणियों के साथ हाईकोर्ट ने 1 दिसंबर 2009 के आदेश को सही ठहराते हुए राज्य सरकार की याचिका खारिज की।

12 years, 12 judges, 2 favourable orders, RTI applicant yet to get info

The Times of India: National: Thursday, 14 May 2026.
A dozen years have elapsed since an RTI application was filed seeking information on the former president of the Medical Council of India and nearly a decade since the Central Information Commission ruled that it must be provided. Yet, the applicant is still waiting for the information. The MCI filed an appeal against the CIC’s 2017 order in the Delhi High Court and after a dozen Justices have heard the case, the HC has ordered the National Medical Commission which succeeded the MCI to comply with the CIC’s ruling.

The HC has asked the NMC to supply the information sought on the status of medical registration of Dr Ketan Desai and details related to a corruption complaint against him. The NMC replaced the disbanded MCI in September 2020 and like its predecessor it opposed giving the information. It argued that the RTI applicant Dr Kunal Saha, a patient rights activist, would have to apply afresh. However, the HC held that this “cannot be accepted” and pointed out that NMC had succeeded the MCI as explicitly stated in the NMC Act 2019.
In the last hearing on April 29, 2026 the HC ordered: “Prima facie, the Court finds that the nature of the information sought by the respondent(s) should be supplied and the same is necessary in order to maintain the transparency and fairness.” NMC’s counsel sought time to make his submissions. The next hearing is on May 19.
The RTI application seeking information on Dr Desai had been filed in October 2015 by the organisation People for Better Treatment (PBT) seeking all documents including the status of an October 2010 complaint against Dr Desai by Dr Saha, president of PBT. On not receiving the information sought, Dr Saha approached the CIC. After hearing both the parties, in January 2017, the CIC ruled in favour of Dr Saha and directed the MCI to furnish the status of the complaint including the status of suspension of the medical registration of Dr Desai. The commission also directed that the minutes of the ethics committee meetings, agenda of meetings etc sought by Dr Saha should be made available for file inspection. The commission noted that the MCI had agreed to furnish information about the payments made to individual lawyers annually since 2010. All the information was to be made available within three weeks of the order.
The long wait

• Oct 2015 – RTI application filed
• January 2017 – CIC orders MCI to supply the information sought, MCI appeals in Delhi HC
• Feb 22, 2017- Interim stay on CIC order (Justice Sanjeev Sachdev)
• Aug 2, 2017- HC orders listing on Aug 25, 2017 (Justice Vibhu Bakhru)
• Aug 25, 2017- No time left
• Sep 1, 2017- Dr Saha files application to be present by video conferencing. Not feasible, application dismissed
• Apr 20, 2018- Counsel for Dr Saha seeks further three weeks to file the counter affidavit, rejoinder to that to be filed before next date of hearing (Justice Rajiv Shakdher)
• Nov 19, 2018- Last opportunity to Dr Saha to file counter affidavit within two weeks and rejoinder to that to be filed within the two weeks after that (Justice Suresh Kumar Kait)
• Mar 13, 2019 - Adjournment slip (Justice V Kameswar Rao)
• Aug 19, 2019- too late to take it up
• Mar 5, 2020- adjournment slip filed (Justice Jayant Nath)
• Mar 22, 2022-due to paucity of time matter not heard (Justice Yashwant Varma)
• Sep 19, 2022-NMC counsel sought time to transpose NMC as party petitioner and to obtain instructions
• Jan 25, 2023- subject to chief justice’s order, matter to be listed before another bench (Justice Pratibha M Singh)
• Feb 17, 2023- new single bench (Justice Mini Pushkarna)
• Apr 6, 2023- judge on leave
• Jul 21, 2023- NMC files application seeking substitution as petitioner as Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 has been repealed. Saha and PBT seek a last opportunity to file reply within two weeks. Rejoinder to reply to be filed within a week after that. (Justice Subramonium Prasad)
• Oct 12, 2023- Pass-over sought in first round, too late to take it up in the second round
• Feb 21, 2024- Too late to take it up
• Jul 10, 2024- too late to take it up (Justice Sanjeev Narula)
• Oct 24, 2024- Admitted, List in due course
• Jan 5, 2026- NMC counsel requests to place on record submissions and relevant decisions as to why the information directed cannot be supplied (Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav)
• Feb 23, 2026- matter listed for Apr 29, 2026
• Apr 29, 2026 – NMC ordered to supply information to PBT

Mohali Tehsildar fined Rs 15,000 for not giving info under RTI Act : Gaurav Kanthwal

The Tribune: Mohali: Thursday, 14 May 2026.
The Punjab State Information Commission has slapped a penalty of Rs 15,000 on Mohali Tehsildar Sumeet Dhillon, respondent PIO in a case, for not providing information to a Sector 76 resident under the RTI Act.

According to appellant HS Hundal, a Sector 76 resident, the respondent had not allowed him the inspection of record in a case in which the authority had passed orders earlier. Since the respondent was not present, an opportunity was given to him to appear before the commission and state his case. However, on September 16, 2025, the respondent was again absent, hence Rs 1,000 in compensation was awarded to the appellant and a show-cause notice issued to the respondent-PIO.
On the next date of hearing on November 27, 2025, the respondent was again absent, after which bailable warrants were issued against him through the Mohali SSP.
On the next date of hearing on February 12, 2026, Dhillon appeared before the commission. The inspection rights were given to the appellant and the case was adjourned to May 5.
The appellant stated that the respondent had not facilitated for the inspection of record again and he was again not present during hearing. A perusal of the case file shows that the respondent-PIO has failed to comply with the directions of the commission. The respondent’s non-response indicates a clear lack of interest in pursuing this matter, which reflects disrespect, observed the commission.
The Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the office of Tehsildar, Mohali, was directed to deduct Rs 15,000 from his salary and deposit it in the State Treasury.