Yamsuan upbeat on progress of long-sought Right To Information law : By Ellson Quismorio

Manila Bulletin: Philippines: Wednesday, 4^Th March 2026.
The progress that the House of Representatives has so far made to the proposed Right to Information (RTI) Law--historically, one of the longest-sought measures in the country was not lost on Paranaque City 2nd district Rep. Brian Raymund Yamsuan.

Parañaque City 2nd district Rep. Brian Raymund Yamsuan (PPAB)

The progress that the House of Representatives has so far made to the proposed Right To Information (RTI) Law--historically, one of the longest-sought measures in the country--wasn't lost on Parañaque City 2nd district Rep. Brian Raymund Yamsuan.
This, as Yamsuan commended his fellow lawmakers, representatives of government agencies, and other stakeholders for making headway during the meeting of the Technical Working Group (TWG) tasked with finetuning the provisions of the proposed RTI Law.
Yamsuan, who headed the TWG on the RTI bill, said members of the panel have already discussed amendments to more than half of the bill’s sections and agreed to adopt its  non-contentious provisions to help speed up deliberations on the measure.
“As of March 2, which was our second TWG meeting, the panel has already discussed provisions covering 32 of the bill’s proposed 52 sections. We thank our fellow legislators, the officials of government agencies, the representatives from  civil society organizations and other right-to-information advocates who have been providing valuable inputs and recommendations to finetune the provisions of the measure,” said Yamsuan, a vice chairperson of the House Committee on Public Information.
“The pace of the discussions in our TWG meetings reflect our collective goal in pushing the passage of this landmark piece of legislation and our shared commitment to transparency and accountability in government,” he added.
Yamsuan said a key provision discussed during the TWG meeting was the need to strike a balance between access to information and the protection of  personal data in accordance with Republic Act (RA) No.10173 or the Data Privacy Act. 
The members of the panel posed no objections to Section 27 of the bill on the disclosure of the Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth  (SALN) of public officials and employees subject to existing laws, rules and regulations, Yamsuan said.
“We are optimistic that we can submit a committee report soon so that the House would have enough time to deliberate the substitute bill on the floor and have it approved on third and final reading before the sine die adjournment of the first regular session in June,” said the former Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) assistant secretary.
The RTI bill is among the 21 priority measures of the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC) that were approved by President Marcos. These are targeted for congressional approval by June 2026. 
The TWG’s working draft, which aims to consolidate more than 20 RTI measures, is lodged in the public information committee chaired by Cagayan de Oro 1st district Rep. Lordan Suan.
Yamsuan thanked Suan and FPJ Panday Bayanihan Party-list Rep. Brian Poe for temporarily presiding over the TWG last Feb. 23.
Yamsuan said up for discussion during the next TWG meeting were the list of exceptions to the grant of access to information, such as cases which directly relates to national security and defense, and sensitive data involving the foreign affairs of the state.

CIC raps DU’s Venkateswara College over ‘baseless’ RTI reply on favouritism allegations

The Print: New Delhi: Wednesday, 4^Th March 2026.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) criticized Delhi University's Sri Venkateswara College for "baseless" denial of RTI information regarding alleged recruitment favouritism and corruption. Despite the college denying wrongdoing, the CIC found its replies deficient and ordered it to provide complete, updated information and relevant links within a week to the appellant.
The Central Information Commission has hauled up Delhi University’s Sri Venkateswara College over what it termed a “baseless” denial of information under the RTI Act in a case pertaining to allegations of recruitment favouritism and corruption.
The college, however, has asserted that there was “no corruption angle” and that appointments were made strictly as per the Delhi University rules.
Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi, in a recent order, observed that the reply of the public information officer (PIO) of the college on certain key queries was “not as per the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005”.
The appellant, Jawahar Singh, had alleged “corrupt practices” in the recruitment process, claiming that ineligible candidates were appointed to posts such as upper division clerk (UDC) and others, and that some staff were removed under a “pick and choose policy.”
He further alleged that the college favoured candidates from a particular state, which he claimed was against the Delhi University norms.
During the hearing, the PIO denied the allegations, stating that “all recruitments of staff are conducted as per the norms and regulations prescribed by the university” and that “there is no corruption angle involved as alleged by the appellant.”
The PIO also tendered an apology for the delayed RTI reply, saying it was unintentional.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the denial of certain queries in a one-line response stating “Question not defined under Section 2(f)” without citing any exemption clause was “found to be baseless”.
On the query seeking a complete list of newly recruited staff, the CIC observed that such information “should ideally be available in public domain in terms of Section 4(1) of the RTI Act, 2005”, adding that the figures provided “do not adequately answer the query of the appellant”.
Section 4(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, mandates proactive disclosure of information by public authorities to minimise requests.
CIC also said that regarding recruitment rules, the PIO was “supposed to have invited attention of the appellant towards the specific hyperlink from where the rules/regulation of recruitment be accessed, which is missing in the PIO’s reply.”
Allowing the second appeal, the Commission directed the PIO to “revisit the contents” of the relevant queries and provide a “revised updated reply along with copy of relevant information and specific URL path” within one week. PTI MHS PRK
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.

Arappor Iyakkam launches anti-corruption manifesto for Assembly polls

The Hindu: Chennai: Wednesday, 4^Th March 2026.
The main agenda of the manifesto is to get rid of corruption and ensure transparency and as part of this the document demands proactive disclosure of public information under Section 4 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, including a statewide transparency portal

The Arappor Iyakkam has released an anti-corruption manifesto for the 2026 Assembly elections to be held in the State, urging political parties to implement systemic reforms to curb corruption, ensure transparency in administration, provide accountability through services, and delegate more power to the local bodies.
Jayaram Venkatesan, convenor of Arappor Iyakkam, launching the anti-corruption manifesto at a press meet held in the Chennai Press Club on Tuesday, urged the political parties to adopt them in their election manifesto for a clean and deliverable administration.
Mr. Jayaram said corruption has been identified as the primary cause for the various social and economic ills afflicting the people and the manifesto proposes a model based on increasing transparency, enhancing accountability, ensuring public participation, and reducing monopoly and discretion in awarding of contracts.
The main agenda of the manifesto is to get rid of corruption and ensure transparency and as part of this the document demands proactive disclosure of public information under Section 4 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, including a statewide transparency portal. It advocates for end-to-end online filing of RTI applications and appeals, and the appointment of 10 Information Commissioners to ensure effective functioning. The manifesto, citing the Rajasthan Government’s ‘Jan Soochna’ portal of displaying information with respect to Section 4 for all departments, wants transparency in government recruitment and postings through independent boards, online counselling, and strict adherence to tenure policies.
For accountability, a “Right to Services Act” is proposed to ensure timely delivery of services and penalise officials for delays or bribery. Major amendments to the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act 2018 are required to make it an independent agency with investigative and prosecution powers. Furthermore, a Whistleblowers Protection Act is requested to safeguard those reporting corruption.
To eliminate corruption in tenders, the manifesto calls for cancelling single-bid tenders and making all tenders above ₹1 lakh fully electronic. It seeks to prohibit and penalize collusive bidding, bid rigging, and conflicts of interest.
Proposals for public participation include empowering area sabhas as elected bodies for local decision-making and implementing social audits for government projects. For this the Urban local bodies Act needs to be amended. Police reforms are also needed to increase independence from political interference, including forming an independent State Security Commission and establishing a Tamil Nadu Anti-Torture Law.
Finally, the document called for curbing the distribution of cash for votes by prohibiting new schemes and cash transfers six months prior to election.

RTI Cannot Be Weaponised for Personal Disputes: Lessons from Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan : By - Tanvi Dalvi

India Law: National: Wednesday, 4^Th March 2026.

The Right to Information Act, 2005 stands as one of India’s most transformative legislative instruments, empowering citizens to demand accountability and transparency from public authorities. However, this right is not absolute. In a significant order dated February 3, 2026, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, in Smt. Kanta Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7374/2025) reaffirmed that salary-related information of a government employee constitutes “personal information” exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.
Background of the Dispute
The petitioner, Smt. Kanta Kumawat, filed an RTI application in April 2024 before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara, seeking pay slips and salary details of a police department employee named Omprakash notably, her husband for the period of January to March 2024. The application was refused by the Public Information Officer on the ground that the information was personal in nature and pertained to a third party, rendering it exempt from disclosure under the Act.
Exhaustion of Statutory Remedies
Undeterred by the initial refusal, the petitioner pursued the matter through successive appellate forums. Both the first appellate authority and the Rajasthan State Information Commission upheld the denial vide order dated October 23, 2024. Having exhausted all statutory remedies without success, the petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, seeking quashing of the Commission’s order and a direction compelling disclosure of the information.
The Legal Question Before the Court
The central issue before the Court was whether salary details and pay slips of an individual government employee sought by a third party qualify as “personal information” exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act. The petitioner’s counsel contended that, as a public servant, the employee’s remuneration details ought to be accessible. The respondents, however, did not enter appearance before the Court.
Court’s Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent
Justice Kuldeep Mathur anchored the Court’s reasoning firmly in the Supreme Court’s authoritative pronouncement in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212. The Supreme Court in that case had categorically held that information relating to an employee’s performance and service-related matters is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer, governed by applicable service rules. Such information falls squarely within the definition of “personal information” and its disclosure, absent a demonstrable overriding public interest, bears no nexus to any public activity or public purpose.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Applying this settled legal position, the High Court found neither illegality nor infirmity in the conduct of the respondent authorities. The Court observed that salary details are inherently personal in character and that the RTI framework does not contemplate their disclosure merely upon request by a private individual with no demonstrated public interest at stake. Significantly, the Court implicitly recognised that the RTI mechanism cannot be deployed as an instrument to serve personal or matrimonial interests under the guise of transparency.
The Final Order
Finding no merit in the writ petition, the Court dismissed it along with the accompanying stay petition. The decision effectively validated the consistent position adopted by the Public Information Officer, the First Appellate Authority and the State Information Commission across three tiers of adjudication.
Broader Legal Implications
This judgment serves as an important reminder that the RTI Act, despite its broad mandate, operates within carefully defined boundaries. Public employment does not render every aspect of an employee’s service record accessible to the world at large. The privacy of individual public servants in matters pertaining to their personal emoluments is a legally recognised and judicially protected interest. Practitioners and litigants alike must appreciate that RTI applications seeking third-party personal information must be supported by a clear and demonstrable public interest, failing which such requests are liable to be legitimately refused at every stage of the adjudicatory process.

Power project in Sharavathi Valley: Public hearing sidelines thousands of written objections.

Deccan Herald: Chiranjeevi Kulkarni: Bengaluru: Tuesday, March 03, 2026.

Yet, the proceedings of the two events now made available to the public, give space for only 47 people in Shivamogga and 57 in Uttara Kannada district to speak against the project.

The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) conducted the public hearing in Shivamogga and Uttara Kannada on September 16 and18, respectively, to obtain the views of the people to the 2000-MW pumped storage project in Sharavathi Valley Lion Tailed Macaque Sanctuary.

While both the physical meetings saw thousands of people waiting to speak up against the project, documents obtained under the Right to Information Act reflect a much higher participation. Yet, the proceedings of the two events now made available to the public, give space for only 47 people in Shivamogga and 57 in Uttara Kannada district to speak against the project. Also Read: Wildlife board approved power project in Sharavathi valley, documents show Also Read: Wildlife board approved power project in Sharavathi valley, documents show A careful reading of the proceedings show the written submissions being relegated to a list of annexures. There is no information with regard to the nature of these submissions, with activists noting that this effectively undermines the participation of people who took their time to write their suggestions and objections.

When the public hearing notices were issued last year seeking suggestions and objections to the project, people were told to participate via “oral/written/email” but the proceedings of the events sideline the thousands of written submissions, prompting activists to demand officials for an overhaul. 12k pages of written submissions In fact, documents obtained under the Right to information Act show that officials were flooded with written submissions. As per the information provided by the KSPCB’s Karwar regional office, the written submission exceeded a whopping 11,078 pages in Uttara Kannada while the KSPCB Shivamogga regional officer put the number at 948 pages. Wildlife conservationist G Veeresh, who participated in the hearing at Shivamogga, noted that thousands of people who could not get time to speak have submitted written objections and it was deeply concerning to see that only oral objections get space in the minutes of meeting. “The KSPCB has a statutory duty under the EIA Notification to consolidate and record all objections — whether submitted orally, in writing, or through email. Public consultation is not a mere procedural right to know whether every representation was properly acknowledged and considered,” he said. To a question, KSPCB Member Secretary R Gokul said the Board only facilitates the event. “Ultimately, it is the district administration which approves the public hearing proceedings. We facilitate the event as per the EIA notification and forward the documents to the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,” he said. Against the project An official in Uttara Kannada said most of the written submissions were against the project. “We have not held back any of the submissions. Every page has been forwarded to the department,” he added. Apart from an online petition which had about 15,000 signatures by the end of September 16, activists and conservationists had held a signature campaign to gather support for their opposition to the project. All these materials were printed and submitted to the officials during the public hearing but do not get a mention in the proceedings.

No records on whether Jama Masjid built over ruins or vacant land: ASI.

Siasat: New Delhi: Tuesday, March 03, 2026.

It said the Jama Masjid was taken under the protection of the Archaeological Survey of India in 1920.

The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has told the Central Information Commission that it does not have any records indicating whether the Jama Masjid in Uttar Pradesh’s Sambhal was constructed after demolishing any earlier structure or on vacant land, nor does it have documents identifying the landowner at the time of its construction.

In a right to information (RTI) application, Satya Prakash Yadav sought to know whether the Mughal-era mosque, Jama Masjid, was built by demolishing any ruins or on vacant land, along with the name of the landowner at the time and the documents granting ownership rights.

The ASI, in its reply, stated that “no such information is available in this office”.

On questions relating to the nature of constructions at the site at the time it was taken under protection, any subsequent new constructions, and past disputes associated with the mosque, the ASI said that such information was not available in its records.

Jama Masjid constructed in the year 1526: ASI

However, during the first appeal proceedings, the Archaeological Survey of India pointed to an incident in 2018, stating that no new construction is permitted within the protected area of a centrally protected monument. It disclosed that an “illegal” steel railing was being erected at the Jama Masjid site that year and that the department had issued orders to stop the work.

The applicant had also asked about the period of construction of the mosque. The ASI replied that, as per its records, “Jama Masjid Sambhal was constructed in the year 1526,” and referred to supporting material. On whether the structure was known by any other name earlier, the department said the mosque has been protected by the ASI under the same name.

In response to a query on the present nature of the structure, the ASI stated, “At present, it exists as a mosque.” It further said the Jama Masjid was taken under the protection of the Archaeological Survey of India in 1920, citing a gazette notification.

During the hearing before the Commission, the appellant argued that key information had been wrongly denied on the ground of non-availability. The ASI maintained that it had provided all information available on record and that it could not be compelled to create or collect information not maintained by it.

Upholding the ASI’s stand, the Commission observed that the RTI Act obliges public authorities to disclose only existing records and does not require them to generate fresh information. It cited judicial precedents to underline that information not held by a public authority cannot be directed to be furnished.

Dispute around Jama Masjid

The Sambhal Jama Masjid has been at the centre of a legal dispute over its history, following a petition claiming that the mosque was built over an ancient Hindu temple. The issue drew wider attention after riots erupted in Sambhal on November 24, 2024, during protests against a court-ordered ASI survey of the structure. The violence led to four deaths and injuries to several people, including police personnel.

Finding no grounds for further intervention, the Commission dismissed the appeal, holding that the ASI’s replies — including its statement of having no records on whether the mosque was built over ruins or vacant land — were in accordance with the law.

RTI filed on former Bengal Minister Partha Chatterjee’s performance as MLA.

India News: IANS: Kolkata: Tuesday, March 03, 2026.

An application had been filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, to get details of the performance of former West Bengal Education Minister and ex-Trinamool Congress secretary general as the party legislator from Behala (Paschim) Assembly constituency in South 24 Parganas district during the last five years.

Chatterjee had been a four-time legislator from that constituency since 2006. The last time he was elected from that constituency was in 2021. But almost his entire term as the party legislator was spent behind bars after his arrest in July 2022 in connection with the multi-crore cash-for-school job case.

Although he was released on bail in November 2025, he kept himself aloof from any political activity, including addressing the concerns of voters from his constituency.

In his application made under Section 6 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the applicant Subhrajit Saha, a Calcutta High Court counsel by profession, hasd claimed that he is making the application on behalf of the voters of Behala (Paschim) Assembly constituency, who have the right to know about the performance Chatterjee as their elected legislator for the last five years.

In his application, the applicant had sought the details of Chatterjee’s performance in the West Bengal Assembly since 2021. Such details include his speeches on the floor of the house, zero-hour submissions, calling attention, and motions moved, among others.

In the application, the applicant has also sought the details of Chatterjee’s performance as a member of various standing committees of the Assembly, including his presence in the meetings of the said committee, his proposals there, and arguments among others.

Initially, after being released on bail, Chatterjee expressed his desire to perform as a legislator and even attend the Assembly sessions. He even tried to communicate with Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, Trinamool Congress general secretary and the party’s Lok Sabha member, Abhishek Banerjee, and the party’s state president, Subrata Bakshi.

However, his communications failed to evoke any response from any one of them. Thereafter, he withdrew from all political activities and has remained home-bound.

Minority concerns mount: RTI reveals govt funded Delhi religious meet in December - By Syed Ali Mujtaba*

Counterview: National: Monday, 02 March 2026.
Indian Muslims have expressed deep concern over what they describe as rising hate speech and hostility against their community under the BJP-led government in India.

A recent flashpoint was the event organised by Sanatan Sanstha titled “Sanatan Rashtra Shankhnad Mahotsav” in New Delhi on 13–14 December 2025.
The event reportedly brought together more than 800 organisations with the stated objective of protecting Hindu culture. It was organised to mark the silver jubilee of the organisation and celebrate the 83rd birthday of its founder, Dr. Jayant Athavale. However, critics allege that the platform was used to target the Muslim community, and they question the presence and support of leaders associated with the BJP government.
The Mahotsav saw participation from over 3,000 delegates, largely from Hindu groups. Media reports highlighted controversial speeches in which some speakers allegedly made inflammatory remarks against Muslims.
Union ministers Gajendra Singh Shekhawat, Shripad Naik and Sanjay Seth, along with Delhi Tourism Minister Kapil Mishra, were among the dignitaries present at the event.
Among the speakers was Suresh Chavhanke, editor-in-chief of Sudarshan TV, who reportedly claimed that “25% Muslims presently living in India are infiltrators” from neighbouring countries and suggested that they should be removed through the National Register of Citizens (NRC). He also reportedly called for capping the Muslim population in India.
Ashwini Upadhyay, a BJP leader, suggested that Muslims should be converted to Hinduism and urged Hindus to actively pursue conversion efforts. He reportedly stated that if every Hindu converted one Muslim, a broader objective could be achieved. He also suggested that Hindu business owners encourage their Muslim employees to convert to Hinduism and that a “government fear” should be instilled among Muslims.
Rahul Dewan of the Hindu Fund reportedly called for an “offensive strategy” to establish what he described as a “constitutional Hindu Rashtra,” and made remarks advocating segregation between Hindus and Muslims.
The event has sparked public debate, raising questions about the background of Sanatan Sanstha, the role of the government in supporting such programmes, and the broader implications for communal harmony in the country.
Founded in 1999 in Goa by Dr. Jayant Athavale, Sanatan Sanstha advocates the establishment of a “Hindu Rashtra.” Over the years, the organisation has faced allegations in connection with several bomb blast cases between 2007 and 2009, including incidents in Vashi and Thane in Maharashtra, and in Panvel in Goa. Members linked to the organisation have also been accused in cases related to the killings of rationalists Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Pansare, M. M. Kalburgi, and journalist Gauri Lankesh. The organisation has denied wrongdoing in various instances, and it has not been banned.
According to an RTI response, the Union Ministry of Culture sanctioned financial assistance of Rs 63 lakh to Sanatan Sanstha, Sanatan Ashram, Ramnathi Village, Ponda, Goa, for organising the Mahotsav. The Ministry reportedly stated that the grant was provided under the head commemorating the 150th year of the national song “Vande Mataram.” The funding decision has drawn criticism from sections of civil society and media.
Aditya Menon, editor of the web portal The Quint, questioned the government’s decision to fund the event, arguing that the issue was not the amount sanctioned but whether public money should support programmes that allegedly run contrary to constitutional principles. He asked whether the government could fund an event where calls for a “Hindu Rashtra” and alleged “cleansing” of Muslims were made.
On its official website, Sanatan Sanstha stated that the Sanatan Rashtra Shankhnad Mahotsav (2025) aimed to unite pro-Hindu organisations for the establishment of a “Hindu Rashtra.” It said the gathering brought together saints, leaders and devotees to resolve to establish an ideal “Sanatan Rashtra,” protect temples and traditions, and defend Hindu culture from perceived threats.
Critics argue that such developments contribute to a sense of insecurity among Muslims, who they say are already facing challenges such as the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and demolition drives popularly referred to as “bulldozer actions.”
Observers have also drawn parallels with the December 17–19, 2021 Dharma Sansad held in Haridwar, Uttarakhand, where controversial speeches calling for violence against Muslims were delivered. While arrests were made following public outcry, many accused later secured bail.
The recent Mahotsav in New Delhi has renewed debate about hate speech, government accountability and the safeguarding of constitutional values. Whether legal or institutional action will follow remains uncertain, but the event has once again brought communal tensions and minority rights into sharp public focus.
—
*Journalist based in Chennai

Kerala govt exempts disclosure of Mullaperiyar dam lease deed original records under RTI act, cites security reasons

Onmanorama: Kerala: Monday, 02 March 2026.

Mullaperiyar Dam. Photo: Special Arrangement

The state government has exempted information related to Mullaperiyar dam lease deed from the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The General Administration department has invoked relevant sections of the RTI Act to exempt providing information about the original records of Mullaperiyar Dam Lease deed agreements, including sketches, blueprints, photos, etc., accompanying the original contract.
The notification issued by Secretary K Biju cited that giving information on original records would prejudicially affect the security interest of the state.
As per clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the state, relation with foreign state or lead to incitement of an offence.
A lease indenture for 999 years was made in 1886 between Maharaja of Travancore and Secretary of State for India for Periyar irrigation works. By another agreement in 1970, Tamil Nadu was permitted to generate power also. The Mullaperiyar Dam was constructed during 1887-1895. Its full reservoir level is 152 ft and it provides water through a tunnel to Vaigai basin in Tamil Nadu for irrigation benefits in 68558 ha, according to the document published by the Ministry of Jal Shakti.
In 2024, Union Minister of State for Environment, Forest and Climate change, Kirti Vardhan Singh told the parliament that the Ministry received a proposal on Parivesh portal in May 2024 for grant of Terms of Reference (ToR) for conducting Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study for proposed new Mullaperiyar Dam in an area of 39 ha located in Idukki by the Irrigation Design & Research Board (IDRB). In view of inter-state issues raised by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the Ministry sought the opinion of Central Water Commission (CWC), Ministry of Jal Shakti. The CWC,  has informed that the Supreme Court constituted an Empowered Committee in 2010 to assess the safety aspects of Mullaperiyar dam.
In the order of the Supreme Court issued in 2019 it was stated that the question as to whether any study could at all be carried out or not can always be considered and the move on the part of the state of Kerala can be questioned in case the respondents make any application to the SC court for any such permission, according to the reply.
The Central Water Commission had responded to an RTI application that the Periyar lake lease agreement is available in a CWC publication titled Legal Instruments on Rivers in India.

RTI: ₹50,000 penalty imposed on four gram panchayat officials for delay in providing information

The Hindu: Kalaburagi: Sunday, 01 March 2026.
State Information Commissioner B. Venkata Singh has passed the order after hearing second appeals filed by an applicant who had not received the requested information in time

State Information Commissioner B. Venkata Singh
Photo Credit: SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT

The Karnataka Information Commission’s Kalaburagi Bench has imposed a total penalty of ₹50,000 on one Gram Panchayat Development Officer and three Gram Panchayat Secretaries for failing to furnish information within the stipulated time under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
State Information Commissioner B. Venkata Singh passed the order after hearing second appeals filed by an applicant who had not received the requested information in time. Despite directions issued under Section 18(3)(a) and (d) of the RTI Act, 2005, and a warning of penalty under Section 20(1), the officials failed to comply with the commission’s orders.
Accordingly, a penalty of ₹10,000 each was imposed on Yankanagouda, Secretary of Tadabidi Gram Panchayat in Wadagera taluk; Mallikarjun Nayak, Secretary of Gundagurthi Gram Panchayat; Ismail, Secretary of Saidapur Gram Panchayat in Yadgir taluk; and Shivakumar Doddamani, Panchayat Development Officer of Tadar Gram Panchayat in Harapanahalli taluk of Vijayanagara district.
In addition, Ismail was fined ₹10,000 each in two separate cases, amounting to ₹20,000. The commission also directed Yankanagouda to pay ₹3,000 as compensation to the appellant for the delay in providing information.
The penalties relate to five cases in total. The officials have been directed to remit the penalty amounts and appear before the commission at the next hearing, with a warning issued against further non-compliance.

DGP reaffirms transparency in police recruitment

Nagaland Post: Dimapur: Sunday, 01 March 2026.
Director General of Police (DGP) Nagaland, Rupin Sharma, on Saturday reaffirmed the police department’s commitment to transparency and fairness in the ongoing police recruitment process, stating that the department remained open to scrutiny under Right to Information (RTI) Act and would take strict action if deliberate wrongdoing was established.

Rupin Sharma (NP)

Speaking to media persons on the sidelines of a programme, DGP addressed allegations of evaluation errors and exclusion of qualified candidates, particularly concerning written examination marks.
He clarified that while physical test marks were disclosed to all candidates, concerns have largely centred on the written exam, which comprised multiple-choice questions evaluated manually rather than through Optical Mark Recognition (OMR).
DGP said decision to avoid OMR was taken after discussions at the state leadership level, considering that the minimum educational qualification for certain posts was only Class 6 or Class 8.
“Some candidates may not have been comfortable filling OMR sheets, so we opted for a simpler tick-mark system,” Sharma explained.
He added that instructions clearly stated that double marking or erasing answers would attract zero marks.
However, he said that following reports of impersonation and other concerns, the department undertook a comprehensive re-totalling and rechecking of nearly all answer scripts. “There were some genuine errors, and those have been corrected,” he said.
DGP assured that candidates could apply under RTI to inspect their answer scripts before the interview stage begins.
“If there are genuine mistakes and someone deserves higher marks, we are willing to correct them. We have no problem in showing the answer sheets within the stipulated time,” DGP stated, noting that managing visits from thousands of candidates would pose logistical challenges.
On allegations that certain candidates in the merit list may have scored higher than deserved, Sharma urged complainants to provide specific details.
“If you know any who may have unfairly scored high marks, give us the roll number or name. We will recheck,” he said, adding that general allegations were not helpful.
Explaining the selection process, DGP said only ten times the number of vacancies (district- and tribe-wise) were shortlisted from the physical test to the written examination stage, while only three times the number of vacancies had been called for interviews.
In cases where multiple candidates secured the same cut-off marks at the lower end, DGP said all such candidates were included for the interview stage.
Asked about action against examiners or staff if mistakes were proven, Sharma said specific complaints would be examined thoroughly, and if deliberate wrongdoing was established, definite action would be taken.
On physical test standards, DGP confirmed that the department followed existing recruitment criteria without any changes.
While personally suggesting future reforms could diversify evaluation components for greater fairness, he maintained that uniform standards were applied to all candidates this time. “If the same rules apply to everyone, it is not unfair,” he said.
Regarding the proposed fresh recruitment drive for around 1,200 posts, Sharma confirmed that another round would definitely be conducted this year, with the timeline to be decided after the current cycle concludes.
DGP also highlighted the benefits of the newly introduced online application portal. He said that the department now has comprehensive data on applicants’ educational qualifications and fitness levels, which would aid in reviewing and possibly reformulating future guidelines in consultation with the government and stakeholders.
DGP expressed hope that if the next recruitment process begins by June or July, it could be completed within three and a half months, ensuring a new batch joins by the time the current batch completes training.

Dilution of RTI Act undermining Constitutional guarantees, say legal experts

The Hindu: New Delhi: Sunday, 01 March 2026.
With greater access to court proceedings and the live-streaming of hearings, both the Bench and the Bar must exercise restraint in avoiding sensational remarks that could compromise the integrity of proceedings, experts say at ‘Justice Unplugged: Shaping the Future of Law’ conclave

(L-R) Senior Advocates of the Supreme Court Shadan Farasat,
Gopal Sankaranarayanan and M.S. Sharmila, HoD Centre
for Post Graduate Legal Studies, VIT, at The Hindu Justice
Unplugged 2026 in New Delhi on February 28, 2026.
Photo Credit: R.V. Moorthy

There has been a steady dilution of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, which is significantly undermining Constitutional guarantees, legal experts said at the ‘Justice Unplugged: Shaping the Future’ of Law conclave organised by the VIT School of Law, VIT Chennai, in association with The Hindu, in Delhi on Saturday (February 28, 2026).
There has been a steady dilution of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, which is significantly undermining Constitutional guarantees, legal experts said at the The Hindu Justice Unpligged 2026 on Saturday.
“Over the last decade, the RTI Act has become largely ineffectual. For all practical purposes, information that implicates Central agencies is rarely forthcoming. In the past 10 years, it has been in a ‘dead phase’. When it was enacted, it was a transformative piece of legislation for democratic accountability,” senior advocate Shadan Farasat said in a panel discussion on ‘Fundamental Rights in the Digital Age: The Constitution’s Response to Emerging Trends’.
Joining Mr. Farasat in the conversation with Aaratrika Bhaumik, Senior Sub-Editor, The Hindu, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan and M.S. Sharmila, Professor of Law, VIT School of Law, VIT Chennai, also observed that with greater access to court proceedings and the live-streaming of hearings, both the Bench and the Bar must exercise restraint in avoiding sensational remarks that could compromise the integrity of proceedings. “Traditionally, it is the Bench that is quoted in media reports, not the Bar,” Mr. Sankaranarayanan said. “If comments are made in open court, the media will inevitably report them. Instead of making sensational observations, the Bench can incorporate its views in a formal order.”
Addressing recent concerns expressed by the Supreme Court over abusive and obscene content on digital platforms and the need to regulate such commercial speech, the senior counsel said there was no regulatory vacuum warranting fresh legislation. He pointed out that adequate provisions already exist under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and various criminal law statutes to address obscenity.
“There are sufficient statutory safeguards in place. No new regulations are required to deal with obscenity,” he said, adding that what is considered profane or obscene is inherently subjective.
“There are sufficient statutory safeguards in place. No new regulations are required to deal with obscenity,” he said, adding that what is considered profane or obscene is inherently subjective.
Highlighting the need to strengthen digital literacy, Ms. Sharmila said citizens must be equipped to critically engage with emerging digital power structures. It was equally vital for individuals to be trained in AI systems so that they could engage with them responsibly and adapt to evolving societal needs, she said.

Fiduciary exemption can’t shield routine administrative decisions: Punjab info panel

The Times of India: Chandigarh: Saturday, 28 February 2026.
In a ruling reinforcing transparency in public appointments, the Punjab State Information Commission observed that fiduciary exemptions under the Right to Information Act cannot be casually invoked to shield routine administrative decisions from scrutiny.

The order was passed by chief information commissioner Inderpal Singh while deciding an appeal filed by a Chandigarh resident, who sought information regarding his selection under PCS Register A-2.
The appellant stated that a selection from A-2 register was made on Dec 20, 2024. While other selected candidates joined service in Jan 2025, his appointment orders were allegedly withheld. He sought copies of the recommendation received from Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC), the legal advice taken in his case, inspection of the relevant file, and action taken on his representations submitted between Jan 30, 2025 and Feb 3, 2025.
The public information officer denied parts of the information, invoking Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It was argued that the details sought, including names, roll numbers, dates of birth, and marks obtained, were held in a fiduciary capacity and no larger public interest was involved. The commission, however, rejected this stand. In its order, the commission examined the scope of "information" and "right to information" under Sections 2(f) and 2(j) of the RTI Act and reiterated that exemptions under Section 8 must be interpreted strictly.
The commission noted that PPSC recruited section officers, Group A, in the Punjab department of finance (treasury and accounts), and the result of the competitive examination was published on its website, including the registration number or roll number, name and father's name of the candidate, date of birth, category, and marks obtained.
It observed that the seniority list issued by general administration, Punjab, also mentioned details such as the name of the employee, father's name, date of birth, date of joining, and date of retirement. Therefore, the request of the respondent to deny information merely on the ground that the noting comprised names, roll numbers, dates of birth, and marks obtained was not tenable, as similar information was already issued in official records.
Keeping this in view, the commission held the respondent's request to withhold information under 2 points (1 and 4 of) the RTI application was not sustainable. The respondent was directed to supply the information and make the relevant record available for inspection, as sought, within 30 days of receipt of the order.
With regard to Point 2, which related to the legal advice taken in the appellant's case, the commission observed that fiduciary relationships are recognised where information is entrusted to a person or entity with an expectation of confidentiality. It explained that such relationships may include those between a doctor and patient, attorney and client, or trustee and beneficiary. It noted that information obtained in such relationships may be disclosed if the competent authority finds that larger public interest outweighs the need for confidentiality. Employer-employee relationships involving confidential company information or personal data are also treated as confidential.
The commission reiterated that fiduciary exemptions are not to be misapplied to shield routine administrative actions from public scrutiny.
It also referred to the judgment of the Delhi high court in State Bank of India v. Mohd. Shahjahan, which held that an employee of a public authority is entitled to know all details concerning himself, including reasons for denial of promotion, unless specifically exempt under Section 8(1)(e) or (j). The high court clarified that fiduciary exemptions are meant to protect information from disclosure to third parties, not from the concerned employee himself.
In light of these observations, the commission held that the respondent's request to withhold information under Point 2 was also not justified. The public information officer was directed to supply the information up to the date of the RTI application within 30 days from receipt of the order.

India’s data protection law is silencing the right to know : Anjali Bhardwaj, Amrita Johri

Frontline: New Delhi: Saturday, 28 February 2026.
The DPDP Act tightens privacy rules, limiting RTI disclosures and raising questions about transparency, press freedom, and citizens’ ability to hold power to account.

RTI activists and NGOs protesting against the RTI Amendment
Bill in Thane, Maharashtra, on July 25, 2019.
Photo Credit: VIBHAV BIRWATKAR

Two decades ago, India took a transformative step towards deepening its democratic foundations with the enactment of the Right to Information (RTI) law, a piece of legislation that empowered citizens to question authority, scrutinise decision-making, and demand accountability from those in power. In 2025, as the nation marked 20 years of the landmark sunshine law, the government operationalised the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, which made regressive amendments to the RTI Act with the ostensible aim of protecting personal data and upholding people’s right to privacy.
Both the right to information and the right to privacy have been upheld by the Supreme Court to be fundamental rights flowing from the Constitution under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21, which guarantee the people the freedom of speech and expression and the right to life with dignity. The RTI Act, passed in 2005, included an explicit provision to balance people’s right to information with the right to privacy through an exemption clause under Section 8(1)(j). Personal information was exempt from disclosure if it had no relationship to any public activity or interest, or if information sought was such that it would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy of an individual, unless the information officer was satisfied that there was a larger public interest that justified disclosure. The provision was the most often invoked exemption clause to deny information under the RTI Act.
The data protection law was similarly expected to harmonise both rights in a manner that preserved democratic accountability while protecting personal data from misuse. Instead, it amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to exempt from disclosure all personal information, a move that has severely impaired people’s ability to access information needed to hold the powerful to account.
To effectively participate in a democracy and ensure accountability, citizens require access to personal information that identifies the individuals responsible for the exercise of power and the disbursal of public funds. This includes names of public officials involved in decision-making, information about their functioning, names, and particulars of contractors involved in public works, and names of officers who grant statutory clearances, licences, or environmental approvals.
Correspondence between various authorities and public officials, including the RBI Governor, the Election Commission of India (ECI), and the Finance Ministry, regarding the proposal to introduce the electoral bonds scheme was accessed under the RTI Act. The documents were instrumental in highlighting the objections expressed by the public authorities and officials regarding the proposed scheme and were relied upon by the Supreme Court in its landmark judgment striking down the anonymous electoral bonds.
Similarly, the Supreme Court has held that citizens have a right to know the names of wilful defaulters and details of the Non-Performing Assets of public sector banks. Democracies routinely ensure public disclosure of voters’ lists with names, addresses, and other personal data to enable public scrutiny and prevent electoral fraud. The ECI permits objections raised by people to voter list inclusions. Experience of the use of the RTI Act in India has shown that if people, especially the poor and marginalised, are to have any hope of obtaining the benefits of government schemes and welfare programmes, they must have access to relevant personal information. For instance, the Public Distribution System Control Order recognises the need for putting out the details of ration card holders and records of ration shops in the public domain to enable public scrutiny and monitoring. Beneficiary lists are published, read before Gram Sabhas and opened to objections. Social audits are also a statutory requirement under the National Food Security Act, the VB-G RAM G Act, and other legislations—each premised on the public availability of personal information.
In each of these contexts, the disclosure of personal information is not incidental but integral to ensuring transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities.
Though some disclosures of personal information that are explicitly mandated by statute will be protected under the DPDP Act, most transparency frameworks operate through executive guidelines and administrative practice rather than specific legislative prescription. The amendments, therefore, effectively impose a blanket prohibition on sharing personal data, without carving out space for public-interest disclosures that fall outside an explicit statutory mandate. Given the DPDP Act’s expansive definitional scope, onerous compliance obligations, and substantial monetary penalties—upto Rs.250 crore, which can be doubled—public authorities are likely to err heavily towards denial of information even where sharing information serves demonstrable public interest. This threatens a systemic rollback of proactive disclosure and social audit mechanisms that underpin participatory governance.
The amendment made by the data protection law to the RTI Act has also done away with an important proviso to Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, which stated that “information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person”. This proviso acted as a built-in proportionality test within the RTI Act and served as a powerful democratic equaliser, recognising the need for ensuring accountability of public authorities towards citizens and not just elected representatives.
Threat to press freedom and whistleblowing
The DPDP Act will have a chilling impact on the freedom of the press as it does not provide any exemptions for accessing and processing of personal information by journalists, reporters, and media organisations. While the DPDP Act does not address journalists or their activities directly, under the law, any person or organisation who collects, processes, or publishes personal data will be classified as a data fiduciary and will be subject to various obligations, including providing notice and obtaining consent requirements that are undeniably onerous. Further, the law allows the Union government to call for information from any data fiduciary without adequate safeguards. Such arbitrary powers without adequate checks and balances pose a grave threat to peoples’ right to privacy and could be used to compromise journalistic confidentiality.
Media bodies, including the Editor’s Guild of India, the Press Club of India, and other press clubs, have flagged these dangers in the law, seeking a clear carve-out for personal information processed for journalistic purposes, as is the practice in other data protection regimes, including the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation. However, the government has refused to make any changes to the law.
The DPDP also fails to provide any protection to whistleblowers, who in exposing corruption necessarily process personal data—names, financial transactions, correspondence, details of official conduct. With exposure to the full liability and penalty regime of the DPDP Act, the omission of protection creates a direct and unresolved conflict between the State’s stated commitment to combating corruption and the chilling effect now imposed on those who come forward with evidence of it.
Unchecked executive control
The DPDP Act not only curtails peoples’ right to information and press freedom, but also fails to provide a robust framework for preventing the misuse of personal data, including for financial fraud. Given that the government is the biggest data repository, an effective data protection law must not give wide discretionary powers to the government. The DPDP Act, unfortunately, empowers the executive to draft rules and notifications on a vast range of issues.
The Union government can exempt any government, or even a private sector entity, from the application of provisions of the law by merely issuing a notification. This potentially allows the government to arbitrarily exempt its cronies and government bodies, resulting in immense potential for violations of citizens’ privacy. The creation of a government-controlled Data Protection Board, empowered to impose fines up to Rs 250 crore—causes serious apprehensions of opening the law to potential misuse by the executive to target dissenting voices and political opposition.
Constitutional challenge
Several petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the DPDP Act. The National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, media outlet Reporter’s Collective, and RTI activists have challenged the amendments made to the RTI Act. The petitioners have also flagged the detrimental impact that the DPDP Act will have on press freedoms and the ability of journalists and whistleblowers to expose corruption and wrongdoing.
The bench led by the Chief Justice of India noted that the petitions raise significant constitutional questions and issued notice to the Union government. At its core, the challenge before the court is whether data protection can be used as a shield to insulate the exercise of power from public scrutiny. The verdict will determine not just the fate of the RTI Act, but the architecture of accountability in Indian democracy for years to come.
(Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri are transparency activists associated with the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information and Satark Nagrik Sangathan, and have also filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the provisions of the DPDP Act.)

CIC advises PIOs to abide by provisions of RTI Act.

Arunachal Times: Anini: Friday, February 27, 2026.

Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) Jarken Gamlin advised public information officers (PIOs) and public authorities to strictly abide by the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 to avoid penalties and disciplinary consequences under the statute.

Addressing an awareness session on the Right to Information (RTI) Act here in Dibang Valley district on Wednesday, the CIC emphasised on transparency, accountability, and timely disposal of RTI applications as essential components of good governance.

He also advised information seekers to exercise their rights responsibly and ethically under the RTI framework, cautioning against misuse of the Act. Referring to instances in certain states such as Assam and Gujarat, Gamlin noted that misuse has led to strict measures, including blacklisting of habitual applicants, and urged citizens to use the Act in a constructive and lawful manner.

Earlier, State Information Commissioner Kopey Thalley spoke on important decisions/judgements of the Supreme Court, and highlighted the key provisions and important sections of the RTI Act. He elaborated practical issues encountered in the implementation of the Act and guided the participants on its effective and lawful application, while emphasising proactive disclosure to enhance transparency and reduce unnecessary litigation.

The CIC’s PA Odi Menjo spoke on the procedural framework of the RTI Act, including filing of applications, appeals, statutory timelines, and compliance requirements. He also clarified common doubts raised by the participants.

The session was highly interactive, with active engagement from all participants. Several queries were raised and addressed comprehensively, making the programme informative, practical, and meaningful.

Among the attendees were Dibang Valley ZPC Sadhu Mihu, Dri ZPM Eta Mihu, Anelih Arzoo ZPM Emmi Yalla, ADC Jally Umpo, HoDs, circle officers, PRI members, public information officers, and members of the public. (DIPRO)

RTI Act Applies To Cochin International Airport Ltd : Supreme Court Upholds Kerala High Court Order.

Live Law: Deby Jain: Cochin: Friday, February 27, 2026.

The Supreme Court today upheld the Kerala High Court order which held that the Cochin International Airport (CIAL) is a 'public authority' coming within the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (for CIAL). It was of the view that the impugned order furthered transparency and did not call for interference. At the same time, the Court waived the cost of Rs.1 lakh imposed on the Managing Director of CIAL by the High Court.

To briefly put facts of the case, in 2019, the State Information Commission held CIAL to be a 'public authority' under the RTI Act and directed it to disclose certain information. The decision was challenged by CIAL before the High Court, contending that Kerala government had no control over the decisions taken by the Board, and the ultimate decision maker as per the Articles of Association was CIAL's Board of Directors.

The Court was told that Kerala government was holding only 32.42% of paid-up share capital of the company and "the dividend more than the investments has been returned". It was also averred that the nomination of appointment of Directors including Managing Director of the Company was subject to the decision of the Board of Directors though Articles of Association.

The respondents, on the other hand, referred to the CIAL website to argue that the company had arranged a 100 Million bridge loan from Federal Bank and the Kerala government stood as a guarantee, as it had nothing to offer as a security. The Housing and Urban Development Corporation of India (HUDCO) also, on the guarantee of the State Government, provided a term loan of 1 billion at the fixed interest rate of 18% for ten years, repayments of which began in 2000 when the project became operational.

In December, 2022, a Single Bench of the High Court upheld the State Information Commission's view and ruled that CIAL was a public authority under the RTI Act. It observed that the aims and object of CIAL, read with provisions of Article 95 and 125 of the Articles of Association, lead to an irresistible conclusion that Kerala Government had a "deep and pervasive control" over the company.

CIAL preferred writ appeals against this decision, but the same were dismissed by a Division Bench in early August. The Division Bench looked into the process by which the predecessor of CIAL, KIAS (Kochi International Airport Society), came into existence and found that KIAS was constituted through a government order by the erstwhile District Collector of Ernakulam.

It also noted that the land acquisition for the airport was done by the government of Kerala in the name of KIAS. The land was thereafter, transferred to CIAL and thus, the Court remarked that the entire asset and land base of CIAL was consolidated at the instance of the government.

Further, considering the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of CIAL as well as the constitution of the Board of Directors (BoD) of the company, the Court opined that the government had control over the affairs and management of CIAL.

Ultimately, the Division Bench dismissed the appeals and directed CIAL to dispose of the RTI applications made to it within the statutory timeline provided under the Act.

Aggrieved by the Division Bench's judgment, CIAL approached the Supreme Court. In August last year, the impugned judgment was stayed by the top Court.

Appearance: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and PB Krishnan, AoR Arsh Khan, Advocates A Karthik, Harikrishnan Sreekumar, Smrithi Suresh and Anila T Thomas (for petitioner); Advocates Patanjal Chapalgaonkar and Aswathi (for respondents)

Case Title: M/S.COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED Versus THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ANR., SLP(C) No. 23330-23345/2025