RTI vs privacy: Why India's news publishers have moved the Supreme Court: Mini Raghav

Business Standard: New Delhi: Wednesday, 28 October 2026.
India's data protection law has changed access to personal information under RTI, prompting concerns over investigative journalism, transparency and the scope of the public-interest test

The government’s position is that personal privacy deserves meaningful protection and that the amendment balances privacy with the right to information | Image: Canva

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Centre on a petition filed by the Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), challenging provisions of India's digital data protection framework.
Senior advocate Madhavi Diwan, representing the association, argued that the law could restrict investigative journalism and make it harder to report matters of public interest. She further said the provisions could have serious implications for live television coverage and time-sensitive reporting.
The challenge brings into focus a pertinent question: when does protecting an individual's privacy risk shielding information that the public needs to hold those in power accountable?
The court has sought the government's response, with the matter scheduled for further hearing on November 17.
What has changed in the RTI Act?
Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, allows public authorities to withhold certain personal information.
Earlier, such information could be withheld if it had no connection with public activity or interest, or if disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. However, it could be disclosed when the larger public interest justified it.
Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, changed this provision. Effective November 13, 2025, it introduced a broader exemption for information relating to personal information.
The key change is that the clause no longer expressly provides for a public-interest test. However, Section 8(2) of the RTI Act still permits disclosure when the public interest outweighs the harm to protected interests.
Why are journalists challenging the change?
Consider a reporter investigating whether a government official’s relatives have undisclosed interests in a company receiving public contracts. Records containing personal information could help establish a conflict of interest. Similarly, details concerning the qualifications or eligibility of a public appointee may be relevant to scrutiny of a government decision. Publishers fear that data protection obligations could complicate the handling of confidential sources and evidence gathered during investigations for journalistic purposes.
The DNPA argues that the data protection framework does not adequately address the concerns of journalists engaged in covering and reporting on matters of public interest.
The petition further highlights the gap between the government's assurances and journalists’ demand for a statutory exemption for journalistic activities. The concern extends beyond RTI requests to the obligations that the DPDP Act and its accompanying Rules may impose on journalists.
How could this affect ordinary citizens?
RTI is not a tool reserved for newsrooms. Citizens use it to question public expenditure, check welfare benefits, examine recruitment processes and investigate delays in government services.
For instance, a person seeking to understand irregularities in a public recruitment exercise may need records explaining how appointments were made. A community investigating the distribution of welfare benefits may need information to establish whether public money reached eligible beneficiaries.
If authorities interpret the personal-information exemption broadly, obtaining relevant records could become more difficult. This could weaken the citizen’s access to the crucial data which interests welfare.
However, the amendment does not mean that every document containing personal information must automatically be withheld. Other RTI provisions and the surviving public-interest override remain relevant. The practical question is how authorities apply these safeguards when privacy and transparency are in conflict.
What is the government's argument?
The government’s position is that personal privacy deserves meaningful protection and that the amendment balances privacy with the right to information. Personal records may expose individuals to harassment, misuse of sensitive details or unnecessary intrusion into their private lives.
The government has also maintained that Section 8(2) of the RTI Act continues to allow disclosure where the public interest outweighs the harm to protected interests. From this perspective, stronger privacy protection does not eliminate transparency but establishes safeguards against illegitimate disclosure.
The dispute, therefore, is not whether privacy matters. It is whether the amended provision strikes the right balance between protecting individuals and enabling legitimate scrutiny of public affairs.
What will the Supreme Court have to decide?
The Supreme Court will have to examine whether the challenged provisions strike a constitutionally permissible balance between privacy, access to information and freedom of expression. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017), the court recognised privacy as a fundamental right. That situation does not, by itself, settle how privacy must be balanced against transparency and other constitutional rights.
The DNPA's challenge also raises questions about the DPDP Act and Rules, including their implications for journalistic work and the handling of personal data for public-interest reporting.
The petitioners seek the apex court to examine the constitutionality of the challenged provisions and provide appropriate relief against their alleged impact on journalism and the public's right to information. The central issue is whether privacy protection can be designed without unduly restricting scrutiny of public institutions.

Material Relating To Private Body Which Can Be Accessed By Public Authority Can Also Fall Under Definition Of Information Under RTI Act: Supreme Court

Verdictum: New Delhi: Wednesday, 28 October 2026.
The Supreme Court was considering a matter where a member had put up an application under the Right to Information Act for a copy of the construction agreement between a Co-operative Bank and a Labour Co-operative Society.

While directing the Joint Registrar (General) to supply a copy of the construction agreement between the appellant/Co-operative Bank and a Labour Co-operative Society as well as a copy of the minutes of the last General Body Meeting, the Supreme Court has held that such material relating to a private body, which can be accessed by a public authority, on the strength of statutory powers conferred, would fall under the definition of information under Section 2(f) of the Right To Information (RTI Act).
The Apex Court was considering a matter where a member of the Bank had put up an application under the Right To Information Act for a copy of the construction agreement between the appellant/Co-operative Bank and a Labour Co-operative Society, which was entrusted with the construction of a building, and a copy of the minutes of the last General Body Meeting of the appellant-Bank.
The Division Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran stated, "Hence, it is not only the material, physically available with a public authority but also such material relating to a private body, which can be accessed by a public authority, on the strength of statutory powers conferred, would fall under the definition of information. As has been rightly noticed in the impugned judgment, the words ‘can be accessed by a public authority’ refers to access being statutorily provided. The power cannot be fettered at all."
“Every citizen would not have the right to ask for the documents since the concept of personal information cannot be restricted to a ‘person’ in flesh and blood and even applies to a private entity, with whose affairs every citizen cannot be found to have an interest, unless it has a relationship to a public activity (Section 8(1)(j). Neither the building contract nor the General Body Meeting concerns a party, totally unconnected with the Society. However, a Member of the Society cannot be denied such information on the ground that it is personal to the Society or that it does not involve any public activity or interest", it added.
Senior Advocate S.P. Chaly represented the Appellant while Advocate Abhilash M.R. represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The respondent member’s first application was rejected consistently up to the first respondent, the State Information Commissioner, the challenge to which before the Single Judge failed, but the Division Bench directed reconsideration. In the second round, the first respondent, the Single Judge, as well as the Division Bench of the High Court, affirmed the right of the fourth respondent to the documents. The judgment of the Division Bench was challenged before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Bench explained that Clause (d) of Section 8(1) refers to injury caused to the competitive position of a third party, when the information involves a commercial confidence, trade secret or intellectual property. On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the documents in question neither encompassed any aspect of trade secret or intellectual property nor of a commercial confidence affecting a competitive position; since the bid was already over and one Labour Contract Society had obtained the contract, the terms of which any Member of the Society would be concerned with.
“As far as clause (j) is concerned the information sought cannot be termed to be a personal information, since the details of the contract sought for, entered into by the appellant-Bank and the Minutes of the General Body Meeting, are sought for by a Member of the Society. That it does not have any relation to any public activity Etc. or interest, in that context, is not significant enough to decline the request, if the documents are otherwise accessible”, it added.
The Bench refused to accept the contention that only on the satisfaction entered by the Registrar that an inquiry can be initiated and only then, the Registrar is enabled to have access of the documents of a Society. “The inquiry by the Registrar under Section 65 of the Co-operative Societies Act can be suo motu; on his own motion, or on various contingencies as coming forth from clause (b) to (f) i.e. of a report; by the Vigilance Officer or by the Director of Co-operative Audit or an application; made before the Registrar, either by a majority of the Members or one third of the quorum for a general body meeting or an Apex or Affiliated Society”, it added.
The Bench also upheld the contention of the respondent member that Section 66 of the Co-operative Societies Act confers supervisory powers and powers of inspection on the Registrar or a person authorised by him.
Decision
Thus, finding the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court to be perfectly in order, the Bench dismissed the appeals and ordered, “The 2nd respondent shall call for the two documents immediately and in any event within two weeks and supply the same to the 4th respondent.”
Cause Title: The Muppathadam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. The State Chief Information Commissioner & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1153)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate S.P Chaly, AOR K. Sasi, AOR P. S. Sudheer, Advocates Rishi Maheshwari, Anne Mathew, Bharat Sood, Jai Govind M J, Jashan Vir Singh, Shivam Sharma, AOR Zulfiker Ali, Advocate Anna Oommen
Respondent: Advocates Abhilash M.R., Sayooj Mohandas, Manjari Singh, Ann Melvin, AOR M/s M R Law Associates
(Click here to download Judgment)

RTI exemption for vigilance units won’t shield corruption cases: Minister

Times of India: Thiruvananthapuram: Wednesday, 28 October 2026.
The exemption granted to two confidential units of the vigilance and anti-corruption bureau (VACB) from the purview of Right to Information (RTI) Act will not be used to conceal information relating to corruption cases or human rights violations, home minister Ramesh Chennithala told the assembly.

Such information would be disclosed only after the completion of investigations, he said. Replying to a question by CPI MLA K K Valsaraj, the minister said govt had no intention of weakening the RTI Act. The objective was to ensure transparency while enabling investigations to be conducted effectively, he added.
Chennithala pointed out that the disclosure of confidential information during an ongoing investigation could benefit the accused and adversely affect evidence collection. Information provided by informants and other crucial details relating to investigations needed to be kept confidential. Disclosure would be permitted only to the extent that it did not prejudice an investigation, he said.
The minister said the exemption had been granted based on a recommendation made by the vigilance director during the previous govt’s tenure. It would apply only to a limited category of cases involving highly confidential matters, he added.
Govt issued a notification exempting the T1 and T2 units of the VACB from the purview of the RTI Act. The order, published on Oct 22, was issued under Section 24(4) of the Act, which empowers state govts to exempt specified intelligence and security organisations from its provisions.
The two units primarily handle confidential reports relating to senior vigilance officials, annual confidential reports of officers, high-level vigilance inspections, intelligence inputs and information concerning informants.
The minister also pointed out that several central agencies, including Intelligence Bureau and CBI, were exempted from the RTI Act.
Govt’s decision to exempt the confidential vigilance units had earlier drawn criticism, with allegations that the move was intended to prevent information about political leaders and senior officials facing corruption charges from becoming public.

Supreme Court Refuses To Stay DPDP Act Provisions; Notice Issued On Plea Alleging Violation Of Press Freedom: By : Aishwarya Iyer

Law Beat: New Delhi: Wednesday, 28 October 2026.
SC has issued notice in the plea challenging provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and DPDP Rules, 2025, for allegedly violating press freedom.

The Supreme Court today issued notice in a plea filed by the Digital News Publishers Association challenging provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and DPDP Rules, 2025, for allegedly violating press freedom.
However, a CJI Surya Kant led bench refused to stay the impugned provisions. "We will never pass an ex parte order without hearing the other side," CJI told the petitioners before it.
Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the Association submitted before court today, "Please stay the impugned provisions. Newsrooms will shut down, how can we ask for your permission before reporting on you."
The bench however refused to pass any such orders.
Divan at the outset told court, "This is perhaps the first comprehensive petition by what we call legacy media. We are the traditional, conventional legacy media. Section 8(1)(j), the deletion, is changing the whole concept of news. The concept of news has to be considered. If I am left to the mercy of the data principal as to whether he or she will give consent, how will news be reported? On television, it is live. Otherwise, it has to be new. This will close down newsrooms."
CJI told Divan, "You are the domain experts. You are in this field. You are the best persons to suggest to the Union, as well as to us, how you will ensure that there is no misuse."
Divan further submitted that journalists are covered under the Cable Television framework, uplinking and downlinking regulations, IT Rules and the Press Council.
Court is already seized of a batch of petitions challenging provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, particularly its amendment to the Right to Information (RTI) Act, with petitioners contending that the legislation substantially weakens citizens' right to access information by creating an expansive exemption for "personal information."
The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana in August had considered submissions that the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act upsets the constitutional balance between the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to privacy.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi had observed that while the RTI Act and the DPDP Act operate in different spheres, they also overlap in certain respects, requiring the Court to examine whether both legislations coexist harmoniously. He further remarked that the Court would consider whether there exists an intelligible differentia for treating digital personal data differently and whether the DPDP Act indirectly overrides the RTI Act by creating a wider embargo on disclosure.
Justice Bagchi had also noted that the Court would examine whether the State's more cautionary approach towards disclosure satisfies the constitutional test of reasonable classification and whether a blanket restriction on disclosure of digital personal information can be justified. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union of India, sought two weeks' time to file the Centre's response and assured the Bench that the government would justify the legislative amendments. Accepting the request, the Supreme Court directed the Union to file its reply and ordered that the matter be listed before an appropriate non-miscellaneous Bench for further hearing.
Case Title: DIGITAL NEWS PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION Vs UNION OF INDIA
Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana
Hearing Date: October 27, 2026

Excluding Vigilance sections from RTI Act ambit will defeat legislative intent, say former Keralam CICs, activists: K.S. Sudhi

The Hindu: Kochi: Wednesday, 28 October 2026.
They fear the decision will undermine transparency and accountability in the functioning of the government, the legislative intent of the Act

The Keralam government’s decision to exclude the T1 and T2 sections of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) from the purview of the Right To Information (RTI) Act goes against the purpose of the legislation, say RTI activists and a few former Chief Information Commissioners (CIC).
They fear that the decision will undermine transparency and accountability in the functioning of the government, the legislative intent of the Act.
“Section 24 (4) of the Act empowers State governments to exclude intelligence and security organisations from the ambit of the Act. The Central government shall list such organisations in Schedule 2 of the Act for exempting them. The Act specifically notes that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights shall not be excludedfrom this section,” says Siby Mathews, a former CIC.
Successive governments, which found the provisions of the Act inconvenient to them, had been watering it down. The latest move of the State government will be the last nail in the coffin, he says.
Vinson M. Paul, another former CIC, feels the decision will enable the VACB Director to move any file to the two sections through an order and thus prevent the general public from accessing the information. The decision will be a deadly blow to the right of the general public to seek information and thus ensure probity and accountability in the government business. The government decision goes against the very spirit of the Act, he says.
Incidentally, defending the decision on the floor of the House, Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala said the Vigilance Director during the previous Left Democratic Front government had recommended exclusion of the sections on the ground that the possible disclosure of records relating to ongoing Vigilance investigations could jeopardise the probes.
However, Mr. Mathews points out that the provisions of the Act even otherwise bar the sharing of information on cases that are under investigation.
Officials point out that the two sections of the VACB were first excluded from the purview of the Act in 2016 and the exclusion continued for five years. It was later rescinded by the LDF government on January 9, 2022. Eight such State Intelligence and security organisations were thus excluded in the State, and the latest one was the original records of the Mullaperiyar dam lease deed agreements, including sketches, blueprints, and photos accompanying the original contract. The details were barred on the argument that the sharing of such information would be prejudicial to the security interests of the State.
RTI activists argue that the Act does not confer unfettered power on the State government to exclude information relating to allegations of corruption and human rights violations from the purview of the Act.
A blanket exemption granted, without ensuring statutory safeguards, will defeat the legislative objective of ensuring transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities. Courts had earlier recognised that information relating to allegations of corruption cannot be withheld merely by virtue of an exemption granted to the organisation concerned under Section 24. The notification is arbitrary and ultra vires and liable to be quashed before a court of law, they say.

Maharashtra RTI Commission Orders Child Welfare Data After Four-Month Delay

Urban Acres: Mumbai: Tuesday, 27 October 2026.
The Maharashtra State Information Commission’s Pune bench has directed the Women and Child Development Commissionerate to provide district-wise data on beneficiaries and grants under two child welfare schemes within 15 days, after finding violations of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The Commission reprimanded Public Information Officer Yogesh Jawade and warned that disciplinary proceedings could be proposed if statutory provisions were not followed in future. The order was issued by Information Commissioner Makarand Ranade in a case involving RTI applicant Milindkumar Salve.
Salve had filed his RTI application with the Commissionerate on December 31, 2024, seeking district-wise details of beneficiaries under the Krantijyoti Savitribai Phule Child Care Scheme and the Centre’s Mission Vatsalya scheme. He also sought information on grants distributed under the schemes.
According to the report, the information was available with the Commissionerate. However, Jawade transferred the application to Women and Child Development officers in all 36 districts instead of providing the information directly. The application was transferred after 27 days, while Salve was informed about the transfer after 56 days.
Salve then filed a first appeal before Rahul More, the then Deputy Commissioner and First Appellate Authority. More upheld the Public Information Officer’s decision, sent the application back to the district offices and directed that the information be provided free of cost.
The applicant subsequently filed a second appeal before the Pune bench of the State Information Commission. Salve told the Commission that he suspected the information was being withheld because the department had previously supplied child care scheme details and notes to the legislature secretariat while responding to a starred question during a legislative session.
The second appeal was heard on May 26, 2026. During the hearing, Ranade also asked Salve to submit a written complaint. The order, however, remained pending for four months even as decisions in cases heard around the same period were issued.
Salve filed two complaints with the Commission but received no response. He later sent a third complaint by email and contacted the Pune divisional Information Commissioner through a personal contact number. The complaints were then acted upon, and Salve received the written decision relating to the May 26 hearing within 50 minutes. A copy of the order was subsequently provided to him.
In its decision, the Commission said Jawade had failed to implement the order passed by the First Appellate Authority, amounting to a violation of the RTI Act. It described the conduct as serious negligence and warned that disciplinary action could follow if future RTI applications were not handled in accordance with the law.
The Commission also directed the Deputy Commissioner of Women and Child Development at the Commissionerate to be designated as the Information Officer in the matter. The department has been instructed to provide the requested information to Salve free of cost within 15 days.

Maharashtra recorded eight farmer suicides a day on average from Jan 2022 till June 2026: RTI

Times of India: Mumbai: Tuesday, 27 October 2026.
Maharashtra recorded 13,128 farmer suicide cases between Jan 2022 and June 2026 averaging more than eight a day but it has withheld district-wise figures sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, activist Jeetendra Ghadge has alleged.

The relief and rehabilitation department’s figures show that 8,145 cases were found eligible for govt assistance, 4,042 were rejected as ineligible and 941 remain under inquiry. Of the eligible cases, 7,850 families have received Rs 1 lakh each, while 295 are still awaiting payment.
Ghadge, of the Young Whistleblowers Foundation, had sought district-wise and month-wise figures for the 54-month period. On July 24, the department’s public information officer, Snehal Sawant, said the information was available with individual district collector offices and advised him to approach them. Ghadge filed a first appeal on Aug 18. After a hearing on Sept 8, the department provided a consolidated statewide table but did not disclose the district-wise breakdown.
The missing data are crucial for identifying clusters of distress, comparing trends across districts and assessing whether govt interventions are working, he said.
Ghadge’s demand for wider financial protection dates back to June 21, 2023, when he wrote to then chief minister Eknath Shinde about families whose Rs 1 lakh compensation claims had been rejected. He proposed including suicide among the events covered by the Gopinath Munde Shetkari Apghat Vima Yojana, so that every affected family would receive Rs 2 lakh irrespective of the cause of death.

'Why delay on RTI appeals?' asks Haryana Information Commission

The Tribune: Chandigarh: Tuesday, 27 October 2026.

The Haryana State Information Commission (HSIC) has intensified scrutiny of First Appellate Authorities (FAAs), remanding cases where first appeals filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act remain undecided or information is not supplied to applicants.
In a recent case related to an RTI application seeking information on alleged corruption at Jai Prakash Polytechnic, Damla, in Yamunanagar district, Chief Information Commissioner TVSN Prasad issued a show-cause notice to the FAA of the Technical Education Department for failing to dispose of the first appeal.
During the hearing, the FAA-cum-Special Secretary informed the Commission that the remand order had since been complied with and a speaking order was issued on October 16.
As a vigilance inquiry into the corruption allegations is still underway, the Commission directed the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) to provide the inquiry report to the appellant after the investigation is completed.
It further stated that if any information is withheld under provisions of the RTI Act, the authority must issue a reasoned order specifying the relevant exemption clause and grounds for denial.
The Commission observed that remanding such cases to FAAs was helping improve compliance with the RTI Act and strengthening accountability in the information disclosure process.

Tripura Government Many Departments Face Questions over RTI Compliance, Outdated Websites Raise Transparency Concerns

TRIPURAINFO: Agartala: Tuesday, 27 October 2026.
Several government departments in Tripura are facing allegations of failing to comply with the mandatory proactive disclosure requirements of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Concerns have been raised over outdated official websites, non-publication of revised service charges and taxes, and the alleged withholding of information relating to public services, welfare schemes and development projects.

The allegations have brought the implementation of Section 4 of the RTI Act under scrutiny, particularly its provisions requiring public authorities to proactively disclose specified categories of information, maintain records systematically and make essential information accessible to citizens without requiring them to file individual RTI applications.
The issue has assumed significance amid complaints that citizens are sometimes compelled to depend on outdated information while accessing government services, paying statutory charges or purchasing essential commodities through the public distribution system.
The statutory obligation of proactive disclosure
Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005, lays down important obligations for public authorities regarding record management, publication of institutional information and suo motu disclosure.
Under Section 4(1)(b), public authorities are required to publish specified information concerning their organisation, functions and duties, the powers and responsibilities of officers, decision-making procedures, applicable rules and regulations, budget allocations, subsidies and other prescribed particulars.
Section 4(1)(c) requires public authorities to publish relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing decisions affecting the public. Section 4(1)(d) provides for reasons to be given for administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
Section 4(2) further requires public authorities to make constant efforts to provide as much information as possible suo motu so that the public has to resort to the RTI mechanism as little as possible.
These provisions are intended to strengthen transparency, improve administrative accountability and reduce the need for citizens to submit repeated applications merely to obtain routine public information.
However, complaints in Tripura suggest that several departments may not be adequately fulfilling these responsibilities. Allegations include the non-publication or inadequate updating of citizens' charters, service fees, revised rates, departmental activities, budget estimates and details of development projects.
One of the latest complaints concerns the price of flour supplied through ration shops in Tripura.
According to the allegations, the Food Department's website continues to display the price of flour at Rs 13 per kilogram, whereas consumers are reportedly being charged Rs 15 per kilogram at ration shops.
If the revised rate has been officially implemented without the corresponding notification and timely updating of the publicly available price information, consumers could be left without a clear and accessible explanation of the applicable rate.
The alleged difference of Rs 2 per kilogram has raised questions about the transparency of the price revision, the availability of the relevant government order and the responsibility of the department to ensure that consumers receive accurate information.
The issue has also prompted criticism over the apparent contrast between publicity surrounding the distribution of free flour, sugar and mustard oil during the Puja season and the alleged lack of clear public information about the applicable prices of ration commodities.
Consumers have further raised concerns that the mandatory display of authorised commodity prices at fair-price shops is not consistently maintained. A clearly visible and updated price list would help beneficiaries verify the amount payable and question any unauthorised collection.
Similar concerns have been raised about alleged revisions in charges collected by several other government departments and public authorities.
The allegations cover the following areas:
Revenue Department: Land transfer and diversion charges, registration fees and related statutory payments.
Excise authorities: Duties and charges applicable to alcoholic beverages.
Municipal authorities: Building-plan approval fees, water charges and property taxes.
Power utilities: Electricity tariffs, billing rates and changes in subsidy arrangements.
Other departments: Service fees, administrative charges and revised rules governing public services.
According to complainants, the relevant websites in some cases continue to display old rates or do not provide sufficiently clear information about revised charges and the notifications under which they were introduced.
Several government websites are alleged to contain outdated information about departmental activities, scheme guidelines, rules and regulations. Citizens seeking to understand eligibility requirements, application procedures or the conditions attached to welfare schemes may consequently encounter conflicting or obsolete information.
The non-publication of citizens' charters and service standards can make it difficult for applicants to determine the documents required, the prescribed fee, the expected time for disposal of an application and the appropriate authority to approach in the event of delay.
Likewise, the absence of accessible budget estimates and project details can restrict public scrutiny of development expenditure.
Proactive disclosure is not merely a matter of uploading documents to a website. Information must also be accurate, sufficiently comprehensive, accessible and updated when relevant changes occur. Otherwise, a website may technically exist while failing to serve its intended purpose as a dependable source of public information.
The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the nodal department for the implementation of the RTI Act at the Central level, has issued guidance and communications concerning proactive disclosure and compliance with the Act.

Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Information To Member As 'Personal' If Registrar Can Access Such Records : Supreme Court: By - Yash Mittal

Live Law: Ahmedabad: Tuesday, 27 October 2026.

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 26) held that a member of a cooperative society cannot be denied information about the affairs of the cooperative society under the Right to Information Act, 2005 merely because the cooperative society doesn't come under the ambit of 'public authority'.
“…a Member of the Society cannot be denied such information on the ground that it is personal to the Society or that it does not involve any public activity or interest.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran, emphasising that when a public authority has an access to the documents of a cooperative society under a different law then an information under the RTI cannot be concealed to its member.
The respondent, a member of the bank, had sought the two documents under the RTI Act from the Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies. His request was initially rejected, but in the second round of proceedings, the State Information Commissioner and the Kerala High Court upheld his right to access the records.
The bank approached the Supreme Court, arguing that it was not a “public authority” under the RTI Act and that the Registrar could access its records under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, only after deciding to initiate an inquiry.
Dismissing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran held that Section 2(f) of the RTI Act covers information relating to private bodies that a public authority can access under another law. The Registrar need not already possess the documents or decide to initiate an inquiry before accessing them.
According to the court, once the Registrar had the power to access the documents in possession of the Appellant-cooperative bank, then by virtue of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the Appellant-bank was obligated to provide information to its member.
The Court also rejected the bank's reliance on the exemptions under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which concern commercial confidence and personal information.
“The documents as referred to hereinabove neither encompasses any aspect of trade secret or intellectual property nor of a commercial confidence affecting a competitive position; since already the bid is over and one Labour Contract Society has obtained the contract, the terms of which any Member of the Society would be concerned with. As far as clause (j) is concerned the information sought cannot be termed to be a personal information, since the details of the contract sought for, entered into by the appellant-Bank and the Minutes of the General Body Meeting, are sought for by a Member of the Society. That it does not have any relation to any public activity or interest, in that context, is not significant enough to decline the request, if the documents are otherwise accessible.”, the Court observed.
On the contrary, the Court said that the situation would have been different if the third party, being unconnected to the Appellant, raised an identical request.
“Every citizen would not have the right to ask for the documents since the concept of personal information cannot be restricted to a 'person' in flesh and blood and even applies to a private entity, with whose affairs every citizen cannot be found to have an interest, unless it has a relationship to a public activity (Section 8(1)(j). Neither the building contract nor the General Body Meeting concerns a party, totally unconnected with the Society.”, the Court observed.
The Court relied on its earlier decisions, including Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, to examine the scope of access to information relating to private bodies through public authorities.
As a result, the appeal was dismissed.
“As has been rightly pointed out by the 4th respondent, Section 66 of the Co-operative Societies Act confers supervisory powers and powers of inspection on the Registrar or a person authorized by him. This can be done as per sub-section (1), as frequently as the Registrar may consider it necessary, which supervision includes 'an inspection of the books of the society'. We are hence, convinced that the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is perfectly in order and in accordance with the provisions of law as also in consonance with the decisions cited. We, hence, find absolutely no reason to interfere with the same. The 2nd respondent shall call for the two documents immediately and in any event within two weeks and supply the same to the 4th respondent.”, the Court held.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.P. Chaly, Sr. Adv. Mr. Zulfikar Ali, AOR Mr. Anna Oommen, Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi,, AOR Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Mr. Jai Govind M J, Adv. Mr. Jashan Vir Singh, Adv. Mr. Shivam Sharma, Adv. Petitioner-in-person
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhilash M.R., Adv. Mr. Sayooj Mohandas, Adv. Ms. Manjari Singh, Adv. Ms. Ann Melvin, Adv. For M/s M R Law Associates, AOR Respondent-in-person

K Muraleedharan Backs Exempting Two Keralam Vigilance Sections From RTI

Deccan Chronicle: Kerala: Monday, 26 October 2026.
Pinarayi VIjayan had claimed that the notification came after Vigilance records concerning the chief minister VD Satheesan had surfaced, and the government was trying to protect influential people accused of corruption

Keralam Health and Devaswom Minister K Muraleedharan (File Photo)

Keralam Health and Devaswom Minister K Muraleedharan on Sunday justified the government's move to exempt two sections of the state Vigilance department from the RTI Act, saying that it was done to prevent investigation from being hampered due to certain disclosures made to the media.
Muraleedharan assured that largely the people's right to seek information about the functioning of the department would remain unaffected as the government does not intend to hide anything.
The minister, while speaking to reporters, also rejected allegations that the move was aimed at protecting any prominent persons, including political leaders and elected representatives, as claimed by Leader of Opposition in the state assembly and former CM Pinarayi Vijayan a day ago.
"There is no need to rescue anyone as no prominent person was in need of any protection from corruption allegations. No such person is involved in any such matter. There were instances of information coming out in the media which were hampering investigations and therefore, some restrictions were imposed," he explained.
"The government will not take a stand to hide important documents under the Right to Information Act. The government will not hide anything from the public. So, there is no need for any concern," he added.
uraleedharan said that it was the Congress which had brought the RTI Act, but the transparency law was "diluted" by the BJP.
Vijayan on Saturday had accused the Congress-led UDF government of "suppressing transparency and protecting the corrupt" by exempting two sections of the state Vigilance department from the RTI Act.
He had alleged that the move was intended to conceal files relating to corruption allegations against political leaders and elected representatives.
He had claimed that the notification came after Vigilance records concerning the chief minister VD Satheesan had surfaced, and the government was trying to protect influential people accused of corruption.
He was referring to the notification issued by the state government recently bringing the T1 and T2 sections of the VACB directorate under the exemption granted to intelligence and security organisations under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The state government had earlier exempted eight state intelligence and security organisations from the law in 2006.
State Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala had defended the decision, saying confidentiality was essential for Vigilance investigations and functioning.
He had also claimed that the T sections did not, in reality, fall under the purview of the RTI Act.

Election Commission Cites ‘Trade Secrets’ to Deny Information on Software Used in SIR, RTI Reveals

The Wire: New Delhi: Monday, 26 October 2026.
In response to a RTI application by MA Mujeeb Ayyub, the Election Commission has declined the information saying that it relates to “commercial confidence, trade secrets and intellectual property” and is exempted under Section 8(1)(d) RTI Act, 2005. 

Barricades installed outside the Election Commission of India's office in Delhi. Photo: PTI

Amid the ongoing uproar over the contentious special intensive revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls, the Election Commission of India has declined to disclose the software it has used in the exercise to identify errors and anomalies in the voter rolls, a Right to Information (RTI) query has revealed.
In response to a RTI application by MA Mujeeb Ayyub, the Election Commission has declined the information saying that it relates to “commercial confidence, trade secrets and intellectual property” and is exempted under Section 8(1)(d) RTI Act, 2005. The poll body added in its response dated October 16 that “no new software has been developed or procured for the SIR exercise,” and that electoral registration officers (EROs) decide on the inclusion or exclusion of an elector “on the basis of facts and records.”
Hindustan Times reported that in his RTI query, Ayub had sought to know the name and version of the software, application or AI platform used to detect errors or inconsistencies in voter data; whether such a system automatically flags records for verification, correction or deletion, and the workflow that follows. He also sought to know whether AI, machine learning, predictive analytics or automated decision support tools were used at any stage; the safeguards against false positives and wrongful flagging of genuine electors; and the authority that reviews or approves flagged anomalies before action is taken on a voter’s record.
While in response to the first question the Election Commission decline to provide information citing the Section 8(1)(d) exemption of the RTI Act, it also said that wit regard to automatic flagging or machine learning that the information sought  was a “clarification” that does not fall within the definition of “information” under Section 2(f) of the Act.
In response to the authority that reviews flagged anomalies, the RTI response cited Section 8(1)(g). This provision exempts information under the Act, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes.
The Election Commission’s response further added that under Sections 13B(1) and 13B(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the ERO of the concerned assembly constituency is the statutory authority responsible for preparing and revising the electoral roll of that constituency.
The revelations in the RTI come as 13 crore voters have been excluded following the SIR. Last month, The Indian Express had reported that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had objected 14 times in 10 months to the conduct of the exercise. The two election commissioners had also written to the cabinet secretary T.V. Somanathan. The Indian Express report had also noted that EROs had their access curtailed by the central IT team. 
Just last week The Wire reported that the ECI software had deleted 5.38 lakh voters in West Bengal through Form 7 objections without any person having filed them, with auto generated rejections without citing a reason. The Wire has also reported that in Bengal, the Election Commission filed 16 lakh appeals against included voters over the course of three days as the voter rolls were frozen for the assembly elections in April.

Lack Of Infrastructure No Excuse For Failure To Preserve Police Station CCTV Footage As Directed By SC: Allahabad High Court : By - Sparsh Upadhyay

Hindustan Times: Allahabad: Sunday, 25 October 2026.
Lack of resources, space, or infrastructure is no excuse for failing to comply with the Supreme Court's mandate to install CCTV cameras and preserve footage, the HC said.

The Allahabad High Court has observed that lack of resources, space or infrastructure is no answer to a general mandamus issued by the Supreme Court requiring installation of CCTV cameras and preservation of footage for the specified period of time in police stations.
The Court sought an affidavit from the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Ayodhya, explaining why the CCTV footage of the lockup at Cantt Police Station was not preserved and provided to an applicant who sought it under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
A bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai observed that once an application for CCTV footage was made within the prescribed 90-day period, the footage ought to have been preserved, even if the request for a copy was denied.
The petitioner (Praveen Kumar Dubey), had sought CCTV footage of the police station lockup for February 23, 2026, through an RTI application filed on May 9, 2026.
After the Public Information Officer denied the information, the petitioner filed the first and second appeals. However, the authorities took the stand that the 90-day period had expired.
Subsequently, the petitioner moved the High Court. The division bench observed that preserving the footage would have ensured that any subsequent order by a higher forum directing its disclosure did not become futile.
The High Court further noted that the SSP, Ayodhya, was in violation of the Supreme Court's directions in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh 2021, concerning the installation of CCTV cameras in police stations and preservation of footage.
The Supreme Court's directions require CCTV systems capable of recording audio and video, with footage preserved for 18 months. Where the available equipment cannot store footage for 18 months, it must be preserved for at least one year.
The bench directed the SSP, Ayodhya, to file his own affidavit within one week, explaining why he had failed to preserve and provide the requisite CCTV footage.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on October 30, 2026.

Details of software used in SIR exempt from RTI, Election Commission cites 'trade secrets' : By Himanshi Dahiya

Hindustan Times: New Delhi: Sunday, 25 October 2026.
It said no new software was developed or procured and that constituency-level electoral registration officers make decisions on voter inclusion or exclusion.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has declined to disclose the name and version of the software it used to identify errors and anomalies in voter rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, saying the information relates to “commercial confidence, trade secrets and intellectual property” and is exempt under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The panel, which has faced criticism amid allegations of irregularities in the controversial roll revision exercise, also said that “no new software has been developed or procured for the SIR exercise,” and that electoral registration officers (EROs) decide on the inclusion or exclusion of an elector “on the basis of facts and records.”
“The ERO of the concerned constituency is the statutory authority responsible for the preparation and revision of electoral roll of that constituency,” the poll panel said.
The reply, dated October 16, came in response to an RTI application filed by MA Mujeeb Ayyub, a social activist based in Karimnagar, Telangana.
Ayyub sought the name and version of software, application or AI platform used to detect errors or inconsistencies in voter data; whether such a system automatically flags records for verification, correction or deletion, and the workflow that follows; whether AI, machine learning, predictive analytics or automated decision support tools were used at any stage; the safeguards against false positives and wrongful flagging of genuine electors; and the authority that reviews or approves flagged anomalies before action is taken on a voter’s record.
In response to Ayyub’s first question, the ECI invoked Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, which exempts information involving commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm a third party’s competitive position.
Regarding the queries covering automatic flagging, the use of AI or ML, and safeguards against wrongful flagging, the commission said the information sought was a “clarification” that does not fall within the definition of “information” under Section 2(f) of the Act.
On the question about who reviews flagged anomalies, the poll body cited Section 8(1)(g), which exempts information whose disclosure could endanger the life or physical safety of any person or reveal the source of information given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes. It added that under Sections 13B(1) and 13B(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the ERO of the concerned assembly constituency is the statutory authority responsible for preparing and revising the electoral roll.
Responding to disclosures in the RTI, former CEC OP Rawat said that the activist must file an appeal. “This is a legal matter and the applicant must file an appeal to the competent authorities to seek answers to questions ECI is evading,” Rawat said.
ECI has been under pressure over SIR – which has already deleted 130 million names from India’s electoral rolls – and other allegations. These concerns follow an investigation by The Indian Express that said election commissioners SS Sandhu and Vivek Joshi recorded written dissents and objections at least 14 times between November 2025 and August 2026 and even wrote to the cabinet secretary. It also alleged that election officials found their access to the ECI software curtailed by the central IT team. ECI, for its part, said differing views and observations were a normal part of deliberation and that all its digital platforms operated under strict data security protocols.
HT this February reported that some of the problems in the West Bengal SIR have their roots in ECI’s Electoral Registration Officer Network (ERONET) portal, senior officials from the IT division of the poll body said.