Hisar police arrest ‘RTI activist’ for Rs 1L extortion bid

The Tribune: Hisar: Monday, 6^th April 2026.

Hisar police have arrested a man, Manoj Sindhwani, who claimed to be an RTI activist, for allegedly attempting to extort Rs 1 lakh from a mobile shop owner in Ganesh Market in Hisar. The police laid a trap and caught him red-handed when the shop owner handed over the cash to him.
The owner, Mukesh, stated that a building was under construction in front of Sector 14, and the accused had been demanding money while threatening to file an application under the RTI Act and get the building sealed. He allegedly demanded Rs 1 lakh in exchange for not filing the RTI application.
Mukesh filed a complaint with the police, following which a police team laid a trap and caught the accused when the complainant handed over the money. The accused, a resident of Dev Vatika in Hisar, had previously been caught in a similar case of alleged extortion about nine months ago. He had allegedly extorted Rs 7,000 from an electronics trader, Anil Kumar, in Hansi’s Boga Ram Colony in a similar manner.
A police official said that the incident exposed the misuse of the RTI Act as a tool for extortion. As per the modus operandi, the accused would file RTI applications in matters requiring official permissions. Following such applications, departments would issue notices to the individuals concerned, who then faced the threat of their buildings being sealed by the authorities.

Rail Neer scam: CIC pulls up IRCTC for refusing information on RTI plea

Times of India: New Delhi: Monday, 6^th April 2026.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has pulled up the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) for denying information on an RTI plea seeking disclosure of whether bidders in railway tenders had declared links to the Rail Neer scam and related cases probed by central agencies, PTI reported.

The applicant had sought details on whether companies bidding for tenders disclosed any cases registered by the CBI or the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against them, including their alleged involvement in the 2015 Rail Neer scam.
RTI sought disclosure of CBI, ED cases
The RTI application specifically asked if bidders had declared that they were “accused in the famous Rail Neer scam” and that the CBI had “registered an FIR (RC-DAI-2015-A-0032) against them”.
It also sought details on whether bidders disclosed that the ED had "registered a case under sections 120B read with Section 420 of the IPC and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act”.
Further, the applicant asked if companies informed authorities about developments such as raids, cash seizures, and whether a “chargesheet” or “complaint” had been filed by the agencies.
CIC flags ‘mechanical’ denial by IRCTC
IRCTC denied the information citing exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, which covers commercial confidence and trade secrets. The respondent officials maintained that they had “categorically informed the appellant” and that the first appellate authority upheld the reply.
However, the CIC found the response inadequate, noting it “merely states the exemption clause without providing any reasons or justification whatsoever”.
“A bare or mechanical reference to an exemption clause, without explaining its applicability to the information sought, does not constitute a valid or speaking reply under the RTI Act,” the commission said.
Emphasising that denial must be supported by “cogent reasons”, the CIC added that “the burden of proving the applicability of an exemption squarely lies on the public authority”.
Holding the reply deficient, the commission said it was “not in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act” and directed IRCTC to revisit the application and issue a “fresh, reasoned reply”.

RTI Penalty Proceedings Are Between Commission and SPIO Alone — Complainant Has No Right To Be Heard: Kerala High Court

Lawyer E News: Kerala: Sunday, 5^th April 2026.

"The penalty proceeding under Section 20 of the RTI Act is purely a matter between the State Information Commission and the SPIO", Kerala High Court has ruled that an RTI complainant has no legal right to be heard before the State Information Commission decides whether to impose or drop penalty proceedings against a State Public Information Officer under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 holding that such proceedings are exclusively a matter between the Commission and the delinquent officer.
Justice Murali Purushothaman dismissed the writ petition filed by Raisa Eapen, who had challenged the Commission's order dropping penalty proceedings against the SPIO without furnishing her a copy of the officer's explanation or giving her an opportunity to rebut it.
Background of the Case
The petitioner had submitted a Form-6 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 seeking reclassification of her land. A circular dated December 24, 2023 issued by the Land Revenue Commissioner directed that all Form-6 applications received on or before December 31, 2023 be included and disposed of at a Revenue Adalat held on February 17, 2024. Despite claiming full eligibility, the petitioner's application was excluded from the Adalat without any satisfactory explanation.
She then filed an RTI application dated May 18, 2024 before the SPIO at the Revenue Divisional Office, Fort Kochi, seeking information on why her application was excluded. No reply was furnished within the statutory period of 30 days under the RTI Act. She accordingly preferred a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the State Information Commission.
The Commission, finding that the SPIO had failed to furnish information within the prescribed time and had given false and misleading information, issued a show cause notice calling for an explanation as to why penalty proceedings under Section 20(1) should not be initiated. The SPIO responded claiming that the petitioner's Form-6 application was submitted only on January 8, 2024 after the cutoff date of December 31, 2023 and attributed the delay in providing information to election duty, staff transfers, and administrative delays. The Commission accepted this explanation and dropped further proceedings by its final order without hearing the petitioner or furnishing her a copy of the SPIO's reply.
Legal Issues
The central question before the Court was whether an RTI complainant or appellant possesses a right to be heard and to receive a copy of the SPIO's explanation in penalty proceedings initiated under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act before the State Information Commission decides to impose or drop the penalty.
Court's Observations
On the Statutory Scheme Penalty Is Not for the Complainant
The Court undertook a careful reading of Sections 19 and 20 of the RTI Act, drawing a sharp distinction between the two. Section 19(8)(b) empowers the Commission to direct a public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or detriment suffered — a provision that inherently requires the complainant's participation to adjudicate the quantum of loss. Section 20(1), by contrast, empowers the Commission to impose a monetary penalty on the SPIO that goes directly to the State exchequer not to the complainant's pocket.
This distinction, the Court held, was decisive: "While the 'compensation' goes to the complainant, the 'penalty' goes to the State exchequer. The penalty proceeding under Section 20 of the RTI Act is purely a matter between the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission and the CPIO or the SPIO, as the case may be."
The first proviso to Section 20(1) the only express mandate in the provision regarding hearing requires exclusively that the SPIO be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed. Nowhere, the Court noted, does the RTI Act require the Commission to hear the appellant in Section 20 proceedings.
On the Kerala State Information Commission Rules
The Court further examined Rule 7 of the Kerala State Information Commission (Procedure for Appeal) Rules, 2006 governing the personal presence of the appellant. The Rule makes the appellant's appearance entirely optional the appellant "may at his discretion be present in person... or may opt not to be present." Even if the appellant chooses not to appear, the Commission must dispose of the appeal. This structural optionality, the Court held, reinforces the position that the complainant has no right to participate in penalty proceedings as such.
"The petitioner has no right to be heard in the penalty proceedings under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, unless permitted by the State Information Commission."
On the Show Cause Notice Being Prima Facie in Nature
The Court further clarified that a show cause notice issued by the Commission before imposing penalty is only prima facie in nature a preliminary satisfaction, not a final finding. If the Commission, upon examining the SPIO's explanation, finds it satisfactory, it is fully within its jurisdiction to drop the proceedings without conducting any further inquiry.
"The opinion formed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission at the stage of deciding the complaint or appeal and issuing a show cause notice is only prima facie in nature. If the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission finds that the explanation of the SPIO is satisfactory, the Commission can drop the penalty proceedings."
The Commission's final order accepting the SPIO's explanation that the delay was attributable to election duty, staff transfers, and administrative transitions was therefore not erroneous or perverse, and did not call for interference under Article 226.
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court declined to quash the Commission's order or direct a fresh hearing, holding that the petitioner had no right to be heard in Section 20(1) proceedings unless specifically permitted by the Commission, and that the Commission's finding was neither perverse nor illegal.
(Download Copy of the Judgment)

Alok Nagar, Rajesh Bhatt appointed State Information Commissioners

The Hitavada: Bhopal: Sunday, 5^th April 2026.
A State Government has appointed two new State Information Commissioners. According to a gazette notification issued by the General Administration Department on Thursday, the former Registrar of Firms and Societies, Alok Nagar and an All India Radio Officer Rajesh Bhatt have been appointed as State Information Commissioners. Following these appointments, it is expected that the disposal of pending RTI cases within the Commission will accelerate.

According to the notification issued by the Government, both appointments have been made under Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The tenure of the newly-appointed Information Commissioners will extend for a period of three years from the date they assume office, or until they attain the age of 65 years. ( whichever condition is met first). As the commission is facing with piling up of cases due to shortage of staff, it is expected with these appointments things will become smooth. Although, State Information Commission as per the provision has limited to provide information and cannot take any action. The oath-taking ceremony for both newly-appointed Information Commissioners is expected to be held shortly. The names were decided in a meeting of the selection committee headed by Chief Minister Mohan Yadav and other members, including Leader of Opposition in state assembly Umang Singhar and other members.
That has got final approval from honourable the Governor. Currently, the Commission comprises one Chief Information Commissioner and three Information Commissioners. With the addition of two new commissioners, it is anticipated that the resolution of pending cases related to RTI will be expedited. As per the law, any vacancy in the State Information Commission has to be filled within six months from the date of vacancy. Madhya Pradesh Chief Information Commissioner (CIC), Information Commissioner (IC) and State Information Commissioner’s salaries, allowances and other service terms and conditions are equivalent to a Judge of the Supreme Court. Along with Yadav, the State Government on Tuesday also appointed three other Information Commissioners- Umashankar Pachouri (educationist), Vandana Gandhi (social worker) and Omkar Nath (retired judge). Two years ago, there was demand to expedite the process of appointment of Chief Information Commissioner as the post had remained vacant for five months. Subsequently, the State Government made four appointments. Ex-IPS Vijay Yadav was appointed as Chief Information Commissioner while Umashankar Pachouri (educationist), Vandana Gandhi (social worker) and Omkar Nath (retired judge) became Information-Commissioners.

Sabarimala gold theft not isolated? RTI reveals multiple temple losses in Kerala

Mathrubhumi: Kerala: Sunday, 5^th April 2026.
RTI disclosures reveal missing gold from several Kerala temples, highlighting lapses in inventory records and raising concerns over accountability and oversight.

Gold-clad plates being removed from outside the sanctum sanctorum for scientific examination as part of the probe into the alleged gold theft at the Sabarimala temple in Kerala | File photo: PTI

Gold has gone missing from several major temples across Kerala, in incidents comparable to the alleged losses reported at Sabarimala Temple, according to information obtained through the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The disclosures indicate that gold items were lost from Sreevaraham Temple, Thiruvananthapuram, Pullu Bhagavathi Temple and Thripunithura Poornathrayeesan Temple under the Cochin Devaswom Board.
At Pullu Bhagavathi Temple, which falls under the Thrissur group of the Cochin Devaswom Board, seven gold chains weighing a total of 40.50 grams were reported missing. At Poornathrayeesan Temple, 663 milligrams of gold from the crown were lost, while Sreevaraham Temple reported the disappearance of two heritage gold chains weighing 7.750 grams.
The RTI response also noted that many Devaswom temples do not maintain a proper Thiruvabharanam (temple ornaments) register, raising concerns about inventory tracking and accountability.
The information was provided by the Public Information Officer of the Cochin Devaswom Board’s Thrissur group to Kochi-based RTI activist K Govindan Namboothiri.
Separately, citing RTI documents, the activist said that of the ₹46.53 crore sanctioned by the Central government under the Swadesh Darshan Scheme for Sabarimala development, only ₹36.27 crore has been utilised so far.

From Dec 1992 ‘Militancy-Hit’ Property Loss To CIC: Kashmiri Family Seeks Relief Details

Daily Excelsior: New Delhi: Saturday, 4th April 2026.
A Kashmiri family’s wait of more than three decades for ex-gratia relief for their property gutted in a “militancy-related incident” on the night of December 7-8, 1992, has reached the Central Information Commission, with the second generation now seeking answers on the fate of the compensation.

According to the appellant, Pran Nath, the property comprised a three-storey residential house, along with a multi-storey cowshed and a wooden granary, built on about 10 marlas of land in Verinag in Jammu and Kashmir’s Anantnag district, and it was destroyed in the incident.
In an application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, Nath has stated that the complex “was burnt on 7/8th December, 1992, due to subversive activities. No ex-gratia relief has been disbursed to the concerned till date as per my knowledge”.
Seeking clarity on the compensation, he has asked for the details of the person who has drawn the relief, the amount disbursed and the sanction orders, stating that authorities have informed him that payment has already been made.
Records placed on file show that “an amount of Rs 44,500 as admissible under rules/norms in vogue at that time has been sanctioned and forwarded to Relief Commissioner (M) Jammu for disbursement”.
However, a communication from the relief and rehabilitation commissioner’s office said, “As per the available record, no such amount has been disbursed in favour of Sh. Shiv Ji Sharma S/o Damodar Sharma, Maharaj Krishen S/o Amarnath and Pushkar Nath S/o Shamboo Nath residence of Verinag, District Anantnag, regarding the damage caused to their immovable property gutted due to militancy incident on 07/08.12.1992.” According to Nath, neither he nor other legal heirs has received any amount. He has sought the details of the person who has allegedly withdrawn the compensation.
The case reflects a generational pursuit, with Nath taking forward a claim originally pursued by his late father, Shiv Ji Sharma, one of the co-owners of the property. The family had earlier moved the high court through a writ petition seeking ex-gratia relief and the court had directed authorities to consider the case within a stipulated period.
With the passage of time and the death of the original claimants, the responsibility of pursuing the matter has shifted to the second generation, which continues to seek clarity on whether the sanctioned relief ever reached the rightful beneficiaries.
Chief Information Commissioner Raj Kumar Goyal observed that key facts regarding the alleged disbursal could not be ascertained in the absence of the respondent official.
“Considering the facts of the case, it is imperative that the PIO, DC Anantnag, is heard before arriving at any conclusion,” he said.
Goyal further noted that the official “has neither attended the hearing, despite service of hearing notice in advance, nor sent any written submission/counter statement to present the relevant facts/arguments”. (Agencies)

RTI Reveals Delhi Spent Only Rs 20 Of Every Rs 100 To Fight Air Pollution | Exclusive

News18: New Delhi: Friday, 3^rd April 2026.
Rs 112.82 crore was allocated to Delhi, of which Rs 81.36 crore was released to the city. In the last five financial years, Delhi has spent just Rs 16.36 crore.

Even as Delhi grapples with severe air pollution year after year, local bodies have spent just Rs 20 for every Rs 100 released under the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) to combat the crisis, a series of RTI replies filed across departments show.
Information sought from the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act showed that a total of Rs 112.82 crore was allocated to Delhi under the NCAP between 2021–22 and 2025–26, of which Rs 81.36 crore was released to the city. In the last five financial years, Delhi has spent just Rs 16.36 crore, leaving over Rs 65 crore unspent, data as of March 30 show.

NCAP To Battle Polluted Air
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) launched NCAP in January 2019. The first time funds were allocated or released for Delhi was in 2021–22. That year, no utilisation was reported.
Funds under NCAP flow from the MoEFCC to CPCB to DPCC to urban local bodies. In Delhi, the local bodies receiving the funds are MCD and NDMC. News18 filed RTIs across all these agencies to understand where the funds were getting stuck.
“Performance-based financial support is being provided by MoEFCC to all 130 non-attainment cities, including Delhi, for implementation of City Action Plans. Under NCAP, the total amount of Rs 112.82 crore has been allocated and, based on performance assessment of the city w.r.t. improvement in air quality, Rs 81.36 crore has been released to ULBs of Delhi through the Delhi Pollution Control Committee from FY 2021–22 till February 16, 2026, out of which Rs 15.74 crore has been utilised," the reply from CPCB stated. Subsequent utilisation updated till March 30 stands at Rs 16.36 crore.
The CPCB reply also stated that Rs 20.45 crore out of Rs 112.82 crore was marked for the year 2025–26 and is yet to be released as of February 16. In 2025–26, Delhi spent Rs 1.64 crore up to February, which improved to Rs 2.26 crore by March 30.
Most Funds With MCD, Limited Spending On Ground
The RTI reply from CPCB further shows that the MCD, then as North DMC, received a recurring grant worth Rs 4.49 crore under NCAP for the first time in March 2022 (FY 2021–22). In the same month, the South DMC received Rs 6.74 crore, taking total funds for Delhi to about Rs 11.25 crore in 2021–22.
Soon after, in May 2022, three civic bodies in Delhi—East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC), North DMC and South DMC—were unified into a single entity called the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD).
In 2022–23, the MCD received Rs 22.50 crore for NCAP in September. In its utilisation certificate to CPCB, the MCD stated that Rs 11.24 crore, including interest worth Rs 40.77 lakh, was carried forward from 2021–22. During the year, the MCD spent Rs 7.54 crore, leaving Rs 26.19 crore as balance.
At the end of 2023–24, the balance amount with MCD touched Rs 30.34 crore, with only Rs 5.19 crore spent during that financial year. A total of Rs 8.93 crore was allocated to the body that year.
The reply from CPCB further shows that no funds were given to MCD in 2024–25. The agency used Rs 1.34 crore that year, leaving Rs 28.77 crore as balance with MCD. Rs 38.67 crore was allocated that year and was released only in 2025–26.
Despite Warnings, Utilisation Remains Low
In August 2024, CPCB wrote to DPCC stating that Delhi’s utilisation was below the mandated 75 per cent threshold in terms of funds released till 2022–23. In the letter, CPCB requested DPCC to intervene “for effective utilisation of the funds released".
News18 also filed an RTI with DPCC seeking details of the funds. DPCC stated that it transferred the funds to NDMC and MCD on time. Sharing the break-up, DPCC said it transferred the allocated Rs 22.50 crore to MCD in 2022–23, matching the RTI reply from CPCB. In 2023–24, DPCC allocated and transferred Rs 8.937 crore to NDMC. Rs 38.67 crore for the financial year 2024–25 was transferred to MCD in 2025–26, DPCC stated.
“No NCAP fund was allocated to DPCC for FY 2019–20, 2020–21, 2021–22 and 2025–26," the RTI reply from DPCC stated.
NDMC, in its RTI reply on fund utilisation, stated that the amount is being used by different departments and divisions, including civil and horticulture. However, it did not provide the exact break-up. It also stated that it received Rs 8.93 crore in 2023–24 in four tranches between October 2023 and January 2024.
DPCC and NDMC only provided details of limited queries. The reply from MCD is awaited even after two months of seeking details.
Delhi Among Worst Performers In NCAP Spending
The RTI reply from MoEFCC stated that the Ministry conducted a Monitoring Committee Meeting in August 2025 where the “low utilisation for Delhi has been noted". In the same office order, the Ministry also communicated that cities must achieve at least 75 per cent utilisation to qualify for further funds starting from 2025–26.
The Ministry also stated that 65 cities have reported expenditure between 50–75 per cent, 13 cities between 25–50 per cent, and two cities below 25 per cent on the PRANA portal. The two cities with less than 25 per cent expenditure were Delhi and Noida.
Delhi had informed the NCAP Monitoring Committee that tendering for works worth Rs 20 crore had been completed and work orders would be issued by September 30, 2025. A plan for Rs 40 crore has also been submitted for approval.
The funds spent in Delhi, considered one of the most polluted cities in India, should also be seen in light of the fact that the Centre has released Rs 13,236.80 crore to 130 cities since 2020–21, of which Rs 9,769.83 crore has been utilised, reflecting an overall utilisation rate of 74 per cent.
So, for every Rs 100 released by the Centre, cities have collectively spent about Rs 75. But when it comes to Delhi, for every Rs 100 received, local bodies have spent just Rs 20—despite the fact that, almost every year for nearly a decade, the Air Quality Index (AQI) has plunged into poor, very poor and hazardous levels, touching 500 at times.
As per CPCB data, the average PM10 level in Delhi in 2024–25 was 213, and in 2023–24 it was 208—more than three times the standard level of 60. In 2020–21, the average PM10 was 193, and since then it has been rising: 196 in 2021–22 and 209 in 2022–23.
Unused Rs 65 crore Still In System
The Central Ministry also stated in its RTI reply that out of 130 NCAP cities, 35 had submitted Annual Action Plans for 2025–26 as of August 2025. Of these, only four plans were approved, 20 were referred back to cities for revision, and 11 are under review by CPCB. The remaining 95 cities had not submitted their plans, including Delhi.
“CPCB informed that a significant number of Annual Action Plans were returned to cities due to gaps in convergence details, inconsistencies in target setting, and inclusion of activities beyond the core NCAP framework," it stated.
However, the RTI reply from the Ministry also revealed that while NCAP spending across India may be at 75 per cent, at the national level, spending under pollution control schemes has shown gaps. In 2024–25, against a revised estimate of Rs 858 crore, only Rs 16.2 crore was spent on pollution control schemes, according to Ministry data.
In 2025–26, Rs 1,300 crore was the revised allocation for pollution control, but actual expenditure stood at Rs 840 crore, data till February show.
The Ministry also explained that money remains in the system even if unused, indicating that unspent allocations continue to be carried forward. “There is no surrender of funds as on date under control of the pollution scheme," it said.
This means over Rs 65 crore meant to fight pollution remains unspent with local bodies in Delhi, despite repeated warnings and persistently hazardous air quality levels. In a city where pollution levels routinely breach safe limits, the issue is no longer the availability of funds, but the inability to use them.

‘Nata Pratha’: CIC orders disclosure of report on sale of minor girls on stamp paper for marriage

The Print: New Delhi: Friday, 3^rd April 2026.

New Delhi, Apr 2 (PTI) ‘Nata Pratha’, a custom in which girls are “sold” on stamp paper or through informal agreements in the name of marriage, has come under renewed scrutiny, with the Central Information Commission directing the disclosure of an action taken report submitted by the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development to the National Human Rights Commission.
In a recent order, Information Commissioner P R Ramesh said the ministry must revisit an RTI request and provide the action taken report it shared with the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), after redacting the exempted portions.
The Central Information Commission (CIC), however, upheld the denial of other information sought by the appellant, noting that it involved personal details of complainants and their families, which are exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
The RTI application had sought copies of correspondence between the ministry, the NHRC, and the states of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat, along with the action taken report on the issue.
The CIC observed that while personal information cannot be disclosed, the action taken report submitted to the NHRC is a matter of public interest and should be shared in a revised form.
The NHRC, in a statement dated June 6, 2024, had taken a serious view of the practice, calling it a “social evil”.
“The NHRC takes a serious view of ‘Nata Pratha’ under which girls in some communities are sold either on a stamp paper or otherwise in the name of marriage, having no legal sanctity in parts of Rajasthan and the adjoining areas in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat,” it had said.
Terming the practice “unethical” and “immoral” with severe consequences for women and minor girls, the NHRC had called for the eradication of the custom.
It had issued notices to the Ministry of Women and Child Development and the states concerned, directing them to submit action taken reports within eight weeks.
The ministry had informed the NHRC that the practice appeared “derogatory” to women and needed to be abolished.
The NHRC also cited a case where the father of a minor girl in Rajasthan sold her for marriage under the ‘Nata Pratha’ for Rs 2.5 lakh through a deal signed between the families in the presence of villagers.
While an initial payment of Rs 60,000 was made, the remaining amount was not paid in time, following which the father brought the girl back and fixed her ‘Nata’ again with another man for Rs 32,000.
The girl opposed the arrangement and returned to live with the first man. She later alleged harassment and threats by her father before committing suicide in June 2020.
Citing inputs from its research division, the NHRC underscored the need for a legal framework to curb the practice, recommending enactment of a specific law to eradicate ‘Nata Pratha’.
It said those forcing women into such arrangements should be prosecuted under laws related to human trafficking, and in cases involving minors, under the relevant provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, to effectively check the “menace”. PTI MHS ARI
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.

'No Record of Complaints Against Any Judge', SC Tells Delhi High Court After Submitting Record of 8,630 Complaints To Parliament

The Wire: New Delhi: Friday, 3^rd April 2026.
The Supreme Court told the Delhi High Court on April 1 that it does not maintain judge-specific data on corruption or misconduct complaints. This claim sits uneasily with the 8,630 complaints its own office furnished to Parliament weeks earlier.

The Supreme Court of India told the Delhi high court on April 1 that it does not maintain judge-specific information on corruption or misconduct complaints. The submission was made by Advocate Rukhmini Bobde, appearing for the Supreme Court’s public information officer, before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav. She characterised the RTI request as “a fishing and roving inquiry.” The Registry, she said, could not divert resources to collate such information.
The case is Saurav Das v. CPIO, Supreme Court of India. Das, a journalist and RTI activist, filed an application in April 2023 asking three questions about Justice T. Raja, the former Acting Chief Justice of the Madras high court. Were any complaints of corruption or improper conduct received against him? How many? What action was taken? The Supreme Court’s central public information officer refused to answer. The information was “not maintained in the manner as sought for,” the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) stated. The first appellate authority upheld the refusal. The Central Information Commission remanded the matter. The CPIO refused again, on identical grounds. Das moved the Delhi high court through Advocate Prashant Bhushan.
The April 1 hearing, however, produced a significant development. Justice Kaurav indicated that the case had “wider ramifications” for the institution. He directed both sides to propose a mechanism balancing two objectives. The reputation of honest judges must be protected. The public must have access to information on how complaints are handled. The matter is next listed on May 7.
The 8,630-complaint contradiction
The Supreme Court’s claim that it maintains no judge-specific complaint data must be read against a recent disclosure to parliament. In February 2026, the Union law ministry told the Lok Sabha that the Chief Justice of India’s office received 8,630 complaints against sitting judges between 2016 and 2025. This data was furnished by the Supreme Court itself. Complaints rose from 729 in 2016 to 1,102 in 2025 – a 51% increase.
Bhushan pressed this contradiction at the hearing. The Supreme Court furnished year-wise aggregate figures to parliament. How then can it claim that it maintains no information in the format the RTI applicant sought? At a minimum, recording 8,630 complaints would require capturing the identity of the judge complained against. Without that basic field, an aggregate figure is meaningless.
Bobde responded that the parliamentary data concerned only total complaints against all sitting judges, not judge-specific breakdowns. But as Das noted on X after the hearing, this claim is “quite bizarre.” Basic data such as the judge’s name would logically have to be captured while recording complaints. Otherwise, how did the figure of 8,630 appear?
The high court repeatedly questioned how it was possible that no such data was maintained. It also expressed concern about the public perception this creates. Large aggregate figures disclosed without any clarity on how complaints were handled create an impression of inaction. This, the court observed, is detrimental to the judiciary’s image.
The format defence and Section 4(1)
Das did not seek information in any particular format. He asked a binary question: were complaints received against Justice T. Raja? That admits of only a yes or a no. Bhushan pointed out that Das had offered to file a fresh RTI in whatever format the Supreme Court specified. Justice Kaurav’s response was telling. An applicant could file a hundred applications in different formats. That was beside the point. The Registry could not rely on a technicality to refuse disclosure.
The “not maintained in the manner sought for” formulation is a pattern RTI practitioners have repeatedly encountered with the higher judiciary. It does not engage with whether the information exists. It deflects the question into a procedural cul-de-sac.
This sits poorly with Section 4(1) of the RTI Act. That provision imposes a positive obligation on every public authority. Records must be “duly catalogued and indexed” to facilitate the right to information. Records appropriate for computerisation must be computerised within a reasonable time. This is not discretionary. If the Supreme Court received 8,630 complaints in a decade and cannot retrieve them by judge, it is in breach of this statutory duty.
What SCOI v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal held
Bobde invoked the 2019 five-judge Constitution Bench judgment in SCOI v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal to resist disclosure. The reliance deserves scrutiny.
Subhash Chandra Agarwal held, first and most importantly, that the RTI Act applies to the CJI’s office. It then addressed the extent of that applicability. Information exchanged between Collegium members in the appointment and transfer process, it held, is protected as a fiduciary relationship. But the judgment distinguished between the Collegium’s deliberative process and information bearing on public interest. Under Section 8(1)(j), personal information unrelated to public activity is exempt. Personal information bearing on public activity is not.
Das’s question does not concern the Collegium’s deliberative process. He has not asked for complaint content, the CJI’s assessment, or material feeding into appointment decisions. He has asked whether complaints exist and what happened to them. This falls squarely within the public interest override. Complaints about a sitting judge’s conduct concern the exercise of sovereign judicial power. They cannot be characterised as merely personal.
Das, who was present at the hearing, noted on X that the Supreme Court’s counsel read out portions of the judgment to support non-disclosure. Justice Kaurav’s response was pointed. Was the Supreme Court arguing against its own case?
Bobde also invoked Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, which permits refusal where compliance would “disproportionately divert” resources. But proportionality cuts both ways. The Supreme Court compiled aggregate year-wise data for parliament. Locating complaints against a named judge within those records is a less intensive task, not a more intensive one.
The opacity trap
The deeper problem with the Supreme Court’s position is that it conflates dignity with secrecy. The argument, at its core, is that disclosing complaint information would damage judicial independence. However, it is opacity that is corroding public confidence.
The parliamentary data disclosed 8,630 complaints but was silent on what followed. Almost simultaneously, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of a Class 8 NCERT textbook chapter on corruption in the judiciary. It banned the book and blacklisted its three authors from publicly funded work. The juxtaposition was devastating.
The judiciary’s own data confirmed that thousands of complaints were being filed. The parliamentary record confirmed that no disposal information was available. And the judiciary’s response was to suppress a school textbook.
Das, in his X thread, connected the dots. The Supreme Court had given year-wise data to the government. Yet, it argued before the high court that it maintained no records in the format sought. Was the Registry, Das asked on X earlier, “lying on oath before the Delhi High Court”?
The in-house procedure for handling complaints, adopted by full court resolution in 1999, operates without external audit. The CJI receives complaints, decides whether to act, and may constitute a three-member inquiry committee. There is no reporting requirement. A complainant cannot know whether a complaint was even acknowledged. No published record exists of how many inquiries were initiated or what they yielded. The Justice Yashwant Varma episode illustrates the point. The Supreme Court has refused to disclose the in-house inquiry report in that case. Aggregate data without disposition information demonstrates the absence of accountability, not its presence.
Bhushan made this argument at the hearing. Without transparency on judicial complaints, he submitted, suspicion festers. Justice Kaurav appeared to agree.
The honest-judge problem and its solution
Justice Kaurav raised a concern that any transparency proposal must address. Disgruntled litigants might file frivolous complaints against a judge. They could then use RTI to publicise a misleadingly high complaint count. An honest judge’s reputation would suffer.
This is not just a hypothetical. In a system handling hundreds of complaints annually, many will be motivated by adverse orders rather than genuine misconduct. But the answer is more transparency, not less.
Consider what disposition data would achieve. If complaints are accompanied by outcome information, a judge against whom 15 complaints were filed and all found baseless is vindicated by that record. Opacity, by contrast, leaves reputations vulnerable to innuendo. A judge who faced only unsubstantiated complaints has nothing to fear from a system that records that they were unsubstantiated. A system that refuses to say anything at all provides no such protection.
 
Das acknowledged this concern in his account of the hearing on X. He and Bhushan suggested that the risk could be mitigated by disclosing action taken, especially where complaints were found frivolous.
The mechanism question
Justice Kaurav adjourned the matter to May 7. He directed both sides to propose a mechanism balancing the safeguarding of honest judges with public access to complaint-handling information. The direction rejects the Supreme Court’s framing of complete non-disclosure. It opens space for a structured middle ground.
What might such a mechanism involve? At a minimum, the Supreme Court could publish anonymised aggregate data on complaint disposition. This would cover categories received, numbers dismissed at the preliminary stage, numbers resulting in in-house inquiry, and outcomes. No individual judge would be identified. No complaint content would be disclosed. Nothing in Subhash Chandra Agarwal would be breached.
A more robust version could require disclosure, on request, of the number and disposition of complaints against a specific judge. The substance of complaints would remain protected. This would fall within the public interest override in Section 8(1)(j). It would also give effect to Section 4(1)’s record-keeping mandate.
Bhushan proposed a further alternative: permitting the applicant to inspect primary records under appropriate safeguards. Section 2(j) of the RTI Act recognises inspection as a form of access to information. This would shift the collation burden to the applicant, addressing the Section 7(9) objection.
The Saurav Das case arrives at a fraught institutional moment. The NCERT ban, the Varma inquiry, the parliamentary data, the Collegium’s persistent opacity, the in-house procedure’s impermeability: these are facets of a single structural problem. The institution insists on public trust while refusing to furnish the information on which trust depends.
The Delhi high court is now adjudicating what appears to be a narrow RTI dispute. But the real question is whether judicial self-regulation entails an absolute right to self-concealment. The Supreme Court can count complaints for parliament but cannot find them for a citizen. This does not draw a principled distinction between judicial independence and judicial opacity. What Justice Kaurav does with this case may determine whether that distinction begins to be drawn.

Apex Bank is a public authority, rules Karnataka Information Commission

The Times of India: Bengaluru: Thursday, 2^nd April 2026.
In a move to boost transparency in the cooperative banking sector, the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) has ruled that the Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank qualifies as a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The order passed on Feb 9 by a bench presided over by state information commissioner Rajashekara S came after a second appeal by a citizen seeking loan-related documents.
The saga began on May 9, 2024, when Hanamanth Vasant Shinde from Mudhol taluk, Bagalkot district, filed an application under the RTI Act. Shinde sought details from the bank regarding documents and explanatory notes submitted by Nirani Sugars Ltd for loans availed between March 2022 and June 2024.
However, in a reply dated May 21, 2024, the bank rejected the request, citing an earlier order of the commission and maintaining that it is not a "public authority" under the RTI Act. Shinde filed his first appeal before the registrar of cooperative societies. The registrar's office, however, returned the appeal, stating that the bank's president was the designated first appellate authority. Left with no remedy, Shinde approached the commission with a second appeal on Aug 12, 2024.
In its defence, the Apex Bank argued that it is a cooperative society registered under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, carrying out banking business for its members in accordance with its bylaws and regulatory directions. It contended that it is neither owned, controlled, nor substantially financed by the state govt, and therefore does not fall within the definition of a "public authority" under the RTI Act. The bank also relied on earlier high court rulings and the commission's orders to argue that such cooperative institutions are outside the RTI framework and that the appeal was not maintainable.
In its observations, the commission noted that the bank was established by the registrar of cooperative societies in his official capacity and later designated as the state cooperative bank. It found that the govt has contributed to its share capital and continues to exercise significant administrative and financial control. Senior officials, including the registrar, have powers to inspect records, order audits, and conduct inquiries into the bank's functioning. The bank's audited accounts are required to be placed before the state legislature, and its operations are guided by govt policies and directions.
The commission also pointed out that govt nominees are part of the bank's management and that recent amendments to the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act have also strengthened such oversight. The bank operates within a broader cooperative credit framework, extending loans through district central cooperative banks and primary agricultural credit societies, performing functions closely aligned with governmental objectives, particularly in the agricultural sector.
The commission concluded that there exists deep control of the state over the bank. It held that the bank qualifies both as a "state" under Article 12 of the Constitution and as a "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
The commission directed the bank to immediately appoint public information officers and first appellate authorities across its offices and ensure proactive disclosure of information under the RTI Act. It also instructed the principal secretary (cooperation), chief secretary, and registrar of cooperative societies to ensure compliance with the Act without delay.
———
Roots in co-op movement
The Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank traces its roots to the cooperative movement of the erstwhile Mysore state. The movement began in 1905 with the Mysore Cooperative Societies Act, aimed at providing equitable access to credit and promoting people-centric banking. In 1915, MA Narayan Iyengar set up the Mysore Provincial Cooperative Bank to finance and supervise co-operatives, gradually becoming the apex financing hub for the sector.
The Bangalore Central Cooperative Bank, founded the same year by K Ramaswamaiah and others, operated separately. Plans to merge the two were resisted, leading the govt in 1925 to convert the provincial bank into the Mysore Provincial Cooperative Apex Bank with statewide jurisdiction. Over the decades, it shifted focus from long-term agricultural lending to housing and consumer cooperatives, adapting to economic changes.
Today, the bank operates under dual regulation of RBI and NABARD, with administrative oversight from the state's cooperation department. Audited accounts are placed before the legislature, and govt representation on the board has expanded.

SC dismisses plea on Air India crash report, questions petitioner’s ‘agenda’, Top court refuses to entertain challenge to preliminary probe findings; says remedy lies under RTI Act : By NH Digital

National Herald: New Delhi: Thursday, 2^nd April 2026.
The Supreme Court on 1 April dismissed a petition related to the preliminary investigation report into the Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad, with the bench questioning the petitioner’s intent behind the plea.

File photo from the day of the crash of the Air India Boeing
787 outside Ahmedabad airport @javedrashidINC

A bench headed by Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi expressed strong disapproval of the petition.
“What is your deep-rooted agenda? As if we don’t understand the motive,” the Chief Justice said, adding that families of victims had not approached the court while the petitioner had filed the plea.
Plea and court observations
The petitioner had challenged a 25 February order of the Delhi High Court, which rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking disclosure of the “complete sequence of events” leading to the crash in the preliminary report.
He had sought directions to modify the report of the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau to include technical details such as the timeline of engine “flame out” and fuel switch transitions.
The Supreme Court declined to entertain the request and also refused to treat the plea as a representation to authorities.
The Delhi High Court had earlier termed the PIL “highly misconceived” and held that such directions could not be granted.
It had said the petitioner could instead seek information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, adding that relevant details would be provided if permissible under law.
The case relates to the crash of Air India flight AI 171, a Boeing 787-8 aircraft bound for London Gatwick, which went down shortly after take-off from Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport on 12 June last year.
The crash killed 241 of the 242 people on board and 19 persons on the ground.
The Supreme Court’s dismissal reinforces judicial reluctance to intervene in technical investigations through PILs, particularly where alternative legal remedies such as the RTI mechanism are available.

CMDA told to pay 20K compensation to RTI applicant

The Times of India: Chennai: Thursday, 2^nd April 2026.
The state information commission has ordered Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) to release 20,000 as compensation to an RTI applicant for a delay of two years in furnishing the required information.

The public information officer of the CMDA has been directed to submit the proof of compensation received by the applicant in person on April 14 along with the copy of the information furnished by the CMDA as sought by the petitioner.
The petition originally filed in Jan 2024 by BR Jayaraj of Old Pallavaram and addressed to the special tahsildar (Chennai Outer Ring Road project) sought land acquisition details with respect to certain survey numbers.
Since there was no reply, he filed an appeal to the then appellate authority Poongodi, before filing the second appeal before the information commission in June 2024. The appeal came up for hearing before the chief information commissioner Md Shakeel Akhter on March 24, to which the present CMDA PIO Shanmugasundaram appeared in person.
Since the then PIO Manikandan had expired, the information commission directed the appellate authority to show cause for not disposing of her duty under RTI Act and submit her response on April 16. Though the present PIO submitted that a reply was furnished to the applicant in Nov 2024 with required information attached as annex, the appellant argued that there were no attachments in the reply.
Since the PIO could not produce any evidence that the response was sent with annexures, the commission concluded that the applicant did not receive the required information.
Apart from compensation, the commissioner also ordered CMDA to provide information to the applicant when he visits the office in person.

Penalty on RTI officer for delay upheld — Patna High Court, 2025 : By Aditya Kumar

Samvida Law Associates: Patna: Thursday, 2^nd April 2026.
The Patna High Court refused to cancel a Rs. 25,000 penalty imposed on a government officer under the Right to Information Act. The officer had failed to give information and did not answer a show cause notice from the State Information Commission. The Court held that the Commission’s orders were proper and reasoned. The officer must now pay the penalty to the applicant, or pay extra costs if he delays.

Case Background
This case started with an information request under the Right to Information Act, 2005. On 04.04.2012, respondent no. 4 applied for information relating to mutation applications at the Circle Office, Phulwarisarif, Patna.
At that time, another officer was posted as Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Patna and was the Public Information Officer (PIO). On 30.06.2012, that officer wrote to the Circle Officer, Phulwarisarif, asking him to give the required information. This showed that the earlier officer started the process.
On 12.07.2012, the petitioner took charge as Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Patna in place of the earlier officer. On 06.09.2012, he informed respondent no. 4 that the information should be obtained from the Circle Officer, Phulwarisarif.
Not satisfied, respondent no. 4 filed a First Appeal and then a Second Appeal before the Bihar State Information Commission. The Second Appeal was registered as Case No. 76147/2012-13. During this period, the petitioner says that the Circle Officer eventually supplied the information on 06.08.2014 and that a copy was also sent to the Commission.
Meanwhile, on 10.09.2014, the Commission issued notice to the petitioner. He was asked to explain why the information had not been given and why penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed. The petitioner remained in the post for almost eleven more months.
On 12.08.2015, the petitioner was transferred, and on 14.08.2015 he handed over charge and joined a new post in the Bihar State Housing Board. The final hearing before the Commission took place on 28.09.2015, when neither the petitioner nor respondent no. 4 was present. The Commission then passed an order imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000 under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
This penalty order, dated 28.09.2015, was communicated to the petitioner through memo no. 11920 dated 01.10.2015. The petitioner then sought review before the Commission, which was heard on 27.11.2015. The Commission refused to change its earlier order and directed that the penalty be executed. This order was communicated by memo no. 13991 dated 16.12.2015.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15830 of 2016, challenging both the orders of the Commission.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioner asked the Patna High Court to quash the penalty order dated 28.09.2015 in Case No. 76147/12-13 and all subsequent orders, including the order dated 27.11.2015 refusing review.
He argued that the information sought by respondent no. 4 was essentially available with the Circle Office, Phulwarisarif. According to him, his predecessor had already acted promptly by writing to the Circle Officer on 30.06.2012. He further said that he himself had asked respondent no. 4, by letter dated 06.09.2012, to seek the information from the Circle Officer, Phulwarisarif.
The petitioner claimed that the information was eventually given to respondent no. 4 on 06.08.2014 by the Circle Officer and that a copy was sent to the State Information Commission. He emphasised that he was transferred on 12.08.2015 and handed over charge on 14.08.2015, so he could not be present on 28.09.2015 when the Commission passed the penalty order. He submitted that his review petition was wrongly rejected, and the penalty should be set aside.
Counsel for the State Information Commission opposed the petition. She pointed out that the notice dated 10.09.2014 was issued while the petitioner was still in office. He continued as PIO for nearly eleven months after that notice.
The Commission’s counsel argued that the notice required the petitioner to reply on two points: first, why the information had not been given; and second, why penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed. There was no material on record to show that the petitioner ever filed any show cause on these points.
She further highlighted that although the petitioner claimed that the information was given to respondent no. 4 and that a copy was sent to the Commission, there was no acknowledgment or record on file to support this. In such circumstances, the Commission was justified in holding that the PIO had failed in his duty and in imposing the penalty.
The High Court carefully reviewed the records and accepted that the previous Deputy Collector, before the petitioner, had acted promptly by seeking information from the Circle Officer, Phulwarisarif. However, once the petitioner took over, the Court found that he failed to carry the matter to its logical end.
The Court noted that when respondent no. 4 filed the Second Appeal, the case was pending before the Commission and the petitioner, as PIO, was served with notice. At that stage, he should have acted in a professional manner, ensured timely supply of information, and responded to the show cause notice.
Instead, he did not submit any show cause explaining the delay or opposing the proposed penalty. Even his claim that the information had already been given was not backed by any acknowledgment from respondent no. 4 or by any proof before the Commission.
The Court then examined Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. This provision empowers the Central or State Information Commission to impose penalty on a Public Information Officer if, without reasonable cause, he refuses to receive an RTI application, fails to give information in time, denies information malafidely, gives incorrect or misleading information, destroys information, or obstructs access in any manner.
Under this section, the Commission can impose a penalty of Rs. 250 per day, subject to a maximum of Rs. 25,000, after giving the PIO a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The law also clearly says that the burden of proving that the PIO acted reasonably and diligently lies on the PIO himself.
Applying this provision, the Patna High Court held that the Commission had considered the relevant facts and only then passed its orders dated 28.09.2015 and 27.11.2015. The Commission found that repeated chances were given to the petitioner but he did not respond, nor did he provide the information in time.
Justice Rajiv Roy held that the Commission’s orders were reasoned and did not call for interference in writ jurisdiction. The Court underlined the very purpose of the RTI Act: to empower citizens to know how the Government functions, to make them active participants instead of passive subjects, and to ensure accountability of officers in a democratic setup.
The Court observed that when an officer does not provide necessary information, it defeats the very purpose for which the RTI Act was enacted. In such cases, the Commission is bound to act and enforce responsibility by imposing penalty where appropriate.
At the same time, the Court took note of one practical aspect. By the time the penalty order was passed on 28.09.2015, the petitioner was no longer posted in that office. There was also no representation before the Commission by the new incumbent PIO, so the Commission may not have been fully aware of later developments.
Considering this, the Court gave a limited relief. It directed that while the penalty of Rs. 25,000 would stand, payment of this amount and the penalty order itself would not affect the petitioner’s service career. In other words, it should not be used adversely in his service record or for future consideration.
The Court then turned to the question of payment of the penalty. It held that much time had already passed since the penalty order, and it was now “high time” for the petitioner to pay the amount. The Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 25,000 to respondent no. 4 within four weeks.
If the petitioner fails to pay within four weeks, respondent no. 4 will be entitled to an additional cost of Rs. 5,000, to be paid by the petitioner after that period. With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of as being without merit.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for all government officers who act as Public Information Officers under the RTI Act, and for citizens who use RTI to get information.
It shows that once a PIO receives an RTI application and later a notice from the Information Commission, he cannot simply ignore it or pass the responsibility to another office. He must ensure that the information is given in time and that he replies to any show cause notice.
The Patna High Court confirms that the State Information Commission has full power to impose penalty when there is delay or non-supply of information, especially when the officer does not even respond to the notice. The burden is on the officer to prove that he acted reasonably and diligently.
At the same time, the Court balanced fairness by directing that the penalty should not spoil the officer’s service record, keeping in view that he had been transferred when the final order was passed.
For citizens, this decision reinforces that the RTI Act is meant to work in practice. If an officer fails to provide information and ignores notices, the Commission and the Courts will support penalty so that the right to information remains meaningful.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Whether the Bihar State Information Commission was justified in imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the Public Information Officer under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for delayed and incomplete response to an RTI application.
Answer: Yes. The Patna High Court held that the Commission’s penalty order was based on proper reasoning, after giving repeated opportunities, and did not require interference.
Issue: Whether the petitioner’s transfer before the date of the penalty order was a valid ground to set aside the penalty.
Answer: No. The Court held that the petitioner remained in office for almost eleven months after the show cause notice and failed to reply or ensure timely supply of information. Transfer later did not erase his earlier inaction, though the Court protected his service record.
Cases Cited by the Court
No previous judicial decisions were cited or relied upon in the text of this judgment. The Court mainly referred to Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15830 of 2016
Link to Judgment: Clickhere to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court