CIC upholds denial of records on Himalayan ecosystem mission DST cites strategic sensitivity

The Week: New Delhi: Thursday, 5^Th February 2026.
Review-meeting minutes and detailed project reports related to the National Mission for Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem (NMSHE) can be withheld under the RTI Act, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has said while upholding the Department of Science and Technology's (DST) denial of such information on the ground of strategic, scientific and intellectual property concerns.

In its submissions, the DST said the NMSHE is "one of the key missions" implemented by it under the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), a national policy framework that "is reviewed by the highest authority, the Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change (PMCCC), which is chaired by the Prime Minister of India".
The department told the commission that the NMSHE supports research-and-development initiatives related to climate-change science and adaptation for the Himalayan ecosystem, which are "important not only from research perspective but also from India's strategical point of view".
It said the progress of activities under the mission is reviewed by a National Expert Committee, but the minutes of such meetings are not placed in the public domain as they "include policy discussions and interventions along with details of research endeavours which contain third-party information".
From the applicant's side, it was argued during the hearing that the information sought was not furnished and was essential for academic research. The appellant submitted that the material relating to the "NMSHE Year Wise Projects CCP-SPLICE Division should be placed in public domain for the general public".
On the denial of detailed project reports, the DST said these documents contain research and development data carrying intellectual property rights and are exempt under provisions relating to "information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party".
The CIC, after hearing both sides, said the department had adequately dealt with the RTI queries and that "in the given circumstances, intervention of the commission is not warranted under RTI Act", and disposed of the appeal.
(This story has not been edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)

HC Pulls Up MCD Over Failure To Publicise Resolutions, Records Despite 20 Years Of RTI Act

ETV Bharat: New Delhi: Thursday, 5^Th February 2026.
The court was hearing a PIL seeking the uploading of the MCD's all public information on its website.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday pulled up the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for its failure to publicise information on its legislative records, proceedings of the house and resolutions even after 20 years of the enactment of the RTI Act. A bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that section 4 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act casts a mandate on the public authorities to publicise such information on their own so that there was minimum resort to the procedure under the RTI Act, and MCD could not be given any exemption in this regard.
The court was hearing a PIL by NGO Centre for Youth, Culture, Law and Environment seeking uploading of the MCD's legislative records, proceedings of the house, resolutions passed by the standing committees and all other public information on its website in a time-bound manner.
Counsel for the MCD assured the court that corrective measures would be undertaken by the authorities, as the issue of uploading such information was under the consideration of the competent authority. He said the "process" to upload the information was "underway at the corporation level", but the same would take some time.
"Thanks to you for undertaking this exercise after 20 years. We are so thankful," retorted the bench.
"(And) What process? You are required to upload this information within 120 days and then on a regular interval. What have you been doing? This Act (RTI Act) was passed in 2005. It is 20 years down the line," the bench further said.
The court directed the MCD to file an affidavit in response to the petition and state what steps had been taken to implement section 4 of the RTI Act for providing information to the public by publishing it.
"The purpose of mandating public authorities under section 4 of the Act is apparent - that by publishing such information, the public will have minimum resort to the use of the Act as the information shall be provided suo motu by the public authorities. No exception in this regard can be granted to any authority, including the MCD," the court observed.
The petitioner told the court that in response to an RTI application, the MCD has stated that no such record had been updated on its website till now, since the work to "update" its website is going on after the unification of the three erstwhile municipal bodies.
The court was further informed that in the reply, MCD took a stand that there were no rules or guidelines that governed the publication of its resolutions on its official website, as it was governed by Section 86 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act. The court stated that section 86 had nothing to do with the dissemination of information and particulars to the public.
"Accordingly, it is apparent that the statutory mandate and the duty cast on the MCD by Section 4 of the RTI Act have yet not been followed even after lapse of 20 years," the court said. The court said it had only formed a prima facie opinion at this stage and listed the matter for further hearing in April.
The petitioner said the issue concerned millions of people residing in Delhi. "If they are so sure of the budget, why can't they upload the budget for the upcoming year on the website?" he asked. The court said the budget would be uploaded only once it was passed by the house, and added, "we should achieve what is legally permissible and possible".

Punjab State Information Commission issues warrants against Ludhiana MC official.

Times of India: Ludhiana: Thursday, 5^Th February 2026.
The Punjab State Information Commission has taken the rare step of issuing a bailable warrant against a senior municipal corporation (MC) official following a series of missed hearings in a Right to Information (RTI) appeal.

The warrant was issued against Kuljit Singh Mangat, who serves as the public information officer (PIO)-cum-assistant town planner (ATP) for the MC's building branch (Zone D). The decision comes after the official reportedly ignored multiple summons and a formal show-cause notice.
A Pattern of Non-Compliance
State information commissioner Harpreet Singh Sandhu has said the case stems from an appeal filed by Jasvir Singh of Guru Nanak Nagar, and the PIO's absence has stalled the legal process for months. Four consecutive hearings were missed. A show-cause notice issued previously to the official also went unaddressed. Under the RTI Act, the commission has the authority to compel attendance through police intervention if an officer fails to discharge their duty to provide information.
Police Intervention Mandated
In a significant move to ensure accountability, the commission has directed the Ludhiana police commissioner to personally ensure the warrant is served. "The commissioner has been ordered to not only serve a copy of these warrants on Kuljit Singh Mangat but also provide strict instructions for him to appear before the commission on the next scheduled date," commissioner Sandhu stated.
The official is now legally required to present himself before the PSIC on March 11. Failure to appear could result in further disciplinary action or financial penalties as prescribed under the Right to Information Act. The RTI Act mandates that PIOs provide requested data within 30 days. Continuous delays or refusal to attend hearings is viewed by the commission as a significant obstruction of a citizen's fundamental right to information.

MCD fails to upload info under RTI Act, draws high court’s ire

Times of India: New Delhi: Thursday, 5^Th February 2026.
Reminding Municipal Corporation of Delhi that it is 20 years since RTI Act has been enforced, Delhi High Court on Wednesday questioned why MCD had failed to proactively disseminate information relating to its legislative records, proceedings of the house and resolutions online.

A bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia underlined that Section 4 of Right to Information Act made it compulsory for authorities to act. "The purpose of mandating pu-blic authorities... is apparent that by publishing such information, the public will have minimum resort to the use of the Act, as the information shall be provided suo motu by the public authorities. No exception in this regard can be granted to any authority, including MCD," the court observed.
"You want to know the consequences of not adhering to the Act? We will tell you the consequences," the bench warned the civic body while hearing a public interest litigation by NGO Cen-tre for Youth, Culture, Law and Environment, seeking the uploading of MCD's legislative records, proceedings of the House, resolutions pas-sed by the standing committees and all other public information on its website in a time-bound manner.
Appearing for MCD, standing counsel Tushar Sannu assured the court that corrective measures would be undertaken by the authorities as the "process" to upload the information was "underway at the corporation level", but it would take some time.
"Thanks to you for undertaking this exercise after 20 years. We are so thankful," retorted the bench. "What process? You are required to upload this information within 120 days and then at regular intervals. What were you doing? This Act was passed in 2005. It is 20 years down the line," the bench pointed out.
It directed MCD to file an affidavit in response to the petition and state what steps were taken to implement the Act for providing information to the public by publishing it.
The petitioner told the court that, in response to an RTI application, MCD stated that no such record was updated on its website till now since the work to "update" its website was going on after the unification of the three erstwhile municipal bodies.
MCD took a stand that there were no rules or guidelines that governed the publication of its resolutions on its official website as it was governed by Section 86 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, the plea told the court. The bench, however, stressed that Section 86 had nothi-ng to do with the dissemination of information and particulars to the public.
The court said it formed only a prima facie opinion at this stage and listed the matter in April. The petitioner said the issue concerned millions of people residing in Delhi.

'Eureka!' moment at CIC as MCD's missing file goes from 'non-traceable' to 'available'

The Week: New Delhi: Wednesday, 4^th February 2026.

A file that was stated to be "not traceable" by the MCD in response to an RTI request "mysteriously" became available when the matter came before the Central Information Commission, prompting an amused CIC to question what had triggered the 'Eureka!' moment for the civic body.
The case relates to the information sought on records linked to a hospital layout approval in the Model Town area. Initially, the Town Planning Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) told the applicant that the file was "not available" and "not traceable". The same position was reiterated during the first appeal.
However, when the matter reached the Central Information Commission (CIC), parts of the information unexpectedly surfaced.   
Taking note of this backpedalling, Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari questioned how the file in question became "mysteriously" available after the CIC hearing notice, when two replies furnished by the record-keeper of the safe office earlier had said it could not be produced.
"Commission cannot lose sight of this diametrically opposite stand, particularly when the 'Eureka!' moment happened and what triggered it," he said.
The CIC was critical of the manner in which the request was handled, observing that "merely stating that a file is not traceable does not absolve the public information officer (PIO) of his statutory responsibilities" under the RTI framework.
It also expressed concern that official replies did not even carry basic details such as the name and contact information of the PIO, noting that such omissions were "contrary to the spirit of the RTI Act" and basic administrative transparency.
The Commission further observed that issuing internal search memos, instead of formally pursuing the information and keeping the applicant informed, appeared to have the effect of "keeping the appellant in the dark as to what all is transpiring inside the office".
In unusually strong remarks, the CIC said there was "clearly an attempt to evade disclosure of information" and cautioned that it would be a miscarriage of the RTI law if authorities could conveniently claim that records were missing, only to produce them later when scrutiny increased.
The CIC, in an order issued on Monday, directed the MCD to provide a fresh, point-wise and complete reply to the applicant within four weeks and issued a show-cause notice to the PIO, asking him to explain why penalty action should not be initiated.
(This story has not been edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)

Decode Politics: RTI journey, From ‘dawn of a new era’ to fears of ‘tool for idle curiosity’ - Written by: Shyamlal Yadav

The Indian Express: Article: Wednesday, 4^th February 2026.
Introduced in 2005, the Act has seen several amendments in the past 20 yrs, which are alleged to have weakened it. Economic Survey’s latest proposed changes will be “murder” of the landmark law, says Congress

Twenty years after the Right to Information Act was introduced, the Economic Survey 2025-26 has called for its re-examination. Tabled in Parliament last week, the survey suggested “adjustments” to exempt disclosures on deliberative process of policy-making and possibly a ministerial veto with parliamentary oversight to guard against disclosures that could “unduly constrain governance”.
The legislation, the survey said, carries risks of becoming an “end in itself”, with disclosures celebrated regardless of contribution to better governance, and said the Act was never intended “as a tool for idle curiosity,” nor as a mechanism to micromanage government from the outside.
Congress president Mallikarjuna Kharge called it a plan to “murder” the UPA-era law after its “systematic weakening” since 2014.
A look at the evolution of the Act, which was hailed as a transformative tool for democratic accountability when introduced in 2005:
The making of the RTI Act
The RTI Act in India emerged from grassroots struggles dating back to the 1970s. In 1997, in response to a demand for such legislation, the H D Deve Gowda-led United Front government set up a working group to prepare a Freedom of Information Bill. After extensive changes, this led to the passage of the Freedom of Information Act of 2002.
In 2004, the Manmohan Singh-led UPA government came to power. One of the crucial components of this government was the National Advisory Council (NAC), led by Sonia Gandhi, which made right to information one of its primary goals. Alongside civil society organisations, the NAC deliberated several revisions of the 2002 law, resulting in a more robust framework.
In 2005, the UPA government brought in the RTI Bill. During the debate in Parliament, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described its passage as “the dawn of a new era in our processes of governance… an era which will bring the common man’s concern to the heart of all processes of governance”.
The final RTI Act was passed with 150 amendments to the Freedom of Information Act, and officially came into force on October 12, 2005, applying across all levels of government, including local bodies. “The information which cannot be denied to Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person”, the Act held.
Around 20 years later, roughly 40 to 60 lakh RTI applications are filed on an average annually, from Central offices to grassroots levels.
The changes since
In 2006, still under the UPA government, there were attempts to amend the RTI Act by removing “file notings (internal notes by government officials on files)”. While these changes could not materialise due to public protests, the UPA government continued to have internal reservations.
In 2011, on the sixth anniversary of the Act, PM Manmohan Singh expressed his concern that RTI queries with “no bearing on public interest” were being filed. A year later, he spoke of the Act’s “frivolous and vexatious” use.
The Second Administrative Reforms Commission, in its report submitted around this time, recommended exempting the armed forces from the RTI Act. By then, the UPA had already exempted the CBI from its purview. Then Law Minister M Veerappa Moily approved the exemption to the CBI despite the fact that as chairman of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, he had written a special chapter on RTI, terming it ‘Master Key to Good Governance’.
Early attempts to amend the Act, however, were thwarted not just by activists but also then Opposition parties, including the BJP.
In October 2015, PM Narendra Modi, who had taken over a year earlier as head of the NDA government, hailed the RTI Act at an annual conference of the Central Information Commission, urging citizens to not only access documents but also “ask questions and demand accountability from public authorities”. This right forms “the very foundation of democracy”, he said.
However, in 2019, the Modi government brought in amendments altering the terms, tenure, and emoluments of the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Information Commissioners (ICs), which was seen as weakening the structure of the RTI.
The original Act placed the CICs and ICs on parity with equivalent ranks in the Election Commission of India meaning a fixed tenure of five years, with removal possible only under specific conditions. The 2019 amendment, however, removed equivalence with the EC, and gave the government control over the tenure, emoluments and terms of appointment of CIC and ICs.
In 2023, the NDA government brought in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act), dealing with personal information. The RTI Act had held that personal information could be disclosed if larger public interest justified it, despite potential privacy invasion. However, the new Act exempted disclosure of information relating to “personal information” more broadly.
Civil rights organisations protested against this “dilution” of the RTI Act.
Why the worry
The Economic Survey’s remarks come at a time when the RTI Act is increasingly seen as under siege. The Act defines “information” expansively to include any material in any form – records, documents, emails, opinions, reports, data in electronic form, and even information held by private bodies accessible under other laws. Despite this broad scope, obtaining disclosures has grown difficult, as noted by various activists.
One example of how the Act remains unenforced is the CIC’s June 2013 order declaring six national political parties (Congress, BJP, CPI (M), CPI, NCP, BSP) as “public authorities” under the Act. Neither the BJP nor the Congress has complied with this, failing to appoint Public Information Officers or respond to requests.
As per an October 2025 appraisal report of information commissions by Satark Nagrik Sangathan, till June 30 last year, 4.13 lakh appeals and complaints were pending before 29 information commissions.
What Economic Survey has said
The Economic Survey suggests exempting brainstorming notes, working papers, and draft comments until they form part of the final record of decision-making, protection of service records, transfers, and confidential staff reports. It also suggests exploring a “narrowly defined” ministerial veto to guard against disclosures that could “unduly constrain governance”.
The survey also draws parallels between the RTI Act and similar laws in the US, UK and Sweden, and argues that unlike the Indian Act, internal personnel rules, inter-agency memos, and financial regulations are exempt from disclosures internationally. If every draft or remark is disclosed, officials may “hold back”, leading to fewer “bold ideas”, the survey says. “Democracy best functions when officials can deliberate freely and are then held accountable… not for every half-formed thought expressed along the way.”
Transparency campaigner Anjali Bharadwaj, co-convenor of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, has questioned this, saying issues flagged over impact on officials are not borne out by evidence, and that the Act already has a robust mechanism on exempting certain disclosures.
(Shyamlal Yadav is one of the pioneers of the effective use of RTI for investigative reporting. He is a member of the Investigative Team. His reporting on polluted rivers, foreign travel of public servants, MPs appointing relatives as assistants, fake journals, LIC’s lapsed policies, Honorary doctorates conferred to politicians and officials, Bank officials putting their own money into Jan Dhan accounts and more has made a huge impact. He is member of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). He has been part of global investigations like Paradise Papers, Fincen Files, Pandora Papers, Uber Files and Hidden Treasures. After his investigation in March 2023 the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York returned 16 antiquities to India. Besides investigative work, he keeps writing on social and political issues.)

Son-in-Law Cannot Access Father-in-Law’s Salary, Loans or Property Under RTI: UP Information Commission

Law Chakra: Uttar Pradesh: Wednesday, 4^th February 2026.
The Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission ruled that a son-in-law cannot seek personal details of his father-in-law under the RTI Act. The Commission held RTI cannot be misused to invade privacy or collect material for private disputes.

The Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission has determined that a son-in-law is not entitled to access personal information about his father-in-law such as salary, loans, and assets under the RTI Act.
State Information Commissioner Mohammed Nadeem, in an order dated January 7, stated,
“The objective of the RTI Act is not to gather evidence for private lawsuits, nor does this law permit unwarranted interference in a person’s privacy.”
The case involves Kulwant Singh, who requested details regarding his father-in-law, Rishipal Singh, a retired revenue inspector, to use the information in a dowry case initiated by his wife. Kulwant filed his RTI application on July 27, 2025, with the Tehsildar of Najibabad in Bijnor district, seeking financial information about his father-in-law up until his retirement on January 1, 2015.
After not receiving the requested information, Kulwant appealed to the State Information Commission, asking for the Public Information Officer to be directed to provide the details. Reports indicate that Kulwant was accused by his wife of demanding a dowry of Rs 26 lakh, prompting him to seek information on his father-in-law’s financial status, including salary, GPF (General Provident Fund), loans, advances, and details of his movable and immovable properties.
Kulwant argued that since the individual in question is not an outsider but his father-in-law, the requested information was essential for the dowry-related case to ascertain whether the alleged dowry of Rs 26 lakh could have been realistically offered given his father-in-law’s finances.
In addressing the case, Commissioner Mohammad Nadeem noted that the Supreme Court has clarified in various rulings that salary details, income tax records, provident fund information, loans, family details, and property-related information are categorized as personal data that are generally not disclosed under the RTI Act.
The bench stated,
“Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that the argument of being a son-in-law or seeking information for use in a lawsuit cannot be considered a larger public interest under the RTI Act,”
It further emphasized that,
“the objective of the RTI Act is not to gather evidence for private lawsuits, nor does this law permit unwarranted interference in a person’s privacy.”
The bench advised that if Kulwant feels it is necessary to obtain such information for his defense, the proper course would be to pursue it in the court where his case is ongoing. He can procure this information through legal avenues, and if deemed necessary, the court may instruct the relevant department to provide it.
Ultimately, the bench found that ordering this information at their level did not align with the principles of the Right to Information Act, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Man files RTI appeal for dad-in-law’s financial worth in dowry case

Times of India: Lucknow: Wednesday, 4^th February 2026.
After a woman accused her husband of taking Rs26 lakh as dowry, the latter sought information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act about his father-in-law's financial worth to know if his wife's father had the financial capacity, or "haisiyat", to give that much dowry. The state information commission (SIC), however, denied the information on the grounds that it was "personal".

The appellant in this case needed information for his divorce case, which was ongoing in another court. Information commissioner (IC) Mohammad Nadeem said that being a son-in-law does not entitle him to obtain his father-in-law's personal information.
"The purpose of the RTI Act is not to gather evidence for private litigation, nor does this law permit unwarranted interference with a person's privacy," said Nadeem.
After the wife's accusation of taking Rs26 lakh as dowry, the man sought details of his father-in-law's salary, GPF, loans, advances and movable and immovable assets under the RTI to determine his financial status.
He argued that he was seeking information about his father-in-law and was not an outsider, and that the information was crucial for him in a dowry-related lawsuit to determine whether the person allegedly offering Rs26 lakh in dowry was capable of paying such a large sum.
The appellant, Kulwant Singh submitted an application under the RTI Act to the tehsildar of Najibabad in Bijnor district in July 2025 because his father-in-law was the revenue inspector in the tehsil.
After he did not get the information, he filed an appeal in the SIC.
Hearing the case, the bench headed by IC Mohammad Nadeem said that the Supreme Court clarified in several important judgments that salary details, income tax records, provident fund details, loans, family details and property information clearly fall under the category of personal information, which cannot generally be provided under the RTI Act.
Consequently, the commission was of the opinion that the plea of being a son-in-law, or seeking information for use in a lawsuit, cannot be considered a "large public interest" under the RTI Act. The bench clarified that the purpose of the RTI Act is not to gather evidence for private litigation, nor does the law permit unwarranted interference with an individual's privacy.
The bench said that if the applicant finds it necessary to gather such information for his or her defence, the appropriate forum is the court where his or her case is pending. He or she may legally disclose all this information before the court. An application can be made to the relevant department to obtain it, and if the court deems it necessary, it can order the relevant department to provide all this information on its own.

Plastic waste disposal a matter of 'significant public importance' CIC as it pulls up CPCB

The Week: New Delhi: Tuesday, 3^rd February 2026.
New Delhi, Feb 2 (PTI) The Central Information Commission has said matters concerning the implementation of guidelines for disposal of thermoset plastic waste are of "significant public importance" as it has serious environmental implications.

In an order, Information Commissioner P R Ramesh reprimanded the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) for repeated failures to provide details under the Right to Information (RTI) Act on action taken regarding the enforcement of guidelines for disposal of thermoset plastic waste, including fibre reinforced plastic (FRP).
Thermoset plastics can not be remelted or reshaped once set, and their disposal is considered highly difficult.   
"The issues raised by the appellant are of significant public importance, and appropriate action is required to ensure effective and transparent implementation of the guidelines issued by the CPCB," the Central Information Commission (CIC) observed.
The CIC noted that despite clear directions from the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the CPCB failed to furnish point-wise replies to multiple RTI applications and did not allow inspection of records in several cases.
Admonishing the conduct of the then Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), the Commission said it amounted to a "gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act", adding that such conduct reflected a "casual behaviour of officers towards RTI applications".
The CIC also stated in its order dated January 30 that the waste disposal guidelines were framed pursuant to directions of the National Green Tribunal, making their implementation critical for environmental protection and public interest.
Directing corrective action, the Commission ordered the CPCB to "re-examine the matter and furnish a revised point-wise reply strictly as per the provisions of the RTI Act" within four weeks.
It also directed the authority to "afford an opportunity of inspection of relevant records" to the appellant on a mutually decided date and time.
Emphasising transparency in environmental governance, the CIC said accountability in the enforcement of plastic waste management norms is essential in the interest of the public at large.
(This story has not been edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)

RTI Commission: Release of three foreign loan deals ordered - BY Buddhika Samaraweera

The Morning: Sri Lanka: Tuesday, 3^rd February 2026.
The Right to Information (RTI) Commission has ordered the External Resources Department (ERD) to release three external loan agreements that were previously withheld from public access.

The rulings were issued as final orders on two appeals filed separately by journalist Tharindu Iranga Jayawardhana and economist Dr. M. Sarvanathan against the ERD. The Commission’s decisions mark the first instance in which it has explicitly directed the full disclosure of external loan agreements, rejecting the position that such agreements are exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act, No. 12 of 2016.
The appeals related to requests for copies of loan agreements entered into by the Government of Sri Lanka for major development projects, including water supply schemes, university development, road construction, and port-related infrastructure. The ERD had declined to release the documents, citing confidentiality clauses and stating that disclosure could affect Sri Lanka’s international relations (IR) and the debt restructuring process.
After extensive hearings, the Commission rejected those arguments, ruling that the ERD had failed to follow the procedure set out in the RTI Act and had not demonstrated that disclosure would cause serious harm. The Commission stated that access to information relating to public debt and financial commitments is a constitutional right, particularly in the context of the country’s economic crisis.
Under the first appeal, the Commission ordered the release of two loan agreements linked to the Gampaha–Attanagalla–Minuwangoda Water Supply Project and the South Eastern University Development Project (Phase 1B). Under the second appeal, it directed the ERD to release the loan agreement for the Katana Water Supply Project, signed in 2017 with the China Development Bank, on or before 27 February of this year (2026).
Jayawardhana told the Commission there were allegations of fraud and the misuse of funds linked to several projects financed through external borrowing. He said that loans were taken for development projects, but that doubts persist over how the money was used and whether the intended outcomes were delivered. He also said the public has a right to know how these loans were negotiated, the terms attached to them, and how the funds were spent, particularly since the burden of repayment ultimately falls on the people. He referred to issues that emerged during Sri Lanka’s 2023 debt restructuring process and matters discussed in the related Supreme Court (SC) proceedings.
The Commission accepted these submissions and noted that the release of loan agreements serves a clear public interest. It pointed out that public funds are used to service these loans and that findings by the Auditor General have highlighted irregularities in projects financed through such borrowing. The Commission further referred to the International Monetary Fund’s 2023 report on debt restructuring and observations made by the SC on the economic downturn.
The Commission warned that the failure to comply with its orders could result in relevant legal proceedings against the Information Officer and the relevant public authority of the ERD under the RTI Act.

Information Commission orders ELCITA to name PIOs within a month

Deccan Herald: Bengaluru: Tuesday, 3^rd February 2026.
The commission has also directed the Urban Development Department (UDD) to ensure that ELCITA complies with the order within a month.

Ruling that the Electronics City Industrial Township Area (ELCITA) is both a state authority and a public authority, the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) has directed its management to immediately appoint Public Information Officers (PIOs) and First Appellate Authorities (FAAs) in accordance with Section 5 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The commission has also directed the Urban Development Department (UDD) to ensure that ELCITA complies with the order within a month.
In his order, State Information Commissioner Rajashekara S directed officials, including the Chief Secretary of Karnataka, not to issue letters exempting any authority from the purview of the RTI Act. “Any violation should be dealt with through disciplinary action under the Karnataka Civil Services Rules,” the commissioner's order said.
The direction was issued while hearing an appeal filed by Naveen Kumar, who had sought information on property taxes fixed by ELCITA for companies, commercial buildings, housingmcomplexes and plots within its jurisdiction.

BPL student seeks info by RTI, discom tells him to pay 4L fee

Times of India: Jabalpur: Tuesday, 3^rd February 2026.
A BPL card holder seeking information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act was asked to deposit over Rs 4 lakh as a fee by a power distribution company office here, prompting intervention by the Madhya Pradesh State Human Rights Commission.

Law student Aman Vanshkar sought certified details of regular and outsourced employees, as well as registered consumers, under the Manegaon Pipariya DC of Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company's north circle in Jabalpur.
Along with his RTI application, Vanshkar submitted documents clearly stating that he belonged to a below poverty line (BPL) family, which entitled applicants to seek information free of cost under the RTI Act.
However, the public information officer and assistant engineer concerned issued a written notice asking him to deposit Rs 4.08 lakh to obtain the information. Aggrieved, Vanshkar approached the State Human Rights Commission, alleging violation of provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. As per Section 7(5) of the Act, no fee is chargeable from BPL applicants for seeking information.
Taking serious note of the complaint, the State Human Rights Commission directed the Jabalpur district collector to conduct a fair inquiry into the matter and ensure appropriate action. The commission also sought a report on the entire issue, officials said. The case raised questions over adherence to RTI norms by govt departments and the treatment of economically weaker applicants seeking information under the transparency law.

Ideal, not idle: Editorial on the Economic Survey’s stance on RTI

Telegraph India: Editorial: Tuesday, 3^rd February 2026.
The RTI is not an indulgence granted by the State but a mechanism through which sovereignty is exercised by citizens. Any attempt to dilute it weakens the democratic compact itself

The Economic Survey’s suggestion that the Right to Information Act should be reviewed, coupled with its characterisation of information-seeking as idle curiosity, places unmistakable institutional pressure on a law that lies at the heart of India’s democratic architecture. The Survey, it must be pointed out, is not a detached policy note; its arguments signal the government’s priorities and legitimise future interventions. This adds an ominous element to the Economic Survey’s take on the RTI. Notably, any evidence showing that the RTI Act has impaired decision-making is absent from the Survey.
But then scepticism towards transparency is not new. Governments in India have rarely embraced the spirit of the RTI with enthusiasm. Even the United Progressive Alliance, which had enacted the law, expressed misgivings about its use. The former prime minister, Manmohan Singh, warned that “frivolous” and “vexatious” requests could drain administrative resources and served little public purpose. The National Democratic Alliance, the UPA’s successor, has been only too happy to continue with this culture of assault. In 2019, the Narendra Modi government brought out an amendment that permitted the Centre to set the terms, salary and tenure of the chief information commissioner and his/her lieutenants, thereby striking a blow at the autonomy of these office holders. There is thus a deep unease within the political executive about the redistributing of informational power from the State to citizens.
What explains the persistent attempts to weaken the RTI is perhaps its centrality to democratic practice. The law operationalises the constitutional promise that citizens are not passive recipients of governance but active participants in its oversight. Democracy depends on informed consent. Elections lose much of their meaning if citizens are denied the information necessary to assess how decisions are made, how resources are allocated, and whether power is exercised fairly. The RTI Act addresses this by enabling citizens to trace policy evolution, detect arbitrariness, expose corruption, and demand explanations for administrative action or inaction. In doing so, it strengthens accountability mechanisms beyond courts and legislatures, which are often distant or slow-moving. Equally important, transparency under the RTI Act fosters institutional discipline. Officials, aware that records may be scrutinised, are incentivised to adhere to procedure and reasoned decision-making. This is the opposite of weakening governance. The Economic Survey risks normalising the idea that democratic scrutiny is expendable when weighed against administrative convenience. Such an approach misunderstands misconstrues the role of transparency in a constitutional democracy. The RTI is not an indulgence granted by the State but a mechanism through which sovereignty is exercised by citizens. Any attempt to dilute it weakens the democratic compact itself.

जनसत्ता संपादकीय: क्या आर्थिक समीक्षा के सुझावों से कमजोर होगा ‘सूचना का अधिकार’ कानून?

Jansatta: Editorial: Monday, 02 February 2026.
इस कानून के तहत देश का हर नागरिक सरकारी विभाग और संस्थाओं से उनके कामकाज, योजनाओं एवं उनके प्रभाव, वित्तीय स्थिति तथा नियमों आदि की जानकारी मांग सकता है।

सूचना का अधिकार (आरटीआइ) कानून ने देश में लोकतंत्र की नींव को और मजबूत किया है। इसका मुख्य उद्देश्य शासन के कामकाज में पारदर्शिता लाना और जवाबदेही तय करना है। यह देश के नागरिकों को अधिकार देता है कि वे सरकारी तंत्र और उसके कार्यों की जानकारी हासिल कर सकते हैं। यानी यह कानून सरकार और जनता के बीच सूचना के सेतु के रूप में काम करता है और परस्पर भरोसे का निर्माण करता है।
भ्रष्टाचार पर अंकुश लगाने और दोषियों को कानून के कठहरे में लाने की प्रक्रिया में भी इसकी महती भूमिका है। स्वस्थ लोकतांत्रिक व्यवस्था के लिए जरूरी इन विशेषताओं में अगर कमी या कटौती की जाती है, तो निश्चित तौर पर यह कानून कमजोर होगा। यह मसला इसलिए चर्चा का विषय बन गया है, क्योंकि संसद में हाल में पेश की गई आर्थिक समीक्षा रपट में आरटीआइ कानून का फिर से अध्ययन करने की वकालत की गई है।
तर्क दिए गए हैं कि इस कानून में कुछ ऐसे प्रावधान किए जाने की जरूरत महसूस की जा रही है, ताकि गोपनीय रपट और मसविदों को सार्वजनिक किए जाने से छूट प्राप्त की जा सके। गौरतलब है कि लंबे समय से सूचना के अधिकार की मांग के मद्देनजर वर्ष 2005 इससे संबंधित कानून को लागू किया गया था। इसके तहत देश का हर नागरिक सरकारी विभाग और संस्थाओं से उनके कामकाज, योजनाओं एवं उनके प्रभाव, वित्तीय स्थिति तथा नियमों आदि की जानकारी मांग सकता है।
संबंधित अधिकारी तय समय के भीतर यह सूचना उपलब्ध कराने के लिए बाध्य होते हैं। मगर समय के साथ सरकारी तंत्र की उदासीनता, लापरवाही और निहित स्वार्थों के कारण जानकारी छिपाने के प्रयासों से इस कानून की प्रभावशीलता में कमी देखी गई है, जो चिंता का विषय है। ऐसे में आर्थिक समीक्षा रपट में सूचना के अधिकारों का फिर से अध्ययन करने और कुछ मामलों मे छूट हासिल करने की वकालत ने चिंता के स्तर को और बढ़ा दिया है।
एक तरफ सरकार जब अपने कामकाज में ‘पारदर्शिता लाने’ और भ्रष्टाचार को लेकर ‘कतई बर्दाश्त नहीं करने’ की नीति अपनाने पर जोर देती हो और दूसरी तरफ सूचना के अधिकारों को सीमित करने का प्रयास किया जाए, तो यह नीति और नीयत के बीच विरोधा भास पैदा करता है।
आर्थिक समीक्षा में यह भी उल्लेख किया गया है कि आरटीआइ अधिनियम का मकसद कभी भी इसे व्यर्थ की जिज्ञासा का जरिया बनाने का नहीं था, न ही इसका उद्देश्य बाहर बैठकर सरकार के हर छोटे-छोटे काम में दखल देना या उसे नियंत्रित करना था।
यह बात सही है कि बिना कारण या सरकार के कामकाज में किसी सुनियोजित तरीके से बाधा उत्पन्न करने के लिए इस कानून का सहारा लेना उचित नहीं है। मगर सवाल यह है कि इस तरह आरटीआइ कानून का दुरुपयोग करने वालों की तादाद कितनी होगी? जाहिर है, इसमें कुछ खास वर्ग के चंद लोग ही शामिल होंगे, पर क्या उन पर अंकुश लगाने के लिए सभी नागरिकों के सूचना के अधिकार को सीमित किया जाना चाहिए?
इस कानून में पहले से ऐसे कई प्रावधान मौजूद हैं, जिनके तहत राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा, संप्रभुता, जांच प्रक्रिया और व्यक्तिगत गोपनीयता समेत अन्य संवेदनशील मसलों की जानकारी सार्वजनिक नहीं की जा सकती। अब अगर सूचना को रोकने के और प्रावधान किए जाते हैं, तो इससे यह कानून वास्तव में कमजोर होगा और इसका मकसद भी अधूरा ही रह जाएगा।

Mumbai News: Lawyers Slam CIC Order Barring Advocates From Using RTI For Client Matters

Free Press Journal: Mumbai: Monday, 02 February 2026.
Members of the legal fraternity have strongly criticised a Central Information Commission order barring advocates from using the RTI Act in matters handled for clients. Senior lawyers said the ruling misreads the law & undermines transparency.

Legal fraternity criticises CIC ruling restricting advocates from
seeking information under the RTI Act for cases handled on behalf of
clients | File Pic (Representative Image)

A recent order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) barring advocates from using the Right to Information (RTI) Act in matters they are handling for clients has drawn strong criticism from members of the legal fraternity, who say the ruling misconstrues the purpose and scope of the transparency law.
CIC order and rationale
The CIC dismissed a second appeal filed by an advocate in a contractual dispute involving a Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya in Haryana, holding that a “practising advocate cannot seek information relating to the cases instituted by him on behalf of his client.”
Citing a Madras High Court ruling, the commission said permitting lawyers to seek such information would not further the objectives of the RTI Act and could turn it into a tool for advancing legal practice.
Senior advocate Jamshed Mistry said the approach overlooks the historical context of the RTI Act. Before its enactment, litigants often had to approach high courts simply to obtain basic information from public authorities.
“Very often, the first prayer in writ petitions, particularly in public interest litigation, was to seek directions to furnish information that was being denied,” he said, noting that this led to delays and unnecessary use of judicial time.
He added that the RTI Act was meant to provide a statutory, citizen-friendly mechanism to avoid such situations and stressed that the Madras High Court ruling relied upon by the CIC is not final and can be challenged before the Supreme Court.
Locus standi debate
Advocate Aditya Pratap said the CIC’s reasoning runs contrary to the plain language of the Act. He pointed to Section 6(2), which states that an applicant is not required to give any reason for seeking information. “By denying information because the applicant is an advocate acting for a client, the commission has introduced the concept of locus standi, which the RTI Act does not recognise,” he said.
Pratap also cited Supreme Court rulings that recognise the right to information as part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). “If information does not fall under the exemptions in Section 8, it cannot be denied based on who seeks it,” he said, warning that additional restrictions would be unconstitutional.
Impact on accountability
Advocate Siddh Vidya said the order risks weakening the RTI framework by ignoring practical realities. While the law is available to all citizens, she said the process often requires legal expertise. “Advocates act as facilitators of a citizen’s right to know, not as proxy litigants,” she said.
Vidya noted that several public interest litigations exposing administrative lapses have stemmed from RTI applications filed by lawyers. “Barring advocates from using the RTI Act reduces it from a tool of accountability to a hollow formality and shields public authorities from scrutiny,” she said.

आरटीआई एक्ट के तहत जानकारी प्राप्त करने बीपीएल कार्ड धारक से मांगे चार लाख, कार्रवाई के निर्देश

Amar Ujala: Jabalpur: Monday, 02 February 2026.
आरटीआई के तहत बीपीएल कार्डधारी से चार लाख रुपये मांगने का मामला सामने आया है। राज्य मानव अधिकार आयोग ने इसे गंभीर मानते हुए जबलपुर कलेक्टर को कार्रवाई के निर्देश दिए। कानून के अनुसार बीपीएल हितग्राहियों को सूचना निशुल्क देना अनिवार्य है।

सूचना के अधिकार के तहत जानकारी प्रदान करने बीपीएल कार्ड धारक से चार लाख रुपये की मांग की गई। जिसे गंभीरता से लेते हुए राज्य मानव अधिकार आयोग ने जिला कलेक्टर को कार्रवाई के निर्देश दिए थे। सूचना के अधिकार के तहत बीपीएल कार्डधारियों को निशुल्क जानकारी प्रदान करने का प्रावधान है।
लॉ छात्र अमन वंशकार ने मध्य प्रदेश पूर्व क्षेत्र विद्युत वितरण कंपनी के नगर वृत उत्तर संभाग जबलपुर के अंतर्गत आने वाले मानेगांव पिपरिया डीसी में पदस्थ नियमित तथा आउट सोर्स कर्मचारी तथा पंजीकृत उपभोक्ता की प्रमाणित प्रति सूचना के अधिकार के तहत मांगी थी। आवेदक ने बीपीएल परिवार का सदस्य होने का स्पष्ट लेख एवं प्रमाण-पत्र आवेदन के साथ प्रस्तुत किए थे।
विभागीय सूचना अधिकारी व सहायक अभियंता ने सूचना के अधिकार के तहत जानकारी प्रदान करने के लिए चार लाख आठ सौ पचास रुपये जमा करने के लिए लिखित रूप से कहा गया। इस संबंध में आवेदन ने राज्य मानव अधिकार आयोग से शिकायत की गई थी। शिकायत में कहा गया था कि सूचना के अधिकार 2005 की धारा 7 5 में प्रावधान है कि बीपीएल परिवार के सदस्य से बीपीएल परिवार के सदस्य को सूचना व आवेदन शुल्क देय नहीं होगा। आवेदन में स्पष्ट लेख तथा प्रमाण-पत्र प्रस्तुत करने के बावजूद भी उससे जानकारी प्रदान करने चार लाख रुपये की लिखित में मांग की गई है। राज्य मानव अधिकार आयोग ने शिकायत को गंभीरता से लेते हुए कलेक्टर जबलपुर को कार्रवाई कर निराकरण करने निर्देश जारी किए हैं।

CIC, Public Enterprises Selection Board get Rs 39.14 crore allocation in Union Budget

Devdiscourse: New Delhi: Monday, 02 February 2026.
The Central Information Commission CIC and the Public Enterprises Selection Board PESB have been allocated Rs 39.14 crore in the Union Budget 2026-27, a nominal increase of around Rs 3 crore from the revised estimate of Rs 36.94 crore for 2025-26.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) and the Public Enterprises Selection Board (PESB) have been allocated Rs 39.14 crore in the Union Budget 2026-27, a nominal increase of around Rs 3 crore from the revised estimate of Rs 36.94 crore for 2025-26.
However, the Budget Estimate for the CIC and PESB in 2025-26 was higher at Rs 42.49 crore. According to the Budget documents presented by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, the provision is meant for establishment-related expenditure of the Central Information Commission and the Public Enterprises Selection Board. In Budget parlance, the allocations made at the time of presentation of the annual Budget are known as Budget Estimates (BE), while the updated figures, reflecting changes in revenue and expenditure during the course of the financial year, are referred to as Revised Estimates (RE).
The government has also earmarked Rs 3.5 crore for the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) for the propagation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, which is Rs 50 lakh higher than the Rs 3 crore provided in the revised estimates for the current fiscal. The CIC was constituted with effect from October 12, 2005, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and its jurisdiction extends over all central public authorities.
The commission exercises powers and performs functions under the RTI Act, including adjudication of second appeals, inquiries into complaints, directions for record management and suo motu disclosures, imposition of penalties, and preparation of annual reports. Its decisions are final and binding. The Public Enterprises Selection Board is a high-powered body constituted through a government resolution dated March 3, 1987, for a sound managerial policy for Central Public Sector Enterprises and to advise the government on appointments to top management posts in these entities.