CIC Opens 4-Year Gandhi Smriti Fund and Spending Records for Inspection.

Deccan Chronicle: New Delhi: Saturday, October 02, 2026.

The applicant had sought details of funds provided by the ministry to the samiti during the four years, year-wise and item-wise details of expenditure, and certified copies of its audit reports.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has allowed an RTI applicant to inspect four years of "voluminous" financial records of the Gandhi Smriti and Darshan Samiti after he sought details of funds received from the Ministry of Culture, expenditure incurred and audit reports.

The person alleged that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) subsequently directed the CPIO to provide the information, holding that it could not be denied as third-party information since it was not personal. During the CIC hearing, the CPIO said the samiti provided a revised reply in compliance with the FAA's order. He said the relevant annual accounts are already available in the public domain and that the applicant was offered an inspection of records since it was voluminous.

The applicant did not avail the opportunity, the CPIO said. Information Commissioner P R Ramesh observed that since the information is already in the public domain, the CPIO can tell the applicant how it could be accessed. "Where information is already available in the public domain, the CPIO may appropriately intimate the applicant about the manner in which such information can be accessed," the commissioner said

However, in the interest of transparency and effective access to information, the CIC gave the applicant four weeks to approach the respondent office to inspect the records. The CIC said that the copies of documents sought during the inspection be provided free of cost up to 20 pages, while prescribed fees may be charged for additional pages. The CPIO was also allowed to withhold or redact third-party information or other material exempt from disclosure under Section 8 of the RTI Act, read with Section 10, while facilitating inspection and providing copies.

Incomplete RTI info even after 6 years: Haryana panel orders Rs 10k relief for PFA trustee, probe.

Times of India : Chandigadh: Saturday, October 02, 2026. 

The Haryana State Information Commission has ordered the Faridabad municipal corporation to pay Rs 10,000 compensation to animal welfare activist and People for Animals (PFA) trustee Gauri Maulekhi for failing to provide complete information under the Right to Information Act for more than six years.

State information commissioner Ajay Kumar Sura, in a Sept 11 order, also directed the Faridabad municipal commissioner to conduct a departmental inquiry into officials responsible for the “prolonged delay” and non-compliance with the commission’s directions.

Maulekhi had filed an RTI application on Dec 23, 2020, seeking information on compliance with Animal Birth Control Rules, 2001. The information included details of the civic body’s monitoring and implementation committee, a master plan for animal birth control, the agency engaged for the programme and steps taken to promote the adoption of Indian dogs.

The commission noted that despite repeated directions between Dec 2021 and June 2026, complete and satisfactory information had not been provided. It also found that information supplied on one of the points was incomplete.

The commission said the application had effectively been “shuttled from one wing/department to another”. It also described responses of the SPIOs as “insufficient” and “evasive”.

The commission said prolonged delay defeated the purpose of the RTI mechanism. “The right to information cannot be rendered illusory by administrative delay. Timely disclosure is an essential component of the statutory right conferred by the RTI Act, and repeated disregard of the lawful directions of the commission cannot be countenanced,” wrote the commission.

The commission also directed the additional chief secretary of urban local bodies to ensure effective institutional mechanisms for timely disposal of RTI applications and appeals across municipal corporations, councils and committees in the state.

TMC engineer summoned over RTI delay.

Mumbai Mirror: N. Ganesh: Mumbai: Saturday, October 02, 2026.

The State Information Commission directs police to serve summons after officer fails to provide records on Vartak Nagar redevelopment.

The State Information Commission has summoned a Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) officer to appear before it for an enquiry after he allegedly failed to provide information as directed and did not appear for a subsequent hearing.

State Information Commissioner Shekar Channe of the Konkan division was peeved that executive engineer Sandeep Sawant did not provide the information ordered by the commission on June 15 and also failed to appear before it during the subsequent proceeding.

Channe has directed the Thane police commissioner’s office and the senior police inspector of Vartak Nagar police station to serve the summons on Sawant. The summons has been issued under Section 18(3)(c) of the RTI Act, 2005. Sawant is an executive engineer with the Lokmanya Nagar/Savarkar Nagar ward.

The matter relates to 127 families from Vartak Nagar who claim they were rendered homeless after the redevelopment of buildings where they had lived for several decades. The residents allege that they were deprived of their homes due to the “connivance of TMC and MHADA”.

The RTI appeal arose from an application filed by Salil Rane with the TMC regarding the redevelopment of MHADA buildings 54, 55 and 56 at Vartak Nagar. Rane had sought copies of all communications from 1970 related to the procurement of the buildings from MHADA as service quarters.

The query was based on a claim made by the TMC before the high court that the three buildings had been procured from MHADA as service quarters.When contacted, Sawant said he had not received the summons.

“The reason they are unable to provide the communication regarding the procurement of the three MHADA buildings as service quarters is because it doesn’t exist. TMC is weaving a story that these were service quarters and yet it is not denying that there were residents whose members were not civic employees residing in these buildings,” said Sudhir Parab, one of the residents fighting for their homes.

The Mirror had reported on March 17, that residents of the three buildings were housed there after being uprooted during a road widening project undertaken in the 1970s. The then civic body allotted tenements in the three buildings to project-affected persons (PAPs) as well as civic employees.

However, during the redevelopment process, TMC conveyed to MHADA that the buildings were occupied only by civic staff. MHADA, which owns the land, subsequently gave its approval accordingly.

Under the conditions laid down by MHADA for redevelopment of service quarters, the erstwhile PAPs were allotted rooms which they could neither sell nor rent out.

The High Court, too, in its order, observed that occupants of the MHADA buildings who had approached the court were yet to be rehabilitated.

‘PM Modi’s degree personal information’: Gujarat High Court rejects Kejriwal plea: Written by: Somya Panwar

Indian Express: New Delhi: Thursday, 1^st October 2026.
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed Arvind Kejriwal's appeal in the case seeking disclosure of PM Modi’s educational qualifications, holding that such details are protected personal information under the RTI Act.

The Gujarat High Court has ruled that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s degree is personal information that cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and dismissed a plea filed by former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal seeking details of the PM’s educational qualifications.
The September 29 ruling passed by Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D N Ray held that just because personal information about the educational degree sought was that of the Prime Minister of the country, it does not mean that the said information would automatically fall “within the purview of ambit, or the public interest or larger public interest”, the exception to the exemptions under Section 8 (1)(e) and (j) of the Act.
Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, provide legal exemptions that allow public authorities to refuse the disclosure of information involving fiduciary relationships and personal privacy.
“The fact that the information about the educational degree of the Prime Minister is already in the public domain, as noted by the CIC (Central Information Commission), has no relevance in so far as the consideration of obligations under the RTI Act,” the order added.
Appearing for Kejriwal, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, assisted by advocate Amum K Kotwal, challenged the remarks made by the single judge that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader had continued the case despite Gujarat University having already put the degrees on its website. He also sought removal of the Rs 25,000 cost imposed on Kejriwal.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Gujarat University, opposed Kejriwal’s plea and defended the single judge’s order, including the observations and cost imposed on him.
The court said statutory authorities and courts should not be treated as a public platform to ventilate political vengeance. It added that a political leader holding public office cannot use legal proceedings for their political motives.
The court stated that the RTI Act envisages access to information held by public authorities, with the right to seek specific information available to a person seeking it under the Act. In the absence of a proper request in writing submitted to the public information officer of the concerned public authority, there is no question for any authority established under the RTI Act, 2005, to provide any information to anyone. 
The bench said that the directions of the information commissioner requiring the PMO to provide the specific number and year of the degree and PG degree to the Delhi University and Gujarat University office to facilitate the university to search and provide any documents relating to it, and further directing the public information officer of the Delhi University and the Gujarat University (the original petitioner) to search for the information regarding the degrees and provide them to the appellant, were “directly hit by Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005”.
“None of the information directed to be disclosed can be said to be necessary for disclosure in public interest or larger public interest,” it said.
The bench went on to add, “Even a public servant being a citizen of the country cannot be compelled to disclose his personal information to the public merely because he is holding a public office or is a public servant, unless and until there is an obligation upon him to disclose or the public authority with whom the information is available is obliged to disclose under the RTI Act, 2005.”

Fill Tamil Nadu Info Commission, improve RTI compliance

New Indian Express: Editorial: Thursday, 1^st October 2026.
The TVK is a young party. Its stated commitment to running a transparent, non-corrupt government can only be realised by facilitating a better flow of information

Hours after the order came to light, the state government revoked it following political outcry ( Photo | Express)

When the Right to Information Act was passed in 2005, it was widely recognised as a landmark law aimed at increasing transparency in government. In the 21 years since, governments across the country have found ways to wriggle out of compliance through wordplay, wilful obfuscation and long delays. Yet, even in this context, the Tamil Nadu government’s recent attempt to exempt the law and order department from the Act is egregious. The state’s government order dated September 21 invoked Section 24 (4) of the RTI Act to designate the department as an ‘intelligence and security organisation’ to exempt it from information requests. Hours after the order came to light, the four-month-old TVK government revoked it following an outcry from political parties including its allies and civil society activists.
However, before its revocation, the government sought to defend the move as merely shielding sensitive information related to communal issues. This was a misrepresentation of a move that would have put a lid on information related to custodial torture and deaths, communal clashes, police firings, monthly law and order review meetings and more. In a state where police high-handedness has continued regardless of the party in power, the bid to put these acts beyond public scrutiny often the only check on uniformed personnel betrays a worrying anti-democratic impulse. This tendency is also visible in the government’s attempt to keep the media at a distance by barring entry to government events attended by the Chief Minister.
The TVK is a young party, having come to power just two years after its formation with a youthful leadership and cadre base. Its sweep into power in its very first electoral foray indicates a groundswell of goodwill among the electorate. However, its stated commitment to running a transparent, non-corrupt government can only be realised by facilitating a better flow of information the antidote to corruption to the people.
The TVK is well placed to follow through on this, given its relative lack of baggage compared to the Dravidian parties that ruled the state for decades. To this end, it should set aside the impulse towards secrecy and focus on filling vacancies in the State Information Commission and strengthening the government departments’ compliance with the RTI Act in letter and spirit.

Karnataka High Court makes RTI penalties against officials easier to track: Written by: Mustafa Plumber

Indian Express: Bengaluru: Wednesday, 30^th September 2026.
The Karnataka High Court has directed that details of penalties and disciplinary action taken against officers who failed to provide RTI information should be uploaded online.

The RTI Act mandates that the Karnataka State Information Commission should prepare an annual report with details of the number of RTI requests received, the number of decisions denying access taken, etc. (Image generated using AI)

The Karnataka High Court has directed authorities to maintain, in a digital format, information regarding details of penalties and disciplinary action taken against public information officers (PIOs) who failed to provide information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
In an order dated September 23, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, “When the information concerns the implementation of the RTI Act and is capable of being maintained in a systematic form, the appropriate response is not to require the same information to be reconstructed from individual files every time a citizen seeks it. The better course is to ensure the information is maintained in a manner which permits its ready retrieval and, where appropriate, its proactive disclosure.”
Section 25(3) of the RTI Act specifies that the Karnataka State Information Commission (KSIC) should prepare an annual report with details of the number of requests received, the number of decisions denying access and the provisions invoked, the number and nature of appeals and their outcome, particulars of disciplinary action taken against officers in relation to administration of the Act, charges collected, efforts made to administer and implement the spirit and intention of the Act and recommendations for reform.
“The RTI mechanism should not operate in a manner in which authorities responsible for administering the right are themselves required to spend substantial time reconstructing information, which can reasonably be maintained and disclosed in an organised form,” the bench said.
Make information readily available: HC
The bench directed departments and authorities to maintain year-wise details regarding penalties and disciplinary action taken against public information officers as is mandated under the RTI Act, on their official websites.
“The object is to ensure that information relating to the implementation of the RTI Act is maintained at its source, collected in a uniform manner, furnished to the KSIC, and to the extent permissible in law, readily made available to the public,” Justice Govindaraj said.
It also directed the KSIC to prescribe a standard format in which the information is to be collected and maintained.
Act within 8 weeks, KSIC told
The directions were given while partly allowing a petition filed by RTI activist Ramesh Babu N, who had challenged orders passed by the concerned authorities and sought a direction to KSIC to furnish the information sought by him in the RTI application. The PIO had declined to furnish the information saying that such information is not maintained by KSIC office in the form in which it had been requested.
The bench also clarified that Section 6(2) of the RTI Act expressly provides that an applicant shall not be required to give any reason for requesting information or to furnish any personal details other than those necessary for contacting the applicant. Babu was thus under no obligation to establish personal interest in the information or to disclose the purpose for which it was sought.
The bench partly allowed the petition and directed KSIC to examine the information presently available in its records and furnish the information to the petitioner, subject to the provisions of the Act, within eight weeks. Information to be collected from other departments should also be given to Babu within 60 days, the bench added.

RTI's digitracker to ease task of rights champions: K Balasubramanian

DT Next: Chennai: Wednesday, 30^th September 2026.
Officials crack whip over response delays; new rule applies for offline plea as well

For a citizen waiting for an answer from the government, an RTI application is often more than just a document it can be a means to find out why a welfare benefit was denied, what happened to a civic complaint, or how a government decision was made.
To make such applications easier to track and prevent them from getting lost in bureaucratic processes, the State government has directed all Secretariat departments to digitally register every RTI petition, including those submitted in physical form.
The move is aimed at providing departments with a common system to monitor RTI applications from receipt to dispos to track pending petitions, transfers to other departments, and requests involving additional fees.
The government has already provided an online facility through the RTI portal for citizens to file applications and seek information under the RTI Act, 2005.
However, complaints have been received about information not being furnished within the stipulated period, even for applications filed online, Principal Secretary to the Human Resources Department C Samayamoorthi said in a letter.
The State government has appointed a Nodal Officer in each Secretariat department to facilitate the online provision of information under the Act.
While the online system enabled applications to be tracked digitally, RTI petitions submitted in person were handled separately. Under the latest instructions, Information Officers have been asked to enter details of such petitions in the RTI Cell on the RTI website as soon as they are received.
This will bring both online and physical RTI applications under a common digital tracking mechanism, enabling officials to monitor their status and take follow-up action.
The system will also help Information Officers track applications requiring payment of additional fees.
Samayamoorthi said an online payment facility was available and Information Officers need not send a separate communication to applicants seeking payment of additional fees.
The government hopes that the uniform digital recording of RTI applications will simplify record-keeping and improve the monitoring of petitions, particularly those received in physical form.
For citizens, the significance of the move lies in making the status of a request for government information less dependent on manual record-keeping.
An RTI petition may begin with a simple question from an individual, but the information sought can often help expose delays, establish accountability or enable a citizen to pursue a grievance with the government.

High Court directs Karnataka Information Commission to create central RTI disclosure repository

The Hindu: Bengaluru: Wednesday, 30^th September 2026.
KIC asked to maintain searchable database on applications, appeals, penalties and compliance

The High Court of Karnataka has directed the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) to prescribe a uniform format for the collection, maintenance and disclosure of information relating to the implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act by public authorities in the State.
The court also directed the KIC to establish on its website a central electronic repository or index through which citizens can locate RTI disclosures of different departments and public authorities without having to search each website separately.
Year-wise information
The uniform format, the court said, must include year-wise information on RTI applications received, disposed of and rejected; first and second appeals; penalties imposed; and disciplinary action recommended against Public Information Officers (PIOs) under Section 20 of the RTI Act for failure to furnish, or denial of, information sought under the Act.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued the directions while partly allowing a petition filed by Ramesh Babu N. of Bengaluru.
The petitioner had questioned the KIC’s refusal to provide data on PIOs against whom penalties had been imposed, the amount of penalty collected, and disciplinary action recommended.
The KIC had declined the information, stating that it was not maintained in the format sought by the petitioner.
The court said every department must identify its public authorities and ensure data collection under Section 25 (monitoring and reporting) of the RTI Act. Each authority must designate an officer responsible for keeping records updated.
Information has to be maintained electronically, allowing search, sorting and retrieval without manual examination of files, the court said.
On implementation
The court also directed the KIC to maintain on its official website a clearly identifiable section relating to “RTI implementation and compliance”.
Information relating to the functioning of the Commission, including appeals, complaints, penalties and recommendations under the Act, must be placed there in the prescribed format, subject to the provisions of the Act.
All public authorities should similarly maintain such information on their websites and update it at least once a year, the court said, pointing out that the RTI Act itself mandates proactive disclosure of several categories of information suo motu by public authorities.
Meanwhile, the court clarified that nothing in these directions requires disclosure of information exempt under the provisions of the RTI Act, nor do they create any new exemption from disclosure.

Issue warrant against G’gram DTP: Info panel

The Tribune: Gurugram: Tuesday, 29^th September 2026.
Haryana State Information Commissioner Arun Sangwan has ordered issuance of a bailable warrant against Gurugram District Town Planner (Enforcement) Ved Prakash Sehrawat for failing to furnish information under the RTI Act.

RTI activist Ramesh Yadav had filed a query on October 10, 2018, seeking information about plots in unauthorised colonies here and whether or not the DTP had taken action against developers.
The DTP, Yadav said, failed to respond to his query, followed which he appealed to the State Information Commission in March this year.
“The commission directed the SPIO-cum-DTP to facilitate inspection of documents (related to unauthorised colonies) on August 13, 2018, and to be present during the inspection. In exceptional circumstances that may force him to be absent on August 13, he may authorise some responsible officer to be present on his behalf. On the given day, neither the DTP turned up nor did he appoint someone on his behalf. Even on the next date of hearing on November 15, 2019, the DTP didn’t appear in the court of commission in Chandigarh,” reads the order.
On November 15, the State Information Commissioner directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Headquarters), Gurugram, to serve a bailable warrant under Section 18 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005, on DTP Sehrawat and send a report to the commission immediately.
Sehrawat has been issued a notice under Section 18 (3) of RTI Act.
The commission also directed the Director General, Town and Country Planning Department, to ask SPIO in his department to be present in its Chandigarh office with a reply to a show-cause notice and relevant documents on March 11, 2020.

What is meant by universal access to information?

Manorama Yearbook: Current-Affairs: Tuesday, 29^th September 2026.

• The United Nations observes the International Day for Universal Access to Information (IDUAI) on September 28.
• This year’s theme is: “Upholding Information Integrity in the Digital Age: The role of access to Information in addressing Information Disorder”.
  
• What is the significance of this theme?
• In a digital world overflowing with information, misinformation and disinformation, access alone is not enough. People also need timely, reliable information. 
• Timely and credible public information can strengthen trust, support informed decisions and help people participate meaningfully in society.
• The day explores how access to reliable official information, proactive disclosure, media and information literacy, credible data and digital technologies can contribute to a healthier information environment.

Universal access to information

• Informed citizens can make informed decisions, for instance, when going to the polls. 
• Only when citizens know how they are governed, can they hold their governments accountable for their decisions and actions. 
• Information is power. Therefore, universal access to information is a cornerstone of healthy and inclusive knowledge societies.
• Universal access to information means that everyone has the right to seek, receive and impart information. 
• This right is an integral part of the right to freedom of expression. 
• The media plays a crucial role in informing the public about issues of interest, but it relies on the ability to seek and receive information, too. 
• Hence, the right to universal access to information is also bound up with the right to freedom of the press.

The right to information

• The right to public information is a component of the fundamental right of freedom of expression as set forth by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and the subsequent International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). 
• The right to information is an umbrella term that refers to the legal right to access information held by public institutions. 
• It is often used in the same way as terms such as freedom of information. 
• The implementation of the right to information, refers to efforts to give practical effect to the provisions of the law, policy or regulation. 
• Implementation is important to ensure that the benefits of the law, policy or regulation are realised.

What is the RTI Act in India?

• The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is widely seen as one of India’s most powerful democratic reforms.
• The Constitution of India has enshrined the principles of democracy, by guaranteeing to its citizens certain Fundamental Rights. 
• Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, by implication, guarantee to the citizens of India the right to know everything done by public functionaries. 
• To set out a practical regime for securing information by citizens from the public authorities and to promote transparency and accountability in the working of all public authorities, the Parliament enacted the Right to Information Act in 2005.
• The Act is comprehensive and covers disclosure of information by public authorities on matters of governance. 
• It is applicable to government at all levels — Union, state and local and also to the bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by the government. 
• It covers legislative bodies, the judiciary, the executive and Constitutional bodies.
• The Act casts an obligation on public authorities for suo-motu disclosure/publication of information held by them. 
• It also requires the public authorities to supply information called for by any citizen and to permit him to inspect the documents and collect samples of various works. 
• It can be made in Hindi or English or in the official language of the area in which the application is made.
• The Act creates the machinery to ensure supply of information, which consists of Public Information Officers, Assistant Public Information Officers, Departmental Appellate Authorities, independent Central and State Information Commissions, etc.
• The Act requires information to be provided in a time bound manner. 
• A Public Information Officer is required to send information called for at the specified address within 30 days. 
• In case the information concerns the life or liberty of a person, it has to be provided within 48 hours. 
• The Act provides for imposition of a stringent penalty on the Public Information Officer, if the information is not provided within the prescribed period.
• Certain types of information pertaining to security of the country, scientific or economic interest of the country and information on trade secrets, etc are exempted from disclosure. 
• Certain security or intelligence organisations have been exempted from disclosing any information except that pertaining to allegation of corruption or violation of human rights. 
• Such organisations are required to designate Public Information Officers and First Appellate Authorities to deal with applications and appeals relating to information pertaining to corruption or violation of human rights.

RTI a powerful tool for citizens to monitor development works: M M Shuja

Greater Kashmir: Srinagar: Tuesday, 29^th September 2026.
Shuja asked people who were seeking information to utilise the information received under the RTI Act in public interest and welfare of people.

M.M. Shuja

On the RTI day M.M. Shuja, Prominent RTI Activist and Chairman of J&K Peoples Forum, said that RTI is not only the Act which provides citizens information, but it is a powerful instrument in the hands of people that can help them to play the role of watch dogs for developmental activities in their respective areas.
As per a statement issued, on the occasion of RTI Day, Shuja requested the administration to arrange workshops and seminars about the RTI Act for the new government officials as some officials in the administration may be ignorant of the Act and some may misinterpret the provisions of the Act in their replies to RTI Applications.
Shuja asked people who were seeking information to utilise the information received under the RTI Act in public interest and welfare of people.
He highlighted that citizens have the right to know about developmental activities, budgetary allocation, corruption, quality of public works and shortcomings in the infrastructure because transparency and accountability are necessary for the development of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

Light on truth: on the Tamil Nadu G.O. and RTI

The Hindu: Editorial: Tuesday, 29^th September 2026.
No government intent on working for the people should fear transparency

Protests by political parties and transparency activists have derailed the surreptitious rollout, in Tamil Nadu, of a regressive decision to exempt the Public (Law and Order) Department from the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005. On September 21, the State government issued a Government Order (G.O.) exercising powers under Section 24 (4) of the RTI Act to notify the department as an “intelligence and security organisation” to which the provisions of the Act shall not apply. While the G.O. surfaced in the public domain only on September 27, strikingly, the Public Department’s designated authorities under the RTI Act had instantly begun citing it to deny information to applicants as early as September 22. This betrayed a system that is shy of investing in transparency. Unsurprisingly, State Law Minister C.T.R. Nirmalkumar was initially defensive about the government’s unilateral decision, which, in any case, required the State to have it placed before the legislature (Section 24 (5), RTI Act). He claimed that the ambit of the exemption was not sweeping enough to shield the entire department, but was intended to prevent the sharing of sensitive information relating to district-level inquiries into incidents of communal clashes and the like. However, shortly thereafter, he announced the G.O.’s withdrawal, without explaining why.
While the State’s afterthought is welcome, the episode has again exposed the political class’s penchant for maintaining secrecy in administrative affairs. Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, whose promise of change came as a breath of fresh air, should have known better. It is concerning that the establishment desired to insulate itself from transparency by amending an Act which, in any case, emphatically enables non-disclosure of information through a long list of exemptions under Section 8. Even otherwise, designated information officers of central/State institutions have displayed an uncanny skill in being economical with the truth, delaying responses or bouncing off queries from RTI Act applicants, citing vague reasons. Besides, concerns about the Digital Personal Data Protection Act diluting the RTI Act further have been widely articulated. It is worrying that the Satrak Nagrik Sangathan’s 2024-25 report card on Information Commissions found a backlog of over 41,000 appeals and complaints before the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission (TNSIC), as of June last year. Yet, the TNSIC is functioning with only half of its sanctioned eight Information Commissioners and has no Chief Information Commissioner. Instead of seeking to defeat the intent of a piece of legislation enacted to empower citizens with access to information, the Tamil Nadu government would do well to strengthen the TNSIC. After all, only an administration that does not fear transparency can be the true harbinger of change.

RTI exists in law. Now it must work for citizens: Mahendra Man Gurung

Online Khabar: Nepal: Monday, 28 September 2026.

Photo by Andrea De Santis on Unsplash

Today should be an important day for ordinary citizens. The United Nations has recognised September 28 as the International Day for Universal Access to Information since 2019. In July 2011, the UN Human Rights Committee also confirmed that the right of access to information is an inherent part of freedom, placing an obligation on states both to respond to requests, with limited exceptions, and to proactively publish information of public interest.
The right to information (RTI) is therefore a foundation of democratic governance. It empowers citizens to hold governments accountable and participate meaningfully in decision-making. In Nepal, the right to information was recognised as a fundamental right in the 1990 Constitution and is guaranteed under Article 27 of the 2015 Constitution. The Right to Information Act, 2007 (2064 BS), and the Right to Information Regulations, 2008 (2065 BS), were enacted to operationalize this constitutional guarantee, while the National Information Commission (NIC) was established in 2008 as the primary regulatory and adjudicatory body.
Despite these progressive legal foundations, however, the gap between legal entitlement and practical exercise remains wide. Nepal has the laws and institutions needed to protect RTI, but the right has yet to become a routine part of citizens’ daily lives.
Nepal’s RTI architecture is robust on paper. Article 27 of the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to seek and obtain information on matters of personal or public importance. The RTI Act, 2007, requires public bodies across all three tiers of government, as well as public institutions, political parties and certain non-governmental organizations, to respect this right and proactively disclose information. Section 4(1) requires public bodies to respect citizens’ right to information, while Section 3(2) requires every public body to appoint an Information Officer.
The NIC serves as the primary body responsible for protecting, promoting and implementing RTI. It hears appeals from citizens whose information requests have been denied and can issue binding orders requiring information to be disclosed. The RTI Implementation Monitoring Directive, 2015, further established monitoring mechanisms at the federal, provincial and district levels to support implementation nationwide.
Yet laws and institutions alone do not guarantee effective implementation. The NIC’s own Handbook for Information Seekers acknowledges that, despite more than a decade of constitutional and legal provisions, public awareness of the right to information remains inadequate.
The number of citizens actively exercising their RTI remains low. Awareness is not uniform across society, and many citizens, particularly those at the grassroots level, remain unaware of how RTI can be used to access information and hold public bodies accountable.
The NIC itself operates under significant constraints. Its limited budget restricts its ability to conduct promotional activities and fulfil its responsibilities across federal, provincial and local governments and other public bodies. Although the Commission has instructed public bodies to appoint Information Officers, compliance remains uneven.
Information classification is another concern. Government agencies have historically been reluctant to disclose information, sometimes citing its “classified” status without adequate justification. A culture of secrecy continues to persist in many public offices.
Perhaps the most deeply rooted challenge is a bureaucratic culture that treats information as a source of power to be guarded rather than a public good to be shared. The NIC itself has recognised that when officials responsible for upholding the Constitution and the law do not follow those same laws, citizens are less likely to do so either. Ensuring good governance, transparency and accountability therefore requires officials to understand the law and be willing to follow it.
This resistance can take many forms, including delays in responding to requests, unnecessary procedural requirements and, in some cases, intimidation of RTI activists and information seekers. Such intimidation can discourage civic participation and undermine the very purpose of the RTI law.
There are, however, encouraging signs. The NIC’s growing caseload suggests increasing public awareness and willingness to use the appeals mechanism. In fiscal year 2080/81, 1,265 appeals were filed, the highest number in the Commission’s history, before falling to 1,049 appeals in 2081/82, according to the NIC’s annual report. This represents a significant increase from just 12 appeals in the Commission’s first year. The Commission has disposed of more than 95 percent of appeals each year, demonstrating its commitment to timely adjudication. Notably, 72 percent of appeals originated at the local level, suggesting that citizens are increasingly using RTI to monitor local governance and development activities.
The NIC has also launched an RTI Management System to digitize and streamline the information request and appeal process. Such initiatives can make the system more accessible, but technology alone cannot bridge the gap between legal rights and their practical use.
The first priority must be greater citizen awareness. RTI needs to be brought into civic education at schools and universities, including practical guidance on filing information requests and appealing denials. Community radio and local media can also play a greater role, particularly in communities where access to official information remains limited. Civil society organizations such as Freedom Forum, Open Knowledge Nepal and Accountability Lab Nepal have demonstrated how RTI can support open budgets and local development monitoring. Their grassroots outreach should be expanded, particularly among women, Dalits and other marginalized communities where awareness remains low.
At the institutional level, the NIC needs adequate resources to fulfil its mandate. Public bodies should also be required to submit regular RTI compliance reports, with meaningful consequences for non-compliance. The appointment of Information Officers must be systematically monitored and enforced.
Protection for information seekers is equally important. Section 29 of the RTI Act provides protection for whistleblowers, but information seekers themselves can face intimidation. Such cases should be promptly investigated and those responsible held accountable. Citizens cannot meaningfully exercise a legal right if doing so exposes them to fear or retaliation.
Proactive disclosure should also become a much stronger part of government practice. The RTI Act already requires public bodies to publish certain categories of information without waiting for individual requests. This is one of the most effective ways to empower citizens because it reduces the need for formal applications and eases the burden on both information seekers and public bodies. Study and investigation reports of public interest should be routinely disclosed. It is particularly concerning when governments that come to power promising better governance withhold important investigation reports.
Ultimately, however, legal and institutional reforms will not be enough without a change in bureaucratic culture. The prevailing attitude that information is a privilege to be guarded must give way to a service-oriented understanding of information as a public right. Public officials, particularly office chiefs and Information Officers, should receive mandatory training on RTI and their constitutional obligations. The NIC’s handbooks for public bodies and information seekers provide useful resources that should be systematically incorporated into such training.
Political parties and their leaders at all levels must also demonstrate a visible commitment to RTI, including through parliamentary oversight of implementation. At the same time, public bodies that demonstrate exemplary transparency should be recognised and rewarded, creating positive incentives for others to follow.
The transformative potential of RTI is best demonstrated through concrete examples. Investigative journalists have used RTI to uncover irregularities in public bodies, while citizens at the local level have used it to monitor development and governance. These successes should be documented and shared more widely so that similar practices can be replicated elsewhere.
Nepal’s RTI legal framework provides a strong foundation for transparent and accountable governance. The constitutional guarantee, the comprehensive RTI Act and the establishment of the National Information Commission have created the necessary legal and institutional framework. The challenge now is implementation.
Bridging the gap will require sustained citizen awareness campaigns, stronger institutions, greater protection for information seekers and RTI activists, proactive disclosure and a fundamental shift from a culture of secrecy to one of transparency.
Empowering Nepali citizens through RTI is not merely a matter of legal compliance. It is a foundation for participatory democracy, good governance and inclusive development. The time to act is now, before the promise of the right to information remains confined to the pages of legislation instead of becoming a reality in the daily lives of Nepali citizens.

RTI violation lands TP official with Rs 25k penalty, inquiry

Times of India: Karnataka: Monday, 28 September 2026.

The Karnataka Information Commission has imposed a Rs 25,000 penalty on Gangavathi taluk panchayat assistant director Mahantagouda Patil for failing to furnish records sought under the RTI Act during his tenure as PDO. The records related to alleged irregularities in material expenditure, stock registers and MIS payments worth lakhs of rupees under MGNREGA works carried out in Bevinahal village during 2015-16 and 2017-18.
Applicants alleged that the records were not provided despite repeated requests. Patil, who was later promoted as assistant director, told the commission that he was not holding the post when the RTI applications were filed. State information commissioner B Venkat Singh rejected the contention and directed him to deposit the penalty amount in the govt account and submit proof.
The issue drew attention after a fire at the Bevinahal gram panchayat office on May 1, 2023. The current PDO submitted an affidavit to the commission stating that key records had been destroyed in the incident.
Applicant Chandanagouda alleged that the records were deliberately destroyed to conceal the alleged misuse of funds under the MGNREGA scheme and sought a high-level probe. He also alleged the involvement of several officials, including Patil.
Following the commission’s order, Koppal ZP CEO Varnit Negi said a departmental inquiry and disciplinary proceedings would be initiated against Patil to examine his role in the alleged withholding of public records.

Tamil Nadu govt rolls back law and order department’s RTI exemption amid backlash

Times of India: Tamilnadu: Monday, 28 September 2026.
The Tamil Nadu government on Sunday withdrew its notification exempting the Public (Law and Order) Department from the Right to Information Act, hours after issuing the Gazette notification that classified the department as an "Intelligence and Security Organisation".

The rollback came after the move drew criticism from political leaders, including Congress's Karti P Chidambaram and BJP's Tamilisai Soundararajan. The government, however, did not publicly cite a specific reason for issuing the exemption or explain why it was withdrawn. An official communication later confirmed that the order issued under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act had been rescinded, reported ANI.
What was the notification?
The original notification, issued by the Human Resources Management Department and published in the state Gazette, used the power available to state governments under Section 24(4) of the RTI Act. The provision allowed a state government to notify an organisation established by it as an intelligence or security organisation, thereby taking it outside the normal scope of the RTI Act.
Tamil Nadu's notification designated its Public (Law and Order) Department as such an organisation. Had it remained in force, routine RTI access to a broad range of records held by the department would have been restricted.
The records covered included information relating to communal and caste clashes, political agitations, police action and custody, deaths of prisoners, police firing, inquiries into law-and-order incidents and requests for withdrawal of cases arising from political or communal tensions.
The exemption was not absolute. Section 24 specifically preserves access to information relating to allegations of corruption and human-rights violations, subject to the procedure prescribed under the Act.
The notification itself invoked Section 24(4) and classified the department as an intelligence and security organisation. The government has not, in the material available publicly gave a detailed explanation for why the Public (Law and Order) Department was brought under this provision.
The department handles sensitive law-and-order and policing-related matters, which appears to be the basis on which the exemption was framed. But that is distinct from saying that the government officially justified the move on a particular security ground. The notification, as reported, simply exercised the statutory power under Section 24(4).
The backlash
The proposed exemption would have affected access to records concerning issues such as police firing, custodial deaths, torture, communal and caste clashes and politically sensitive cases, prompting criticism that the move could reduce transparency.
Karti Chidambaram initially criticised the decision, saying it "does not set a good precedent" and recalling that the RTI Act was enacted by the UPA government to strengthen democratic accountability.
"The Law-and-Order Department handles crucial matters such as examining inquiry reports on police firing, custodial deaths, torture, and deaths of remand prisoners, security-related detention cases, communal and caste clash reports, requests for withdrawal of politically sensitive cases and matters relating to sanction of prosecution for defamatory articles, news items, and speeches. This crucial information is now being shielded from the public. Such rollbacks are not in line with transparent governance. RTI must be expanded, not restricted," Chidambaram posted on X.
After the government withdrew the notification, he welcomed the decision, saying: "My unsolicited & friendly advice to the TVK Government & CMO Tamil Nadu — don't let bureaucrats set the tone, tenor & direction of the administration."
BJP's Tamilisai Soundararajan also criticised the original notification, saying: "So they are afraid of meeting the press, they are afraid of meeting the people, and they are afraid of the legal procedures. If you are free and fair, why are you afraid of RTI?" She called the move "undemocratic" and said it should be "highly condemned."
With the withdrawal of the notification, the Public (Law and Order) Department is no longer covered by the newly created exemption.
The RTI Act, 2005, establishes a legal framework for citizens to access information held by public authorities, subject to exemptions specified in the law.

AIIMS BSc Nursing draws 1.91 lakh applications, records over 1000% jump in 5 years.

Indianexpress: Niti Nigam: New Delhi: Sunday, September 27, 2026.

Allied healthcare includes a range of specialised undergraduate programmes, including medical laboratory technology, ophthalmic sciences, radiotherapy and perfusion technology.

Nearly 1.91 lakh candidates applied for the BSc (Hons) Nursing entrance examination conducted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) for the August 2026 session, while more than 1.17 lakh applications were received for BSc Allied & Healthcare Courses, according to information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The data was sought by 30-year-old Vipul Sharma, an allied healthcare professional working in laboratory healthcare at Lady Hardinge Medical College. According to the AIIMS RTI response, 1,90,740 applications were received for BSc (Hons) Nursing for the August 2026 session, compared with 1,17,033 applications for BSc Allied & Healthcare Courses.

Sharma said the figures point to the need for greater awareness about undergraduate healthcare careers beyond medicine and nursing.

“Not everyone knows about the multiple professions that cost less to study and can offer good career opportunities. These professions were earlier broadly referred to as paramedical professions, but are now recognised as allied healthcare,” Sharma said.

Allied healthcare includes a range of specialised undergraduate programmes, including medical laboratory technology, ophthalmic sciences, radiotherapy and perfusion technology. These professionals work across diagnostic, therapeutic and other specialised healthcare services.

Such programmes can also offer an alternative career pathway to students who aspire to become doctors but do not secure an MBBS seat. Around 22 lakh candidates appear for NEET-UG each year, while the number of MBBS seats is slightly above one lakh, leaving many students to explore other healthcare professions.

AIIMS offers nursing and allied healthcare programmes across its network, while institutions such as PGIMER Chandigarh also offer specialised allied healthcare courses.

Cost is another factor differentiating these programmes from conventional medical education. Government medical colleges and Institutes of National Importance such as AIIMS, PGIMER and JIPMER offer some allied healthcare programmes at relatively low fees. The fees at central institutions can range from around Rs 1,500 to Rs 15,000 for the programme, while courses in state-run medical colleges may cost around Rs 20,000 to Rs 60,000 a year.

Private universities and deemed institutions, however, can charge substantially more. Bachelor’s programmes such as physiotherapy, medical imaging technology and cardiac technology can cost between Rs 80,000 and Rs 3 lakh a year, depending on the institution and programme. Shorter, skill-focused vocational and state paramedical board diploma courses typically cost around Rs 20,000 to Rs 70,000 a year.

Sharma said nursing continues to have greater visibility among students, partly because of the clearer government recruitment pathway. The Nursing Officer Recruitment Common Eligibility Test (NORCET) and the government pay structure are among the factors that make nursing a more familiar option for students.

He also pointed to differences in work patterns. Allied healthcare professionals may work in specialised departments such as biochemistry and other laboratory services, where hospitals may operate services in shifts.

For students considering these programmes, Sharma said allied healthcare should not be viewed merely as a “Plan B” after NEET, but as a group of specialised healthcare professions in their own right.

Bombay High Court at Goa Allows Petition of Public Information Officer in RTI Case — Station Diary Entries Exempt Under Section 8(1)(h) of Right to Information Act. Disclosure of investigation-related information that would impede investigation or prosecution is exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.

Lawtext: Goa: Saturday, 26 September 2026.

Case Note & Summary: The case involves a challenge by the Petitioner, Shekhar Prabhudessai, Superintendent of Police (South) and Public Information Officer, against an order of the Goa State Information Commission (Respondent No.1) dated 16.08.2007. The Respondent No.2, Adv. S. S. Saudagar, had sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding further entries in the station diary in connection with Criminal Case No. 9/2005. The Petitioner refused the information citing exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, which exempts disclosure of information that would impede the process of investigation or prosecution. The Respondent No.2 appealed to the First Appellate Authority, which rejected the appeal on 03.05.2007. A further appeal to the State Information Commission was partly allowed by the impugned order, directing the Petitioner to furnish the information. The Petitioner then filed the present writ petition. The High Court, after hearing the Additional Government Advocate for the Petitioner (Respondent No.2 was served but unrepresented), held that the information sought clearly falls within the exception under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, as disclosure would impede the investigation or prosecution. The court also noted that the information could be exempt under Section 8(1)(g) (information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship) but primarily relied on Section 8(1)(h). The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.