Why the government must prioritise RTI : Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz

The Daily Star: Bangladesh: Sunday, March 15, 2026.
After the first cabinet meeting of the new BNP government on February 18, a 180-day priority plan was announced focusing on controlling commodity prices, maintaining law and order, stabilising supply chains, and ensuring uninterrupted gas and electricity supply. Given the difficult inheritance from the interim administration, setting these priorities was expected as they addressed the immediate anxieties of ordinary households and the basic conditions for economic stability.

However, if the government truly intends to deliver on these commitments, and sustain public confidence while doing so, it must tackle a less visible but more decisive requirement: a governance system that is transparent, accountable, and responsive to citizens. Without that foundation, even well-designed welfare programmes can be weakened by information gaps, weak monitoring, and administrative inertia.
In this regard, a promising signal was when Prime Minister Tarique Rahman urged senior officials to honour the people’s mandate sincerely. He stressed the importance of merit-based performance, insisting that officials act in accordance with the constitution, the laws, and the rules of business. This emphasis on rules-based governance creates an opening to revive one of Bangladesh’s most powerful yet chronically underused democratic instruments: the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2009.
Properly applied, RTI can help the government improve service delivery, raise integrity in public programmes, and build trust in institutions. Tragically, RTI was among the laws most conspicuously neglected during the interim period, leaving the regime close to paralysis. If the new government is serious about a fresh approach to governance, reviving RTI should be among its earliest reforms.
It bears repeating that government initiatives social safety nets, health services, education stipends, and infrastructure often falter not because of a lack of intent but because oversight is weak. Beneficiaries are frequently unaware of how the programmes are designed, how resources are allocated, which criteria apply, or who is responsible for delivery. In that vacuum, welfare policies risk remaining promises on paper. RTI addresses this problem at its source.
When citizens can access information about where resources go, how programmes are run, and whether targets are met, a clear chain of positive outcomes follows: transparent information resulting in a more informed citizenry, better monitoring, better accountability, more effective service delivery, and stronger trust in public institutions. RTI turns citizens from passive recipients into constructive participants. It enables them to ask informed questions, detect gaps between policy and practice, and press for corrective action. Far from undermining government programmes, RTI strengthens them by improving integrity, efficiency, and public confidence.
To that effect, the first practical step for the BNP government will be to restore the Information Commission immediately. During the interim period, key positions remained vacant, leaving citizens with little recourse when authorities ignored or obstructed requests. Backlogs grew and civic engagement declined. The government can quickly reverse this by appointing the three designated information commissioners, including the chief information commissioner, through a credible and transparent process consistent with the Act. This is urgent not only to clear pending cases but also to send a clear message to the bureaucracy and public alike that impunity and secrecy will no longer be acceptable.
Once a credible commission begins working, many activists and ordinary users who have retreated in frustration in recent months will return. That said, it is also important that expert recommendations on the RTI (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026 are heeded before the ordinance is passed in parliament.
The value of RTI is best seen in outcomes. One of its strongest contributions in Bangladesh so far has been in improving the integrity of social safety net programmes. Citizens, often with civil society support, have used RTI to ask simple but powerful questions: How were beneficiary lists prepared? Who participated in the selection? What criteria were applied? Frequently, the prospect of disclosure alone deterred nepotism and exposed irregularities, helping ensure that limited resources reached those most in need.
RTI has also strengthened healthcare delivery, especially for vulnerable communities. Citizens have sought information on free medicine supplies, doctors’ attendance records, and sanitation schedules at public facilities, often prompting immediate corrective action once officials realised that records could be scrutinised.
A striking example is the Nilphamari Mother and Child Health Welfare Centre, where beneficiaries were repeatedly told that no doctor was available and services effectively ceased. In January 2025, an RTI request seeking the list of posted doctors and attendance records revealed prolonged unauthorised absences. The disclosure increased public awareness, triggered pressure for accountability, and prompted a more responsive local administration, thus helping restore services for mothers and children.
Similar improvements have been documented elsewhere, reducing misuse of scholarship funds and exposing contractors’ non-compliance in roads and highways projects. These instances exemplify how RTI works best, not as a tool for sensational exposure but as a mechanism of continuous correction. This means identifying problems early, fixing them promptly, and improving systems over time.
For a government that wants to deliver results and rebuild trust, RTI offers a constructive pathway. It is therefore vital to establish a clear institutional focal point within the government to engage with RTI users, civil society, and concerned citizens so that feedback is translated into administrative improvements and transparency becomes routine rather than exceptional. For example, citizens can be useful allies in implementing the government’s new family card and farmer card programmes.
The government’s priorities cannot be achieved sustainably without transparency and accountability. The RTI Act provides proven, practical means to bridge this gap. By restoring the Information Commission, strengthening compliance, and encouraging civic engagement, the new government can improve service delivery and lay the foundations for trust-based, participatory governance.
Shamsul Bari and Ruhi Naz are chairman and deputy director of RTI, respectively, at Research Initiatives, Bangladesh (RIB). Email: rib@citech-bd.com.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

Make fire safety clearances public, Gujarat State Information Commission tells civic bodies

The Times of India: Ahmedabad: Sunday, March 15, 2026.

Details of fire safety clearances granted by municipal bodies across Gujarat are not publicly available. And, the Gujarat State Information Commission has directed that this must change.
The order came on an application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by Surat resident Arun Pathak, who had sought records of fire NOCs issued by the Surat Municipal Corporation for new constructions between Jan 11, 2023 and June 11, 2023. The fire department refused to provide the information, a position the commission found had no basis in law.
During the hearing, the commission observed that while applicants can track the status of their fire NOC requests through an online portal, the details of NOCs that were already granted are not available in the public domain. The commission noted that such information is also not included in the proactive disclosure sections of municipal websites, which are mandated under the RTI Act.
In its order, the commission stated that the absence of publicly available records relating to fire NOCs restricts transparency in matters concerning building safety and regulatory compliance. It emphasised that disclosure of such information is necessary in the interest of public safety and accountability.
The commission further observed that there was no legal restriction preventing the fire department from sharing the information. The information officer concerned was directed to verify the authenticity of the documents submitted by the applicant within a week and provide the requested details within the stipulated timeframe after verification.
In addition, the commission recommended that all municipal and metropolitan corporations in the state publish details of fire NOCs on their official websites and update them periodically. It also suggested that a standard operating procedure (SOP) be developed for maintaining and publishing such records in a transparent manner.
The commission directed that its order be forwarded to the urban development and urban housing department for necessary action and implementation across civic bodies in the state.

Himachal Pradesh excludes ACB, vigilance bureau from RTI purview

The Economic Times: Shimla: Sunday, March 15, 2026.

Himachal Pradesh's Congress government has removed the Anti-Corruption Bureau and Vigilance Bureau from the Right to Information Act. This move prevents citizens from seeking information on these bodies. The opposition BJP has strongly condemned the decision. Former Chief Minister Jairam Thakur stated the action is undemocratic and against constitutional spirit.
The Congress government in Himachal Pradesh has excluded the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and the Vigilance Bureau from the ambit of the RTI Act, 2005, drawing criticism from the opposition BJP.

An order issued on Thursday said the move was aimed at safeguarding sensitive information during investigations. State chief secretary Sanjay Gupta said the decision was similar to exemptions granted to central agencies such as the CBI and the Intelligence Bureau under the RTI framework.
With the order, citizens will not be able to seek information on the ACB and the state Vigilance Bureau through RTI applications, except for limited disclosures in specific cases.
The BJP criticised the decision. "It is extremely unfortunate, undemocratic and against the basic spirit of the Constitution. It clearly shows that the chief minister fears transparency and is attempting to hide growing corruption in the state," former chief minister Jairam Thakur told ET.
"Congress leaders roam around the country with a copy of the Constitution. But when they come to power, they themselves disregard constitutional norms and public accountability," he added.

Public exam answer sheets accessible under RTI: TN info panel

Times of India: Chennai: Sunday, March 15, 2026.

Tamil Nadu Information Commission has ruled that digitized answer sheets of public examinations are accessible under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and cannot be withheld on the grounds of a five-day window set by the directorate of govt examinations for applying for copies after results are declared. Noting inconsistencies in the responses provided by the PIO and the appellate authority, the Commission asked the public information officer to explain why a penalty of 25,000 should not be imposed and recommended departmental action against the appellate authority.
The order came while disposing of an appeal filed by R Priyadarshini, whose request for copies of her Class XII answer sheets was denied.
In 2023, Priyadarshini sought copies of her Tamil, English, Physics, Chemistry, and Zoology answer sheets under the RTI Act. Her application was rejected on the ground that the directorate's five-day period for such requests had expired. When her first appeal seeking the answer sheets free of cost was turned down for want of a below poverty line certificate, she filed a second appeal with the Commission.
Citing multiple Supreme Court and Madras high court rulings, state information commissioner V P R Ilamparithi held that answer sheets are furnishable information under the RTI Act and must be provided upon payment of the applicable fee.
Ilamparithi, after recording the submissions made by the PIO, said the directorate acted with a motive to deny information and directed the PIO to furnish certified copies of all answer sheets within a week.
The commission has recommended the directorate of govt examinations keep digitised copies of the answer sheets for six months instead of three months, since it involves the career of the next generation. It directed the authorities to promptly display on their official website that students can avail the answer sheets under the RTI Act during the period the sheets are maintained by them.

Give board exam answer sheet copies to students, orders TN info panel

New Indian Express: Chennai: Saturday, 14 March 2026.
In addition to digitisation, the commission recommended that evaluated answer sheets be preserved for six months, rather than the current three-month period.
Even as the school board exams are ongoing in the state, the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission (TNSIC) has directed the Directorate of Government Examinations (DGE) to provide copies of students’ evaluated answer scripts, if they applied for the same under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, and recommended that the government should digitise all answer scripts for electronic preservation.
In addition to digitisation, the commission recommended that evaluated answer sheets be preserved for six months, rather than the current three-month period.

Information Commissioner VPR Elamparithi issued the order based on the appeal filed by R Priyadarshini, presently a college student, who appeared for Class 12 exams in March 2023. She had filed an application under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act seeking certified copies of her answer scripts for Tamil, English, Physics, Chemistry, Zoology and Mathematics.
However, in June 2023, the Public Information Officer (PIO) informed her that students were allowed to apply for answer scripts to DGE (not under the RTI Act) within five days of publication of results.
Citing that Priyadarshini had applied only for the Physics answer script, the department refused to provide answer scripts of other subjects. Her first appeal to the appellate authority was also dismissed, following which she filed a second appeal before the commission in July 2023.
After examining the submissions, the commission observed that the responses given by the PIO and the appellate authority indicated an attempt to deny information sought by the applicant.
Subsequently, the commission directed the PIO to provide certified copies of the answer scripts within seven days. It also ordered that the documents be furnished free of cost.

‘No information traceable’ on region-wise PDS diversion data: FCI tells CIC

The Print: Shimla: Saturday, 14 March 2026.
New Delhi, Mar 13 (PTI) The Food Corporation of India (FCI) has told the Central Information Commission (CIC) that no information is available at its headquarters regarding the orders for the diversion of food grains under the Public Distribution System (PDS).

The FCI said this while responding to a Right to Information (RTI) application seeking information on the process followed before approving PDS release order diversion and records of such proposals authorised by FCI between 2018-19 and 2022-23 in a region-wise manner.
It also sought details of cost-benefit analyses, transportation expenditure, beneficiary handling and transport contractors (HTCs), pending financial liabilities and districts without operational railheads for foodgrain handling.
Replying to the RTI application, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of FCI headquarters said the information sought on most points pertained to regional offices and transferred the application to all FCI regional offices under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, for providing the information.
However, the headquarters shared the relevant circulars and standing instructions governing PDS release order diversion.
During the first appeal, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) said that “as per the available record of the sales division FCI Hq. no information w.r.t region wise release order diversion is traceable.” The authority added that “the diversion to PDS release order are operational matters being carried out at DO/RO level,” referring to district and regional offices.
The FAA also directed the CPIO of the sales division at the headquarters to go through the records again and provide the relevant documents if traced, and forwarded the RTI application to the regional offices to provide the information directly to the applicant.
During the hearing before the CIC, the appellant said that complete information had not been provided by the regional offices to date, despite the RTI application being transferred.
After examining the matter, Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi observed that although the RTI application had been transferred under the RTI Act, the regional offices had failed to provide the sought information to the appellant so far.
The Commission subsequently issued a show-cause notice asking the respondent department to explain why penalty proceedings under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated for not providing the information, and directed that the concerned CPIOs from the regional offices attend the show-cause proceedings. PTI MHS AMJ AMJ
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.

Excluding Vigilance Bureau from RTI Act unconstitutional, authoritarian: Himachal BJP leader

The Print: Shimla: Saturday, 14 March 2026.

BJP leader Randhir Sharma Friday criticised the state government’s decision to exclude the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau from the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, calling the move unconstitutional and authoritarian.
The BJP state media in-charge said that a state does not have the authority to alter or weaken a law that has been passed by Parliament.
In a notification issued on Thursday, the Himachal Pradesh government excluded the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau from the ambit of the Right to Information Act.
Sharma, the MLA from Naina Devi, said the primary responsibility of the two excluded outfits is to investigate corruption cases and ensure accountability in governance, and as such, their transparency is extremely important.
The BJP MLA, in a statement, alleged that the government intends to use the Vigilance Bureau for political convenience and is trying to convert it into a “puppet institution”.
The RTI Act was enacted in 2005 by the Parliament of India during the tenure of former prime minister Manmohan Singh, when the Congress was in power at the Centre. PTI

Supreme Court issues notice to Centre on petition challenging RTI Act Rules

Telegraph India: New Delhi: Saturday, 14 March 2026.
While seeking the Centre’s response to the joint petition filed by RTI activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi tagged the matter with a similar pending petition and posted the matter to March 23

The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice to the Centre on a plea challenging the “dilution” of the RTI Act by the amendments made through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act.
While seeking the Centre’s response to the joint petition filed by RTI activists Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi tagged the matter with a similar pending petition and posted the matter to March 23.
According to Bhardwaj and Johri, the amendments to the RTI Act are beyond the legislative scope of the DPDP Act and should be struck down.
The petitioners submitted that the DPDP Act was limited to governing the processing of personal data held only in digital form and therefore any amendments to the RTI Act flowing from the DPDP Act should have been restricted to that scope.
“However, the amendments to the RTI Act will impact people’s right to access information held in even non-digital forms, for instance personal information held in handwritten records, physical archives, display boards, manual muster rolls/attendance records, physical answer scripts, minutes of meetings recorded in physical registers, physical records maintained by public authorities prior to adoption of digital means etc,” the petition, filed through advocate Prashant Bhushan, stated.
The petition also sought to highlight how the DPDP Act would have a “chilling impact” on people’s ability to use information to seek accountability, carry out public monitoring and social audits of welfare programmes and blow the whistle on corruption.
The petition flagged the deletion of a provision under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which stated that information that cannot be denied to Parliament or a state legislature shall not be denied to any person. The plea said the deletion was “legally untenable as the legislative intent was for the proviso to be applicable to the entirety of Section 8(1) as evidenced through its language, placements and government’s own guidelines”.

ADR calls for law to regulate parties stricter disclosure norms to curb money power in polls

The Week: PTI: New Delhi: Friday, March 13, 2026.

India's electoral democracy faces profound challenges from the pervasive influence of money, a new report by the Association for Democratic Reforms has said, calling for a comprehensive law to regulate political parties, stricter disclosure norms for donations, and stronger powers to the Election Commission to curb the influence of money in elections.

The report titled ‘Political Finance in India: Assessment and Recommendations’ identified seven key limitations – dominance of money and muscle power; lack of internal democracy within parties; absence of statutory backing to EC rules; inability of EC to deregister defaulting parties; evasion of Right to Information (RTI) scrutiny; flouting of existing laws by contestants; and lack of political will to implement reforms.

These systemic weaknesses enable financial opacity and unaccountable campaign financing, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) said.

The report by the NGO recommended enacting a comprehensive political parties' law to regulate finances, internal democracy, and leadership accountability, and empowering the Election Commission (EC) to de-recognise or deregister parties that fail to comply with financial disclosure or court directives.

It also recommended bringing political parties under the ambit of the RTI Act, and define bribery and freebies as corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

On political funding, the report proposed imposing limits on private donations and mandating full disclosure of donors, including the parent companies behind electoral trusts.

It also recommended banning anonymous and cash donations and requiring all political contributions to be made through digital transactions.

It called for independent audits of party accounts verified by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) and said the audit reports must be made public.

To reduce dependence on private funding, the report suggested public funding of polls, adopting objective and transparent criteria for public funding of political parties, including vote or seat-based funding models, and incentives for parties that promote women and underrepresented groups in electoral politics.

The report also stressed the need for stricter enforcement of campaign expenditure limits for both political parties and candidates.

The suggestions on strengthening the EC called for aligning the appointment process of election commissioners with the Supreme Court's 2023 directive, legally empowering the EC to countermand elections in cases of money power abuse, and enhancing capacity building and stakeholder dialogue for effective electoral management.

Monetary penalties and loss of tax exemptions for non-compliance or falsified disclosures, authorising the EC to withdraw financial privileges of defaulting parties, and maintaining a public database of sanctions and penalties to ensure accountability were also among the recommendations.

(This story has not been edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)

Madurai AIIMS: Only 47% complete, reveals RTI reply.

DT Next News: Madurai: Friday, March 13, 2026.

Pandiyaraja, a social activist from Thippanampatti village near Pavoorchathiram in Tenkasi district, had submitted eight questions under the RTI Act seeking details about the progress of the Madurai AIIMS project.

Construction of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in Madurai has been completed only 47 per cent, according to a reply from the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to a Right to Information (RTI) query filed by a social activist from Tenkasi district.

Pandiyaraja, a social activist from Thippanampatti village near Pavoorchathiram in Tenkasi district, had submitted eight questions under the RTI Act seeking details about the progress of the Madurai AIIMS project.

In its reply, the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare stated that the estimated cost of the project is Rs 2,021 crore and that Rs 471 crore has been released so far by the Union government through the central budget.

The ministry also said the construction work is scheduled to be completed by October 2026.

Pandiyaraja stated that proper responses were not provided for five of the eight questions raised in the RTI application.

He further said that reports had circulated on social media and in some media outlets that certain completed portions of the project might be inaugurated by the Prime Minister as early as March. However, he said the hospital should be opened only after the entire construction is completed and made ready for public use.

He also pointed out that although the AIIMS Madurai project was launched on May 22, 2024, students admitted to the AIIMS medical college are currently studying at the Government Medical College in Ramanathapuram.

According to him, there is a possibility that these students may complete their course without studying at the AIIMS campus, as the hospital construction is still under way.

Pandiyaraja urged the authorities to ensure quality construction, secure the required funds from Japan, and expedite the works so that the hospital can be opened at the earliest.

Himachal exempts State Vigilance, ACB from ambit of RTI Act.

Tribune India: Shimla: Friday, March 13, 2026.

State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau will no longer be required to share information sought through Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

In an interesting move, the Himachal Pradesh government on Thursday excluded the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (SV & ACB) from the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

As a result, the bureau will no longer be required to share information sought through the act.

Significantly, the bureau is headed by Ashok Tewari, who is also the officiating Director General of Police (DGP).

An official notification regarding this has been issued by the Chief Secretary, Sanjay Gupta.

The notification reads, “In exercise of the power conferred under section 24 (4) of the RTI Act, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, is pleased to exclude the SV & ACB from the ambit of the RTI Act.”

In an interesting move, the Himachal Pradesh government on Thursday excluded the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (SV & ACB) from the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.

As a result, the bureau will no longer be required to share information sought through the act.

Significantly, the bureau is headed by Ashok Tewari, who is also the officiating Director General of Police (DGP).

An official notification regarding this has been issued by the Chief Secretary, Sanjay Gupta.

The notification reads, “In exercise of the power conferred under section 24 (4) of the RTI Act, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, is pleased to exclude the SV & ACB from the ambit of the RTI Act.”

Section 24 (4) of the RTI Act exempts the intelligence and security organisation established by the state government from the purview of the act.

However, the government should specify via a notification that information about the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded. Also, information should be provided within 45 days from the date of receipt of the request in the case of information sought that is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights. The information should only be provided after the approval of the State Information Commission.

'Interesting Question Is What's Public Data & Personal Data?' : Supreme Court On Challenge To DPDP Act.

Live Law: Anmol Kaur Bawa : New Delhi: March 13, 2026.

"If there are sweeping provisions in the Act, then how do we protect some individuals?" CJI asked.

The Supreme Court today, while issuing notice in a plea challenging the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and Rules, expressed that protection of data privacy has now become a global issue. The Court will also examine the issue of what would be considered as public data and private data.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing the petition filed by journalist Geeta Seshu and NGO Software Freedom Law Centre challenging the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) and DPDP Rules 2025.

Sr Advocate Indira Jaisingh, appearing for the petitioner, stressed that the impugned Act and Rules in effect legalise disproportionate State surveillance, create a compensation vacuum for citizens, dilute the Right to Information, erode the ability of journalists to practice their profession, and establish a data protection regulator that is structurally dependent upon the Executive.

Jaisingh submitted that the DPDP ACt amended the RTI Act, omitting the 'public interest' ground to disclose the personal data of a public servant. Thus, the personal data of a public servant has been totally exempted from disclosure. As a result, if a journalist is writing about a public servant, they would not be able to have access to data relating to the officer.

At this juncture, the CJI remarked that this issue also raises an "interesting question that we will have to determine, that is, what is public data and what is personal data?"

Taking the example of the RTI Act, Jaisingh explained that in the RTI Act, an exception was carved out where information of 'public interest' could have been accessed; this aspect is not there in the impugned Act. She added, "That's what is causing the trouble; otherwise, there would have been no other problem."

Secondly, she pointed out that the impugned Act gives powers to the Centre to acquire data on anything on the ground of 'Public order', a term that Jaisingh stressed to have a wide and broad interpretation.

The CJI weighed in to add that this will raise concerns for individuals' right to privacy. He said:

"If there are sweeping provisions in the Act and where right to privacy and this conflict comes, then how do we protect some individuals? What can be the measures can be taken without affecting the right to privacy?"

The CJI, referring to the pending case of Meta Platforms Inc v. CCI, remarked that data privacy has now become a global issue. He added, "data is becoming the real true wealth as of date."

Jaisingh further submitted that the impugned act repeals and omits Section 43A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Impugned Act fails to provide any equivalent or effective civil remedy to individuals whose personal data is unlawfully processed or breached.

As per the new Act, the compensation, if any, will go to the Data Protection Board and not the individual affected.

The bench issued notice in the matter and tagged it with other pending petitions. While hearing the previous petitions, the CJI had orally commented that there were "some creases which required to be ironed out."

Notably, the Court is presently seized with three other writ petitions - one filed by Venkatesh Nayak, another by digital news platform The Reporters Collective and journalist Nitin Sethi, and the third one filed by the National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI). The petitioners have essentially challenged Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, amending Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, giving a blanket exemption to the disclosure of personal information. Before the amendment, personal information could have been disclosed if there was an overriding public interest.

The present plea seeks the following reliefs :

a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction or declaration quashing and setting aside Sections 7, 17(2)(a), 19(3) 24, 36, 44(2)(a), and 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, to the extent challenged herein, as being unconstitutional, void and inoperative, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 21 and 21A of the Constitution of India.

b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside Rules 5, 6, 17, 18, 21 and 23, and the Second Schedule, Fifth Schedule, Sixth Schedule and Seventh Schedule of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, to the extent challenged herein, as being unconstitutional, void and inoperative, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 21 and 21A of the Constitution of India.

c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside Section 17(2) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, insofar as it empowers the Central Government to exempt any of its instrumentalities from the application of the provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025.

d) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside the Second Schedule of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025.

e) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside Section 44(2)(a) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, insofar as it extinguishes the right of affected persons to seek compensation or civil remedy for unlawful processing of personal data and/or data breach.

f) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 insofar as it dilutes the right to information of the citizens of India.

g) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside Section 19(3) and Section 24 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 read with Rules 17, 18 and 21 and the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, insofar as they relate to the constitution, appointment, service conditions and functioning of the Data Protection Board of India.

h) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration directing the Respondent No. 1 to frame a constitutionally compliant mechanism for appointment, tenure and service conditions of the Data Protection Board of India, ensuring its independence from executive control.

i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside Section 36 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 read with Rule 23 and the Serial No. 1 of the Seventh Schedule of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025.

j) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration directing the Respondent No. 1 to incorporate and notify a specific and proportionate exemption under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 for processing of personal data for journalistic, editorial, investigative and public interest reporting purposes, including protection of journalistic sources. Alternatively, issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, or declaration quashing and setting aside Section 7 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, insofar as it fails to provide an exemption for processing of personal data for journalistic purposes. The plea was filed through Advocate-on-Record Paras Nath Singh.

Case Details: GEETA SESHU AND ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS| W.P.(C) No. 275/2026

RTI privacy vs public results: Allahabad High Court answers if you can see other candidate’s examination marks : Written by: Ashish Shaji

The Indian Express: New Delhi: Thursday, 12 March 2026.
The Allahabad High Court held that exam marks in public recruitment are not confidential under the RTI Act, but answer sheets of other candidates cannot be compelled.

Allahabad High Court news: The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that marks obtained by a candidate in a public examination are not confidential private information which may require the consent of the party whose marks have been sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
A bench of Justices Ajit Kumar and Swarupama Chaturvedi made the observation in a judgment passed on February 26 while dealing with a writ petition filed by the Union of India and officials of the diesel locomotive works, Varanasi.
“Marks obtained by a candidate, if information regarding that is sought by another candidate who has also participated in examination, is not such a confidential private information which may require even consent of that third party under Section 8. Well of course, if an outsider seeks information, department may take a valid defence of confidentiality,” the court noted.
What was the case about?

• The dispute arose after a railway employee who had appeared in a written examination for the post of legal assistant held by the Railways sought some information under RTI.
• In his application, he requested the marks obtained by himself and two other candidates, along with photocopies of their answer sheets.
• While the public information officer provided a copy of the question paper, the request for photocopies of answer sheets and disclosure of marks was initially declined.
• The applicant was, however, allowed to inspect the answer sheets.
• Following an appeal, the Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the Railways to provide photocopies of the answer sheets.
• The Railways later disclosed the marks of the three candidates but challenged the CIC’s direction to supply the answer sheet copies, arguing that such disclosure could be exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act relating to personal information.
• Also Read| Acid attacks are ‘gender-based violence’: Allahabad High Court upholds man’s conviction, reduces life term to 14 years

Court’s observations

• It is true that if a candidate seeks information about another candidate’s marks, then it becomes third-party information, and therefore, Rule 11 (third-party information) of the Act gets attracted. However, the information must be such in nature that if disclosed, it would cause damage in terms of the privacy of the third party.
• In this case, the information required is related to a public examination for the post of Legal Assistant.
• The information was sought regarding marks obtained, and we fail to understand as to how this information is private information or giving of this information to a candidate would amount to invading the privacy of a candidate.
• All those who have obtained marks, are open to all ultimately when the merit is prepared.
• While it may be true that for a certain period an information may be withheld in a matter where any investigation or enquiry is pending and marks have not been disclosed, but where no investigation or enquiry is pending such an information, if sought for under the RTI Act, such information can always be provided.
• On the question of photocopies of the answer sheets, it may involve checking of answer sheets, signatures of examiners, etc. and therefore, it may not be appropriate to disclose the names, signatures of the examiners.
• There is no vested right in an applicant to obtain the photocopies of answer sheets of another candidate, however, he can always ask for the photocopy of his own answer sheet.
• The purpose of a candidate seeking information in such competitive examination can be understood as a curiosity to know how many marks he has obtained and whether his answer sheet is correctly examined or not, inasmuch as, the perusal of other candidate’s answer sheet can also be helpful to him but in no case we can compel an authority to supply the photocopies of answer sheets of other candidates.
• On the count of furnishing marks of other desired candidates, the judgment and order passed by the CIC cannot be faulted with, nor do we find any manifest error in the order dismissing the review petition.
• Sufficient information has been given and therefore, providing for photocopies of answer sheets is not necessary and the original order of commission to that extent and order in review offering the same deserve to be reversed.
• The orders passed by the CIC and the Information Commission are quashed to the extent they directed the supply of photocopies of answer sheets.

‘Failed to apply mind’: CIC slams its officers for ‘evasive’ RTI replies over hearing delays

The Print: New Delhi: Thursday, 12 March 2026.
In December 2012, a Punjab resident filed an application with the police seeking daily diary

New Delhi, Mar 11 (PTI) The Central Information Commission (CIC) has rapped its officials for their “inadequate and inaccurate” replies to RTI applications seeking information on delays in hearing second appeals, observing that the officers had “failed to apply their mind” while responding to the queries. In a recent order, Information Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam said the responses by the concerned Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) did not properly address the issues raised by the appellant and reflected an “evasive pattern” in handling the requests. The RTI applications had sought details regarding the time taken for listing and hearing second appeals before the commission, reasons for delays in hearings, the procedure for seeking early hearings, and the steps taken by the CIC to ensure the timely disposal of cases. During the hearing, the commission noted that the replies provided by the officials were either incomplete or did not directly respond to the questions raised. “The replies given by the CPIO in both the appeals are inadequate and inaccurate with respect to the RTI requests raised by the appellant,” the order said. The commission further observed that the manner in which the replies were furnished suggested that the RTI requests had not been examined carefully. “The respondent has failed to apply his mind and examine the contents of the RTI request diligently and give a proper and point-wise reply,” the order noted. The commission also pointed out that when the appellant sought the names of officers who had handled his earlier representation regarding speedy hearings, the reply merely mentioned the section that examined the matter rather than identifying the officials involved. Taking note of the lapses, the commission has sought explanations from the concerned officials for furnishing such replies and directed them to provide a revised, point-wise response to the appellant. PTI MHS MHS MPL MPL
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.

Under RTI Act, accused can’t get case diary of FIR pending trial: HC

Hindustan Times: Chandigarh: Thursday, 12 March 2026.
In December 2012, a Punjab resident filed an application with the police seeking daily diary orders of the Jagraon police station of the period of 2004-05 in relation to an FIR registered in July 2004

The Punjab and Haryana high court has held that an accused, by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act (RTI) Act, is not entitled to access a police case diary relating to his criminal case, particularly when the investigation or trial is still in progress.
While dealing with an appeal filed by the Punjab government against the state information commission’s decision, the high court bench of justice Kuldeep Tiwari said that if Sections 8(1)(h) and 22 of the RTI Act are read together with Section 172(3) of the CrPC, it clearly demonstrates that these provisions “function in tandem”. Now, the CrPC has been replaced with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
“..the legislative intent behind Section 172(3) of the CrPC is to preserve the confidentiality of investigation records. The restriction imposed through Section 172(3) of the CrPC inherently indicates that disclosing the police case diary would impede the ongoing investigation or trial, and there comes exceptions carved out under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act to achieve the same object,” the court said. It added that the act of the public information officer declining the applicant access to police case diary of a criminal case, trial whereof was in progress at the relevant time, is legally sustainable.
“The Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act complements and subserves the underlying objective of Section 172(3) of the CrPC. The provisions of the CrPC expressly curtail the disclosure of police case diaries to an accused while an investigation or trial is pending, and the exemption enshrined in Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act ensures the enforcement of this prohibition,” the court said.
The Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act exempts the PIO from disclosing any information that would impede the process of investigation, apprehension, or prosecution of offenders. While Section 22 of the RTI Act provides that the provisions of the RTI Act shall have an overriding effect over any other law in force, or any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.
Section 172 of the CrPC mandates that every police officer conducting an investigation must maintain a diary recording the time at which information is received, the time at which the investigation commences and concludes, the places visited by him during the course of the investigation, and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation.
While courts can summon police diaries during trial or probe but accused is not entitled to inspect or access the same.
In December 2012, a Punjab resident filed an application with the police seeking daily diary orders of the Jagraon police station of the period of 2004-05 in relation to an FIR registered in July 2004. As information was denied. he approached SIC and in 2016, the SIC ruled in his favour and imposed the penalty on a police officer and also awarded compensation.
It was against this order the Punjab government had approached the high court in 2016 arguing that the RTI Act cannot be invoked to secure information by an accused about a police case diary of a case, trial whereof is in progress.
On the other hand, the complainant, who had also become a party in the HC, had contended that to ensure a fair trial, an accused has the right to seek information under the RTI Act about the case diary and other records.

Appoint information commissioners immediately

The Daily Star: Bangladesh: Wednesday, 11 March 2026.
Govt must amend RTI 2026 ordinance further before passing it

We second the Right to Information (RTI) Forum’s call to immediately appoint information commissioners and further amend the RTI (Amendment) Ordinance, 2026, before passing it in the upcoming parliamentary session. It is a shame that the Information Commission has been left without leadership for 18 months, after all three previous commissioners resigned following the July 2024 uprising. Despite repeated calls since then from rights activists and civil society organisations (CSOs), the interim government did not appoint new commissioners.
Although it did amend the 2009 RTI law, it skipped several important changes proposed by CSOs. For instance, the 2026 amendments expanded the definition of “information” to include memoranda, maps, contracts, and audiovisual materials, but left out official note sheets. Furthermore, local government bodies, private entities operating under government contracts or licences, and political parties registered with the Election Commission have not been brought under the purview of the law. CSOs also urged the government to review Section 7 of the RTI Act, 2009, which outlines the categories of information that public, autonomous, and statutory organisations, as well as private institutions constituted or run by the government or through foreign financing, are not required to publish or provide. However, many government departments may misuse the clauses in this section to withhold crucial information. Therefore, it is pertinent that these amendments be made.
Nevertheless, the appointment of information commissioners is even more urgent. Without them, citizens cannot file complaints with the commission when their right to access information is denied. As stipulated in the current RTI Act, when a designated officer of an organisation that falls within the scope of the law fails to provide requested information to a citizen, the latter has the right to appeal to the appellate authority within the same office. If the appellate authority does not take any action, the citizen can then complain to the commission. But without commissioners, there has been no one to take citizens’ complaints into cognisance. As a result, more than 1,000 complaints are already pending.
Therefore, the government should take immediate steps to form the Information Commission and introduce a time limit within which the commissioners must be appointed. This will help avoid long vacancies in these crucial posts in the future. It goes without saying that the independence of the commission must be ensured by appointing qualified, non-partisan individuals. To ensure transparency, the appointment committee should include CSO members and rights activists. The government must take all necessary measures to ensure that this vital organisation functions properly.

Delhi Jal Board Got 43,000 Complaints Of Contaminated Water In 5 Years: RTI Reply

News18: New Delhi: Wednesday, 11 March 2026.
When asked if complainants had reported illness or adverse health effects, the DJB replied that it had no records

The Delhi Jal Board is responsible for supplying water across the national capital,
(File)

The Delhi Jal Board has received more than 43,000 complaints of contaminated drinking water between 2021 and 2025, according to information provided under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
In the RTI, filed by News18, the DJB was asked about complaints related to contaminated water and whether complainants had reported illness or adverse health effects linked to the utility’s drinking water supply.
To the adverse health effects question, the DJB reply stated that the RTI Act, 2005 provides access to information as available on record. “No specific document or record sought in the query is available in the records of this office."
The DJB, responsible for supplying water across the national capital, said it has received a total of 43,325 complaints related to contaminated drinking water between 2021 and 2025.

Excerpt from the RTI response provided by the Delhi Jal Board showing year-wise
complaints of contaminated drinking water and the department’s
response on illness-related records.

Listing the year-wise complaints, the DJB reply stated that in 2021, there were just 2,549 complaints related to contaminated drinking water that increased to 12,286 in 2022 – almost five times higher than 2021. This means complaints increased from about seven per day in 2021 to roughly 34 per day in 2022.
Since 2023, the numbers have remained largely consistent, with 9,767 complaints recorded in 2023, 9,387 in 2024, and 9,336 in 2025. On average, the city reported around 26 complaints of contaminated drinking water each day over the last two years.
Earlier this year, News18 had reported that the water and sewer pipelines in the national capital are as old as 50 years and no fixed timeline has been set for the replacement of these old pipelines.
In May 2025, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) pulled up the DJB, along with the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), for alleged contamination of drinking water supplied to residents of Janakpuri. The Residents’ Welfare Association (RWA) in March 2025 had alleged that sewage had mixed with the drinking water due to corroded pipelines caused by a blocked sewer line.
The water supply contamination has been gathering attention after 15 people died and several others were hospitalised due to consuming contaminated water in Indore’s Bhagirathpura in January this year. The contamination of water in Madhya Pradesh was allegedly caused by sewage leakage that led to mass hospital visits.

HC: RTI applicants can seek marks of fellow candidates

Times of India: Prayagraj: Wednesday, 11 March 2026.
The Allahabad high court has ruled that marks obtained by candidates in public examinations are not confidential and can be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act without requiring consent from the third party as long as the request comes from another candidate of the same exam.

A division bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi, in a judgment dated Feb 26, held that marks secured in a public test do not fall within the category of private or sensitive information that attracts protection under section 8 of the RTI Act. "However, if an outsider seeks such information, the department may take the defence of confidentiality," the bench added.
The court drew a distinction between marks and answer sheets, observing that providing photocopies may reveal the identity and signatures of examiners, or other sensitive details not meant for disclosure. In such cases, authorities may allow candidates to inspect answer sheets instead of issuing photocopies.
"There is no vested right in an applicant to obtain photocopies of another candidate's answer sheets. He is entitled to the photocopy of only his own," the bench said.
The judgment came on a writ petition filed by the Union of India through the GM, Diesel Locomotive Works (DLW), Varanasi.
In 2008, one Santosh Kumar had sought marksheets of three candidates—including himself—under RTI after appearing in a Railways exam for the post of legal assistant.
While authorities allowed him to inspect the answer sheets, they did not provide photocopies.
He moved the The Central Information Commission (CIC), Delhi, which directed Railways to supply photocopies, prompting DLW to seek a review, which was rejected. This led to the writ petition before the high court.
The bench said personal information unrelated to public interest may be withheld to avoid unwarranted invasion of privacy. But if disclosure serves public interest, it must be provided.
Referring to section 11 of the RTI Act, the court said adequate safeguards exist when third-party information is sought, including mandatory notice to the third party. The key concern, it noted, is maintaining confidentiality and respecting the right to privacy.
The court also observed that information could be withheld if an inquiry involving the candidate was pending.
The bench held that while the marks requested by the RTI applicant should have been provided, authorities cannot be compelled to release photocopies of answer sheets.
Departments may frame their own rules regarding such disclosures, the court added.
It clarified that permitting an applicant to inspect records satisfies the requirements of the RTI Act if the purpose of the request is met.
"Furnishing relevant information satisfies the application. It is not always necessary to provide copies of official documents if the department believes inspection is sufficient," the court said.

India’s CIC advises NFRA to put audit directions in the public domain

The Accountant Online: New Delhi: Wednesday, 11 March 2026.
The recommendation was issued while the CIC was ruling on an appeal under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

India’s Central Information Commission (CIC) has called on the National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) to put in the public domain its orders, directions, circulars and policy decisions that influence audit practices and standards.
The recommendation was issued while the CIC was ruling on an appeal under the Right to Information (RTI) Act , according to a Press Trust of India report.
The appeal requested records on the NFRA’s decision to allow auditors and audit practices to be represented by lawyers during oral hearings.
Stressing the importance of greater openness in rule-making around audits, the Commission observed: “Any orders, directions, circulars and policy decisions affecting audit practices and standards should be placed in public domain for protecting public interest by strengthening trust in financial reporting.”
The CIC also pointed to the NFRA’s obligations under the RTI law to proactively publish information.
The order stated: “There is no denying that the respondent is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information.”
The NFRA, created in 2018 under the Companies Act, 2013, is the statutory body that supervises auditors. It ensures adherence to accounting and auditing standards for companies.
Its responsibilities also include monitoring the quality of audits to support dependable financial disclosures.
CIC Information Commissioner PR Ramesh was quoted by the news agency as saying: “NFRA safeguards the credibility of financial statements, which are relied upon by investors, lenders, regulators and the public at large.”