Here’s what you need to know about the FOI bill and how it can hold the government accountable: Aifer Jacutin, Daniela Dizon

Explained PH: Philippines: Sunday, August 30, 2026.

Being informed has always been a priority in any democratic country. The problem is, many ordinary citizens always get trapped in the pit of misinformation. They accept information as “truth” without even verifying through credible sources. People no longer understand the borderline between truth and misinformation. Bad actors, then, utilize this advantage of misinformation to continue coercion.
In the country, citizens still struggle to analyze and even access basic government transparency records, important information, and spending records. In spite of the constitutional promise that gives the right to information, it is evident that the Philippines lacks an understanding of the Freedom of Information (FOI) law that assures public access to government information. 
The continuous political crisis, especially if rooted in misinformation, can distract the public from crucial issues; this becomes easier for political actors to maintain power even if they are generally bad-faith actors. 
Freedom of Information (FOI) Law
Senate of the Philippines Senate Bill No. 1432, also called the People’s Freedom of Information Act, seeks to institutionalize the constitutional right of Filipinos to access information on matters of public concern. Meaning, Filipinos should have the legal right to ask the government for information.
Contents of Senate Bill No. 1432

• Public records: The Government will be mandated and required to be transparent, especially if it involves the public interest. 

• Transparency: Officials would be required to publicly disclose information about their Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN). 

History of the FOI Bill 
The Freedom of Information (FOI) Bill in the Philippines was rooted in the 1987 Constitution, which lawfully recognised the concerns and rights of its people to information. It was created with the purpose of giving citizens the right to legally access government records and promote the transparency of public documents to fight corruption and strengthen democracy. The proposed bill had undergone different versions and been going around since the early 1990’s in Congress. During the 14th Congress, the aforementioned bill was finally approved by the Senate in 2009. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives and other lawmakers failed to acknowledge and pass the bill even before the session ended. 
The FOI bill had been refiled in 2013 to 2014 under President Benigno Aquino III on his transparency campaign promise. The bill has been discussed, and some versions have been approved by the Senate and the House of Representatives, but the implementation has been delayed due to some arguments that it is still limited and contains many confidential concerns. 
In 2016, President Rodrigo Duterte signed the Freedom of Information Order that requires the executive branch to respond to public inquiries. Despite this major development, some organizations and lawmakers still want to improve the proposed bill and implement a holistic FOI law that includes even the judiciary and the Congress to be a part of its scope.
Progress on the Bicameral Process
The FOI bill is still one of the most controversial transparency solutions to corruption in the Philippines, long viewed by its proponents as a cornerstone solution to the country’s entrenched culture of corruption and public distrust in the government. Since its first filing decades ago, the proposed bill has still been continuously refiled in both the Senate and the House of Representatives by lawmakers who argue that guaranteed public access to government records is essential to meaningful accountability. 
A crucial milestone was reached in May 2026, when the Senate unanimously approved Senate Bill No. 1432, also known as the People’s Freedom of Information Act, with a 22-0 standing–marking the first time the chamber passed the measure under the MArcos administration. The bill enshrines in law the right of citizens to access public records across all branches of government, mandating the disclosure of government contracts, procurement documents, and the Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) of public officials.
Shortly after, the House of Representatives passed its own version of the FOI bill, clearing the way for the measure to enter the bicameral conference committee process. In this stage, designated members from both chambers will convene to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions, with the goal of producing a unified bill that can be ratified by both chambers and transmitted to the President for signing into law. Despite this progress, the road to ratification is not without obstacles. Some lawmakers and government officials continue to express reservations, citing concerns over the confidentiality of sensitive state information and the potential for bad-faith exploitation of disclosed records.
Limitations on the existing laws
Article III, Bill of Rights, Section 7 recognizes the “right of the people to information on matters of public concern.” However, almost four decades had passed since the first FOI bill was filed, and none of its versions had ever been enacted. 
In 2016, there was progress when former President Rodrigo Duterte signed Executive Order No. 2, s. 2016, or the Freedom of Information. Although it mandates “full public disclosure of all government transactions involving the public interest,” it applies only to the Executive branch, leaving the other branches and constitutional bodies untouched.
In 2018, the Presidential Communications Operations Office (PCOO) and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) issued a Joint Memorandum Circular (JMC) reiterating EO No. 2 to the local level. Despite the progress, only a few local government units have successfully passed their ordinances. 
For the past decade, several FOI bills have been filed, and now, Senate Bill No. 1432, known as the ‘People’s Freedom of Information Act,’ is making progress as the Senate of the Philippines has approved it on its third and final reading. This bill, if enacted, will fill the gaps, recognizing the right to information covering executive, legislative, and judicial offices, constitutional bodies, local government units (LGUs), state universities and colleges (SUCs), government-owned or-controlled corporations (GOCCs), and other government instrumentalities.
Effectivity of existing initiatives
Through EO No. 2 s. 2016, the Electronic Freedom of Information (eFOI) portal was created, allowing Filipinos to request information about government transactions and operations. Two years after it started, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) revealed the problems with the FOI implementation, including high rates of declined requests, overdue responses, and unsatisfactory results on the requests.
A study showed that FOI requests were being denied because government agencies do not have the information, some requests were not viewed as valid FOI requests, and requests were addressed to the wrong government agency. The same study noted that various agencies have different rules in processing requests. In 2022, a new feature was added to lessen the number of denied requests. Today, more improvements need to be made to further enhance the citizens’ experience when requesting information and to ensure the government’s transparency and accountability.
Philippines in the FOI Global Ranking
The Philippines scored 47 in the Global Right to Information (RTI) Rating, an indication that the citizens’ constitutional right to information is extremely poor. Compared to other countries, the Philippines’ performance places it near the bottom of the RTI rankings. Looking at the status of FOI in other countries, most have enacted legislation that began decades and years ago, which they have continually developed and expanded. 
The information commission in Mexico, called INIA, was regarded as a gold standard, ranking second in the world by the Centre for Law and Democracy. It facilitates requests for public information through its portal, the National Transparency Platform.  There were also reports that journalists were able to use the portal when investigating because it is user-friendly and efficient. 
Significance of FOI Law
An enacted Freedom of Information law is necessary to keep democracy alive and to boost economic opportunities. Access to information is a basic human right that enables people to make informed decisions. In a democratic country, FOI allows citizens to hold the government accountable and exercise their voice. For countries with established domestic FOI laws, research shows that citizens’ participation is enhanced, equitable economic development is advanced, and poverty and corruption are reduced. 
Danilo Arao, an Associate Professor from the University of the Philippines – Diliman (UPD), said in an interview with Tinig ng Plaridel that, “The FOI bill, in the eyes of the powers that be, is counterproductive to historical denialism and red tagging. [With FOI] it would be more convenient for the media and ordinary people to expose fake news.” Citing the significance of FOI law in the age where information continuously flows.
The FOI law, if passed, will also be beneficial to journalists, media workers, researchers, and the general public. A legal right to information can increase government transparency, openness, and responsiveness to information requests. Thus, it will allow everyone to keep the government in check. When people are informed, they can make an informed decision on how everything affects their everyday lives.
Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) continue to call for the passage of the FOI bill. The Right to Know, Right Now! (R2KRN) Coalition stated, “The challenge before Congress is therefore not merely to pass any FOI bill, but to enact one that fully honors the constitutional command that the right to information is the people’s right, and disclosure, whether proactive or upon request, is the State’s duty.” 
An enabling law that recognizes the people’s right to information is crucial in keeping democracy alive. It is also essential for the public to assert and demand this right because silence can chain a nation. People can see and question only if they have the right to information.

Haryana: 14,298 employees hired through HKRNL since 2022, reveals RTI

The Tribune: Haryana: Sunday, August 30, 2026.
Activists question transparency, job security, claim of 1.20L recruitments

The Haryana Government recruited 14,298 employees through the Haryana Kaushal Rozgar Nigam Limited (HKRNL) between 2022 and January 2026, according to information obtained under the Right to Information Act.
The information furnished by the HKRNL shows 16,580 recruitment entries, of which 2,282 have been marked ‘Null’. An assessment of the data shows that 14,298 entries represent actual recruitments.
According to the year-wise figures, 1,150 employees were recruited in 2022, 7,136 in 2023, 7,250 in 2024, 1,012 in 2025 and 32 up to January 2026. RTI activist Subhash, state convener of the Haryana Soochna Adhikar Manch, said the issue was not merely the number of people recruited but also the manner in which contractual manpower was being inducted and retained.
Questioning the absence of clarity over the opening of the HKRNL portal, he alleged that the criteria for selection, reservation and preparation of merit lists needed to be fair and transparent and placed in the public domain.
Government departments and Boards send their requirements for contractual manpower, including educational qualifications and other details, to the HKRNL portal. The nigam then prepares lists under its policy and rules framed on June 30, 2022, which were subsequently amended on May 13, 2025.
Subhash said employees who had completed around five years of service still lacked job security or a clear avenue for regularisation. He alleged that workers earlier engaged in different departments and organisations were subsequently brought into the HKRNL system, which, he claimed, was being projected as part of the government’s employment figures.
He also alleged that HKRNL employees were not provided service benefits at par with regular government employees, including pension, gratuity and leave encashment.
Subhash Lamba, a leader of the Sarv Karamchari Sangh Haryana, remarked, “HKRNL kactha karmachari ko kacha rakhne ki guarantee hai (HKRNL is a mechanism to keep the temporary employee as temporary forever).”
Lamba also questioned the government’s claim of around 1.20 lakh recruitments through the HKRNL system, arguing that a large chunk of these employees had been ported into the system from contractual and other modes of employment.
“It is wrong to say that the government has provided fresh jobs to about 1.2 lakh persons under the HKRNL,” he said.
He alleged that presenting contractual engagements as a large-scale recruitment exercise could also be used to avoid demands for regularisation and long-term job security. He also questioned the low payments being made to employees under the HKRNL system.
The RTI response further reveals that HKRNL is not an autonomous institution but a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013. It was incorporated on October 13, 2021, with its registered office in Panchkula.

Maharashtra’s green massacre: 3.46 lakh trees axed illegally in 5 years: RTI

Nagpur Today: Nagpur: Sunday, August 30, 2026.
RTI exposes Rs 31.22-crore loss to the exchequer; 1.28 lakh teak trees wiped out as Gadchiroli, Thane and Nagpur emerge as major hotspots

Maharashtra’s forests are facing an alarming assault, with rampant illegal tree felling stripping away lakhs of trees despite the presence of forest laws and enforcement machinery. Official data obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act reveals that 3.46 lakh trees were illegally felled in forest areas across the State between 2021 and 2025, exposing glaring failures in protecting one of Maharashtra’s most valuable natural assets.
The information, provided by the Forest Department to Nagpur-based RTI activist Abhay Kolarkar, shows that 1.28 lakh of the illegally felled trees were teak, one of the country’s most commercially valuable species. The widespread destruction caused the State an estimated financial loss of Rs 31.22 crore, including Rs 22.57 crore attributable to illegal teak felling alone.
The figures paint a disturbing picture of unchecked forest crime. Even in 2021, when the Covid-19 pandemic had curtailed most economic activities, Maharashtra recorded the highest illegal tree felling in the five-year period, with 81,086 trees cut, including 31,310 teak trees. The estimated loss that year stood at Rs 6.80 crore, of which Rs 4.88 crore resulted from teak smuggling.
The menace has continued unabated. During the first three months of 2026 alone, forest officials recorded 17,114 illegally felled trees, including 5,774 teak trees, causing an estimated loss of Rs 1.62 crore, with teak accounting for Rs 1.09 crore.
Among the districts, Gadchiroli emerged as the worst affected, reporting 3,372 illegally felled trees in the January-March 2026 period. Thane followed with 2,756 trees, while Nagpur ranked third with 2,647 trees, indicating that illegal logging remains widespread across both tribal and urban forest divisions.
Ironically, while illegal felling continues on a massive scale, the Forest Department has simultaneously cleared an unprecedented number of legal tree-cutting proposals. RTI records show that between 2021 and 2025, the department approved 45,803 proposals, permitting the felling of 47.14 lakh trees, including 33.63 lakh teak trees. In just the first quarter of 2026, another 6,336 proposals were sanctioned, allowing the cutting of 8.38 lakh trees, of which 3.05 lakh were teak.
The simultaneous surge in illegal logging and large-scale official permissions has intensified concerns over the shrinking forest landscape. Vast stretches of forest land continue to face diversion for highways, mining projects, public infrastructure and other development works, fuelling criticism that ecological safeguards are steadily being weakened in the name of development.
These concerns are reinforced by the India State of Forest Report, which recorded a 54.5-square-kilometre decline in Maharashtra’s forest cover over recent assessment cycles, signalling that the State’s green wealth continues to erode despite repeated conservation claims.
The government’s response has also come under scrutiny. Although Maharashtra had proposed a 50-fold increase in penalties for illegal tree felling from Rs 1,000 to Rs 50,000 through amendments to the Maharashtra Felling of Trees (Regulation) Act, 1964, the legislation was withdrawn in July 2025 following criticism from environmentalists and legislators.
The RTI findings raise uncomfortable questions about the effectiveness of forest protection mechanisms. With lakhs of trees disappearing illegally, crores of rupees lost, and forest cover continuing to shrink, environmentalists argue that stronger enforcement, faster prosecution of timber mafias and greater accountability within the forest administration have become urgent necessities before irreversible ecological damage is inflicted on Maharashtra’s forests.

Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission Imposes Rs 25,000 Penalty on Koloriang BDO

The Sentinel: Itanagar: Saturday, 29 August 2026.
The Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission (APIC) imposed a Rs 25,000 penalty on M F Bengia, PIO-cum-Block Development Officer of Koloriang CD Block in Kurung Kumey district, for wilfully remaining absent from the Commission's hearings and failing to comply with its directions under the Right to Information Act.

The Arunachal Pradesh Information Commission (APIC) imposed a Rs 25,000 penalty on M F Bengia, PIO-cum-Block Development Officer of Koloriang CD Block in Kurung Kumey district, for wilfully remaining absent from the Commission's hearings and failing to comply with its directions under the Right to Information Act.
The Commission directed Bengia to deposit the penalty with the Registrar, APIC, through a treasury challan and submit proof of payment along with the information sought by the appellant at the next hearing.

RTI Commission targets information disorder in September

Business & Financial Times: Ghana: Saturday, 29 August 2026.

The Right to Information Commission (RTIC) has announced the commencement of Right to Information (RTI) Month 2026, an annual commemoration dedicated to promoting the effective implementation of the Right to Information Act, 2019 (Act 989).
In a press statement signed by the Executive Secretary of the RTIC, Genevieve Shirley Lartey, Esq., announcing the programme, the Commission said the annual observance is aimed at deepening public awareness and understanding of the right to access information.
This fundamental right according to the commission enables every person to seek and receive information, subject only to the limitations prescribed by law.
The commemoration provides an important platform for engaging citizens and key stakeholders on the critical role of access to information in promoting transparency, accountability, inclusive participation and good governance.
This year's celebration is under the theme: “Upholding Information Integrity in the Digital Age: The Role of Access to Information in Addressing Information Disorder.”
The Commission has designated September for a series of activities culminating in the commemoration of the International Day for Universal Access to Information (IDUAI) on September 28. The Day was proclaimed by the UNESCO General Conference in 2015 and subsequently recognised by the United Nations General Assembly in 2019.
Activities scheduled for RTI Month 2026
The month-long celebration will feature a series of activities, including media outreach and interviews, a stakeholder conference, as well as internal staff engagement and team-building activities.
Media Outreach and Interviews
RTI Month 2026 will commence with media outreach activities, including radio and television interviews with officials of the Commission in Accra, Kumasi, Sunyani and Bolgatanga from September 1 to 28.
Section 45 of Act 989 mandates the Commission to promote and sustain public awareness of the right to information and to collaborate with state institutions and other relevant bodies to educate the public.
The media engagements will provide an opportunity for the Commission to interact with stakeholders, deepen public understanding of Act 989 and highlight the respective responsibilities of public institutions and citizens under the Act.
Stakeholder Conference
The activities for RTI Month will include a Stakeholder Conference on September 24.
The conference will bring together representatives of ministries, departments and agencies; metropolitan, municipal and district assemblies; civil society organisations; the media; academia; traditional authorities; and development partners.
The conference will provide a platform to develop practical recommendations for addressing information disorder, promote meaningful public participation in decision-making processes and explore measures for strengthening information integrity within Ghana's digital information ecosystem.
Staff engagement and team-building activities
A series of internal staff engagement and team-building activities will also be organised, culminating in the RTIC Staff Fun Day.
These activities reflect the Commission's commitment to building a motivated, cohesive and service-oriented workforce capable of effectively delivering on its statutory mandate.
Call to action
The Commission is calling on all public institutions to strengthen their proactive disclosure practices and comply fully with their obligations under Act 989.
It is also inviting academia, development partners, traditional authorities and other stakeholders to participate in and support efforts to advance transparency, accountability and meaningful citizen participation in governance.
The media and civil society organisations are encouraged to continue championing the right of access to information and promoting the dissemination of accurate and verified information.
The Commission further encourages all citizens to exercise their rights under Act 989 responsibly, seek information from credible sources and contribute to efforts aimed at building a well-informed and resilient society.

74% Recovery from Small Borrowers, Only 15% from Big Defaulters - RTI by Sajag Nagrik Manch Exposes Central Bank of India’s Loan Write-Off Divide

The Kanal: National: Saturday, 29 August 2026.
An RTI application filed by Sajag Nagrik Manch has revealed a significant disparity in Central Bank of India’s loan recovery process. The RTI data shows the bank recovered nearly 74% of technically written-off loans below ₹1 crore, but only about 15% from loans above ₹100 crore, while refusing to disclose the names of large defaulters or details of loan haircuts.

A Right To Information (RTI) reply issued by Central Bank of India (CBI) in response to an application filed by Vivek Velankar, president of Sajag Nagrik Manch, has brought renewed attention to the bank’s loan write-off and recovery practices. The RTI response, covering the period from FY2016-17 to FY2025-26, highlights a sharp difference between recoveries from small borrowers and large corporate borrowers whose loans were technically written off.
The RTI application sought details of loan write-offs above ₹100 crore, recoveries made after write-offs, names of major borrowers, and information on settlements through the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) involving loan haircuts.
Big Defaulters: ₹26,701 Crore Written Off, Recovery Only ₹3,874 Crore:
According to the RTI reply, the Central Bank of India technically wrote off ₹26,701.55 crore in loans belonging to borrowers with outstanding dues above ₹100 crore during the ten financial years.
Of this amount, the bank recovered only ₹3,874.41 crore up to 31 March 2026, resulting in an overall recovery rate of around 14.5%.
The largest write-off occurred in FY2018-19, when loans worth ₹7,002.58 crore were written off, while recoveries from those accounts stood at ₹761.01 crore. In FY2024-25, loans worth ₹2,255.61 crore were written off, but recoveries were only ₹53.42 crore.
Small Borrowers Show Much Higher Recovery:
The RTI reply presents a contrasting picture for borrowers with loans below ₹1 crore.
Between FY2016-17 and FY2025-26, the bank wrote off ₹6,774.23 crore in small loans and recovered ₹5,004.28 crore, translating into a recovery rate of nearly 74%.
Most of these write-offs and recoveries were recorded in FY2022-23 and FY2023-24, when the bank recovered a substantial share of technically written-off small loans.
Bank Refuses to Reveal Names of Large Defaulter:
Vivek Velankar requested the names of all borrowers whose loans above ₹100 crore were technically written off, along with the amount written off for each account.
The Central Bank of India declined the request, stating that the information relates to third parties and therefore cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act.
The bank gave the same response when asked for the names of borrowers whose loans were settled through NCLT or similar forums after accepting haircuts.
Haircut Details Also Withheld:
The RTI application also sought the total amount of haircuts accepted by the bank in loan settlements between FY2017-18 and FY2025-26, along with the corresponding recovery amounts.
The bank replied that the query was not clear and did not provide the requested figures.
Sajag Nagrik Manch Questions Accountability:
Reacting to the RTI reply, Vivek Velankar said the figures expose a serious imbalance in the treatment of borrowers. He alleged that while banks publicly identify and pursue small borrowers through recovery notices and property auctions, they continue to withhold the identities of large defaulters whose loans involve thousands of crores.
He also questioned the lack of transparency surrounding NCLT settlements and loan haircuts, and called for greater accountability from public sector bank boards, the Reserve Bank of India, and the Union Ministry of Finance.
The RTI reply has once again revived the debate over transparency in large corporate loan write-offs and equal treatment of borrowers within India’s public sector banking system.
Source: Moneylife

RTI Commission announces September as Right to Information Month 2026

The Hindu: Madurai: Friday, August 28, 2026.

The Right to Information Commission (RTIC) has announced September 2026 as Right to Information (RTI) Month to promote public awareness and effective implementation of the Right to Information Act, 2019 (Act 989).
This year’s commemoration will focus on the growing challenge of information disorder in Ghana’s digital environment and the importance of access to accurate and credible information.
The month-long programme will run from September 1 to 28 and culminate in activities marking the International Day for Universal Access to Information on September 28.
In a statement issued on Thursday, August 27, the Commission said the commemoration would provide a platform to engage citizens and key stakeholders on the importance of access to information in promoting transparency, accountability, inclusive participation and good governance.
It said the RTI Month would begin with radio and television engagements involving its officials in Accra, Kumasi, Sunyani and Bolgatanga from September 1 to 28.
The media engagements are expected to deepen public understanding of Act 989 and clarify the responsibilities of public institutions and citizens under the law.
The Commission said the activities would culminate in a stakeholder conference on September 24, bringing together representatives from ministries, departments and agencies, metropolitan, municipal and district assemblies, civil society organisations, the media, academia, traditional authorities and development partners.
The conference will seek practical recommendations for addressing information disorder and strengthening information integrity within Ghana’s digital information ecosystem.
It will also explore ways to promote meaningful public participation in decisionmaking and improve access to reliable information.
The Commission said it would also organise internal staff engagement and teambuilding activities as part of efforts to build a motivated and service-oriented workforce.
“The Commission calls on all public institutions to strengthen their proactive disclosure practices and comply fully with their obligations under Act 989," the commission said.
The International Day for Universal Access to Information was proclaimed by the UNESCO General Conference in 2015 and subsequently recognised by the United Nations General Assembly in 2019.

Information Commissioner chairs review meeting in Tenkasi

The Hindu: Madurai: Friday, August 28, 2026.

State Information Commissioner V.P.R. Ilamparithi addressing awareness meeting on Right to Information Act 2005 held in Tenkasi on Thursday. | Photo Credit: SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT

State Information Commissioner V.P.R. Ilamparithi chaired a meeting here on Thursday to review the reply being provided to the Right to Information Act applications and to create awareness among government officials about the need for providing precise information within the stipulated period.
Addressing the meeting, Mr. Ilamparithi said the RTI applications being received by the government departments and the public sector undertakings should be treated with due respect by providing the relevant and accurate information within the stipulated period if the applications had been submitted by following the norms.
While the RTI petitions submitted by following the norms should be given the accurate reply within the stipulated period, the applications being submitted in violation of the norms or with the intention of wasting the time and resources need not be entertained.
He directed the officials to display in all government offices the designation of the Information Officer and the appellate officer.
District Collector Ranjeet Singh, General Information Officers of all government departments and public sector undertakings participated in the awareness meeting.

Rs 10,000 Compensation Exposes Manipur Government's Failure to Be Transparent on IDP Relief: Naorem Mohen

India Today NE: Opinion: Thursday, 27 August 2026.
The Rs 10,000 compensation ordered by the Manipur Information Commission against the public authority represented by the Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur may appear small in monetary terms. But in its institutional meaning, it is a serious indictment of how the state has handled public information relating to Internally Displaced Persons.

This is not merely about one RTI applicant receiving compensation. It is about the larger question of whether bonafide citizens internally displaced by violence, and those working for their rights, are entitled to know how relief and rehabilitation decisions are being made in their name.
At a time when thousands of displaced persons continue to live with uncertainty, the state cannot treat information on relief, rehabilitation, sanction orders, beneficiary lists and selection procedures as a matter of administrative convenience. These are not ordinary files. They concern the lives, dignity and future of people uprooted from their homes.
The issue has become sharper after the Chief Minister Yumnam Khemchand Singh met representatives of six groups of Internally Displaced Persons at the Chief Minister’s Bungalow in Imphal on August 24 and assured them that the government is sincerely working towards their rehabilitation and resettlement.
The representatives raised concerns over resettlement, relief camp conditions and the state of their native villages. The meeting was attended by senior officials, including Commissioner (Home) N Ashok Kumar, Special Secretary (Home) Ahanthem Subash Singh, Deputy Commissioners of various districts and representatives of displaced groups from Churachandpur, Moreh, Kangpokpi, Torbung and other affected areas.
Such a meeting is welcome. Direct engagement with displaced citizens is necessary. But meetings and assurances cannot substitute transparent governance. If the government is sincerely working for the displaced, it must also be ready to place the record of that work before the public, except where disclosure would clearly endanger individuals or compromise legitimate security concerns.
For the Chief Minister’s initiative to have real meaning, the entire government machinery must move with seriousness and sensitivity. Rehabilitation of IDPs cannot be left to political assurance alone. Departments, district administrations and officers dealing with relief must support Yumnam Khemchand Singh’s effort by acting transparently, responding promptly and understanding the pain of families who have suffered since May 3, 2023. Their suffering is not temporary inconvenience. It is a prolonged human crisis that demands empathy, efficiency and accountability from every level of administration.
The Manipur Information Commission’s decision dated August 17, 2026 in Appeal Case No. 2 of 2025, arising from an RTI application filed by W Joykumar Singh on August 16, 2024, brings this question into sharp focus. The application sought detailed information relating to schemes, sanction orders, beneficiary lists, selection procedures and transparency measures concerning relief and rehabilitation of IDPs in Manipur.
The Commission recorded that the matter had remained pending for a prolonged period. It noted repeated opportunities granted to the public authority, partial information furnished on different dates, persistent non-compliance, a show-cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act, and continued directions for complete disclosure and proactive uploading under Section 4(1)(b).
Despite this long process, complete compliance was not achieved.
The State Public Information Officer claimed that available and legally disclosable information had already been provided. The SPIO also contended that remaining information concerned sensitive data regarding IDPs and fell within the purview of the Justice Gita Mittal Committee constituted by the Supreme Court. The appellant rejected this position and argued that the information supplied was incomplete, misleading and unsatisfactory. He also stated that State sanction orders issued to Deputy Commissioners had not been provided and that the plea of sub judice could not be used to deny information sought under the RTI Act.
The Commission’s observation is important. It found an inordinate delay of nearly two years in furnishing complete information. It noted that important records, particularly State sanction orders issued to Deputy Commissioners, complete beneficiary lists, selection procedures and file notings, remained pending. It also recorded that the continued absence of responsible officers and non-compliance with repeated directions had caused clear detriment, mental harassment and loss of opportunity to the appellant.
The decision directed the public authority, represented by the Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur, to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation to the appellant under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act within 30 days. It further directed the SPIO or Joint Secretary (Home) to furnish complete remaining information within 15 days, particularly the State sanction orders issued to Deputy Commissioners and other pending items. The Commissioner (Home) was also directed to ensure that all disclosable information relating to IDP relief is proactively uploaded on the official website.
This order should worry the government. The Rs 10,000 compensation is not the final story. It is a warning that the state’s relief and rehabilitation system cannot function behind closed doors. If public money is sanctioned for displaced citizens, the public has a right to know how it is sanctioned, where it is sent, who receives benefit, what criteria are followed and what safeguards exist against exclusion, duplication or favouritism.
The internally displaced are not numbers in government reports. They are families that have lost homes, livelihoods, documents, farmland, shops, schools, places of worship, neighbourhoods and personal security. Many continue to live in relief camps with deep anxiety about return, compensation, reconstruction and safety. Their children have lost years of normal childhood. Elderly persons live with the pain of separation from ancestral homes. Women carry the burden of managing households under conditions of displacement and uncertainty.
For such citizens, information is not a luxury. It is part of justice. When sanction orders are not disclosed, people cannot know whether funds meant for them have reached the district administration. When beneficiary lists are incomplete or unavailable, people cannot know whether deserving families have been excluded. When selection procedures are not clear, suspicion grows. When file notings remain hidden without lawful justification, accountability weakens.
This is how public trust collapses. No one is arguing that every detail about displaced persons should be published carelessly. Personal addresses, sensitive locations and information that could place vulnerable families at risk must be protected. The safety and dignity of IDPs must remain central. But this cannot become an excuse to hide all information relating to funds, decisions and policy implementation.
There is a clear difference between protecting vulnerable citizens and shielding administrative opacity.
The Manipur Information Commission’s decision recognises this difference. It does not ask for reckless disclosure. It asks for complete remaining information and proactive uploading of disclosable records. This is exactly what the RTI Act was designed to secure.
The Home Department must therefore comply fully and quickly. It should not treat the order as a minor administrative inconvenience. It should see it as an opportunity to rebuild public confidence in one of the most sensitive areas of governance in Manipur today.
The government should immediately publish district-wise and scheme-wise information on IDP relief and rehabilitation, while removing personal details that may compromise safety. It should upload sanction orders, broad categories of beneficiaries, selection criteria, camp-wise assistance details, fund utilisation updates and the status of rehabilitation measures. It should also provide a regular public update on what has been done, what remains pending and what timelines are being followed.
Such transparency will help the government as much as it will help the people. It will reduce rumour. It will protect honest officers from unfair allegations. It will allow civil society, media, courts and affected families to assess the real situation. It will also expose gaps that can be corrected before they become deeper grievances.
The Chief Minister’s assurance to IDP representatives must be matched by this kind of institutional seriousness. Sincerity in public life is not measured by statements alone. It is measured by records, compliance, delivery and accountability.
The internally displaced persons have already suffered too much. They should not have to struggle for nearly two years merely to know what has been sanctioned in their name. They should not have to depend on RTI appeals, repeated hearings and compensation orders to access basic information about relief and rehabilitation.
The state’s obligation is not only to provide relief. It is to do so fairly, transparently and with dignity.
The Rs 10,000 compensation ordered by the Commission is therefore more than a payment to one appellant. It is a moral and administrative reminder to the Manipur government that the suffering of IDPs cannot be managed through silence, delay and partial disclosure.
Relief without transparency breeds suspicion. Rehabilitation without accountability becomes fragile. Resettlement without public trust cannot bring durable peace.
If Manipur is serious about helping its displaced citizens return to dignity, the government must begin by opening its records.

CIC raps JKPSC over blanket denial of exam record, wrong judicial precedents: Mohinder Verma

Daily Excelsior: Jammu: Thursday, 27 August 2026.
‘Post-exam disclosure doesn’t harm competitive interests’, Questions invocation of fiduciary relationship

The Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (JKPSC) has come under sharp criticism from the Central Information Commission (CIC) for seeking to defend its denial of examination records through judicial precedents that, according to the CIC, were wrongly applied.
Moreover, the Commission described the PSC’s reliance on one Supreme Court judgment as a grossly erroneous submission, while terming its original RTI response evasive, misleading and inconclusive and its approach to the records a blanket denial.
Accordingly, the Commission has directed the CPIO of the JKPSC to revisit the RTI application in a point-wise manner, ascertain the availability of the desired information in recorded form under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and reassess the applicability of exemptions under Sections 8(1) and/or 9 read with Section 10 of the Act.
The case pertains to an RTI application filed on August 12, 2024, concerning the OMR-based Objective Type Written Examination for the posts of Assistant Professor (Physics) in the J&K Higher Education Department, conducted on November 5, 2023.
The applicant had sought six categories of information, including the list of questions challenged by candidates after publication of provisional answer keys, opinions of subject experts, rationale and reasoning for decisions on challenged questions, references to books and authoritative sources cited by experts, correspondence between the Commission and subject experts and details of quorum and minutes of meetings in which decisions were taken regarding challenged questions.
The CPIO had initially denied the information by stating that third-party information cannot be provided. However, the First Appellate Authority, in its order dated October 22, 2024, held that no third party is involved, but maintained that the information was of a confidential and sensitive nature involving experts and could compromise their safety and security.
During the hearing before the CIC, the respondent submitted that the list of questions challenged by other candidates was treated as third-party information and that disclosure could cause public ruckus.
The Commission found the original reply of the CPIO grossly inappropriate, observing that the CPIO had not invoked any exemptions in terms of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Instead, the CPIO had simply stated, in a summative manner, that third-party information could not be provided.
The Commission further noted that at the stage of the Second Appeal hearing, the CPIO had emphasised confidentiality and sensitivity, while adding another dimension the existence of a fiduciary relationship. However, the CIC said that in the absence of an indication as to who was the beneficiary and who was the trustee whose interests were sought to be protected, it was at a loss to comprehend the reason for invoking the fiduciary relationship.
The Commission was particularly critical of the manner in which the CPIO relied upon judgments of superior courts. It observed that the CPIO had relied on various citations without quoting the relevant operative parts of these judgments for lending clarity or purpose and instead sought to put forth a self-styled statement of interpretation of the judgments.
The omission to specify the relevant operative contents, the CIC said, led to the discovery of an irrelevant and misleading citation in the CPIO’s written submissions dated March 10, 2026.
The Commission specifically examined the reliance placed on Nitish Kumar & Ors Versus Union of India & Another, Delhi High Court, 2023, WP(C) 2977/2023, which the CPIO had argued was based on the Supreme Court’s judgment in UPSC Vs Angesh Kumar (2018).
Terming this as grossly erroneous submission, the CIC said that the subject matter of the Nitish Kumar judgment concerned aspirants seeking recruitment to the post of Sepoy Pharma who were overaged and had sought upper age relaxation of three years to enable them to apply for the recruitment.
The CIC specifically noted that the judgment has no mention or reference made to the Angesh Kumar judgment. Similarly, the alleged deductions of the court stated further in the CPIO’s submissions are also incorrect and misleading, the Commission observed.
While the CPIO had argued that the Supreme Court had held that information relating to marks in a recruitment examination could not automatically be disclosed, the CIC pointed out that the judgment dealt with disclosure of raw marks in the Civil Services Examination, whereas the RTI application in the present case sought information regarding the list of challenged questions and records incidental thereto.
“If the respondent sought simply to protect the interests of subject experts, Section 10 was available to ensure harmonising the conflicting interests by redacting the names and identifying particulars of the subject experts”, the CIC said, adding “if revealing the list of challenged questions would reveal the identity of third-party candidates, the respondent had adequate resort to Section 10”.
The CIC rejected the proposition that after inviting challenges or objections from candidates to the question paper or answer keys, the remainder of the process was forbidden from public scrutiny without exception. “An obtuse approach such as this would appear to be inviting aspersions against the integrity of the examination process”, the Commission observed, adding “such an approach runs contrary to the tenets of probity, good faith and transparency expected from examination bodies”.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment, the CIC said, while question papers, solutions/model answers and instructions may not be disclosed before an examination as disclosure could harm the competitive position of third parties, the position is different once the examination has been held”, adding “disclosure of question papers, model answers and instructions after the examination and completion of evaluation would not harm the competitive position of any third party”.

Parliament approves Azeez Jamal as Information Commissioner: Malika Shahid

Edition.mv: Maldive: Thursday, 27 August 2026.
Azeez’s appointment was approved by 47 of the 58 MPs present at today’s sitting. Eleven opposition MDP MPs voted against his appointment.

Abdul Azeez Jamal Aboobakur responding to questions posed by members of the Independent Institutions Committee - Photo: Parliament

Parliament has approved the appointment of Abdul Azeez Jamal Aboobakur as Information Commissioner.
Azeez’s appointment was approved by 47 of the 58 MPs present at today’s sitting. Eleven opposition MDP MPs voted against his appointment.
Azeez, who currently serves as a State Minister at the Ministry of Heritage, previously served as Information Commissioner and had been the first person to be appointed to the position under the Right to Information Act.
He resigned on 22 July 2019 after completing his previous term as Information Commissioner.
Azeez previously served as MP for Maavah and worked at the Dhivehi Bahuge Academy, where he authored several books on the Dhivehi language.
The current Information Commissioner, Ahid Ahmed, was appointed on 6 September 2021. His five-year term expires on 6 September.
The Office of the Information Commissioner was established on 13 July 2014 under the Right to Information Act.

‘Cover-up, conflict of interest’: Visva Bharati prof files RTI, VBUFA says facts buried in disciplinary cases

NC: Vishva Bharti: Thursday, 27 August 2026.
Visva Bharati faculty body questions why judge-led panel was swapped with one with university’s own staff, demands unpaid salaries, deadline, closure of pending cases

Visva-Bharati University Faculty Association (VBUFA) now accusing the university administration of suppressing facts in disciplinary cases (Image- Wikimedia Commons, AI enhanced)

Four years after being suspended, reinstated, and left waiting for his salary arrears, a Visva Bharati professor turned to the Right to Information (RTI) Act to find out what happened to two committees that were supposed to settle his case and dozens like it.
Sudipta Bhattacharyya’s RTI application, filed on July 28, 2026, has landed amid a broader faculty revolt with the Visva-Bharati University Faculty Association (VBUFA) now accusing the university administration of suppressing facts in disciplinary cases that have sat unresolved for years.
The RTI comes against the backdrop of disciplinary proceedings initiated during the tenure of former vice-chancellor Bidyut Chakrabarty. The university had appointed a committee in 2024, headed by Justice Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, to review several such cases. After current VC Probir Kumar Ghosh, assumed office in 2025, this committee was discontinued and replaced with a three-member civilian committee all of whom were Executive Council (EC) members drawing pay or pension from the university.
VBUFA has flagged this decision as a conflict of interest and sought clarity on findings of both the committees. In an email to the VC and registrar on August 17, VBUFA called for long-pending show-cause notices and chargesheets to be withdrawn and cases closed. The association said several proceedings had dragged on for years without the committees meeting the concerned faculty or submitting reports.
“The apprehension that facts are being suppressed has a basis because, recently, hardly any RTI reply has been provided within the time and without suppression of information,” the letter to the VC read.
Visva Bharati: RTI seeks two committees’ reports
Bhattacharyya's RTI application seeks copies of the report of the Justice Chattopadhyay Committee as well as that of the subsequent three-member committee. The issue, VBUFA said, is significant because Visva Bharati had earlier assured the Calcutta High Court in several cases that it would abide by the recommendations of the Justice Committee a commitment the VBUFA said was undermined when the panel was discontinued midway and its unfinished work, along with review of its existing findings, were handed over to the three-member committee.
VBUFA has alleged that this creates a “clear conflict of interest” and claimed there were reasons to believe that recommendations of the three-member committee had modified or superseded those of the Justice Committee.
VBUFA said that if the information is not provided within the stipulated period, Bhattacharyya may pursue the first and second appeals under the RTI Act.
Visva Bharati Faculty Row: Bhattacharyya's case
VBUFA’s August 17 communication specifically raises Bhattacharyya's own disciplinary proceedings – the one driving the RTI application. He was suspended from January 7, 2021 to September 29, 2022 a move arising from a complaint he had filed over an alleged irregular appointment. According to VBUFA, Bhattacharyya had obtained the documents supporting his complaint through an RTI application from Visva-Bharati.
Four years on, his arrear salary for the suspension period about one year and nine months remains unpaid and his service unregularised.
The association, in the email, has also raised questions about the legal basis of the proceedings against the teachers. It claimed that the disciplinary committee constituted in the matter never met Bhattacharyya and did not submit a report.
It said that show-cause notices, chargesheets, suspension orders and other documents relating to disciplinary action were issued by the registrar. Citing Visva-Bharati's Statute 5(4)(a), the VBUFA contended that the registrar has no power to initiate disciplinary action against teachers, and such notices, therefore, were “without jurisdiction” and should be set aside.
VBUFA has demanded the withdrawal of show-cause notices and chargesheets, including those involving Bhattacharyya and another former VBUFA leader Kausik Bhattacharya.
VBUFA alleges selective handling
The August 17 email goes beyond individual cases and questions the overall manner in which the university is handling old disciplinary proceedings.
VBUFA said while some pending disciplinary matters involving serving or retired professors had recently been cleared, fresh penalties had also been imposed on some employees, including compulsory retirement or withholding of promotion. It also alleged that retirement benefits of some employees had been held up because of pending disciplinary proceedings.
The association described the administration's handling of the cases as “arbitrary, haphazard, ad hoc, and selective”. It has asked the university to set a deadline for settling all pending disciplinary matters and to clear salary and pension dues of employees.
It has also called for compliance with court orders in cases involving faculty members and other staff with all chargesheets and penalties withdrawn.
The VBUFA pointed out that the issue of promotion of another academic, Anindita Saha, an associate professor in the department of agricultural extension at Palli Siskha Bhavan is also stuck for years despite a Calcutta HC order in her favour in August, 2024. Saha became eligible for promotion in 2016 but had been made to wait until 2020 to be redesignated.
Calls to Visva Bharati’s VC office, his personal secretary and registrar went unanswered when this report was filed. The story will be updated as and when there is a response.

UP tops pendency list across fast-track courts; Delhi has 7,385 pending cases: RTI

Daily Pioneer: National: Thursday, 27 August 2026.

Uttar Pradesh accounts for nearly 78 per cent cases pending before Fast Track Courts (FTCs) across the country, with more than 13.74 lakh cases awaiting disposal, according to data obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act from the Department of Justice.
Over 17.5 lakh matters are pending across the country, going by the data until June 30. According to the reply, Fast Track Courts (FTCs) are set up by the states and UTs in consultation with the respective high courts for expeditious trial of specific categories of cases.
The data has been shared by the Department of Justice in a reply on August 10 this year to a query filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by Noida-based social activist Amit Gupta.
It said, “As per information received from the high courts, 884 FTCs are functional across 21 State/UTs as on June 30, 2026. No central assistance to the States is being provided for the setting up of these FTCs.”  Analysis of the state-wise data shows that Uttar Pradesh tops the pendency list with over 13.74 lakh pending cases across 373 functional FTCs.