Can individuals be forced to carry the burden of their digital past indefinitely? : By Dileep P Chandran

The Indian Express: UPSC Current Affairs: Friday, 24 July 2026.
Amidst challenges arising from the rapid advancement of technology and the internet, the right to be forgotten emerged as an important subset of informational privacy. Does the right ensure meaningful control over the information on digital and internet platforms? In the absence of a specific law, how has this right evolved through judicial interpretation?

As digital technologies shape, mediate, and challenge the identity, dignity and reputation of individuals, the “right to be forgotten” as a component of informational privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution has come into focus. The right to be forgotten allows a person to ask to remove, mask or limit access to personal information available online when it no longer serves a public purpose and continues to harm their privacy or reputation.
In its May 29 judgement, the Delhi High Court directed search engine operators and legal database platforms to de-index, de-list or mask name-based search functionality and personal identifiers. It held that no law allows Google or other search engines to show court records for cases that have ended in an acquittal, discharge, quashing or settlement or private in nature, subject to appropriate conditions. Similar relief has also been granted by the Bombay, Delhi and Kerala High Courts in individual cases.
Such judgements seek to protect individuals from the enduring consequences of digital permanence and affirm that the dignity and reputation of individuals deserve protection even after legal vindication. But is this right to erasure merely a facet of the right to privacy under Article 21? Does it undermine the public’s right to information, freedom of press, and open justice? Or does this signify the evolution of a new generation of digital or fourth-generation human rights?
The fourth-generation human rights 
To address the ethical and legal challenges arising from the rapid advancement of technology and the internet, new claims of human rights evolved. While the traditional framework of civil-political, socio-economic, and community rights remains relevant, the digital age demands a new set of rights that are essential to guard the dignity of individuals in cyberspace. 
Scholars describe this new set of rights as fourth generation human rights. These include the right to internet access, protection from cyberattacks, deepfakes, algorithm bias, manipulation, and abuses, protection of minors, recognition of intellectual property, the right to privacy and protection of personal data, and rights to anonymity and encryption. 
Among these, informational privacy is being considered as an alarming concern in which control over personal data and safeguards from the theft of credentials and misappropriation are guaranteed. Consequently, the right to delete/erasure or the right to be forgotten emerged as an important subset of informational privacy. 
What is the right to be forgotten? 
The right to be forgotten, also referred to as the right to erasure/delete, is the legal and moral claim of individuals to remove their personal information and personal identifiers from internet searches, platforms, and databases when it no longer serves legitimate public interests or infringes privacy. It also encompasses masking and de-indexing of personal identifiers from databases. 
Masking means the court removes or replaces a person’s name and other identifying details in a judgment while leaving the judgment itself online.
De-indexing means directing search engines or online platforms not to display a judgment in a simple name-based search.
The key difference is that masking requires a direction to the court or its registry, while de-indexing involves directions to private platforms or search engines.
The removal of digital footprint means a person can ask for their personal data to be deleted when they withdraw their consent. The right ensures an individual’s meaningful control over the information on digital and internet platforms. It enables people to seek relief from enduring harm to one’s reputation associated with outdated allegations or resolved cases.
How Europe shaped the right to be forgotten 
The right to be forgotten is recognised abroad, especially in the European Union. In 2010,  Spanish national Costeja González brought a complaint before the country’s Data Protection Agency against La Vanguardia newspaper, Google Spain, and Google Inc., demanding the removal of the record of his 1998 attachment and garnishment proceedings from internet search engines. 
Garnishment is a judicial proceeding by which a monetary judgement is satisfied against a defendant by ordering a third party to pay a plaintiff the money that the third party owes to the defendant.
González argued that the proceedings concluded years ago should not appear in online searches. The Spanish agency dismissed the complaint against the newspaper, but upheld it against Google. Subsequently, Google Inc. and Google Spain challenged the decision before the National High Court of Spain, which referred the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
The European Union’s statutory framework 
In its landmark judgement, the CJEU ruled that search engine operators have to remove personal information at the request of individuals who do not wish their information to be publicly accessible while acknowledging public interests and exceptions.
The judicial recognition of the right to erasure paved the way for a statutory framework for the same by the European Union – the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2016. The framework seeks to safeguard the right to protect personal data and for free movement of personal data within the Union. 
The right to erasure (‘right to be forgotten’) guaranteed under Article 17 of GDPR obligates controllers to erase personal data when the data subject demands the removal of personal data that are no longer necessary, where consent has been withdrawn, and processing has no legitimate ground or is unlawful. 
However, there are exemptions such as exercising freedom of expression and information, legal obligation to process, public interest in the area of public health, archiving for historical and scientific research purposes, and for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims. 
Judicial recognition of the right in India 
While recognised abroad, India does not yet have a specific law governing the right to be forgotten. It evolved primarily through judicial interpretation. The constitutional roots of the right in India stem from the right to privacy, which is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution, which concerns the right to life.
The K S Puttaswamy vs Union of India case (2017), which established the right to privacy as a fundamental right, laid the constitutional foundation of the right to be forgotten in Indian jurisprudence. Although the court did not explicitly establish the right to be forgotten, it recognised the right to exercise control over one’s personal data and existence on the internet. The various courts in India gradually recognised different facets of this right on a case-to-case basis, including:

1. In R. Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu (1994), widely known as the Auto Shankar case, the Supreme Court recognised the right to privacy against unauthorised publication of personal information and affirmed the ‘right to be let alone’ as part of Article 21.
   
2. In the X vs Registrar General, Karnataka High Court case (2017), the court directed to mask the personal identifier of petitioners such as women and acquitted from digital records.
   
3. In the Jorawar Singh Mundy vs Union of India case (2021), the Delhi High Court granted interim relief by directing search engines and legal databases to de-index past judgement on a criminal case in which the person had been acquitted.
   
4. In the Supreme Court Order to Registry (2022), the Supreme Court directed to develop a mechanism to mask personal details of parties of sensitive matrimonial disputes to prevent their perpetual digital exposure.
   
5. In Laksh Vir Singh Yadav vs Union of India case (2026), the Delhi High Court recognised the right to be forgotten as a facet of informational privacy under Article 21 while emphasising the need to balance privacy with the freedom of expression and transparency.
   

Limited statutory frameworks
Unlike the European experience, the judicial recognition of the right to be forgotten is yet to be translated into the statutory framework in India. The Information Technology Act, 2000 is silent on the right to erasure. Although the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 establishes a grievance redressal mechanism allowing individuals to request intermediaries, such as search engines and social media platforms, to remove personal information, it did not create a statutory right to be forgotten.  
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 is India’s first legislative attempt to recognise a limited form of right to be forgotten. Section 12(3) of the Act allows a data principal to request the data fiduciary (an entity entrusted with the responsibility of handling data) for erasure of personal data. It mandates the data fiduciary to remove the same unless its retention is necessary for the specified purpose or for compliance with any law. 
Nevertheless, the DPDP Act is silent on judicial records and search engine de-indexing where the right to be forgotten claims most frequently arise. The practical enforceability of the provision is also limited, leaving individuals to depend largely on judicial discretion rather than a clear statutory framework. 
Reconciling privacy with public interest
The exercise of the right to be forgotten is often in conflict with other rights and principles such as freedom of speech and expression, freedom of press, people’s right to know, principle of open justice, and broader consideration of public interest. Courts consistently balance the right to privacy under Article 21 with these competing rights and constitutional values. 
Most importantly, courts find no antinomy between the right to privacy and the legitimate intentions of the State. Instead, it ensures that the State’s invasion of privacy has to be proportional to the legitimate purposes. Directing internet platforms to mask or de-index personal identifiers rather than the complete removal of judicial records from search engines and media platforms is an important gesture of reconciling privacy with broader public interest.   
Challenges and self-regulation  
The enforceability of the right to be forgotten may not be ensured without setting reasonable restrictions on press freedom, freedom of speech and expression, and open justice. It also demands utmost care in managing public records and regulation of internet platforms. Courts also undertake the difficult task of determining legitimate public interest on a case-to-case basis. Ensuring technical and platform compliance remains problematic since removed data may still appear on social media and unregulated platforms.  
Although courts provide relief in selected cases, the legal framework on the right to be forgotten remains incomplete. Social media platforms and controllers of search engines may adopt stronger self-regulation and periodic review of personal data, particularly regarding the management of personal data in sensitive cases.
The managers of judicial records need to innovate mechanisms to mask and de-index personal identifiers in appropriate cases. Beyond legal jurisprudence and statutory framework, the right to be forgotten demands societal reckoning with the ‘right to be let alone’ in the internet world, and invites ethical reflection on whether individuals should be forced to carry the burden of their digital past indefinitely.  
Post read questions

1. The right to be forgotten has emerged as an important facet of informational privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. Examine its constitutional basis and discuss the challenges involved in balancing it with freedom of speech, the right to information, and the principle of open justice.
2. The emergence of digital technologies has given rise to claims of fourth-generation human rights. Evaluate the concept of fourth-generation human rights in the context of informational privacy and data protection.
3. The European Union has moved from judicial recognition of the right to be forgotten to legislative codification under the General Data Protection Regulation. Compare the European and Indian approaches to the right to be forgotten.
4. Discuss the constitutional and technological challenges in implementing the right to be forgotten in India. Should the right to be forgotten extend to judicial records?
5. Balancing privacy with transparency is one of the greatest ethical challenges of the digital age. Examine in the context of the right to be forgotten.

(Dileep P Chandran is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science in P M Government College, Chalakudy, Kerala.)

Private land tagged as temple property; Info panel orders probe

The Times of India: Chennai: Friday, 24 July 2026.

A Right to Information (RTI) application by a 66-year-old retired professor has brought to light how his private patta land in Kanyakumari district had been mistakenly classified as a temple property in the (HR&CE) department’s online ITMS database. The State Information Commission has now ordered a departmental inquiry and a show-cause notice proposing the maximum penalty against the then Public Information Officer (PIO). It also ordered adequate compensation to the senior citizen-appellant.
Information commissioner VPR Ilamparithi passed the order while allowing a second appeal filed by S Madhankumar, who alleged that his ancestral land in Velimalai village of Kalkulam taluk had been wrongly uploaded as belonging to Arulmigu Kandan Sastha Temple in the ITMS portal of HR&CE department. According to the appellant, he discovered the erroneous entry only when he attempted to sell the property for his daughter’s marriage, following which he submitted representations to various revenue and HR&CE authorities seeking its removal.
During the hearing, the public information officer admitted that while surveying lands surrounding the temple, the appellant’s land had been mistakenly uploaded as temple land in the ITMS database. The officer informed the Commission that a reply had been issued to the appellant and assured that complete information would be furnished.
The commission, however, found that despite nearly two years having elapsed since the RTI application was filed, the appellant had not been provided complete information. It strongly criticised the conduct of the public authority, observing that the officer had failed to discharge statutory obligations under the RTI Act and had shown little regard for a law intended to promote transparency and corruption-free administration.
The commission issued a show-cause notice to the then Public Information Officer, P Murugan, asking why the maximum penalty of ₹25,000 should not be imposed for failing to provide information within the prescribed time. He has been directed to appear before the Commission on August 14 with a written explanation.
Holding that the delay, incomplete replies and misleading information had caused unnecessary hardship, mental agony and inconvenience to the appellant, the commission directed the public authority to pay ₹10,000 as compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act within a week and submit proof of payment before the commission.

Ahmedabad: Brother’s property dispute prompts RTI panel to suggest police protection for school head

The Times of India: Ahmedabad: Friday, 24 July 2026.

The Gujarat State Information Commission has directed education authorities to protect school principals and head teachers from alleged harassment through the Right to Information (RTI) Act, advising them to approach the police in cases where the law is allegedly misused to pursue personal disputes.
The direction came in a July 16 order while deciding two second appeals involving Vadod Primary Boys School in Dhanera taluka of Banaskantha district. During the hearing, the school’s public information officer and head teacher submitted that RTI applications were being filed by a person on behalf of the head teacher’s brother, with whom the family is involved in an ongoing property dispute.
They informed the commission that several disputes are pending in courts and that repeated RTI applications were being used to harass them and consume the school’s administrative resources.
According to the order, the applicant sought information on 14 points relating to the financial years 2023-24 and 2024-25, along with certain information concerning 2025-26. The commission observed that the volume and nature of the information sought imposed a disproportionate burden on the public authority and affected the school’s functioning.
During the hearing, the applicant restricted the request to details of the School Management Committee (SMC). The commission directed the public information officer to provide the names of SMC members within 10 days but denied disclosure of their addresses, mobile numbers, educational qualifications and details of their children, holding that such information was personal and exempt under the RTI Act.
The commission further observed that supervisory education authorities had failed to adequately protect and guide the school head despite allegations of misuse of the RTI process. It directed the district primary education officer to ensure that principals and head teachers receive proper guidance and protection in such cases and, where necessary, inform the competent police authority for appropriate action against persons found misusing the legal process.
The commission also advised RTI applicants to seek specific information in a manner that does not disproportionately burden the resources of public authorities.

Is corruption the biggest threat to India’s future? : Nivedita Varadarajan

The Hindu: Opinion: Friday, 24 July 2026.
Corruption has shaped elections, toppled governments, and sparked some of the biggest public protests in independent India. With digitalisation and the Right to Information (RTI) Act, citizens were promised greater transparency. Yet has India actually become less corrupt?

This question has become pertinent as thousands of students hold protests seeking accountability after the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) paper was leaked earlier this year. Their campaign has revived memories of the India Against Corruption movement that galvanised the country more than a decade ago.
Is corruption the biggest threat to India’s future? Shailesh Gandhi and Anjali Bhardwaj discuss the question in a conversation moderated by Nivedita Varadarajan.
For many, corruption is paying a bribe to get a service delivered. Has digitalisation helped reduce such petty corruption?
Anjali Bhardwaj: Corruption in India goes from the highest to the very lowest offices in the country and people find it difficult to access even their basic rights and entitlements. Unfortunately, digitalisation is being pushed as a magic wand, as if it would make everything alright. But experience on the ground shows that digitalisation by itself is not going to prevent corruption. If you just go into any government office today, it’s an open secret that there will be somebody who will expect to be bribed.
In fact, with digitalisation, another layer has been added for the poor and the marginalised who find it very difficult to access services because they are often unlettered and do not have access to the Internet. They can’t easily fill up forms on their own. Another middleman has been added. They have to go to these private cafes where they are charged obnoxious amounts [to get government services].
A proper grievance redressal mechanism needs to be put in place, where if somebody is facing corruption, they can file a complaint and it will be redressed in a time bound manner. A grievance redressal law is required, and it has not been brought through although Parliament had discussed it in great detail in 2014.
The Right to Information Act was intended to make the government accountable. Has the Act lived up to its promise?
Shailesh Gandhi: The Act was one of the best transparency Acts in the world. However, it has been murdered by Supreme Court judgments and bureaucracy. The law has now been modified to such an extent by the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, that all information relating to corruption can be denied. A lot of countries do not have vigilance departments in most government departments. We have them in almost every government department, but they don’t work. Now we also have a Lokpal burning ₹50-₹60 crore a year delivering nothing. Lokayukta has been there for years and yet we are not getting accountability.
Section 19 of the so-called Prevention of Corruption Act used to say that sanction for prosecution was required if a public servant was accused of corruption. In 2018, Section 17A was introduced, requiring government permission to investigate corruption charges. Our judicial system is creaking. Unless we enforce the rule, corruption cannot reduce.
How is DPDP undermining the RTI Act?
SG: The original Act had an 87-word definition for personal information. It said personal information which was not part of public activity or was intrusion of privacy could be denied, but with a caveat that information shall not be denied to Parliament or State legislatures; only that information could be denied to citizens. It was misinterpreted in the Girish Ramchandra Deshpande judgment which said that all personal information could be exempt. The Puttaswamy judgment also created such a theory without ensuring that there was a balance between right to information and right to privacy. In fact, right to privacy has been called a fundamental right without a balance act; it has made it easy for the government to refuse sharing all kinds of personal information. Your name is personal, your age is personal, everything is personal. Information is being denied and will slowly finish the RTI Act.
Does that make uncovering corruption so much harder now than before?
AB: The RTI Act came because of a very strong demand for an information access law. It has been used to access information to hold governments accountable.
We see that every year about six million RTI requests are filed in our country. Its the highest anywhere in the world. The law is used very vibrantly, not just to ensure accountability in the delivery of basic rights, but also to expose big ticket corruption. I can hardly remember any big scam that has got exposed in the country in the last 20 years where the RTI has not played a seminal role. Whether it is the Vyapam scam, the Adarsh Housing Society scam or the electoral bond scheme, the Act has been used. The Act has been very effective in exposing corruption and wrongdoing.
Unfortunately, we are also seeing how the CBI, the ED and the Lokpal have been completely compromised. Big-ticket corruption cases are just not being tackled.
Do weak institutions enable corruption, or does corruption weaken institutions?
SG: My submission is that we make great laws, but do not implement them. Unless there is punishment, corruption cannot be contained. Let me give you a bit of information. This was a study done by the Indian police general in 2008. A study observed the performance of the CBI’s entire anti-corruption branch from 1980 to 1984. What was the outcome of that? About 280 people were accused of corruption in courts. 144 got convicted. The average time for investigation was 13.4 months, whereas the average time for the first trial was 88 months. In 2008, it was found that only four people had been in prison for more than 20 days — just four people.
Today, corruption is an ‘all-profit, negligible-risk’ activity. So long as this continues, there will be people who will take advantage of this. We make laws and we break laws. We should demand a road map for judicial delays to be less than one year. In less than one year over 90% cases should be decided; this is being done in various countries in the world.
Second, all Information Commissioners are appointed without any transparency. We expect people who are selected in a non-transparent manner to deliver transparency. How does this work? Lakhs of people were there on the roads of Delhi for the Lokpal. After the Lokpal was created, everybody lost interest. Nobody bothers whether they are delivering or not.
Thirdly, the RTI Act should be strengthened. The amendment by the DPDP Act should be taken back. Finally, the media should take it on itself to track 10-15 celebrity corruption cases, track them and see how they have progressed.
AB: In a democracy, it is important to ensure that institutions of accountability, which are the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Legislature, remain accountable to the people of India and function properly. Unfortunately, these institutions have been systematically weakened.
The government has understood that the best way to not be transparent is to continue to work behind a veil of secrecy. To do this, they need to subvert the Information Commissioners’ functioning. A way to do this is to not make appointments to the Information Commissions. Since May 2014, when the BJP came to power, not a single Information Commissioner has been appointed to the central information commission till people approached the Supreme Court or the judiciary.
When the courts order an appointment, they are made in a completely non-transparent manner. We are also seeing that institutions like the ED, the CBI or the Lokpal, simply don’t do the investigations that are required of them to hold those in power accountable. It’s almost as if corruption is only being done by the Opposition.
Is corruption the biggest threat to the future?
AB: Well, yes, because corruption has a very real human cost. How can a country expect to be developed if corruption is not addressed? If there is massive corruption in the delivery of basic rights, like rations or healthcare or education, how can we hope to become a developed country? When there is corruption and crony capitalism, there is every incentive for those in power to subvert institutions.
SG: If India is at the 79th position in the rule of law index, we have no hope of being among the top nations of the world. We need to change that. We need to ensure that corruption cases are disposed of in less than a year.

Mumbai: RTI Reveals No SEIAA Record Of Environmental Clearance For Proposed Powai GCC Project

Free Press Journal: Mumbai: Thursday, 23 July 2026.
An RTI response from the Maharashtra SEIAA states that it has no record of an Environmental Clearance or Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed Powai GCC project. The disclosure has intensified concerns raised by residents and environmental groups over the development's potential ecological and infrastructure impact.

Powai GCC work in progress | Photo Credits: Milan Bhat, Powai ALM

The proposed 30,000-seat Global Capability Centre (GCC) in Powai has come under fresh scrutiny after an RTI response from the Maharashtra State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) revealed that it has no record of any Environmental Clearance (EC) or Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) for the project.
The disclosure has intensified concerns over the Brookfield project, which involves large-scale hill cutting and development in the Powai-Vikhroli area.
RTI Response Raises Questions
NatConnect Foundation Director B. N. Kumar had sought information under the RTI Act regarding the environmental clearances for the project and its EIA.
"In the reply, the SEIAA said that officials searched records available with the Authority, the Union Environment Ministry's PARIVESH portal and the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board's environmental clearance portal, but found no record relating to the Powai GCC project. The RTI response speaks for itself," Kumar said, adding that if work is proceeding without these statutory processes, the government must immediately clarify the project's legal and environmental status.
Residents Seek Project Review
Recently, a petition was also submitted by the Powai Area Locality Management (ALM) and nearly 20 cooperative housing societies to Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, seeking an immediate review of the project before any irreversible decisions are taken.
The residents' petition says the proposed two-million-square-foot campus, designed to accommodate around 30,000 employees, would overwhelm the already saturated Powai-Chandivali Road network, particularly the Jogeshwari-Vikhroli Link Road, besides placing enormous pressure on civic infrastructure, emergency services and the fragile Powai Lake ecosystem.
They have also expressed concern over hill cutting near the Park site-Vikhroli slopes, warning that it could damage natural drainage, biodiversity corridors linked to the Sanjay Gandhi National Park landscape and the Powai Lake catchment.

RTI reveals food safety officials cannot conduct raids with media

Hyderabad Mail: Hyderabad: Thursday, 23 July 2026.

An RTI response from the Office of the Commissioner of Food Safety, Telangana, has confirmed that food safety officials are not legally permitted to conduct inspections of food business premises in the presence of media personnel, a clarification that comes amid a broader trend of food safety raids being filmed and broadcast by media and influencers across the country.
Hyderabad-based RTI activist Kareem Ansari filed the application. The Directorate of Institute of Preventive Medicine, Public Health Laboratories and Food (Health) Administration in Narayanaguda received it. Specifically, Ansari asked five questions about the legal basis for media presence during food safety inspections.
In response to whether a Food Safety Officer or any other food safety official is permitted to conduct inspections in the presence of media personnel, the department’s reply was unambiguous, “No, food safety officials are not legally permitted to conduct inspections in the presence of media personnel.” Furthermore, the department emphasized that this applies in all cases, regardless of the situation.
Asked to provide any provisions within the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, or its associated rules, regulations, circulars, guidelines, or Standard Operating Procedures that govern media presence during inspections, the department stated that the Act and its accompanying rules and regulations contain no provision allowing or governing the presence of media during inspections.
When asked if any authority, including FSSAI, can approve media presence during inspections, the department said no such approval is possible. The Food Safety Act does not recognize media participation in enforcement actions. Allowing it would violate legal procedures.
Responding to a query on whether any departmental circulars or instructions exist regarding photography, videography, or media coverage during inspections of food business establishments, the department confirmed that there are no departmental City & Local Guides Geographic Reference circulars authorising.
The department made it clear that no law or rule permits media personnel to accompany Food Safety Officers during inspections. Only authorized enforcement officers can conduct these inspections. Moreover, any third-party presence, including media, would require special authorization, which is not allowed for media personnel.
The department cited three legal provisions to support this position: Section 38 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (powers of Food Safety Officer); Rule 2.1.3 of the Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 (duties and inspection procedures); and Rule 2.4.1 of the same rules (sampling procedures). None of these mention media personnel.

Opinion | A Rs 5,000 Fine Can't Fix India's 'Babu' Raj. But It's A Start : By Madhavan Narayanan

NDTV: National: Thursday, 23 July 2026.
A new bill in Delhi imposes a fine of Rs 250 a day on bureaucrats, with a Rs 5,000 ceiling, if their service for citizens is delayed without a valid justification. Can this fix India's great 'Babu' bottleneck?

One small step for the government, and a giant leap for governance?
That's the question that popped up in my mind this week as I read about an interesting decision by the Delhi government's cabinet to fine officials a maximum of Rs 5,000 if their service for citizens is delayed without a valid justification. If it is approved as expected, the Delhi (Right of Citizen to Time Bound and Ease of Delivery of Service) Bill replaces/upgrades a similar 2011 Act. As the name suggests, it holds itself accountable to citizens with a proposal to impose a fine of Rs 250 a day, with a Rs 5,000 ceiling.
In principle, this is a great idea and also reflects an increasing democratisation of governance in which elected leaders pressure the bureaucracy to do what is expected of them. But there is a very long way to go, because in India, which the UK's The Economist magazine once described as "a natural habitat of the clerk," there is a lot to do to undo the process-driven bureaucratisation that the magazine's land of birth itself left in its imperial stamp on its colony.
The very same magazine recently ran a self-explanatory editorial titled, "Why can't India's government build a decent website?", and moaned about clunky online experiences among "failures of "Indian officialdom". Any casual watcher of the old BBC comedy series, "Yes, Minister", would be assured that "Great" Britain has been not so great in political control over bureaucrats. The culture is such.
It does get tricky. How do you hold bureaucrats and lower-level government officials responsible in a system in which incentives and disincentives have to be balanced with costs, processes, and public accountability to legislators and institutions like the Comptroller and Auditor General? A rule-based system cannot easily function like an incentive-based culture or a severe hire-and-fire mechanism.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government is officially aware of the bureaucracy problem, but the solution requires re-engineering a culture from the bottom up.
The ongoing controversy over the alphabet soup of state-run public examinations, NEET, CUET, and CBSE school exams, suggests that ministers and bureaucrats need to be sensitive to an increasing mass of aware citizens demanding accountability and efficient service. Again, the buck-passing involving politicians and so-called autonomous bodies, such as the National Testing Agency, shows that you cannot have autonomy without accountability, and you cannot absolve yourself of a responsibility by pointing to a structural autonomy designed to reduce bureaucratisation.
Much like the inflation-interest rate trade-off in macroeconomics, this requires a trade-off between empowerment that improves efficiency and transparency that ensures there is no abuse of power.
Outsourcing things to private agencies, often risking underhand corruption as well as the "L1 syndrome" in which the lowest bidder in a contract need not necessarily be the best service provider, is a trade-off between transparency at low cost and the public's desire to get better services.
In this context, any attempts to backpedal the Right to Information (RTI) Act or its procedures must necessarily be seen as regressive. A culture of transparency needs to be baked into the bureaucracy to avoid the cloak of official secrets over government muddles.
But, as anyone who has stood in a long queue at railway stations or electricity offices in India would testify, a lower-end government servant facing the public has to go through stresses that match that of the suffering citizen in the queue. New technologies can help only so much, as The Economist magazine's editorial comment would testify.
Officially, India's civil servants do receive formal training in citizen-centric work, with emphasis on ethics and empathy. There is a National Training Policy framed in 2012 to help. There are specific training institutes, behavioural curricula, and digital grievance mechanisms. But I could not suppress a chuckle as I stumbled on a bureaucratic online file on this very thing whose language, structure, and communication style were a throwback to old "babudom". It had long, jargon-filled paragraphs on processes that would go over the heads of even media outlets, not to speak of ordinary citizens.
What we perhaps need are recruitment of people based on personality traits that reveal higher EQs (emotional quotient). In casual conversations in India, some workers are often described as having a "good nature" or "helpful attitude" - and these often have less to do with training and more to do with the way human beings are. An emphasis on EQ over IQ (intelligence quotient) in recruitment, training, and deployment can go a long way to make services that appeal to the public. We need smart but sensitive civil servants -including lowly officials who directly face disadvantaged citizens. This requires the courage to recognise that "soft" people skills are as important, if not more, than high scores in public examinations.
Union Cabinet Secretary TV Somanathan recently sent out a note to all secretaries (top bureaucrats) in various departments, asking them to take care of small things and avoid bureaucratic repetition of processes. Such moral nudging is desirable but of limited utility. Recognition of various kinds, not just plum postings, should be matched with disincentives of the kind the Delhi government has proposed.
As is often said in management lessons, leadership is set by example. You cannot have authoritarian ministers lording over empathetic bureaucrats, or authoritarian bureaucrats managing empathetic clerks at railway counters! You do need tough authority, but one that is consciously aware of where and how it is to be used.
The Modi government has been running a corporate-style assessment system with scorecards for ministries presented by the cabinet secretary. This is a welcome beginning. Cultural transformation requires a different DNA. Neither a purely corporate style, nor a monarchically authoritarian structure, and nary the lapsed colonial bureaucratic process serves the purpose. The holy grail lies between efficiency and empathy.
(Madhavan Narayanan is a senior editor, writer and columnist with more than 30 years of experience, having worked for Reuters, The Economic Times, Business Standard, and Hindustan Times after starting out in the Times of India Group)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

RTI Reveals Maharashtra Has 1,292 Police Stations; Nagpur Region Accounts for 89

Nagpur Today: Nagpur: Thursday, 23 July 2026.

Maharashtra has a total of 1,292 sanctioned police stations, according to an official reply provided under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The information was furnished in response to an RTI application seeking district-wise details of police stations across the state.
The RTI reply, dated July 17, 2026, confirms that Maharashtra’s police infrastructure comprises 1,292 police stations, including those under police commissionerates, district police and railway police. A detailed district-wise list has also been provided.
According to the data, Nagpur City Police Commissionerate has 64 police stations, while Nagpur Rural Police has 25 police stations, taking the total number of administrative police stations in the Nagpur region to 89. Separately, the RTI states that the Nagpur Railway Police operates six police stations, bringing the overall policing network in the region to 95 stations.
The RTI also highlights the distribution of police stations across other major commissionerates. Mumbai City tops the list with 103 police stations, followed by Nagpur City (64), Pune City (54), Thane City (36) and Navi Mumbai (29).
The applicant had also sought information on vacant police posts and funds allocated under the Police Modernisation Scheme. However, these queries were not answered as they were treated as requests for explanations or clarifications rather than information available on record under the RTI Act.
The RTI response provides a comprehensive district-wise breakup of Maharashtra’s policing infrastructure, offering an updated picture of the state’s sanctioned police station network.

NSE Moves Supreme Court Against Delhi High Court Ruling Declaring It Public Authority Under RTI Act : By - Kirit Singhania

LiveLawBiz: New Delhi: Thursday, 23 July 2026.

The National Stock Exchange has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court's judgment upholding a 2010 ruling which declared NSE as a 'public authority' under the Right to Information Act.
The High Court on July 1, 2026 had held that the exchange must be regarded as having been established or at least constituted, by an order of the Central Government since a stock exchange cannot function without governmental recognition and SEBI grants such recognition as the Central Government's delegate.
The special leave petition filed on July 21 is yet to be listed before the Supreme Court. 
A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla had dismissed NSE's appeal against the April 15, 2010 judgment of a Single Judge, which held that the exchange is amenable to the RTI Act.
"The learned Single Judge has held that, in interpreting the expressions “established” and “constituted” in the first part of Section 2(h), the Court has to adopt a purposive, rather than a literal, construction. With the advancement of the law, the principle of purposive construction has replaced the principle of plain meaning as the golden rule for interpreting a statutory instrument. In view of the fact that Section 4(3) requires governmental recognition for a stock exchange to function as such, we agree with the learned Single Judge that the stock exchange has to be regarded as having been “established” or, at the very least, “constituted” by an order issued by the Government.", the court held.
The appeal before the High Court arose from the Single Judge's decision declaring NSE a public authority under the RTI Act. NSE argued that although it was incorporated as a private company on November 27, 1992 and later recognised by SEBI as a stock exchange, it was neither established nor constituted by the Government and therefore fell outside the definition of a public authority under the Act.
Rejecting the contention, the High court agreed with the Single Judge that NSE qualifies as an 'authority' under the first part of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, making it unnecessary to examine whether it is also an institution of self-government.
The Court further held that a stock exchange cannot legally operate without governmental recognition and that the recognition granted by SEBI is deemed to be an order of the Central Government, as the regulator exercises delegated powers under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act.
Case Title : NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LIMITED vs CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Case Number: DIARY 43274/2026

Approved right to information bill will boost transparency – Dy assures CPAs

Inquirer.net: Philippines: Wednesday, 22 July 2026.

House Speaker Faustino `Bojie’ Dy III. MANILA, Philippines

The approval of the proposed Right to Information (RTI) Act reflects the House of Representatives’ commitment to transparency, accountability, and responsible governance, Speaker Faustino “Bojie” Dy III assured the Isabela Chapter of the Philippine Institute of Certified Public Accountants (PICPA) over the weekend.
Speaking through Isabela Board Member Amador Gaffud Jr. during the induction ceremony of the group, Dy stressed the accountants’ crucial role in ensuring that public institutions would remain worthy of the people’s trust.
“We often say that accountants are good with numbers. That’s true. But more than that, you are the professional who guards the integrity of our institutions,” Dy said in Filipino, according to a statement issued by his office.
“Behind every business, every local government, every corporation, and every public program, there are people who make sure that the accounting is right, the responsibility is clear, and the public has trust,” he added.
Beyond talking about good governance
According to Dy, before adjourning its first regular session adjourned, the House finally approved the long-awaited proposed Right to Information Act along with the proposed eBayad Act, major steps toward institutionalizing transparency and modernizing government services.
“They’re both rooted in the same principle that every centavo of public funds should be managed competently, clearly, and responsibly. Because good governance is not measured by how much government spends. It is measured by how responsibly every peso is managed,” he added.
Dy said that while artificial intelligence, automation, and digital finance continue to reshape the accounting profession, integrity remained its greatest strength.
“But as technology changes the way we work, one thing must never change: Integrity will always be your greatest asset,” he said.
“Systems will become faster. Software will become smarter. But trust will always be built by people,” he added.
More reforms
In the second regular session of Congress, Dy assured the CPAs that the House would continue pursuing reforms to improve the ease of doing business, accelerate the government’s digital transformation, and strengthen transparency and fiscal responsibility.
“We know that these reforms won’t be successful without the active participation of professionals like you,” Dy said.
“So, you can rely on the House to continue cooperating with sectors like PICPA to make laws that are practical, modern, and really helpful in developing our economy,” he added. /atm

Malaria, dengue, leptospirosis killed 99 people in Mumbai between 2023 and 2025: RTI

Times of India: Mumbai: Wednesday, 22 July 2026.
Between 2023 and 2025, 99 people died of leptospirosis, malaria and dengue out of 236 suspected fatalities reviewed by the BMC’s death audit committee, according to the latest RTI data.

Of the 32 suspected leptospirosis deaths last year which is typically contracted by wading through waterlogged areas contaminated with animal or rodent urine 19 were officially confirmed. A total of 16 and 18 people were suspected of dying from dengue and malaria in the same timeframe, of which eight and seven cases respectively were confirmed last year.
The data is part of the BMC’s response to a query under the Right to Information (RTI) Act filed by activist Chetan Kothari. A doctor at one of the peripheral BMC-run hospitals said there is undercounting in these numbers due to certain testing norms required by the BMC’s death audit committee.
For instance, for malaria, a rapid test detects parasite antigens in minutes, whereas a slide test involves smearing blood onto a glass slide and examining it under a microscope to visually identify and count parasites. “The slide test takes a longer time, but it is more reliable. For many hospitals, the burden of everyday cases is so high that a rapid test is done and the patient is treated accordingly,” the doctor said.
Similarly, the Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) tests are more reliable than rapid tests for dengue and leptospirosis. Past data from four suburban hospitals shows that in 2024, out of 1,634 rapid tests done for dengue, just 818 were tested using ELISA. One of the suburban hospital in-charges said, “These tests require more manpower and also take a longer time. We are frequently understaffed and overburdened.”

CIC voices concern over repeated RTI violations in J&K

Daily Excelsior: Jammu: Wednesday, 22 July 2026.
In a strong indictment of the implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act in Jammu and Kashmir, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has initiated penalty proceedings against officers of several Public Authorities after finding prima facie violations ranging from failure to furnish information, ignoring statutory timelines and even defying appellate orders.

In a series of orders, the transparency watchdog of the country directed show-cause proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act against officers of the Directorate of Health Services Jammu, Medical Superintendent District Hospital Rajouri, Srinagar Municipal Corporation, Deputy Commissioner's Office Jammu, Block Development Office Bhaderwah and Municipal Committee Sumbal.
The Commission observed that these Public Authorities either failed to respond to RTI applications within the time prescribed under Section 7(1) of the Act, furnished information only after the Commission intervened or could not establish that replies had ever been dispatched to the applicants. Moreover, the CIC held that such conduct amounted to a "deemed refusal" to provide information, defeating the very purpose of the transparency law.
As far as Directorate of Health Services Jammu and Medical Superintendent District Hospital Rajouri are concerned, the CIC questioned whether the RTI reply had ever been dispatched to the applicant, noting that no proof of dispatch was produced and the complainant learnt of the alleged reply only during the hearing.
Holding that the circumstances indicated prima facie obstruction of the citizen's right to information, the Commission directed the Medical Superintendent and CPIO to explain why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act. "The contention and submission of the CPIO shall be supported with relevant documents to discharge the onus of his omission, if any", read the order.
In case relating to the Block Development Office, Bhaderwah, the Commission found that not only had the CPIO failed to provide any information despite a specific direction from the First Appellate Authority, but the officer attending the hearing was also unprepared with the facts of the case. The Commission described the conduct as a "gross violation" of the RTI Act and ordered both a revised reply and show-cause proceedings.
"The failure to provide a reply to the RTI Application in terms of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act amounts to causing a deemed refusal to provide the information by the CPIO. Similarly, the non-compliance of the FAA's order dated 16.12.2024, further amounts to a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act on the part of the CPIO", the CIC said and directed the CPIO to send a cogent response to show-cause as to why an action should not be taken against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the omissions.
As far as Deputy Commissioner's Office Jammu is concerned, the CIC observed non furnishing of information vis-à-vis Fards issued by the Tehsildar Bahu in respect of village Chowadhi and said, " prima-facie failure of the CPIO to comply with the mandate of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, in not furnishing a reply to the instant RTI Application amounts to a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act".
Further, the Commission took exception to the absence of the CPIO during the hearing, without any advance prayer for leave, and for disregarding the instructions given at para 3(a) and 4(b) of the notice of hearing dated 13.05.2026. Accordingly, the CIC directed the CPIO to furnish a response to show-cause as to why an action should not be taken against him/her under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the omissions.
Similarly, Srinagar Municipal Corporation was pulled up after the applicant received the requested information long after filing the RTI application and only after the Commission registered the complaint. The CIC observed that no explanation had been offered for the delay and ordered penalty proceedings against the concerned CPIO.
The Commission also censured the Municipal Committee, Sumbal, for responding only after the CIC issued notice on the second appeal. Besides directing the CPIO to explain the delay, it reminded the First Appellate Authority of its statutory obligation to decide appeals in time, observing that failure to do so renders the first appeal mechanism redundant.
These orders signal the Commission's growing concern over repeated violations of the RTI Act by Public Authorities in Jammu and Kashmir and indicate that erring officers could face monetary penalties if they fail to satisfactorily explain the lapses during the scheduled show-cause hearings.

RTI Act | First Appellate Authority Not Deemed Public Information Officer Without Meeting S.5 Requirements: Chhattisgarh High Cour

Live Law: Chhattisgarh: Wednesday, 22 July 2026.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a First Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot be treated as a deemed Public Information Officer and subjected to penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act without satisfaction of the statutory requirements contained in Sections 5(4) and 5(5). The Court observed that the State Information Commission imposed a penalty without recording the necessary findings. [2026 LiveLaw (Chh) 75]
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad was hearing a writ petition filed by a First Appellate Authority challenging the order of the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner contended that he had discharged his duties as the First Appellate Authority by issuing notices, granting opportunities of hearing and deciding the first appeal by a reasoned order. He further contended that the information sought pertained to another office and that the State Information Commission had illegally treated him as a deemed Public Information Officer while exonerating the designated Public Information Officer.
The Court noted that the sole question was whether a First Appellate Authority could be treated as a deemed Public Information Officer and subjected to penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act. It held that under Sections 5(4) and 5(5), an officer can be treated as a deemed Public Information Officer only if the designated Public Information Officer has sought his assistance.
The Court observed that in the present case, there was no material to show that any such assistance had been sought or that the petitioner had been entrusted with the responsibility of furnishing information. It held that merely acting as the First Appellate Authority does not attract the deeming fiction under Section 5(5).
“… there is no material to show that such assistance was ever sought or that the petitioner was entrusted with the responsibility of furnishing information. Merely acting as the First Appellate Authority does not attract the deeming fiction under Section 5(5),” the Court observed.
The Court further observed that the designated Public Information Officer had not been held liable, whereas the entire penalty had been imposed upon the petitioner without recording any legally sustainable reason. The Court also found that the impugned order did not record satisfaction regarding any of the statutory ingredients under Section 20(1).
The Court reiterated that the penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act is penal in nature, the statutory conditions must be strictly fulfilled, and reasons must be recorded while rejecting the explanation of the noticee. The Court held that the State Information Commission erred in treating the petitioner as a deemed Public Information Officer without satisfying the mandatory requirements of the Act and that the impugned order suffered from non-application of mind, misinterpretation of the statutory provisions and violation of the principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 21.09.2021 imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/- under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and also quashed all consequential proceedings, including the recovery proceedings, if any.
Case Title: Kaushlendra Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [WPC No. 1745 of 2022]
(Click Here to Download Order)