Doctors may have to pay fee for mandatory National Medical Register number under draft NMC rules.

New Indian Express: Kavita Bajeli Dutt: New Delhi: Friday, September 11, 2026.

The draft proposes that State Medical Councils process registration and licence applications for a fee, while an RTI activist said the move conflicts with the NMC Act, 2019.

Doctors will now have to pay a fee to obtain a National Medical Register (NMR) number under a draft regulation released by the National Medical Commission (NMC). The draft Registration of Medical Practitioners and License to Practice Medicine (Amendment) Regulations, 2026, issued by the Ethics and Medical Registration Board (EMRB), proposes that State Medical Councils (SMCs) review applications for registration and licences after collecting a fee, within 30 days.

The proposal, however, goes against the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, which says the NMC and SMCs must prepare the NMR based on a doctor’s registration with the state medical council. The draft makes NMR mandatory and places responsibility on doctors. The NMC had earlier made the NMR, a central database for modern medicine practitioners, voluntary after its launch by Union Health Minister JP Nadda on August 23, 2024.

RTI activist Dr KV Babu said the draft regulation was not aligned with Section 31 of the NMC Act, 2019. “The statute is clear that the NMC and state medical councils must prepare the NMR based on doctors’ state registration,” said Babu.

He said the law did not allow the EMRB to transfer this responsibility to doctors registered with SMCs and paying a fee. He also questioned allowing SMCs to charge a fee to verify data they already possess.

Babu has written to the NMC seeking withdrawal of the draft and consultation with stakeholders, including the IMA. Under the draft, a person or foreign medical graduate must apply to the SMC through the EMRB’s Unified Registration Portal. The SMC will examine the application and decide on registration and licensing within 30 days.

• Once approved, registration will be reflected in the State Medical Register and NMR.
• Once registered, medic can practise across India
• Once approved, registration will be reflected in the State Medical Register and NMR. 

A doctor receiving registration, a licence and an NMR UID will be able to practise anywhere in India without registering again in another state or Union Territory. The NMC published the draft on August 11 and also invited stakeholders to submit objections and suggestions within 30 days.

Karnataka Information Commission recommends action against three police sub-inspectors over CCTV footage issue

The Hindu: Karnataka: Friday, September 11, 2026.

The Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka Information Commission on Wednesday recommended disciplinary action against three police sub-inspectors of the Sirwar Police Station in Raichur district for failing to provide CCTV footage sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and for not preserving the footage as required under a Supreme Court order.

The commission has directed the State police authorities to ensure that CCTV cameras in all police stations remain functional and that recording systems have adequate storage capacity to preserve footage for 18 months.

The case arose from an RTI application filed by Pavan Kumar at the Sirwar Police Station on June 4, 2022, seeking CCTV footage recorded on June 1, 2022 between 7.45 p.m. and 11.50 p.m.

According to the commission’s order, the information sought was related to life and personal liberty and should have been provided within 48 hours under the relevant provisions of the RTI Act. However, then sub-inspector Geethanjali Shinde issued a reply nearly two months later, on August 13, 2022, stating that the information sought fell under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.

The applicant subsequently approached the Kalaburagi Bench in a second appeal. The commission ordered the police to provide the requested CCTV footage. However, the order was not complied with, following which the commission imposed penalties of ₹25,000 on Ms. Shinde, ₹15,000 on Avinash Kambale and ₹25,000 on Guruchandra Yadav, who had served as sub-inspectors at the station during the relevant period.

Although the three officials paid the penalties, the CCTV footage was still not provided, prompting State Information Commissioner (Kalaburagi Bench) B. Venkata Singh to recommend appropriate disciplinary action against them.

Subsequently, sub-inspector Basanagouda, who was posted to the Sirwar Police Station, wrote to the Superintendent of Police seeking technical assistance to retrieve the footage. A technical team inspected the hard disk at the station on January 2, 2025, and reported that it contained CCTV recordings for only 15 months and that recordings prior to that period were unavailable.

The commission held that the failure to provide the information within the stipulated period, coupled with the failure to preserve the CCTV footage in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions, warranted disciplinary action. Notices under Rule 7 of the relevant police service rules have since been issued, and the Superintendents of Police of Raichur, Ballari and Vijayanagara districts have initiated action, according to the commission.

The commission has directed the three district police chiefs to submit compliance reports on the action taken.

In view of the continuing requirement to preserve CCTV footage in police stations, the commission has also directed Director-General and Inspector-General of Police M.S. Saleem to take steps to ensure that all police stations in the State have CCTV systems in working condition and hard disks with sufficient storage capacity to retain recordings for 18 months, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions.

Sacked employee entitled to inquiry documents under RTI: Chhattisgarh HC

Times of India: New Delhi: Friday, September 11, 2026.

The Chhattisgarh high court has directed the family court, Janjgir-Champa, to provide a former employee documents related to the departmental inquiry that led to his termination. The court held that the information could not be denied under the Right to Information Act exemptions cited by authorities. The order was passed on August 31, 2026.

Why did the former employee seek the documents?

According to the court order, Akram Khan was working as a driver at the family court, Janjgir, when two departmental inquiries were initiated against him over allegations of misconduct and seven charges. His services were terminated on January 5, 2021, by the Principal Judge, family court, Janjgir-Champa. Khan challenged the termination through a departmental appeal before the Registrar General of the Chhattisgarh high court.

He argued that he had not been given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the inquiry. Khan then sought information and documents relating to the inquiry from the department. He specifically asked for the complete note sheets of office memo No.443/two-12-21/2020, on the basis of which his termination order had been passed.

The Public Information Officer rejected his request on January 15, 2021. His first appeal was rejected on March 10, 2021. Khan then filed a second appeal before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, which was dismissed on January 28, 2022. The authorities relied on Sections 8(1)(c) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to deny the information. The first provision deals with information whose disclosure could breach parliamentary or state legislative privilege, while the second provides an exemption for certain personal information where disclosure could cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

What did the high court observed?

The high court, however, found that the documents Khan sought were connected to his own termination and the high court, however, found that the documents Khan sought were connected to his own termination and were required by him to defend his case before the higher authorities. The court added that the information was not confidential or related to a third party. “The information sought by the petitioner clearly reflects that the said information was neither confidential, related to a third party nor intended for use against any third party,” the high court noted. The court went on to explain why Khan's request was directly connected with his challenge to the termination.

It said the documents were being sought for an “effective defence” before the higher authority in his attempt to challenge the January 5, 2021 termination order. The court also examined whether either of the RTI exemptions cited by the authorities could apply to the documents. It found that the information did not involve parliamentary or legislative privilege and did not amount to disclosure of personal information concerning a third party. “On due consideration of the information sought by the petitioner, in no way would it be an information disclosure of information which could cause breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature as is contemplated under the provision of Section 8(1) (c) nor would the information so sought for be an information which relates to a disclosure of personal information to which the petitioner has no relationship or has no interest or which could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of a third party as is otherwise exempted under Clause 8(1) (j) of the Act of 2005,” the court noted.

The high court also raised a concern about the manner in which the matter had been handled. It noted that the authority which passed Khan's termination order had also decided his first appeal. The court said this would not amount to a fair proceeding. “Ironically the order of dismissal has been passed by the same authority who had decided the first appeal which again would not be otherwise a fair proceeding drawn on the part of the Presiding Judge, family court, Janjgir Champa at that point of time,” it added

The high court held that the findings of the Public Information Officer, First Appellate Authority and Second Appellate Authority were contrary to Section 8 of the RTI Act. It set aside all three orders. The court directed the Public Information Officer to provide Khan the information he had sought under the RTI Act after he paid the requisite fees. It said the information should be provided at the earliest, preferably within 30 days of receiving a copy of the high court's order.

Labour report delay flagged as migrant and domestic worker data remain unreleased

Telegraph India: New Delhi: Thursday, 10^th September 2026.
RTI reply shows two nationwide studies launched in 2021 remain under ministry consideration, prompting concern over policymaking and emerging work categories
Labour economists have criticised the delay in the release of survey reports on the working conditions of migrant and domestic workers and their estimated numbers, an exercise launched by the Centre five years ago.
In 2021, the Union labour ministry announced that it would conduct pan-India surveys on migrant workers, domestic workers, employment generated by professionals and the transport sector, and the All-India quarterly establishment-based employment survey (AQEES).
Data accessed by The Telegraph through the RTI Act suggests that the labour bureau, a wing under the labour ministry, only carried out surveys on migrant workers, domestic workers and eight rounds of AQEES.
“Reports of All-India survey on migrant workers and All-India survey on domestic workers are still under consideration in the ministry,” the RTI reply said.
The twin surveys kicked off in November 2021, with the labour bureau collecting data from 1.5 lakh households for each. Both the surveys were supposed to be completed within a year.
Labour economist K.R. Shyam Sundar, adjunct professor at MDI Gurgaon, lamented the delay in the release of reports.
“The country is waiting for data on migrant and domestic workers, such as their socio-economic condition, safety at workplaces and nature of engagement. In a democracy, data should flow freely. Otherwise, it will adversely affect scientific data collection and policymaking,” Sundar said.
He said the government took credit for the data on registered unorganised sector workers on its e-shram portal. However, mere registration of workers does not provide information on household characteristics and emerging categories of workers.
“So far, workers are classified as regular workers, casual workers and self-employed. But we see several new types of workers who do not fit into the traditional categories. For example, the gig and platform workers cannot be placed in any of the three categories. So surveys are important to understand the nature of emerging work and broaden the existing categories,” Sundar said.

Data on de-reservation proposals not readily available, says DoPT amidst tussle with Scheduled Castes panel: Abhinay Lakshman

The Hindu: New Delhi: Thursday, 10^th September 2026.
DoPT says information on such proposals scattered across departments, Ministries; NCSC had earlier criticised Centre’s ‘incomplete’ proposals to fill reserved posts with general category candidates
The DoPT clarification comes amid a recent complaint from the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) that the Centre’s de-reservation proposals were often incomplete and didn’t reveal alternative efforts made to fill reserved vacancies.
The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) has said that it does not have “readily available” data on the number of de-reservation proposals it had received from various Ministries and departments of the Union government over the last six years. De-reservation is the practice of filling a reserved position with a general category candidate.
De-reservation is the practice of filling a reserved position with a general category candidate.
The DoPT clarification comes amid a recent complaint from the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) that the Centre’s de-reservation proposals were often incomplete and did not reveal alternative efforts made to fill reserved vacancies. The NCSC had, therefore, decided to launch a probe into such proposals, to ensure effective implementation of the reservation policy.
According to regulations for government recruitment issued by the DoPT, there is a general ban on de-reserving posts, with very specific exceptions.
In response to queries from The Hindu under the Right to Information Act of 2005, the DoPT cited Section 7(9) of the law to say that gathering the information on de-reservation proposals would “disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority”.

‘Confidential’ label alone not enough to deny mine maps, CIC orders disclosure of permissible info

Daily Pioneer: New Delhi: Thursday, 10^th September 2026.
The Central Information Commission has directed the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) to revisit the denial of Digital Elevation Model (DEM) maps of three limestone mines in Telangana, observing that merely classifying the information as confidential was not sufficient to deny its disclosure under the Right to Information Act.
Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi directed the IBM’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to provide relevant permissible information after severing portions exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.
If the information cannot be disclosed, the CPIO has been asked to incorporate relevant justification in a revised reply.
The RTI application sought certified DEM maps of three limestone mines in Suryapet district of Telangana from 2017 to 2025.
The mines identified in the application were Sulthanpur Reserved Forest Mine, Gundlapally Limestone Mine and Pedaveedu Limestone Mine. The CPIO, in its reply, said DEM maps from 2017 to 2022 were not available with the office.
It said data after 2022 was available but could not be disclosed under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, which exempts information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property where disclosure could harm the competitive position of a third party.
The First Appellate Authority upheld the denial, stating that the information could not be disclosed under Section 8(1)(d) as it contained “commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property”, disclosure of which could harm the competitive position of the third party.
During the hearing, the appellant said the DEM maps were sought from the IBM to corroborate evidence in a court case in support of a claim of illegal mining carried out by a third-party company.
The CPIO maintained that DEM maps generally contain sensitive information relating to mining operations and that their disclosure or misuse could harm the competitive position of the concerned party.
The third-party company also objected to disclosure of its mining DEM maps.
The commission, however, observed that the “complete denial” of DEM maps merely by “classifying it to be confidential” would not discharge the CPIO’s onus under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.
“Had it been the case, it is expected from the CPIO to substantiate their denial of information with substantive justification to this effect,” the commission said.
The CIC directed the CPIO to revisit the contents of the RTI application and provide “relevant permissible information” after severing the portion exempt from disclosure by invoking Section 10 of the RTI Act.
It further said that if the CPIO finds that the information cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act, the revised reply must contain the relevant justification for such denial.

CBSE Answer Sheet Photocopy: CIC Directs Board to Charge Fees Strictly as Per RTI Rules: Sanjana Surbhi

Shiksha.com: New Delhi: Thursday, 10^th September 2026.
CIC has directed CBSE to provide answer sheet photocopies under RTI Act by charging fees as prescribed under RTI Rules, 2012. CIC has also recommended changes to its rules on CBSE answer sheet verification and re-evaluation.
CBSE Answer Sheet Photocopy: Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to provide photocopies of answer scripts requested under Right to Information (RTI) Act by charging fees strictly in accordance with RTI Rules, 2012.
The commission has also recommended that CBSE amend its May 19, 2025 circular, which restricts students who obtain their answer sheets under RTI Act from applying for verification or re-evaluation. CIC observed that such a restriction is not in line with spirit of RTI Act.
CIC Directs CBSE to Follow RTI Fee Rules
This matter was considered by CIC after a Class 10 CBSE board exam student filed an RTI application for getting photocopies of his answer sheets. The student cited high cost of CBSE's regular process for obtaining answer sheets and getting re-verification or re-evaluation. He also raised concerns related to difficulty level of CBSE Class 10 Mathematics Standard Set 3 question paper, moderation policy and deductions in marks.
As per application, the student was required to pay INR 2,500 for photocopies of CBSE answer sheets for five subjects and another INR 2,500 for re-verification. This re-evaluation process involved a fee of INR 100 per question. So, the student sought copies of his CBSE board exam answer sheets under RTI Act, citing comparatively high cost of regular process.
CBSE Provided Answer Sheets Through Email
In its response dated July 2, 2025, CBSE Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) informed students that requested answer books had been provided to him through email after payment of prescribed fee. He later filed a first appeal and raised concerns about blank pages in CBSE answer books, Mathematics moderation policy and evaluation of his answer sheet. 
First Appellate Authority observed that these concerns were different from original RTI queries and sought explanations and analytical responses. During CIC hearing, CBSE CPIO stated that answer sheet had been provided after student paid photocopying charges prescribed under RTI Rules, 2012.
CIC Questions CBSE Restriction on Revaluation
CPIO also referred to CBSE's May 19, 2025 circular, which permits candidates to obtain copies of answer books under RTI Act but states that requests for verification or revaluation cannot be made under the RTI framework. CIC took exception to this provision. It observed that preventing a student from seeking CBSE answer sheet verification or re-evaluation simply because student obtained a copy of CBSE answer sheet through RTI Act goes against the spirit of the transparency law.
CIC Refers to Section 22 of RTI Act
The commission referred to Section 22 of the RTI Act, which gives the RTI law overriding effect over provisions contained in other laws, rules or instruments to the extent that they are inconsistent with the RTI Act. CIC also referred to Supreme Court's April 11, 2019 judgment in ICSI vs Paras Jain. The judgment held that remedies available under an institution's own rules and those available under the RTI framework are not mutually exclusive.
Based on these observations, CIC directed CBSE to provide answer script photocopies under RTI Act by charging photocopying fees strictly according to RTI Rules, 2012. CIC has also recommended that CBSE amend its May 19, 2025 circular under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act to ensure that its provisions are consistent with the transparency law.

CIC fines two railway officials Rs 20,000, says RTI records cannot be mechanically denied

ENN: New Delhi: Thursday, 10^th September 2026.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has fined two railway officials a total of Rs 20,000 for failing to handle an RTI application properly and not discharging their statutory responsibilities.
It also ordered that a caution issued to the then first appellate authority over his handling of the RTI plea be noted in his service record, observing that existing records cannot be mechanically denied.
The officers had denied an RTI plea, saying it was outside the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The commission imposed a penalty of Rs 15,000 on the present Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of Southern Railway and Rs 5,000 on the then CPIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
The RTI applicant had sought complete file relating to his charge sheet, including correspondence, notes and remarks, apart from details of his revision petition and action taken on his request for its early disposal.
The CIC said the information sought "pertains to his own disciplinary proceedings and revision petition" and substantially related to information held by or under the control of the public authority.
Such requests, it said, "cannot be summarily rejected by invoking Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005".
During the hearing, the present CPIO failed to provide a "cogent or plausible explanation" as to why the information sought was considered outside the scope of Section 2(f), the commission said.
It also observed that the official appeared to be mixing up two RTI applications of the complainant. The CIC further noted that although the CPIO claimed that documents relating to the charge sheet had already been supplied, no documentary evidence, proof of dispatch or acknowledgement was placed on record.
"Mere oral assertions made during the hearing, without supporting documentary evidence, cannot be accepted as proof of compliance with the RTI Act," the CIC said.
Reiterating the scope of Section 2(f), the commission said copies of existing records, correspondence, file notings, dates and action-taken records are covered by the definition of information, subject to exemptions under the RTI Act.
The public authority "cannot avoid disclosure merely by describing a query as a question or by mechanically invoking Section 2(f)," it said.
The CIC found "serious procedural and substantive lapses" in the handling of the RTI application and said the conduct of the present CPIO reflected a "casual approach" towards statutory obligations under the RTI Act and proceedings before the commission.
The commission also strictly cautioned the then first appellate authority for incorrectly invoking Section 2(f) while dealing with requests for identifiable records and directed that the caution be noted in his service record.
The penalties are to be recovered from the salaries of the two officials, with the commission directing the Divisional Railway Manager, Salem division, to ensure compliance with the order.

When State Knows Everything: By - Priyanshi Raj & Bhoomi Shree

Live Law: Article: Thursday, 10^th September 2026.
There is a particular irony in a data protection statute becoming the instrument that narrows a citizen's access to information about the state. Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 does exactly this. It rewrites Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and in doing so, it does not merely tweak an exemption clause it removes the balancing exercise that has anchored India's transparency regime for two decades. Three writ petitions currently pending before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ask whether this rewriting is constitutionally permissible. The answer will determine whether India's citizens retain a meaningful right to know, or whether “personal information” becomes the all-purpose curtain behind which governance retreats from scrutiny.
What Section 44(3) Actually Does
Before the amendment, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act exempted personal information from disclosure only where it had no relationship to any public activity or public interest, or where disclosure would cause an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Crucially, even where that threshold was met, the Public Information Officer or the appellate authority still had to ask whether the larger public interest justified disclosure. This was not an abstract nicety. It was the mechanism by which asset declarations of public servants, disciplinary records, subsidy disbursal data, and tender documents were prised out of a reluctant bureaucracy over the RTI Act's twenty-year history.
Section 44(3) deletes the public interest override. Personal information is now exempt, full stop, unless it falls into narrow carve-outs. The effect is not incremental. It converts a proportionality test administered case by case into a categorical bar administered at the point of the request. A Public Information Officer no longer needs to weigh accountability against privacy; she needs only to characterise the information sought as “personal,” a term the DPDP Act itself leaves largely undefined for this purpose. That gap between an undefined trigger and an absolute consequence is precisely where the constitutional trouble begins.
The Litigation and Where It Stands
Three petitions filed by RTI researcher Venkatesh Nayak, by The Reporters Collective Trust, and by the National Campaign for People's Right to Information have challenged the amendment on the ground that it defeats the right to information guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a), and that it does so without the safeguards Article 14 and Article 21 would otherwise demand. On 16 February 2026, a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant issued notice and referred the matter to a five-judge Constitution Bench, acknowledging that the case raises complex and constitutionally sensitive questions about how privacy and transparency are to coexist. Significantly, the Bench declined to stay the amendment pending adjudication, which means the blanket exemption has been operative for months while the constitutional question remains open. The Chief Justice's own framing that the Court would need to “iron out creases” and arrive at a workable definition of personal information is telling. It suggests the Court itself does not see the current formulation as a stable resting point, even as it allows that formulation to govern real RTI applications in the interim.
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners have pointed the Court toward its own five-judge precedent in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019), where the Court held that the correct approach to Section 8(1)(j) was a structured balancing exercise, not a categorical exclusion. That precedent did not treat privacy and transparency as mutually exclusive; it treated them as competing constitutional values requiring case-specific reconciliation. Section 44(3), on this reading, does not harmonise RTI with post-Puttaswamy privacy jurisprudence so much as it discards the balancing methodology that jurisprudence itself endorsed.
The Government's Defence, and Its Limits
The Union's position is that Section 3 of the DPDP Act preserves RTI disclosures because it exempts information that any law requires to be made public. This argument has a circularity problem: the RTI Act is precisely the law whose disclosure mandate has just been narrowed by Section 44(3). Pointing to Section 3 to reassure petitioners that RTI disclosures survive is of limited comfort when the amendment under challenge is the provision that shrank what the RTI Act requires to be disclosed in the first place. The government's second line of defence that the amendment merely aligns RTI with the constitutional status of privacy assumes that pre-2023 Section 8(1)(j) was somehow indifferent to privacy. It was not. It built privacy protection into the same clause as the public interest override, which is exactly the “harmonious construction” model that expert bodies, from the A.P. Shah Committee in 2012 to the Srikrishna Committee in 2018, had recommended retaining. Neither committee, nor the Joint Parliamentary Committee that examined the 2019 draft data protection bill, proposed severing the public interest test altogether.
Why “Crisis” Is Not Hyperbole
The word crisis is often used loosely in legal commentary, but here it captures something specific: a structural mismatch between where the burden of proof now sits and where the constitutional right actually lives. Article 19(1)(a) has long been read, since State of U.P. v. Raj Narain and reaffirmed in subsequent RTI jurisprudence, to include a citizen's right to know how the state functions. That right does not evaporate merely because Parliament has amended a subordinate exemption clause; it constrains how far that clause can travel. The present amendment tests that constraint by shifting the default from disclosure-unless-private to non-disclosure-unless-otherwise-provided, inverting two decades of statutory architecture through a data protection statute that was never advertised, during its passage, as an RTI amendment.
The institutional fallout is already visible and is not speculative. Public Information Officers, now personally exposed to data protection liability for wrongful disclosure but facing no comparable exposure for wrongful denial, have an obvious incentive to over-withhold. Independent reporting on Central Information Commission appeal data for 2026 suggests a marked rise in rejections citing personal information grounds, consistent with what one would predict from the incentive structure Section 44(3) creates. Journalists investigating the use of public funds now face the additional risk of being characterised as data fiduciaries for the purposes of their own reporting, with the DPDP Act's penalty ceiling running into hundreds of crores a figure calibrated for corporate data breaches, not for a reporter seeking a beneficiary list under a welfare scheme. None of this required a single adverse court ruling. It follows from the ordinary risk calculus of officials and institutions operating under the amended provision as it stands today, unstayed.
A Comparative Aside
India is something of an outlier in refusing to write an explicit transparency carve-out into its data protection statute. Jurisdictions that legislated privacy and freedom-of-information regimes in tandem generally built the interface between the two into the privacy statute itself, rather than leaving it to be inferred later through litigation. The absence of any such carve-out in the DPDP Act is not an oversight; it is the product of a legislative process in which the RTI amendment was folded into a data protection bill and passed with a matter of an hour's debate, without the sustained parliamentary scrutiny that a direct amendment to a transparency statute would ordinarily attract. A crisis produced by that kind of procedural shortcut is not easily cured by judicial interpretation alone, however carefully calibrated; it also calls for Parliament to revisit the amendment through a process that treats the RTI Act's architecture as worthy of amendment on its own terms.
What the Constitution Bench Should Not Avoid
The temptation before a Constitution Bench in a case framed as pitting two fundamental values against each other is to look for language that appears to honour both without disturbing the amendment's structure. That would be a mistake. Subhash Chandra Agarwal already supplies the doctrinal tool the Bench needs: a two-step proportionality inquiry that asks first whether the information genuinely engages a privacy interest, and second, only where it does, whether disclosure is nonetheless justified by the public interest. Restoring that structure into Section 8(1)(j), whether by reading down Section 44(3) or by directing Parliament to reinstate the override, would not require the Court to subordinate privacy to transparency. It would simply require the Court to insist that the government's own precedent, and its own committees' recommendations, be followed rather than legislated around.
Until that happens, the amendment remains in force, and every RTI applicant who is told that information about the exercise of public power is “personal” and therefore off-limits experiences the crisis in real time, one rejected application at a time. That is not a hypothetical constitutional question awaiting a Constitution Bench's leisure. It is an ongoing redistribution of power between citizen and state, occurring under cover of a statute that was sold as protecting the citizen from the state.
Authors are 4th year Law students at CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Delhi NCR Campus. Views are personal.

RTI files can’t be buried, strict action will follow: Keralam Information Commissioner

The Print: Kozhikode: Wednesday, 9^th September 2026.

Keralam Information Commissioner T K Ramakrishnan has warned of strict action against officials who fail to provide information under the RTI Act by claiming that the concerned files are missing or unavailable.
Officials sometimes respond to Right to Information (RTI) applications saying that the file could not be traced or was unavailable, Ramakrishnan said, adding that the responsibility for maintaining files rests with the public authorities concerned.
He was speaking after a sitting held at the district Collectorate conference hall, according to an official statement on Monday.
If a file is missing, legal action should be initiated and each file should have a designated custodian, he said. Officials should ascertain from whom a file went missing and take appropriate action.
Ramakrishnan said officials should view the RTI Act positively and provide information within the stipulated time.
The Information Commissioner also said a training programme would be organised next month for district-level officials to create awareness about the RTI Act.
On a complaint filed by Karanthur resident Abdul Kalam, Ramakrishnan directed the RTI officer of Kunnamangalam panchayat here to trace the file and provide the information sought.
The information officer of the Kozhikode Government Engineering College was reprimanded for failing to provide information and copies of documents despite the prescribed fee being paid.
The officer was directed to send the information to the complainant by speed post immediately, it said.
The information officer of Nadapuram police station was directed to provide CCTV footage sought by an applicant, while the concerned official of the Malabar Devaswom Board was instructed to provide information after it had been denied on the ground that the information had not been compiled.
Fifteen complaints were disposed of during the hearing, the statement added. PTI LGK ROH
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.

'Confidential' label not enough to deny mine maps: CIC orders disclosure of permissible info

New Indian Express: Telangana: Wednesday, 9^th September 2026.
The RTI application sought certified DEM maps of three limestone mines in Telangana -- Sulthanpur Reserved Forest Mine, Gundlapally Limestone Mine and Pedaveedu Limestone Mine from 2017 to 2025.

The Central Information Commission has directed the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) to revisit the denial of Digital Elevation Model (DEM) maps of three limestone mines in Telangana, observing that merely classifying the information as confidential was not sufficient to deny its disclosure under the Right to Information Act.
Information Commissioner Sudha Rani Relangi directed the IBM's Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) to provide relevant permissible information after severing portions exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.
If the information cannot be disclosed, the CPIO has been asked to incorporate relevant justification in a revised reply.
The RTI application sought certified DEM maps of three limestone mines in Suryapet district of Telangana from 2017 to 2025.
The mines identified in the application were Sulthanpur Reserved Forest Mine, Gundlapally Limestone Mine and Pedaveedu Limestone Mine.
The CPIO, in its reply, said DEM maps from 2017 to 2022 were not available with the office.
It said data after 2022 was available but could not be disclosed under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, which exempts information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property where disclosure could harm the competitive position of a third party.
The First Appellate Authority upheld the denial, stating that the information could not be disclosed under Section 8(1)(d) as it contained "commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property", disclosure of which could harm the competitive position of the third party.
During the hearing, the appellant said the DEM maps were sought from the IBM to corroborate evidence in a court case in support of a claim of illegal mining carried out by a third-party company.
The CPIO maintained that DEM maps generally contain sensitive information relating to mining operations and that their disclosure or misuse could harm the competitive position of the concerned party.
The third-party company also objected to disclosure of its mining DEM maps.
The commission, however, observed that the "complete denial" of DEM maps merely by "classifying it to be confidential" would not discharge the CPIO's onus under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.
"Had it been the case, it is expected from the CPIO to substantiate their denial of information with substantive justification to this effect," the commission said.
The CIC directed the CPIO to revisit the contents of the RTI application and provide "relevant permissible information" after severing the portion exempt from disclosure by invoking Section 10 of the RTI Act.
It further said that if the CPIO finds that the information cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act, the revised reply must contain the relevant justification for such denial.
(With inputs from PTI)

RTI has changed- here's how

India Today: New Delhi: Tuesday, 8^th September 2026.

India’s DPDP Act, 2023 has raised questions about how far the right to privacy should extend when information is needed for public accountability. Could the new rules change what citizens can access through the RTI Act?

(Click here for Vodeo)

CIC pulls up CBSE over RTI answer sheets, asks board to review revaluation restriction

The Times of India: New Delhi: Tuesday, 8^th September 2026.

The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has come under scrutiny after the Central Information Commission (CIC) ruled that students seeking copies of their evaluated answer scripts under the Right to Information (RTI) Act must be charged strictly according to the RTI Rules, 2012. The commission has also objected to a CBSE rule that prevents candidates from seeking verification or revaluation after obtaining their answer sheets through the RTI route.
Student challenges the high cost of the regular process
The case reached the CIC after a Class 10 student filed an RTI application seeking photocopies of his answer sheets. The student had raised concerns about the cost of CBSE's regular post-result procedures and argued that accessing answer scripts through the RTI Act offered a more affordable route.
According to the application, the student was required to pay Rs 2,500 to obtain photocopies of answer sheets for five subjects. Another Rs 2,500 was required for re-verification, while re-evaluation carried a separate charge of Rs 100 per question. Taken together, the student argued that pursuing all available remedies could cost nearly Rs 10,000.
The candidate also raised concerns over the difficulty level of the Class 10 Mathematics Standard Set 3 question paper, the implementation of the moderation policy, and alleged deductions in marks.
Answer sheets supplied, but larger questions remained
CBSE's Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), in a response dated July 2, 2025, informed the candidate that the requested answer books had been sent by email after the prescribed fee was paid.
However, the student subsequently filed a first appeal, raising questions about blank pages in the answer books, the moderation policy and the evaluation process. The First Appellate Authority noted that several of these issues went beyond the original RTI queries and involved explanations and analytical responses.
During the hearing before the CIC, CBSE maintained that the answer scripts had been supplied after the student paid photocopying charges in accordance with the RTI Rules, 2012.
CIC questions CBSE's revaluation restriction
The bigger issue before the commission was CBSE's May 19, 2025 circular. While the circular permits students to obtain copies of answer books under the RTI Act, it states that candidates who follow this route cannot subsequently seek verification or revaluation under the board's examination framework.
The CIC took exception to this condition.
The commission observed that denying a candidate the opportunity to seek revaluation merely because they had first accessed their answer script through the RTI Act goes against the broader purpose of the transparency legislation.
In effect, the commission underlined that obtaining information under the RTI Act should not become a reason for taking away another remedy otherwise available to a student.
RTI Act cannot be overridden by other rules
The CIC further made it clear that CBSE cannot rely on separate rules or regulations to impose fees or conditions that conflict with the RTI Act.
Referring to Section 22 of the RTI Act, the commission pointed out that the transparency law has an overriding effect over provisions contained in other laws, rules or instruments where there is any inconsistency.
The commission also referred to the Supreme Court's April 11, 2019 judgment in ICSI vs Paras Jain, which held that remedies available under an institution's internal guidelines and those available under the RTI framework are not mutually exclusive.
The observation is particularly significant because it reinforces the principle that students should not be forced to choose between seeking information under the RTI Act and pursuing remedies available under an examination body's own rules.
CBSE asked to bring circular in line with RTI law
The CIC has now directed CBSE to provide copies of answer scripts sought under the RTI Act by charging photocopying fees strictly in accordance with the RTI Rules, 2012.
It has also cautioned the CPIO to exercise greater due diligence while dealing with such cases in the future.
More importantly, the commission has recommended that CBSE amend its May 19, 2025, circular under Section 25(5) to ensure that it conforms to the provisions and spirit of the RTI Act.
The order could have wider implications for students seeking greater transparency in the examination system. For years, access to evaluated answer sheets, verification, and revaluation have remained costly and complicated processes for candidates. The CIC's intervention sends a clear message: the right to access one's answer script cannot be diluted by conditions that undermine the purpose of the country's transparency law.
For students, the decision strengthens an important principle: seeking information about one's examination performance should not mean losing the right to challenge it.

RTI Act | Chhattisgarh High Court Quashes ₹25K RTI Penalty, Says Mala Fide Intent Must Be Established For Action

Live Law: Chhattisgarh: Tuesday, 8^th September 2026.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that imposition of penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 requires a categorical finding that the information was withheld due to the deliberate and mala fide acts of the Public Information Officer. The Court accordingly set aside a ₹25,000 penalty imposed on a Public Information Officer, finding that there was no mala fide or deliberate.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad was hearing a writ petition filed challenging the order dated November 7, 2023, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission in a second appeal. The proceedings arose from an RTI application seeking certain information concerning Gram Panchayat Pachheda for the financial years 2014-15 to 2020-21.
The RTI applicant subsequently filed a First Appeal alleging that the petitioner had refused to provide the information and also approached the State Information Commission. The State Information Commission held that the information had been withheld without reasonable cause and imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 on the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
The petitioner submitted that the penalty had been imposed without recording any finding of mala fide intent and that there was no deliberate act to withhold the information.
The Court held that under Section 20 of the RTI Act, imposition of penalty requires a categorical finding of documents being due to mala fide acts of the Public Information Officer. Without such a finding, the imposition of penalty is unsustainable in law.
“Under Section 20 of the RTI Act, the imposition of penalty or a recommendation of disciplinary action requires a categorical finding that the documents were withheld due to the deliberate and malafide acts of the Public Information Officer. Unless such a finding is recorded in the order supported by cogent reasons, the imposition of penalty is unsustainable in law,” the Court remarked.
On the facts of the case, the Court found a complete absence of mala fide or deliberate failure on the part of the Public Information Officer. It held that unless malafide intent and deliberate intent were duly established, the penalty cannot be sustained.
The Court therefore allowed the petition and set aside the State Information Commission's order dated November 7, 2023, imposing the penalty.
Case Title: Radhika Sidar v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission & Ors. [WPC No. 2353 of 2024]
(Click Here to Download Order)

Farmers forum seeks RTI records before SC in Cauvery case

The Times of India: Hubballi: Monday, 7^th September 2026.

Kottur (Vijayanagara): The Young Farmers Forum of Karnataka, Kottur, has urged advocate general K Shashikiran Shetty to place four recent Right to Information (RTI) disclosures before the Supreme Court ahead of the Sept 15 hearing in MA No. 2445/2026. The forum alleged serious gaps in the data used for inter-state water management.
In an urgent representation, forum convener Vinayaka Mudenuru highlighted what he described as institutional shortcomings in the functioning of the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and the Central Water Commission (CWC). He said the RTI replies revealed major deficiencies in the collection, coordination and use of reservoir siltation and distress-formula data.
According to a dossier submitted by the forum, a copy of which was made available to TOI, CWC replies dated Aug 13 and 24 indicate a lack of internal coordination on siltation and distress-formula data. Mudenuru said sedimentation compendiums are available for 12 reservoirs but alleged that the records are not synchronised with CWMA directives.
The forum further stated that a CWMA reply dated Aug 12 acknowledged six specific data deficiencies. These include the absence of comprehensive reservoir surveys since 2009, missing working sheets and the lack of a designated officer to oversee the data.
Questioning the basis of the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee’s (CWRC) July 28 direction to Karnataka to release 3,500 cusecs of water, the forum alleged that the order was issued without updated siltation data or a documented methodology. It also claimed that the directive relied on storage tables that failed to account for silt-induced losses of 3% to 13%.
The forum said the issue has gained significance because of the narrow gap between the Supreme Court hearing on Sept 15 and a Sept 16 deadline under a CWMA appellate order, which mandates publication of pending reservoir data under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act.
It has urged the advocate general to direct the state’s legal team to file a supplementary affidavit under IA No. 226779/2026, incorporating all four RTI documents as annexures before the apex court.
The forum also sought transparent reservoir-data dashboards, clearly defined transmission-loss coefficients and strict monitoring of compliance to ensure that pending data is released within the stipulated timeframe.
The representation comes amid the forum’s contention that decisions on inter-state water releases must be based on updated, verifiable and publicly accessible reservoir data, particularly when siltation can significantly affect actual storage capacity.

Every fourth Jan Dhan account inoperative: RTI

Millennium Post: Jaipur: Monday, 7^th September 2026.

Nearly one in four bank accounts opened under the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY) is currently classified as inoperative, while nearly 5.72 crore accounts have no balance, according to data obtained under the Right to Information Act.
The Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, said in an RTI response dated September 1 that India had 59,03,74,907 PMJDY accounts with a combined balance of Rs 3,15,179.90 crore as of August 12, 2026. The response was issued to activist Chandra Shekhar Gaur.
Of the total accounts, 32.89 crore belong to women, including transgender account holders, while 26.14 crore are held by men. The data showed that 5,72,35,490 accounts had zero balance. Another 15,36,77,009 accounts were classified as inoperative.
Uttar Pradesh reported the largest number of zero-balance accounts at 95.92 lakh, followed by Bihar with 62.35 lakh, West Bengal with 37.20 lakh, Assam with 36.30 lakh and Maharashtra with 36.04 lakh.
The state also topped the list for inoperative accounts, with 3.23 crore such accounts. Bihar followed with 1.59 crore, Madhya Pradesh with 1.35 crore, West Bengal with 1.02 crore and Maharashtra with 97.94 lakh.
Uttar Pradesh had the highest overall number of Jan Dhan accounts at 10.51 crore. Bihar had 7.01 crore, West Bengal 5.73 crore, Rajasthan 3.87 crore and Maharashtra 3.85 crore.
Launched in August 2014 as the National Mission for Financial Inclusion, PMJDY seeks to provide households with access to banking services, financial literacy and social security benefits through at least one basic bank account. The Centre said it does not centrally maintain gender-wise data on account balances, zero-balance or inoperative accounts. It also does not maintain central figures for accounts holding less than Rs 100, accounts closed during the past five years, or accounts blocked or frozen over suspected transactions or cyber fraud.
The state-wise figures supplied in the RTI response cover 36 states and Union territories.

RTI reveals Rs 6.17 crore allocated to shift Tamil Nadu CM Vijay's Office

ANI News: Chennai: Monday, 7^th September 2026.

RTI reveals Rs 6.17 crore allocated to shift Tamil Nadu CM Vijay's Office

The Tamil Nadu government has allocated Rs 6.17 crore for shifting the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) from the Secretariat to the 10th floor of Namakkal Kavignar Maligai, according to information furnished under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The details were provided by the Public (Buildings) Department in response to an RTI application filed on August 23.
In response to a specific query on the "funds allocated for shifting the Chief Minister’s Office to the 10th floor of Namakkal Kavignar Maligai and carrying out related works", the Public Information Officer and Executive Engineer stated that Rs 6.17 crore had been allocated for the purpose.
The allocation comes amid questions over expenditure on administrative rearrangements within the state Secretariat complex.
Meanwhile, Tamil Nadu Minister Arun Raj on Saturday said Chief Minister Vijay will respond to questions raised by the Leader of the Opposition in the Tamil Nadu Assembly, Udhayanidhi Stalin and other legislators in the Assembly tomorrow, while rejecting allegations that law and order had deteriorated under the present government.
Responding to remarks made by Udhayanidhi Stalin in the Tamil Nadu Assembly, Arun Raj said, "Questions were asked not only by the Leader of the Opposition, but by all other leaders. Our Honourable CM will definitely answer all these questions."
"This government, legislature and democracy are for the people. The CM will answer in the same line as the Leader of the Opposition," he added.
The Tamil Nadu Minister also criticised Udhayanidhi Stalin's remarks on law and order, saying the Opposition leader's speech gave an impression that the situation was satisfactory only during the previous Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) government and had deteriorated in the last 100 days.
"The Leader of the Opposition’s speech on Thursday gave the impression that law and order was very well maintained during the DMK’s rule and had gone into shambles only during the last 100 days. But the situation is not like that, and everybody knows it," Raj said.
Earlier on Thursday, Udhayanidhi Stalin had questioned Chief Minister Vijay over the law and order situation in the state and alleged that the TVK government had failed to introduce any new schemes during its first 116 days in office.
Speaking in the Assembly on Thursday, Stalin said, "I want answers from CM Vijay, who holds the Police portfolio, on the collapse of law and order. It has been 116 days since this Government came to power. It has not introduced a single scheme; instead, it is neither endorsing schemes brought by the DMK regime nor scrapping them."
He also alleged a contradiction between the government's promises and announcements and claimed that the TVK government was focusing only on promoting reel content. (ANI)

Bihar SIC fines VIB DSP Rs25k over RTI reply

The Times of India: Patna: Monday, 7^th September 2026.

Bihar State Information Commission has imposed a Rs 25,000 penalty on DSP-rank officer Vasudev Roy, posted with the Vigilance Investigation Bureau (VIB), for allegedly providing misleading information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The commission also directed the Bihar director general of police (DGP) to initiate departmental proceedings against Roy over his conduct as public information officer (PIO) with a copy of the order sent to VIB DG.
The case dates back to 2021, when RTI activist Nikesh Kumar Jha alias Raghav of Supaul sought information related to an order issued by the superintendent of police in connection with a case. After failing to receive the information, Jha approached the commission.
The commission found Roy had allegedly failed to properly deal with the application and refused to accept a communication from Jha. The penalty was imposed under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, while departmental action was recommended under Section 20(2).
VIB DG Jitendra Singh Gangwar said, “We would initiate an action as needed after receiving the order copy.”
Jha, who had pursued the matter for over five years, welcomed the decision and said it sent an important message to PIOs to follow the RTI Act and provide accurate information.