Are Private Banks Now Under the RTI Act? The SDB Ruling Lacks Context : Pavithra Sandamali

Fact Crescendo: Sri Lanka: Friday, 13 November 2026.
Imagine being able to file a request and see any bank’s files, or even someone else’s account. That is roughly how many readers understood the headlines from October 26, which said, based on an RTI Commission ruling of October 21, 2026, that Sri Lanka’s private banks were now subject to the RTI Act. We compared those reports with the Commission’s published order, the Right to Information Act No. 12 of 2016 and earlier decisions of the Commission and the Court of Appeal, paying special attention to one question: can this ruling be used to get another person’s bank account details? Here is how the claim spread.
Social Media Posts:
From October 26, posts saying private banks were now subject to the Right to Information (RTI) Act were shared on social media in Sinhala, Tamil, and English.
A financial advice page posted on October 27 under the headline “Private banks also come under the RTI Act!” Its image said banks “must give the information requested” and called Sanasa Bank a “state authority”. Its description also said private banks could be treated as “state officials”.
Another page’s post, with an image saying, “Central Bank-licensed banks are subject to the RTI Act”, was shared to several groups on October 27.

Mainstream media also carried the story. The Hiru News Facebook page posted on October 26 under the headline “Private banks in Sri Lanka also come under the RTI Act”. A post by NewSin.lk the same day said that previously “only state banks” were directly subject to the Act, and that citizens now had the right to request information from “all licensed private banks”.
Claim Under Investigation: All licensed private banks in Sri Lanka are now directly subject to the RTI Act, just like government institutions, so any citizen can request information from them.
Fact-Check:
The Commission’s Ruling Came in One Appeal Involving Sanasa Development Bank
On April 7, 2025, a loan customer at SDB Bank’s Maharagama branch asked for a report on unclear terms in his loan agreement and on how his interest rate was calculated. The branch replied by email on April 9. Not satisfied, he appealed to the RTI Commission on July 29, 2025, according to the Commission’s order, available here.
At the hearing, the bank said it had emailed the requested information within four days and argued that as a company incorporated under the Companies Act No. 7 of 2007, it was not a “public authority” under the Act. Chairman Dayaratne Lankapura and Commissioners Attorney-at-Law Kishali Pinto-Jayawardena and A. M. Nahiya rejected that argument in their order of October 21, 2026, in appeal RTIC/Appeal/1005/2025.
The appeal was on the Commission’s hearing list for January 29, 2026, as seen here. According to the order, on January 14, 2026, the bank’s lawyer asked for time to talk to the appellant without first deciding the bank’s status. Then, on January 29, the lawyer asked the Commission to decide that status first.
So, this order decided only the preliminary question of whether the bank is a public authority. It has not yet decided whether the requested information must be released. The bank was told to file written submissions on or before November 13, 2026, and the appellant to file counter-submissions on or before November 27. The appeal is due to be considered on December 2 through written proceedings.
A Public Authority, a Public Service and a Government Institution Are Not the Same
In the Act, “public authority” is a legal term for a body that has a duty to provide information. Ministries, government departments, public corporations, and companies in which the state holds 25 per cent or more of the shares (Section 43(a) to (e)) are public authorities in full. State banks have always been in this group.
A “public function or service” is a statutory or public duty or service carried out by a private body under a contract, joint venture, agreement, or license from the government, one of its agencies or a local authority. Section 43(g) says such a body is a public authority only “to the extent of activities covered by that function”. In the Sinhala text of the Act, this paragraph is numbered (උ), and the Commission’s order uses that numbering.
So even if a private bank operating under a Central Bank license is treated as a public authority, it does not become a government institution. Its ownership, control and shareholders stay the same. Going by the wording of the Act, information can be requested only about activities tied to the licensed banking service, such as deposits, loans, and interest rates. The Commission has not yet spelled out exactly where that line falls.
Media reports cited paragraph (e) of Section 43. But the Commission’s order rests on paragraph (උ) of the Sinhala text, which is paragraph (g) in the English text. Paragraph (e) applies to companies in which the state holds 25 per cent or more of the shares or has a controlling interest.
According to an October 2025 report, SDB Bank’s main shareholders are LOLC Investment Holding (15%), Senthilverl Holdings (12%), Finco Holdings (about 11%) and BIO, a Belgian development finance institution (10%), as reported here. The Central Bank of Sri Lanka lists SDB Bank as a licensed specialized bank, here.
This Does Not Normally Open Up Other People’s Account Details
The most important question in this story is whether someone can use RTI to get another person’s account balances, transactions, or loan details. Under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act, personal information must be refused if it has no link to any public activity or public interest, or if releasing it would cause an unwarranted invasion of a person’s privacy.
Under the law, such information can be released only if one of two conditions is met: the person concerned has agreed in writing, or a larger public interest justifies the disclosure. The Act also protects information that must be kept confidential because of a fiduciary relationship (Section 5(1)(g)), commercial secrets that would harm a third party’s competitive position (Section 5(1)(d)) and information given in confidence by a third party (Section 5(1)(i)).
When someone asks for confidential information that relates to, or was supplied by, a third party, the Information Officer must ask for that party’s views within a week (Section 29). If the third party objects, the information should be refused. Only if the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs the private interest can the Commission order its release. Section 6 also allows the exempt parts of a document to be removed and the rest to be released.
On January 20, 2026, in a case against People’s Bank, the Court of Appeal upheld an order to release audit reports and ledger details for the accounts of a partnership in which the customer was the managing partner. The court said that since a partnership is not a legal person separate from its partners, he was not a third party, and that third parties’ details could be removed where needed, as reported here. It was reported on March 28, 2026 that the Court of Appeal quashed a Commission order against the Central Bank’s Monetary Board, saying the Act’s exemptions must be strictly followed, as reported here.
There is also a Commission ruling that deals directly with other people’s accounts. On July 4, 2024, in an appeal against Nations Trust Bank (RTIC/Appeal/1283/2023), the Commission decided the bank was a public authority. But it also ruled that the bank was right to refuse the agreements and documents on loan facilities given to another company in which the appellant held no shares. That was personal information, no link to a public activity or larger public interest had been shown, and so Section 5(1)(a) applied. That ruling is here.
Section 77 of the Banking Act deals with the “Declaration of secrecy” (here), and a 1998 report noted that it protects depositors’ confidentiality (here). Section 4 of the RTI Act gives priority over other written laws, but we could not find any court ruling that balances it against a private bank’s account secrecy. The main provisions of the Personal Data Protection Act take effect from January 1, 2027 (here), which may raise new questions about bank data.
In short, this position gives customers a legal route to ask, under RTI, for information about their own accounts, loans or bank decisions that affect them. Getting another person’s account details requires that person’s written consent or strong public interest, and the Commission or the courts will decide each request on its own merits.
The Commission’s Position on Private Banks Has Changed Since 2018
According to the hearing notes of a 2018 appeal against the Central Bank (RTIC Appeal 98/2018), the appellant said the Commission had told him, in an earlier appeal against Commercial Bank, that private banks did not fall within the Act. The record is here.
But in the 2024 Nations Trust Bank appeal mentioned above, the Commission took a different view. It held that since the Central Bank’s Monetary Board is a government body, a bank operating under its licence is a public authority under Section 43(g) [(උ) in the Sinhala text]. The SDB order itself says it follows that decision.
On March 5, 2026, the Court of Appeal confirmed that a private television station broadcasting under a government licence is a public authority under Section 43(g), as reported here. It was reported on November 1 that the Commission also decided Dialog, which uses radio frequencies under a licence, as a public authority. But that report also said this does not automatically oblige it to release every record requested. More details here.
So, the October 21 order is not the first decision on a private bank. It applies a position the Commission has held since 2024 to another bank. The claim in one social media post that previously “only state banks” were covered by the Act is therefore also wrong.
The Ruling Is Not Final and Does Not Automatically Bind All Banks
Under Section 34 of the Act, a citizen, or a public authority unhappy with a Commission decision can appeal to the Court of Appeal within one month of being informed of it. As of November 9, we could not confirm whether SDB Bank had appealed.
This order covers one appeal involving one bank. If another bank refuses an information request, that will have to be decided through the appeal process. Since all licensed banks work under the same licensing system, the Commission can be expected to apply the same reasoning. But we could not find any Court of Appeal ruling on a private bank.
Media Reports Left Out Several Points That Needed Correcting
Most reports got the date of the ruling, the appeal number, the Commissioners, and the bank’s arguments largely right. But the points below could mislead readers.
No Official Public Response From the Banking Sector
As of November 9, 2026, we could not find any official public statement on the order from the Sri Lanka Banks’ Association (SLBA), which represents licensed commercial and specialised banks, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, which supervises the banking sector, or SDB Bank, the bank involved. The SLBA’s official website (here) carried no statement either.
However, a question arises over how the duties of a public authority apply to a private bank whose status is limited to its licensed service. These include appointing Information Officers and Designated Officers (Section 23), displaying their details at the institution (Section 26), maintaining records (Section 7), and submitting annual reports to the Commission (Section 10). The SDB order does not address these points.
How a Bank Customer Should Request Information
Send a written request to the bank’s Information Officer (Section 24). If no Information Officer has been appointed, the head of the institution or its chief executive is treated as that officer (Section 23). A decision should come within 14 working days (Section 25). If the request is refused, you can appeal to the bank’s Designated Officer within 14 days (Section 31), and then to the Commission within two months (Section 32). Complaints about banking services are better sent to the Central Bank department or the Financial Ombudsman listed above rather than filed as RTI requests.
Note: This is a developing story. We will update this report after the Commission decides on releasing the information, or after SDB Bank, the Sri Lanka Banks’ Association, or the Central Bank responds.
Conclusion:
It is true that the RTI Commission decided on October 21, 2026 that Sanasa Development Bank is a public authority. But that status is limited to its licensed banking service under Section 43(g) of the Act, and the bank does not become a government institution.
The Commission took the same position on Nations Trust Bank in 2024, and in that case ruled that the bank was right to refuse another company’s loan documents. So, saying private banks are now subject to the RTI Act for all information, just like government institutions, and that anyone can request bank information, leaves out essential context.
The SDB order has not yet decided whether the requested information must be released. The bank must file written submissions on or before November 13 and the appellant on or before November 27, and the appeal is due to be considered on December 2. As of November 9, 2026, we found no public response to the order from SDB Bank, the Banks’ Association, or the Central Bank.
This analysis is based on the relevant provisions of the Act, orders of the RTI Commission and related court rulings.

CETP pollution penalties soar 88-fold to ₹4.43 crore: RTI

Hindustan Times: New Delhi: Friday, 13 November 2026.
Environmental compensation imposed on Delhi’s common effluent treatment plants (CETPs) surged 88

The fines imposed on CETPs rose from ₹5 lakh in 2024-25 to ₹4.42 crore in 2025-26, according to an RTI reply. (Representative photo)

Environmental compensation imposed on Delhi’s common effluent treatment plants (CETPs) surged 88.5 times in 2025-26 compared to the previous financial year, with penalties touching ₹4.43 crore, according to information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act from the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC).
The fines imposed on CETPs rose from ₹5 lakh in 2024-25 to ₹4.42 crore in 2025-26, according to an RTI reply. The cumulative environmental compensation imposed on these industrial effluent treatment plants between 2023-24 and 2025-26 stood at ₹5.33 crore, the RTI reply revealed. Environmental activist Amit Gupta had filed an RTI seeking information on environmental compensation charges imposed on CETPs.
The information also showed that separate penalties of ₹22.95 crore were imposed on the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) and domestic sewage treatment plants (STPs) through 17 orders.
Of this, ₹18.54 crore was imposed on DJB in February 2025 for failure to provide a sewerage network. Another ₹2.89 crore was imposed on 15 STPs in April 2026, while DJB was penalised ₹1.50 crore in May 2026 over the functioning of the Smriti Van sewage treatment plant in Vasant Kunj.
The RTI reply also revealed that no funds had been allocated to DPCC for cleaning the Yamuna.
Gupta said imposing penalties alone would not revive the Yamuna unless treatment plants were repaired and held accountable for violations.

Information Commission to remain independent, neutral, says its chief Nahreen

Dhaka Tribune: Bangladesh: Friday, 13 November 2026.
The Information Commission has begun implementing a 100-day work plan with a firm commitment to remain independent and neutral under the democratic government, said Chief Information Commissioner Prof Dr Nahreen Islam Khan on Thursday.

Chief Information Commissioner of Bangladesh
Prof Dr Nahreen Islam Khan

“We began our 100-day work plan with the belief that the Information Commission under a democratic government will remain impartial and independent,” she said at a press briefing at the Information Commission building in the capital.
Responding to a question about the commission's position, Nahreen said she had repeatedly been asked whether the Information Commission would stand with the people or the government.
“My answer is unequivocal: the Information Commission will not stand with the people, nor will it stand with the government; it will remain impartial,” she said.
She expressed her firm belief that a strong Information Commission would help the government move forward on the path of democracy.
The briefing was organised to outline the newly formed commission's future plans and priorities, focusing on the effective implementation of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2009, ensuring people's access to information and making the practice of the right to information more dynamic.
Explaining the importance of the RTI Act, she said most laws are enacted by governments to be applied to citizens, but the RTI Act is the only law that an ordinary citizen can use against the government to ensure accountability.
She said one of the initial challenges after joining the commission was that many people did not know what the Information Commission was or what it did.
The commission, therefore, wants to make people aware that there is a strong institution in Bangladesh dedicated to protecting their right to information and that its doors are open to every citizen.
Outlining the 100-day plan, Nahreen said the commission would organise Bangladesh's first RTI fair at the end of November, initially at three public and four private universities in Dhaka.
The weeklong initiative will help students understand how they can use the Right to Information Act to pursue their demands and grievances through lawful means.
The commission will also begin hearings on November 16 to address a backlog of 917 complaints accumulated over the past two years, she said.
She said the commission wanted to make its activities more active and effective by addressing both the accumulated and newly filed complaints.
Reiterating the commission's commitment to neutrality, she urged citizens to see themselves as equal members of society and the state and expressed hope that the commission's impartial approach would help strengthen democratic practices.
She acknowledged that the commission is facing significant operational constraints. Although its organisational structure provides for 76 officials, only 22 are currently working in the 15-storey building.
Despite the limited workforce and various obstacles, she said the commission has started working instead of waiting for all its resources to be in place.
Information Commissioner S A M Mahfuzur Rahman said the commission could play a significant role in addressing the problem of information sharing.
He said the commission expected to work jointly with the media to establish transparency in society by ensuring ordinary citizens' access to information.
Mahfuzur said information had become the principal source of power in contemporary society, particularly as artificial intelligence was transforming the world and opening up new possibilities for good governance.
He called on journalists to play a leading role in combating disinformation by distinguishing between misinformation and disinformation and ensuring the flow of objective, authentic and substantiated information.
Information Commissioner Khan Mohammad Abul Hossain said ensuring freedom of expression was a fundamental prerequisite for the development of democracy, and the right to information was an inseparable part of that freedom.
“Freedom of expression can never flourish without the right to know,” he said.
He said journalists were among those who worked most extensively with information, while the media remained one of the principal sources through which people could exercise their right to know.
Abul Hossain said the Information Commission could not function effectively without the cooperation of the media.

Centre, medical body agree to disagree on stipend parity : Kavita Bajeli-Datt

New Indian Express: New Delhi: Friday, 13 November 2026.
An RTI reply reveals that the ministry is examining a plea seeking action against the regulator, which has yet to amend rules despite two reminders on equal stipends for government and private college interns.

Four years on, medical interns await stipend parity as Health Ministry examines appeal against NMC

The Union Health Ministry is considering an appeal against the National Medical Commission’s (NMC) inaction on stipend parity for undergraduate medical interns in government and private colleges, according to an RTI reply.
The ministry has written to the NMC twice, asking it to examine the issue. Medical interns’ and resident doctors’ associations, including FAIMA and FORDA, have repeatedly raised the demand.
In February, the NMC acknowledged the absence of stipend parity and said an amendment was needed through the statutory process. However, responding to RTI activist Dr KV Babu’s June 30 query, it said, “As and when the regulations are revised, the inputs will be sought from stakeholders.”
Dr Babu, a Kerala-based ophthalmologist, told this paper that he filed an appeal with the ministry on July 15, seeking action against the NMC for failing to act despite two reminders.
In an RTI reply dated October 22, the ministry said his “appeal is under consideration.” “The issue of stipend parity for interns has been pending with the government for over four years and with the NMC for more than a year,” he said.
“Even though the Ministry of Health wrote to the NMC in November 2025 to review the stipend provision for UG interns under the CRMI Regulations, 2021, considering the rules under PGMER, 2023, the NMC has not acted yet,” he added.
Ministry to NMC
The ministry had asked the NMC to examine amending the Compulsory Rotating Medical Internship Regulations, 2021, which state that “interns shall be paid a stipend as fixed by appropriate authority.”

The Punjab and Haryana High Court was considering an appeal filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner.

Verdictum: Chandigarh: Friday, 13 November 2026.
While setting aside an order denying disclosure of the videography of the Band Skill Test for recruitment of Bandsman (Constable) in Haryana Police, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the right to seek information cannot be made dependent upon the information seeker first establishing the very irregularity which the information is sought to examine.

The High Court was considering an appeal filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, State Information Commission, Haryana, whereby the request of the petitioner for supply of videography of the Band Skill Test conducted during the recruitment process for the post of Bandsman (Constable) in Haryana Police was declined.
The Single Bench of Justice Kirti Singh held, “The right to seek information cannot be made dependent upon the information seeker first establishing the very irregularity which the information is sought to examine. Such a requirement would defeat the purpose of seeking access to the relevant record. Where the information sought directly relates to the assessment of candidates in a public recruitment process, the requirement of transparency and accountability assumes significance.”
“In the present case, the respondents have sought to justify the denial of information only on the ground that the videography relates to other applicants and is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, the recording is not an unrelated personal document but forms part of the record of the assessment conducted by a public authority for recruitment to public posts. The mere fact that the recording also contains the performance of other candidates would not, by itself, justify withholding the entire information from an unsuccessful candidate who had participated in the same recruitment process and seeks access to the record having a direct bearing on the selection”, it added.
Advocate Animesh Sharma represented the Petitioner while Senior DAG Saumya Ahluwalia represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioner, who belongs to the Backwards Class-B (BCB) category, applied for the post pursuant to advertisement issued by the second respondent. The selection process, as prescribed under the advertisement, comprised a Knowledge Test carrying 20 marks, a qualifying Physical Screening Test, a Band Skill Test carrying 60 marks and other prescribed procedures under the relevant service rules. The final list of candidates recommended by the Selection Board for enrolment as Bandsman (Constable) in Haryana Police merely reflected the names of the selected candidates without disclosing the detailed breakup of marks. Upon perusal thereof, he came to know that one Jaibir had been selected against the sole advertised post in the BCB category in the Brass Band.
Questioning the selection, the petitioner filed a petition. During the pendency of the said petition, the State filed a reply through the Additional Director General of Police, Karnal Range, Karnal, placing on record the final selection list along with the detailed breakup of marks obtained by the selected candidates. The comparative marks of the petitioner and the selected candidate were thus disclosed.The petitioner claimed disclosure of the videography of the Band Skill Test, contending that the same was the contemporaneous record of the assessment and would enable him to examine the fairness of the evaluation, particularly when the said test carried 60 marks out of the total 100 marks.
The petitioner had earlier submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), seeking information relating to candidates belonging to the BCB category, including their answer sheets, marks obtained and videography of the Band Skill Test. The SPIO-cum-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnal, declined the information on the ground that it pertained to other applicants and was exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The first appeal preferred by the petitioner was also decided on the same grounds. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the State Information Commission, Haryana, by way of a second appeal. The petition came to be filed before the High Court after the Commission observed that in the absence of prima facie wrongdoing or demonstrable harm to public interest, disclosure could not be directed.
Reasoning
Referring to various decisions, the Bench observed that the information having a direct nexus with a public recruitment process cannot be denied merely by labelling it as personal information, without examining the nature of the information sought and the applicability of the statutory exemption.
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the recording sought by the petitioner pertained to the performance of candidates in the said test and constituted the contemporaneous record of the assessment undertaken by the Selection Board. “Thus, the difference in the overall merit is substantially attributable to the marks awarded in the Band Skill Test, the very assessment whose recording is sought by the petitioner”, it added.
The Bench held, “In view of the aforesaid discussion and the principles laid down in the judgments noticed hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the denial of the videography of the Band Skill Test cannot be sustained. The impugned order, to the extent it declines disclosure of the said information, therefore, warrants interference.”
Thus, allowing the Petition, the Bench set aside the impugned order to the extent it denied disclosure of the videography of the Band Skill Test. “The authorities are directed to furnish the requisite information to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from today”, it ordered.
Cause Title: Sunder Lal v. State of Haryana and Others (Case No.: CWP No.12474 of 2026 (O&M)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Animesh Sharma, Ishita Khanna
Respondent: Senior DAG Saumya Ahluwalia
(Click here to downloadOrder)

बस्ती में RTI मांगने पर दो पक्षों में विवाद, चाकू से शिक्षिका की हत्या, 3 घायल : Written By : सतीश श्रीवास्तव

ABP News: Uttar Pradesh: Thursday, 12 November 2026.
बस्ती के ताहिरापुर गांव में शिक्षिका की नियुक्ति में कथित फर्जीवाड़े का आरोप लगाते हुए एक पक्ष द्वा RTI से जानकारी मांगने को लेकर शुरू हुआ विवाद में चाकू से हमला कर शिक्षिका सुधा की हत्या कर दी गई.

शिक्षिका की हत्या की आरोपी लक्ष्मी यादव गिरफ्तार

RTI से जानकारी मांगने को लेकर शुरू हुआ विवाद इतना बढ़ गया कि देखते ही देखते खूनी संघर्ष में तब्दील हो गया. बस्ती जिले के कलवारी थाना क्षेत्र के ताहिरापुर गांव में हुई इस सनसनीखेज वारदात ने पूरे इलाके को झकझोर कर रख दिया. शिक्षिका की नियुक्ति में कथित फर्जीवाड़े का आरोप लगाते हुए एक पक्ष द्वारा जनसूचना मांगे जाने को लेकर शुरू हुए विवाद में चाकू से हमला कर शिक्षिका सुधा की हत्या कर दी गई. इस हमले में उनके पति, बेटा और बेटी भी घायल हो गए. घटना के बाद गांव में अफरा-तफरी मच गई. सूचना मिलते ही पुलिस महकमे में हड़कंप मच गया और पुलिस ने तत्काल कार्रवाई करते हुए आरोपियों आलोक प्रेमचंद सहित दो अन्य को हिरासत में ले लिया.
मामले की शुरुआत दोनो पक्षों में पुरानी रंजिश को लेकर बताई जा रही है. बताया जा रहा है कि जनसूचना मांगे जाने को लेकर दोनों पक्षों के बीच विवाद शुरू हुआ, जो धीरे-धीरे गहराता चला गया. आरोप है कि सूचना मांगने की बात को लेकर पैदा हुई नाराजगी ने ऐसा हिंसक रूप ले लिया कि मामला जानलेवा हमले तक पहुंच गया.
घायल पति, बेटे और बेटी को उपचार के भेजा जिला अस्पताल
बताया जा रहा है कि ताहिरापुर गांव में इसी विवाद को लेकर दोनों पक्ष आमने-सामने आ गए. शुरुआत में कहासुनी और विवाद की स्थिति बनी, लेकिन कुछ ही देर में हालात बिगड़ गए. आरोप है कि इस दौरान चाकू से हमला कर दिया गया. हमले में शिक्षिका सुधा गंभीर रूप से घायल हो गईं. उनके परिवार के अन्य सदस्य भी हमलावरों के निशाने पर आ गए. शिक्षिका के पति, बेटे और बेटी को भी चोटें आईं. अचानक हुई इस वारदात से मौके पर चीख-पुकार मच गई और आसपास के लोग घटनास्थल की तरफ दौड़ पड़े.
चाकू से किए गए हमले में शिक्षिका सुधा की जान चली गई. पति और बच्चों के सामने परिवार की सदस्य की मौत ने पूरे परिवार को गहरे सदमे में डाल दिया. घटना में घायल पति, बेटे और बेटी को उपचार के लिए जिला अस्पताल पहुंचाया गया, जहां उनका इलाज चल रहा है. एक ही परिवार के चार सदस्यों के इस तरह घटना की चपेट में आने से गांव के लोगों में भी दहशत का माहौल है.
मामले में पुलिस ने आरोपियों को लिया हिरासत में
घटना की जानकारी मिलते ही कलवारी थाना पुलिस मौके पर पहुंची. पुलिस उपाधिक्षक बृजेश सिंह ने घटनास्थल का जायजा लिया और घायलों को उपचार के लिए अस्पताल पहुंचाने की व्यवस्था की. मामले की गंभीरता को देखते हुए पुलिस ने आरोपियों को हिरासत में ले लिया. पुलिस अब पूरे घटनाक्रम की कड़ियां जोड़ने में जुटी है. विवाद की असल वजह, हमले में शामिल लोगों की भूमिका और घटना के पीछे की परिस्थितियों की जांच की जा रही है.
जनसूचना अधिकार अधिनियम आम नागरिकों को सरकारी विभागों और सार्वजनिक प्राधिकरणों से निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के तहत जानकारी प्राप्त करने का कानूनी अधिकार देता है. ऐसे में किसी नियुक्ति को लेकर जानकारी मांगने के विवाद का कथित तौर पर हिंसक संघर्ष में बदल जाना बेहद गंभीर मामला है. हालांकि, इस वारदात के पीछे की वास्तविक वजह और दोनों पक्षों के बीच हुए विवाद की पूरी जानकारी जांच के बाद ही स्पष्ट होगी.
फिलहाल कलवारी थाना क्षेत्र के ताहिरापुर गांव में हुई इस वारदात ने पूरे इलाके में सनसनी फैला दी है. एक शिक्षिका की मौत और परिवार के तीन अन्य सदस्यों के घायल होने से मामला बेहद गंभीर हो गया है. पुलिस आरोपियों को हिरासत में लेकर पूछताछ कर रही है और घटना से जुड़े सभी पहलुओं की पड़ताल में जुटी है. अब देखना होगा कि पुलिस जांच में इस खूनी संघर्ष की असली वजह क्या सामने आती है और इस जघन्य वारदात में किसकी क्या भूमिका रही है.

10 Kochi corp officials arrested in corruption cases in six years: RTI reply

The Times of India: Kochi: Thursday, 12 November 2026.
Vigilance and anticorruption bureau (VACB) has arrested 10 Kochi corporation officials in the past six years. However, none of them have been convicted; an RTI reply shows.

As per the RTI reply given to Raju Vazhakkala, health inspectors, building inspectors, clerks and officials with the revenue department were arrested in corruption cases. Of the 10 cases, initial procedures are being taken in four cases while chargesheets have been submitted in the remaining cases.
“It is just a tip of the iceberg. Corruption is rampant in the corporation. It is to facilitate corruption that the corporation authorities recently sought a vigilance probe against RTI activists. It is through RTI replies that data regarding various projects being introduced by the corporation are revealed. This causes inconvenience for the corrupt persons at the helm of the corporation office,” Vazhakkala said.
“It is ironic that an RTI reply exposed the quantum of the corporation officials to a certain extent,” he added.
Mayor V K Minimol said the corporation is taking steps to curb corruption among the local body’s officials. “I personally monitor the files movement. If a particular file is pending before an official for a long time, I would seek an explanation,” Minimol said.
“After the introduction of K-Smart, the quantum of corruption has come down,” she added.
At the same time, Minimol said there is a lobby which facilitates corruption using RTI replies. “After securing data regarding various projects and proposals through RTI applications, those who are living outside Kochi corporation limits would lodge complaints regarding such projects. Some of the officials also facilitate this corrupt practice,” Minimol said.
Opposition leader V A Sreejith said corruption is a major problem. “It has been there for the past several years. It should be curbed,” he said.

Naigaon BDD Chawl residents got keys before water connection was secured: RTI - By Ateeq Shaikh

Hindustan Times: Mumbai: Thursday, 12 November 2026.
The documents also showed a series of lapses in securing a pipeline connection to ensure adequate water supply for the newly built complex, which comprises eight high-rise buildings

Following persistent complaints, protests and political interventions, Mhada began deploying water tankers to the Naigaon BDD Chawl complex in the last week of July to bridge the deficit.

When 864 families received the keys to their new apartments in the redeveloped Naigaon BDD Chawl complex from chief minister Devendra Fadnavis during a glittering ceremony on March 16 this year, the buildings did not have an active water connection, according to documents accessed by residents under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The documents, obtained from the hydraulic engineering (HE) department of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and seen by HT, also showed a series of lapses in securing a pipeline connection to ensure adequate water supply for the newly built complex, which comprises eight high-rise buildings.
The Naigaon BDD Chawl redevelopment project, being executed by the Mumbai Housing and Area Development Authority (Mhada), is one of the biggest rehabilitation initiatives of the Maharashtra government. Under the project, thousands of eligible families are being moved from 160-sq-ft rooms in century-old, low-rise chawls to new 500-sq-ft flats in high-rises.
However, as previously reported by HT, residents have been grappling with a severe water crisis since at least May. The shortage intensified as families began moving into their new homes and occupancy steadily rose across the five towers completed so far under phase 1 of the project. The distribution of keys of the remaining 537 flats under phase 1, began on June 5.
The RTI documents show that on March 16, the day of the key distribution ceremony, inspections and remarks by the BMC’s water department indicated that Mhada’s application for a water connection was still pending. An official note dated March 20 also recorded that only two common underground water tanks had been built for the entire complex–one serving towers 1 to 4 and the other towers 5 to 8.
Frustrated by recurring complaints of inadequate supply and low water pressure, residents recently filed an RTI application seeking details of the project’s water requirements, supply infrastructure and arrangements made to meet the demand.
“The documents of water connection application by Mhada points to gross negligence and a failure to comply with key conditions of the No Objection Certificate (NOC) granted by the HE department for phase 1,” said Vishal Mohite, a member of the ad hoc housing committee.
The documents also flagged low pressure in the existing 150-mm-diameter water pipeline from which connections to the complex were initially proposed. Recognising this, the HE department had suggested redesigning the connection for towers 1 to 4. “As there is low pressure in the 150 mm diameter water main at Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Road, it is proposed to redesign the water connection for Towers 1 to 4 from Govindji Keni Marg,” the document reads.
Civic officials said the 150 mm pipeline was old and already services multiple other localities. “That is why we advised them to lay an internal water main from a separate pipeline. This was not done. As occupancy increased, residents expectedly began complaining about severe water shortages,” said a BMC official, requesting anonymity.
Despite these warnings, Mhada and the BMC went ahead and executed two connections directly into the existing low pressure water main in May and June, the RTI documents revealed.
According to the water requirement plan submitted by Mhada to the BMC, the complex was supposed to receive 643,000 litres of water daily. However, records show that actual supply remained well below this requirement, at around 400,000 to 450,000 litres a day. On some days, it fell to 300,000 litres due to regional water cuts and compounding low pressure. This left the complex facing a massive daily deficit of nearly 200,000 litres.
Following persistent complaints, protests and political interventions, Mhada finally began deploying water tankers in the last week of July to bridge the deficit.
Civic officials said the NOCs issued by the HE department in June 2025 and August 2026 required the developer to lay an internal water main at the complex’s access point at its own expense, and commission it before an occupation certificate (OC) could be issued. The terms clearly stated that water supply would only be provisioned after this condition was met, said a BMC official. However, this clause was allegedly bypassed, and both the BMC and Mhada proceeded with an inadequate connection.
A Mhada official denied the allegations, saying the authority had secured the required 100-mm water connections from the BMC well before handing over possession of the flats.
“The keys of 864 tenements in towers 4 to 8 were handed over in the presence of the chief minister on March 16 after completion of the water connections and cleaning and chlorination of the water storage tanks. Subsequently, the remaining 537 tenements were handed over from June onwards. Presently, all 1,401 tenements are receiving water through two sanctioned 100 mm BMC connections. Hence, the allegation that possession was handed over without securing water connections is factually incorrect,” the official said, requesting anonymity.
A second Mhada official, however, acknowledged the water shortage and said the authority was working to resolve the problem.

Bailable warrant out against Gurdaspur PIO for RTI non-compliance : By Hillary Victor

Hindustan Times: Chandigarh: Thursday, 12 November 2026.
Punjab information commissioner Harpreet Singh Sandhu directed the Gurdaspur SSP to execute a bailable warrant against Kanwarpreet Singh, panchayat secretary-cum-public information officer in the office of the block development and panchayat officer, Gurdaspur

The officer has been directed to appear before the commission in Chandigarh at 11 am on December 17, along with the entire relevant record. (HT)

In a stern message against officials failing to comply with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, the Punjab State Information Commission has issued a bailable warrant against a public information officer in Gurdaspur district for repeatedly failing to furnish information sought by an applicant and ignoring summons issued by the commission.
In an order issued on Wednesday, state information commissioner Harpreet Singh Sandhu directed the Gurdaspur senior superintendent of police (SSP) to execute a bailable warrant against Kanwarpreet Singh, panchayat secretary-cum-public information officer (PIO) in the office of the block development and panchayat officer, Gurdaspur.
The officer has been directed to appear before the commission in Chandigarh at 11 am on December 17, along with the entire relevant record.
The case pertains to an appeal filed by Lakhwinder Singh, a resident of Bhule Chak village in Gurdaspur district, against the officer and the first appellate authority in the office of the district development and panchayat officer, Gurdaspur.
According to the commission’s order, the appellant informed the bench during the hearing that no information had been provided by the PIO till date.
The commission also noted that the officer concerned remained absent despite notices and orders having been duly served through registered post. His absence, without any intimation or request for adjournment, had adversely affected the proceedings.
Taking note of the officer’s continued non-compliance, the commission observed that a show-cause notice had already been issued to him during the April 6 hearing. At the time, the PIO was directed to provide the requisite information to the applicant, failing which a bailable warrant would be issued.
Observing that the information had still not been furnished and the officer had also failed to appear before the bench despite due notice, the commission ordered issuance of a bailable warrant under Section 18(3)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005, to secure the officer’s presence and ensure that the matter reaches its logical conclusion.

Can’t deny public recruitment video under RTI. How HC ruled on plea by Haryana Police aspirant : Sushil Manav

The Print: Chandigarh: Thursday, 12 November 2026.
The recording is not a personal document but part of the Haryana Police assessment conducted by a public authority, HC said

File photo of Punjab and Haryana High Court | Commons

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that records relating to a public recruitment process cannot be withheld under the Right to Information (RTI) Act simply because they contain personal information about other candidates, particularly when the information is sought to examine the fairness of the selection process.
The ruling came while hearing a petition seeking videography of a Band Skill Test conducted for recruitment of Bandsmen (Constables) in the Haryana Police. The court also said candidates seeking such information need not first prove that the recruitment process was tainted by malice or irregularities. They are entitled to seek records to examine whether the selection was fair and transparent.
Justice Kirti Singh, in an order dated 5 November, allowed Sunder Lal’s petition and set aside the State Information Commission’s 22 January order denying him access to the recording. The authorities have been directed to provide the video within 30 days.
“The right to seek information cannot be made dependent upon the information seeker first establishing the very irregularity which the information is sought to examine,” the judge said.
A gap of 18 marks
Sunder Lal, who belongs to the Backward Class-B (BCB) category, applied for the post of Bandsman (Constable) following a recruitment advertisement issued on 30 November, 2022. He cleared the Knowledge Test on 7 January, 2024, and the Physical Screening Test on 27 January, 2024. The Band Skill Test, carrying 60 of the total 100 marks, was conducted the following day under videography.
The final selection list was published in February 2024 without a breakdown of marks. Sunder Lal found that a Jaibir had been selected against the only BCB vacancy in the Brass Band category.
The marks, subsequently placed on record by the State, showed that both candidates scored 13.6 in the Knowledge Test. Sunder Lal received an additional 3 marks for an NCC certificate, taking his total to 38.6, including 22 in the Band Skill Test, while Jaibir scored 53.6 overall, with 40 marks in the skill test.
The test comprised three components: Knowledge of Scales and Instrument, Self Choice Music and Sight Reading. Sunder Lal scored 10 out of 25, 12 out of 25 and zero out of 10, respectively. Jaibir scored 15, 20 and 5 in the three components.
Sunder Lal had initially approached the High Court in July 2025 but withdrew his petition on 8 August, 2025, with liberty to pursue other remedies.
RTI request rejected
Sunder Lal subsequently filed an RTI application on 11 November, 2024, seeking answer sheets, marks and videography of candidates belonging to the BCB category.
The SPIO-cum-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnal, rejected the application on 12 December, 2024, citing Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts personal information from disclosure. The first appellate authority upheld the decision on 30 December, 2024.
In the second appeal, the State Information Commission directed the authorities to disclose the marks but refused access to the video. It reasoned that Sunder Lal had not placed anything on record to establish malice or prima facie subversion of the assessment process.
Before the High Court, the State defended the selection process. Senior Deputy Advocate General Saumya Ahluwalia submitted that 422 candidates had been shortlisted after the Knowledge Test, of whom 371 appeared for the Physical Screening Test and 222 qualified. Following the Physical Measurement Test, 194 candidates were called for the Band Skill Test.
She argued that Jaibir was selected on merit and that the video could not be disclosed since it contained information relating to other applicants. She also pointed out that Sunder Lal had applied for the Bass Drum, while Jaibir had opted for the Bb Clarinet.
What the court said
Justice Singh held that the distinction between the instruments played by the two candidates did not address the question before the court. The proceedings, she noted, were not concerned with comparing their musical proficiency or examining the correctness of the marks awarded to them. The issue was whether Sunder Lal could be denied access to the contemporaneous record of an assessment conducted as part of a public recruitment process.
The court relied on the Delhi High Court’s ruling in UPSC v. N. Sugathan and the Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision in Kewal Singh Gautam v. State of Chhattisgarh. It said the principle emerging from these judgments was that information directly connected with a public recruitment process could not be withheld merely by classifying it as personal information.
The court observed that the recording “is not an unrelated personal document” but forms part of the record of an assessment conducted by a public authority.
It also noted that the difference in the candidates’ overall scores was substantially attributable to their Band Skill Test marks, making access to the recording particularly relevant.
Sunder Lal was represented by advocates Animesh Sharma and Ishita Khanna.
(Edited by Anupama Yadav)

CIC flags lapses, asks AWBI to fix Animal Welfare Board’s RTI listing

Nagaland Post: New Delhi: Wednesday, 11 November 2026.
The Central Information Commission (CIC) has directed the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying to pursue the correction of the Animal Welfare Board of India’s (AWBI) administrative details on the online RTI portal and designate information officers for its Animal Welfare Division, flagging shortcomings in the body’s mandatory disclosures under the transparency law.

The directions came while disposing of complaints filed by applicant Naresh Kadyan against the AWBI, which functions under the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying.
Information Commissioner Sanjeev Kumar Jindal noted that the complainant’s primary grievance concerned the Board’s alleged failure to comply with the proactive disclosure requirements under Section 4 of the Right to Information Act.
The complainant submitted that the information uploaded on the Board’s website was outdated and that its administrative control continued to be incorrectly reflected under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on the online RTI portal.
The CIC also took note of the AWBI’s submission that steps were being taken to rectify the issue.
“The commission is of the view that shortcoming in the disclosure by the public authority is against the mandate of Sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005, which cast a statutory obligation upon public authorities to maintain records properly and to ensure accurate and timely dissemination of information,” the order said.
The commission directed the Secretary and First Appellate Authority of AWBI to “undertake a comprehensive review of the board’s website and the records uploaded thereon” and ensure that “complete, accurate, and up-to-date proactive disclosures” mandated under Section 4 are published “in letter and spirit”.
It also directed the Joint Secretary (Animal Welfare Board) in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying to “proactively pursue” the matter with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) for the formal alignment of AWBI as a public authority under the department on the online RTI portal.
Further, the department was directed to designate Central Public Information Officers (CPIOs) and First Appellate Authorities (FAAs) for its Animal Welfare Division in accordance with Section 5 of the RTI Act.
The order noted that the complainant had also raised the issue of the department not having designated a CPIO for the Animal Welfare Division, making it difficult for citizens to file RTI applications.
The commission observed that the AWBI had written to the DoPT on February 19, 2025, and May 2, 2026, but the necessary correction on the online RTI portal was yet to be affected.