What's the reason behind the death of 149 leopards in Madhya Pradesh within 14 months?

MSN.COM: Bhopal: Friday, April 17, 2026.

According to the latest figures that have come to light through the RTI Act, roughly 149 leopards have lost their lives in Madhya Pradesh in just 14 months starting from January 2025. The shocking statistic highlights the concern for the safety of one of the most versatile large cat species in India. Collisions with vehicles on roads become the primary reason for deaths caused to leopards.

The statistics, released due to an RTI application submitted by Ajay Dube, a wildlife activist, suggest that there is a grave threat to leopards in Madhya Pradesh. While conservationists regard the situation as alarming, forest officials argue that the deaths are within the acceptable range considering the large number of these animals and their interaction with humans.

According to a report published by the PTI, as per the official explanation, about one-third of the deaths recorded had been related to accidents involving vehicles, with some deaths having occurred due to the movement of highways in forested regions. It was also stated that at least 19 deaths had been caused by incidents involving vehicles on the highways alone.

Natural factors such as disease and aging had resulted in about one-fourth of the deaths recorded. In addition to this, one-fifth of the deaths were due to conflicts within the species such as territorial fighting. Such conflicts have been common among wild animals competing for territories.

Human activities like poaching and retaliatory killings have also caused many deaths. Leopards have sometimes been electrocuted either by mistake or deliberately, while others have been caught up in traps. Another nine percent of deaths could not be explained.

What's the reason behind the death of 149 leopards in Madhya Pradesh within 14 months?

As per the report, forest officials have initiated effective programs to decrease such deaths. It is important to note that unlike many other species, leopards are very adaptive creatures and can be found in various regions in the state and near human settlements as well.

The forest department has made several attempts to curb such accidents by building passageways for animals in the construction of new roads, putting up warnings in protected wildlife areas, and patrolling vulnerable sites. Such steps have been undertaken to not only decrease such accidents but also human-wildlife conflict.

It is noteworthy that the state is known for its rich wildlife, especially leopards, in India. According to the Status of Leopards in India 2022 report, which was published in 2024, Madhya Pradesh hosts around 3,907 leopards, which is the highest in India. It is higher than 3,421 reported in 2018 and creates difficulties in contemporary times.

Nevertheless, it has been noticed that while an increased population is certainly a positive aspect regarding conservation achievements, it increases the contact between wildlife and humans. Leopards that are able to survive in fragmented areas often move through cultivated fields, settlements, and highway systems, making them vulnerable to road accidents and human encounters.

The latest numbers definitely stress the need for balancing growth and wildlife movement routes. With infrastructure development continuing to progress, the protection of animal routes will become increasingly important for maintaining healthy populations.

Even though the authorities remain optimistic regarding their steps towards mitigation of the problem, it is evident that any conservation will have to adapt to new challenges posed by the dynamic environment.

Transparency in public prosecutor recruitment builds trust says CIC asks ED to reconsider RTI plea.

The Week: PTI: New Delhi: Friday, April 17, 2026.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) has observed that public recruitment and engagement to public posts must enjoy the confidence and trust of the public, while advising the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to re-examine an RTI application seeking details on prosecutorial posts. 

The commission has also said "transparency in such matters strengthens institutional credibility".

The case pertained to an application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by a lawyer who had sought to know the "rules prescribing eligibility criteria for Asst Public Prosecutor, Addl Public Prosecutor and Public Prosecutor of Enforcement Directorate" and "the no. of Vacancies of Asst PPs, Addl PPs and Public Prosecutor (category wise General, OBC, SC and ST)" in Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka.

The ED had denied the information citing exemption under section 24 of the RTI Act that excludes certain intelligence and security organisations from disclosure obligations, a stand upheld by the First Appellate Authority.

Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari observed that "public recruitment and engagement to public posts must always enjoy the confidence and trust of the general public.

He further said that it would be appropriate for the public authority "to relook the RTI application in the light of the nature of information sought, particularly with respect to general eligibility criteria and vacancy-related details which may already be available in the public domain, and take an appropriate decision as per its administrative wisdom".

During the hearing, the ED submitted that there are no regular vacancies for the posts of assistant public prosecutor, additional public prosecutor or public prosecutor, and that appointments are generally made for special public prosecutors or consultants in accordance with the requirement.

It added that such engagements are carried out through public advertisements available in the public domain.

The CIC observed that while the exemption claimed by the ED is valid, the nature of the information sought warrants a broader consideration in line with transparency principles.

With these observations, the commission disposed of the appeal, noting that no further intervention was required under the RTI Act.

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

Senior town planning officer in Haryana fined ₹25k for delaying RTI reply.

Times of India: Gurgaon: Friday, April 17, 2026.

In an order reinforcing accountability under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, Haryana State Information Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 on a senior town planning officer for failing to provide information within the stipulated time and for ignoring multiple notices.The penalty has been imposed on RS Batth, the then state public information officer (SPIO)-cum-district town planner (enforcement), Gurgaon, who is now posted with GMDA. The order was passed by state information commissioner Kulbir Chhikara on March 12, 2026, following prolonged non-compliance in a complaint filed by Delhi-based applicant Nitin Garg.

On April 8, the commission sent the order to the director general of town and country planning, the drawing and disbursing officer of GMDA, and other officials, including Batth, directing immediate compliance. Referring to its earlier notice dated Feb 26, 2026, the commission instructed all respondents to act on the order without delay and submit a compliance report.

According to the commission’s findings, the RTI application was filed on May 6, 2022, seeking specific information from the town and country planning department. Despite a clear directive from the first appellate authority on Dec 14, 2022, the information was not furnished within the prescribed timeframe. The commission noted that the officer neither complied with the order nor offered any reasonable explanation for the delay.

The matter involved multiple hearings and notices over nearly two years. As recorded in the order, Batth failed to appear before the commission and did not respond to repeated show-cause notices issued on June 20, 2025, Nov 3, 2025, Jan 28, 2026, and Feb 26, 2026. The commission observed a “lack of diligence” and described the conduct as a clear violation of the RTI Act, 2005.

Invoking Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, the commission held that this was a fit case for penalty, observing that public officials are legally bound to provide information in a timely manner. The order also referred to a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment in 2014, Chander Kanta vs state information commission and others, which mandates penalties in cases of unjustified delay or denial of information.

Under the order, the Rs 25,000 penalty will be recovered from the officer’s salary in two instalments or within 60 days. The amount is to be deposited under the designated govt head for RTI penalties. The commission has also directed the director general of town and country planning and the drawing and disbursing officer of GMDA to ensure compliance and submit a report.

The registrar of state information commission has been tasked with monitoring the recovery process to ensure timely execution of the order.

A senior commission official underscored the urgency, stating that the directions must be followed with “immediate compliance by the respondent, with intimation to the commission,” thereby emphasising the binding nature of the ruling.

Batth said, “I have to check matter and surely will apprise the facts to hon’ble commission and all compliances will be made.”

CIC Flags 'Avoidable Suspicion' Of Tax Evasion Complaints Being 'Quietly Settled'; Moots Tracking System

ETV Bharat: New Delhi: Thursday, 16 April 2026.
Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari observed that complainants currently have no structured way to know the progress of their tax evasion petitions

The lack of a formal status-tracking mechanism for tax evasion complaints can fuel suspicion among complainants that their case may have been "quietly settled" or closed without due consideration, the Central Information Commission has said, while advising GST authorities to introduce a monitoring system.
In a recent order, Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari observed that complainants currently have no structured way to know the progress of their tax evasion petitions (TEPs), forcing them to repeatedly use the RTI route.
"The absence of any institutional mechanism within the Respondent Public Authority for enabling complainants/TEP filers to ascertain the status of their complaints often gives rise to avoidable suspicion and apprehension in the minds of such complainants that the matter may have been quietly settled or closed without due consideration of the allegations raised," Tiwari observed.
He said that "such opacity unnecessarily results in multiple RTI applications and avoidable second appeals before the Commission".
The advisory came while disposing of a batch of 10 appeals where the applicant had sought detailed information on action taken against multiple firms based on her tax evasion complaints. The Commission upheld the denial of detailed information during the pendency of investigations, noting that such disclosures are exempt under provisions of the RTI Act.
However, it stressed that complainants are entitled to know the broad outcome of their complaints once investigations are completed.
Citing legal position, the Commission said complainants "would be certainly entitled to know as to how their complaints have been treated and the results thereof", though not the detailed records of investigation.
Accordingly, it directed GST authorities to inform the applicant about the status and action taken on her complaints after the probes conclude.
In its advisory, the Commission suggested that authorities "ought to evolve an appropriate administrative mechanism, preferably an online status-tracking facility… whereby complainants… may be able to view the broad status of their complaints." Such a system, it said, would promote transparency, enhance public confidence and reduce the burden of repetitive RTI applications.

Speech under watch: Reading the 2026 IT rules

Frontline Magazine: National: Thursday, 16 April 2026.
Draft IT Rules shift online speech control toward Ministries, allowing direct takedown orders to users and making platform advisories binding. Compliance pressure pushes platforms toward pre-emptive removal of political and critical content.

New draft IT Rules give Ministries wider control over online content, linking safe harbour protections to compliance and faster takedown mandates in India. | Video Credit: Moderated by Jinoy Jose P.; Produced by Kavya Pradeep M. & Saatvika Radhakrishna

On March 30, 2026, the Union government proposed amendments to the IT Rules, 2021, that would give it sweeping new powers over online speech. For the first time, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting could issue takedown notices directly to individual users, while the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has tied safe‑harbour protections for platforms to strict compliance with its advisories.
The government insists that these measures will strengthen enforcement. But critics warn they could expand censorship, especially as takedown orders increasingly target political, satirical, and critical content.
In the latest edition of Frontline webinar, Associate Editor Jinoy Jose P. speaks with cybersecurity researcher Srinivas Kodali, journalist and founder of MediaNama Nikhil Pahwa, and Sanjay Kapoor, President of Editors Guild of India. Together, they discuss what these draft rules mean for free speech, press freedom, and the future of India’s digital space.
Edited excerpts:
Jinoy Jose P.: Nikhil, the government says these rules are “clarificatory and procedural”. What do they actually change?
Nikhil Pahwa: There is nothing clarificatory about them. They expand the scope and powers of the Ministry substantially. Over the last two months, the amount of censorship on social media has expanded manyfold—more and more speech is being taken down because platforms are afraid of being held liable if the government goes after them.
You’ll remember that in 2021, Delhi Police landed at Twitter’s office because Twitter had refused to take down speech during the CAA/NRC protests. The government threatened that it would lose its safe harbour protection. In February 2021, the government changed the rules to expand the scope to include digital news publishers, streaming services, and even news aggregators like Google News and InShorts. It became a mechanism for censorship, even though the law doesn’t allow it.
These rules expand that further. They transfer the power of online censorship for news-related speech, so if anyone is even commenting on news, not reporting but commenting, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) can send a notice to the platform to take it down. Right now, all those orders come from the Ministry of IT, and MIB has to route through them. Now they want to remove that friction. We will see an expansion of censorship of speech, especially as we get closer to elections, criticism, parody of the Prime Minister, and comedians having their content removed. The scale and scope is increasing without any checks and balances.
Second: the rules that are being changed are ordinarily supposed to be placed before Parliament for ratification and scrutiny. What they’re changing now is that the ability to expand the scope of rules will happen through circulars and advisories, which previously never had legal power. A government can just issue an advisory without any checks, and platforms will have to comply.
Third: there is something called the Interdepartmental Committee of the Government of India that will now be allowed to take a call on what they want to allow or remove online, on their own, without needing a complaint. This is basically what the government had previously attempted with the Fact Check Unit. The Bombay High Court in 2024 struck it down as unconstitutional. What’s happened is that these new rules allow them to resurrect it as an IDC [International Data Corporation], bypass the Bombay High Court ruling, and grant the government greater censorship powers in the guise of addressing misinformation.
They gave a 15-day consultation for this. These are supposed to be public consultations—under the government’s pre-legislative consultation policy, submissions are to be held in the public domain so journalists can report on them. But for the last few years, the Ministry of IT has not been releasing these submissions and has been refusing them under RTI. In the last amendment, there was a consultation in November–December last year, notified in February this year. Aditi Agrawal of Tech Trace reported that Secretary S. Krishnan told platforms the 10-day implementation deadline was fine because they should have started implementing when the draft itself was done. Which means the outcome was already predetermined and the consultation is just for show. It’s a farce.
There have now been seven amendments to the IT rules since 2021. Courts have only been able to strike things down once—the Fact Check Unit—and that has also been resurrected. The speed at which the government is amending rules is much faster than we can get recourse from courts to protect free speech. This is bypassing the democratic process to build an infrastructure of censorship constructed over the last seven to ten years. Today, there was a news report that the next plan is to include X’s Community Notes under government regulation. Six months from now, there’ll be another plan. Bit by bit, like the boiling frog, they will keep expanding this digital public infrastructure for censorship.
Jinoy Jose P.: The Editors Guild issued its statement within five days of the draft being published. What specifically alarmed you?
Sanjay Kapoor: A lot of our history is being forgotten. The media played a very big role in raising the banner of revolt against British rule. India was a beacon of hope for many democracies. So when a democracy is getting undermined, there’s cause for major worry—and that worry gets aggravated when the legislative process is being bypassed.
You have platforms being taken down—4 PM, which has a huge subscriber base. The Wire had similar problems. A gentleman who mocked the Prime Minister over his diplomacy has come to grief. Yesterday, I was trying to figure out where we were inspired when drafting these laws, and only two countries showed up: China and Russia. Do we really want to be like them—totally illiberal and unmindful of our democratic rights?
Investigative journalism is getting impacted. There is a power of takedown that has been granted to petty officers across the country. Not just Delhi and Chennai—in large parts of India, people practising in the media are coming to grief because someone lesser than the district magistrate suddenly feels a report should be taken down. The chilling effect is being felt everywhere.
Jinoy Jose P.: Srinivas, these rules bring ordinary social media users under the oversight of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry—not just registered news publishers, but people posting about current events. Secretary Krishnan admitted there is no line between a post and content. You’ve tracked surveillance and policing. What happens in practice when the state has a vague rule and a very fast trigger finger?
Srinivas Kodali: There’s this famous saying in India—there’s no problem with free speech, there’s a problem after free speech. After you post something, that’s when the cops come knocking. Two satire accounts critical of the current establishment recently had their accounts shut down permanently. Twitter shut them down for good. YouTube channels of independent news outfits are going down. When they approach the High Court, the state is saying: ‘You were anonymous, and that’s not acceptable. If you want to be critical of the state, whether through satire or any other medium, you have to disclose your identity.’ This goes against the very idea of the right to privacy.
Within the rules, there are specific clauses requiring intermediaries—Facebook, Twitter, YouTube—to disclose who a user is when the Ministry demands it. Recently, the Delhi Police has been demanding that these agencies disclose large amounts of user information as part of investigations. So this isn’t just censorship. It’s also policing. It’s what happens post-censorship.
And when they say anybody can issue censorship orders now—not just the Ministry of IT, but MIB, anybody, the Interdepartmental Committee—by decentralising this, you allow pretty much any constable anywhere in India. The Mamnoor Nagar Police in Telangana recently issued Twitter a notice asking for a tweet to be censored just because someone posted something the local establishment didn’t like.
But we also need to understand: these are emergency rules. You have to shut the content down within three hours. Emergency rules are for emergencies. The question is—are we under an emergency? If we’re not, why do we need them? And even if we were, that’s when you’re told fundamental rights are suspended. If it’s not an emergency scenario, why are the people being censored not receiving notices or being heard? That goes against the very idea of natural justice.
This goes to the very idea of shutting speech for good. During the right to privacy hearings, the debate around encryption—WhatsApp, Signal—was about not wanting the state to know private communications. But in broadcast mediums, the state is now saying that anyone broadcasting essentially becomes a publisher. You can’t do that. And if the state does want to bring these mechanisms, they need to be debated in Parliament. They can’t be brought in the form of rules. It’s very excessive.

Apps for Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and other social networks on a smartphone in Chennai in March 2018. Short compliance windows and liability risk reshape newsroom and creator behaviour, narrowing space for dissent as elections approach. | Photo Credit: Arun Sankar/AFP/Getty Images

Jinoy Jose P.: Nikhil, under the proposed Rule 3(4), any written instruction from the Ministry—an advisory, guideline, even an SOP—becomes binding on platforms. If they don’t comply, they lose their legal shield. The rational response for any platform is to take down first and ask questions never. There’s also an assumption that big tech should be held responsible for what’s posted on them. Could these rules end up favoring big tech?
Nikhil Pahwa: Big tech companies are also badgered into submission. There are two types of relevant law here. One is Section 69A—secret blocking orders not available for scrutiny. In the landmark Shreya Singhal case in 2015, Justice Nariman wrote that if a user whose speech is taken down is identified, they will be given a hearing. That has never been followed. We don’t even know if scrutiny by the review committee takes place anymore.
Platforms used to push back. In 2021, when police landed at Twitter’s doorstep, Twitter had pushed back, saying orders—including the censoring of publishers like The Caravan—were unconstitutional. Since then, the government has constantly been at platforms in meetings. IPS [Indian Police Service] officers are part of the review committee, and they will lean towards censorship. That check and balance is no longer a check and balance.
The timeline for platforms to act on an order has gone from 14 days to 36 hours, and there was a report from the Indian Express that a Ministry official said they plan to bring it down to one hour. In a Bangalore High Court filing, X submitted that over a six-month period, they received 29,000 orders—an average of 160 per day. If you give a three-hour timeline to implement 160 orders, who has the legal capacity to examine each one?
This is happening because of scale—through the Sahyog portal, which X is challenging, it’s almost a hotline between platforms and multiple government departments: seven Central agencies, 33 State governments and government bodies reaching 70 platforms for censorship. Many orders don’t even come through that portal—they come from constables, as Srinivas said.
So platforms have no capacity to deal with it. They censor to protect themselves. Platforms are not being empowered—they are being used to censor us. Protecting the platforms that carry our speech is an integral part of protecting our speech. Yes, they need to be held to account for the censorship they do of our speech on their own. But here, the might of the state is on the platform to censor our speech without any accountability or transparency. If you file an RTI for a copy of a Section 79A order—which is supposed to be available under RTI—the government refuses to give it.
This entire system has been built to expand censorship and evade accountability. In software, we say: move fast and break things. This is moving fast and breaking speech.
Jinoy Jose P.: Is there room for meaningful revision, or is the basic design beyond repair?
Sanjay Kapoor: An infrastructure of censorship has been created. To stop it, you need safeguards—a review committee loaded not only with IPS and administrative service officers but also with journalists, editors, and others who question. Everything has to go through a process. But I think the desire in the government right now is not a calibrated response. They want to put the fear, put the scare, have a chilling impact—that people should be mindful of what they post, and it should not be against the government. We saw something posted about the head of state’s diplomacy that was taken down despite great viewership, and subsequently, another gentleman with 36 million Instagram followers posted it anyway.
The government thinks it can control the entire mindset of people, control free speech, but it’s not really working. They get away with it because there is no political party cognizant enough to challenge their authority. Our belief is that review committees need to be strengthened, safeguards need to be strengthened—ones mindful of our past, mindful of the fact that we are a democracy and not an illiberal state like China or Russia.
Jinoy Jose P.: A viewer says such restrictive laws get passed primarily because the news media in all its forms have become lamentably pliable over the past decade. How do you respond?
Sanjay Kapoor: I agree with what he’s saying. Everything is not being questioned adequately. In a real democracy, people challenge on the ground, in the courts, in Parliament. In India, there is a reconciliation that has happened—that the government will have its way regardless. Despite Amartya Sen writing The Argumentative Indian, the fact is, we don’t argue enough. We’re not even asking questions, and that is cause for major worry.
Jinoy Jose P.: Nikhil, if a viewer watching this wants to act—not just feel informed—what is the single most useful thing they can do?
Nikhil Pahwa: Before I address that, to say that the media is pliant or not pushing back is not correct. Newspapers might be, TV channels might be, but the web is vibrant with pushback, and it has been for over a decade. I ran the net neutrality campaign along with many others—Srinivas was there too. Citizens pushed back. We have the fundamental right to privacy. People have gone to court. The government right now is so powerful that it is making so many changes so quickly that it’s impossible to keep pace. And even when there’s pushback, everyone moves to the shiny new thing.
This is why, as Apar Gupta and I wrote, we need to focus on the infrastructure that has come up—and we need courts to take action on it.
Practically, the Internet Freedom Foundation is running a campaign where you can send comments to the ministry — they’ve drafted helpful guidance. But also, talk to your local MP, your MLA, your State government, and your Central government. Even within the party in power, MPs will be empowered to raise this when their constituents tell them something. Pick up the phone and call them.
Our role doesn’t stop at voting. We have social media to raise our voices. I got a censorship notice just yesterday to try and prevent me from reporting on a data breach—and people have the right to know about it. I’m now having to go to lawyers. Running a media company is not easy. We are trying our best, but everyone needs to step up. Please go to internetfreedom.in and participate in this democratic process—push back not just against these rules but against the infrastructure that has come up.

Protesters from the Anonymous India group of hackers wear Guy Fawkes masks as they protest against laws they say give the government control over censorship of internet usage in Mumbai. Rule changes lean on advisories and circulars rather than parliamentary scrutiny, reducing legislative visibility. | Photo Credit: By Special Arrangement

Jinoy Jose P.: Srinivas, the Sahyog portal was launched in 2024. It allows more than 30 State police units and around eight Central agencies to send takedown orders directly to platforms, often without the procedural safeguards the Supreme Court insisted on in the Shreya Singhal judgment. With these draft rules on top, are we looking at a single joined-up censorship infrastructure?
Srinivas Kodali: Sahyog Portal is the newest entity in the setup. If you look at digital infrastructures in policing in India, they largely pop up after the Mumbai attacks—NATGRID [National Intelligence Grid], the National Population Register, identity, censorship, and policing, all integrated. When you ask the people building them, they keep saying: This is about empowerment. But if you’re building systems to empower police, you’re going to get more policing. In Telangana, our police used to say one CCTV was equivalent to 100 police officials. We said: ‘That means we’re getting excessive policing.’
When you bring a portal like Sahyog and connect 30 policing agencies, someone posting something critical about Assam from Hyderabad could get a censorship notice not only from Assam Police but from Hyderabad Police as well. You’ve networked all these agencies together. Usually, to arrest someone in a different State, you need to go to court and get a transit permit. You don’t need any of that for digital censorship now.
What you’re witnessing is coordinated censorship—a network coordination across policing departments and Ministries. The Minister for Electronics and IT is also the Minister for Information and Broadcasting. When the Minister is the same for both Ministries, they coordinate better, and they coordinate better to censor us. There are no limits on these portals. We really need to talk about purpose limitations. What is the purpose of these entities, and why are you continuously increasing their scope? When Aadhaar was brought in, they said it was about welfare, and they continuously expanded its scope. We saw that function creep. We are witnessing it again.
When Nikhil refers to this as DPI for censorship, it’s actually control infrastructure—systems to control population, control their minds, empower police to do more censorship.
Jinoy Jose P.: Our legal columnist V. Venkatesan used the term “collateral censorship”—the idea that when the government sends a notice to a platform that is liable for user content, platforms tend to over-remove content, creating a system of broader suppression. Is there enough awareness in the media community about what is happening? Are we doing enough?
Sanjay Kapoor: That’s exactly my fear. The matter is being taken to a core group and discussed there. There’s no great awareness in the media beyond a certain point—the feeling is that this is in the domain of lawyers and they should discuss it. Recently, EGI organised a seminar where Apar Gupta and others came, and we discussed the challenges to media. I don’t know what impact it had, but I’m cognizant of the gap and we’re trying to correct it.
People are afraid. The courts, the media, the intermediaries—all are mortally afraid of the consequences. So even if the content is not really problematic, they remove it fearing adverse impact, fearing challenge by the state. Nobody is willing to take them on. The courts themselves are unclear about how far they can go. The people backing the censorship are prospering in this environment.
Jinoy Jose P.: Srinivas, the government’s argument is that some blanket rules are needed to curb misinformation and deepfakes. Are there any global best practices or models we can emulate?
Srinivas Kodali: We’re having an information overload. It’s not that there’s a lack of information—there’s a lack of required information. Very few people understand the depth of what’s happening. And now the state is saying: I’m going to censor that kind of information. Keep people a little dumb. The state does not want to give you information that makes you an active citizen, that makes you question the state.
Usually, this is the role of courts and media—different pillars of democracy to keep the state in check. The state has realised this and is actively suppressing the powers of all these other entities. Digital infrastructures are not just coming in to control media, they’re coming in to control court systems too.
When you talk of resistance, it usually goes underground. I don’t mean a militia—I mean information going underground. Think of what happened during the Emergency, when news still existed but through different channels, word to word, offline. If digital media is being censored, can we start printing? The state can’t stop me from buying a printer. We need to start innovating, finding spaces where we can produce speech the state can’t see.
The state is trying to control platforms it can see and thinks are important. There are offline spaces—universities, social spaces. We need to do a lot more offline. We need to coordinate, the way the police coordinate, but strategically, about protecting rights.
Over the last few decades, civil rights movements have decreased. Digital rights movements are young—digital became big with smartphones post-2010, 2012. But over those years, we did fight back. We got the right to privacy, net neutrality, and we fought against 66A. It’s about organising. Go to internetfreedom.in. They are fighting back. It’s as simple as that.
Jinoy Jose P.: Srinivas, two more things: the impact on language media, since most social media activity in India happens in Tamil, Malayalam, Bangla, Hindi, and those users are facing a centralised system largely comprising English-speaking or Hindi-speaking administrators. And someone has argued that privacy is a 20th-century idea—that in this era, you can’t really ask for privacy. How do these two angles connect to this issue?
Srinivas Kodali: On language and AI: as we start codifying Indian languages—whether allowing people to type in them or speak them so information becomes accessible to everyone—I’m afraid that as big tech entities make language models for our languages, it may lead to more censorship. We may stop remembering. Memory is something people keep talking about with AI. When we don’t talk about these issues, we forget them.
In some southern Indian States, there’s a certain kind of memory—when it comes to the freedom movement, their histories, their cultures—which the north has completely forgotten. That’s because of what kind of information is discussed and what kind is suppressed. Language plays a role, especially when you say you want to impose Hindi on the South.
On privacy and speech: what’s happening here is we’re codifying rights with digitisation. Think of an alphabet on your screen as an image of an alphabet—its symbols, codification. My own face right now is an image. Law is also codification. How you codify these mathematical models, how you codify the physical world online, determines what rights you have online. If you are digitising and ensuring people’s rights are protected while you digitise, you will have rights. It’s about how you design these systems.
The state is saying: I have the monopoly on everything when it comes to digital, and I decide how digitisation happens. Or the monopoly of the market, and the state is saying the market has no monopoly, I determine everything. That’s where the challenges are coming.
Yes, privacy has become hard to have in the digital age, just like clean air or clean water in an industrial society. But these are issues we need to fight for: better livelihoods, for a better social life, for a better human life. These fights will continue.
Jinoy Jose P.: Sanjay, final thoughts?
Sanjay Kapoor: These intermediaries are US-based. There are foreign policy implications in whatever is being done. X is owned by Elon Musk, Facebook by Zuckerberg—both close to Trump. If you’re trying to put a screw on them, there will be foreign policy implications. If India comes closer to the US, maybe the restrictions will ease, but that remains to be tested.
Jinoy Jose P.: Thank you, Srinivas Kodali, Sanjay Kapoor, and Nikhil Pahwa.
What we’ve heard today tells us something larger than a set of draft rules. As Nikhil said, this is the construction, piece by piece, of an infrastructure in which the government can control what citizens see, share, and say online—done not through a single ordinance or act, but through an accumulation of vague clauses, compressed timelines, and compliance obligations.
The word the IT Secretary used was “clarificatory”. The word the Bombay High Court used for the last version of these rules was “unconstitutional”. Somewhere between those two adjectives, the future of online speech in India will be decided.
This transcript has been edited for length and clarity

Ambedkar’s ideals must guide everyday life, RTI Commissioner tells Andhra University

The Hindu: Visakhapatnam: Wednesday, 15 April 2026.
RTI Commissioner P.S. Naidu said Ambedkar’s ideals must be practised daily at an Andhra University event marking Ambedkar Jayanti in Visakhapatnam

The ideals of B.R. Ambedkar must be practised in everyday life, Andhra Pradesh State Right to Information (RTI) Commissioner P.S. Naidu said at a programme organised at Andhra University on Tuesday (April 14, 2026) to mark Ambedkar Jayanti.
Mr. Naidu paid floral tributes to Ambedkar’s statues at the university’s administrative building and the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar College of Law. Addressing a gathering later at the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Assembly Hall, he said the Constitution had laid a firm foundation for social justice by ensuring equal rights for all citizens and by seeking to eliminate economic and caste-based inequalities. He said knowledge was the most powerful instrument for individual progress, a message reflected in Ambedkar’s life.
Vice-Chancellor G.P. Raja Sekhar said the Constitution had provided the basis for building a new and inclusive social order. He called upon students to draw lessons from Ambedkar’s life, noting that his deep engagement with books had shaped his intellectual stature. He urged the youth to cultivate reading habits and pursue learning with commitment. He also said the university had been organising rural outreach programmes to create awareness among students about opportunities in higher education.
Rector P. King described Ambedkar as a leader who worked towards the eradication of untouchability and said education without values would be ineffective. Arts College Principal Jaladi Ravi welcomed the gathering and referred to Ambedkar as the architect of the Constitution.
T. Sharon Raju, president of the SC, ST, BC-C Teaching Employees’ Welfare Association, described Ambedkar as a guiding force for human rights and said his efforts were directed at addressing systemic inequalities.
Law College Principal K. Seethamanikyam, principals of campus colleges, deans, members of the executive council, faculty, research scholars and students participated.
A blood donation camp organised by the Moulana Abul Kalam Azad Trust in collaboration with the Muslim Students’ Association was held on the campus. Officials visited the camp and commended the students who donated blood.

सिरसा में सरपंच, पति और भतीजे पर केस दर्ज:छेड़छाड़ का लगाया झूठा आरोप, आरटीआई मांगने पर ब्लैकमेलिंग की साजिश रची

Dainik Bhaskar: Haryana/Sirsa: Wednesday, 15 April 2026.
सिरसा जिले के नाथूसरी चौपटा क्षेत्र के गांव जमाल की महिला सरपंच, उसके पति (सरपंच प्रतिनिधि) और भतीजे के खिलाफ चौपटा पुलिस थाने में मामला दर्ज किया गया है। यह कार्रवाई शिकायतकर्ता मोहनलाल की शिकायत पर की गई है।

जमाल गांव की सरपंच विनोद रानी, उसके पति ओम प्रकाश (उर्फ लीलू), भतीजे सुरेंद्र कुमार और गांव की निवासी आशा को नामजद किया गया है। आरोपियों पर मोहनलाल को ब्लैकमेल करने और उनकी सामाजिक छवि खराब करने के लिए एक महिला के जरिए साजिश रचने का आरोप है।
शिकायतकर्ता मोहनलाल ने पुलिस को बताया कि, उन्होंने 18 जनवरी 2024 को आरटीआई के तहत ग्राम पंचायत के विकास कार्यों और सरपंच की शैक्षणिक योग्यता का ब्यौरा मांगा था। इसके बाद जुलाई और अगस्त 2024 में उन्होंने डीसी सिरसा और हरियाणा के मुख्यमंत्री को नालियों के फर्जी बिल लगाने और कम काम दिखाकर ज्यादा भुगतान उठाने की शिकायतें दी थीं।
अश्लील हरकत करने की शिकायत दर्ज कराई
मोहनलाल की इन शिकायतों से कथित तौर पर बौखलाकर सरपंच विनोद रानी, उनके पति ओम प्रकाश, सुरेंद्र कुमार और आशा ने साजिश रची। जुलाई 2024 में आशा ने मोहनलाल के खिलाफ अश्लील हरकत करने की शिकायत पुलिस में दर्ज कराई।
मोहनलाल ने तुरंत पुलिस को इस पूरी साजिश से अवगत कराया और निष्पक्ष जांच की मांग की। पुलिस की जांच में जब सच्चाई सामने आने लगी, तो आशा और उसके साथियों ने अपनी शिकायत वापस ले ली। इसके बाद पुलिस ने आरोपियों के खिलाफ विभिन्न धाराओं में मामला दर्ज किया।
यहां देखें FIR की कॉपी…

एसपी को शिकायत देकर की थी कार्रवाई की मांग
इस पूरी घटना के बाद अब मोहनलाल ने पुलिस अधीक्षक को लिखित शिकायत देकर आरोपियों के खिलाफ सख्त कानूनी कार्रवाई करने की गुहार लगाई थी। पुलिस ने इस शिकायत के आधार पर सरपंच विनोद रानी, प्रतिनिधि ओम प्रकाश, सुरेंद्र और आशा के खिलाफ केस दर्ज कर आगामी जांच शुरू कर दी है।
गांव जमाल में यह मामला अब चर्चा का विषय बन गया है और पुलिस हर पहलू से सबूत जुटाने में लगी है। चौपटा पुलिस ने झूठे केस में फंसाने और धमकी देने समेत कई धाराओं के तहत केस दर्ज किया गया है। नाथूसरी चौपटा थाना में पुलिस ने आईपीसी की धारा 120बी, 166, 195्र, 211, 384, 500, 506 के तहत केस दर्ज किया है.

RTI activist held for 20L extortion bid over construction

Times of India: Surat: Wednesday, 15 April 2026.
Surat Chowk Bazar police have arrested a 37-year-old RTI activist for allegedly extorting money from a manufacturer by threatening action against his ongoing construction project.

The accused, Prashant Kachhadiya, had filed an RTI application with the Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) against a four-storey building being constructed by the complainant, Mansukh Pansuriya, and allegedly demanded Rs 20 lakh. He is accused of accepting an initial payment of Rs 50,000. The victim recorded a video of the accused and later lodged a complaint with police.
Police inspector SD Ratada said the complainant, who owns plots 11 to 14 in Katargam's Sahajanand Society, had begun refurbishing a run-down structure in March 2025. The accused allegedly threatened to get the construction demolished by filing RTI-related complaints, after which SMC officials inspected the site, triggering fear of demolition among the complainant.
Under pressure, the complainant allegedly paid Rs 50,000 as the first instalment but later approached police instead of paying more money. Police have arrested Kachhadiya.
Pansuriya bought two plots in the society in 1995 and later acquired two additional plots, where he established a fridge manufacturing unit. In March 2025, he decided to demolish the old structure and began construction of a new four-storey building on the combined plots.
During investigation, police alleged that the accused is a habitual offender and had earlier been booked in a similar case by Adajan police.

राज्य सूचना आयुक्त ने RTI इम्प्लीमेंटेशन पर जताई नाराजगी:बोले- 75% मामलों में हस्तक्षेप के बाद मिली सूचना, 143 अधिकारियों पर कार्रवाई

Dainik Bhaskar: Pilibhit: Wednesday, 15 April 2026.
पीलीभीत में सोमवार को गांधी सभागार में आयोजित समीक्षा बैठक के दौरान राज्य सूचना आयुक्त मोहम्मद नदीम ने सूचना का अधिकार (आरटीआई) कानून के क्रियान्वयन को लेकर गहरी नाराजगी जताई।

बैठक में जन सूचना अधिकारियों (PIO) के कार्यों की समीक्षा करते हुए उन्होंने स्पष्ट कहा कि अधिकारियों की लापरवाही और जानकारी का अभाव आरटीआई अधिनियम के पारदर्शिता के उद्देश्य को कमजोर कर रहा है।
आयुक्त ने बताया कि आयोग में आए मामलों के विश्लेषण से यह सामने आया है कि करीब 75 प्रतिशत मामलों में सूचना केवल आयोग के हस्तक्षेप के बाद ही उपलब्ध कराई गई। उन्होंने इसे गंभीर चिंता का विषय बताते हुए अधिकारियों की कार्यशैली पर सवाल उठाए।
उन्होंने यह भी जानकारी दी कि पिछले दो वर्षों में 50 हजार से अधिक मामलों का निस्तारण किया जा चुका है, जबकि अभी भी करीब 20 हजार प्रकरण लंबित हैं। जिलों में तैनात अधिकारियों द्वारा समय पर सूचना उपलब्ध कराने में रुचि न लेना बड़ी समस्या के रूप में सामने आया है।

बैठक के दौरान अधिकारियों की अज्ञानता भी उजागर हुई। जब आयुक्त ने 100 से अधिक पीआईओ से अपील और शिकायत के बीच अंतर पूछा, तो अधिकांश अधिकारी इसका जवाब नहीं दे सके। इसके अलावा कई अधिकारियों को वर्ष 2019 में हुए महत्वपूर्ण संशोधनों की जानकारी भी नहीं थी। ‘डीम्ड पीआईओ’ और सूचना के अंतरण (धारा 6(3)) जैसे तकनीकी प्रावधानों को लेकर भी अधिकारी अनभिज्ञ पाए गए।
पीलीभीत जिले की स्थिति पर चर्चा करते हुए मोहम्मद नदीम ने बताया कि यहां वर्तमान में 58 मामले लंबित हैं। वहीं लापरवाही बरतने के आरोप में अब तक 143 जन सूचना अधिकारियों पर दंडात्मक कार्रवाई की जा चुकी है। उन्होंने यह भी बताया कि कई अधिकारी बिना आवश्यक रिकॉर्ड के बैठक में पहुंचे, जिससे समीक्षा प्रक्रिया प्रभावित हुई।
आयुक्त ने आरटीआई अधिनियम के तहत ‘सुओ मोटो डिस्क्लोजर’ (स्व-प्रकाशन) की अनिवार्यता पर जोर देते हुए कहा कि विभागों की वेबसाइटों पर पर्याप्त जानकारी उपलब्ध नहीं कराई जा रही है। उन्होंने चेतावनी दी कि आरटीआई अधिनियम जवाबदेही सुनिश्चित करने का एक महत्वपूर्ण माध्यम है और इसमें किसी भी प्रकार की लापरवाही बर्दाश्त नहीं की जाएगी।

Assets Held By CEC Gyanesh Kumar 'Personal Information': Centre In RTI Response To MP As DoPT Removes Data

ETV Bharat: Hyderabad: Wednesday, 15 April 2026.
TMC Rajya Sabha MP Saket Gokhale shared Centre's response to his RTI application seeking property returns filed by CEC Gyanesh Kumar as an IAS officer.

National Spokesperson of Trinamool Congress and Member of Parliament Saket Gokhale on Tuesday questioned why the assets held by Chief Election Commissioner of India (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar were declared “private information” under RTI when, as an IAS officer in the past, his records were supposed to be publicly available.

The Rajya Sabha MP, in a detailed post on X, shared his RTI application and the response from the central government’s Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT).
In his RTI application dated November 5, 2025, Gokhale had sought details of the immovable property returns (IPRs) filed by Gyanesh Kumar as an IAS officer between 2015 and 2023.
In response, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Anil Bajpai, according to the document shared by the MP, said the data sought was “personal information which is exempted under the Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005…”
The section that the CPIO referred to reads: Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
Gokhale, in his RTI application, had contended that as per Section 8(2) of the RTI Act, even if an exemption is claimed under Section 8(1)(j), the information sought by him pertains to public servants in their official capacity and involves public interest in transparency and accountability, and disclosure of such information is not exempt.
CEC Facing Questions
Bengal polls are around the corner after a highly contentious Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls that has left around 90 lakh voters in the state in a limbo.
As CEC, Kumar has been facing allegations so much so that 193 opposition MPs recently submitted a notice to remove him, citing charges including alleged bias, partisan conduct, and manipulation of voter lists.
The Lok Sabha Speaker and Rajya Sabha Chairman rejected the motion on April 6, citing a 'lack of proof’. Kumar assumed charge as the 26th CEC of India on February 19, 2025. Before this, he was appointed as an Election Commissioner on March 14, 2024. A 1988-batch Kerala cadre IAS officer, Kumar served as the Union Cooperation Secretary until his retirement on January 31, 2024.
No IPR Data On DoPT Website
Calling him a “compromised CEC openly working for the BJP”, the TMC MP said Kumar's immovable property returns (IPRs), as an IAS officer, were not available on the DoPT website, even though this information is publicly available and periodically uploaded online on the website.
When ETV Bharat attempted to retrieve Kumar’s IPR details during his tenure as an IAS officer on the DoPT website, the information was not available. The IPR data of some other recently retired IAS officers was also not available on the portal.
“Mysteriously, without any explanation, the past IPR asset records of Gyanesh Kumar were suddenly removed from the website after he joined ECI. Since these IPRs are publicly held records, I asked the DoPT for a copy. Astonishingly, the Modi Govt refused to provide the copies, claiming it’s “private information”” Gokhale said in his post.
He questioned how these records, which were publicly displayed on the website for years, "suddenly become “private information” in Feb 2025?”
“What is the Modi Govt hiding about Gyanesh Kumar to suddenly make these records private?” the MP said, calling the CEC government’s “stooge”.
He added, “Every candidate contesting elections has to file a declaration of assets. Even SC & HC judges do it. Why, then, are even the PAST assets of the Chief Election Commissioner hidden from the public?”

SC notice to govt on RTI 'dilution' plea challenging Digital Personal Data Protection Act provision

Telegraph India: New Delhi: Wednesday, 15 April 2026.
There was no exemption under the “personal information” category in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which is substituted by Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, the petitoner argued

The Supreme Court has sought the Centre’s response on a PIL filed by an NGO challenging Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, which the petitioner feels seriously impinges upon the citizen’s right to seek information under the RTI Act against public servants through the introduction of a “personal information” clause.
There was no exemption under the “personal information” category in Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which is substituted by Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, the petitoner argued.
“Issue a writ of certiorari or a declaration, striking down Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, insofar as it substitutes Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as unconstitutional and void, being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution,” the plea said.
Among the key reliefs sought, the petitioners have urged the court to restore the original Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued the notice to the government on the PIL filed by the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan
along with activists Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey and Shankar Singh Rawat.
“The impugned amendment has substituted a constitutionally calibrated privacy-protecting exemption into an everything-‘personal exemption’. It has stripped away the public activity test, the harm test, and the public interest test and replaced the entire provision with the bare phrase ‘information which relates to personal information’, providing blanket immunity to the same,” the petition said.