हिमाचल में 13 महीने से चीफ इन्फॉर्मेशन कमिश्नर नहीं:पूर्व आयुक्त बोले- RTI कमजोर कर रही सरकार, 3 बार आवेदन मांगे, नियुक्ति फिर भी नहीं

Dainik Bhaskar: Shimla: Saturday, 25 July 2026.
हिमाचल के स्टेट इन्फॉर्मेशन कमीशन एक साल से सफेद हाथी साबित हो रहा है। कमीशन के पास 1600 से अधिक शिकायतें लंबित हो चुकी हैं, लेकिन कांग्रेस सरकार एक साल से ज्यादा समय बीतने के बावजूद चीफ इन्फॉर्मेशन कमिश्नर (CIC) और इन्फॉर्मेशन कमिश्नर (IC) की नियुक्ति नहीं कर पाई है।

हालांकि, इन पदों को भरने के लिए तीन बार आवेदन मांगे जा चुके हैं। एडमिनिस्ट्रेटिव रिफॉर्म डिपार्टमेंट ने इच्छुक दावेदारों से तीसरी बार फरवरी 2026 में आवेदन मांगे थे। इसकी अंतिम तिथि 20 मार्च थी। इससे पहले दो बार (जून 2025 और दिसंबर 2025) आवेदन मांगे गए।
सूत्रों के अनुसार 20 से ज्यादा लोगों ने CIC और IC के लिए आवेदन कर रखा है। मगर सरकार नियुक्ति की प्रक्रिया को आगे नहीं बढ़ा रही। CIC और IC की तैनाती नहीं होने से अपीलों की सुनवाई नहीं हो पा रही है। पुरानी शिकायतें भी नहीं सुनी जा रही। इससे लोगों को RTI के तहत सूचनाएं नहीं मिल पा रही।
सरकार RTI को कमजोर कर रही: बातिश
राज्य के पूर्व सूचना आयुक्त केडी बातिश ने बताया कि CIC और IC की नियुक्ति न करके सरकार सूचना का अधिकार कानून (RTI) को कमजोर कर रही है। एक साल से दोनों पदों का खाली होना RTI के प्रति सरकार की सोच को दर्शाता है। उन्होंने बताया कि UPA सरकार ने कानून तो जरूर बना दिया, लेकिन कांग्रेस को पारदर्शिता पर विश्वास नहीं है।
CIC-IC का क्या काम?
सरकारी विभाग से जब कोई व्यक्ति RTI के तहत सूचना मांगता है और संबंधित विभाग के जन सूचना अधिकारी (PIO) जानकारी देने से इनकार करते या गलत सूचना देते हैं, तो उस स्थिति में लोग संबंधित विभाग की फर्स्ट अपीलेट अथॉरिटी के पास पहली अपील करते हैं।
फर्स्ट अपीलेट अथॉरिटी से भी जब सूचना नहीं मिलती, तब सूचना मांगने वाला व्यक्ति इन्फॉर्मेशन कमीशन के पास पहुंचता है। इसके बाद सूचना आयोग अपीलकर्ता और संबंधित विभाग, दोनों को सुनता है। दोनों पक्षों को सुनने के बाद आयोग RTI के तहत मांगी गई जानकारी देने को लेकर फैसला सुनाता है।
कब से खाली पड़े CIC-IC के पद?
हिमाचल में पूर्व IAS आरडी धीमान CIC और एसएस गुलेरिया IC थे। एसएस गुलेरिया 3 जुलाई 2025 को रिटायर हुए। जून 2025 में ही आरडी धीमान को रेरा (रियल एस्टेट विनियामक प्राधिकरण) में चेयरमैन लगाया गया। तब से CIC का पद भी खाली पड़ा है। यानी एक साल से अधिक समय बीत गया। नए CIC-IC की नियुक्ति नहीं हो पाई।
कौन बन सकता है CIC और IC?
CIC और IC बनने के लिए व्यक्ति को सार्वजनिक जीवन में प्रतिष्ठित होना चाहिए, जिसके पास लॉ, विज्ञान और प्रौद्योगिकी, समाज सेवा, प्रबंधन, पत्रकारिता, जनसंचार माध्यम या प्रशासन और शासन जैसे क्षेत्रों में व्यापक ज्ञान और अनुभव हो। ऐसे व्यक्ति CIC और IC बन सकते हैं। संसद या राज्य विधानमंडल का सदस्य इसके लिए आवेदन नहीं कर सकता।

अब हर छात्र जानेगा अपना अधिकार! रांची यूनिवर्सिटी में एडमिशन लेते ही मिलेगी RTI की जानकारी

Jagran: Ranchi: Saturday, 25 July 2026.
रांची विश्वविद्यालय के कॉलेजों में अब नामांकन लेने वाले छात्रों को प्रथम क्लास से ही आरटीआई की जानकारी दी जाएगी। राज्य सूचना आयोग के निर्देशानुसार, कॉलेजों को वेबसाइट पर पूरी जानकारी देनी होगी और पीआईओ नियुक्त करने होंगे।

नामांकन के समय छात्रों को मिलेगी आरटीआई की जानकारी। जागरण

रांची विश्वविद्यालय के कॉलेजों में नामांकन लेने वाले विद्यार्थियों को अब आरटीआई की जानकारी प्रथम क्लास से प्रदान की जाएगी। ये हम नहीं कह रहे हैं बल्कि राज्य सूचना आयोग का ये निर्देश है।
नए सत्र के विद्यार्थियों को इसकी जानकारी के साथ सूचना अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 से संबंधित सारी सूचना उपलब्ध करानी होगी। इसके अलावा कॉलेजों को अपने वेबसाइट पर भी पूरी जानकारी उपलब्ध करानी होगी। राज्य सूचना आयोग की ओर से इसके अलावा कई और निर्देश कॉलेजों और विश्वविद्यालय को दिया गया है। जिसको कॉलेजों को इस सत्र से लागू करना होगा।
कॉलेजों को वेबसाइट पर देनी होगी पूरी जानकारी:
यही नहीं कॉलेजों ओर विश्वविद्यालय को अपने वेबसाइट पर सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 की पूरी जानकारी प्रदान करनी होगी। इसमें बताना होगा कि क्या नियम है और इससे सूचना कैसे प्राप्त की जा सकती है।
राज्य सूचना आयुक्त डॉ. तनुज खत्री ने बताया कि आरटीआई की जानकारी केवल उन्हीं छात्रों को रहती है, जिनको इस अधिनियम से सूचना प्राप्त करनी है। इसके अलावा कॉलेजों के विद्यार्थियों को ये पता नहीं होता है कि सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम क्या है, इसका इस्तेमाल कैसे किया जाता है।
इसलिए कॉलेजों को निर्देश दिया गया है कि वो नामांकन के समय ही विद्यार्थियों को पूरी जानकारी उपलब्ध कराएं। इसलिए कहा गया है कि कॉलेज अपने वेबसाइट पर आरटीआई से संबंधित पूरी जानकारी प्रदान करेंगे। इसके अलावा विश्वविद्यालय की ओर से आरटीआई से संबंधित एक हैंडबुक भी वेबसाइट पर पब्लिश किया जाएगा।
हेल्प डेस्क से दी जाएगी आरटीआई की जानकारी:
विश्वविद्यालय स्तर पर समर्पित आरटीआई पोर्टल विकसित किया जाएगा, वहीं प्रत्येक कॉलेज में आरटीआई हेल्प डेस्क स्थापित किया जाएगा और परिसर एवं वेबसाइट पर नो योर राइट टू इनफॉर्मेशन शीर्षक से स्थायी सूचना प्रदर्शित की जाएगी।
वहीं अब उत्कृष्ट कार्य करने वाले लोक सूचना पदाधिकारी (पीआइओ) एवं महाविद्यालयों को वार्षिक आरटीआई कंप्लायंस अवार्ड भी प्रदान किया जाएगा। जिससे पीआईओ प्रोत्साहित हो और इस अधिनियम की जानकारी प्रत्येक विद्यार्थी तक पहुंच सके।
कॉलेजों में भी बनाए जाएंगे पीआईओ:
इसके अलावा रांची विश्वविद्यालय के सभी अंगीभूत और संबद्ध कॉलेजों में अब पीआइओ की नियुक्ति की जाएगी। वर्तमान में रांची विश्वविद्यालय के एक से दो कॉलेजों को छोड़कर किसी में भी पब्लिक इनफॉर्मेंशन ऑफिसर नियुक्त नहीं किया गया है। इसलिए राज्य सूचना आयोग का निर्देश है कि सभी कॉलेजों में जल्द से जल्द पीआईओ की नियुक्ति की जाए।

IFF Writes to the Commissioner of Police and files RTIs on live facial recognition at Jantar Mantar

IFF: Delhi: Saturday, 25 July 2026.
The Delhi Police is running live facial recognition on protesters at Jantar Mantar from a vendor-built surveillance van. By its own record, there is no rule, no retention policy and no privacy impact assessment.

Two Delhi Police vehicles are stationed at the ongoing protests at Jantar Mantar: a Mobile Command and Control Vehicle and a smaller van called 'Ikshana', inside which CCTV footage of the protest is run through facial recognition software that draws green boxes around faces and matches them against a police database. A senior officer has confirmed to the press that live facial recognition is being run on protesters. Another has admitted that no data retention guidelines are being followed. The Delhi Police's own replies to our RTIs, extracted after a second appeal before the Central Information Commission, establish that there is no rule governing its use of facial recognition technology ("FRT"), that no privacy impact assessment was ever conducted, and that a similarity score of just 80% is treated as a positive match. On July 24, 2026 we sent a legal representation to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi seeking an immediate halt to live FRT at peaceful assemblies, deletion of the biometric data of protesters, and publication of the rules, if any exist. We have also filed four fresh RTI applications, including one directed at the private vendor arrangement behind the Ikshana van.
The scene at Jantar Mantar
The Cockroach Janta Party ("CJP"), led by student activist Abhijeet Dipke, has been holding a sit-in and hunger strike at Jantar Mantar since 20 June 2026, protesting repeated examination paper leaks. As reported by the Indian Express on 23 July 2026, the two police vans stand parked outside Kerala House, at the heart of the protest. Inside the Ikshana van, officers watch screens where facial recognition software processes live CCTV feeds of the crowd, flagging faces for comparison against what one officer described as a large database of criminals. The Ikshana vehicle was inducted ahead of the G20 Summit in 2023 and carries eight fixed cameras giving 360-degree coverage.
The reporting records the human consequence with precision. Students are covering their faces. One protester preparing for competitive examinations feared that being filmed holding a poster would land her in a police database. Another worried the footage would find its way to his parents. A second senior officer conceded that no specific data retention guidelines were being adhered to, and that footage could remain on police systems indefinitely, available for investigations months later.
The vans have since become a story of their own. Videos circulating on social media appear to show the vehicles' screens displaying photographs and personal details of persons at the protest site. The Delhi Police has not disclosed which database these details are drawn from. Speculation that the system is linked to Aadhaar remains unverified, and that it can circulate at all is itself an indictment: seven years after we began asking, no one outside the police knows what these systems are matched against.
This surveillance is not incidental to the protest. It is a condition imposed on it. A petition, Aishe Ghosh v. Union of India, filed by the former JNU Students' Union president through advocates Subhash Chandran K.R. and Anirudh K.P., is pending before a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court. It alleges continuous, indiscriminate and intrusive surveillance of the assembly, including a permanent surveillance tower, blanket deployment of videographers, and monitoring so pervasive that it covers protesters eating and resting. The plea further alleges that police threatened student protesters that their photographs would be sent to their parents and educational institutions.
At the hearing on 20 July 2026, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Court that recording protests is routine and done only to maintain law and order: "There is no snooping. There is no surveillance." The green boxes inside the Ikshana van say otherwise. Notably, the Bench asked the Delhi Police to state whether any standard operating procedure or guidelines govern the handling of protests at all. That is precisely the question our RTI applications have put to the force, and we already know part of the answer from its own record.
What the paper trail already shows
We have been litigating transparency on the Delhi Police's use of FRT since 2020. Our original RTI applications were refused. Our first appeals were rejected. We won before the Central Information Commission in Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/604037, decided on 08.06.2022, and the disclosures that followed remain the only official record of how this system works. Our full 2022 analysis is here:

• There is no rule. The CCTV Cell of New Delhi District stated in writing on 03.02.2022 that there is no specific rule for the use of facial recognition technology in the Delhi Police.
• 80% is a "positive" match. The reply dated 25.07.2022 disclosed that a similarity score of 80% and above is treated as a positive result. When the American Civil Liberties Union ran Amazon's Rekognition tool at its default confidence threshold in 2018, it falsely matched 28 members of the US Congress to criminal mugshots, disproportionately legislators of colour. Applied to a crowd, this arithmetic manufactures suspects.
• No privacy impact assessment was ever done. The Delhi Police admitted as much, while assuring us that the privacy of every citizen is sacrosanct.
• The databases rest on a repealed statute. The matching databases were stated to be maintained under Sections 3 and 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, a law that Parliament repealed in 2022. What legal basis they rest on today is unknown. Reporting from as far back as 2019 indicated that the Delhi Police's datasets extended well beyond history-sheeters, to images harvested from footage of the city's protests.
• Function creep is complete. The Delhi High Court in Sadhan Haldar v. NCT of Delhi permitted the Delhi Police to obtain FRT to trace missing children. It has since been used on the 2020 North East Delhi riots, the Red Fort violence, Jahangirpuri, and now on students holding posters.

The vendor in the van
There is a further question the press reporting does not reach: who built this system, and what access do they retain? The answer sits on the vendor's own website. In a publication dated 12.04.2023, CP PLUS (Aditya Infotech Limited) announced that it designed and developed the prototype Ikshana vehicle in collaboration with the Delhi Police, complete with AI-powered cameras, face detection and recognition functions, and the vendor's own Health Monitoring System software integrated for live monitoring of the surveillance setup. The company added that the Delhi Police planned to commission more such vehicles.
No tender, contract, or data handling agreement for this arrangement has ever been disclosed. In 2022, the Delhi Police refused our request for tender documents citing national security, even as the vendor advertised the system's capabilities to the public. Whether a private company's software has remote access to a police surveillance system processing the biometric data of protesters is a question that deserves an answer on record. The pattern of private vendors embedded in Delhi's policing is one we flagged earlier this year in the context of the Safe City project.
Why this is illegal
The right to assemble peacefully at Jantar Mantar was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018). The right to privacy, and the three-fold requirement that any intrusion satisfy legality, legitimate aim and proportionality, was settled in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). Live facial recognition of a lawful assembly fails at the first step: there is no law, and the police's own record admits there is not even a rule.
Indian law has never tolerated open-ended police surveillance. In Govind v. State of M.P. (1975) and Malak Singh v. State of Punjab and Haryana (1981), the Supreme Court confined surveillance to habitual and potential offenders, on recorded grounds, exercised discreetly. In Malak Singh, the Court warned:
"...nor can the surveillance be such as to squeeze the fundamental freedoms guaranteed to all citizens or to obstruct the free exercise and enjoyment of those freedoms; nor can the surveillance so intrude as to offend the dignity of the individual."
The practice at Jantar Mantar inverts every one of these conditions. Everyone present is scanned, not persons with recorded antecedents. There are no recorded grounds. The surveillance is conspicuous by design. It answers to no independent review. What five decades of precedent permitted as a narrow exception for history-sheeters has become the default condition of attending a protest.
The consequences were foreseen sixty-three years ago. In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1963), Justice Subba Rao's dissent, since approved in Puttaswamy, held that a citizen under the shadow of surveillance cannot move, speak or associate freely. The covered faces at Jantar Mantar are the empirical proof of that holding. And when the state reaches for national security as a justification, the Supreme Court's Pegasus order in Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India (2021) is the answer: its mere invocation does not oust constitutional scrutiny.
What we have done
On July 24, 2026 we sent a legal representation to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, requesting that his office:

• Immediately cease live facial recognition of participants in peaceful assemblies at Jantar Mantar and other protest sites, absent specific legal authorisation.
• Confine videography of assemblies to the position stated before the Delhi High Court, and discontinue continuous and indiscriminate recording.
• Delete footage, facial templates and match results of protesters not connected to the investigation of a specific cognisable offence.
• Publish the SOPs governing FRT, CCTV, surveillance vehicles, drones and videography of assemblies, including retention and destruction schedules.
• Commission and publish a data protection impact assessment before any further FRT deployment.
• Disclose the vendor arrangements behind the Ikshana vehicles and confirm on record that no private entity has access to the data.
• Constitute a consultation with civil society and technical experts.

We have also filed four RTI applications:

1. With PIO: Crime, on the FRT and AI analytics systems: the SOPs, the current match threshold, accuracy audits, the databases and their legal basis after the 1920 Act's repeal, retention, and compliance with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
2. With New Delhi District, on the CCTV network and videography at Jantar Mantar: camera numbers, deployment orders for the vans and videography teams, the alleged surveillance tower, retention, and the instructions in force when the Solicitor General made his statement.
3. With Police Headquarters, on drones: fleet, procurement, SOPs, Digital Sky registration, deployment at Jantar Mantar, and whether drone footage feeds facial recognition.
4. With Police Headquarters, on Project Ikshana: every contract with the private vendor, the cost of each vehicle, whether procurement followed open tender under the General Financial Rules, whether vendor software transmits data to private servers, and whether any private entity can access footage or biometric data.

Each application is grounded in the Delhi Police's past disclosures, so that the exemptions claimed in 2022 cannot be credibly claimed again. We will publish every reply we receive.
Transparency litigation of this kind is slow, unglamorous and entirely dependent on our members. If you believe that attending a protest should not place your face in a police database, become an IFF member and help us see this through.
Important Documents

1. IFF's legal representation to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi dated [24.07.2026] [Link]
2. RTI application on FRT and AI video analytics filed with PIO: Crime [Link]
3. RTI application on CCTV and videography filed with New Delhi District [Link]
4. RTI application on drones filed with Police Headquarters [Link]
5. RTI application on Project Ikshana and vendor involvement filed with Police Headquarters [Link]
6. Delhi Police reply dated 25.07.2022 pursuant to the CIC's decision in Second Appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/604037 [Link]
7. CCTV Cell report dated 03.02.2022 stating that no rule governs FRT use [Link]
8. CP PLUS publication dated 12.04.2023 on the Ikshana prototype [Link] (archived copy: [[Link]])
9. The Indian Express report dated 24.07.2026 [[Link]]
10. Bar and Bench report of the Delhi High Court hearing dated 20.07.2026 in Aishe Ghosh v. Union of India [Link] 
11. Our 2022 analysis: "Delhi Police's claims that FRT is accurate at 80% are 100% scary" [Link]
12. Our February 2026 analysis of Delhi's Safe City project [Link]

Punjab State Information Commissioner asks cops asked to study panel’s reports

The Tribune: Chandigarh: Saturday, 25 July 2026.

Punjab Police Academy Director IGP Dhanpreet Kaur presents a souvenir to State Information Commissioner Harpreet Sandhu.

The State Information Commissioner, Punjab, Harpreet Sandhu, emphasised the importance of transparency, accountability and citizen-centric governance while addressing a one-day training programme on the Right to Information Act-2005, organised under the patronage by the Director, Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur, Dhanpreet Kaur.
Addressing Public Information Officers (PIOs), Assistant Public Information Officers (APIOs) and police officers associated with RTI Cells of Punjab, Sandhu said the RTI Act is a powerful instrument for strengthening public trust in government institutions.
He encouraged police officers to regularly study judicial pronouncements and the commission’s decisions to ensure legally sustainable decision-making and reduce avoidable appeals.
The SIC highlighted the crucial role of PIOs in effective implementation of the Act and urged them to ensure that RTI applications are dealt with promptly, correctly and courteously. He emphasised that applicants should be viewed as citizens exercising a legal right and not as adversaries.
Sandhu stressed the need for proper record management, systematic indexing, digitisation and timely disposal of RTI applications. He said that exemptions under Sections 8 and 9 should be invoked carefully and only where legally justified, with clear and reasoned decisions.
Advertisement
Referring to the sensitive nature of police functioning, he observed that while legitimate confidentiality must be protected, transparency should remain the guiding principle. Calling for greater proactive disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI Act, Sandhu said, “Transparency builds credibility. Credibility strengthens public cooperation. Public cooperation contributes to more effective policing.”
The SIC said the RTI Act is not merely about providing information but about building public trust, strengthening democracy and ensuring transparent, accountable and responsive governance.
The event concluded with Punjab Police Academy Director IGP Dhanpreet Kaur presenting a souvenir to Sandhu as a token of gratitude.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Private land tagged as temple property; Info panel orders probe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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